Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dan O.]

It is an undisputed fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The prosecution is going to present to the jury that if they find beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the following elements it is their duty go convict George for Murder.

1. That George was out looking for trouble. That George was acting as if he were the enforcer of the law.

2. That George upon encountering who he believed was suspiscious and up to no good did not back down and wait for the police but proceeded to force a confrontation.

3. That George was not in imminent danger at the moment that he had his gun drawn and pointed at Trayvon.


These are the points that I have argued in the past and it looks like this is the direction that the prosecution is headed.

 

[RandFan]

The writing on this article is terrible. Either a suspect is guilty or not guilty, of whatever crime the jury decides they're guilty of.

Didn't I read today that GZ has three possible charges that can be brought against him: Murder 2, Manslaughter, and Aggravated Assault. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. The way this article reads, maybe the jury will find GZ guilty of a parking violation instead of manslaughter or murder 2.

Looks like you are correct.

Judge: Zimmerman jurors can consider manslaughter charge

 

[RandFan]

I haven't seen any evidence so far for a conviction for any lesser charge. The prosecution's case is entirely speculative.

If I had to guess I think you are about to be proven correct.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Any chance that once he's acquitted, they trump up some lesser charges a la Casey Anthony? Something like "he's being fined for trespassing" and "we're charging him with disorderly conduct for not taking the 911 operator's advice and staying in the car."

(I know the charges Anthony got hit with were on the table the entire trial, just trying to be a bit funny here. I know he can't be charged "after the fact".)

 

[RandFan]

The judge tried to get Zimmerman to say in open court whether or not he would testify. His atty's objected and sparred with the judge on this point. My initial opinion is that this was inappropriate on the part of the judge. Does anyone have an opinion? I doubt that it is reversible error. Though I doubt GZ will be convicted but regardless, was it inappropriate on the part of the judge?

Forgive me if that has been discussed already.

Watch: Judge Nelson vs. Don West

 

[Dcdrac]

It is an undisputed fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The prosecution is going to present to the jury that if they find beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the following elements it is their duty go convict George for Murder.

1. That George was out looking for trouble. That George was acting as if he were the enforcer of the law.

2. That George upon encountering who he believed was suspiscious and up to no good did not back down and wait for the police but proceeded to force a confrontation.

3. That George was not in imminent danger at the moment that he had his gun drawn and pointed at Trayvon.

These are the points that I have argued in the past and it looks like this is the direction that the prosecution is headed.

further to this:

I would argue that by getting out of the car he placed himself in a postion of potential danger and if he had stayed put then none of this would have happened, personally I think it is indisputable Zimmerman bought this about through his actions alone, and should get manslaughter bought on by his own incompetence.

 

[Cylinder]

The judge tried to get Zimmerman to say in open court whether or not he would testify. His atty's objected and sparred with the judge on this point. My initial opinion is that this was inappropriate on the part of the judge. Does anyone have an opinion? I doubt that it is reversible error. Though I doubt GZ will be convicted but regardless, was it inappropriate on the part of the judge?

Forgive me if that has been discussed already.

Watch: Judge Nelson vs. Don West

The timing of the first inquiry was error, but it was probably harmless error since Zimmerman did not make a waiver. West was right in objecting though.

Imagine that the witness right after the first court inquiry had claimed in her testimony that Zimmerman was acting obsessed about crime and made statements to her about teenaged black kids or something similar. The result of her testimony, even though it was
mere minutes later, may have changed the defense strategy to where they felt Zimmerman would need to testify to explain these claims himself. He's already waved that right though.

The question wasn't improper - it was poorly-timed. The court was more focused on Nelson's schedule than the defendant's absolute right to remain silent or to testify as a witness - both contained in our Bill of Rights. Nelson knows Zimmerman isn't going to testify at that point but it's not her choice when the waiver is made. Courts routinely only ask this question once the defense communicates it has no other witnesses to be called - lunch recess be damned.

 

[ABC10]

Zimmermans going to walk. Hopefully law enforcement will be able to contain the civil unrest fllowing Zimmermans acquital.

I'm not saying this si right but the evidence proves Travon attacked him and would have injured Zimmerman had he not been shot.

Zimmerman was stupid not to follow the watchgroups protocol and the 911 operators instructions which clearly state that you only report suspicious activity and not take any action of your own.

I feel that Zimmerman is morally but not legally responsible for Travons death.

Hopefully will be able to contain civil unrest. We all hope so. Bring in the guard and augment with some troopers from Afghan. To be sure the Asian shop keepers and Mexicans will be on their roofs with AKs. The black community is a minority. Their communities have not been rebuilt since the last time they decided to burn and loot.

 

[RandFan]

CNN is carrying the Breaking News bannerJudge: No 3rd-degree felony murder charge for Zimmerman. That is contradicted by the link (perhaps they have not updated the content of the link).

My head hurts.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The judge tried to get Zimmerman to say in open court whether or not he would testify. His atty's objected and sparred with the judge on this point. My initial opinion is that this was inappropriate on the part of the judge. Does anyone have an opinion? I doubt that it is reversible error. Though I doubt GZ will be convicted but regardless, was it inappropriate on the part of the judge?

Forgive me if that has been discussed already.

Watch: Judge Nelson vs. Don West

I'm no expert and it's not going to matter in the end since he's going to be found not guilty, but that's looked like a rather glaring attempt to intimidate the situation by the judge, what's wrong with her? Everyone knows they want to wait until the last minute (which they now have done) before determining (or saying) if he is going to testify.

 

[eeyore1954]

Zimmermans going to walk. Hopefully law enforcement will be able to contain the civil unrest fllowing Zimmermans acquital.

I'm not saying this si right but the evidence proves Travon attacked him and would have injured Zimmerman had he not been shot.

The evidence doesn't prove that Trayvon attacked him. We don't know how it started. The evidence does reasonably show that however it started Martin did hit Zimmerman, did hit Zimmermans head on the concrete and was on top of him when the shot was fired.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm no expert and it's not going to matter in the end since he's going to be found not guilty, but that's looked like a rather glaring attempt to intimidate the situation by the judge, what's wrong with her? Everyone knows they want to wait until the last minute (which they now have done) before determining (or saying) if he is going to testify.

Am I really the only one that is not that confident? I don't think the state made a good factual case but they made one hell of an emotional plea. Perhaps this is something I shouldn't be saying but the jury is all female. It could work in the defenses favor but I would suggest that they are more likely to identify with the Trayvon's mother, rather than Zimmerman. I am not making a prediction, like I know what's going to happen but I don't think it's in the bag.

 

[eeyore1954]

further to this:

I would argue that by getting out of the car he placed himself in a postion of potential danger and if he had stayed put then none of this would have happened, personally I think it is indisputable Zimmerman bought this about through his actions alone, and should get manslaughter bought on by his own incompetence.

It is not indisputable that it was brought about through his actions alone. Assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth then if Trayvon had simply continued to his dads house there would have been no confrontation or if they did come into contact if Trayvon had told him I am going to my dads house there may have been no fight.

It is also not indisputable that Zimmerman did not go after him with bad intentions.

What seems to be indisputable (to me) is there is no evidence to convict Zimmerman on.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

CNN is carrying the Breaking News bannerJudge: No 3rd-degree felony murder charge for Zimmerman. That is contradicted by the link (perhaps they have not updated the content of the link).

My head hurts.

So, summary on jury instructions:

2nd degree murder
manslaughter
NOT guilty.

Each of the two charges will have additional components that will affect the length of sentence.


3rd degree was in until ~ 1:00pm EST

 

[RandFan]

The evidence doesn't prove that Trayvon attacked him. We don't know how it started. The evidence does reasonably show that however it started Martin did hit Zimmerman, did hit Zimmermans head on the concrete and was on top of him when the shot was fired.

Pedantic point. Only the jurors can decide legally what the evidence shows. At the conclusion of trial I sat on this week the judge did not tell us what the evidence showed. The judge told us that it was our duty, as finders of fact, to determine what the evidence showed. Your opinion, IMO, is likely to be shared by the jury. However, even if there were a video that plainly showed that Martin did hit Zimmerman's head on the concrete the jury could still find otherwise. I realize that might seem fatuous but it is a fact. Further, the evidence isn't a video tape. It's requires inferences drawn from supporting evidence including eyewitness testimony. While refusing to accept video tape evidence would seem absurd, refusing to accept the opinions of experts and eyewitness testimony happens all of the time.

Is it likely in this case? I would say it is unlikely and your opinion is correct.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is an undisputed fact that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The prosecution is going to present to the jury that if they find beyond a reasonable doubt any one of the following elements it is their duty go convict George for Murder.

1. That George was out looking for trouble. That George was acting as if he were the enforcer of the law.

2. That George upon encountering who he believed was suspiscious and up to no good did not back down and wait for the police but proceeded to force a confrontation.

3. That George was not in imminent danger at the moment that he had his gun drawn and pointed at Trayvon.


These are the points that I have argued in the past and it looks like this is the direction that the prosecution is headed.

The prosecution may or may not present the above ideas, but none of this is going to be in the jury instructions.

I'll say right now, if the jury follows instructions, the verdict is going to be not guilty because the state failed to prove much of anything.

 

[lane99]

Stealth Prosecutors?

As has been mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you don't need to be psychic to see the defendant was going to get off scot-free in this case. That has been easy to predict since, at least, the time jury selection was completed.

It has been a surprise thought at how the prosecution almost seem to have served the upcoming acquittal to the defense on a silver platter. The deceased victim deserved better.
.
.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Who can articulate the states theory of what happened ? Anyone ?

 

[lane99]

Correction

...The evidence does reasonably show that...Martin did...hit Zimmermans head on the concrete...

This is not correct. Though the evidence could be said to reasonable show that Zimmerman's head did hit the concrete, it doesn't show how. And, importantly, the evidence shows it is virtually impossible for it to have happened in the manner Zimmerman claimed.
.
.

 

[sgtbaker]

Who can articulate the states theory of what happened ? Anyone ?

I don't know. I am still waiting for him to get to the facts of the case. He is going to get to facts of the case, right?