Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Zow]

As to the issue of reasonable doubt, the standard jury instruction in AZ defines "reasonable doubt" as "not proof beyond all doubt" but instead proof enough that the trier of fact can be "firmly convinced" that the state has proven each element of the crime.

This could be a problem for the prosecution....I don't think either side has proven anything other than a kid's dead. They've both offered various ways it could have gone down. Looks like it's going to be up to the jury as to which was more likely. Knowing this, I'm left wondering why each person's character wasn't more scrutinized in the case.

It is the state's burden. If as a juror you feel they haven't met that burden, than you cannot convict. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything.

It's my understanding that the defense has to present their evidence justifying self defense. I understand it's a fraction of the burden load, but there's a burden on both side from what I understand from the FBG LawyerGuys.

This is an issue very specific to state law. I mentioned before the way the process works in Arizona, which is that when a self defense claim is made there is a complete burden shift to the defense that the defense must show that it was more likely than not that the defendant's use of force was both reasonably necessary and proportionate. Once done, the burden shifts back to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense's use of force was either not necessary or disproportionate.

I think another lawyer pointed out though that the burden shift in Florida isn't so stark and clear and that the burden remains with the state the entire time to prove that self defense was never in play and the defendant merely has to raise it as a defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

I believe...

Manslaughter in a case involving a gun is considered a first-degree felony.

The sentencing could range from 25 to 30 years in prison or 30 years of probation.

 

[Zow]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

"Manslaughter" and its elements vary by state. So, the judge will instruct the jury on the specific elements for manslaughter laid out by Florida statute.

 

[The Commish]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

"Manslaughter" and its elements vary by state. So, the judge will instruct the jury on the specific elements for manslaughter laid out by Florida statute.

So they'll go through all the various kinds like voluntary vs involuntary, negligent, criminal etc etc? I had no idea there were so many variations of "manslaugher" until reading up on it a bit.

 

[Rayderr]

Ever notice how "manslaughter" is "man's laughter"? What's up with that?

 

[Zow]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

"Manslaughter" and its elements vary by state. So, the judge will instruct the jury on the specific elements for manslaughter laid out by Florida statute.

So they'll go through all the various kinds like voluntary vs involuntary, negligent, criminal etc etc? I had no idea there were so many variations of "manslaugher" until reading up on it a bit.

I don't think so. It's hard for me to say without hearing the judge's decision verbatim. Generally, there'd have to be some specific statute number/charge.

 

[The Commish]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

"Manslaughter" and its elements vary by state. So, the judge will instruct the jury on the specific elements for manslaughter laid out by Florida statute.

So they'll go through all the various kinds like voluntary vs involuntary, negligent, criminal etc etc? I had no idea there were so many variations of "manslaugher" until reading up on it a bit.

I don't think so. It's hard for me to say without hearing the judge's decision verbatim. Generally, there'd have to be some specific statute number/charge.

Guess I'll just watch and see how it plays out. Saw your post from before and I missed the conversation you had earlier...thanks for the info.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

 

[greenroom]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

 

[Worm]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

LOFL.

So, you admit you were just pulling #### out of thin air trying to argue how the judge was biased?

 

[Worm]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

Yeah, that seems like a HUGE deal.

 

[ArbyMelt]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

LOFL.

So, you admit you were just pulling #### out of thin air trying to argue how the judge was biased?

To be fair, the defense did argue that all closings should be done on the same day and the Judge replied "I make the schedules, you'll do it my way"

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

LOFL.So, you admit you were just pulling #### out of thin air trying to argue how the judge was biased?

wut

 

[jon_mx]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

 

[Phil Elliott]

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

I believe...

Manslaughter in a case involving a gun is considered a first-degree felony.

The sentencing could range from 25 to 30 years in prison or 30 years of probation.

Plus a dishonorable discharge from Neighborhood Watch.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

It's exactly for the jury to decide if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm. They just won't receive guidance on that guestion. It is also for the jury to decide whether, even if Zimmerman did not suffer an injury that qualifies as great bodily harm, whether he was reasonable to fear such an injury.

It's the key issue in the case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Lawyers....they say "manslaughter" is included...now, does that mean any of the manslaugher types are in play or just specific ones?

I believe...

Manslaughter in a case involving a gun is considered a first-degree felony.

The sentencing could range from 25 to 30 years in prison or 30 years of probation.

Plus a dishonorable discharge from Neighborhood Watch.

 

[Joe McGee]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

 

[Zow]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

Except whether the broken nose is considered great bodily harm.

 

[The Commish]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

They have to decide if a broken nose is "great bodily harm" to them

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

 

[Joe McGee]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

I didn't say whether the Judge was right or wrong in any of her decisions and what their impact is, merely that she is biased for the State.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

I didn't say whether the Judge was right or wrong in any of her decisions, merely that she is biased for the State.

If she were biased for the State, she would side with the State on what is, at worst, a 50/50 call on what may be the dispositive issue in the case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

 

[Zow]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

I didn't say whether the Judge was right or wrong in any of her decisions, merely that she is biased for the State.

You only believe this because you are biased for the defense.

Looking at her legal rulings, including their merits and subsequent benefits for each party, is absolutely the best way to tell whether the judge is "biased." And this judge just made a pivotal ruling on a close issue in the defendant's favor. I strongly doubt a truly biased judge would have done that.

 

[financewonk]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

 

[Zow]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

Jesus.

 

[jon_mx]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

They have to decide if a broken nose is "great bodily harm" to them

It lowered the bar significantly for what is considered great bodily harm, which I don't see how the prosecution overcomes. If it can be reasonably argued that Zimmerman already recieved great bodily harm or was at least well on his way, you have to rule that it was reasonable to use self-defense.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zimmerman was fearful of some remote, prospective injury.

 

[Zow]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

They have to decide if a broken nose is "great bodily harm" to them

It lowered the bar significantly for what is considered great bodily harm, which I don't see how the prosecution overcomes. If it can be reasonably argued that Zimmerman already recieved great bodily harm or was at least well on his way, you have to rule that it was reasonable to use self-defense.

Not necessarily. Both sides will argue what the term should mean in closing, but in the absence of guidance in the jury instructions, the jury is entitled to interpret however they want.

The jury might decide that "great bodily harm" means "broken bones." But they could just as easily decide it means "life-threatening." They could apply a definition that is either more favorable or less favorable to the defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

Jesus.

Zimmerman does not need ANY injuries.

776.013 - Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive ...

 

[17seconds]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

Jesus.

Zimmerman does not need ANY injuries.

776.013 - Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive ...

I'm not against cutting excess verbiage from a statute, but Holy Cow. Here is the full provision, which is clearly confines the presumption to cases where the victim is committing a breaking and entering or burglary offense:

[SIZE=10pt]A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt](a) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](b) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](2) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt](a) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](b) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]© [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](d) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](3) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](4) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](5) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]As used in this section, the term:[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt](a) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt](b) [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]© [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.[/SIZE]

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

As has been evidenced by this judge, women don't like men yelling at them. Bernie shouldn't yell his entire closing to a jury of 6 women.

 

[financewonk]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

Does the prosecution still get to have the final word? If not, this is another nice outcome for the defense, eh?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What if Martin farted on Zimmerman when he was straddling him and pounding on him?

 

[Phil Elliott]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

Does the prosecution still get to have the final word? If not, this is another nice outcome for the defense, eh?

I think I heard the judge indicate the Prosecution gets to rebuttal the Defense closing argument.

 

[The Commish]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated battery. To convict a defendant of aggravated battery, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to that offense. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

EDITED BECAUSE BATTERY AND ASSAULT ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of
“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases
discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a
human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section
784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”
Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as
“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and
as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a
simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly
D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,
1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);
Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the
Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that
the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

So if a broken nose could be considered great bodily harm, there is nothing for the jury to decide.

They have to decide if a broken nose is "great bodily harm" to them

It lowered the bar significantly for what is considered great bodily harm, which I don't see how the prosecution overcomes. If it can be reasonably argued that Zimmerman already recieved great bodily harm or was at least well on his way, you have to rule that it was reasonable to use self-defense.

You can keep harping on and parroting this narrative if it makes you feel better. The reality is, the jury will determine what it meant to them in this case....they're free to do as they see fit. You stating what YOU think should be done if the jury does things the right way is an exercise in futility and I really don't know why you've spent so much time doing it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What if Martin farted on Zimmerman when he was straddling him and pounding on him?

I refer you to the black letter legal principle of "he who smelt it, dealt it."

 

[timschochet]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

 

[Zow]

The judge's refusal to provide a definition of "great bodily harm" in the jury instructions is also a significant win for the defense.

The state wanted to define the term as it has been defined by caselaw interpreting the Florida statute for aggravated assault. To convict a defendant of aggravated assault, he must commit "great bodily harm" The state wanted a construction reflecting the case law relating to aggravated assault. Here is a discussion from T.W. v. Florida, Case No 4D11-2121 (4th Fla. App. Dist., Oct. 3, 2012).

Neither section 843.19 nor any Florida case law offers a definition of

“great bodily harm” under these types of circumstances. However, cases

discussing “great bodily harm” in the context of aggravated battery to a

human being provide some guidance. Like section 843.19, section

784.045 (aggravated battery) does not define “great bodily harm.”

Nonetheless, Florida courts have generally defined “great bodily harm” as

“great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm, and

as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a

simple assault and battery.” See Gordon v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly

D2590 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 30, 2011); Nguyen v. State, 858 So. 2d 1259,

1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Heck v. State, 774 So. 2d 844, 845 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2000); C.A.C. v. State, 771 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000);

Guthrie v. State, 407 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In C.A.C., the

Second District emphasized that the state “must prove more than that

the victim suffered some harm.” 771 So. 2d at 1262.

But I thought the Judge was in the bag for the State?.

The judge is obviously biased for the State. She can rule against the State and still be 98% in their favor. One judge has already been removed from this case for bias mind you.

Jesus. This is the key issue in the case. The prosecution would probably trade wins in 10 other discrete disputes, including Trayvon's text messages, for a win on this issue. It's a substantive decision going directly to the essential element of the defense. And the State's position wasn't trivial. The element has been defined by Florida caselaw. This was far from a layup for the defense, and they got just what they wanted (I'd argue just what they NEEDED).

Aren't you leaving out imminent from your definition of the crime?

Jesus.

Zimmerman does not need ANY injuries.

776.013 - Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive ...

Jesus.

 

[Zow]

1:40PM Closing Arguments by State

Tomorrow morning, Closing Arguments by Defense

I originally thought it would be better to have both closing arguments on the same day. Now I think it might be beneficial for the Defense to be able to tailor their closing arguments overnight based on what the State says in their closing.

Are you sure that's the schedule? Greta said last night that the prosecution gets to present a preliminary closing argument today, which is immediately followed by the closing arguments from the defense, and then the prosecution presents their full closing argument the following day. All the panelists said that the schedule was a big advantage for the state.

Trial schedules are often constantly changing.

Does the prosecution still get to have the final word? If not, this is another nice outcome for the defense, eh?

I think I heard the judge indicate the Prosecution gets to rebuttal the Defense closing argument.

Yes, that wouldn't change. That's essentially the rule in some jurisdiction because the burden is on the state, not the defense, so the rationale is the state should get the final say.

 

[simey]

As is evident by this judge, women don't like men yelling at them. Bernie shouldn't yell his entire closing to a jury of 6 women.

I think people don't like to be yelled at by any gender.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

As is evident by this judge, women don't like men yelling at them. Bernie shouldn't yell his entire closing to a jury of 6 women.

I think people don't like to be yelled at by any gender.

This is particularly true of judges. People with contempt power aren't used to being yelled at.

 

[Zow]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Really agree with this. I still have trouble with reasonable doubt, but I hate the idea of Zimmerman getting away with this.

Which is why I indicated the state's strategy of asking for the lesser included was sound strategy if they felt the trial went poorly for them. Nuts on this board aside, I think Zimmerman and the underlying circumstances here rub the majority of the wrong way. And, given that humans like compromise and jurors are humans, I could definitely see a conviction to the lesser charge.

 

[Mr Non Sequitur]

I just wanted to post on page 420, thanks.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What if Martin farted on Zimmerman when he was straddling him and pounding on him?

I refer you to the black letter legal principle of "he who smelt it, dealt it."

"Your honor, the defense has not provided sufficient evidence for the members of this court to determine whether or not Trayvon Martin smelt it OR dealt it ! George ZIMMERMAN claims he smelt it ! So, wouldn't it stand to reason that the man also dealt it? And to boot, we're blazing a new legal trail here, folks. George Zimmerman not only smelt it............ he felt it. He felt it. If he who smelt it, dealt it, then SURELY.... he who felt it must also have dealt it. And if George Zimmerman both smelt it and felt it, then he obviously DEALT it-no further questions your honor, the end."