The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[11B4V]

It's Languish. 

[grumbler]

How is SYG irrelevant to the Zimmerman case?

It was in the jury instructions:

If George Zimmerman 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 another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The relevant language about no duty to retreat comes directly from the SYG statute passed in 2005.

First, the jury instructions were governed by statute

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.

Zimmerman didn't assert anything other than self-defense; indeed, he couldn't have retreated had he wanted to, according to his testimony.  Neither the prosecution nor the defense asserted that "stand your ground" had any bearing on the case (other than the prosecutor's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's testimony by challenging his claim that Z hadn't heard of the law before the case).

But the narrative has been written to include SYG as a part of the defense, and I acknowledge that the truth doesn't actually matter here.

[The Minsky Moment]

grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction.  Not a statute.
Notice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.
If you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"

So someone in the case thought it was relevant to include.  Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.

Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction.  It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.

As for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury.  So the self-defense defense puts it in issue.  As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant.  The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all.  As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative.  That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case.  And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense,  the court is going to do that work for them.

The only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.

[The Minsky Moment]

The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?

On that basis post count would decline 90%

I find it interesting that somehow this narrative arose that SYG had zero impact on the case when in reality there is no basis for that conclusion .

As someone who has been in plenty of charging conferences, I can tell you that defense lawyers pay plenty of attention to what is in those instructions.  I can also tell you that if I was a defense lawyer in this case or any case that involved self defense, I would be very happy to have that language in there, even if I didn't plan to make that specific argument. 

[katmai]

The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?

Hello and welcome to Languish

[DGuller]

Who the fuck are you? 

[Ed Anger]

The murderer has been acquitted and no one's gun rights are at stake, why are you dumb fuckers still making such ridiculous arguments about this case?

[Rasputin]

grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction.  Not a statute.
Notice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.
If you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"

So someone in the case thought it was relevant to include.  Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.

Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction.  It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.

As for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury.  So the self-defense defense puts it in issue.  As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant.  The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all.  As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative.  That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case.  And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense,  the court is going to do that work for them.

The only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.

this is the whole point of the stand your ground law ... it does away with the common law duty to retreat which under florida law existed everywhere but the home prior to this law.  This led to horrific results where people using deadly force to defend themselves were being criminally prosecuted if a particular state attorney believed the victim (defender) could have escaped as an alternative to force

The law is therefore inherently part of the florida law of self defense and either party entitled to an instruction on this if requested

[The Minsky Moment]

Clearly if a party thinks it appropriate, they are entitled to the instruction,  it is part of the law.  And I am not expressing a view on the merits of the law.

I do think at least one aspect of the pattern instruction, as implemented, is confusing.  The instruction says that you may SYG even if you aren't in reasonable fear of great bodily harm, as long as you reasonable believe it is necessarily "to prevent the commission of a forcible felony".   The instruction does not explain what a forcible felony is.  The instruction - following the statute - also doesn't incorporate any limitation as to imminence or timing.  So lets say hypothetically the jury accepted that at the time of the shooting Zimmerman believed that Martin intended to B&E a neighbor's house at some point in the future - perhaps even days or weeks in the future.   I.e let's say Zimmerman believed that Martin wasn't about to do anything at all but if not stopped that day would return another day to rob a house.  If a juror found that belief to be reasonable - or at least had a reasonable doubt about the reasonability concerning the belief, he could acquit even if he wholly disbelieved that Zimmerman was really in grave danger.

[grumbler]

grumbler that is a pattern jury instruction.  Not a statute.

My mistake.

Notice that the part that has the SYG in it does *not* have the "read in all cases" direction.

Actually, it is to be read in all cases "where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the [self-defense] justification."

If you look at the very top of the pattern instruction - which you omitted - it provides that each instruction is to be used only ""required by the evidence"

The jury instruction guide is 705 pages long in word format.  I "omitted" a lot when reducing it to the two relevant paragraphs!

So someone in the case thought it was relevant to include.  Based on the summaries, it appears that the defense provided the initial proposed charge, and so it was probably the defense that proposed its inclusion.

Of course it wouldn't even matter whether or not it was proposed, it would still form part of the instruction.  It would still form part of the matter considered by the jury.

There was a lot in the jury instructions that were there because someone "thought" it might be relevant to include.  There are sections on how a killing is justified "when the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion," even though no one on either side ever argued that these circumstances pertained.  The jury was told that a killing was justified "when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner" even though no one on either side had argued that, either.

As for your second point, SYG is part of the law of self-defense as specifically instructed to this very jury.  So the self-defense defense puts it in issue.  As I said before whether the lawyers specifically argued it in closing is irrelevant.  The prosecution wouldn't because it doesn't help their case at all.  As for the defense, they had a strategic call to make whether to argue about it in the alternative.  That can be a dangerous thing to do because it conveys lack of confidence in your case.  And most importantly, the fact that the defense *knows* in advance that SYG is in the charge means they don't have to raise it and risk undermining their first line defense,  the court is going to do that work for them.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense had any evidence or testimony that Zimmerman could have retreated from a life-threatening situation and avoided shooting Martin.  SYG simply didn't have any bearing on either the prosecution's case nor the defense case.  I know that you really really really really want it to, but it doesn't.  However, as I have pointed out before (and, indeed, have introduced as one of my main points), it simply doesn't matter that the facts show that SYG was irrelevant in this case; the narrative (which you clearly support) has been re-written to disguise that truth, and so the truth can be safely ignored.

The only truth here is that you have no idea whatsoever whether or not the SYG charge affected the jury deliberation.

I have a far better idea than you, since I looked at all the available evidence, and not just the evidence that supports the New Narrative.  Had Zimmerman been under an obligation to retreat, the encounter with Martin would have gone down in the exact same way, if Zimmerman's testimony is to be accepted (and it apparently was, at least to the point of creating a reasonable doubt).

I don't have a dog in the whole SYG fight; I am utterly indifferent to it.  I do have a vested interest in pointing out the truths we are discarding.

[Savonarola]

The hooded sweatshirt Trayvon Martin wore the night George Zimmerman shot him to death could end up on display at the Smithsonian Institution.

The shirt became a powerful symbol of the case after Zimmerman described Martin as wearing a "hoodie" the night he killed the teen, claiming self-defense. Protestors across the country wore hoodies in support of Martin as they called for Zimmerman's arrest, prosecution and conviction.

A Florida jury acquitted Zimmerman last month, finding too little evidence to convict him of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman Stopped for Speeding, Had Gun

Prosecutors had introduced the famed hoodie into evidence during the trial. A hush fell over the Seminole County courtroom as they displayed it for the court.

The jurors weighing Zimmerman's guilt were still and attentive while looking at the sweatshirt, according to reports from the day. One juror lifted out of her seat to get a better look at the hoodie, and the group tracked the sweatshirt as Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, moved it away from the jury box.

The hoodie is now stored with other evidence from the case at the U.S. Department of Justice, which has opened an investigation into whether Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights.

But the power and symbolism of the hoodie could be available for legions of visitors to an iconic Washington, D.C., museum.

The director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, told the Washington Post he would like the museum to acquire the piece of history for its permanent collection.

"It became the symbolic way to talk about the Trayvon Martin case," Lonnie Bunch told the Post. "It's rare that you get one artifact that really becomes the symbol.

"Because it's such a symbol, it would allow you to talk about race in the age of Obama."

Neither Bunch nor the museum returned calls from ABC News for comments.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture is set to open in 2015 in Washington.

They should put it at the Ringling Museum in Sarasota.  It would stay in state and it would be fitting since it owes it's prominence to a media circus.

[sbr]

The director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture

ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!!  Reverse Racism!!

[The Minsky Moment]

"All the available evidence" sweeps pretty broadly, grumbler.  I question that you considered it all.

First, you  simply assume that Zimmerman was in life threatening situation.  You must make that assumption because absent the SYG law, it is a requirement for the justification defense.  But there was plenty of evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman's life was not in danger.  That was the crux of the prosecution's case,  Indeed in the post right before your last one, I referred to that scenario.  If even one juror accepted that aspect of ten prosecutions case, then SYG could have affected the outcome.

Second, other than an account by a witness who did not testify and who had very obvious motives to tell a particular story. -- ie Zimmerna himself -- no witness testified that Zimmerman was Not in a position to retreat at the time of the shooting.  But one eyewitness specifically told the police that the fighting ended before the shot was taken.  So one could infer that retreat was possible. That's another possible way SYG could have impacted on the outcome.

There is a third possible way SYG could have affected the outcome.  One or more jurors could simply have been confused about what the instruction meant or how it was supposed to apply.  This is something we see all the time in juror testing.  Jurors on the fence seize on some legal formulae or heuristic to each a simple result. Or jurors favoring one side try to sway others by seizing on some evocative legal formula.  That is a big reason why lawyers like to get good charge language in even if it doesn't feature in their closing.

Which brings me back to my point: neither of us has a clue what really went on in the jury room. The fact that you would claim to have a "far better idea than me" because you engaged in your own reasoning based on "available evidence" in reality proves you don't have any idea what goes on.  Every day, people spend huge sums on jury testing precisely because simply knowing the what the evidence is doesn't tell you how a jury will think about it.

[garbon]

The director of a new branch of the Smithsonian, the National Museum of African American History and Culture

ZOMG where is mah wing of white history!!  Reverse Racism!!

Every other wing?

[grumbler]

"All the available evidence" sweeps pretty broadly, grumbler.  I question that you considered it all.

Well, I certainly question that you considered the evidence, so it seems fair that you doubt me.

First, you  simply assume that Zimmerman was in life threatening situation.  You must make that assumption because absent the SYG law, it is a requirement for the justification defense.  But there was plenty of evidence presented at trial that Zimmerman's life was not in danger.  That was the crux of the prosecution's case,  Indeed in the post right before your last one, I referred to that scenario.  If even one juror accepted that aspect of ten prosecutions case, then SYG could have affected the outcome.

This is a pretty astonishing assertion.  I don't "simply assume" that Zimmerman was in a life-threatening situation; I looked at the evidence (the police interview tape transcripts) and discovered that Zimmerman himself believed he was in a life-threatening situation. 

Your scenario was laughable, so naturally I ignored it.  No evidence whatsoever was presented that Zimmerman believed that he needed to shoot Martin to death to prevent Martin from breaking into a neighbor's house "days or weeks in the future."  You might as well postulate that Martin never existed, and the whole trial is a fraud, or that the jurors believed Zimmerman was a vampire and voted to acquit out of fear that he would turn into a bat, fly out of his prison cell, and drink their blood.  Once you abandon evidence like you do, there is no limit to the fun scenarios you can create.  Alas, they are still laughable.

Second, other than an account by a witness who did not testify and who had very obvious motives to tell a particular story. -- ie Zimmerna himself -- no witness testified that Zimmerman was Not in a position to retreat at the time of the shooting.  But one eyewitness specifically told the police that the fighting ended before the shot was taken.  So one could infer that retreat was possible. That's another possible way SYG could have impacted on the outcome.

"One eyewitness," eh?  Is there a reason for not revealing the name?  It wasn't Jayne Surdyka, Selene Bahadoor, or Rachel Jeantel.  Jonathan Good testified to the opposite effect, even though he was a prosecution witness.    The prosecution never drew the inference from this mystery witness of yours that you have.

There is a third possible way SYG could have affected the outcome.  One or more jurors could simply have been confused about what the instruction meant or how it was supposed to apply.  This is something we see all the time in juror testing.  Jurors on the fence seize on some legal formulae or heuristic to each a simple result. Or jurors favoring one side try to sway others by seizing on some evocative legal formula.  That is a big reason why lawyers like to get good charge language in even if it doesn't feature in their closing.

Ah, the unsupported hypothesis again.  You are arguing that the jurors paid attention only to the portions of the instructions about "stand your ground" and ignored the one about "this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions."  There was no evidence or testimony about Zimmerman passing up opportunities to retreat.  Your hypothetical is supported by nothing other than unsupported assertions about "possible ways."  The vampire hypothesis is a "possible way" the jurors could have reached their verdict.  Mind control is another "possible way."  Are you honestly going to contend that vampires and mind control were factors in the Zimmerman trial? 

Which brings me back to my point: neither of us has a clue what really went on in the jury room. The fact that you would claim to have a "far better idea than me" because you engaged in your own reasoning based on "available evidence" in reality proves you don't have any idea what goes on.  Every day, people spend huge sums on jury testing precisely because simply knowing the what the evidence is doesn't tell you how a jury will think about it.

At least I rely on evidence (and evidence from named persons, not vague "an eyewitness" crap), so I can, indeed, assert that I seem to have a "far better idea" than you about what the jury would have considered.  And that far better idea is that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with this case; had there been no such law, the prosecution could still not have argued (barring evidence from your mystery eyewitness that either never made it into the trial or never appeared in any stories or prosecution summaries) that Zimmerman was guilty because he could have retreated.