Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury's acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions. The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state's argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.
The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim's use of force through either force or "threat of force."
After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)
The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."
The court is not going to give it.
That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.
Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.
here is a small portion
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.
Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.
here is a small portion
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
Puh-leese.... the judge gave the prosecution plenty of slack, they just didn't have a case.
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.
Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.
here is a small portion
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
I read what you quoted of the article, but not the entire article. It would have been error for the judge to include it.
And why is that?
Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.
Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.
here is a small portion
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
Because I am fairly sure you copied the most relevant portion. If I didn't read something in the article that would have changed my answer, quote it. But, the law is what the law is. Regardless of what the author of your article believes, the judge made the right decision. Any other decision would have resulted in reversal if he had been found guilty.
One very important thing you are forgetting: The state could have done a great job of arguing that during its closing. They chose not to.
I wonder why.
You are talking about the Zimmerman trial, Correct? It sounds like you watched a different trial.The jury instructions were what the jury went by. And those jury instructions were flawed because we had a timid judge who was intimidated by a defense attorney..... yet again.
And why is that?
The jury instructions were what the jury went by. And those jury instructions were flawed because we had a timid judge who was intimidated by a defense attorney..... yet again.
Followed in the dark by car, then on foot, and on confrontation, he reached into his pocket for his.
Trayvon Martin led Zimmerman into a dark area so that he could physically attack him because he thought he was a "creepy ass cracker." Zimmerman had every right to defend himself using deadly force against a surprise attack. From what I gather, George had just gotten off the phone with the dispatcher and was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked.
Another shameless example of the race baiting industry at work. That's my take away from this.Many people were justifiable outraged in the OJ Simpson case when they saw a judge bullied and basically owned by a defense team and then saw their tactics be rewarded in an acquital. Now we appear to have much the same thing in the Zimmerman acquital.
Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Please read the article before you react. It clearly lays out the case that the judge knuckled under to defense pressure - and possibly even threats - to give far more favorable jury instructions that she otherwise could have done.
here is a small portion
I have little doubt that Judge Ito would approve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?