Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the State has to do is request that the Judge give a jury charge on manslaughter when she gives the final jury instructions prior to the jury going out to deliberate, and the jury then could in fact come back with a guilty verdict to the lesser included charge of manslaughter.
No, the defense does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self defense, however, they do have to try to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense in order to cast doubt on the State's case (their burden)......if NOT why would they have filed the affirmative defense. Defense attorney don't just get to file these things in order to make the state have to disprove what they claim.
An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civillawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.
This means that Zimmerman admits that he shot and killed Martin, but he's raising other factors other than what the State is alleging, and "IF PROVEN BY THE DEFENDANT" (the affirmative defense of self-defense) would defeat or reduce the allegations/claims made by the State even if the allegations are all proven.
Please explain the part which says "IF PROVEN BY THE DEFENDANT". It does not say specifically that the State has to disprove the affirmative defense. I heard what O'Mara said. It was very artfully "confusing" as I'm sure it was intended to be.
You're wrong on this point. This was covered today at the voir dire. The law was read and discussed at length. If the prosecution does not disprove that he was acting in self defense, the jury should find him not guilty. The burden is completely on the prosecution to disprove self defense. Because it is worded so strangely, they went over it in depth and the jurors were questioned over whether they understood the concept.
I listened closely because it was different than what you and others here have been saying.
It was very clearly spelled out today that the prosecution is the one with the burden.
The prosecution is the one that struck the only black male juror that could have been in the top 6.
B35- 6th potential juror on the list. Here's the info on him:
40s. Married. Tax preparer, no opinion despite “pro-Trayvon” family/friends. A middle-aged black man who owns a vending business. He was critical of the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and says this case is not racial. Manages tax office, coaches Pop Warner football. Wife works for TV station. Served in Marine Corps Reserves for 6 years.
It is pretty clear to me that this gentleman is not stuck on 'the Democrat plantation' so I am not surprised the prosecution did not want him.
Despite what many seem to think there are quite a few Black people who are capable of thinking for themselves, that work for a living, don't rely on handouts, etc.
You're wrong on this point. This was covered today at the voir dire. The law was read and discussed at length. If the prosecution does not disprove that he was acting in self defense, the jury should find him not guilty. The burden is completely on the prosecution to disprove self defense. Because it is worded so strangely, they went over it in depth and the jurors were questioned over whether they understood the concept.
I listened closely because it was different than what you and others here have been saying.
It was very clearly spelled out today that the prosecution is the one with the burden.
How does the state PROVE he was NOT acting in self defense????? Do they get to call George Zimmerman and challenge his statement? The issue is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is not on the defense.....it never is. HOWEVER, the defense is in a position that they have to DEMONSTRATE to the jury that it was self defense to the point that the jury is no longer convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.
It's a sort of tricky concept, and it seems to me that even after listening to all the attorneys discuss this with the jury, you're missing the subtly of it all. The BURDEN OF PROOF never shifts to the defense. However, when they file basically an "excuse/justification" defense, WHO IS GOING TO PUT ON EVIDENCE OF THAT "JUSTIFICATION" FOR KILLING MARTIN? The State? You think the State is going to be able to DISPROVE what Zimmerman says was in his head that night??? HOW do they do that? Using all the inconsistent statements he gave? Did those attorneys explain to the jury how the state would PROVE what was in Zimmerman's mind that night? If they could do that, there would have been no need whatsoever for the defense to file the affirmative defense (justification defense)..
How does the state PROVE he was NOT acting in self defense????? Do they get to call George Zimmerman and challenge his statement? The issue is that the BURDEN OF PROOF is not on the defense.....it never is. HOWEVER, the defense is in a position that they have to DEMONSTRATE to the jury that it was self defense to the point that the jury is no longer convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.
It's a sort of tricky concept, and it seems to me that even after listening to all the attorneys discuss this with the jury, you're missing the subtly of it all. The BURDEN OF PROOF never shifts to the defense. However, when they file basically an "excuse/justification" defense, WHO IS GOING TO PUT ON EVIDENCE OF THAT "JUSTIFICATION" FOR KILLING MARTIN? The State? You think the State is going to be able to DISPROVE what Zimmerman says was in his head that night??? HOW do they do that? Using all the inconsistent statements he gave? Did those attorneys explain to the jury how the state would PROVE what was in Zimmerman's mind that night? If they could do that, there would have been no need whatsoever for the defense to file the affirmative defense (justification defense)..
Doesn't matter how many caps you use. You're still wrong.
Quote:
Mark O'Mara, said repeatedly as he wrapped up questioning as part of the voir dire process early on Thursday that the state had the burden to prove that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense.
"They (the prosecution) have to disprove that it was self-defense," he said.
Judge Nelson drove home the same point in her instruction on "justifiable use of deadly force" during the final phase of jury selection.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
There is no discrepancy. Really, it's not that hard to understand.
Maybe you're watching MSNBC. The confusion would be understandable.
So you are saying both the OP and TMYK were right even though they both described the racial make up of the jurors differently ?
and wow, you take what ever chance you cant to attack MSNBC, and by the way, i was watching FOX, Megan Kelly was hilarious, " not 19, not 21, but a 20 yearoldcat"
She said it was too easy to get a CCW permit, not enough training required. Her husband is an attorney who works for space companies with NASA contracts.
You sure are quick to call people names. You know nothing about the juror or her family.
And neither do you, unless you happen to know them on a personal friendship basis. You know what you read on the Internet and hear on TV, and we all know how accurate those sources of information are.
And you still don't understand O'Mara's skill in his use of the English language. He's a very experience defense attorney, and his co-counsel, West, is also very, very experienced in trying murder cases in Florida. O'Mara is absolutely right. The burden of proof NEVER shifts from the State. However, the defense has to demonstrate via whatever method they choose within the rules of procedure and evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense. THAT does not shift the burden of proof to the defense. And at the same time it has to cast enough doubt in the jury's mind via the "justification" defense (self defense)in and that the State's evidence is inaccurate so as the JURY determines that the State did not meet its burden of proof; in other words they have a reasonable doubt regarding the state's theory of the case and their evidence.
I'm thinking hung. I think it will be hard to convince 6 people that Z acted 100% in self-defense. Especially with bleeding-heart women who some of which likely have teens of their own.
Should be an interesting trial.
I heard that a few of those jurors have children Trayvon's age. I also heard one juror's statement about how he, Trayvon... shouldn't have been walking around so late at night. I wonder when that gets cleared up, that it was only 7pm, not late... if she will change her mind.
I cannot remember what network was on....But, they talked to a neighbor of Trayvon who had a very logical explanation of the path Trayvon was taking, dodging the rain, standing under the mailbox shelter etc.
It may explain why George thought he was acting wierd as he told the operator....Trayvon is dodging under overhangs to get back home from the 7-11 in the rain. Also, I hadn't known he was coming back w/ those treats for his little brother who was waiting at the apartment so they could watch the play-offs. Pretty tragic situation.
I think we are gonna finally hear some of what has been kept under wraps all year.
Last edited by JanND; 06-21-2013 at 05:34 AM..
Reason: edit text
Maybe because she's intimating that it's the responsibility of her children to make sure that some vigilante doesn't shoot them to death, instead of suggesting that it's the vigilante's responsibility not to shoot innocent children.
or maybe its because she's worried about skittles or one of his bro's attacking her children for being white ?
Maybe because she's intimating that it's the responsibility of her children to make sure that some vigilante doesn't shoot them to death, instead of suggesting that it's the vigilante's responsibility not to shoot innocent children.
This is the same juror that thought this happened late at night, the one I referenced in my previous post....I would think the prosecution would welcome her possibly having a change of heart when she finds out it was early evening, 7pm....not late night when Trayvon was walking home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
