EDIT: It isn't...there will be a jury trial or a plea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442331)

Says dead dude attacked him.

911 tapes show he was pursuing dude.

No reasonable jury convicts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442345)

As far as we know there is no direct and minimal circumstantial evidence suggesting he was not defending himself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442411)

Same mistake as Casey Anthony.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442422)

As IQ65 points out, the defense still has to be raised and supported with evidence. The prosecution has no affirmative duty to prove it wasn't self defense, they only have to rebut that argument if it's presented with enough evidence to support giving the instruction.

Where are you gonna get that evidence? The ONLY evidence it was self defense is Zimmerman's testimony. We already know Zimmerman is a loose cannon, unwilling to listen to others. Do you honestly think his lawyer is gonna want to put him on the stand? Between plea negotiation, directed verdict, and the Fifth Amendment, I find it highly unlikely that self-defense is ever brought into the picture unless the prosecution somehow manages to make a convincing case out of what we know now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20446657)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447570)

Here they only need to present evidence that it was self defense:

1) Zimmerman's testimony

2) Person who say Trayvon beating his ass

3) Injuries

4) Fact that he was on the phone with cops.

State has to rebut self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dont pull this are you in law school bullshit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20446740)

911 tapes show man was trying to keep track of dude's location.

Man says dude attacked him.

Man has injuries consistent with dude attacking him.

No reasonable jury sees proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442414)

*takes deepthroatthis8's teeth and makes imprints in own arm*

*gets away with murder*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20446679)

EDIT: Yup.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/jurysize.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442573)

Wow you got him good with this one brother, I bet you don't feel dumb as fuck at all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20451584)

edit he didn't even spell Los Angeles correctly lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447191)

Its shitty policy, IMO, but it is the case in the federal system and in a lot of states. It isn't unconstitutional. The right to a jury trial is assured. The right to a bench trial is not. See Singer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20442544)

I'm actually kind of OK with the rule at the federal level. Most everyone involved is appointed and relatively bright. The problem at the state court level is that judges are, as a general matter, mouth breathing idiots. I think if states are going to let J. Q. FUCKINGMORON elect some phone book lawyer / car dealer to be a judge, defendants deserve the choice of whether they want a jury of J. Q. FUCKINGMORONs or the phone book lawyer to hear their case.

I don't think there is any need for a constitutional amendment. I just think that states should make the right to waive a jury trial absolute at a policy matter because, ya know, going to jail sucks. The problem is you will find a lot more former prosecutors in the state house than criminal defense lawyers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443529)

and both have the right to request a jury determine the sentence as well

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447559)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443320)

(probable hypocritical shitlib who makes a point of correcting anyone who calls O.J. Simpson 'a murderer')

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20451599)

"Florida courts are in line with the majority holding, in essence, that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the state. See also, McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 576; Burnias v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 612. This standard broadly includes the requirement that the state prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 We further agree with the Maine court that when the defendant raises self-defense as an issue at trial it is within the province of the trial court to determine whether or not the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, is adequate to support an instruction on self-defense.

Bolin v. State, 297 So. 2d 317, 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

But this case will never go to trial. The prosecutor, smartly, massively overcharged the case, and no rational person would ever risk a life sentence when offered a plea to voluntary manslaughter, and a sentence of a year or two. Even if he's completely innocent, he'd be an utter retard not to plea. Juries are mobs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443259)

And that's really the point, D is arguing for acquittal, P is arguing for second degree, most juries will want to think (incorrectly) that they're reasonable middle of the road type, and will compromise on manslaughter. And the nightmare scenario is a bloodthirsty jury that gives him second degree.

Mark my words, this will be a plea to manslaughter with a very low sentence, unless Zimmerman really is as crazy as some are contending that he is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443543)

Swiftly overturned on appeal? You realize that most appellate courts (ESPECIALLY state appellate courts) view their job as to do everything possible to uphold the outcome of the trial court?

On appeal "The evidence must be viewed as a whole, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and we must presume that the jury properly evaluated credibility of the witnesses, found the facts, and drew rational inferences." There's also those great catch phrases "great deference" and "heavy burden."

Its a stacked game. I've had a few innocent clients convicted (who were otherwise bad people) and numerous guilty clients acquitted. In the appeals from the innocent people, the appellate courts gave lengthy opinions expressly their doubts about the outcome, but ultimately concluding that their job was to rubber stamp.

Which brings me back to my initial conclusion. Zimmerman now has a very good, respected attorney. Someone who will value his clients interest over the publicity (unlike the initial clowns). Wait for the plea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443819)

If you have alot of money, the fed government demands that you give it all up in either criminal or civil forfeiture in exchange for a good plea. Doesnt matter if they have a legal basis to claim it, they'll still want all of it. Alot of people don't know this, but money forfeited from convicts goes directly to the agents who investigated the crimes, so federal prosecutors are something like plaintiff's attorney, rabidly working for their agents to get the money for them.

Alot of clients, especially those with lots of legit assets, think (correctly) that is bullshit, and we end up having to try the case because they wont give up their home in exchange for low/no jail. And trying a case in the federal system is essentially suicide. Congress, in its endless desire to "toughen the crime laws" has made it virtually impossible to win. But oftentimes, you win the forfeiture battles, so clients get to keep the money even if theyre wrongly convicted. Thats happened with all my innocent federal convictions (just three), all of whom love our firm and continue to use us.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20444042)

wait. what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20445818)

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket/singlepage

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447758)

...and an even more experienced criminal defense attorney would note that in FL, criminal conviction by jury has to be unanimous.

And ten he would probably do some basic googling and find out that a whopping 2/3 of whites polled think that Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon. (see http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-poll-idUSBRE83B1BB20120412 ).

And then they would go on to do some 2nd grade level thinkin' and figurin' and realize that it's almost unimaginable that there won't be at least a few whites on the jury, given the demographics of the area that we're dealing wih.

And then he would tell his client that he should go for it because he'll probably walk out of there a free man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20451627)

I doubt that at the end of the day, the odds of acquittal are more than 50%. Even if alot the jurors in the pool come to the jury room thinking that he should be acquitted, they'll have the others saying that he should get second degree, and very often the warring jury factions will get enough Allen charges (the supplemental instruction which tells them they need to work out the differences and decide the case and not hang) that they settle in the middle. And then there's the thing about seeing the victim's family everyday and not giving them anything. Jurors don't like to do that either.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the odds of acquittal are more than 50% (which is absurdly optimistic for any prosecution), is it worth it to not plea? Let's say you were faced with these odds. 60% full acquittal. 30% manslaughter with 5 years. 10% life imprisonment. You were offered manslaughter to serve 1-2 years. Would you go forward on these? You'd have to be VERY risk tolerant risk a life sentence over a year or two in jail. And most experienced defense attorneys have been burned enough times in cases with a strong defense that they'll tell their clients its really not worth the risk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20452903)

MAAAAAD AS FUCK Reptiles who are taking their (Rudolph) up the ass slowly and painfully.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443354)

Thx Bro!

Date: April 11th, 2012 10:38 PM

Author: .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.

(low intellect black person acting tribal and retarded, like black people are wont to do)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20443403)

Noun: One's customary behavior in a particular situation: "Constance, as was her wont, left early".

---

Pumo just proved you really are nothing but a dumb nigger. Now go pick him some cotton.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20448021)

LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20452093)

Needs to make a full comeback.

"He is being an asshole as XOers are wont to do"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20446725)

shouldn't he place his bets on having at least one juror hold-out?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447576)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-poll-idUSBRE83B1BB20120412

No bro he would totally get convicted, the system is rigged he's fucked haven't you heard etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20451667)

If Zimmerman has any sense he will stand his ground hard just like he did out on the street.

Prepare for the trial of a century.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1921627&forum_id=2#20447848)