The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[derspiess]

Gesundheit.

Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille

[OttoVonBismarck]

Zimmerman never testified, but his statement to police was part of the evidence. (Some suggest the prosecution made a mistake in using it, because it allowed Zimmerman to tell his side of the story without being subject to cross-examination where the prosecutor may have been able to punch holes through his story.) In Zimmerman's version of events he was attacked by Martin by surprise, Martin was in hiding and jumped him. He says he was knocked to the ground in the initial attack, and then Martin pinned him to the ground and began beating him and slamming his head against either the ground or the concrete (there was a lot of debate about that point of ground vs concrete long before the trial), at which point Zimmerman's story suggests he was unable to run or even effectively defend himself and was in imminent fear of death. Thus, he used his gun.

I actually disagree in part with Andrew Cohen's point that this may have only happened in Florida. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman's story would have met the common law description of self defense in just about all fifty states and probably Canada too--as I don't see how getting your head slammed against concrete over and over again isn't an actual scenario where the courts would say the person was in fear of grievous harm or death.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't profess to have heard every minute of testimony, but sometimes I get the feeling that you and Raz are stating what you wish were true as fact.

For what it's worth, my guess is that Z told M he was neighborhood watch, asked him what he was doing around there, and M flipped out.

Hmm . . .

[DGuller]

How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground?  It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?

[Syt]

Gesundheit.

Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille

Popular word during my childhood, but fell out of fashion due to Hottentotten reference.

[Maximus]

Hottentottenpotentatenpatentantentütentittenstottertrottelattentäterbeutelrattenlattenkatenretterrattertatterzitterknatterantischitterritispille

Popular word during my childhood, but fell out of fashion due to Hottentotten reference.

How does it end?

[Berkut]

How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground?  It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?

Is that really that hard to imagine? You can certainly be pinned to the ground while having an arm free.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Without being a shyster, to the best of my understanding of the jury instructions the jury basically had to consider these things:

1. Did the self defense claim raised by Zimmerman seem plausible to a "preponderance of the evidence?"

2. If 1 is answered yes, then the jury has to decide if the prosecution's case has disproven the self defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him.

3. If 1 is answered no, then the jury does not have to worry about whether or not the prosecution has disproven the self defense claim (since they have found the claim to not be plausible.)

In that scenario the jury just has to look at the statutory definitions of Murder 2 and Manslaughter and decide if the actions proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution satisfy the definition of either crime. I don't believe, based on my reading of Florida law, that they could have obtained a Murder 2 conviction in any scenario based on the case I saw. I think the prosecution had outlined events with enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter if you can say that Zimmerman's self defense claim is either not plausible or has been affirmatively disproven by prosecution evidence.

What instead happened is, because of a lack of information, lack of compelling witness testimony and lack of compelling evidence there was nothing about Zimmerman's self defense claim that was intrinsically implausible. The jury appears to have looked at the prosecution's arguments about Zimmerman's actions and tried to decide if they had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. Again, because of lack of information, they couldn't ascertain that the prosecution had proven that and thus they acquitted Zimmerman after having accepted the plausibility of his self defense claims.

I don't personally believe things went down exactly as Zimmerman said they did in his police interview. But I also don't think there is anything about Zimmerman's story that is unsupported by the evidence, and it is at least a plausible possibility as to what happened. Since there is no evidence available to demonstrate any other version of events as any more likely, I don't see how you can reject his self defense claim. If his story had been he got in a shoving match and then shot Martin, I'd agree that would not be self defense in most places in America, but the story he actually laid out sounds like self defense in probably any country that has a concept of self defense--because having your head slammed into concrete can easily cause death, and if you are pinned then you have no ability to escape.

Maybe if they had Zimmerman on the stand they could have unraveled his story. But because the prosecution submitted the videotape of his interview as evidence, the jury heard Zimmerman's side without ever seeing him on the stand where he would be drilled about the particulars in open court. Since the physical evidence did show that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and that both the front and back of Zimmerman's head had suffered injuries, his self defense tale was plausible enough that it couldn't just be ignored. The prosecution never showed anything to my mind to demonstrate anything beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome that.

I think the prosecution knew they had no way to refute Zimmerman's story because none of the witnesses or physical evidence gave a clear idea of what happened. I also believe that the prosecution was desperate because they said in their closing statement that the story wasn't about the fist fight, but the fact that Zimmerman chose to get out of his car when he should not have. However, as a matter of law in Florida Zimmerman had no legal duty to remain in his car in this situation, he was lawfully walking on the sidewalk/street.

Now, in many non-Florida States, if Zimmerman had initiated a confrontation he would have ran afoul of the "duty to retreat." But Zimmerman's claim is that he was actually just on the street to check the address or something, and then was jumped. So even in a duty to retreat state Zimmerman's story covered his bases. Basically keep in mind Zimmerman had literally taken a class that taught him what to say and in what situations it's legal to shoot and kill someone in self defense. Zimmerman knew what his story had to contain to protect himself, and it appears the story he told couldn't be disproven by any evidence and legally established a valid self defense claim.

[OttoVonBismarck]

How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground?  It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?

Well, it's easily possible depending on how you're pinned and etc. I think importantly for Zimmerman, details like that weren't that important. The physical evidence showed Zimmerman was knocked on his back, and that Martin was shot at an angle such that he had to have been either standing over top of or kneeling on Zimmerman directly. That means that while we only get one side of the story, Zimmerman's story (whether we personally buy it) isn't inconsistent with the physical evidence. With no strong evidence to the contrary, that means while me or you don't necessarily believe Z's story, it's one of several possible stories. When that's the case, you usually can't convict someone. My understanding is if there are multiple "reasonable explanations" of events, several of which would exculpate the defendant then you're talking about a classic situation in which "reasonable doubt" exists, and the jury's choice in that scenario is basically unavoidable.

I've actually heard claims from some that in all honesty the prosecution's case was so weak that the judge probably should have granted the defense request for a directed acquittal, or taken the initiative herself to do so. But Florida being a place with elected judges, Nelson did not want to be so involved in the outcome of the case. If the jury had convicted Nelson would have been in a bad situation, because just like the Massachusetts au pair case where the judge had to overrule an improper jury decision the judge in Zimmerman's case probably would have had to do the same thing. If not, the verdict almost certainly would not have survived appeal and having it overturned that way also would have looked bad for the judge.

[DGuller]

How can you draw a gun when you're pinned to the ground?  It seems a little tricky when I imagine such a scenario?

Is that really that hard to imagine? You can certainly be pinned to the ground while having an arm free.

The way I imagine it, you need both an arm free, and it must be able to reach to where you holster your gun.  One and/or the other could easily be blocked by the guy sitting on you.  Then again, I've never tried either carrying a gun or having a guy sit on top of me, so maybe I'm exaggerating the difficulties involved.

[derspiess]

Both arms free?  How heavy do you think guns are?

[DGuller]

Both arms free?  How heavy do you think guns are?

[Barrister]

Zimmerman never testified, but his statement to police was part of the evidence. (Some suggest the prosecution made a mistake in using it, because it allowed Zimmerman to tell his side of the story without being subject to cross-examination where the prosecutor may have been able to punch holes through his story.) In Zimmerman's version of events he was attacked by Martin by surprise, Martin was in hiding and jumped him. He says he was knocked to the ground in the initial attack, and then Martin pinned him to the ground and began beating him and slamming his head against either the ground or the concrete (there was a lot of debate about that point of ground vs concrete long before the trial), at which point Zimmerman's story suggests he was unable to run or even effectively defend himself and was in imminent fear of death. Thus, he used his gun.

Common wisdom is that you do not play an accused's exculpatory statement to the trier of fact for precisely that reason - that means the accused isn't subject to cross-examination.  There may be circumstances where you do it anyways, but you better have a VERY good reason to do so.  For example, maybe you play it because it proves the accused was actually on the scene.  Not sure what reason there would eb for the prosecution here.

I actually disagree in part with Andrew Cohen's point that this may have only happened in Florida. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman's story would have met the common law description of self defense in just about all fifty states and probably Canada too--as I don't see how getting your head slammed against concrete over and over again isn't an actual scenario where the courts would say the person was in fear of grievous harm or death.

Fair enough - if accepted Zimmerman's story probably would qualify for self-defence in Canada.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well, just based on experience on the wrestling team as a kid I can tell you it's unusual that you'll actually be pinned such that you don't have any arm movement or body movement, either of which would allow you several ways to get to a waist holder. I believe Zimmerman carried inside the waistband.

I don't even think there is much controversy about that part of the case. Even people like me that don't believe the entirety of Zimmerman's story believe that he genuinely lost his fight with Martin and was on his back when he killed him, and it seems unlikely given the angle and range of shot that Martin wasn't on top of him.

Zimmerman isn't really a gun nut, based on the fact he doesn't own many guns and the gun he carried wasn't a particularly nice gun but more a cheap one. Instead, he's a "cop wannabe" who was probably a few years removed from stopping people on traffic violations with a surplus Crown Vic or something bought at auction. He was someone who I suspect had daydreams about being the hero who gets to kill some bad guy. I think he had studied how he could do that and not get in trouble for it legally. Then I think a confluence of events happened such that he basically got his wish, and he did. He's that rare cop wannabe whose wet dream actually came true.

[Scipio]

I look forward to the delicious irony of many new "Trayvon's laws" resulting in increased incarceration of young black males for self-defense shootings.

Are there a lot of young black male shooters who avoid incarceration due to claims of self-defence presently?

Surprisingly yes, but it's all drug related.