Spartana - You are mistating the State's burden of proof. The lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is used in civil matters. For a criminal matter (such as the Zimmerman case) the state must meet a much higher burden "beyond a reasonable doubt".Originally Posted by Spartana
The last jury instruction I cited above reads a little funny to me but could be key:
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.
Reasonable doubt means not guilty.
Question for you all. About guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't understand that. Can you give me an example of what a reasonable doubt would be?
Sorry, Yosarrian, you are quite correct, injured knuckles:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...s-hands/52392/
From the Florida Standard Jury Instructions:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...structions.pdf3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1997.
A few years back I was on a jury for a case in which the defendant claimed self-defense. The other party was severely injured.
The predisposition of most of the jury was to convict the defendant, as he was not a likeable fellow, and both parties had been up to no good the evening of the incident. The injuries were pretty horrid, and the prosecutor spent a lot of time showing gory photos and trotting out doctors to explain the hell of the reconstructive surgery involved.
The jury instruction however were quite clear about the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and all that good stuff. And several members of the jury insisted to the rest of the jury that we go through the instructions and the law, and sort through the evidence to sift out the facts, and try to follow our duty, instead of our emotions.
And so we did. It only takes one person on the jury to demand that you follow the correct process. I think that's a good thing.
A great movie treatment of the subject:
Exactly, Bae. After my jury experience, not as difficult a trial as yours, I went home and watched 12 Angry Men again, and was astonished by how close it came to the jury experience. You really do hold each other to the rules, and we abided by them very closely. And then, together, there is collective wisdom that really does exceed the wisdom of any one individual. That is why I feel that the jury will be able to do a good job.
I was on a jury once and it was a Twelve Angry Men experience because we went from a vote of 7 guilty/2 not guilty (one was me), to a not guilty verdict. I won't go into the details, but it was not a great experience for me. I found all the typical "human" factors at play.. the prosecutor did NOT connect two critical dots for us. We had spent three days deliberating, and one person was missing her kid's graduation, one person was missing a trip to a horse show she was competing in which impacted the course of events, and at the end, we should have had a closed vote (as a market researcher I'm well aware of that) and I was overridden, so I know there was group-think at play as well.
It's taken me a long time to get over it. Thank God it wasn't a murder case. Armed robbery was bad enough.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Where I live, being on a murder trial isn't unusual.
DH has been on one, as have several of our friends and neighbors. I mean, it's so common that I've got a list of friends and acquaintances who have been jury foremen on murder trials, that's the subset: foremen of murder juries.
In DH's case it was a group of young men in a car who pulled up to an ATM and shot a man in front of his 10 year old daughter (after taking his $12.68.) Then they went to the Get N GO and bought soda and bags of pork rind chips. DH's jury tried one of the riders, not the shooter.They convicted him but on a lesser charge, I think it was 2nd degree murder.
I've been on several juries but the last one was a criminal case, a case of drug posession. The DA didn't prove his case although we were convinced that SOMEONE in the car had the drugs but we did not convict him. The first thing these guys do when stopped by cops is to throw the drugs around. Of course I knew that the perp had been up on these charges before because there was no other reason for him to get all lawyered up and go to trial, but that evidence is inadmissible. And sure enough after the trial we found that he'd had several prior convictions and this one would have sent him away for a long time if not for good. But really, in the end, I didn't mind exonerating him because I really did not know if he had the drugs. It could well have been one of the other three guys in the car.
Last edited by iris lilies; 7-12-13 at 9:55pm.
Oops! You're right. I think I did say beyond a reasonable doubt somewhere in my post but either way I don't think the state met that burden.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote