The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I think yeah. I'm out of practice so I'm trying to figure it out. lol

I found a link, but no video yet, just comments so far.

Live streaming video

 

[IlarMeilyr]

LOL!

Because I was flipping back and forth between threads, I entered two posts in the wrong thread. I am moving them here. Here's the first one:

________________________


The jury in criminal cases usually will TRY to follow the law.

Sadly, the legal instructions they receive are often so totally convoluted and gibberish-laden, that lots of people have huge difficulty understanding what the "law" actually says. That's true even after they request to get it read back to them one or more times.

For example, in Florida, it looks like the Judge will read to the jury (as PART of the instructions) some version of this mess:

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.

Read in all cases.
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

Definition.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

Force in resisting a law enforcement officer § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

Give if applicable.
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] (or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.

Read in all cases.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat.
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.

Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:

a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner,
lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

c. the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further an unlawful activity; or

d. the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person using the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.,

§ 776.013(4), Fla. Stat.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Definitions. Give if applicable. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.
As used with regard to self defense:

“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Prior threats. Give if applicable.
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 984], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], and 2010.

-- Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases See Section 3.6(e).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here is my notion of what the judge might "boil down" the legal instructions to on the matter of "justification" in the Zimmerman trial:

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.


An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (Mr. Zimmerman) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (Trayvon Martin) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

Definition.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] ... while resisting:

• * * * *

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony – Maybe judge will insert “assault” or similar language here?) upon [him] ..., or

• * * * *

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] ... reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] … or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] … or another.
Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
• * * * *

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

2. (Mr. Zimmerman) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] ... unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] … reasonably believed that [he] … was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] … wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.


• * * * *

• * * * *

In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.

Read in all cases.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] … by the circumstances by which [he] … was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] … had a right to be, [he] … had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] … ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] … reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] … or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

• * * * *
• * * * *
• * * * *

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] … reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (Trayvon Martin).

Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] … guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

* * * *

NOTE: I think they’d best add a DEFINITION of what “initially provoked” means under Florida law.

Some quick “legal research” on the legal meaning of “initially provoked” suggests that this MIGHT turn out to be the key element in the entire case.

 

[testarosa]

[MENTION=42714]IlarMeilyr[/MENTION] Sorry, I got distracted by your all new bodecea/Petey/Zona thread.

LOL

 

[king.solomon]

Who was screaming for help?

A. The man who pulled out a gun while killing someone.

B. The person who was followed at night who was about to be shot to death.

 

[SantaFeWay]

Hi All,

Was out of the loop for a few hours. Is this a lunch break or longer recess? Are they coming back today or should I tune out?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Who was screaming for help?

A. The man who pulled out a gun while killing someone.

B. The person who was followed at night who was about to be shot to death.

Or the guy who did not pull out a gun but got a beat down from the younger fellow BEFORE the one getting the beat down was able to get to his gun, mercifully for him, and draw it in time to save himself.

Asshole queenie.sodomy forgot that option.

 

[king.solomon]

There was only one second between the cry for help and the gunshot.

During that second, GZ would've been in the process of grabbing the gun and aiming and firing.

Therefore, he would've HAD to be yelling for help while simultaneously aiming a loaded pistol.

Are you serious?

 

[testarosa]

Jury Selected!

And they're all women.

Whew! The decision will be logical, reasonable and fair.
​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Jury Selected!

And they're all women.

Whew! The decision will be logical, reasonable and fair.
​

Depends what time of month it is.

 

[testarosa]

Jury Selected!

And they're all women.

Whew! The decision will be logical, reasonable and fair.
​

Depends what time of month it is.

LOL. Well there's that.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There was only one second between the cry for help and the gunshot.

During that second, GZ would've been in the process of grabbing the gun and aiming and firing.

Therefore, he would've HAD to be yelling for help while simultaneously aiming a loaded pistol.

Are you serious?

^ queenie.mcdoucheface has crazy mad skillz with a stop watch!

 

[animallover]

Yay all women.

 

[testarosa]

I think this is it. They're doing the alternates now. See if I can get them in a sec.

B-29: A Hispanic or black nurse on an Alzheimer's ward who has seven children and lived in Chicago at time of shooting.

B-76: A white middle-aged woman who said Zimmerman had an "altercation with the young man. There was a struggle, and the gun went off."

B-37: A middle-aged white woman who works for a chiropractor and has many pets. She described protests in Sanford as "rioting."

B-51: A retired white woman from Oviedo who has a dog and 20-year-old cat. She knew a good deal about the case but said: "I'm not rigid in my thinking."

E-6: A young white woman and mother who used to work in financial services. She used this case as an example to her adolescent children, warning them to not go out at night.
Bernie tried 3 times to strike her and was denied

E-40: A white woman in her 60s who lived in Iowa at the time of the shooting. She heard national-news reports and recalls the shooting was in a gated community and a teenager was killed.

Demographics:

2010 Census - Sanford 30% black. Seminole County 11.7%. They are pulling from the entire county which is 3 hundred and something square miles.

 

[testarosa]

Alternates:

E-54: A middle-aged white man with a teenage stepson who wears hoodies. He recalled seeing photos of the injuries to Zimmerman's head and face.

E-13: A young white woman who goes to college and works two jobs. She heard the shooting was a "racial thing."

E-28: A middle-aged white woman who works as a nurse. She said she knew little about the case and has no opinion about Zimmerman's guilt.

B-72: A young Hispanic man who does maintenance at a school and competes in arm-wrestling tournaments. He said he avoids the news because he does not want to be "brainwashed."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Do the letters they use spell out "BINGO?"

 

[Snookie]

Yay all women.

That's discrimination against men.

 

[testarosa]

Yay all women.

That's discrimination against men.

Well that's okay in this thread, where you been? Discriminate it up!

 

[Snookie]

Yay all women.

That's discrimination against men.

Well that's okay in this thread, where you been? Discriminate it up!

It's about time for making them wait until 1920 to vote. Payback's a bitch.

 

[king.solomon]

No black person on the jury.