|
Will George Zimmerman be Acquitted?
Now that George Zimmerman has been charged in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, it is time to set aside the racial tensions involved, and to dispassionately ask the question: What are the chances that he will be convicted? Under Wisconsin law, at least, there would be a substantial chance of a not guilty verdict.
We do not know exactly what happened that night, but what we do know is that Zimmerman called 911 to report his observations concerning Martin. Shortly before the police arrived, there was an altercation between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended with Martin being shot in the chest. He died from his wound. Zimmerman claims that as he was walking back to his truck, Martin attacked him from behind, overpowered him, and at one point slammed Zimmerman's head against the concrete several times. The State of Florida alleges that, whatever happened, Zimmerman was unjustified in using deadly force against an unarmed man.
Some commentators have suggested that that once Zimmerman made the decision to follow Martin-- contrary to the directions of the 911 operator-- Zimmerman forfeited his rights under Florida's "stand your ground" law. This may be true; however, it is wholly beside the point. Zimmerman did not forfeit the privilege of self-defense. If the unfolding events led Zimmerman to reasonably believe that he was the subject of an unlawful interference with his person, and that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm, he was privileged to defend himself with deadly force, regardless of whether, at the time of the attack, he was following the attacker, contrary to police instructions. It is not against the law to follow another person in a public place. It certainly does not permit the person who is being followed to physically attack the follower.
In any criminal case, when the defendant properly raises the issue of self-defense, the burden then shifts to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that there was an unlawful interference with his person, or that he did not believe that the amount of force used was reasonable. In other words, in situations like the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.
Here, there is some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman's account of the incident is, at least, plausible (i.e. raises a reasonable doubt). Firstly, Zimmerman called the police before the altercation occurred and, presumably, he knew that the police would be on the way. It would be an unusual criminal, indeed, who calls the police to make sure that they arrive just as the crime is being committed. Secondly, at the time Zimmerman was on the telephone with the 911 operator, he was plainly just watching and following Martin. Thereafter, something occurred that drastically changed the circumstances. Zimmerman's claim that what changed the situation was an attack by Martin, then, seems plausible. Finally, at the recent bail hearing, Zimmerman's attorney produced an image of the back of Zimmerman's head, purportedly taken shortly after the police arrived at the scene, showing blood flowing from the back of his head.
This will not be an easy case for the State of Florida to prove. In order to prevail, the state will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin did not attack Zimmerman; and, further, that the injuries to Zimmerman's head were not such that he could have reasonably believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm from his attacker. This is a tall order to fill.
Related Content:
How to use the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
United States Sentencing Guidelines
Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer
|