Here's the instructions to the jury:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...an-jury/nYnqZ/
After reading them I'm not sure what I would go with.
NOT GUILTY is tempting because there seems to be some reasonable doubt. However, it is not in dispute at all that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Only whether or not it was Justifiable Homicide.
Quote:
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.
|
Note that word FELONY.
If you believe Zimmerman and that Trayvon reached for his gun and threatened to kill him that would definitely be a felony as well as a possible attempt to murder. But Zimmerman's injuries don't seem to demonstrate felony battery at all. His injuries are consistent with a minor bar fight.
So I guess the question is whether you believe Zimmerman where there is no one to collaborate his story beyond being on the ground and crying out for help (which I believe this part due to the other witness).
I see elements from his statements which make me doubt his credibility (for example that he wasn;t following him - just going in the same direction). The jury could do the same thing. Once you toss out his statements about Trayvon allegedly reaching for his gun and once you see the assault as being a misdemeanor (fairly mild and without risk of life long permanent injury - Zimmerman refused to go to the hospital afterwards) then there is an absence of any felony with which to make it "justifiable homicide".
Quote:
SECOND DEGREE MURDER
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
3. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
|
1 is obvious
2 and 3 I have problems with. I would not convict him of this.
Quote:
MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
|
1. is obvious
2. I could do. Absent the justifiable Homicide defense I think I could convict him of manslaughter. But I could only do that if I saw Zimmerman as not being credible.
EDIT: In addition it's questionable whether Trayvon was committing a crime at all and not acting in self defense himself. So that casts even more doubt on the idea that a "felony" was being committed against GZ. Unless I miss something, also as mentioned, felony battery goes way beyond GZ's injuries which would not demonstrate this at all.