Replies

It is kind of unbelievable that this is allowed. The state charges Zimmerman with Murder 2. Both the prosecution and defense conduct the whole trial on the basis of Murder 2. At the end of the trial, the prosecution says, “well, we don’t think we proved our case on Murder 2, so here are some other charges. You don’t get to defend your client on them before the jury or call witnesses to try to disprove the specific elements of the charges, though.”

Precisely. It’s a true miscarriage of justice. It’s the type of thing that makes you want to drop your whole life, go to law school and become a defense attorney.

It’s also why I think West argued that verdict form should include not guilty at the top of the form and not some vague promise from the judge that it will be included somewhere on the page.

"It is kind of unbelievable that this is allowed. The state charges Zimmerman with Murder 2. Both the prosecution and defense conduct the whole trial on the basis of Murder 2. At the end of the trial, the prosecution says, “well, we don’t think we proved our case on Murder 2, so here are some other charges. You don’t get to defend your client on them before the jury or call witnesses to try to disprove the specific elements of the charges, though.”

That's why I think it is unconstitutional. The defendant is not allowed to present a complete case against the charges he is (belatedly) accused of at the end of the trial. In effect, this denies him a trial. The defense argument against murder 2 is NOT the same argument that you would use against other charges (child abuse, manslaughter, etc.).