Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence who attacked who first. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony:

Jonathan Good, the witness, testified in a Florida courtroom Friday that he could not see whether Trayvon was punching Zimmerman during the fight, contradicting earlier police statements he made.

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

[RedskinRat]

If you're 'soft' and take a pop to the head who's to say that you don't immediately fear for your life?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence that who attacked who. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011

Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.

One thing surprised me about your posts was how you seem to take the above statement. That self defense must be supported by reasonable evidence by the defense (prima facie - at first glance, plausible, reasonable on the face of it), and that it's then the prosecution's burden to disprove it.

Reading your posts, I thought initially that you were agreeing with RR about Zimmerman's defense have established prima facie self defense, that it was now up to the prosecution to provide a case more than a reasonable doubt. But I get the impression that you don't think Z's defense has met that burden.

Why isn't Martin being on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, with Zimmerman sustaining the only injuries in the fisticuff part of the fight (broken nose, black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury) enough to establish "prima facie" self defense?

I mean, it's important in this trial to try figuring out the details, like who started the fight, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life, etc. But just to establish a reasonable first glance self defense... Geez does someone have to have their skull already split open before they can make a possible claim of self defense, in your opinion?

While I don't know how the known details should be weighed, I hope the jury is taught how to in this case, in the final verdict. (I personally think so far the murder count is a joke, manslaughter in this or a civil trial might be right though I doubt it, and the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution in this case.)

Maybe some people are confusing ordinary self-defense claims with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground appears to me, to offer protection to people AFTER it's proven they were justified in using lethal force, to prevent revenge minded people from suing the person into bankruptcy after they were found innocent by self defense. That's why SYG is an affirmative defense, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt self defense was justified, to get the protection against lawsuits SYG offers.

The traditional "self defense" claim is not the same as SYG. As long as it's plausible the defendant could have used self-defense, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Like practically ALL crimes, the defendant is presumed innocent until guilty, as they should be. (At least one exception, if the IRS comes after you) Zimmerman isn't claiming SYG, he's claiming traditional self defense.

So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

It is not his "burden to create doubt".

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

[JoeRedskin]

So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

That's exactly what I am saying. It's Joe that making this more complicated than it is. All I have said all along is that self-defense places a burden on the defense, much more so than in non-affirmative defense.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"

I get all of that, what I don't get is why you seem to think there is no obligation on the part of the defense to present these facts. If the presentation of these facts by the defense is not optional then there exists a burden on the defense!

[JoeRedskin]

Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.

What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.

[JoeRedskin]

You want GZ on the stand testifying and he simply has no legal burden to do so.

Even if the prosecution DIDN'T put the evidence listed on, GZ could and leave it at that. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution, what need be shown to establish a prima facia case?? Short of taking the stand himself what could he possibly present that has not been brought out by the prosecution??

It's always the defendant's option/risk of resting your case without testifying. Even when you are arguing an affirmative defense is applicable. This is true in any case. Civil or criminal (although in a civil trial you can be subpoenaed by the other side).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.

Taking the points JR summarized and putting them up as the defense closing statement using facts already in evidence would seem to satisfy what you are saying the defense needs to do. Not quite sure what else you are saying they would need to do.

[JoeRedskin]

He is absolutely allowed to "piggy back" the prosecution case. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.