George Zimmerman and Jury Instructions

Many people do not realize the importance of jury instructions in a trial.  Jury instructions are drafted by the parties (prosecution and defense), usually using model instructions prepared by a special council appointed by the state.  The court then gives the jury the instructions, both orally and in writing.  Some instructions are given at the beginning of the trial, others after the attorneys complete their closing arguments.

Trial attorneys start with the jury instructions.  Prosecutors try to introduce evidence which satisfies each and every essential element of a jury instruction.  Defense attorneys try to introduce evidence which casts doubt on at least one essential element of a jury instruction.  The key here is that the trial isn't about the big picture - its about a long list of little questions.

The jury instructions in the Zimmerman trial consisted of 27 pages containing 23 distinct instructions.  Some instructions are as simple as stating the name of the crime which has been charged, or that the state must prove that the crime occurred on a particular date.  Others are much longer, stating the essential elements of manslaughter and second degree murder.

None of the jury instructions was more important than the one entitled "Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force."  That jury instruction stated the essential elements of the "Stand Your Ground" defense adopted in Florida.

George Zimmerman "claimed" that he killed Trayvon Martin in self defense.  I emphasize that the defendant "claimed" self defense because Zimmerman never actually testified.  He never, from his own mouth, claimed that he acted in self defense.  To be fair, the prosecutor never got on the witness stand and testified to the charges of murder and manslaughter.  All of this is done through written documents filed with the court, or oral motions made by the parties' respective attorneys.

The most interesting and frustrating part about this fact has to do with the burden of proof.  We all know that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the crime, and the proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt.  The defendant need not testify - he doesn't need to prove anything.  A defense attorney could decline to make a single statement to the jury, decline to cross examine a single prosecution witness, decline to present any witnesses or evidence, and still obtain a verdict of not guilty.  The prosecution bears the entire burden.

What is not so well understood is that in the Zimmerman case the prosecution had to prove not just that Zimmerman committed the crime, but that Zimmerman wasn't entitled to the defense of Justifiable Use of Deadly Force.

Simply put, the prosecution says "you did X", then proves beyond  a reasonable doubt that you did x.  You then say "well, I did X, but I was allowed to because of Y reason."  You don't have to prove that you did X for Y reason.  You don't have to prove anything, you just need your attorney to raise the issue that you did x for y reason.  The prosecutor is then charged with the additional task of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that your claim is not true.

Compare this to a claim that a defendant is not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.  The state proves murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defendant claims that he is not guilty because at the moment he committed the murder he was insane and lacked the mental capacity to understand his actions or know the difference between right and wrong.  In California, the DEFENDANT bears the burden of proof of showing that he was insane.  The defendant must show by a preponderance (more likely than not) that he was insane at the time of the murder.  The prosecutor does not have to prove the defendant's sanity.

So, the Zimmerman prosecutor was required to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was NOT justified in his use of deadly force.  The Zimmerman jury was instructed that "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."  In essence, if the jury felt any uncertainty about who was on top and who was crying and how Zimmerman suffered his injuries, the jury was required to find Zimmerman not guilty.

If you, as a juror, thought it very likely that George Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon Martin, and that the wounds Zimmerman suffered were caused by Trayvon Martin defending himself, and that the cries people heard were coming from Trayvon Martin, BUT you though it was possible, though unlikely, that the reverse was true - the law would require you to find George Zimmerman not guilty.

Zimmerman isn't innocent.  He provoked an unarmed teenager and then shot the boy to death.  That we know beyond a reasonable doubt.  He killed a kid.  No doubt.  We just can't say for absolute certain that George Zimmerman was acting without a reason to kill Trayvon.  That doesn't make me trust George Zimmerman, or like him, or want him to live within a million miles of me and my family.  It just means that the government can't punish him.

Reasonable doubt doesn't make George Zimmerman innocent, just "not-guilty."