State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) > Evidence Discussion

The Prosecution's Burden of Proof

(1/15) > >>

RickyJim:
Here is an attempt to distill down from the redundancies and inapplicable portions of FL 776, exactly what the prosecution must do to get a conviction for at least manslaughter, in other words, defeat Zimmerman's self defense claim.  Unless they have a plausible case here, I don't think it is worth getting into what in addition must be proven to get a Murder2 conviction.

At least one of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

* Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony at the start of the physical conflict with Martin.  For example, trying to forcibly detain him.
* Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm at the time he shot Martin.
* Both a) and b) below must be proven BRD.
    a)Zimmerman was the initial provoker of the conflict with Martin.
    b)Zimmerman could have safely withdrawn from the fight but chose not to do so.
My impression is that the defense can refute any evidence the prosecution has for 1, 2. or 3 without calling Zimmerman to the stand, unless the prosecution has dynamite GPS evidence to establish 1.  Under Florida law, can O'Mara read such a list as above to the jury in his opening statement? 

DebFrmHell:
I am still trying to figure out how BDLR is going to give an opening statement without relying on emotion and Martin's character.  Gilbreath stated under oath that they had no evidence that contradicts the narrative given by Zimmerman.

RickyJim:
Maybe Bernie won't give the opening statement.  We have been seeing more and more of John Guy at the hearings.  Corey may decide that since he is easier on the ears and eyes than BDLR, he should do it. :D

As long as O'Mara keeps harping on the prosecution's need to prove either 1, 2, or 3 BRD, it doesn't make much difference what the prosecution says in opening, providing as most of us think will happen, they will swing and miss all three times.

I should mention they have a fair chance with 3.a) using Zimmerman getting out of the car, etc.  But 3.b)?  Yeah, we want that too.   :)

nomatter_nevermind:

--- Quote from: DebFrmHell on May 30, 2013, 09:59:31 AM ---Gilbreath stated under oath that they had no evidence that contradicts the narrative given by Zimmerman.

--- End quote ---

He said no such thing. The question was about specific points, not the entire narrative.

annoyedbeyond:

--- Quote from: nomatter_nevermind on May 30, 2013, 12:29:51 PM ---He said no such thing. The question was about specific points, not the entire narrative.

--- End quote ---

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/21/22713/4445/crimenews/Reaction-to-the-George-Zimmerman-Bail-Hearing

You're splitting frog hairs.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version