The George Zimmerman Trial.

In the United States George Zimmerman is currently on trial for the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin. Due to the high profile and racially charged nature of the case the jury have been sequestered. Essentially this means that they have been placed in a hotel cut off from the outside world and in particular media coverage of the case and trial. As this is costing the State a lot of money and the jurors really want to be able get on with their lives the Court has been sitting almost around the clock with breaks only really to allow people to sleep and eat. As a result the case has proceeded very quickly with closing arguments being made today and the jury possibly being sent out to consider its verdict at early as tomorrow (12/7/13). A verdict could then be reached in anywhere from a matter of minutes to a matter weeks.

With the jury sequestered it is unlikely that they will be able to read this blog or any other coverage of the case. However the standard disclaimer that I have not sat through the trial and have not studied all the evidence in detail applies. Therefore based on the evidence that has been presented if the jury disagree with anything I say they should feel free to disregard my opinion.

That said the chances of Zimmerman being convicted of the second degree murder charge seem very slim. The offence of second degree murder as defined by Section 782.4(2) of the Florida penal code is the unlawful killing of a person either by deliberate act or through an act with reckless disregard for human life. The key difference between first and second degree murder is that second degree murder occurs without premeditation or pre-planning. Therefore this seems the appropriate charge to lay against Zimmerman because while there is no dispute that he has killed a person through a deliberate or reckless act there is absolutely no suggestion that Zimmerman left his house that evening with a plan to kill Martin or anybody else.

The issue though is with the term "unlawful" because even without the infamous "Stand your ground" rule being invoked (it hasn't been) Florida, US Federal and international law all allow for a person to lawfully kill another person if it is necessary to protect them or others from death or serious injury. As it is not in dispute that at the time of the fatal shots being fired Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was striking him with his fists while smashing his head into the concrete pavement this seems a clear example of Zimmerman acting lawfully in self-defence. However the law most certainly does not allow you to force somebody into a corner and them kill them in 'self-defence' as they fight to escape.

Therefore the jury must also consider whether Zimmerman's actions prior to the shooting left Martin with no option other than to fight in order to escape from Zimmerman. This would mean that Martin rather than Zimmerman was acting lawfully in self-defence. By the same token though while it's never a good idea to turn your back on an armed man if at any point Martin had a reasonable chance of escaping from Zimmerman the jury have no option other than to acquit Zimmerman on the second degree murder charge.

In one of the ways that the US legal systems differs slightly from the UK legal system if the jury are unable to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder they will then consider other offences of which he may be guilty. The first of these which the trial Judge Debra Nelson has already given the jury permission to consider is manslaughter. Defined by Section 782.07(1) of the Florida penal code manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a person through a deliberate act that was not intended to kill. To my mind this seems a waste of the jury's time because I don't think there is anybody who reasonably believes that deliberately firing a 9mm pistol into someones chest at point blank range doesn't carry a statistically significant risk that it will kill. Therefore if the jury is unable to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder it is equally unable to convict him of manslaughter.

Another offence that the jury could consider in Zimmerman's case although Judge Nelson has yet to give them permission to do so is that of aggravated assault defined by Section 784.021(b) of the Florida penal code. This does not require physical contact and is considered any behaviour that causes the victim to fear imminent harm. The presence of a firearm is the aggravating factor. This seems an appropriate offence to convict Zimmerman of because if an armed man in a car was following me around in the dark against the express instruction of the police I would certainly be fearful that he intended to do me imminent harm.

The advantage of convicting Zimmerman of aggravated assault is that it is a third degree felony meaning that unlike second degree murder or manslaughter it doesn't carry a minimum prison sentence. This is important because while Zimmerman's actions strike me as unpleasant and incredibly stupid they do not strike me as the actions of a hardened criminal or the actions of a committed racist. Therefore I think sentencing him to a long prison term would be unjust as his behaviour could be effectively punished by a mixed sentence made up of a very short prison term along with community punishment such as probation and unpaid work.


16:30 on 11/7/13.

Edited at around 15:00 on 12/7/13 to add;

I'm slightly concerned that the prosecution have yet to ask for the aggravated assault charge to be put to the jury. It is obviously not the defences' job to ask for more charges to be filed against their client. This is a problem because I think aggravated assault is the offence that Zimmerman has actually committed.

It is possible that the prosecutor has declined to do this due to the high profile and racially charged nature of the case. Therefore he doesn't want to appear weak by introducing the lesser charge because unless you're familiar with the legal detail it sounds like a poor explanation for an incident in which someone has been killed. The problem is that if justice is to be served I honestly can't see Zimmerman being convicted of either second degree murder or manslaughter so by not introducing the lesser charge the prosecutor is actually increasing the chances that Zimmerman will face no punishment at all. This is actually more likely to create a backlash especially as by asking the jury to consider Zimmerman's actions prior to the final confrontation as aggravated asssault the prosecutor would be chipping away at the defence of self-defence increasing the chances of a second degree murder conviction.

Therefore it is much more likely that the prosecutor or someone much higher up in the US Establishment is deliberately keeping the aggravated assault charge off the table in order to provoke a public backlash that would then be exploited to do away with the legal principle of Double Jeopardy which is a long standing check on the power of the state over the individual. After all it would be double jeopardy that would prevent an acquitted Zimmerman being re-tried for the aggravated assault offence.

Either way it kind of makes you wish there was a way for the sequestered jury to be told they can ask the judge if they can consider the aggravated assault charge.


(Originally Posted on 11/7/13)