Juror B29 - Zimmerman Got Away with Murder

2seaoat wrote:So does this say the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the self defense claim? Hmmm?

Are you drinking tonight.  Please tell me you are.  You just proved that your double major did not work and post the correct range of proof standard in an affirmative defense, and then you ask....I hope the rhetorical question where does it say the prosecutor has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.....YOUR EARLIER CLAIM.......I wish I could still drink....I might be able to understand your logic......That would be some hard drinking.......but do you now understand why a preponderance can be used as a standard in a criminal case?   cheers.

I'm talking about this, Seaoat.

"Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt."

We may be getting this confused but I understand the affirmative defense has the burden of preponderance of evidence but the prosecution still has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.Read it.

This post was not addressed to me. But I have a question for you anyway.
Can you provide us the text (and that's the verbatim text, not your opinion of what the statute says) of a Florida Statute which specifies "preponderance of evidence" is a burden of proof applied in a criminal case?

And please, let's not repeat what happened last night when you answered by telling me "I already did". I can't go back and reread all of the posts in this thread again. If you posted it once you can post it again. lol


I will do one better. I have to be working and traveling until about 4pm Tuesday, but I will actually provide you with relevant case law discussing that very concept. I will give you clear links. This will take me about an hour, but I will let you read the courts across this country discussing the levels of proof and how they actually work. I do not like to post cases because they are often very technical, but this area is really very simple.

2seaoat wrote:just to be clear, Seaoat...I was not apologizing! You kept using the words manslaughter and justifiable very close together!


That car which has all its parts spread across the floor may have the steering wheel near the four tires, but that does not make the steering wheel interchangeable with the tires.  I use the words correctly.   For two weeks folks have tried to impute new concepts and new meanings into my words, by looking at the floor and randomly creating something I have not described.  So do you understand tonight the sequence of proofs, the standards of proof, and how they interact with the instruction when in the State of Florida we are dealing with the affirmative defense of self defense?

I'm not getting on that merry go round with you again, lol. I still disagree with you on the points that I already said that I did.

Whoa whoa whoa.

And this is in reply to both posts number 326 (dreamsglore) and post 327 (seaoat).

I'm perfectly aware that some states do require the burden of "preponderance of evidence" to establish an affirmative defense. I'm the one who posted the wiki quote in your post, dreamsglore.

And no, seaoat, I did not ask for "case law from across the country".

Most of us here don't live across the country. Most of us live in Florida and because of that it's Florida law which is in question.
That's why I asked you to cite the text from a FLORIDA statute. But if you want to cite the text of case law that's fine too. But make it case law which is applicable to FLORIDA.

We may be getting this confused but I understand the affirmative defense has the burden of preponderance of evidence but the prosecution still has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.Read it.



I am very happy. I really think you have been reasonable, and you took the time to learn the concept of the differing levels of the burden of proof. This is very encouraging, and you make me happy. However, when you say the Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt you are talking about the elements of the crime......the killing, and the intentional act or acts of the Defendant. The crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the state;s case has survived the usual trial motions for directed, then at this point the state really has to do nothing......the burden on an affirmative defense shifts to the defendant, and they must meet the standard of proof for the crime to be justified, excused, or exonerated. It really is some very simple concepts which have a very precise order and level of proof.

And no, seaoat, I did not ask for "case law from across the country".

Bob, I start all my research with the United States Supreme Court. I will then go down to the Florida Supreme Court, and if there are split decisions between appellate districts I will discern the same.....really easy stuff, and yes, I start with the Supreme Court of the United states for a reason, but you will get the requested discussion of FLORIDA law....you just have to understand where one starts, and understand the Supreme Court frames the issue in conceptual terms not necessarily linked to a particular state, but if a relevant case from Florida has raised an affirmative defense, they will address the same.

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote: a preponderance can be used as a standard in a criminal case

This post was not addressed to me.  But I have a question for you anyway.
Can you provide us the text (and that's the verbatim text,  not your opinion of what the statute says) of a Florida Statute which specifies "preponderance of evidence" is a burden of proof applied in a criminal case?

And please,  let's not repeat what happened last night when you answered by telling me "I already did".  I can't go back and reread all of the posts in this thread again.  If you posted it once you can post it again.  lol

I'm not sure what the hell Seaoat is talking about now. Is he sayng a preponderance is the standard in a criminal case or just an affirmative defense? It sounds like he is saying a preponderance in a criminal case which would be wrong but then I'm sure he'll say he thought I was just a high school graduate.

Is he sayng a preponderance is the standard in a criminal case or just an affirmative defense?

Actually, the standard of proof is a range. We are talking about the standard of proof in a criminal case where a Defendant raises an affirmative defense. We see that the State of Florida allows in the insanity affirmative defense to raise the standard above the preponderance standard to what is called clear and convincing. These are normally civil standards of proof, but indeed when talking about a criminal case which raises an affirmative defense these standards apply. Again, think of a range of proof. The actual instruction and law uses the term reasonable doubt, and that actually could theoretically allow something even below a preponderance, but the truth is that is more likely than not which is the core standard. I will Tuesday evening provide some Florida case law where you can read the same and understand both the sequence, the levels of proof, and the importance of these concepts with the changing environment of stand your ground.

2seaoat wrote:the burden on an affirmative defense shifts to the defendant, and they must meet the standard of proof for the crime to be justified, excused, or exonerated.   It really is some very simple concepts which have a very precise order and level of proof.

Okay let's go over this again.  And every time you say it I will be here to correct you even if you say it another few dozen times.  lol

Let me type it slowly.  

T H E R E  
I S  
N O  
C R I M E  
U N L E S S  
A N D  
U N T I L  
T H E  
J U R Y  
H A S  
R E N D E R E D  
A  
F I N A L  
V E R D I C T  
O F  
G U I L T Y  
Period.

There is nothing in any Florida Statute or any Florida Case Law which will support a claim that the Zimmerman trial or any other Florida criminal trial established that any defendant committed manslaughter or any other crime BUT was excused for committing a crime with an affirmative defense.
Again, for the reading challenged.  THERE WAS NO MANSLAUGHTER PERIOD.  There was instead justifiable homicide which IS NOT manslaughter and not a crime.  It is not "manslaughter" which was justified or excused.   It was justifiable homicide. There was no establishment of "manslaughter" at any time during that trial.  The only thing which was established was homicide.
The two words are not synonymous and are not interchangeable.  Period.

I will keep repeating this fact until the cows come home if you need me to.

I posted this twice already. But apparently nobody read it.
This is a law professor telling us exactly what the burden of proof is in Florida to affirm self-defense.

____________________________

In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.

Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.

Last year the Fifth District Court of Appeal quoted this language from Murray and followed the same rule in the case of Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011). In Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:

The inclusion of the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse.

Seminole County, where Trayvon Martin was killed, is in the Fifth Appellate District, so the rule in Montijo is controlling unless and until the law is changed.

Florida Standard Jury Instructions online are in accord with the courts' rulings in Murray and Montijo. Instruction 3.6(f) states:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him][her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

[url= http://www.topix.com/forum/city/st-marys-ga/TDMEP0PCEU98HJUC8] http://www.topix.com/forum/city/st-marys-ga/TDMEP0PCEU98HJUC8[/url]

2seaoat wrote:Is he sayng a preponderance is the standard in a criminal case or just an affirmative defense?

Actually, the standard of proof is a range.  We are talking about the standard of proof in a criminal case where a Defendant raises an affirmative defense.   We see that the State of Florida allows in the insanity affirmative defense to raise the standard above the preponderance standard to what is called clear and convincing.   These are normally civil standards of proof, but indeed when talking about a criminal case which raises an affirmative defense these standards apply.  Again, think of a range of proof.  The actual instruction and law uses the term reasonable doubt, and that actually could theoretically allow something even below a preponderance, but the truth is that is more likely than not which is the core standard.   I will Tuesday evening provide some Florida case law where you can read the same and understand both the sequence, the levels of proof, and the importance of these concepts with the changing environment of stand your ground.

This is not what I understand. The affirmative defense of self defense allows a preponderance of evidence for the prosecution to disprove it but the charge of second degree murder is beyond a reasonable doubt. There are two processes here.Now the stand you ground law for immunity allows a preponderance not the criminal case. I think you're getting these mixed up.

Have you read the affirmative defense instruction I gave you? Read it carefully and comprehend the words and direction given to the jury in regards to what they must do.........

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved

Bob, do you have any reasonable doubt that the state proved the two required elements of manslaughter that Martin was dead, and that Zimmerman's intentional act or acts cause the death. Do you have any doubt? So despite the elements being proven, the jury can still justify, excuse or exonerate that manslaughter. That is what they did. Now if a juror, or any other reasonable person had doubt that Martin was dead, or that Zimmerman's intentional acts or acts caused that death.....then I could agree with you, and I would be the first to say I am wrong. The manslaughter was proven, and the jury followed the clear instruction and found NG, not because the elements were not proved. Again simple stuff, if however you are simply making the absurd nonsensical circular argument that Zimmerman was NG......therefore he was NG........well I guess if that makes sense to you, and you are happy how you got there.....I certainly cannot discuss that stunning logic.....Ng because he was NG.....tell me how you do that when it really means that Zimmerman was not guilty? Yes, so you think I am discussing that Zimmerman was convicted of this crime, or do you think I am discussing the role of an affirmative defense, the standard of the same, and how the jury is instructed to justify, excuse, or exonerate and otherwise clearly proven crime.......which do you think we are discussing.....whether Zimmerman was convicted......or what I have been discussing.....but stunning logic nonetheless.

In Florida, the burden of proof to affirm an insanity defense is an entirely different one than the burden to affirm a self-defense claim.

It is much more stringent for a reason. And that reason is the same sort of thinking I introduced with my skepticism about legal insanity in general.

The lawmakers obviously find some agreement with me. To allow someone to kill another in order to protect his own life, is a lot easier concept to accept than allowing a person to kill because he claims "insanity".
So it follows that thinking that they made the burden of proof to claim insanity a bigger hurdle to overcome.

I posted this twice already. But apparently nobody read it.
This is a law professor telling us exactly what the burden of proof is in Florida to affirm self-defense.


Well the first question is did you read it? Because I posted the standard of reasonable doubt as a lesser standard of proof on an affirmative defense weeks ago, and you argued the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt......do you not recall your assertion Bob. So now two weeks after I explained to you the lesser standard of an affirmative defense, you are now asking us if we read it......you are a funny guy......again Robert.....integrity.....you really have ignored this pointed factual point that you accuse us of not reading the standard I posted a couple of weeks ago and you argued that it was beyond a reasonable doubt.....Simple question that deserves a simple answer? True or false?

they made the burden of proof to claim insanity a bigger hurdle to overcome.


Very good, so you would agree that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt?

2seaoat wrote:

Bob, do you have any reasonable doubt that the state proved the two required elements of manslaughter that Martin was dead, and that Zimmerman's intentional act or acts cause the death.  Do you have any doubt?  So despite the elements being proven, the jury can still justify, excuse or exonerate that manslaughter.   That is what they did.   Now if a juror, or any other reasonable person had doubt that Martin was dead, or that Zimmerman's intentional acts or acts caused that death.....then I could agree with you, and I would be the first to say I am wrong.   The manslaughter was proven, and the jury followed the clear instruction and found NG, not because the elements were not proved.   Again simple stuff, if however you are simply making the absurd nonsensical circular argument that Zimmerman was NG......therefore he was NG........well I guess if that makes sense to you, and you are happy how you got there.....I certainly cannot discuss that stunning logic.....Ng because he was NG.....tell me how you do that when it really means that Zimmerman was not guilty?  Yes, so you think I am discussing that Zimmerman was convicted of this crime, or do you think I am discussing the role of an affirmative defense, the standard of the same, and how the jury is instructed to justify, excuse, or exonerate and otherwise clearly proven crime.......which do you think we are discussing.....whether Zimmerman was convicted......or what I have been discussing.....but stunning logic nonetheless.

Seaoat, you're now doing EXACTLY what you objected to me doing.
Except in my case, the only words I put in your mouth were a shorthand two-word version of what you had said.
What you just did is take more than half of a long post to put a whole paragraphs of words in my mouth that I never said in any form.

As for the first part of your post, I have already answered the same damn thing so many times that for you to keep on asking it again is just getting ridiculous.
Go back to post number 334 and read it again. The answer is right there staring it you and begging you to read it.

What the answer reveals is now becoming very clear. At the beginning of all this you made a mistake. You tried to tell us the court established "manslaughter". And you were wrong. We have done everything humanly possible to convince of you that. We have asked you to look at the law which absolutely does not support your contention. None of it has made you see the light and none of it has made you admit you were wrong.
It's now just becoming tedious for us to keep going over and over this time and time again. You have now worn us all down.
So let's just say "we agree to disagree" and let it go. Otherwise this will never end. And I'm ready to move on from this.
Actually, I would much rather engage you in a discussion about whether or not "insanity" should be a defense to murder.

2seaoat wrote:they made the burden of proof to claim insanity a bigger hurdle to overcome.


Very good, so you would agree that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt?

Much better. And a very good question. Let me ponder on the implications of that and get back to you after doing so. It's now 1 AM here and I need some sleep. lol

Wait a minute I'm tired and misread your question.

Of course I agree.  The burden of proof in florida for affirming a defense of insanity is "clear and convincing evidence".  I established that already in this thread by providing the statute which states exactly that. And pointed out it out in that post.

But let's talk about the insanity defense in general tomorrow.

Bob, you did not answer the question. Did I not show you the lesser standard of an affirmative defense is reasonable doubt over a week ago, and you responded that the proof makes no difference because they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

True or false.....it does not get any easier.

Apparently Bob went to bed.....so do I have to go back and find our conversation and my posting of the same? ok

2seaoat wrote:Bob, you did not answer the question.   Did I not show you the lesser standard of an affirmative defense is reasonable doubt over a week ago, and you responded that the proof makes no difference because they have to prove it  beyond a reasonable doubt?

True or false.....it does not get any easier.

Firstly, believe it or not as stupid and uninformed as I am, I have known for very many years that "reasonable doubt" is the easiest burden of proof to meet among the various standards. So no I don't remember you telling me that because it would be like remembering you telling me the sun rises in the east.

Secondly I don't even understand the question.

"Did I not show you the lesser standard of an affirmative defense is reasonable doubt over a week ago, and you responded that the proof makes no difference because they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?"

What does that even mean? The part before the comma doesn't sync with the part after the comma.
If you'll try to restate the question maybe I'll be able to understand it.
But do it after you get a good night's sleep and I'll respond then too.
I think we've been on this so long that it's making our brains start to get disoriented.

2seaoat wrote:Apparently Bob went to bed.....so do I have to go back and find our conversation and my posting of the same?  ok

No but I'm going after writing this post.

But yes it would be very helpful if you would go back and "find the conversation" you're referring to. Because I promise you if I said something that was wrong I will gladly fess up to it. But I would like to see what it was you're referring to. Because the way you put it in that last post was unintelligible to me.

Goodnight. Talk to you tomorrow.

2seaoat wrote:I posted this twice already. But apparently nobody read it.
This is a law professor telling us exactly what the burden of proof is in Florida to affirm self-defense.


Well the first question is did you read it?   Because I posted the standard of reasonable doubt as a lesser standard of proof on an affirmative defense weeks ago, and you argued the standard was beyond a reasonable doubt......do you not recall your assertion Bob.  So now two weeks after I explained to you the lesser standard of an affirmative defense, you are now asking us if we read it......you are a funny guy......again Robert.....integrity.....you really have ignored this pointed factual point that you accuse us of not reading the standard I posted a couple of weeks ago and you argued that it was beyond a reasonable doubt.....Simple question that deserves a simple answer?  True or false?

No it's not simple because the question is so long and rambling that it becomes almost unintelligible because of that. And if I don't understand the question how on earth can I give an answer to it, let alone one which is either "true" or "false"? lol

You are telling me that I made a mistake in a post two weeks ago. I repeat, if I made a mistake I will gladly admit it. But I'm not taking your claim that I did on the face value of this "question" you're attempting to ask.
If you will go back and produce the actual post and the actual conversation and I see that I challenged something you said out of ignorance and I was wrong to do that I promise I will fess up to it. But I have to see the actual conversation first.

LOL. Round and round on that merry go round!

As to the self defense claim, all Zimmerman had to do was to put up a defense. Enough of a defense so that the judge would put self defense in the jury instructions. But he didn't have to prove to the jury that he acted in self defense. So although there is talk about the burden of proof shifting when Zimmerman claimed self defense, I don't think the burden really did shift in any significant way. It was always up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.

I agree that insanity is another thing entirely. The burden should be higher, and it is.