ABC News legal analyst, on what he thinks the verdict will be on Zimmerman's charges

[Ron Quixote]

ANALYSIS by DAN ABRAMS
July 7, 2013

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422#.Udnpn23D7fU

[Deep13]

1. Why is anyone listening to these people?

There's no need to guess. The jury will have it soon enough.

For the record, I don't think there is any way around Z shot M and now M is dead.

[madville]

5. The defense is not arguing that point

They readily admit Zimmerman shot him, the question is was it justifiable or not?

[Deep13]

22. yeah. pretty tall order. nt

[Happyhippychick]

2. My husband, a lawyer, said the same thing. He said the State is doing a horrible job.

He's hoping for manslaughter but doesn't see any way That the state proved murder.

[FarPoint]

13. I believe we have put more thought into the crime scene events

right here on DU this month than the Prosecution has in an entire year. I feel no passion by the Prosecution..none what so ever. They are just going through the motions.

[madville]

3. Sounds like a reasonable analysis from a legal standpoint

Like he says though it is impossible to predict the jury's decision at this point. I personally think they will feel a need to convict him of something, but under the law second degree is not it. I think they hand down a manslaughter conviction.

[L0oniX]

4. I didn't believe he would be convicted from the start...

from my understanding of the Florida STYG law. Proving someone is not in fear for their life is not an easy thing to do.

[madville]

6. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this case

Like the article says, Self-Defense and Stand Your Ground are two different things. They couldn;t argue Stand Your Ground because it was likely Zimmerman initiated the contact that led to the conflict. Under regular Self-Defense it doesn't matter so much how the altercation started, one just has to fear bodily harm.

[Hoyt]

10. The bigots and gun lovers sure want it to fall that way.

But, it ain't right/moral/ethical and a jury can negate the right wingers' interpretation of applicable laws.

[Hoyt]

7. Maybe the jury will do the right thing without all the "legal masterbation" under Florida's bigoted

laws to say a bigot cannot grab his gun, stalk an unarmed teenager, and shoot him in cold blood.

[pintobean]

14. Wow. You want the jury to ignore the law,

evidence, and any jury instructions, so they can get to your conclusion? That's very telling, Hoyt.

[Hoyt]

17. No, I don't want them to ignore law. But, I don't believe the law intended to allow a bigot with a

gun to shoot down an unarmed teenager.

That may be the way the NRA -- and other gun oriented bigots -- intended the law, but that was not the real intent (at least it should not be).

You read the laws however you want, but I don't think it says any yahoo/bigot with a gun can shoot down a kid in cold blood.

Of course, all the "legal experts" who love guns -- and read word by word with their index finger -- will give us a link to code sections that f*ckers like Massad Ayoob -- and other "self defense instructors" -- say allows you to do just that.

[LittleBlue]

8. The state's case is awful

Their job is to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, and that he wasn't in fear of great bodily harm.

The only thing beyond doubt right now is that the state should never have charged Zimmerman with murder 2.

[99Forever]

9. Lotsa lawyers have lotsa opinions.

Some are right, some aren't.

I would say for the health of this nation, let's hope this guy is wrong.

If this murdering scumbag walks, there will more murders than anyone can dare imagine, as one "brave" Buford Pusser wannabe after another decides it's time to clean up "their" neighborhood. Followed by the backlash. Watch the body count and remember this post.

Gun culture is a mental illness.

[olddots]

11. I remember smelling L.A. Burning after the Rodney King verdict

n.t.

[RandiFan1290]

12. Welcome Back!

Hooray!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Oh hey, Adric....Welcome back.

[RedCappedBandit]

16. Sufficient evidence has been introduced to support a guilty verdict in Zimmerman case

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/07/sufficient-evidence-has-been-introduced-to-support-a-guilty-verdict-in-zimmerman-case/

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Good evening:

NBC’s Dan Abrams, whom I generally respect, has announced that he believes the jury will find the the defendant not guilty of both murder 2 and manslaughter. Given the State’s difficult burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which he believes to be impossible since the defendant has a coherent theory of the case supported by many witnesses as well as the photographs showing the injuries to his head, he said that he does not see any way that the jury can convict him.

In reaching that opinion, I believe Abrams commits the same mistake that so many of his colleagues commit on a daily basis regarding all of the important stories and issues of the day. They assume that there are two sides to every story and each side has both strengths and weaknesses. In other words, they assume the opposing sides are roughly equally legitimate. This assumption is not based on a thorough evidence based review of the respective sides or an objective evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing arguments.

...

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/07/sufficient-evidence-has-been-introduced-to-support-a-guilty-verdict-in-zimmerman-case/

[Morganfleeman]

19. Flawed analysis

Nelson's dismissal of Zimmerman's motion to throw out the charges has no bearing on whether there is enough to convict. Motions for judgements of acquittal almost invariably decided against the defendant because the judge must look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. EVERY potentially conflicting issue must be assumed to be in the prosecution's favor. The standard for a conviction is quite different, in fact, it's exactly the opposite. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a completely different threshhold, so this discussion in this blog post about what the jury can reasonably infer are nonsense. Reasonable inference and proof beyond reasonable doubt are completely different animals.

[Morganfleeman]

18. The state overcharged

Period. This should NEVER have been a murder 2 case. At worst it should have been involuntary manslaughter. Proving ill will, hatred, depravity etc. on the facts you have here are going to be extremely difficult, and I don't think the State has met that burden. Proving this element of the crime generally only happens where the two persons know each other (with certain exceptions). There is ample case law to illustrate that the bar to proving the requisite ill will or hatred is high, even in much more violent and personal attacks, courts have held that there was no ill will or hatred to sustain the conviction of the trial court.

As for manslaughter, it may not necessarily be available anymore if Zimmerman objects to a jury instruction on manslaughter. The State has never alleged culpable negligence in this case and Florida courts have held that it is fundamental error to instruct jury on manslaughter if it was not part of the complaint (so long as the defendant objects). Zimmerman likely will walk, and the state has only itself to blame.

[RandiFan1290]

20. Hello there!

so obvious

[Quantess]

21. I'm placing my bet on manslaughter conviction.

2nd most likely bet is acquittal.

We'll see what happens.