Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Zimmerman jury instructions >

Zimmerman jury instructions

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Zimmerman jury instructions

Old 07-13-2013, 10:07 AM
  #1  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool Zimmerman jury instructions

Since my husband is an attorney, I guess I'm kind of a legal groupie. Anyway, I found a copy of the jury instructions given by the judge at the end of Zimmerman's trial.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...structions.pdf

Zimmerman's counsel and counsel for the People would have conferred on these with the judge beforehand.
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:47 AM
  #2  
Typical Buck
 
Catus Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 501
Default

the instructions are forget reasonable doubt - if you find that, convict on something else
Catus Magnus is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 11:07 AM
  #3  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,417
Default

The instructions were actually pretty straight forward. The manslaughter definition was a little different but Florida does have some differences. Based on these instructions and the evidence that I heard or read about (I don't claim to have read about all of the evidence), I think the jurors should find a reasonable doubt and go with not guilty. I'd be curious to hear what cr422 thinks.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 11:28 AM
  #4  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,318
Default

I'm actualy more concerned 6 seemingly clueless individuals will be deciding this mans fate.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 11:58 AM
  #5  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,417
Default

I haven't heard much of anything about the jurors. What information do you have?
CalHunter is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:07 PM
  #6  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,318
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I haven't heard much of anything about the jurors. What information do you have?
There was description given of the women but the key common thread as I recall, they watch no news.

Ultimately you have to trust the legal system but we are at a time where too many are so clueless. I really fear the rule of feelings may play a big role in all of this and justice won't be blind.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:23 PM
  #7  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

If I understood correctly, one of the jurors had moved from Chicago to "get away from gun violence".
LBR is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:27 PM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Catus Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 501
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I haven't heard much of anything about the jurors. What information do you have?
— B-51 is retired, not married and doesn't have kids. She has worked in real estate and run a call center where she said she had experience resolving conflicts.

— B-29 recently moved to central Florida from Chicago. She works as a nurse on an Alzheimer's section of a nursing home. She is married and has several children. A prosecutor described her as "black or Hispanic" during jury selection.

— B-76 is a white woman who has lived in central Florida for 18 years. She manages rental properties with her husband of 30 years. She has two adult children.

— B-37 is a white woman who volunteers rescuing animals. She is married to an attorney and has two adult children.

— E-6 is married and has two children. She has worked in financial services and is active in her church.

— E-40 works as a safety officer and recently moved to Seminole County from Iowa.
Catus Magnus is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:41 PM
  #9  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Cool

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
The instructions were actually pretty straight forward. The manslaughter definition was a little different but Florida does have some differences. Based on these instructions and the evidence that I heard or read about (I don't claim to have read about all of the evidence), I think the jurors should find a reasonable doubt and go with not guilty. I'd be curious to hear what cr422 thinks.
My husband (cr422) is busy right now but he asked me to post the Michigan jury instructions on Self Defense for your consideration and comparison.

He says a cursory glance at the jury instructions given in the Zimmerman case suggests Zimmerman would be more likely to be convicted in Florida than in Michigan.


CJI2d 7.15 Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
(1) The defendant claims that [he / she] acted in lawful self-defense. A person has the right to use force or even take a life to defend [himself / herself] under certain circumstances. If a person acts in lawful self-defense, that person’s actions are justified and [he / she] is not guilty of [state crime] .

(2) You should consider all the evidence and use the following rules to decide whether the defendant acted in lawful self-defense. Remember to judge the defendant’s conduct according to how the circumstances appeared to [him / her] at the time [he / she] acted.

(3) First, at the time [he / she] acted, the defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that [he / she] was in danger of being [killed / seriously injured / sexually assaulted] . If the defendant’s belief was honest and reasonable, [he / she] could act immediately to defend [himself / herself] even if it turned out later that [he / she] was wrong about how much danger [he / she] was in. In deciding if the defendant’s belief was honest and reasonable, you should consider all the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time.

(4) Second, a person may not kill or seriously injure another person just to protect [himself / herself] against what seems like a threat of only minor injury. The defendant must have been afraid of [death / serious physical injury / sexual assault] . When you decide if the defendant was afraid of one or more of these, you should consider all the circumstances: [the condition of the people involved, including their relative strength / whether the other person was armed with a dangerous weapon or had some other means of injuring the defendant / the nature of the other person’s attack or threat / whether the defendant knew about any previous violent acts or threats made by the other person] .

(5) Third, at the time [he / she] acted, the defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that what [he / she] did was immediately necessary. Under the law, a person may only use as much force as [he / she] thinks is necessary at the time to protect [himself / herself] . When you decide whether the amount of force used seemed to be necessary, you may consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting [himself / herself] , but you may also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice the defendant made.


Use Note Use when requested where some evidence of self-defense has been introduced or elicited.

History CJI2d 7.15 was CJI 7:9:01; amended June, 1990; June, 1991; September, 2005, September, 2007.

Commentary
This instruction was amended by the committee to reflect the legislature’s enactment of the “self-defense act,”MCL 780.971, and related statutes in 2006 PA 309, effective October 1, 2006.
MCL 780.971 et seq. is not retroactive to conduct occurring before the effective date of the statute, October 1, 2006. People v Conyer, 281 Mich App 526, 762 NW2d 198 (2008).
MCL 780.972(1) provides that a person who has not and is not engaged in the commission of a crime may use deadly force in lawful self-defense anywhere the person has a lawful right to be, with no duty to retreat if the person honestly and reasonably believes “that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent” death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault upon himself or another. MCL 780.972(2) likewise eliminates the duty to retreat before the otherwise lawful use of non–deadly force in self-defense.
The statute also expands the required harm feared to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense. Whereas People v Barker, 437 Mich 161, 468 NW2d 492 (1991), held that fear of forced sexual penetration was a third option after fear of death or great bodily harm, the statute includes sexual assault as adequate to justify the use of deadly force.
In People v Goree, 296 Mich App 293, 819 NW2d 82 (2012), the court of appeals held that self-defense is applicable to a felony firearm charge. See CJI2d 11.34b.
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-13-2013, 12:47 PM
  #10  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,417
Default

Interesting on the sexual assault mention in Michigan's laws. I had never considered it as a separate reason and instead had simply lumped it into a felony assault category that counted. I don't disagree with it at all though.
CalHunter is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.