- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,730
- Reaction score
- 32,381
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?
Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.
Working on poll.
I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?
Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.
Working on poll.
Having to prove you are innocent as opposed to the prosecution proving you are guilty works upon the assumption that you are guilty, and therefore you have to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the way it works. You are assumed innocent, therefore the burden falls upon the persecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact guilty.i don't know.
the reason for my answer is that i approached this entire case under a misconception. I thought the jury could convict Zimmerman on manslaughter if they found doubt with his story. i thought that zimmerman had to proof his story true beyond a reasonable doubt.
but trials don't work that way, and that the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not that and Zimmerman having to prove he was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?
Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.
Working on poll.
Having to prove you are innocent as opposed to the prosecution proving you are guilty works upon the assumption that you are guilty, and therefore you have to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the way it works. You are assumed innocent, therefore the burden falls upon the persecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact guilty.
No, I do not think that it is too high a standard. However, it must be noted that there is a difference between guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (theory) and what actually occurs in our court rooms (practice). Many a time, people have had doubts or information has been revealed that creates doubt over whether a person is actually guilty or not, yet they still go to prison. (Think Troy Davis and the retraction of witness statements due to police coercion.)
that's why i said i came into this case with a misconception.
Having a mere doubt is not ground for acquittal. That is why it is called reasonable doubt, as one may still doubt evidence, but if found agreeable and can only be doubted to a reasonable level, then a conviction can be made. Certainty is impossible, and if a justice system was built around it, no one would ever go to jail.
No, I do not think that it is too high a standard. However, it must be noted that there is a difference between guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (theory) and what actually occurs in our court rooms (practice). Many a time, people have had doubts or information has been revealed that creates doubt over whether a person is actually guilty or not, yet they still go to prison. (Think Troy Davis and the retraction of witness statements due to police coercion.)
I believe that in a simple murder trial the burden should be on the state as to who did it.
But in cases where the killer comes forward and freely admits that they have killed the burden should definitely be on the killer to prove that it was justified.
It's too easy for murderers to get away with murder when all they need to do is make up a halfway convincing story that leaves any doubt and walk free only on a shred of doubt.
That's crazy.
The OP is not actually correct. That's not how affirmative defenses work. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. If it does so, the jury should convict. An affirmative defense, like self defense, is asserted by the defendant and the burden of persuasion is on them, not the prosecution. The required standard is preponderance of the evidence. That is, that the affirmative defense is more likely than not true, the jury then should acquit, or rather, can acquit. The particulars of how affirmative defenses work might be too lenient or too stringent, but not grossly so. But the prosecution standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is a good one. It should absolutely not be softened.
The OP is not actually correct. That's not how affirmative defenses work. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. If it does so, the jury should convict. An affirmative defense, like self defense, is asserted by the defendant and the burden of persuasion is on them, not the prosecution. The required standard is preponderance of the evidence. That is, that the affirmative defense is more likely than not true, the jury then should acquit, or rather, can acquit. The particulars of how affirmative defenses work might be too lenient or too stringent, but not grossly so. But the prosecution standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is a good one. It should absolutely not be softened.
Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client's conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.
Since the GZ-TM case, nearly all Democrats and liberals want all presumption shifted to be against the defendant in 100% of self defense cases.
No, that is completely wrong (at least where I live). The burden never shifts to the defense.
I think convicting someone should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
That sounds like a steaming pile of partisan hackery. The problem in this case is that self defense is not available when the defendant instigates the situation (which Z did, regardless of who threw the first punch) and when the defendant escalates the amount of force, turning a non lethal encounter into a lethal one (arguable in this instance). The escalations of threat and force (stalking to a fistfight to use of a weapon) is allowed for the party who did not instigate the situation.
I would contend that the current trend is to ensure that self defense is not misapplied to armed men stalking and shooting unarmed teens. It is vigilantism that Americans do not tolerate, not self defense.
I've held no opinion on the case and I have to hope and presume the court got it right.
But I do have an opinion on the standard. I think it is inadequate. I think convicting someone should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
Knowing you just graduated from law school, I'm going to presume you are correct about the State's laws where you live. Those are some weird ones though. Where I live, precluding a defense the defendant wants to raise wouldn't happen. We believe in letting the defense put one on if they want and have the jury decide whether it applies or not.
I'm especially interested in hearing from those who think Zimmerman should have been convicted based on the evidence presented at trial. The State not only had the burden of proving that Zimmerman killed Martin but once the Martin lawyers brought up self defense, the state had to disprove that it was self defense by that same high standard. I think it's clear the state could not meet that burden so I'm asking all you, especially those of you who think the verdict was unjust, is that burden just too high to put on the prosecutor?
Answers will be yes, no, and I don't know/maybe.
Working on poll.
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?