The Quote That Should End the Trayvon Trial

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

No injuries to GZ would help

Prosecution witnesses that keep their story straight and witnesses which do not contradict each other and themselves.

GZs mom saying it was her son screaming

But remember Steven, the goal of the prosecution is to erase reasonable doubt in the jurors minds...not to put it there

I was asking spooky, who says he's neutral.

You asked in a public forum so no extra charge for my answer.

The quote was not used by the prosecution

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Standard Jury Instructions in Florida regarding self-defense cases

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

How inconvenient for the St. Trayvon crowd. Like no one has already told them that, but one follows another in quoting old news.

GZ walks.

But Steven has his answer

Edited July 6, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[himher 634]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

Unfortunately for you and BD this is not the standard for acquittal so it is an irrelevant question

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since there is no direct evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of the events that does not also contradict Zimmerman's version of the events, the state need only provide a circumstantial case that is more likely than the circumstantial case provided by the defense. If the defense cannot make a reasonable case at all, Zimmerman goes to prison.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since there is no direct evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of the events that does not also contradict Zimmerman's version of the events, the state need only provide a circumstantial case that is more likely than the circumstantial case provided by the defense. If the defense cannot make a reasonable case at all, Zimmerman goes to prison.

That will be in the other jury instructions I'm sure.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To add, normally the defense can provide a multitude of scenarios, given the evidence in the case. If any of those scenarios can seem more likely than the scenario presented by the prosecution, then the defense wins. However, with an affirmative defense, Zimmerman's team has to stick to one story, and if the state can show any inconsistencies in that story, as they already have, Zimmerman loses.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mora has said already, he wants to confine the case to the actual 6-8 minutes, from when Zimmerman first saw Martin until Zimmerman shot him. However, if he limits it to the 40 seconds from when Zimmerman broke contact with the dispatcher until the first police arrived on the scene, there is not enough time for Zimmerman to be sucker punched by Martin at the Tee, then drug two houses down onto the grass where Johnathan Goodman first saw them on the ground, then drug over to the sidewalk, where his head could be pounded into the sidewalk fifty times, MMA style, while someone screams for help 14 times, then during a struggle for the gun Martin is shot back on the grass, Zimmerman extracts himself, carries on a short conversation with a dead person, while searching him for a weapon, then according to another witness, gets up, and walks back and forth from the body of Martin to the Tee at least twice, before another witness shows up, he has a conversation with him, and then the first cop shows up.

Edited July 6, 2013 by The Patriot

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

To add, normally the defense can provide a multitude of scenarios, given the evidence in the case. If any of those scenarios can seem more likely than the scenario presented by the prosecution, then the defense wins. However, with an affirmative defense, Zimmerman's team has to stick to one story, and if the state can show any inconsistencies in that story, as they already have, Zimmerman loses.

News Flash. Patriot overrules 5th Circuit Court of appeals and issues new jury instructions for Florida.

GZ is convicted and never even needed a trial!

Serious question...

So what, exactly, IS the scenario presented by the prosecution? Are there any inconsistencies?

Edited July 6, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So what, exactly, IS the scenario presented by the prosecution?

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

I thought Zimmerman admitted it the moment the police arrived on the scene of the shooting?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I thought Zimmerman admitted it the moment the police arrived on the scene of the shooting?

Exactly.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Exactly.

Exactly what? Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. No one is disputing that. Not Zimmerman nor his lawyers.

[dalegg 143]

So what, exactly, IS the scenario presented by the prosecution?

so far as I can tell right now, the case against Zimmerman is that the state is trying to prove he was never really in lethal danger, he had no reason to think he was in real danger, and didn't need to use lethal force. I don't think they are attempting to prove Zimmerman actually made first contact since they haven't shown any evidence to that, only that he was stalking TM, and once TM attacked him, and then after faking screems of death he caught the attention of a couple neighbors who witnessed what was going on, and using his prior knowledge of self-defense and the "stand your ground rule" he took the opportunity to do what he had planned all along, which was to kill someone.

Its almost like the jury isn't really expected to rule on Zimmerman at all, and that the real trial here is whether there is reasonable doubt that T.M. needed to be killed. That is something I think they have proved, but of course that isn't the trial before us.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That will be in the other jury instructions I'm sure.

I take it you missed the JOA arguments yesterday. It took the prosecution seconds to refute the case the defense offered yesterday. No surprise here. The judge thinks the prosecution presented a sufficient case to warrant Murder Two.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. No one is disputing that. Not Zimmerman nor his lawyers.

Exactly. Absent an affirmative defense, Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.