Trayvon Martin

[pettie4sox]

They'll balk on 2nd degree murder but manslaughter... they might boink him there.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Is it legal to do that? Charge people with multiple charges on one specific crime?

 

Casey Anthony was charged with murder, manslaughter, and child abuse.

[Jenksismyhero]

Im not a criminal lawyer so I cant be 100% sure, but in a civil case you can absolutely plead/try multiple alternative theories.

 

IE

 

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Quantum Meriut

 

I just cant believe that in criminal law you are stuck with murder 1 or 2, because that would make it extremely difficult for the prosecution. Basically if you go murder 1 and the jury thought "Well it was heat of moment" the defendant then is completely innocent?

 

It just doesnt seem right.

 

According to Florida Code of Criminal Procedure:

 

RULE 3.490. DETERMINATION OF DEGREE OF OFFENSE

If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees,

the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser

degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as

to which there is no evidence.

 

So you can go downstream but not upstream.

[Jenksismyhero]

They'll balk on 2nd degree murder but manslaughter... they might boink him there.

 

He can still use the same self-defense argument though. If the jury buys that it doesn't matter what they charge him with.

[StrangeSox]

He can still use the same self-defense argument though. If the jury buys that it doesn't matter what they charge him with.

lesser burden of proof, no?

[Soxbadger]

He can still use the same self-defense argument though. If the jury buys that it doesn't matter what they charge him with.

 

That would be how the law works, but the way people think is:

 

"Well I dont want him to go to jail for 10 years, but maybe 1 year is just."

 

 

[Soxbadger]

lesser burden of proof, no?

 

No because self defense is an affirmative defense. So if he was self defending in the Murder 2 charge, he was self defending in the manslaughter charge.

 

 

[Jake]

Defense was caught TOTALLY off guard by the 3rd degree inclusion. I'm not sure if it will stick, but that just reeks of brilliance on the part of the prosecution. It makes me think of the bureaucracy episode of Futurama: "you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct"

[Jenksismyhero]

That would be how the law works, but the way people think is:

 

"Well I dont want him to go to jail for 10 years, but maybe 1 year is just."

 

True.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Defense was caught TOTALLY off guard by the 3rd degree inclusion. I'm not sure if it will stick, but that just reeks of brilliance on the part of the prosecution. It makes me think of the bureaucracy episode of Futurama: "you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct"

 

They were caught off guard because it's utterly absurd. The basis is Zimmerman committed child abuse that unintentionally resulted in a death.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Defense was caught TOTALLY off guard by the 3rd degree inclusion. I'm not sure if it will stick, but that just reeks of brilliance on the part of the prosecution. It makes me think of the bureaucracy episode of Futurama: "you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct"

 

Its not brilliant it is dirty. We shouldnt be convicting people on trickery, we should convict people on evidence and facts.

 

Now the counterargument is that the defense should have been preparing for the worst and expecting that at some point the prosecution was going to do something like this (I believe this board has talked about how the charge was odd for months) and been ready.

[illinilaw08]

Is it legal to do that? Charge people with multiple charges on one specific crime?

 

Yes. You can bring multiple charges for one crime.

 

There's also a legal doctrine of "lesser included offense." Basically, the doctrine says that if you are charged with Murder 1, and Murder 2 and Murder 3 are not pled, but require the same elements of proof, a jury can be instructed that they can find the defendant guilty on the lesser offense.

 

I haven't followed the Zimmerman case close enough to opine on that, but I assume that's the legal theory in play here.

 

Edit: Per the article linked below, the prosecution tried two theories. One is that manslaughter is a lesser included offense... which the judge said is correct. The second is that third degree felony murder is a lesser included offense because of the child abuse angle Jenks referenced above, to which the defense, probably rightly, is furious with. That issue has not been rule upon.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-575...er-judge-rules/

Edited July 11, 2013 by illinilaw08

[southsider2k5]

So the Judge is allowing the jurors to decide whether to convict Zimmerman on a lesser charge of manslaughter even though he was charged with second degree murder. She's delayed a ruling on whether they can also be allowed to convict him of third degree murder.

 

I don't know much about Florida criminal law procedure, but this seems highly unjust to me. If the prosecutors charge you with a crime, they shouldn't have "back-ups" when they fail to prove their case.

 

Great, so now we are set up for a run through the appeals court. Awesome.

[cabiness42]

3rd degree murder charge has been disallowed by the judge.

[pettie4sox]

As it should be dismissed.

[DukeNukeEm]

Yes. You can bring multiple charges for one crime.

 

There's also a legal doctrine of "lesser included offense." Basically, the doctrine says that if you are charged with Murder 1, and Murder 2 and Murder 3 are not pled, but require the same elements of proof, a jury can be instructed that they can find the defendant guilty on the lesser offense.

 

I haven't followed the Zimmerman case close enough to opine on that, but I assume that's the legal theory in play here.

 

Edit: Per the article linked below, the prosecution tried two theories. One is that manslaughter is a lesser included offense... which the judge said is correct. The second is that third degree felony murder is a lesser included offense because of the child abuse angle Jenks referenced above, to which the defense, probably rightly, is furious with. That issue has not been rule upon.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-575...er-judge-rules/

It may not necessarily apply in this case, but couldn't this be used pretty easily to trick someone into incriminating themselves?

[farmteam]

It may not necessarily apply in this case, but couldn't this be used pretty easily to trick someone into incriminating themselves?

What do you mean? For a lesser included offense, it's not like the "lesser" offense is a completely different charge. It's essentially a subset of the original charge.

[mr_genius]

i think George Zimmerman is gonna get convicted of manslaughter.

[Y2HH]

i think George Zimmerman is gonna get convicted of manslaughter.

 

...and that's the problem. Since he was never charged with manslaughter, he'll appeal it. And now he can't be retried for murder.

 

I don't know all the details, and I'm no expert, but it's looking to me like the judge botched this case from what I have pieced together.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Y2HH

[MexSoxFan#1]

i think George Zimmerman is gonna get convicted of manslaughter.

Yup

 

I saw one of Casey Anthony's defense lawyers, Cheney Mason, on Piers Morgan last night and he had an interesting theory. He said if someone is accused of murder but there is only circumstancial evidence to go by, chances are pretty good the accused get off but if you absolutely know who the killer is (Zim in this case claiming self-defense), they usually will get convicted of something. He predicted that GZ will get manslaughter.

Edited July 12, 2013 by MexSoxFan#1

[StrangeSox]

...and that's the problem. Since he was never charged with manslaughter, he'll appeal it. And now he can't be retried for murder.

 

I don't know all the details, and I'm no expert, but it's looking to me like the judge botched this case from what I have pieced together.

 

According to Florida Code of Criminal Procedure:

 

RULE 3.490. DETERMINATION OF DEGREE OF OFFENSE

If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees,

the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser

degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as

to which there is no evidence.

 

So you can go downstream but not upstream.

 

 

I read this as saying that in Florida, the lesser charges are included implicitly and do not have to be formally listed out. They're there by default, which would explain why they didn't include them in the first place.

[Soxbadger]

Yup

 

I saw one of Casey Anthony's defense lawyers on Piers Morgan last night and he had an interesting theory. He said if someone is accused of murder by their is only circumstancial evidence to go by, chances are pretty good the accused get off but if you absolutely know who the killer is (Zim in this case claiming self-defense), they usually will get convicted. He predicted that GZ will get manslaughter.

 

Its really not that shocking and I posted something similar last night about how a jury may not want to give 25 years but is okay with 1 year even though technically the defense is the exact same.

 

Y2hh,

 

From what Illinilaw posted yesterday Im pretty sure the way the judge handled the manslaughter charge is going to be okay. She threw out the 3rd degree based on child abuse.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Its really not that shocking and I posted something similar last night about how a jury may not want to give 25 years but is okay with 1 year even though technically the defense is the exact same.

 

Y2hh,

 

From what Illinilaw posted yesterday Im pretty sure the way the judge handled the manslaughter charge is going to be okay. She threw out the 3rd degree based on child abuse.

 

Ah, ok...I'll have to take your word for it, you know a lot more about this than I do. This just all seems odd...but that probably has a lot to do with the odd FL laws.

[Jenksismyhero]

There will be no appeal based on the manslaughter jury instructions. That's 100% acceptable under Florida (and Illinois) law.

 

People also freaked out over the judge asking Zimmerman if he was coerced into not testifying and that he was sure he did not want to testify. It might not be normal procedure, but all she was doing was trying to close the door on an appeal based on ineffective counsel ("i wanted to testify and tell my story but they convinced me not to. It was their decision not mine."

 

IMO he walks. The prosecution had a weak case that was made worse by the witnesses. They tried to make race a thing and it didn't really stick. And they never could paint the picture that Zimmerman was a vigilante. The evidence is overwhelming that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and clearly had the upper hand in the fight. I think that should be enough for the self-defense argument. And I think the prosecution knows this since they asked for the weak third degree murder charge based on child abuse.

[StrangeSox]

It's still a pretty f***ed up society where it's okay to arm yourself and chase after an innocent teen, wind up getting into an altercation and shooting them to death and you can walk away a free man.