SST poll on the Zimmerman Case

 

 Now that the Zimmerman Case has gone to the jury for a decision as to guilt or innocence on either Murder 2 or Manslaughter charges, I would like hte opinions of SST readers as to how the jury will vote wirth the understanding that a guilty verdict as well as a verdict of not guilty would require a unanimous vote of the six jurors.  If you wish to "grade" the state and defense lawyers as well as the judge feel free to do so.  pl

Comments

[no one]

I have had the trial live playing in the background while I work.
IMO, the prosecution had no case at all. Jury instructions pretty good.

Not guilty on all charges.

[r whitman]

I, personally, would vote for acquittal but would not be surprised by a manslaughter verdict. I cannot see evidence of second degree murder. Good job by the judge and the defense. Prosecution attorney seemed too angry most of the time.

[Didgeri]

Zimmerman was obviously acting in self-defense and so is obviously not guilty.

State witness after state witness "turned" on the state by bolstering the defense's theory of the case. The sheer absence of evidence may explain the prosecution's emotionalism in demeanor and argumentation.

There's a real possibility of a compromise verdict for manslaughter. This happens sometimes when juries can't find the defendant guilty on the "real" charge but want to grant some measure of empathy and emotional solace to a family.

Nice for the jury, nice for the family. Not so nice for an innocent defendant.

[toto]

Sir,

I understand that he can only be convicted of anything if it can be proven that he physically attacked Martin (if Martin threw the first punch, Florida's "stand your ground" laws take effect).

Maybe he did, but I don't think that the prosecution managed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. So my guess is that he'll walk.

The problem is that it creates a precedent that you can shoot somebody if you're losing a fight that you "invited" upon yourself.

There is a murder scene in the Godfather (?) that takes place during a celebration in the Italian quarter. A bunch of assassins goad their target, who reacts by having a go at them - then they shoot him.

If Zimmermann walks (and he will), then this will become entirely legal - the assassins could do the exact same thing and walk into a police station for protection.

[Nancy K]

I think if it were an all male jury there would be an acquittal, however I think this jury may find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter. In rating the lawyers I give O'Mara higher marks than West and de la Rionda higher than Guy. As far as which side was better, I don't think either were spectacular. I give Judge Nelson very high marks, she was in control of her court.
If I were on the jury I would probably go with manslaughter not 2nd degree murder.

[turcopolier]

NancyK

You are saying that this all woman jury will decide the issue of guilt or innocence on the basis of emotion rather than reason? pl

[NancyK]

No I am not saying that at all. I' not even implying that men would decide guilt or innocence on the basis of emotion rather than reason. There is however a reason that the lawyers went with an all female jury.

[no one]

toto, "The problem is that it creates a precedent that you can shoot somebody if you're losing a fight that you "invited" upon yourself. "

Nonsense. Utter nonsense, but the kind of nonsense that is repeated incessantly by the Trayvonites. Mark O'Mara very effectively put what should have been a final nail in that argument's coffin when, in closing, he let a clock run for four minutes. Four minutes - that's what Trayvon had to run home, run away, call 911, do something, anything other than attack Z. But, instead, he elected to circle back and assault Z.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A world where people are permitted to physically assault others if they perceive they are being followed or watched? Any how, the law doesn't support your contention and neither does common sense or common courtesy.

[Fred]

I have mostly managed to avoid the publicity charged hysteria of this trial. The press is routinely calling Mr. Zimmerman white, while elsewhere in the press they label men (and women) with the same parentage as ‘Hispanic’. That works great in media driven (?) meme that the ‘Republicans’ are doing bad on polling with Hispanics, the latter, in the immigration debates, are soon to be legal tried and true citizens and all vote – democratic. Meanwhile it is the same republicans who are ‘pro-gun’ and the democrats the defenders of the down-trodden minorities. In Michigan months ago, as I commented on in a similar thread, a 70 year old African American male was accosted at night on school grounds by two teenage African American males, he (the 70 y.o. man) pulled his lawfully owned and carried fire arm and defended himself. One assailant was killed and the second hospitalized. There have been no charges and virtually zero media coverage – and absolutely zero politician, media, nor activist group outrage for prosecution of that man nor rallies demanding justice for those teenage African American boys. I’m sure if that 70 year old man had been white the story would be different. Not that there is any racism involved, mind you. Of course not.

[ron]

He will be acquitted of 2nd degree murder. There is a possibility that jury will go with manslaughter, but I believe this case was self defense on George Zimmerman's part. Anyone who is having their head smashed against concrete and their face beaten has the right to use whatever level of force is needed to stop the unlawful beating.

[Walrus]

My guess is manslaughter but it should be murder. You don't go armed and looking for a fight like Zimmerman did.

My interpretation of " stand your ground" is that you are entitled to act in self defence if a person brings the fight to you. My opinion is that you are not entitled to procure a fight in the knowledge that you have the ability to kill the other person if attacked. My opinion is that Zimmerman procured the fight with Martin by virtue of the fact that Martin was unsettled enough by zimmermans attentions to make a telephone call.

To put that another way "there I was minding my own business when I was suddenly attacked by a scary pot head black guy" does not convince me.

However I was brought up in an English common law regime. My personal opinion is that everything concerning this incident and trial is repulsive and I will be very surprised if the judge can salvage any good from it.

[jonst]

I think he should be found not guilty. I long ago gave up trying to figure out what juries will decide. Unless I can see them....in person.

With a huge caveat that I was not in the courtroom all the time...which is the only way to really judge the job lawyers do in a trial, I think I give the defense a C+. The Prosecution, a D. The judge an F...a disgrace...that cross she pulled on Zimmerman was a friggin embarrassment, for anyone who is an Office of the Court. And I think it will be grounds for appeal. It would be in Maine, anyway.

And Toto...I could not disagree with you more.."invited" on himself indeed. Incredible

[turcopolier]

Nancyk

Your comment seems internally self-contradictory. pl

[twv]

Sir:
Most likely this jury will deliver an emotional decision.
6 women will probably find for manslaughter, although the defense established "reasonable doubt."
Hell, the prosecution established reasonable doubt.
The women probably have never been in a physical confrontation, so no understanding there.
All the noise about riots from an acquittal has probably scared the bejesus out of these women jurors.
And last, I have been on several juries (criminal and civil) and NO WAY do I want my fate decided in a jury room.

[turcopolier]

walrus

So, if you are armed you are looking for a fight? pl

[Dr. K]

If you carry a weapon you already are expressing unwarranted fear. Fear makes for very unreasonable decisions and unintended consequences,i.e. George Zimmerman.

[Matthew]

If I had been prosecuting the case, I would have framed the case around Treyvon Martin standing his ground. Theme: Zimmerman stalked a teenager who was only guilty of "walking while black." I would then have asked the jury to focus on Treyvon Martin's reasonable fear: Imagine if he had been white--or a woman--and a strange man had followed and accosted him, wouldn't Treyvon have been scared? Wouldn't he have a right to stand his ground? Zimmerman's subsequent self-defense claim would be equivalent to a bully claiming self-defense after the bully started the fight.

Would this have worked? Who knows. But if prosecution truly believes that Zimmerman was only negligent in disreqarding the police's instructions, then they should never have indicted him. The proper response would have been a civil wrongful death suit.

I anticipate a not guity verdict because it's the path of least resistence, i.e., we don't really know what happened = reasonable doubt.

[turcopolier]

Dr. K

"unwarranted fear?" My. My. Bless you. You belong among the angels. pl

[Peter C]

This is a political, Shakespearian, criminal, oversized lawyereristic egos battling it out, with a sliced and diced jury. Compromise on the part of jury will give some sort of human murder verdict against Zimmerman.

One of my favorite concealed hand gun techniques is as follows as I observed a traffic stop by the Police. As we all know traffic stops are a highly dangerous activity for police.

During the summer, even in warm weather this one patrol officer always wore an unzipped windbreaker when approaching stopped autos, with his hands in both pockets.

In each of his pockets were .22lr hammerless double action revolvers. While making the initial stop and contact his hands were always in his pockets while approaching and making contact. This way he was fully prepared to react in a split second, with out having his service pistol fully drawn and aimed.

[NancyK]

I'm not sure why you are saying that. I think both the prosecution and defense wanted women on the jury not because they would go with their emotions but possibly because they can see shades of gray versus black and white. Women would also be sympathetic towards Zimmerman seeing that he could have been fearful and felt his life was threatened. They might also see that a 16 year old who was being stalked by an adult might also feel threatened. I have no bias in this case, in fact I have a daughter, a son-in-law and 3 grandchildren who are Peruvian and live in Peru.

[walrus]

Sir, I don't believe that carrying automatically implies you are "looking for a fight" at all.

My belief is that an unarmed Zimmerman would not have engaged with Martin.

From that follows, by my logic, that since a reasonable man would not carry a weapon without being prepared to use it, that Zimmerman was quite prepared to kill Martin if he deemed it necessary, and that decision was made well before he interacted with Martin.

That, to me, is taking the law into ones own hands without the slightest possible reason or excuse.

[Medicine Man]

My opinion is manslaughter conviction or an acquittal, with slightly better odds on the acquittal. They simply overcharged when they labelled it 2nd degree murder; very difficult to prove that given the evidence and I don't think the prosecution made the case.

[Margaret Steinfels]

How about jury nullification of Florida's stand-your-ground law? Presumably the justification for that legislation was a defense of self, family, and/or home if you were accosted. Zimmerman ignored the local police to get back in his car, he trailed Martin, a fight ensued, and he pulled his gun. How does that fit or not the stand-your-ground criteria? Or are there any?

[Bobo]

They intentionally overcharged believing they could get Manslaughter. This is typical in Florida. The outcome will be Not Guilty on 2nd degree murder and hung jury on the lower charge with jurors going 2 for and 4 against.
From a non legalistic view the Judge gets an A, Bernie de la gets a D and O'Mara gets a B but West gets an A+ for effort. Fortunately for us Judge Ito was not in session as we would be listening to this for another month if he was.

[Fred]

As that other movie said "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me?"

That's a great line but no permission to assault someone. Neither of these two men were assassins. LIfe isn't a movie and by age 17 an American man should have learned how to respond to goading.

"... but I don't think that the prosecution managed to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. So my guess is that he'll walk."

You mean the jury of Floridians is going to fulfill their legal obligations under the Constitution and Statutes of the great and sovereign State of Florida and find the defendant "Not Guilty"?