The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Zimmerman's lies are all self serving, therefore, one can conclude that al of Zimmerman's statements that are self serving are lies or at a minimum can not be depended on.

"Cannot be depended on" is right. But if you can't depend on Zimmerman's Fox-Noise interview for the truth about the confrontation, that doesn't mean we know that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. It means we don't know the truth about the confrontation. And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

5 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

unless the state can prove otherwise that is the law sir. they did not even come close...deliberations should take no more than a hour.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

"We don't know" is not a reason to acquit. We can never know anything for certain.

The question is whether there is a reasonable explanation that is supported by facts other than the one presented by the state. People are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence when they tell a different story.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

"Cannot be depended on" is right. But if you can't depend on Zimmerman's Fox-Noise interview for the truth about the confrontation, that doesn't mean we know that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. It means we don't know the truth about the confrontation. And when "we don't know", the jury must presume innocence and acquit.

That's not entirely true. In information theory, you can infer information from the patterns of lies/disinformation.

For example, it would be a reasonable question to ask, "why does Zimmerman feel that he needs to lie about his past?" "Why has Zimmerman changed his account of what happened that night?"

We can infer information just from the fact that he lies.

If he's lying, then one assumes he has a reason to lie. A reasonable assumption is that the reason is to cover up a crime.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DD, You are correct. In our trial, we knew that the defendant lied to the police also. He claimed he was at home, but a cop stopped him when he was driving home that night. The cop was a witness for the prosecution.
There were other circumstantial evidence that proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was the rapist and murder.

It doesn't require "we don't know the truth about the confrontation" to convict.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

unless the state can prove otherwise that is the law sir.

Of course, but that's not my point. My point is that to prove the defendant lying isn't to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

For example, it would be a reasonable question to ask, "why does Zimmerman feel that he needs to lie about his past?" "Why has Zimmerman changed his account of what happened that night?"

We can infer information just from the fact that he lies.

I'm sure we can, but we can't prove anything from that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. And because this is a criminal trial, the question for the jury is what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not what is more likely true than not.

Drew Dad wrote:

If he's lying, then one assumes he has a reason to lie. A reasonable assumption is that the reason is to cover up a crime.

I agree. This is one reasonable assumption. But the lying does not invalidate all reasonable assumptions but the one that he covered up a crime. And that's what the prosecution needs to do to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Are you coming on to me!!!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

You wrote,

Quote:

I'm sure we can, but we can't prove anything from that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. And because this is a criminal trial, the question for the jury is what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not what is more likely true than not.

We know for a fact that Zimmerman lied, but you're also stipulating that "we can't prove anything from that fact 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Isn't that a contradiction? Truth needs to be consistent for the jury to determine what are facts. If the defendant is free to lie all he/she wants because it can confuse the jury, that's a straw man argument.

Perjury is still a serious offense, and so is lying to the police.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Isn't that a contradiction?

No, because there is only one way for a statement to be true, but many ways for it to be false. Since we know that Zimmerman lied, we can rule out that his statement is true. But we still don't know which particular alternative to his lie is true. In particular, we cannot conclude that Zimmerman committed murder and is covering up for it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Perjury is still a serious offense, and so is lying to the police.

Then I suggest the prosecution get him convicted for that in a future trial.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

People are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence when they tell a different story.

And there is a reason for that: it's called injustice. Unless the circumstantial evidence is unusually good, it does not establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the defendant's guilt isn't established beyond a reasonable doubt, it's unjust to convict him. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it does mean it shouldn't happen.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

What he tells the police is after the suspect has been read his Miranda rights.

If he agrees, there's nothing more the jury has to take into consideration about the suspect's lies. The judge's instruction to the jury is also pretty clear; if the defendant is caught in a lie, the jury is free to think everything that the suspect says is a lie.

Try to get around that with "beyond a reasonable doubt" - even in this case where Zimmerman's lies will probably determine his fate.

If the jury has a question about any of the evidence presented, and they must choose, they'll probably lean towards not trusting Zimmerman.

I would think.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.

no, even if the jury discounts everything zimmerman has said because they dont believe him the state is still no where in proving that zimmerman did not shoot in self defense. zimmermans credibility might have mattered if the state had a case, but they have rested having made no case.

I think that the big story here is the multiple lies by the state in the indictment....I am hoping zimmerman sues
the state for malicious prosecution.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The judge's instruction to the jury is also pretty clear; if the defendant is caught in a lie, the jury is free to think everything that the suspect says is a lie.

I'm not sure which part of the jury instruction you're talking about. Can you remind me with a quote.

cicerone imposter wrote:

If the jury has a question about any of the evidence presented, and they must choose, they'll probably lean towards not trusting Zimmerman.

The jury need not choose, though. It is free to remain unconvinced by both sides of the case.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thomas, I think your standard for reasonable doubt might be a little unreasonable.

And I think you might be determined to see Zimmerman convicted because demanding an acquittal would threaten your self-image as a good, post-racist person. But I have no evidence to prove that --- and neither do you.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

This is what I could find now, but I'm sure I posted on an earlier one about the defendant's lie(s).

Quote:

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

In Preliminary Instruction No. 9, I instructed you on the credibility of witnesses. I now give you this instruction on how witnesses can be "impeached."

A witness may be discredited, or "impeached," by other evidence that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony. This would include evidence that at some earlier time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony in the trial. It is for you to decide whether or not a witness has been impeached. If you decide that a witness has been impeached, and thus discredited, you may choose to disbelieve all or part of the witness's testimony. On the other hand, you may choose to believe the witness's testimony despite the fact that the witness has been impeached.

Since it's up to the jurors to decide impeachment, I'm leaving it up to them to decide on this case.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Ah, ok, thanks. That's all fine. But notice: To impeach witnesses is to ignore their testimonies as unreliable. It does not mean you rely on the opposites of their testimonies being true. The testimony of an impeached witness is supposed play no part in the jury's reasoning. Whether it doesn't in practice is another question, but it shouldn't.

CI wrote:

Since it's up to the jurors to decide impeachment, I'm leaving it up to them to decide on this case.

There goes this red herring again. Who isn't?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I know all that! That's the reason why I'm leaving the decision up to the jurors.

What I wrote is not a "red herring." It's what the jurors hear on criminal cases; or at least that's what they're supposed to hear.

You can come to any conclusion you wish; I'm not that positive about anything on how the jury will decide this case.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Zimmerman isn't a witness unless he takes the stand. So he really can't be "impeached."

But the state has used his own statements, including his account of the events leading up to the shooting, to attack his credibility, so that will be something for the jury to consider. If he lies about some things, as he clearly did in the Hannity interview, why should the jury believe him about anything--particularly when some of what he claims is not supported by any other evidence?

I suspect that this week, the defense will probably call some witnesses who will try to bolster Zimmerman's credibility. His credibility is crucial to an acquittal.

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know