The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Self defense is an affirmative defense in Florida. Zimmerman acknowledges he killed Martin, but he alleges this was justifiable in defense of his own life. So, his justification for the homicide must be shown by the defense.

That may be what Wikipedia says about most jurisdictions in America, but its not what the standard Florida jury instructions say. They state adamantly that any reasonable doubt about a killer's self-defense claim gets the defendant off the hook.

Quote:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

See Florida Standard Jury Instructions, under 3.6(f), page 4, second paragraph from the top.

To repeat: The defense does not have to prove anything. It's the prosecution that has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's use of force was unjustified. That's a very tough burden of proof for it to carry. It seems clear, to me at least, that the witnesses have already slipped enough banana peels under the prosecution's heels to make it collapse under this heavy burden of proof.

If all citizens of Florida
exercised their First Amendment rights as Zimmy did,
there 'd be a lot less burglary in Florida.

( Admittedly, I 'd not do that,
in that I m too lazy for it and not civic minded. )

If all citizens of Florida
exercised their First Amendment rights as Zimmy did,
there 'd be a lot less burglary in Florida.

( Admittedly, I 'd not do that,
in that I m too lazy for it and not civic minded. )

Which First Amendment rights are those, David?

Freedom of Speech is really going to cut down burglaries? Ya think?

Maybe supporting a free press?

If you're thinking of SECOND amendment "rights" as misexemplified by Florida's "Stand your ground" law, under which the shooter alone's determination of when he feels threatened supersedes anybody else's, and everybody packed heat as you insist they should, then "Zimmy" would be dead and Trayvon would be walking free rather than murdered, since "Zimmy" was the predator who stalked Trayvon and clearly made Trayvon feel imperiled.

And need I remind you, Trayvon wasn't a burglar but was apparently
totally erroneously profiled as such by "Zimmy".

"Zimmy" is a disgrace to a civilized society.

Zimmerman's Low Burden of Proof on the Issue of Self Defense
Akron Law Café -- ^ | April 13, 2012 | Professor Will Huhn

Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:00:05 AM by RC one

In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.

Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. ,b>Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true.

Last year the Fifth District Court of Appeal quoted this language from Murray and followed the same rule in the case of Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011). In Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:

The inclusion of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse.

Seminole County, where Trayvon Martin was killed, is in the is in the Fifth Appellate District, so the rule in Montijo is controlling unless and until the law is changed.

Florida Standard Jury Instructions online are in accord with the courts' rulings in Murray and Montijo. Instruction 3.6(f) states

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

On April 1, 2012, the Florida Bar News published proposed amendments to the Standard Jury Instructions. The proposed amendment to Instruction 3.6(f) would strengthen this language to clarify that the jury may convict the defendant only if it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The proposed amendment adds the underlined phrase to the charge to the jury:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.

Let the memory of Trayvon be with us forever

This memorial website was created in the memory of our loved one, Trayvon Martin, 17, born on February 5, 1995 and passed away on February 26, 2012. We will remember him forever.

Zimmerman's account is consistent with my own thesis that Martin was casing houses for burglaries.

On the day Martin was fatally shot, he and his father were visiting his father's fiancée and her son at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, a multi-ethnic gated community, where the shooting occurred.[35][36] Martin had visited his father's fiancée at Twin Lakes several times