The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

Couple notes:
When trial starts Z will make a prima facia case showing self defense. That doesn't mean he will prove self defense, only assert it so that appears "on it's face" to be a claim of self defense, then the burden will shift to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] may have some words of wisdom to add there.

Also, the verdict must be unanimous - all 6 - or it hangs and the state has the option to retry.

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

I'm sorry, it is true, at least in Florida. Once the defendant asserts self defense, the burden shifts to the state to prove it was not:

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self defense,
the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.

 

[Snookie]

These people are lying and saying/trying to say all the right things.

For some reason or another they're wanting to be on the jury.

I believe in Florida each side 3 'preemptory challenges.' What this means is that they can send the prospective juror packing for no reason and without questioning. After that, the rest have to be questioned, and the process is called voir dire, pronounced 'vwah deer.

They have 10 each.

Judge dumped #39 because 39 was a moron.

They're going with questions as long as they can to try to trip them up to not use their challenges up.

I resent that and peotest it.

Viva la morons.

 

[Snookie]

How the hell can it be self defense if one of them had a gun? That's a given. No brainier, imo.

 

[testarosa]

How the hell can it be self defense if one of them had a gun? That's a given. No brainier, imo.

You're missing the point. Theoretically speaking - if you're beating my head on the ground and I feel like I'm going to pass out and that I'm in mortal danger and my hand closes on a rock and I bash your head in with it and kill you. I can present my side of it to establish a prima facia demonstrating self defense and then the state gets to prove without a doubt that it WASN'T self defense and they get to prove my guilt on top of that.

gun/rock - irrelevant.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

I'm sorry, it is true, at least in Florida. Once the defendant asserts self defense, the burden shifts to the state to prove it was not:

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self defense,
the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.

That's unusual, I've never before heard of such a phenomenon... But there has to be more to it. By that logic anyone who shoots anyone else could simply state "He was going to hit me" or even "I thought he was going to hit me." Both would fall within the broad range described above, and have an objective veracity that is nearly impossible to "Disprove."

 

[Snookie]

How the hell can it be self defense if one of them had a gun? That's a given. No brainier, imo.

You're missing the point. Theoretically speaking - if you're beating my head on the ground and I feel like I'm going to pass out and that I'm in mortal danger and my hand closes on a rock and I bash your head in with it and kill you. I can present my side of it to establish a prima facia demonstrating self defense and then the state gets to prove without a doubt that it WASN'T self defense and they get to prove my guilt on top of that.

gun/rock - irrelevant.

What defensive wounds?

 

[Snookie]

Now, if TM had beaten Z to death it would be self defense because Z had the gun.

 

[testarosa]

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

I'm sorry, it is true, at least in Florida. Once the defendant asserts self defense, the burden shifts to the state to prove it was not:

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self defense,
the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.

That's unusual, I've never before heard of such a phenomenon... But there has to be more to it. By that logic anyone who shoots anyone else could simply state "He was going to hit me" or even "I thought he was going to hit me." Both would fall within the broad range described above, and have an objective veracity that is nearly impossible to "Disprove."

I know it's in AZ and I think some other states as well.

Well, when they make their prima facie, they must produce enough evidence to say hey yeah! self defense is a possibility before the burden changes. He can't just say "it was self defense". But I believe they at least have enough to assert self defense, it's not like evidence beyond a reason doubt, it's more "probable".

 

[Sunshine]

Couple notes:
When trial starts Z will make a prima facia case showing self defense. That doesn't mean he will prove self defense, only assert it so that appears "on it's face" to be a claim of self defense, then the burden will shift to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] may have some words of wisdom to add there.

Also, the verdict must be unanimous - all 6 - or it hangs and the state has the option to retry.

Oh thats right....burden is on prosecution...shoe is on other foot....lol. I wouldnt want the burden of trying to prove it wasnt in self defense.

That's incorrect... Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Provided that the State can prove that GZ shot TM (a fact that I don't think is in question), the burden of proof is indeed on the accused to prove it was an act of self-defense.

True that following someone isn't a crime, neither is carrying a gun... But the two are axiomatic of someone who was looking for a confrontation. This is why I believe it will be so difficult for the defendant to sell self-defense to a jury.

Remember, it is not carrying a gun, disobeying police orders, nor following an individual that he's charged with, so it's probably not useful to point out that those acts are not illegal.

It's clear you picked up a big word 'affirmative defense' and still don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a criminal trial. In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the state, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.[citation needed]

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.[4]

Most affirmative defenses must be pled in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. The classic unwaivable affirmative defense is lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The issue of timely assertion is often the subject of contentious litigation.[citation needed]

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[testarosa]

Now, if TM had beaten Z to death it would be self defense because Z had the gun.

WUT? I am so confused.

 

[testarosa]

How the hell can it be self defense if one of them had a gun? That's a given. No brainier, imo.

You're missing the point. Theoretically speaking - if you're beating my head on the ground and I feel like I'm going to pass out and that I'm in mortal danger and my hand closes on a rock and I bash your head in with it and kill you. I can present my side of it to establish a prima facia demonstrating self defense and then the state gets to prove without a doubt that it WASN'T self defense and they get to prove my guilt on top of that.

gun/rock - irrelevant.

What defensive wounds?

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

 

[Snookie]

You're missing the point. Theoretically speaking - if you're beating my head on the ground and I feel like I'm going to pass out and that I'm in mortal danger and my hand closes on a rock and I bash your head in with it and kill you. I can present my side of it to establish a prima facia demonstrating self defense and then the state gets to prove without a doubt that it WASN'T self defense and they get to prove my guilt on top of that.

gun/rock - irrelevant.

What defensive wounds?

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Okay, I have a question for the forum:

In the interest of fairness...If you could ask Zimmerman one question about his actions on that day....what would it be?

I would ask him, "When you confronted Trayvon Martin, what exactly did you do and say?"

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

What defensive wounds?

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

Just because someone defends themselves well enough to avoid being injured...doesn't mean they weren't defending themselves.

In fact, that is my goal in self-defense...to NOT get hurt.

 

[testarosa]

What defensive wounds?

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.

Grey area.

And that's why have that thing called a "trial".

 

[Snookie]

Okay, I have a question for the forum:

In the interest of fairness...If you could ask Zimmerman one question about his actions on that day....what would it be?

I would ask him, "When you confronted Trayvon Martin, what exactly did you do and say?"

Then, he will lie his ass off.

 

[Snookie]

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.

Grey area.

And that's why have that thing called a "trial".

Sort of like masturbation?

 

[testarosa]

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

I don't believe an inch wound or a leg chopped off makes a difference, it's more about perceived threat.

Grey area.

And that's why have that thing called a "trial".

Sort of like masturbation?

Similar, but more people are involved.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Okay, I have a question for the forum:

In the interest of fairness...If you could ask Zimmerman one question about his actions on that day....what would it be?

I would ask him, "When you confronted Trayvon Martin, what exactly did you do and say?"

Then, he will lie his ass off.

Well, I think for the purpose of this exercise we are assuming we will get an honest answer.

See, my question is tricky, because I don't know for sure that Zimmerman confronted Martin. But I think he did, so I just make that assumption and ask the rest of my question. Otherwise, i would have to ask two questions.

I suppose I could just ask, "Did you confront Martin?" But I'm pretty sure he did and I'm more interested in the manner in which he confronted the kid. I know, if it was me out there being stalked, I'd consider the guy walking up to me as an attack and go into self-defense mode. Which I suspect is exactly what Martin did. And sometimes the best defense is offense, doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Sunshine]

What defensive wounds?

You're killing me here. What are we talking about? What/what defensive wounds?

I'm saying Z did not have defensive wounds worthy of killing somebody.

"Defensive wounds" is not a requirement. The requirement is " reasonable fear." If someone was beating my head on the concrete you can be damned sure I would shoot him if I had a gun on me. And we've already been around the block about the wounds to his head. They were real and the pics are out there to prove it.

This case is going to be a slam dunk for the defense. The only way you will get your lynching is to do it yourself because you will not be allowed to suborn the courts to do it for you.