Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[bsmooth]

^^^ That is a bit of a slipperly slop though. I went down an isle in the store the other day and I didn't even need to be on that isle because I saw a cute girl. That isn't illegal. The state would need to prove Zimmerman actually did something other than walking.

But unlike Zimmerman, Martin did not have multiple instances of violence towards others, nor was not arrested and pled out. The defense has to prove Martin did something besides try and walk home after going to the store.

[CF DolFan]

The defense has to prove Martin did something besides try and walk home after going to the store.

I thought the prosecution is the one that has to "prove" it was murder?

[Phishfan]

Exactly CF. The defense doesn't have any burden of proof in the US court system. I'm not sure what bsmooth was thinking with that.

[Pappy13]

^^But this would imply that you are innocent until proven guilty in our courts. That runs completely contradictory to the media, so that can't be right. 

[Phishfan]

Well in the court of public opinion, everyone is guilty.

[Landshark]

Exactly CF. The defense doesn't have any burden of proof in the US court system. I'm not sure what bsmooth was thinking with that.

They don't have the burden of proof.  Technically the defense doesn't have to do anything.  But it would be wise for them to discredit the evidence against Zimmerman.  Proving Martin was up to no good that night would do just that.

[Pappy13]

They don't have the burden of proof.  Technically the defense doesn't have to do anything.  But it would be wise for them to discredit the evidence against Zimmerman.  Proving Martin was up to no good that night would do just that.

I don't really see how that helps his case since what they really would like to prove is that Zimmerman was defending himself. Even if Martin was attempting to break into a home that's no reason for Zimmerman to try to stop him and it's also no reason for Martin to do anything but flee from Zimmerman. How does that help his case?

If I'm the defense the only "evidence" I'm bringing up is if there is evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself. I would think the 911 calls where you can hear someone screaming for help would be the more likely "evidence" that the trial would center on since whomever was screaming for help was most likely acting in self defense and that's really what is on trial here.

[Dave Gray]

I actually agree with Pappy.  Even if Trayvon is a scumbag, it doesn't give Zimmerman any more right to kill him.  I think that introducing all of these other things only helps the prosecution's narrative.  As the defense, you're not trying to make the case that Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was bad.  It was that he killed him because he had to in order to protect his own life.

[Phishfan]

I don't think the idea of the defense wanting to bring this stuff up playes in line with some of this discussion. I don't think it is to say simply Martin is bad. I think they are trying to raise reasonable doubt. If you know that Martin had a propensity for violence it helps to raise reasonable doubt because he could have very well been the agressor. It helps to link to their position that Martin started the agressive behavior.

[SCFinfan]

I actually agree with Pappy.  Even if Trayvon is a scumbag, it doesn't give Zimmerman any more right to kill him.  I think that introducing all of these other things only helps the prosecution's narrative.  As the defense, you're not trying to make the case that Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was bad.  It was that he killed him because he had to in order to protect his own life.

You're forgetting something: it's easier to convict someone who the jury hates (even if the facts aren't terrible) and it's easier to lose a conviction if the jury likes someone (even if the facts are pretty damning).

If the jury hates Trayvon, then, even if the facts against Zim are pretty bad, that'll weigh in Zimmerman's favor. If the jury hates Zim, then, they'll likely convict him, even if the facts against him are only mediocre.

Two points: One, the prosecution can't bring up past bad acts, generally. They can't have someone come in and say that Zimmerman was a thief and liar. However, they can bring in "pattern" evidence. So, if he has a pattern of violent acts... that may be able to come in. The trouble is, if the defense puts up some testimony that Zim's a good guy, and wouldn't hurt someone, then, that opens the door for the prosecution to respond.

Two: I would be really interested to see if anyone makes a Batson motion in this case. If someone strikes a juror on the basis of race or gender, and can't give a race- or gender-neutral reason for the strike (negative law enforcement contacts, bad guy, appears unable to focus, blah, blah, blah) then, they lose that strike and the juror they struck can be empanelled. That'll be a show, I promise you, given the racial overtones of this case.

My bet: end of the day, unless Zimmerman has some very strong evidence that leads people to believe that he shot the kid because he was being attacked (and he might, given his scarred up face on the night of the killing) the jury will convict on a lesser included offense than the one charged. Maybe manslaughter or something.

[Pappy13]

There's one other thing to consider when talking about bringing up "character" evidence.

Jury's tend to be more sympathetic to a corpse then to a defendant. If the defense brings up character issues about Trayvon, then the state will definately bring up character issues about Zimmerman. Generally speaking it's bad form trying to bring up character issues on a dead guy, just looks like you are spitting on his grave. Defendants on the other hand, especially those that are going to be testifying in front of the jurors, tend to get no such sympathy. Makes it looks like the facts don't support his case.

I still say that if I'm Zimmerman's lawyer, I don't want ANY character issues being brought up at trial about either of them.

Having said that, I don't think a toxicology report is bringing up "character" evidence. I think if you can prove diminished capacity that's a completely seperate issue that I would persue. "He's not a bad guy, he just was on this drug which clouded his judgement".

[Dave Gray]

I think Zimmerman's best defense is not to try and question Treyvon, but stick very much to facts.  Just keep insistent that Treyvon was probably a very nice kid, but from the limited interaction we had, he attacked me for whatever reason, I feared for my life because he was on top of me pummeling me, and I responded.

Trying to badmouth Treyvon may only add fuel to the fire about the preconceived ideas Zimmerman had.

[Phishfan]

^^^ I have to say I agree for the most part. The only way I would want to get into that realm is if there were clear cut cases of agression on Martin's part. A school suspension for pot would sound petty. School records showing repeated fighting may be a bit more on target.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Exactly CF. The defense doesn't have any burden of proof in the US court system. I'm not sure what bsmooth was thinking with that.

That is true to a point.  The prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the crime. 

BUT (and this is significant in this case) for an affirmative defense -- such as self-defense, insanity, involuntary intoxication etc.  The burden shifts to the defense. 

[bsmooth]

That is true to a point.  The prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the crime. 

BUT (and this is significant in this case) for an affirmative defense -- such as self-defense, insanity, involuntary intoxication etc.  The burden shifts to the defense. 

Exactly. They are claiming he had no choice bu to use deadly force. That is an issue the defense must establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman has claimed self defense since day one.