Trayvon Martin Case

Joe you ever practice in Va?

Nope. Not licensed to practice there.

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

Doctor details how Martin bled to death | HLNtv.com (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/09/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-11)

1:51 p.m. ET: Di Maio says he can't say if the gun was pulled out of the holster by Zimmerman, just that there was a shot to Martin's chest.

"You can't tell that by any scientific method," said Di Maio.

1:54 p.m. ET: Di Maio can't say for sure what angle Martin was positioned at on top of Zimmerman, just that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. He doesn't believe the two were standing at the time of the shooting, based on the evidence. He agrees that Martin could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when he was shot.

...

2:25 p.m. ET: "I’m not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts.

2:28 p.m. ET: West is describing the testimony of another witness who said Zimmerman was on top and Martin was face-down when the shot was fired.

"No sir, it's not possible," said Di Maio. West says this is another example of a witness who had good intentions but got it wrong.

2:29 p.m. ET: Di Maio says another eye witness's testimony, John Good, is consistent with the evidence. Good said Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired, in a "ground and pound" type of position, striking Zimmerman.

Solid witness. Based on the responses, he seems a much more credible guy than Bao. Also, prosecution's cross not bad - limited and not going for any big points. Just some helpful puzzle pieces they can use in their closing.

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/)

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.


It's been a fascinating case, I have enjoyed watching the Defense do their thing, except for that opening.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/)

He had a broken nose and bruises don't bleed and your really reaching calling what Zimmerman did stalking. Also you can creata a situation and claim self defense.

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk.

Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.

You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense.Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/)

Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

Here's the Florida pattern jury instructions on the issue:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

* * *

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.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

emphasis mine.

I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.


Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.