Overview of Florida Voluntary Manslaughter Laws
Florida state laws establish the criminal offense of manslaughter when a homicide, the killing of a human being, does not meet the legal definition of murder. Manslaughter, unlike murder, does not require evidence of the defendant's premeditation or "depraved mind" with disregard for human life; instead, the state requires proof of either voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter describes a homicide intentionally committed while in the midst of a provocation. The prosecutor must show a sudden, unexpected event or circumstance serving as a provocation. As a result of the provocation, the defendant must have felt a temporary anger, heat of passion, or emotion that immediately resulted in an intent to kill or an intent to commit the act that resulted in the victim's death.
- See more at:
Florida Voluntary Manslaughter Laws - FindLaw
I know many people feel the jury has kinda like a "buffet line" in choices for verdict. Sorry I just don't see how that's possible. First, murder 2 is simply out. That leaves self defense and manslaughter. Until I'm proven wrong, the burden in this case falls squarely on the prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, it could NOT be self defense. The defense has claimed self defense, NOT as so many have erred, the SYG law. The jury cannot just go to manslaughter because they feel the state hasn't proved murder 2. There's a great big ole obstacle there, called self defense. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ does NOT have self defense, they'd have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, he was NOT as a reasonable person fearing great bodily harm or death. I also realize many here keep saying his injuries were not *medically* significant. Well they weren't. That's not relevant. What IS relevant is, at the time of the shooting, did GZ reasonably fear great bodily harm or death. I believe John Goode's testimony is probably THE MOST PIVOTAL testimony in this entire trial. As far as I recollect he was the ONLY EYE WITNESS that went OUTSIDE and viewed the two as the physical altercation was happening. He testified TM was on top of GZ administering an "MMA style ground and pound". Unless the jury completely ignores this witness, it's unfathomable to me, how they can say GZ wouldn't reasonably fear great bodily harm. He already had a broken nose and his head (by PROSECUTION witness) had contacted cement three times.
If you recall today in BdlR's closing he hurriedly glossed over John Goode's testimony. That's a big hurdle for the state.
Given the totality of the testimony, GZ's version of the events stands up to rigorous legal examination. Regardless of the hallucinations of other possibilities, when GZ is under TM, on the receiving end of an "MMA style ground an pound", he's yelled for help but no one's coming, he has a broken nose, his head hit the concrete at least three times, I simply cannot fathom how a jury would believe HE didn't think he was going to suffer great bodily harm. I'd challenge ANYONE to allow us to put you in the same position, under the same circumstances, even without your attacker allegedly telling you "you're going to die", and you allow the situation to simply continue, I guess until you're attacker got tired or didn't feel like continuing, without fearing "great bodily harm".
