Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

Prosecutors are at a distinct legal disadvantage.

They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.

The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:

He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.

For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.

----

lots more but nobody reads the full article.. For the one or two that do:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.Udn7_20X5aR

Edited July 7, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[Darnell 8,478]

I love reading yet another analysis.

George is gonna walk, on this one.

Yay, DeDe !

[Pooky 3,786]

Can this be moved to P&R with the rest of the GZ/TM fluff?

[X Factor 1,112]

There may be a riot if he walks

[Darnell 8,478]

I am betting on that, as I want to purchase property in Sanford really , really cheap.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

July 7, 2013

ANALYSIS by DAN ABRAMS via Good Morning America

Share

1027

Share on email

1615 Comments

Trayvon Martin's Mother, Brother Testify

Next Video George Zimmerman Trial: Prosecution Rests Its Case

Auto Start: On | Off

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

Read More: Trayvon Martin Case: Does Zimmerman's Stand Your Ground Defense Depend on Who Started the Fight?

Prosecutors are at a distinct legal disadvantage.

They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.

The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:

He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.

For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.

As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict. Prosecutors have to effectively disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So what exactly would that mean based on the facts as we know them?

Let's take a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario whereby jurors don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin (the lead detective who seemed to find Zimmerman's account credible had a problem with this part of Zimmerman's account).

Let's also assume they believe Zimmerman approached Martin and it is only because Zimmerman was tailing Trayvon Martin that a fight ensued. First of all, the fact that there was a fight at all makes a murder conviction difficult. To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

While prosecutors argue that Zimmerman's statements to the 911 operator about the "f------ punks" always "getting away," shows ill will, most legal analysts felt from the beginning that with a fight, a murder charge was overreaching.

Manslaughter is far more likely to create debate in that jury room (there could also be even lesser crimes they consider, where they could find him guilty of something).

Zimmerman's injuries alone -- his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head -- are objective evidence to support his account that he shot Martin as he was being pummeled.

Just as important is the testimony of neighbor John Good, who lived directly in front of the location where Martin was shot. He very precisely (but reluctantly) testified that he saw the lighter skinned man in the red jacket on the bottom of the scuffle with the darker skinned man with the darker clothing on the top in a "mixed martial arts position." He said he now believes that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

But wait, another witness said she thought Zimmerman was likely on top. Put aside the fact that Good's home is the closest to the incident and that her testimony didn't seem nearly as credible or definitive as Good's, that doesn't change the legal reality that one does not negate the other.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case and so if there is reasonable doubt, the defense wins. Good's testimony in conjunction with Zimmerman's injuries are likely enough to cast reasonable doubt on the key question, which is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to shoot Martin to prevent "great bodily injury."

Of course, the jurors could also accept all or the vast majority of Zimmerman's account, making an acquittal that much easier.

What about the fact that prosecution witnesses have testified that his injuries were not that significant? While interesting (and debatable), the only relevant legal question is what was Zimmerman thinking or fearing at the time, not what already occurred.

In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman "reasonably" feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty.

To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/storyNew?id=19598422&singlePage=true#.UdoQVqzAF0c

The liberal media is starting to see the light. Read it and weep libatards.....One of your own spells it out clearly.....George walks justice is served.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Obviously this guy is unaware that the VJ legal eagles/racist hacks/gunophobes have overturned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and issued new jury instructions for the State of Florida AND Micheal Savage said carrying a gun ready to be used proved GZ was guilty.

GZ walks. Steven doesn't have to like it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Obviously this guy is unaware that the VJ legal eagles/racist hacks/gunophobes have overturned the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and issued new jury instructions for the State of Florida AND Micheal Savage said carrying a gun ready to be used proved GZ was guilty.

GZ walks. Steven doesn't have to like it.

I would appreciate you posting during normal EST business hours. It seems to drive the Legal Scholars and Gary/Alla family life experts batty when you post during odd hours.

They will clog up the Zimmerman threads with page after page of wildly speculative posts about your comings and goings and what Alla may or may not have you doing.

Seems your life is like one big Truman show to them. They seem to be fascinated. I guess for the low information voter and people that get their info from the drive by media and tabloids, the side show is the news to them.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I realized that we did not need another zimmerman thread .....While this is not Grist the standard of all left wing propaganda or even mother earth news ABC news as reveled by the election is another wing of the kenyans libatards news organization. Perhaps even now they will see all the narratives that they spin to try to convict zimmerman ... falls outside all reasonable understanding of the case. More important...... case law. itself. This IS the standard that will be looked at

"being subject to force capable of causing death or grave bodily harm". If this is met he would be lawfully justified in using deadly force to defend himself." . It is up to the STATE to prove zimmerman was not in fear of this standard. They have not even come close.

This is just a hack dog and pony show that MAO would be proud of. well come to think so they would have done a better job of planting the witnesses.

In legal circles this is observed : “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on you side, pound the law. If neither is on your side . . . pound the table.”. .The state WILL be pounding the table a lot for the next few weeks.

it is important that the jury is told WHY charges were brought against GZ when there was no evidence against him. They will not hear this ,,,,,the real reason for the arrest. one was the million dollar shakedown of the HOA that HASbeen paid from the HOA to travons family. They NEEDED zimmerman to be arrested to collect. No arrest NO collect. The real reason.... orders came from the kenyan and is underlings.... we need a show trial let the circus begin. ..

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Oh good, another one.

[Karee 4,190]

Duplicate thread.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/440179-analysis-george-zimmerman-probably-wont-be-convicted-of-murder-or-manslaughter/

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I realized that we did not need another zimmerman thread .....While this is not Grist the standard of all left wing propaganda or even mother earth news ABC news as reveled by the election is another wing of the kenyans libatards news organization. Perhaps even now they will see all the narratives that they spin to try to convict zimmerman ... falls outside all reasonable understanding of the case. More important...... case law. itself. This IS the standard that will be looked at

"being subject to force capable of causing death or grave bodily harm". If this is met he would be lawfully justified in using deadly force to defend himself." . It is up to the STATE to prove zimmerman was not in fear of this standard. They have not even come close.

This is just a hack dog and pony show that MAO would be proud of. well come to think so they would have done a better job of planting the witnesses.

In legal circles this is observed : “If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on you side, pound the law. If neither is on your side . . . pound the table.”. .The state WILL be pounding the table a lot for the next few weeks.

it is important that the jury is told WHY charges were brought against GZ when there was no evidence against him. They will not hear this ,,,,,the real reason for the arrest. one was the million dollar shakedown of the HOA that HASbeen paid from the HOA to travons family. They NEEDED zimmerman to be arrested to collect. No arrest NO collect. The real reason.... orders came from the kenyan and is underlings.... we need a show trial let the circus begin. ..

You would think they would have noticed that when all the legal "cases" they were making were never used by the state.

How many pages of MMA nonsense were we subjected to while they debated the level of GZs ability and "therefore he is guilty" Bullsh*t. Then, OOPS!, the state prosecutors forgot to make an issue of that in their case. Dumb@sses! RG and Patriot should have been running the prosecution. Steven and Mr. Big Dog could bring them water and sandwiches and Penny could post on VJ (only if she was being paid)

Of course this never was anything but a dog and pony show for racists. Orders were GIVEN to Obama, who passed them on. The thing is that by the time they are done, there will be no way to pursue a trumped up Federal case. This is not about Police Officers depriving someone of their rights. This is one private citizen defending against another private citizen. GZ has no official "powers" to abuse. The Feds cannot be seen as interfereing with the ability of a citizen to defend themselves.

Oh, and here is a post during usual EST business hours....It is 5:30 pm here. Hot today! No AC, so Alla is naked most of the day. Hate it. She is threatening to get dressed after dinner and take me for a walk. Poydem Gulat!

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

I seem to recall the ***removed by moderation*** being elated that GZ had ruled out "Stand Your Ground" Do any of these ***removed by moderation** think the defense did not know what they were doing? Did any of these ***removed by moderation*** think it was a "loss" to keep irrelevent things about TMs past out of the trial. By eliminating TMs past history, they also eliminated GZs past history. And yet they STILL argue ad nauseum "who started the fight"...IT DOES NOT MATTER! Do they think the prosecution FORGOT to bring that up?

I stated once before, the intent was to focus on that ONE moment when GZ pulled the trigger. Making irrelevent as much as possible was their goal. The defense has done brilliant work and they haven't even started.

GZ walks.

post above removed due to content and then returned minus the offensive content.

Edited July 8, 2013 by charles!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh good, another one.

and every time there is another , you jump into comment .. I will let the VJ'ers conclude the oxymoron in this

Oh good, another one.

also got to give you a

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

[Penny Lane 8,159]

and every time there is another , you jump into comment .. I will let the VJ'ers conclude the oxymoron in this

That's... not what oxymoron means.