Bingo. I don’t bother explaining this much, but if the jury finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z’s actions were NOT self-defense, Z walks on all charges. Period.
YES!!! Thank you! This is not a standard trial where the defendant has pled not-guilty. GZ does not dispute he shot Martin. He says he DID shoot him, in SELF-DEFENSE. So the whole degree is besides the point.
That's where you err. The prosecution is not trying to prove his actions weren't self-defense. They are trying to prove he is guilty of 2nd degree murder. In order to do that, they must rebuke the self-defense argument in the process. Failing to prove he is guilty of murder 2 does not necessarily mean what GZ did could be considered self-defense. There are other requirements for murder2 in FL. One of them being it must be done "evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life". So lets say GZ was NOT simply defending himself, but did this on purpose. As long as the act isn't considered being committed by "evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life", he would still be not guilty of murder 2.
I personally believe it WAS self-defense, I'm just explaining away this incorrect way of viewing the process, it doesn't really work that way.
** 'm using a definition I found online under Florida law, I'm not entirely sure it is accurate, but the example remains the same regardless