Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Demo_Chris

(6,234 posts)
9. Not quite...
Tue Jun 4, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jun 2013

I am not an expert, but an affirmative defense seems to shift the burden onto Zimmerman. Otherwise pretty much EVERY murder which took place without witnesses would be impossible to prosecute. Fortunately this is not the case. It is Zimmerman's job to convince a jury that his story is believable, that he did not initiate the conflict by twice pursuing and then attempting to detain a fleeing Martin, that he could not disengage from the fight once begun, that he did feel that his life was in danger and that a reasonable person would feel similarly.

It is NOT the prosecutions job to convince a jury that these claims by Zimmerman are false -- no prosecutor would bother if this were the case -- it is Zimmerman's job to convince a jury that these claims are true. More, he has to do so without taking the stand himself. And it is here that the prosecution can succeed. Zimmerman's lawyer has to first convince the jury that Zimmerman's story is accurate. Not some of it, but ALL of it. And this is an impossibility because Zimmerman's story has already been proven false. The physical evidence and witness testimony show that he was lying about what happened that night.

He lied to the police dispatcher, he lied during the reenactment, he lied in his statements. This is not my opinion, it is objective fact. And Zimmerman's lawyer has to somehow correct these many errors in his many stories without putting Zimmerman on the stand to explain them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The importance of separat...»Reply #9