Alan Dershowitz: Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge

No telling what a jury will do. If you can cut up a body and throw it in Galveston Bay and still be acquitted, anything can happen.


The beyond a reasonable doubt issue is a little different when the suspect has admitted the shooting. This is a case of an affirmative defense basically blaming Trayvon for his own death. This may end up being whether or not Trayvon's actions were reasonable. If the clicks on George's 911 call are proved to be from his gun or if he showed Trayvon the gun, the jury should not acquit him. I've read several different accounts of George's statement. One of them has him going for his phone and Trayvon attacks him when he sees the gun. I wonder if his story is that Trayvon accidentally saw his gun. That would show George's awareness of the concealed carry laws. I imagine he was in full CYA mode that night.

 

Considering his upbringing and criminal justice studies, CYA mode kicked in and obviously when he went to the doctor the next day. He couldn't claim it was due to pain since he didn't need any treatment for that when it happened so he said it was for "clearance" to go back to work. The EMS had already cleared him ten minutes after the shooting.

He will claim T accidentally saw the gun and he tried to take it but the physical evidence does not support that claim. I have yet to see any evidence T's hands were anywhere near the gun at any point.

It will all come down to the amount of credibility the jury gives to Z. Even if the prosecution technically fails to prove M2 the jury could still easily convict on M2 if they deem Z as not having sufficient credibility. Based on what we currently know Z's credibility is already high questionable. The clincher will be the statements he gave that are contradicted by each other and the physical evidence.

 

I don't believe anyone did any residue test on either George's or Trayvon's hands. It would be completely reasonable for Trayvon to go after the gun. George's concealed carry permit carries some weight of responsibility (I hope).

I wonder. I kinda think George told the truth that night; the evidence will not contradict him; and he should be convicted.

 

The stippling area was 4 square inches so obviously T did not have his hands very close to the entry point. Otherwise it wouldn't have been consistent. We know there was no DNA of Z's found under T's fingernails and the only mark out of both pairs of hands was a small abrasion on T's left fourth finger. It is obvious T was not repeatedly hitting him because the evidence does not support that claim.

One of the least discussed areas is the time gap between initial physical contact and the gunshot. Z's wounds would have happened in less than ten seconds yet they struggled for almost 60 seconds before the shot. Witnesses also indicate the struggle covered a length of space about 20 yards and more importantly, the struggle happened in the exact direction where T was staying. This suggests T was trying to get away and heading in that direction.

Since SYG does not apply, Z will need to explain what happened in that time frame and what he did to get away or defend himself before using his gun. A jury is not going to buy the claim T was able to unquestionably overpower Z and that Z's only recourse was a gun.

Apparently, his five statements are not in harmony with each other or the physical evidence. We've always known there was physical fight but what we didn't know were the physical results and the reports, especially from the EMS, do not support Z's version.

 

Yes he did or there wouldn't be a medical report.

 

Therein lies his problem. George didn't fight back. He just used his gun. Deadly force wasn't necessary, IMO.

What five statements? What is Z's version?

 

Self defense is to keep oneself from great bodily harm, so all his injuries do, even though you think they should be serious, is support his claim.

 

He claimed T was beating him, pummeling, him and trying to basically kill him. The physical evidence proves that is not true or anywhere close to it. Out of 60 seconds of struggling at least 50 seconds was free of causing injuring on either of them.

Even the gunshot forensics shows Z's version could not be accurate based on trajectory and stippling.

 

That's kinda nutty. I was in a serious auto accident and wasn't as injured as Zman. But my life was in danger the whole while. Was Zman supposed to wait till he felt his own skull crack open on the concrete before acting?....wait till he became incapacitated before mustering the capacity to resist with deadly force? Here's a clue, at that point, it's too late. George has Parents, a Wife and loved ones who want him alive and well. He doesn't have to die, robbing his family of his presence just to suit crackpot arguments in defense of brutality, whether that brutality comes from a teenager or anyone else. Had Zman been a Police Officer, the Officer would have shot Martin as well.

 

The evidence shows exactly that and nothing so far, no matter how much stuff you make up, shows any different. You do realize don't you that people have gotten self defense decisions won with absolutely no physical injuries?

All of the evidence only supports Zimmerman's claim, as the police have already determined.

 

The lack of marks on their hands (except for one minor one on T) shows they were not punching each other but mainly wrestling around. Z responding with a gun was depraved indifference especially since T was not on top of him when the gun was fired.

Z gave a total of five official statements to different agencies and we don't have copies of them yet but we know from the leaks some info is not consistent. Especially with the claim T was circling Z's car and this caused Z to close his window out of fear.

The SPD put out a statement claiming Z's version was that after he lost sight of T he was returning to his truck and T attacked him. The notable aspect was no mention of dialogue at all between them. Shortly after, Crump announced the phone witness then through Z's dad and brother it was claimed T asked a question, Z gave a one word answer, then T punched him. The problem with that version is at least three witnesses stated there was an argument with several words being exchanged before it got physical. This helps give Dee's testimony more credibility since her version is independently supported by other witnesses while nobody can corroborate Z's version.

Obviously I cannot say for sure, but I'm guessing the prosecution will argue it doesn't matter who touched whom first. They will point out T was defending himself from an aggressive stranger in a strange neighborhood so even if T punched Z first Z had no right to use deadly force because it was T standing his ground and T presented no viable threat is serious injury or death. Accepting Z's claim T hit him, T only hit him at most three times in 60 seconds.

Even giving Z his version, it doesn't justify deadly force as you have said.

 

Therein lies the reason that Zimmerman will probably be acquitted - Zimmerman does NOT have to testify.

Zimmerman's statements are alleged to be inconsistent - in what way? Is he completely changing the scenario of events with every statement? Is he adding detail to the statements as he remembers it? Is he clarifying details, a clarification that may be at odds with a prior statement?

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, all that Mark O'Mara has to do is establish reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's version of events.

Plus, keep in mind that O'Mara doesn't need a 12-0 acquittal, all he needs is a deadlocked jury. A hung jury results in a mistrial, then it becomes the province of the state to decide to retry the case - a retrial that probably won't happen if the jury deadlocks at 6-6 or worse for the state.

I personally don't have a dog in this fight, and I don't really care what happens - but I seriously doubt that Zimmerman will be convicted, there's too much reasonable doubt.

 

I never said physical injury was absolutely necessary to win a self defense claim. I pointed out the evidence proves Z lied about what happened. Do you understand the bulk of the conviction will be based on the jury determining how much credibility to give to Z?

Z can argue T punched him first and it won't matter all because once the prosecution shows the dishonesty coming from Z in trying to explain what happened, the jury will simply not believe anything Z says.

The police completely screwed up the investigation as noted by many law enforcement professionals so every time you reference SPD you only show how little you understand this case. SPD had reached a conclusion even before the investigation was over.

 

Nothing in my post says Z will have to testify. However, if he doesn't, it's a guaranteed M2 conviction.

I'm not sure what you are basing the reasonable doubt upon. What is the basis?

 

No. It doesn't mean that at all. You appear to be assuming that the gun was against Trayvon's chest when it was fired.

I missed it. How do we know they checked and found no DNA? The autopsy says they took scrapings, but it does not give the results or say what was tested.

What would it look like to a witness (in the dark) if Trayvon was trying to wrest the gun away from George?

 

Once again. The evidence shows Z lied about what happened. Im not saying someone has to wait to have their skull cracked to do anything. I'm only pointing out Z's version is not supported by the bulk of physical evidence, witnesses, and his own words. Hell, Omara is trying to keep some of Z's statements out of the trial. A defense attorney does not do that unless his client inadvertently admitted his own guilt and coincidentally, the prosecution is trying to keep all of Z statements from the public before the trial on the basis confessions are exempt from the public record law.


T didn't have a wife. But he had parents, friends, and loved ones. I'm sure they miss him. I'm 100% sure Z murdered him and I have no sympathy for Z or his dishonest family. If Z ends up committing suicide at any point, it will be a celebration of self inflicted justice.

 

If he doesn't, then he is convicted. There is all kinds of proof that he shot Trayvon.

 

Guaranteed M2 conviction? Again, I refer you to Casey Anthony...

Insofar as reasonable doubt -- if I'm counting correctly, there are about twelve witnesses to the incident between Treyvon and George, none of whom saw the incident in it's entirity. Of these witnesses, some parts of their recollections tend to corroborate each other, some tend to corroborate Zimmerman's version of events, others tend to not corroborate it at all.

No witness that I've read of so far has been able to establish in the final 30 seconds before the struggle between Zimmerman and Martin took place. Did Treyvon instigate the situation? Did Zimmerman instigate the situation? What words were exchanged between Martin and Zimmerman before they began to struggle? Did Zimmerman attempt to wrestle Treyvon to the ground and subdue him before the police arrived? Did Treyvon physically attack Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman flash his firearm at Treyvon in an attempt to intimidate him?

There's your reasonable doubt - no one (except Zimmerman) knows exactly what happened in the lead-up to the struggle between the two. And if Zimmerman's version of events is reasonably borne out by the evidence - he walks free.

 

I know the gun wasn't against T chest when it was fired. The stippling proves this and going by the 4 square inch pattern it shows nothing interrupted the path. That is why I said his hands weren't near the entry point when the gun was fired because some of the stippling would have been blocked by his hands.

I don't have the link right now stating no Z DNA was under T's fingernails but will provide it later.

The only item witnesses agree upon is Z and T were wrestling. Since it was so dark I don't think they would be able to tell if they were fighting over possession of a gun but no witness stated seeing a gun until after the shooting. I find it very hard to believe they were wrestling over the gun yet none of T's prints were on the gun. Unless his ghost covertly wiped his prints off while carefully leaving Z's prints in tact, we have to conclude T never touched the gun.

 

So you are basing reasonable doubt upon who touched whom first. If that is your position it does not cast reasonable doubt in anyway whatsoever.

The fact you ask who "instigated" is really mind boggling given all the evidence independent of eyewitnesses.

 

I think you are coming to some conclusions that are not necessarily true. Are you thinking that Trayvon would have his hand in front of the muzzle?

Even if you provide the report on fingerprints, you still have to assume that Zimmerman himself was careful with the fingerprints after the shooting.

 

If you think that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation by getting out of his SUV and walking around the apartment complex, I don't know what to say, other than I'm glad you won't be serving on the jury.

It's still a long ways until the trial - let's see what happens between now and then...

 

There is no doubt Z instigated the situation and he had at least three chances to avoid any confrontation and ignored them. The fact that T ran away from Z will weigh very heavily with a jury. Z is going to have a hard time convincing a jury that after T ran away he came back and attacked Z while holding both his phone and a 7/11 bag.

Based on Z's recorded call we do not need to wonder what his state of mind was. We do not need to wonder if he had any ill will towards T. Like many others, you are focusing on who touched whom first when that is not ground zero in any way.

 

Not directly in front of the gun barrel. It looks like T's hands were no where near the gun before, during or after the gunshot.

They also found none of Z's DNA on T's right hand.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf

 

Why? I don't understand. It seems obvious that his hands were in the vicinity of the gun. If you mean he never touched the gun, you have no way of knowing this. An absence of fingerprints (if that is true), do not prove he never touched the gun. Trayvon had a perfect right to go after the gun, and that is logically what he would do in that situation.

Come on. Give me a page. It may be Sunday, but I do have a life.