What Everyone Needs To Know About the Trayvon Marin, George Zimmerman Case.
When the jury returned its verdict of "Not Guilty," acquitting George Zimmerman of both 2nd Degree Murder and Manslaughter, an important thing happened. The only persons legally and actually capable of deciding the matter had spoken. That bears repeating: the only persons actually capable had spoken.
Let me explain. Zimmerman's argument was self defense. That is a very special defense, and is quite different from an alibi or mistaken identity type of defense. In criminal law, the burden of proof is usually with the prosecution. The State would normally have to prove that the defendant "did it." But in a self defense case, everyone knows in advance that the defendant "did it." So, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that he was justified in doing it by reason of the right of self defense.
The right to use deadly force in self defense is only available under certain circumstances defined by each State's laws. Ignoring the various differences among the States, we can generally say that self defense is only available where the defendant, (1) was not the aggressor at the time, and (2) had a reasonable fear of immediate great bodily injury or death. Please note that the schoolyard argument, "He started it," is largely irrelevant. The law doesn't recognize a right for either party to escalate a verbal confrontation to physical blows. And, even the question of who threw the first punch isn't determinative. An original aggressor can effectively quit, or cry "uncle," at which time the other party becomes the aggressor in the eyes of the law. Obviously, a determination of a defendant's right to self defense can be a complicated issue wherein multiple facts, circumstances, and a subjective determination of a defendant's mental state are required.
First, I want you to consider that a legal verdict is based exclusively on the evidence presented during the case. That means that none of us who didn't actually sit in the courtroom every day have any right to think we know what the verdict should have been. Only those in the courtroom heard every question asked and every answer given, were able to observe the demeanor of every witness and judge his or her veracity, and could see the physical evidence for themselves. No one else has any right to form an opinion of the judgment. You should dismiss out of hand the opinions and claims of courtroom outsiders questioning the propriety of the verdict. They are all, and to a man, foolish palaverers.
Second, I want you to consider that due to the special nature of the defense of self defense, the jury could not be mistaken. Juries can be mistaken in other types of cases. For example, a jury could believe an alibi defense when, in actual fact, the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime. But a jury's determination of the defense of self defense is based on the totality of facts and circumstances, including a subjective determination of the defendant's mental state at the time. And only the jury is actually capable of making that determination.
The jury members are the only individuals in the courtroom who are arguably unbiased. In the first place, everyone else (other than the defendant) is there voluntarily which means that they all have some personal reason for being there. Invariably, that reason leads to bias. Courtroom personnel, family and friends, the media, and courtroom voyeurs all come to court with personal interests that may be expected to color their opinions and conclusions. Only the jurors are there because they have to be, are arguably disinterested, and are charged with a duty of impartiality. That makes them uniquely qualified to sit in judgment. And that makes their determination of the right to self defense the only possible determination. They cannot be mistaken in it. In essence, the right to self defense is what the jury says it is in any given case, nothing more and nothing less.
Of course jurors are only human, and regardless of all the fancy talk they do come to court with a full panoply of personal experiences, beliefs, and prejudices behind them. In this case, that can be seen from the fact that the jurors reportedly entered deliberations with some thinking Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, some thinking he was guilty of Manslaughter, and some thinking he was not guilty of any crime. They had all observed the same courtroom drama, but had differing ideas about it. Then, when they sat down together to discuss the case, to review and determine the facts and circumstances, and to apply the law as instructed by the judge, they came to the unanimous conclusion that Zimmerman was not guilty. That is exactly how our system of justice is supposed to work.
Verdicts in criminal cases are not supposed to be about politics. They are not supposed to be about race. And I have neither seen nor heard a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jury verdict in this case was effected by either politics or race. The detractors of this verdict can point to nothing but the verdict itself to support their claims of racial bias. And that is far from enough to convince a thinking person that anything is wrong with the verdict in this case. In fact, it comes much closer to showing those detractors to be racial bigots themselves than it does to impugn the verdict in the case.