Judge's rebuke to George Zimmerman: turning point in Trayvon Martin case?

[maddezmom]

Judge's rebuke to George Zimmerman: turning point in Trayvon Martin case?


The judge presiding over the Trayvon Martin murder case issued a harsh rebuke this week of George Zimmerman's dealings with the court. That probably won't serve the defendant well at his Stand Your Ground hearing, analysts say.

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / July 6, 2012

George Zimmerman, who stands accused of killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, hasn't done himself any favors with the court during his bond escapades, the judge overseeing his case made clear this week. And that, say some legal analysts, could come back to haunt him during the next major step in his defense: the self-defense hearing.

Although Seminole County (Fla.) Judge Kenneth Lester ruled Thursday that Mr. Zimmerman, who had been returned to jail after first bond was revoked, could be free on $1 million bail, his order also gave a stiff assessment of the defendant's actions to date.

George Zimmerman, the judge's summation said, had masterminded a plot with his wife to manipulate the criminal justice system, may have planned to use $130,000 in donated money to flee the country before trial, and whose lawyer improperly portrayed him in court hearings as a scared young man, when the “only male whose youth is relevant” was Trayvon Martin.

With Judge Lester’s stern order, it appears that a case that many experts expected would be difficult for the prosecution to prove has become more problematic for Zimmerman. His defense team will have to lay out its version of events leading up to Trayvon's shooting against the backdrop of Zimmerman's damaged credibility – in front of a judge whose neutrality about the defendant's honesty has been sorely tested.

more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0706/Judge-s-rebuke-to-George-Zimmerman-turning-point-in-Trayvon-Martin-case

[Life Long Dem]

1. The defense doesn't need to prove shit.

It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. That's what innocent until proven guilty is all about.

"His defense team will have to lay out its version of events leading up to Trayvon's shooting against the backdrop of Zimmerman's damaged credibility" Bullshit.

[unblock]

3. article says: "for the prosecution to prove" & "his defense team will have to lay out its version"

they used the proper terminology, the defense doesn't have to "prove" anything.
what's the problem?

yes, of course the overall burden of proof is with the prosecution, but if the defense can't credibly show reasonable doubt, the prosecution will have an easy time of it.

[Life Long Dem]

4. An easy time of what?

Proving guilt? Like I said, innocent until proven guilty. Let them go at it to prove guilt. I have no problem with that.

[unblock]

5. self-defense is an affirmative defense. the prosecution doesn't need to do anything.

the burden is on the defense to raise reasonable doubt that the actions were properly taken in self-defense.

the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything relating to the specific defense strategy of asserting self-defense.

the prosecution has the burden to show that the accused did in fact deliberately kill the victim, etc. all that beyond a reasonable doubt. if they fail to do that, the defense wins.

however, this much is pretty easy.

if the prosecution succesfully builds their case, then the defense's job is to create reasonable doubt. the self-defense arguement is one way to do this, but the burden is on the defense to create that reasonable doubt.

if the defense doesn't credibly produce evidence and reasonable doubt, then the prosecution wins.
if the defense does credibly produce evidence and reasonable doubt, then it is back on the prosecution to remove that reasonable doubt.

the point is that "self-defense" is an affirmative defense. the defense actively has to produce evidence and build that defense. if the entire trial goes by without anyone uttering anything about "self-defense", then the prosecution (assuming it proved the rest of its case beyond a reasonable doubt) will win.

here's a bit of discussion on this point, relating to montana law, which appears to have a similar "stand your ground" concept:

http://www.mtcoattorneysassn.org/documents/summer2010/self-defense%20presentation.pdf

B. Self-defense or the defense of another is also available under
Montana law as a justifiable use of force. See, Mont. Code Ann. § 45-3-
101, et. seq. Pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 45-3-115,the defense is an
affirmative defense. As such, the prosecution need only prove the
elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Henson, 2010 WL 2492179, pages 9 and 10 (Mont. June 22, 2010). The
defendant bears the burdens of production and persuasion to produce
sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that he acted in selfdefense.
Id.
A defendant employs justifiable force where: (1) he is not the
aggressor ; (2) the danger of harm to the defendant is a present one; (3) 2
the threatened force is unlawful; (4) the defendant actually believes the
danger exists, that is, use of force is necessary to avert the danger and
the kind and amount of force used is necessary; (5) the defendant's
belief is reasonable , even if mistaken; and (6) in the event force likely 3
to cause death or serious bodily injury is employed, the defendant must
reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or
serious bodily injury to himself or to prevent the commission of a
forcible felony. Id. at page 10. All statutory elements of the defense
must be present in order to assert the defense. City of Helena v. Lewis,
260 Mont. 421, 428, 860 P.2d 698, 702 (1993). Under Montana law a
defendant who acts in self-defense has no duty to retreat from a place
where the defendant is lawfully located, provided the defendant is not
the initial aggressor. See, Mont. Code Ann. § 45-3-110.

[Life Long Dem]

6. You said it

"the prosecution has the burden to show that the accused did in fact deliberately kill the victim, etc."

[unblock]

8. nice, pick out the bit that suits you and ignore everything else i researched and wrote.

the prosecution does NOT need to prove non-self-defense.

the judge or jury is entitled to assume that there was no self-defense unless and until the defense actively produces evidence supporting this and successfully creates reasonable doubt.

only in the event that the defense successfully asserts self-defense, produces evidence to support the claim (and all the relevant components of the self-defense claim under florida law), and creates reasonable doubt, THEN the prosecution needs to remove reasonable doubt from at least one component of the defense.

[Life Long Dem]

9. What defense did Casey Anthony's trial have?

Did the defense even say a word?

[unblock]

10. sorry, i must have missed the self-defense angle in that case.

my understanding is that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child died deliberately at the hands of her mother (as opposed to an accidental drowning). "deliberately" and "at the hands of the accused" are among the elements the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and, at least by looking at the results in that case, the prosecution failed.

self-defense is a different animal. the prosecution doesn't have to bring it up and prove non-self-defense. if no one says anything, the defense cannot ask the judge for a directed verdict on the grounds that the prosecution didn't prove their case because they didn't address self-defense. it's an AFFIRMATIVE defense, meaning the defense has to bring it up and demonstrate all the necessary elements, at least to the level of reasonable doubt.

[Life Long Dem]

12. "the prosecution failed"

I agree. But they should have to prove guilt, and yes for a juries sake, beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Life Long Dem]

7. I don't agree the defense has to speak up in defense.

[unblock]

11. in general, that's correct; except in case of affirmative defenses such as self-defense or insanity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. No one should mistakenly believe that Judge Lester will be the trial judge.

Before the case goes before a trial judge, Zimmerman is entitled to a pretrial hearing by which he can seek to have the prosecution's case dismissed on the grounds that the judge in charge of the pre-trial hearing has been convinced that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and that he used reasonable force in self-defense.

If Zimmerman does not challenge the impartiality of Judge Lester, then Judge Lester will preside over the pretrial hearing.