I’ve been watching the trial of George Zimmerman off and on over the past week and yesterday I caught Sean Hannity discussing it on his radio show. Hannity kept saying that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and, as such, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
Is this accurate? It was my understanding that the burden/standard of proof shifts when a defendant is making an affirmative defense, which I believe Zimmerman to be making when claiming that he shot Martin in self-defense. He does not seem to be denying that he shot Martin, but that he was justified in doing so.
Do I have this right? Or is Hannity right? Or something else entirely?
Please note: I do not intend this thread to rehash arguments about who did what, when, where, and why and what ought to come of it. I’m simply asking a procedural question about how the law works in cases such as this. I offer my appreciation in advance to those who can help us walk this narrow lane.
Hannity is correct. The standard in Florida is reasonable doubt even for justifiable homicide. This team contrary to what I had thought was the case as well.Report
Historically it is the defendant’s burden, so on that you are correct. But in Florida the burden on self-defense is that it may be used to create reasonable doubt, so in the case of Florida, Hannity is correct.Report
Thanks Mark and Will.
With that in mind, how is ANYONE ever convicted of murder there? Save for a sniper or a situation with quality eye witnesses, it seems any suspect can construct a scenario that would at least suggest self defense.Report
Looking at the stats, Florida had 985 murders in 2011 and 1,009 in 2012. They’re listed as “murder” rather than “justifiable homicide”.
So I’m guessing that juries are told that some doubts are reasonable and some doubts are unreasonable.Report
It just seems like any altercation between two folks on an empty street that ends in one’s death would be hard to prosecute in Florida… or harder than elsewhere.
The numbers seem to agree: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/26/christopher-l-smith/sen-chris-smith-claimed-deaths-due-self-defense-fl/Report
I should clarify… the numbers don’t agree that it is harder than elsewhere, only that it is harder since the passage of the SYG law than before.Report
“It just seems like any altercation between two folks on an empty street that ends in one’s death would be hard to prosecute in Florida… or harder than elsewhere.”
So you’re saying that if someone dies then the other person should go to jail no matter what?Report
I should have been more clear.
If we know for a fact that one of the individuals killed the other individual, then it seems like the defendant should have to do more than say, “It was self-defense.”Report
This is where “presumption of innocence” gets all up in our proverbial grills.Report
Well, clearly the person isn’t innocent of killing. And where we go from there… I have no idea. Nor where we should go from there.Report
Because usually in murder there is a strong motive, if you kill someone then take their wallet no jury is going to buy self defense. the laws in Florida aren’t that different than the laws in other states.Report
I second this. If I assert “Greedo fired first” does the prosecution then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greedo fired first? Or do I have to present at least some evidence that Greedo fired first?Report
It seems like Florida law only requires that you offer enough evidence to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I find this problematic. But it means the issue is with the law… and what that law incentivizes people to do.Report
I think the argument that “Dude, he had a gun in his hand, should I have waited for him to fire *BEFORE* I was allowed to fire?” resonated with the right politician.
From what I understand, the SYG laws arose during the spate of carjackings. A guy gets carjacked, shoots the carjacker, then goes on trial… and there’s a small group of vocal folks who say “He got arrested? He should of (sic) gotten a medal!” And that argument resonated as well.Report
But what if he only took out his gun because he saw you with yours?
I understand the basis for SYG laws and can probably agree with them to an extent… but as I understand Florida’s, it seems to go too far.Report
Thunderdome, baby.Report
Well, if a person is carjacking you, they are committing a felony & don’t get to raise self-defense as a defense.
At least, that is the way it supposed to work.
I still haven’t quite figured out exactly where the Florida SYG law goes wrong.Report
Even that isn’t obvious… since it seems one can still claim self-defense in a fight they started, and presumably starting a fight is a felony.
But I was referring to two people meeting in an alley. “Hey! That guy has a gun! Good thing I have mine drawn!” That seems a bit perverse.Report
The Florida SYG law goes wrong in allowing a claim of self-defense to interfere with the investigation of the incident. Also in allowing the nonsensical result that no matter who winds up dead, the survivor has a valid SYG claim.Report
according to this the burden is on the prosecution everywhere but south carolina and ohioReport
Here’s a decent explanation of the history of the rules:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0380.htmReport
Thanks, Mark. So, suffice it to say, it does appear that Florida rule requires that the prosecutors proof Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks! Can someone with the know-how and/or power shut down the comments here? No need to let this devolve.Report
Booooo! I want a train wreck!Report
By the way, watching HLN, I’ve learned that one of the tag lines for Nancy Grace’s show is, “There is so much more to the story than the facts.”
Ummmm…Report
Seriously?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.Report
Heh… it seems like it might be the tag line for an entire lineup of shows, which Grace’s is included in. But… yea… that is ridiculous, right? I’m not missing something?Report
“We make shit up. You decide.”Report
“There are facts. And then there is what Nancy Grace does. Tune in at 9.”Report
Ok, I really don’t like Nancy Grace, but isn’t that a pretty defensible statement? There are a lot of people affected by crime. The stories they tell and the emotions they feel aren’t really “facts”, are they? And isn’t that kind of her schtick, parading victims and other people in front of the camera?
It’s probably more accurate for her to say, “There is so much more to the story than facts. There’s sensationalism and exploitation, too.”Report
It appears that everyone is going to be surprised by the verdict here. What is being discussed in the media/public sphere is radically different then what is going on in the courtroom.
As the law reads lethal force can be used even in a fight that you start. So regardless of the foolishness in chasing Trayvon down, George was still permitted to shoot him when Trayvon starting swinging. This has actually been used in trials like this before.
The public may want to hang him, and not without reason, but the way the law stands I don’t see good odds that he’s going to jail. The SYG law in Florida is just to liberal for that.Report
Zimmermann is claiming straight self-defense; he explicitly waived an SYG hearing.
Which leads to another question for our legal beagles: In explaining why he waived SYG, Zimmermann’s lawyer said that he could, if he chose, file for an SYG hearing after the regular trial, even in the case of a verdict of guilty. Is that correct?Report
Except that Zimmerman’s not claiming SYG.
So legal eagles, how does this change things?Report
It doesn’t change the answer to the original question, the burden is still reasonable doubt.Report
Is there a legal definition of “self-defense”? Is there any burden that must be met to provide it as a defense?Report
There were discussions of the self-defense statute in a previous thread if someone can dig it up. My reading of the law is that if Zimmerman triggered Martin’s right to self-defense that Zimmerman’s own claim of self-defense becomes invalid as per the statutes involved. You can’t walk up to someone with a loaded weapon or a knife and start a fist fight knowing that you have a holdout weapon for if you start losing.Report
i don’t think that’s the case there are times when both parties have a claim to sefl defense such as the Cory Maye case.Report
If I remember correctly, Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin & was returning to his truck. If that is true, then Martin had successfully retreated & had no reason to engage Zimmerman. SYG says you don’t have a duty to retreat, but if you do retreat, you do not have a right to re-engage at your discretion.Report
That is still a question of fact. Zimmerman may claim to have lost sight of Martin but there is a question of whether Zimmerman simply found Martin again and decided to confront, in his words, the “fucking punk”.Report
I think it varies from state to state. I know in Washington, it hinges on defending against the commission of a felony or the infliction of great personal harm to the defender or another.
The code also defines “necessary” & “deadly force” rather explicitly, although the word “reasonable” does a lot of heavy lifting in there.Report
Comments closed, per Kazzy’s request.Report