Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[CF DolFan]

^^^ Not in all state's. Florida does not require a person to try to flee, in some other states they do. A defendant can actually need to prove they tried to avoid a situation to win a self defense case.

That aside, isn;t anyone else humored in the fact that the "protests" are actually happening elsewhere? Life is the same as usual here in good ole sunny FL. If you don't live here you really don;t need to be concerned with how we govern ourselves.

the defendant has to "prove" he tried to evade or the prosecution has to "prove" he didn't? Thats a huge difference!!

[Pappy13]

Pappy, I can respect your perception of the Hannity interview. However, mine is different. If you take that interview at face value, then fine. Then you put it up against the 911 tape & the police interviews and the holes are there. Its not about the EXACT number of times he was hit or fell to the ground.

Well earlier Spider and I were discussing this and Spider said that Zimmerman said that Martin used 2 hands to grab Zimmerman's head to smash it 25 times against the sidewalk or ground. I'm not sure where exactly he got that number or that Zimmerman said that Martin controlled his head, but it wasn't from the Hannity interview. Spider also mentioned that grabbing his head and smashing it into the ground was different from being punched in the face and his head hitting the ground which I agreed with him on, but then in the interview Zimmerman never mentions Martin grabbing his head, he simply mentions it being smashed into the ground, which I think is much more in line with what I was thinking happened in that he was being hit in the face and his head was hitting the ground. Spider even mentioned that he thought that's approximately what happened and that seems to agree with what Zimmerman was saying in the Hannity interview. That may be different from the police interviews, I don't know, but that's why I mentioned it.

Hannity asked him about Trayvon running away. GZ went of his way to explain that Trayvon all of the sudden, wasn't running. He went as far as to say "he was skipping".

I thought Zimmerman tried to explain that. On the 911 call Zimmerman said that Martin was "running", but then in the Hannity interview he said that Martin was not running. Hannity asked him to explain it and basically Zimmerman said that when he said he was running he really wasn't, he was merely moving away from him quickly. When Hannity pressed him on it he said he was skipping. I think what he was trying to say was that when he said that Martin was "running" on the phone to the operator he didn't really mean that Martin was literally running, but rather that he was trying to avoid being followed by Zimmerman and had quickened his pace. At least that's how I took it. It could have been considered conflicting testimony, but I thought it was plausible what he was saying, that he merely meant that Martin was trying to get away, not necessarily that he was running.

Then he went in to say that Trayvon wasn't running in fear. Even Hannity asked him if he knew the difference. GZ's response: he wasn't running. Minor detail. Until you put it up to the 911 tape. Why? That's the precise moment that he got out of the car. Put that up against both police interviews where GZ claims he got out to get an address. One that no one asked him to get. Officer Singleton questioned GZ about that during the 2nd interview, after she heard the 911 tape. GZ maintained he was trying to find an address. One that doesn't coincide with where he was parked. But puts him in the area of the crime. To me, that would reasonably raise questions about his credibility.

The way I took that was that GZ didn't think that Trayvon was running away from him in fear, merely trying to avoid being followed. GZ got out of his car at that point to follow him. Yeah, I know that Zimmerman says he wasn't following Martin, well I think that's pretty much not the truth. He was following him. First in his car and then on foot when Martin went behind the houses. That part of his story I do not believe and I do not find credible, so let me amend my earlier statement that I found it completely credible. I didn't find this statement that he wasn't following Martin to be credible. Other than that statement I found it credible.

At that point, he goes from observing to pursuing. That's when Trayvon's life was put at risk.

I can't agree with you here. Just like Hannity said, if Zimmerman couldn't tell the difference between someone running in fear and someone running to avoid being followed, then Martin couldn't tell whether Zimmerman went from following to persuing. Persuing is an assumption that you are trying to "catch" them. Zimmerman could have easily just been trying to maintain visual contact with him. You can't have it both ways. Either we know whether or not Trayvon was running out of "fear" and we know if Zimmerman was "persuing" or we don't. In my opinion we don't know if either of those things are true are not.

He knows that he can't sound like an aggressor. So, if Trayvon his skipping away at the time he's looking for an address. How does that sound like an aggressor? It doesn't. That's why he stuck to "looking for an address". His actions doesn't match with his words. Especially when he was asked, "Are you following him?" Not before he got out of the car. Right after he got out of the car.

I agree in this regard. I don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin, but the rest of his story is credible and whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin is really not the key point, the key point is whether or not Zimmerman was trying to "catch" Martin and that we just don't know.

If GZ had taken the stand, he would have to account for that. With that said, I don't believe he should've been forced to take the stand (5th Amendment). But it would've gone a long way to prove that he wasn't some guy out for a walk, who got viciously attacked.

I think that's changing GZ's story quite a bit. Zimmerman makes it pretty clear that he was trying to keep track of Martin's whereabouts till the police got there. I don't think there's any question about that. Zimmerman tried to maintain that he wasn't following Martin, but I think we all know that's pretty flimsy, he pretty much had to be following him to keep track of him. On the other hand it's completely plausible that GZ was only following Martin to let the police know where he was once they got there, not to confront Martin. The 911 tape and the Hannity interview did nothing to convince me that he was lieing about that.

[Pappy13]

the defendant has to "prove" he tried to evade or the prosecution has to "prove" he didn't? Thats a huge difference!!

Only if he's claiming "stand your ground" applies. GZ wasn't claiming that. He claimed he was attacked without warning after losing sight of Martin and never had the opportunity to flee once he felt threatened.

[CF DolFan]

Pappy... He was referring to different states and not GZ although someone might want to tell Eric Holder. This is another " we have to do something because Al said so" moment.

CNN Breaking News
Attorney General Eric Holder called for doing away with "stand your ground" self-defense laws, telling the NAACP the statutes "sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods" and allow "violent situations to escalate in public

[Pappy13]

Pappy... He was referring to different states and not GZ

Well I know that he was referring to different states laws, but I thought the hypothetical was "if this case had been tried in another state". If that was the case it still wouldn't have mattered because GZ never made a "stand your ground" claim. His only claim is self defense which doesn't have the "make an attempt to flee" part to it in any state that only applies to the "stand your ground", at least that's my understanding. In either case GZ said he never had the opportunity to flee therefore how could he have made the attempt?

[Spider-Dan]

the defendant has to "prove" he tried to evade or the prosecution has to "prove" he didn't? Thats a huge difference!!

Yes, it is.

I'll defer to SCFinFan on this, but my understanding is that an affirmative defense (e.g. self defense) normally puts the burden of proof on the defendant under common law; this is because they are not attempting to simply disprove the facts stated by the prosecution, but instead asserting their own facts (i.e. claims that the prosecution is not making).  However, in some jurisdictions like Florida and New York, you can claim self-defense without the burden of proof being shifted to you.

So inside Florida, Zimmerman's team only has to establish doubt in the jury's mind about the prosecution's version of events to avoid conviction.  In another state, it would be reversed; the prosecution would only have to cast doubt on Zimmerman's version of events to secure a conviction (as Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin).

None of the above has anything to do with Stand Your Ground.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy... He was referring to different states and not GZ although someone might want to tell Eric Holder. This is another " we have to do something because Al said so" moment.

CNN Breaking News
Attorney General Eric Holder called for doing away with "stand your ground" self-defense laws, telling the NAACP the statutes "sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods" and allow "violent situations to escalate in public

They certainly increase the number of homicides, though one might argue that is a feature and not a bug.

[Phishfan]

I understand the self defense laws the same as Spider. In some states, the defendent has to actually show that they tried to flee.

Pappy, I think you are a bit confused and it has me a bit confused on how to respond. Claiming self defense in a state that does not observe Stand Your Ground basically means you have to prove you attempted to flee. If your state observes Stand Your Ground, then you have no responsibility to flee. Is that clear as mud?

Also, at least in Florida, claiming a Stand Your Ground defense is a hearing conducted with only the Judge who is the single deciding factor. In a case like this one it was probably wiser to have six people ruling on the reasonable doubt of a self defense motion than one person ruliong on Stand Your Ground. I amnot sure what bearing a negative response by the judge would have had on any prosecution or defense strategies though.

[Spider-Dan]

Phishfan, I believe that a denied SYG hearing would have still went to the normal criminal trial, but that the outcome of said hearing would be on the record and could have been used against Zimmerman in the criminal (and possibly civil) trial.

Apparently, Zimmerman's team did not think it was worth the risk, and they were proven correct.

[Spider-Dan]

Well earlier Spider and I were discussing this and Spider said that Zimmerman said that Martin used 2 hands to grab Zimmerman's head to smash it 25 times against the sidewalk or ground. I'm not sure where exactly he got that number or that Zimmerman said that Martin controlled his head, but it wasn't from the Hannity interview. Spider also mentioned that grabbing his head and smashing it into the ground was different from being punched in the face and his head hitting the ground which I agreed with him on, but then in the interview Zimmerman never mentions Martin grabbing his head, he simply mentions it being smashed into the ground, which I think is much more in line with what I was thinking happened in that he was being hit in the face and his head was hitting the ground.

Here's some of the stuff that led me to that conclusion (emphasis added):

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-attacked-me/

In an initial interview with police following the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman described a life-and-death struggle that began when the youth "jumped out from the bushes."

Zimmerman said Martin punched him repeatedly in the face. "I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe."

He said Martin "grabbed my head and started hitting it in the sidewalk."

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/29/witnesses-offer-views-of-fatal-fight.html

"In opening statements, defense attorney Don West told the court, 'Trayvon Martin armed himself with the concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman’s head. … That is a deadly weapon.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all

"Mr. Guy also underscored, as the chief prosecutor had done the day before, inconsistencies in Mr. Zimmerman’s statements to the police and in a television interview with Sean Hannity. He lied, Mr. Guy said, and exaggerated. How could Mr. Zimmerman’s skull have hit concrete 25 times, as he said, and sustain so few injuries?"

[Pappy13]

Pappy, I think you are a bit confused and it has me a bit confused on how to respond.

That's certainly possible.

Claiming self defense in a state that does not observe Stand Your Ground basically means you have to prove you attempted to flee.

Even if you have no chance? If you are surprised by the attack as Zimmerman has said that he was and never had a chance to flee you do not have to show you attempted to flee, but you can still claim self defense. Zimmerman had a chance to claim "Stand your ground" and didn't, so in effect his defense was the same as it could have been if he would have been tried in another state that did not have the "Stand your ground" law. Correct or am I missing something?

It's my understanding that the "stand your ground law" was never brought up at trial. Essentially that means the trial went exactly the same as it could have gone in a state that did not have the "stand your ground" law. Correct?

[bsmooth]

That's certainly possible.
Even if you have no chance? If you are surprised by the attack as Zimmerman has said that he was and never had a chance to flee you do not have to show you attempted to flee, but you can still claim self defense. Zimmerman had a chance to claim "Stand your ground" and didn't, so in effect his defense was the same as it could have been if he would have been tried in another state that did not have the "Stand your ground" law. Correct or am I missing something?

It's my understanding that the "stand your ground law" was never brought up at trial. Essentially that means the trial went exactly the same as it could have gone in a state that did not have the "stand your ground" law. Correct?

But it would have been an affirmed defense and put the onus on the defense.

[Pappy13]

But it would have been an affirmed defense and put the onus on the defense.

Possibly. Do all the states agree on this or is it only the states with "stand your ground" laws that put the onus on the prosecution? If that's true, then you are right that may have changed how they defended Zimmerman, but whether or not the state had a "Stand your ground" law would not have mattered.

[SCFinfan]

I'll defer to SCFinFan on this, but my understanding is that an affirmative defense (e.g. self defense) normally puts the burden of proof on the defendant under common law; this is because they are not attempting to simply disprove the facts stated by the prosecution, but instead asserting their own facts (i.e. claims that the prosecution is not making).  However, in some jurisdictions like Florida and New York, you can claim self-defense without the burden of proof being shifted to you.

So inside Florida, Zimmerman's team only has to establish doubt in the jury's mind about the prosecution's version of events to avoid conviction.  In another state, it would be reversed; the prosecution would only have to cast doubt on Zimmerman's version of events to secure a conviction (as Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin).

You are correct. Generally, an affirmative defense needs to have some proof put behind it by its proponent. This is - to the best of my knowledge - always true in civil matters. However, in criminal matters, it varies from state to state, and even w/in the differing bits of certain motion hearings themselves. I was looking into Jackson v. Denno hearings the other day for a matter I have coming up, and I found this:

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=31901

As it indicates, at least in NY, the burden in general shifts back and forth ("fluctuates" is the term this paper uses) and for differing factors w/in the hearing itself burdens fall upon different parties.

(Also, as a side note, anyone who reads the above link's stuff and is puzzled - now you know why Jeremy Bentham considered the law in his day a "demon of chicane.")

So - again, a lawyer answer: it depends.

I think you are again correct regarding affirmative defenses at common law - yes, the proponent of the affirmative defense must prove the claims their making. One issue though: common law can always be modified by the absolute power of the state to legislate in that area, unless and until the state or fed constitution deems such modifications unconstitutional. So - yes, true, but it doesn't mean anything significant in the long run b/c states can, do, and should (in their own estimation, at least) change things whenever they feel like that need/want to, to better serve their citizens. Or whatever.

Anyway, so, Florida's laws are a little different. Ok. But, again - aren't you generally in favor of robust protections of the accused? If again your answer is no, consider: the state has a lot of power. It has labs, experts, vehicles, money, and people that the defense, in general, just doesn't have. This is the reason the entire burden to prove the matter is on the state. Given that - and given the difficulty many defendants have in obtaining quality counsel to defend them in serious felony matters - why is it bad that the state generously gives defendants an extra protection in this regard? Moreover, think of things three-dimensionally: the state wants *good* convictions that can't be overturned on a PCR (not discussing appeals here, talking something totally different). PCR is generally when some idiot defense counsel screws up, fails at his job, and then falls on his sword later to save his guy. Ok, fine, but knowing this - why not take it out of the realm of possibility for a PCR and give it to the state? If Zim was convicted here, no PCR could've resulted years down the line where Don West puts on a huge ridic show and says, "Oh, I totally forgot to tell the jury about [X] which was materially related to my client's self-defense claim and could've altered the whole trial and probably would've swayed the jury and oh noes!" Never would've happened given Florida's foresight. Never will happen in future cases where the state prevails, precisely b/c of the burden shift.

Just goes to show - there's more to it than just rights and what happens in the courtroom. In a sense, shifting the burden to the state may allow the state to save massive dollars by lessening the amount of ridiculous but sadly necessary PCR hearings in the future. Not a perfect justification - but something interesting to think about, surely.

[phinphan]

I wish people would let this go. First it was hispanic on black not white on black.
But that dose not work for the black community so they are using any means they can to keep this going. And the press is feeding the fire by showing images of travon at twelve and calling it white on black. I put this out there and think about it because it is the complete opposite of what the prosecution tried to do. What do you think the people would have said had the Dense for Casey Anthony tried to put pictures of her at twelve years old out their. Same difference.
You want to make this Black on White how about the five black teen thugs who carjacked a white man and shot and killed him. The girl was seventeen, guess what the state calls her. Its not a child they are trying her as an adult. The prosecution dosent care about right and wrong no more it is all about wins and loses. And they will cheat to get the wins at peoples expence. The special prosecuter brought in to try this case fired the guy who released all the information from trayvons phone you know the jewlery on the bed the hand holding a gun the underage naked pics of girls the pot plants. This guy has probably already killed people he was a thug. But if you want to rant and rave do it for the innocent guy drug out of his car and shot by more thugs.