<p>
And this is significantly different than what I said how? For this case? In this sort of case there are really only two possible stories - what the defense says, and what the prosecution says. If they “buy the defense’s story” then they are not certain “the prosecution’s story is correct”, and vice versa.</p>
<p>I actually think the jury will wait and will deliberate on the evidence.</p>
<p>If there’s one thing I’ve noticed, it’s that Jury members really do only take into account the evidence presented.</p>
<p>Look at the Casey Anthony case? Based on the trial? There was reasonable doubt. Based on what we saw outside the trial? Maybe not. But, they decided based on the evidence they received.</p>
<p>Or the most recent crazy lady, whose name I cannot recall, when they couldn’t decide on the death penalty. </p>
<p>I think juries in these kinds of cases really take this seriously.</p>
<p>I’m guessing, regardless of what I think, that Zimmerman will either get a manslaughter or acquittal. If the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the law really allows him to stalk the kid with a gun and then still kill him when he is confronted and claim self defense, I imagine there will be reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>I just don’t agree with the law in this case.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>"… you already seem to have your mind made up."</p>
<p>Mine is. I think this is a tragedy for all involved. If there’s a silver lining, and I hope there is, may it be that the citizens of Seminole County come to believe that the Justice System in their country is competent, and fair to all. If that comes to pass, perhaps an exonerated GZ can live out his life without fear. Conversely, if GZ is convicted, may County residents believe that the verdict was based on a fair assessment of the presented evidence.</p>
<p>^^ Thanks, kluge. Another voice of reason. I have been posting information derived from primary sources all through this thread. </p>
<p>The Sanford PD had a very bad history of racism. The man who was Chief the night that Trayvon was killed, Chief Lee, had not been on the job long. He’d been brought in after the department was purged of at least some of the bad apples. He ended up losing his job.</p>
<p>Agree…this is not the first time I have been glad to see calmom on a thread. I wish I could be a calmermom sometimes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JonoWono, you are completely wrong on this. If the prosecution can convince the jurors that GZ was “gunning” for TM or any convenient target, the rest will fall into place for them. He could have avoided his fear of “grave bodily injury” by not being a dumba** and staying in his car as instructed.</p>
<p>
In those two cases I agree with you. Actually, in general, I guess you’re probably right. Didn’t they acquit Robert Blake? That was a reasonable outcome. Same with Michael Jackson, although lots of external opinion was that he was guilty. OJ? Well, I’ll stop here.</p>
<p>^ I remember watching the OJ trial. When the verdict came down everyone that I worked with crowded around a little TV in the lunch room. We were all in shock he was found not guilty…</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>The pattern jury charge does not define “provoke” or “provocation”. That is going to come out of the Fla case law and possibly treatises.</p>
<p>A black attorney who used to be a prosecutor made this comment tonight. If every single fact was the same concerning what happened that evening in Sanford (skittles, tea everything), except that TM’s fingerprints when run through the system showed he’d been the rapist back where and when he was living at his mom’s place in an open case, there would have been no prosecution of GZ.</p>
<p>What do you all think?</p>
<p>well there almost was no arrest let alone prosecution of GZ without ANY criminal background of TM, so in a sense I could see that. It is still very sad.</p>
<p>"(citing the laughably John Lott as support for more guns in the community simply confirms that.)"</p>
<p>What is laughable about John Lott?</p>
<p>Is there an open case that they think TM is involved in? or is this just one of those what if’s where some people think that if a person killed was suspected in a crime well then that’s one less criminal the court has to deal with?</p>
<p>Anyway . I’m not sure if he would have been arrested or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s is now claiming provocation? I thought he was going to invoke self-defense.</p>
<p>Generally judges are cautious about trying to supplement pattern jury instruction with more “definitions” – if a word is not “defined” in an instruction, it’s generally because the word is meant in its ordinary sense, and it within the province of the jury to make a factual determination as to whether the words apply.</p>
<p>No, there is NO open case and NO evidence that TM had committed any crime. However, there is some evidence that GZ was predisposed to profiling or targeting black males (none of whom turned out to be criminals).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[New</a> Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know | TIME.com](<a href=“http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/18/new-trayvon-martin-evidence-10-things-you-should-know/]New”>New Trayvon Martin Evidence: 10 Things You Should Know | TIME.com)</p>
<p>How it differs, cosmic, is this: After the prosecution finishes, if the jury doesn’t completely buy their case, beyond any reasonable doubt then it is over regardless whether the jury completely believes the defense or not.
The prosecution has to prove it could have happened only 1 way; the defense only has to show it may have happened another way(s). The jury can be skeptical of the defense and still vote not guilty; but they must absolutely be convinced by the prosecution to vote guilty.</p>
<p>So, since we have some people here who actually understand how the law works, I’d like to ask if it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was in mortal danger, or if it is up to the defense to prove self-defense?</p>
<p>We’ve had two separate opinions on this, and I suspect this is the key to the outcome.</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>The portion of the Fla. jury charge you posted has the situation where the prosecution wants to show self defense is not available to GZ because he was “the aggressor.” Provocation is part of the proof to knock out self defense.</p>
<p>The case law defines the statutory words and my original post shows that there is some Fla. case law that would not allow a finding of “provocation” to pass muster on appeal if it was only following someone while armed.</p>
<p>Sally, I guess you forgot to paste the rest:</p>
<p>“Investigator Bill Perkins recorded a portion of the conversation and it was placed on a compact disc and submitted as evidence. However, the information she gave has not been corroborated and police have not located anyone who will. They also still have not identified the woman.”</p>
<p>not an atty, but I do not believe it is up to the prosecution to prove GZ was in mortal danger. In fact, if they did, it would bolster the case for the defense.
The claim for self-defense as I understand it(referring to mortal danger) is that GZ at that moment, must have believed he was in mortal danger.
With that in mind, one of the things the prosecution wants to convince the jury of is that GZ did not believe he was in mortal danger. That would eliminate a defense of self-defense.
For the defense, they don’t have to prove GZ was in mortal danger, but they want to show that he believed he was.</p>
<p>poetgrl–</p>
<p>the prosecution in Florida has to disprove self defense and one way to do it is the proof of provocation that calmom and I are discussing. The Florida appellate case I cited earlier would make the prosecution have to prove the GZ did much more than follow and confront TM to prove provocation to disprove self defense in the fight and shooting.</p>
<p>yes, that’s what I understood, that if GZ initiated the altercation that he could not then claim self defense.</p>