Posted on 06/29/2013 12:00:05 AM PDT by RC one
In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.
Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:
But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. ,b>Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true.
Last year the Fifth District Court of Appeal quoted this language from Murray and followed the same rule in the case of Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011). In Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:
The inclusion of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse.
Seminole County, where Trayvon Martin was killed, is in the is in the Fifth Appellate District, so the rule in Montijo is controlling unless and until the law is changed.
Florida Standard Jury Instructions online are in accord with the courts' rulings in Murray and Montijo. Instruction 3.6(f) states
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] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
On April 1, 2012, the Florida Bar News published proposed amendments to the Standard Jury Instructions. The proposed amendment to Instruction 3.6(f) would strengthen this language to clarify that the jury may convict the defendant only if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The proposed amendment adds the underlined phrase to the charge to the jury:
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 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
The word urban means city. By definition, all cities are urban.
Well, I guess I should have clarified a little...it actually says “no shooting in the subdivision”....I guess I could technically ‘carry concealed’ but not ‘shoot’.....
My subdivision isn’t the only one in Georgia that does this.
If Judge Nelson does not grant dismissal after State finishes their part....Nelson has been bought. I say this as statement of fact
You can see why local State Atty Norm Wolfinger did not want to prosecute....and planned grudgingly to take it to a Grand Jury
Miami and Sanford will light up...definitely
On Casey Anthony....blame the incomptent prosecution team. They overcharged...and went to the media with every little piece of info. When the govt does that in a criminal case...it is a signal the case is not strong
You are right on OJ....that was Black Racism with his acquittal
Your home owners association has no legal right to restrict my 2nd Amendment right to carry.
See #20
Self-defense as an affirmative defense with a low burden of proof. Correct. There is no question that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. This is not and was never contested. It was admitted by Zimmerman when he called 911 to tell the police he killed Trayvon almost immediately after doing so. But, here comes the affirmative defense, has the defense shown that it reasonable to believe that Zimmerman used deadly force in self defense? Clearly, it has. In fact, given the case thus far, the only contradiction of Zimmerman’s story is the female pal of Trayvon insofar as she identified the voice screaming for help as Trayvon’s. This evidence wasn’t obtained by law enforcement until after the attorney for the Martin family intervened. Without this evidence, it is clear why there was no indictment until after the intervention. But, her testimony was thoroughly impeached in cross-examination. She has repeatedly demonstrated a willing to lie, including under oath. That is, she doesn’t hold telling the truth in high regard. But, even if she hadn’t been impeached, all the other evidence we have seen thus far corroborates or at least is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. At this point, I don’t think the defense will call Zimmerman to the stand.
Does the prosecution need to show that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, or at least initiated the fight, to seek a conviction on Murder in the Second Degree? Your point is well taken. But, no, the prosecution could show that Zimmerman badly over-reacted to a fight once it got started. For example, let’s say Trayvon initiated the confrontation, doubling back on Zimmerman, and saying to him, “Why you following me for?” I think this is, at this point, not in controversy. Let’s even say Trayvon initiated the fight, although I don’t think we have any knowledge of who started the fight other than Zimmerman’s report to the police. And, let’s say that during the fighting, Trayvon opened a can of whoop ass on Zimmerman, concerning which the prosecution only contends that Zimmerman wasn’t already beaten seriously, but the prosecution is simply not credible on this point. But, let’s say that Zimmerman then got on top of Trayvon, had him under control, got his gun out and pointed it at Trayvon. There’s really no evidence of this. But, supposing this was the case, then if Zimmerman then shot Trayvon, execution style, that would be Murder in the Second Degree. Now, I’ll address your point. If Zimmerman wasn’t being beaten so badly, and could have maybe wriggled out from under Trayvon, and - miscalculating the probability that he would sustain fatal or serious injury - shot Trayvon, then it would be some level of Manslaughter.
I’m thinkin that Zimmerman should take the stand and state his case. Normally I wouldn’t think that but in this degenerate, race charged culture I think he has to stand up there and state his case.
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..............
Ain’t a—gonna happen.
Obongo’s boys are gonna see that his SON—or lookalike son—is gonna get his jussis!
Da FIX be INNN!! Gonna be NO RIOTS! THASS all that counts.
last time I checked,
The “Burden of Proof” is on the prosecution.
At least...that is what it was the last time I checked. (SIGH)
The James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies has sort of become a primer for today's "journalism." Why wait around for things to happen when you can make them happen yourself?
We must remember that the state wanted a mirror image of the OJ jury...how close did they come to getting one?
Even if he violated HOA regulations it doesn't matter a hill of beans in this case.There's been no suggestion by the state that GZ was violating Florida,or Federal,law and that's all that matters regarding GZ's having been packing.GZ and/or the HOA may be liable to a civil suit by the holders of the patented trademark "Trayvon Martin",however.
I don't have the time to follow the case as closely as I would like.
Zimmerman cooperated fully with law enforcement and videos were made showing his explanation for what happened.
If the prosecution does not show the videos, then it means that the videos do not support conviction. In this case, the defense may not be entitled to enter them into evidence because Zimmerman's statements are self-serving and not subject to cross-examination.
I wonder, however, whether the defense can get witnesses to admit that such videos were made and that such witnesses saw nothing that was incriminating in the videos? Or would even mention of the videos be disallowed?
This issue is why I fully support the notion that one should NEVER talk to the police. Even if you tell the absolute truth, the police may find a credible witness who mistakenly contradicts you and your credibility may be injured in a way which could never happen if you simply say NOTHING.
not ina self defense case. Zim’s guilt is already determined as far as taking M’s life. It is now incumbent upon him to establish just cause i.e. self defense and he does that by raising reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.