Misconceptions and misstatements about the law
A lot of people are upset about the verdict in the Zimmerman case. An unarmed teenager, doing nothing more than walking through a neighborhood where he had every right to be, is dead at the hand of a dimwitted vigilante wannabe. I am one of those that is upset about it because I had hoped that the jury might convict Zimmerman. But I also didn't expect it, because based on my understanding of the law and the evidence presented at trial, obtaining a conviction was going to be difficult. Other DUers are more outraged by the acquittal because they believe, based on their understanding of the law and the evidence that it should have been a slam dunk for the prosecution.
I have seen numerous examples where DUers who are shocked by the verdict and those who are not shocked by it have disagreed over and sometimes misstated the evidence that was presented.
But I think the different expectations and reactions of the two groups is explained less by their differing views of the facts than their different understanding of the law. And by and large it is the group that is most upset by the verdict that has demonstrated, unfortunately, their misunderstanding of the law. The point of this post is not to defend the law being what it is, but rather to state what it is (and isnt).
Burden of proof. Despite what any number of DUers have claimed at various points, the law in Florida and most of the country is clear. A defendant need only present a modicum of evidence, even uncorroborated evidence, that if assumed to be true and viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (i.e., discounting any contrary evidence) is entitled to have the issue of self defense presented to the jury. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act out of self defense (with self defense defined as using deadly force when one has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.
The fear has to be rationale, it doesn't have to be correct. One can think one has seen a gun and not actually have seen one. Whether the belief that the defendant actually believed he/she saw a gun or whether that belief, if actual, was reasonable under the circumstances, is a jury question.
One does not have to show any injury to claim self defense. One certainly doesn't have to show any injury to get the issue of self defense presented to the jury.
Following someone is not stalking under the law. It is not illegal to follow someone and even confront them with questions about what they are doing. To be deemed an "initial aggressor" under Florida law, one has to be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have used actual force against the other person or to have made an actual (not perceived) threat against them.
Even if a defendant has been shown to have provoked the confrontation that led to the crime in question, the defendant can still claim self defense unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the force exercised (or actually threatened) by the defendant as the initial aggressor could have been viewed by the other person as creating a reasonable fear that they faced imminent death or great bodily harm. Grabbing someone's arm might give rise to such a finding, or it might not. It would be up to the jury to decide based on all of the evidence.
A defendant claiming self defense does not have to, and cannot be compelled to, testify.
A person brought in for questioning by the police or even a person arrested by the police is not put under oath when they are questioned by the police.
The state cannot appeal the acquittal in this case. The state cannot bring a new case claiming first degree murder and argue that double jeopardy doesn't apply because its a "different crime."
Stand your Ground is not separate from self defense, its part of self defense. What makes alleging self defense based on the Stand Your Ground law most significant is that it allows a defendant, it he/she wishes, to demand a pretrial hearing at which a judge, rather than a jury will decide whether the defendant should even go to trial. The burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground hearing, unlike the burden of proof in a jury trial, is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they acted with justification under the law.
If the standard of proof in a self defense case was put on the defendant (by a preponderance of the evidence) it would mean that if the the judge in a pretrial hearing found that the evidence that the defendant acted out of legitimate self defense was equally balanced with the evidence that the defendant's claim was not legitimate, the defendant would not be entitled to immunity and would have to stand trial.
If the burden of proof at trial was changed so that it was on the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, the result of a "tie" (where the jury finds both sides positions equally plausible) would be that a defendant would go to jail even though it had not been shown that his or her self defense claim was more likely invalid than valid.
Again, these are some of the legal principles that are relevant in self defense cases, including the Zimmerman case. Arguments about whether they can and should be changed (and changing some of them would require amending the Constitution) are one thing. Ignoring or denying them is something else. You can accept all of these principles and, like me, believe that it while it would have been possible for the jury to convict, it was unlikely (and certainly was never a slam dunk).
= new reply since forum marked as read
