Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

Happens all the time.  Members of a jury debate with each other over what they think happened, and negotiate to a middle ground (such as manslaughter).  Technically not correct, but that's our system.

You're right; in a negotiation circumstance, that's a definite possibility.

It just seems like (strictly speaking) if the jury was sufficiently convinced that it was not self-defense, there would be enough malice there to jump straight to murder.

[Pappy13]

If they don't find that it's self-defense, not sure how it can be manslaughter and not murder.

Now that I think about it, that's actually a good point that I'm not sure I fully understand how the law works, so let me ask a hypothetical.

Hypothetical:

1) A man is accused of a crime.
2) The man is tried and the jury deliberates.
3) During deliberations the jury decides that they don't believe either the prosecution's case nor the defense's case. They believe that a 3rd scenario exists which was not argued by either side is actually the most likely scenario.
4) That third scenario if it is correct would make the man not guilty.

Question: What should the verdict of the jury be in that case? Guilty or not guilty?

I'd have to assume not guilty since the prosecution has not made their case even though I don't believe the defense's case either. What do you think?

Now what if I change the hypothetical to be that the third scenario that the jury believes to be correct would make the man guilty? This is where I think I'd need some direction. If the prosecution has not proven their case to me, but I believe the man to be guilty in a way that was not argued by the prosecution, should I return a verdict of guilty?

[Spider-Dan]

You can only convict on counts that are brought.  So if there's some lesser count (e.g. manslaughter), you could convict of that.

Still, by law, you would have to believe that the prosecution has proven manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt.  In this case, I'm not sure how they could prove manslaughter (i.e. disprove self-defense) without simultaneously proving enough malice to bypass manslaughter and go straight to murder.  (Unless, as masterfins said, the jury negotiates internally for a compromise.)

[Phishfan]

Now that I think about it, that's actually a good point that I'm not sure I fully understand how the law works, so let me ask a hypothetical.

Hypothetical:

1) A man is accused of a crime.
2) The man is tried and the jury deliberates.
3) During deliberations the jury decides that they don't believe either the prosecution's case nor the defense's case. They believe that a 3rd scenario exists which was not argued by either side is actually the most likely scenario.
4) That third scenario if it is correct would make the man not guilty.

Question: What should the verdict of the jury be in that case? Guilty or not guilty?

I'd have to assume not guilty since the prosecution has not made their case even though I don't believe the defense's case either. What do you think?

Now what if I change the hypothetical to be that the third scenario that the jury believes to be correct would make the man guilty? This is where I think I'd need some direction. If the prosecution has not proven their case to me, but I believe the man to be guilty in a way that was not argued by the prosecution, should I return a verdict of guilty?

Just see the Casey Anthony trial. I don't think anyone bought into her defense but they didn't have evidence for the prosecution either.

You cannot send a guilty verdict if the prosecution does not prove their case. This is cut and dry. You can't imagine scenarios. You have to use the evidence in court.

[Phishfan]

In this case, I'm not sure how they could prove manslaughter (i.e. disprove self-defense) without simultaneously proving enough malice to bypass manslaughter and go straight to murder.  (Unless, as masterfins said, the jury negotiates internally for a compromise.)

I've already explained it and you keep ignoring it. The specific language that defines Murder 2. They have to provide Zimmerman acted in "ill-will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" among other things. The defense has been throwing these specific words around at various times and witnesses have not been agreeing that these words were an accurate description.

The prosecution's only witness who could help to show any evidence of this sort of behavior is less credible than Zimmerman (she was caught in lies regarding her age, her name, etc.).

[Spider-Dan]

I've already explained it and you keep ignoring it. The specific language that defines Murder 2. They have to provide Zimmerman acted in "ill-will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" among other things.

You mean something like saying "these assholes, they always get away"?  That certainly doesn't indicate positive or even neutral intent.

The prosecution's only witness who could help to show any evidence of this sort of behavior is less credible than Zimmerman (she was caught in lies regarding her age, her name, etc.).

I don't see how a teenager lying about trivia makes her less credible than Zimmerman, who has lied about facts directly relevant to the case (self-defense law classes?  head slammed into the sidewalk dozens of times?).

[Phishfan]

Using a false name and age is trivial?

[Spider-Dan]

Her name could be Appleseed Moonbeam and she could be 39 years old.  It is irrelevant to the case, and therefore trivia.

The only thing it speaks to is her credibility (and it's fair to say that hurts her).  However, Zimmerman lied about things that not only impacted his credibility, but also substantially impact the facts of the case (in his favor, mind you).  Jeantel's name and age do nothing to help or hurt the case.

[Landshark]

Her name could be Appleseed Moonbeam and she could be 39 years old.  It is irrelevant to the case, and therefore trivia.

The only thing it speaks to is her credibility (and it's fair to say that hurts her).  However, Zimmerman lied about things that not only impacted his credibility, but also substantially impact the facts of the case (in his favor, mind you).  Jeantel's name and age do nothing to help or hurt the case.

Wrong. Because if she is the state's star witness and she is proven not to be a credible source, it would help Zimmerman, don't ya think?

[Phishfan]

Spider, I'll give you Zimmerman has some damaged credibility also. His claim of lack of knowledge of self defense is not good. I will say that some of his accounts such as number of hits etc. can be attributed to the trauma of the situation rather than outright lies though. Also, I think common sense can show anyone that it was more than two hits which one witness tried to claim the injuries were consistent with. Think about the time frame those screams came out on the 911 call. The person heard screams, went to their phone, and then there were several more audible screams. That timeframe was not filled with no violence.

[Spider-Dan]

I will say that some of his accounts such as number of hits etc. can be attributed to the trauma of the situation rather than outright lies though. Also, I think common sense can show anyone that it was more than two hits which one witness tried to claim the injuries were consistent with.

If you ask me, it's pretty straightforward:

- Zimmerman was punched in the face many times
- A few of those punches resulted in Zimmerman's head hitting the ground, causing very minor cuts to the back of his head
- Based on his extensive (and recent) knowledge of Florida law on this topic, Zimmerman knew that "repeatedly punched me in the face" would not have the same legal gravity as "repeatedly slammed my head into the sidewalk"
- Zimmerman simply replaced the repeated punches to the face (which knocked his head back) with Martin grabbing his head and repeatedly driving it into the concrete, without realizing that doing that dozens of times would cause much more serious injuries than the ones he sustained

[Pappy13]

If you ask me, it's pretty straightforward:

- Zimmerman was punched in the face many times
- A few of those punches resulted in Zimmerman's head hitting the ground, causing very minor cuts to the back of his head
- Based on his extensive (and recent) knowledge of Florida law on this topic, Zimmerman knew that "repeatedly punched me in the face" would not have the same legal gravity as "repeatedly slammed my head into the sidewalk"
- Zimmerman simply replaced the repeated punches to the face (which knocked his head back) with Martin grabbing his head and repeatedly driving it into the concrete, without realizing that doing that dozens of times would cause much more serious injuries than the ones he sustained

Or having your head slammed into the ground 25 times only produces 2 cuts and Zimmerman was incorrect in thinking he was actually on the sidewalk instead of the ground.

Or how about Zimmerman was punched 25 times and thought his head hit the sidewalk hard each time, but his head only hit the sidewalk with enough force to cause the 2 cuts a couple times. The rest of the blows were merely incidental contact with the concrete.

Those are 2 very plausible explanations in my opinion how Zimmerman could have thought his head was slammed onto the concrete 25 times but would have caused the injuries that he had. He wouldn't have had to lie at all and yet his statement would have been incorrect in both circumstances. I really don't understand your logic that Zimmerman has to be either stating facts or lieing. He could simply be mistaken especially given the fact that he may have been fighting off 25 punches at the time it was happening.

[EDGECRUSHER]

An expert on bullet wounds today testified that Martin was on top when he was shot. Don't know if this is new news or not.

Is there any way Zimmerman is convicted of anything substantial here? I am not hearing of any concrete evidence that will send him to jail for the rest of his life.

[Spider-Dan]

Or how about Zimmerman was punched 25 times and thought his head hit the sidewalk hard each time, but his head only hit the sidewalk with enough force to cause the 2 cuts a couple times. The rest of the blows were merely incidental contact with the concrete.

To be clear, this is (approximately) what I think did happen.  And this would directly contradict Zimmerman's statements.

Zimmerman didn't say that he got punched in the face and his head hit the ground (or sidewalk, or concrete).  He said that Martin grabbed his head and repeatedly slammed it into the ground/sidewalk/concrete.  You don't "mistake" someone punching you in the face for someone grabbing and controlling your head.

[Pappy13]

To be clear, this is (approximately) what I think did happen.  And this would directly contradict Zimmerman's statements.

Zimmerman didn't say that he got punched in the face and his head hit the ground (or sidewalk, or concrete).  He said that Martin grabbed his head and repeatedly slammed it into the ground/sidewalk/concrete.  You don't "mistake" someone punching you in the face for someone grabbing and controlling your head.

Ah, my bad, like I said I have not watched the trial, so I don't know what Martin actually said in the police interview. That does seem to be inconsistent with what the eyewitnesses have said. It will be interesting to see if Martin changes his story in direct testimony if he does testify.