HUGE Omission in the George Zimmerman Jury Instructions

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)

There was a HUGE omission in the George Zimmerman jury instructions. An ESSENTIAL element of the "Stand Your Ground" defense was KEPT FROM THE JURY. DU commenter points out correctly the judge made the determination to omit Section 776.041.

][link:

|

[heaven05]

1. with

this jury, wouldn't have made a difference. The judge issued the instructions full well knowing of this statute, so there is judicial malfeasance here. But because Trayvon Martin was scary with that hood, those skittles and tea in his hands, and he was black it would NOT have made a difference with this jury.

[jjewell]

3. It Might have made a difference...

Remember, the jury began deliberations with one juror favoring 2nd degree murder and two favoring manslaughter. With the proper instruction, the other three jurors might have been convinced to convict on at least manslaughter.

[heaven05]

4. the

issue of race weighs too heavily in this case. The race of the perp, the race of the murder victim, the race of judge, prosecution and defense and not the least the race of jurors.. ...In my mind, the verdict outcome, even with this statute would NEVER have been in doubt. Big might.

[Maraya1969]

2. Soooooooooooo why would the judge do something like this?

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

28. IDK here's the arguments and the judge's decision

&feature=youtu.be

&feature=youtu.be

[freshwest]

5. Agreed. A video showing the bloody hands of the Koch brothers' ALEC changing the law to SYG:

Thom Hartmann: Media Ignoring a Shocking Fact about Trayvon & Zimmerman

Published on Jul 18, 2013

The mainstream media is ignoring a startling fact about the George Zimmerman trial - a fact so shocking you're going to want to call your local news station right after I tell you about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017132740

The media is owned by the same conservative billionaire club the Koches are in. That is why the media did all they could to taint public opinion with misinformation.

I also lay most of the blame on the Judge, and if it can be proven to the DOJ or anyone else who can punish the corrupt court in Sanford, that might allow charges on them.

Z cannot be tried again on this, but it has happened before that such perps do get tried on civil rights charges.

Holder to NAACP: Trayvon Martin’s Death Was ‘Unnecessary,’ Questions ‘Stereotypes’ and Stand-Your-Ground Laws

http://blackamericaweb.com/147077/eric-holder-george-zimmerman-case/

[AAO]

6. Just sad as fuck.

[proReality]

7. Zimmerman didn't use the SYG law

He claimed "self-defense", so the jury wasn't instructed in SYG.

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

8. YES HE DID it was in the jury instruction.

[SunSeeker]

11. SYG is now in the "self-defense" jury instruction, whether you invoked SYG or not.

That is what so many people are missing in this case.

Pre-2006 (before ALEC SYG law) Jury Instructions:

The fact that the defendant was wrongly attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.

Jury Instructions that were ACTUALLY READ at the George Zimmerman trial:

The danger facing George Zimmerman 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 the force.
Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
George Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force; including deadly force, if he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.

It is explained well in this Thom Hartmann clip, as noted up the thread:

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

14. Thom Hartmann doesn't realize the jury instructions were wrong

As much of a Hartmann fan that I am... If Zimmerman provoked the fight, he still had a duty to retreat:

Justification for using deadly force in self defense, which includes the "stand your ground" defense, does not apply to a person who provokes the attack. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). There are only two exceptions to this rule: (1) where there is no means of escape other than the use of deadly force, or (2) if the provoking person withdraws from physical contact or unequivocally indicates his desire to withdraw from the confrontation and the alleged victim continues or resumes the use of force. Id.

Darling v. State, 81 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2012)

Hartmann is correct to say Zimmerman wasn't judged on whether he had any duty to retreat, as per the original post. But if Zimmerman provoked the fight (which many argue should have been a jury question), he DID have a duty to retreat, generally.

[SunSeeker]

17. My point was the Zimmerman "self defense" jury instructions did include SYG wording.

The fact that the instruction did not include duty to retreat wording just added insult to injury. Thom does make the great point about how the defense attorney argued Trayvon caused his own death because he did not retreat (via a dramatic 4 minutes of silence showing how long Trayvon had to retreat) but never mentioned that his client made no effort to retreat. The jury totally bought into that (fueled by their racism?) believing Trayvon had a duty to retreat, but Zimmerman did not.

But mistakes at trial only matter if there was a conviction; it does not result in a new trial if there was an acquittal. Really, the only hope for justice for Trayvon is a civil rights action by DOJ.

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

18. I agree w/you on all you say

Though I think a hate crime action is a tough case to win.

[A Simple Game]

23. It may be a tough case to win, but I welcome them to use all of the tax monry I have paid in my life

just to make Zimmerman's life miserable for as long as possible. The message has to be sent to all would be Zimmermans that you may get acquitted but you will pay a high price for it.

[rhett o rick]

9. Is there any recourse? nm

[blkmusclmachine]

10. It just keeps getting more rotten by the day.

Seriously.

[EC]

12. judges are elected in Florida

aren't they? They really have to organize and get out the vote.

[B Stieg]

13. Here's another part of the instructions

As former Florida Secretary of State Dan Gelber has pointed out, pre-Jeb Bush, pre- Koch Brothers, and pre-ALEC Florida law would have required the following instructions to be read to a jury in a self-defense murder trial:

"The defendant [George Zimmerman] cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant [George Zimmerman] was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

By comparison, here are the Stand Your Ground instructions that actually were read to the Zimmerman jury:

“The danger facing George Zimmerman 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, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

“George Zimmerman… had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself …”

A pretty different orientation after ALEC and Bush!

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

15. BUT if Zimmerman provoked the fight, he STILL had a duty to retreat, generally under 776.041.

Justification for using deadly force in self defense, which includes the "stand your ground" defense, does not apply to a person who provokes the attack. § 776.041(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). There are only two exceptions to this rule: (1) where there is no means of escape other than the use of deadly force, or (2) if the provoking person withdraws from physical contact or unequivocally indicates his desire to withdraw from the confrontation and the alleged victim continues or resumes the use of force. Id.

Darling v. State, 81 So. 3d 574, 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2012)

[B Stieg]

19. Thank you counselor!

Wow! So was it just a weak prosecution that failed to make this argument? I didn't watch the trial minute-by-minute. (Clarification: I'm not challenging you here, just wondering if there's some sort of case to be made for prosecutorial misconduct-I'm the worst sort-I made it through only 1 semester of law school).

I also think that even under the SYG-influenced instructions, the use of "reasonable belief" is problematic, not in terms of its applicability as a standard but in terms of the provoking of the attack. If Zimmerman "reasonably believed" the danger was so real that he called the police (was it a 911 call?) , wouldn't that raise the question of why he would ever get out of the truck rather than drive off to safety and then, when he did get out of the vehicle, make him the aggressor and invalidate his defense of the right to use deadly force? Darling sure sounds on point.

If so, I also think that there was then a second provocation by Zimmerman, though sadly un-provable. Everybody talks about throwing the first punch, but I believe that it was Zimmerman who said "You're going to die tonight" (and probably, "I have a gun&quot to Trayvon first and that's what set him off, as it would anyone, especially a scared kid.

[B Stieg]

22. Agreed.

You should look for DU poster dkf as you are more qualified than I to debate her/him on the duty to retreat. I agree with Geragos and AG Holder. The removal of the duty to retreat turns America into the wild, wild west.

Thanks!

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. They did try, the judge ruled against them

The duty to retreat, and the first aggressor instructions were not allowed in.

The defense argued (as I understand it) that there was no evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and that walking around his neighborhood was not an aggressive act. The judge agreed with defense over the objection of the prosecution.

The missing instruction was the key to the case (in my humble opinion).

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

26. Do you remember when that was argued?

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

27. I found the links to the argument. Thank you very much

&feature=youtu.be

Decided against the prosecution at the end here:

&feature=youtu.be

[Cha]

20. Mahalo!

[CHOCOLATMIMOSA]

24. You are welcome!