Autopsy Results Show Trayvon Martin Had Injuries to His Knuckles [W:1169, 1244]

[Grim17]

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.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...as long as Zimmerman can produce evidence that it was a case of self defense...

In what way is that bolded part different from this bolded part?

...the defendant has the burden to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[vendur]

I wasn't aware of that.

Probably because you took the time to read them.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

From a legal standpoint yes it is.

Please cite the law that has jurisdiction over logic.

I suspect that one of us, (or both of us), isn't following the other because your reply doesn't make in sense to me in this context.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Probably because you took the time to read them.

I took the time to read what?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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.

Isn't this the same as saying that the defendant bears a burden of proof of some sort?

I don't understand how this means that Z doesn't bear a burden of proof.

 

[vendur]

I took the time to read what?

His posts.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

His posts.

Oh, I see. You were slamming AdamT.
ahh. Now I get it.

Well thankfully he cited a source, so we don't have to rely on trusting AdamT as a source of information.

 

[vendur]

Oh, I see. You were slamming AdamT.
ahh. Now I get it.

Hey, you said it.

 

[Grim17]

In what way is that bolded part different from this bolded part?

Because once the defendant has introduced evidence that it was a case of self defense, jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense... In other words, it becomes the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense, rather that it just being a preponderance of evidence.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hey, you said it.

No, I just figured it out after having a hint.

 

[Grim17]

Isn't this the same as saying that the defendant bears a burden of proof of some sort?

I don't understand how this means that Z doesn't bear a burden of proof.

Basically, if Z introduces eye witnesses that testify that he was on the ground crying for help and Martin was beating the crap out of him, that is evidence of self defense. That means the burden of responsibility shifts to the prosecution to prove that Z was not acting in self defense.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Because once the defendant has introduced evidence that it was a case of self defense, jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense... In other words, it becomes the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense, rather that it just being a preponderance of evidence.

I don't think AdamT said that the prosecution only has to meet the preponderance of evidence. Pretty sure he said that the defense must meet the preponderance of evidence criteria to establish that it was a case of self defense--iow, introduce sufficient evidence to establish that it was a case of self defense.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Basically, if Z introduces eye witnesses that testify that he was on the ground crying for help and Martin was beating the crap out of him, that is evidence of self defense. That means the burden of responsibility shifts to the prosecution to prove that Z was not acting in self defense.

Yeah, I get that.
I just don't see how Z having to produce evidence is not a burden of proof.

 

[AdamT]

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.

And yet again, you are talking about self defense while I'm talking about the Stand Your Ground Law. These are two different things. Stand Your Ground is decided pre-trial by the judge, on motion of the defendant. Self defense is decided by the jury. So Zimmerman will first try to get the case dismissed on SYG, and if that fails, he will argue self defense at trial. Under SYG, the burden is on the defendant. For self defense, the burden is on the prosecution. Aside from that, the difference between the two is that, with respect to self defense, the prosecution can argue that Zimmerman had the opportunity to retreat and failed to exercise it. There is no duty to retreat under SYG.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

He refused to run...

So Zimmerman was entitled to stand his ground but Trayvon was not?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Actually, physical evidence contradicts this. Martin's body was found well on the grass, not near the pavement.

Where did you get this?
I have been looking for such info and have not found anything very conclusive. But I have found varying reports.

So where did yours come from and what did it say?

You'll also notice Trayvon's body is nowhere near the "T" in the cut through where Zimmerman claims he was attacked.

 

[OscarB63]

So Zimmerman was entitled to stand his ground but Trayvon was not?

I thought we were talking about exercising good judgement. both men were entitled to SYG. zimmerman showed poor judgement when he got out of his vehicle to look for martin. martin showed poor judgement when he refused to run on home after he had lost zimmerman. better judgement by either one and martin would still be alive.

some good advice to BOTH of them that night would have been...."don't be a hero"

 

[Leo]

Well, I kinda did. What I said is that I am an attorney licensed to practice in Florida. I understand the applicable law and you very obviously do not. The prosecution has the burden (beyond a reasonable doubt) of proving a crime, but if a defendant asserts an affirmative defense, or in this case immunity, then the defense has the burden of proving the defense or the applicability of immunity.

We don't have unsound laws, such as the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, in the British legal system, but the mitigation of self-defence exists in every legal system. I have discussed this case with my uncle, who is a Queen's Council, and Head of Chambers at one of the leading Inns of Court, and his opinion is very close to the one given by you in respect of self-defence. Any plea in mitigation carries the burden of proof. We need to remember that Zimmerman has pleaded guilty to intentional homicide, and in order to employ the mitigation of self-defence, he has to establish that he was in genuine fear for his life, and that level of fear would be experienced by any reasonable person in identical circumstances.

I have neither medical nor legal qualifications, (yet - I am reading law at university,) but I suspect a broken nose, and two scratches to the back of the head, experienced at the hands of a slight teenager, would be unlikely to convince a British jury of the danger of imminent death. Within our system, the requirement of proportional response also applies - and I further suspect that shooting an unarmed minor dead in the course of a scuffle, might be regarded as excessive and unwarranted. Add to which the series of events which led to the confrontation, and I think a mitigating plea of self-defence might be in trouble. But I qualify this opinion by stating that this might be the case under British Law, US laws may very well vary significantly.

 

[OscarB63]

Photobucket | trayvon Pictures, trayvon Images, trayvon Photos body grass/amsterdam18/os-pictures-evidence-photos-released-in-the-sh-046.jpg

You'll also notice Trayvon's body is nowhere near the "T" in the cut through where Zimmerman claims he was attacked.

you'll also notice that it is along the path where one witness claims to have seen one man chasing the other. it is possible that martin attacked zimmerman at the T, zimmerman ran down the path and the fight occurred at that point. :shrug:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Photobucket | trayvon Pictures, trayvon Images, trayvon Photos body grass/amsterdam18/os-pictures-evidence-photos-released-in-the-sh-046.jpg

That shot was after the PD and the FD had had their way with the corpse. So, it's related to where the body was found, but I don't know how exactly.

Also, Tracy Martin said that the PD told him that M was found with his feet on the sidewalk and w/ his head in the grass.
There's another account of where the body was found, but I forget the details atm.

You'll also notice Trayvon's body is nowhere near the "T" in the cut through where Zimmerman claims he was attacked.

One of the many reasons why I think I need to know what Z's story is exactly before I can believe the story or not.

I have not seen an attempt to reconcile the location of the altercation with the version of Z's story that has Z crossing the block to see a street sign and then heading back to his truck.
I wonder what Z's reconciliation of these things is.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

you'll also notice that it is along the path where one witness claims to have seen one man chasing the other. it is possible that martin attacked zimmerman at the T, zimmerman ran down the path and the fight occurred at that point.

Not knowing Z's story does make it very hard to make a decision about his story.

It would be notable, imho, if Z's version does not account for this at all.

Iirc, neither RZ nor RZ jr mentioned the chasing bit. Though I did see mention of it from other witnesses recently.

 

[What if...?]

How come there are no bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body except, the gunshot wound and broken skin on his hands?

The answer to this and your other questions may very well be because they were fighting over the gun.

Wonder if M cut his hand on the gun?

 

[washunut]

Not after charges have been pressed. At this point it is public information. I agree with you on everything that was leaked prior however.

I am not a lawyer perhaps I am wrong. I do not recall the leaking of this type of information as SOP. Again I don't follow trial stuff much so maybe this is the way it goes.

 

[OscarB63]

The answer to this and your other questions may very well be because they were fighting over the gun.

Wonder if M cut his hand on the gun?

would be nice to know if martin's fingerprints were on the gun