Pretty confident that Don West was comfortable with the instructions. Clarification may be needed, but West is a picky lawyer (the pickiest, much to the chagrin of the Judge).
I think what is happening (my Holiday Inn Express receipt is here somewhere) is that the jury has dispensed with the 2nd degree murder charge and just wants to make sure they fully understand manslaughter. When they realize (i.e. get clarification) that self-defense (the same self defense that overcame murder 2) does the same for manslaughter...this trial is over.
That said, I had finished my bottle of good champagne BEFORE the results were announced on election eve 2012. Will remember that event to my dying day.
>>>>...the jury has dispensed with the 2nd degree murder charge and just wants to make sure they fully understand manslaughter. When they realize (i.e. get clarification) that self-defense (the same self defense that overcame murder 2) does the same for manslaughter...this trial is over.<<<<<
Please LORD let it be so!!
I wouldn't have been. I would have insisted that, at minimum, the jury be allowed to read--and closing arguments be allowed to reference--the entire statute describing when self-defense may be claimed. To really be fair, the instructions should--like the others--explain things in terms of the parties involved: "If by the time of the shooting, George Zimmerman had exercised all reasonable options to retreat or otherwise escape from a confrontation with Trayvon Martin without use of deadly force, and if, despite such attempts, he was still in danger of death or severe bodily injury from Trayvon Martin, then his use of deadly force against Trayvon Martin was lawfully justified and you must acquit without regard for how the confrontation began."
If the jury isn't informed that self-defense statutes explicitly allow self-defense even by an initial aggressor provided the above conditions are met, they might figure that George played some role in the initial confrontation and should be punished for that.