The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Quote:

I would hope that a juror is still listening to testimony, and won't make up her mind

Hey, I thought the default was supposed to be 'his'.

What you are missing is the fact that the jury doesn't even get that instruction unless the defense has already raised the possibility, during trial, that the defendant's actions were possible self defense.

But that person might not be "innocent" at all--think O.J.

All of the jurors in this case are female.

I guess you don't get some language jokes/sarcasm like I don't get some geek and nerd jokes.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
...
Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

You are leaving out a lot of the jury instructions Thomas.

Zimmerman has to show he didn't provoke the force or that he had exhausted every attempt to escape.

Law school is much like boot camp. Your personality is stripped down and rebuilt the way your instructors want it to be. The end goal is not a quest for the truth, but getting your client off by any means necessary

And just watching O'Mara, it's clear defense lawyers have no interest in the truth, they may actively try to distort or obsure the truth--

Florida Law

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Prosecutors want to bring up George Zimmerman's school records at his murder trial to show he knew about Florida's stand-your-ground law. Defense attorneys are arguing they are irrelevant.

Prosecutors asked a judge Tuesday to allow them to introduce school records showing Zimmerman took a class that addressed Florida's self-defense law. They say it will show he had knowledge of the law, even though he claimed he didn't in an interview with talk show host Sean Hannity. The interview was played for jurors Tuesday.

The judge said she would rule later Tuesday.

Prosecutors also want to introduce a job application Zimmerman made to a police agency in Virginia and an application to ride around with Sanford police officers....

“It’s dangerous for America the way were doing this as a trial in the media with the whole nation as jury.” This observation about the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Florida teen Trayvon Martin in 2012 by MSNBC host Touré was as true when he made it, in March of last year, as it is today. Too few, it seems, have taken his advice to heart.


Since the Zimmerman trial began, the instant analysis of the nationally televised case – meriting near wall-to-wall coverage on the cable news outlets – has not been favorable to the prosecution. State witness after state witness has had their credibility impugned or introduced reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions may not meet the threshold necessary to convict him for second degree murder. And as the state’s case against Zimmerman grows thinner, the tone of those in the media who have invested a significant portion of the last 16 months in an effort to indict him in the court of public opinion has grown more caustic.

This phenomenon began on June 28 after the prosecution’s star witness and Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel, took the stand to testify that she was on the phone with the deceased teen when fatal fight with Zimmerman began.

Her testimony was nothing short of a disaster for the prosecution. She was combative, she was reprimanded for being contemptuous of the proceedings, she admitted to reversing assertions made in deposition, and she introduced the fact that Martin had racially profiled Zimmerman (disclosing that Martin had used the slur “cracker” to describe him).

It was then that the media commentators invested in Zimmerman’s guilt went on the defense. MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor – one of the first media commentators to don a hooded sweatshirt to protest Martin’s unnecessary murder — told MSNBC host Karen Finney on Tuesday of last week that Jeantel was not only not discredited, but she has as much credibility, “speaking from her cultural lens,” as a “Ph. D.”

Taylor said that “unfortunate voices online” and “across other networks” had attacked Jeantel’s ability to be articulate her thoughts as well as her physical features. Taylor later clarified in a tweet that she was not referring to any television networks and “other networks” only applied to social media outlets....