Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Phishfan]

If Zimmerman had to prove that he was justified in killing Martin, the entire nature of the trial is changed.  He almost certainly would have had to take the stand, at a very minimum.

No he would not. The prosecution themselves played video after video of his police interviews. His story was already told.

[Pappy13]

^^Agree with Phishfan here. I don't think it would have changed whether or not Martin testified.

I'm also not sure that had Zimmerman testified that the defense would have been able to tear his story to shreds like they have portrayed in the media. I actually went back after the trial and watched the Hannity interview with Zimmerman and I must say that I found his story to be completely credible. He may not have remembered the events EXACTLY as they happened, but I think his account of the events was credible. No where in that interview did he say that Martin grabbed his head with both hands and slammed it to the pavement 25 times. I'm not sure where that testimony came from, it may have come from the police interrogation. Now Sean Hannity wasn't cross examining Zimmerman, I'm sure the defense would have done a decent job of poking holes in his story, but I don't think it would have been anywhere close to the portrayal that the prosecution has maintained that they were praying for Zimmerman to testify. They might have been praying for it, but I'm no where near as confident it would have made a bit of difference in the outcome of the trial.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think Zimmerman would have been content to let police interviews tell his story to the jury if he had to prove his justification.

But maybe SCFinFan is a better judge than I.  Is it common for a defendant to not take the stand in a jurisdiction where he must prove his justification for homicide beyond a reasonable doubt?

[SCFinfan]

I don't think Zimmerman would have been content to let police interviews tell his story to the jury if he had to prove his justification.

But maybe SCFinFan is a better judge than I.  Is it common for a defendant to not take the stand in a jurisdiction where he must prove his justification for homicide beyond a reasonable doubt?

Is not common. It just goes to show how weak the case was against him, I think.

[el diablo]

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

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.

[masterfins]

I don't think Zimmerman would have been content to let police interviews tell his story to the jury if he had to prove his justification.

The physical facts and the eyewitness testimony proved his justification, according to the juror who gave an interview yesterday.  If you don't think his attorneys needed to prove his justification for a not guilty verdict, then we weren't watching the same trial.  According to you Spider everything Zimmerman says is a lie, and you have repeatedly made sinister assumptions about what Zimmerman did that night.  Whereas, you give Martin every benefit of the doubt and treat him like a choir boy.  If you showed just a bit of objectivity I might give your views some credence.

[SCFinfan]

How is that relevant to this case?  You're saying that the state would have to prove something that they would have had to prove in this case anyway, right?

If Zimmerman had to prove that he was justified in killing Martin, the entire nature of the trial is changed.  He almost certainly would have had to take the stand, at a very minimum.

My point is just this: Don't start asking to roll back certain protections of defendants. If you do that, you'll get a cascade of such roll-backs. Consider: Miranda's only been around since the 60s, and could've died in the early 2000s in Dickerson. Considering developments like that, and - for example - like Berghuis much more recently, it should be the job of any good liberal (or freedom lover, I guess) to swallow the good w/ the bad and say - hey, if we're giving private citizens more privacy, more protection, more leeway, then good.

To clarify, I am not *personally* in favor of stand your ground laws myself, as they seem to increase death rates when fights happen between people - but, perhaps that is an outlier. Perhaps, once the country gets used to SYG laws, fights/deaths will decrease because people will realize at the outset that, if they enter into combat, deadly force can be used against them w/ impunity in some cases.

[Spider-Dan]

My point is just this: Don't start asking to roll back certain protections of defendants. If you do that, you'll get a cascade of such roll-backs.

I think it's misleading to call that a "roll-back."

Much like Stand Your Ground, Florida law on who bears the burden of proof in a self-defense case (the prosecution) is not in sync with many other states.  And just as I would happily support the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws (which ostensibly protect defendants), I would support the burden of proof in justifiable homicide to be switched to the defendant.

If you admit to killing someone, you should be required to prove that it was justified.  This is not advocacy of a police state; it's holding people accountable for their self-proclaimed actions.

[Spider-Dan]

The physical facts and the eyewitness testimony proved his justification, according to the juror who gave an interview yesterday.  If you don't think his attorneys needed to prove his justification for a not guilty verdict, then we weren't watching the same trial.

By Florida law, it was the prosecution that had to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was not justified.  Zimmerman only had to establish reasonable doubt.

According to you Spider everything Zimmerman says is a lie, and you have repeatedly made sinister assumptions about what Zimmerman did that night.

That's primarily because of the multiple, verifiable lies in Zimmerman's statements.

[SCFinfan]

I think it's misleading to call that a "roll-back."

Much like Stand Your Ground, Florida law on who bears the burden of proof in a self-defense case (the prosecution) is not in sync with many other states.  And just as I would happily support the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws (which ostensibly protect defendants), I would support the burden of proof in justifiable homicide to be switched to the defendant.

If you admit to killing someone, you should be required to prove that it was justified.  This is not advocacy of a police state; it's holding people accountable for their self-proclaimed actions.

I don't know that it's that weird or unusual, as you say - for example, in a Blair hearing, which we have to determine mental competency up here in SC, after there's prima facie evidence of the person's non-competence, the burden shifts to the state to prove his competence, if that's what it's trying to do.

In addition, in a Batson motion, mere prima facie evidence is enough to shift the burden to the non-movant (almost always the state) to disprove allegations of racial motivations in striking a jury. In other words, when a defense attorney notes I struck a person of protected race/gender from the jury, it becomes my problem to say why I did it. I can flip it around - but it's rare to be able to get the shot to do so!

In a Neil v. Biggers hearing, regarding whether or not a photographic identification of an individual shown to a victim/witness by the state was unduly suggestive of that person's guilt, again, the defense just needs to make the claim, then the state has to rebut - all the weight is really on the state there, despite the claim being made by the defense.

Admittedly, there has to be a showing of evidence first by the defense - but it's an exceptionally low burden, akin to qualifying someone as an expert or entering an original document. De facto, the burden is all on the non-movant, who is normally the state.

Now, I note that these are all case-law/constitutional based privileges, and the SYG law is statutory. But that's ok. The state has every right to provide their citizens w/ additional privacy or rights than the constitution itself grants - they simply cannot give them less than the constitution provides.

Further, while you and I can make these hair-splitting distinctions because it's the world in which we live - I don't think most other people can always make them - and that includes politicians who make the laws themselves.  I would be very careful before we start to cull defendants' rights. It's... too dicey. It really is.

[Spider-Dan]

Now, I note that these are all case-law/constitutional based privileges, and the SYG law is statutory. But that's ok. The state has every right to provide their citizens w/ additional privacy or rights than the constitution itself grants - they simply cannot give them less than the constitution provides.

And that's the problem.  These "additional rights" to defendants have significant negative implications for the people who are killed by them.

You see the shifting of burden of proof (and possibly SYG) as increased civil rights for the defendant; I see them as reduced civil rights for the unarmed.

[SCFinfan]

And that's the problem.  These "additional rights" to defendants have significant negative implications for the people who are killed by them.

You see the shifting of burden of proof (and possibly SYG) as increased civil rights for the defendant; I see them as reduced civil rights for the unarmed.

Whoa - no I do not see them as increased civil rights. I do see them as a problem (however, the problem *could* evaporate, potentially, as the laws settle in). However, they're part of the fabric of so-called "civil rights" for the defendants, and just like w/ other rights those folks get that I don't like/think are a problem, we all need to be careful before you start pulling strands out of the fabric - you could very well end up threadbare quickly.

That said, I disagree w/ your analysis that Florida's SYG's "burden-shifting" to the prosecution is that different from anything else. It's not. I promise. Please believe me - I've lived it.

[masterfins]

By Florida law, it was the prosecution that had to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was not justified.  Zimmerman only had to establish reasonable doubt.

Huh???  By any State's law the prosecution has to prove a crime was committed, i.e. not justified; and in any case the defendant need only establish reasonable doubt.  The defense team went well beyond establishing reasonable doubt, which by law they did not have to, but due to the high profile nature of the case they had to, to avoid a compromised manslaughter conviction.

[Phishfan]

^^^ 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.

[pondwater]

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.

What crime are you referring to?