17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[natina]

Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?

Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial presented evidence of DNA test results to the jury Wednesday that may contradict the former neighborhood watch captain's story of how Trayvon Martin died.

Anthony Gorgone, DNA lab analyst for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, methodically walked the jury through the results from his DNA testing of Zimmerman's gun, the clothing both individuals wore the night of the shooting, and scrapings from Martin's finger nails.

Zimmerman did not show any emotion as the Gorgone gave his testimony, but it appeared he was paying close attention.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman told police that the teenager looked suspicious and that there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood. The two got into a physical altercation and Zimmerman said he was forced to draw his gun and kill Martin in self-defense.

Protests were held around the country when it appeared Zimmerman wasn’t going to be arrested for Martin’s death. Zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder in April of 2012. The case has reinvigorated national conversations about race, racial profiling and self-defense laws.

Gorgone testified Wednesday that he only found Zimmerman's DNA on the gun he used to shoot Martin, and did not find any of Martin's DNA on the gun. Zimmerman's holster only tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA as well. The lack of Martin's DNA on the gun and the holster may contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin grabbed his gun during the altercation.

Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman. This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing. Scrapings from under Martin's fingernails yielded none of Zimmerman's DNA.

Martin was also wearing a gray sweatshirt under his hooded jacket. Gorgone said two stains on that sweatshirt matched both Martin's and Zimmerman's DNA.

During cross examination, defense attorney Don West pointed out that Martin's sweatshirts were wet from rain the night of the shooting, and they were not allowed dry before they were stored in plastic bags. Gorgone said if wet evidence is not left to air dry before being stored in plastic mildew can degrade DNA evidence.

West asked, "Frankly then you just didn't find much of anything on this gray hooded sweatshirt when it boils right down to it?"

"Just that partial profile on stain A" said Gorgone.

West asked, "That was the shirt that stunk to high heaven?"

"It didn't smell good," said Gorgone.

Earlier Wednesday, prosecutors called several witnesses to help support their assertion that the former neighborhood watch captain was a "wannabe cop" who well knew Florida's self-defense and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Records admitted into evidence on the eighth day of testimony included a letter rejecting Zimmerman’s application to be a police officer in Virginia in 2009 because of his credit issues. A release form filed with the Sanford Police Department lists Zimmerman’s reason for wanting to ride along with them as, “solidify my chances of a career in law enforcement.” Records also indicate Zimmerman applied for a diploma in criminal justice in 2011 at Seminole State College in Florida.

The instructor who taught Zimmerman’s criminal litigation class testified Wednesday that he covered Florida’s self-defense laws extensively, even though there was no mention of them in the course book. "It's not one of those things that you're just going to whisk through in a day,” said Alexis Carter, who is now a military prosecutor.

The testimony seemed to counter a key claim that Zimmerman made last year in a Fox News interview that was replayed in court: that he didn’t know about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws until after the shooting.

Self-defense laws were “something that I constantly iterated ... it was something that I think the students really wanted to know about, it was so practical, they were very much engaged in class discussion," Carter said. He called Zimmerman “one of the better students” in his class and said he gave him an A. He also said he taught his students about “imperfect self-defense,” which he said means “the force that you are encountering, you meet that force disproportionately -- excess force. Like a gunshot."

Prosecutors say that while evidence showing that Zimmerman wanted to be a cop isn’t “bad,” they hope it will give jurors some insight into his thought process the night he shot and killed Martin. They also suggest that his studies in criminal justice show Zimmerman knew how to testify and talk to police.

Scott Pleasants, another Seminole State College teacher, testified Wednesday via webcam about the criminal investigations class in which he taught Zimmerman. He says that while the course book covered profiling and how to testify as a witness, they never actually discussed it in class. A bizarre moment occurred when several Skype users started flooding prosecutor Richard Mantei’s account with calls. "There's a really good chance we're being toyed with," defense attorney Mark O'Mara said. Pleasants was able to resume his testimony via speakerphone and proceedings continued.

A firearms expert with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Amy Siewert, examined Zimmerman’s gun and said he had one bullet ready to fire in the chamber as well as a fully loaded magazine when he fatally shot Martin.

"They’re not much use if they’re not ready to fire, are they?" asked O'Mara.

"No," said Siewert.

The defense got her to agree that many law enforcement agents carry fully loaded weapons that are ready to fire. Siewert also showed jurors how the gun wouldn’t fire accidentally -- the trigger has to be pulled. But Siewert wouldn’t go so far as to call the loaded gun “safe,” saying it’s a matter of personal preference.
HLN is live-blogging Zimmerman's trial. Click here for HLN's live blog of Tuesday's testimony. Read below for minute-by-minute updates:
5:24 p.m. ET: The attorneys have joined the judge for a sidebar.
5:23 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson has recessed court for the evening. Court will pick back up Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. ET.
5:20 p.m. ET: Gorgone is done testifying, and the attorneys are now at a sidebar with the judge.
5:19 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has finished his re-direct examination. West is now asking Gorgone about the right cuff of Zimmerman's jacket again.
5:17 p.m. ET: Gorgone said none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's hooded jacket.
5:15 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone how Martin's DNA got of right cuff of Zimmerman's jacket. Gorgone said it could have gotten there many different ways, but it had to come in contact with Martin's DNA.
5:11 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.
5:10 p.m. ET: West has finished his cross examination of Gorgone. Prosecutor De La Rionda is now asking him questions.
5:09 p.m. ET: West has asked for a moment to confer with O'Mara.
5:07 p.m. ET: So far Gorgone has pointed out two stains, one on the front of Zimmerman jacket and one on the right cuff that containing both Martin and Zimmerman's DNA.
5:04 p.m. ET: Gorgone is just going over the stains found on Zimmerman's jacket that included Martin's DNA.

5:01 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone to go back over the DNA results from Zimmerman's jacket.
4:58 p.m. ET: Gorgone is going back over the DNA he found on Martin's gray sweatshirt.
4:56 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone about the testing conducted on Martin's gray sweatshirt he was wearing under the hooded jacket.
4:53 p.m. ET: West asked, "Frankly then you just didn't find much of anything on this gray hooded sweatshirt when it boils right down to it?"
"Just that partial profile on stain A" said Gorgone.
West asked, "That was the shirt that stunk to high heaven?"
"It didn't smell good," said Gorgone.
4:50 p.m. ET: West had Gorgone point out to the jury what stains he tested from Martin's hooded sweatshirt.

4:48 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he does determine or predict how DNA gets onto a surface.
4:45 p.m. ET: West is now going back over the DNA results from Martin's hooded sweatshirt.
4:43 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how he uses chemicals to isolate DNA evidence, and ultimately tests it.
4:41 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about how he tests materials for the presence of blood.
4:39 p.m. ET: Gorgone said the general practice is to let "wet" evidence air dry, before being placed in a plastic bag to avoid degradation of the DNA. The sweatshirts were still damp when he pulled them out of the plastics bag for testing.
4:35 p.m. ET: Martin's sweatshirts were sealed in biohazard plastic bags when he received them for testing.
4:33 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how "wet" biological evidence should be dried or their is a risk environmental factors could degrade the DNA evidence. West is now asking about how Martin's sweatshirts were taken care by the evidence collectors.
4:29 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about how his lab is accredited, and standardized.
4:26 p.m. ET: Gorgone said one stick is used to scrap each finger on one hand, and another stick is used for the fingers on the other hand.
4:24 p.m. ET: West keeps making the point that Gorgone was not involved in any DNA sample collection from evidence in the case or at the crime scene.
4:21 p.m. ET: Gorgone said when he tests fingernail scrappings he is really just looking for DNA that is foreign to person's whose fingernails are being tested.
4:18 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone about the DNA samples from the scrapings from Martin's fingernails.
4:14 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he could not exclude or include Martin's DNA from being on the holster for Zimmerman's gun.
4:13 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about the DNA tests results from the slide on Zimmerman's gun. Gorgone said he was unable to exclude Zimmerman's and Martin's DNA from being present on the gun slide. West made the point that environmental factors like rain could have affected the DNA quality on the slide.
4:10 p.m. ET: Gorgone said envirmental factors like moisture and heat and degrade DNA samples.
4:08 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about his role in collecting DNA evidence. He said he does not collect DNA samples from the crime scene that is left to someone else.
4:05 p.m. ET: Defense attorney Don West is about to cross examine Gorgone.
4:04 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson is on the bench, and the jury is being seated.
3:40 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has finished his direct examination of Gorgone. Judge Nelson has recessed court for 15 minutes.
3:38 p.m. ET: Multiple stains on Zimmerman's shirt matched Zimmerman's DNA. None of the stains on the shirt have matched Martin's DNA.

3:35 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to Gorgone's DNA testings results from Zimmerman's shirt he was wearing the night of the shooting.

3:28 p.m. ET: Multiple stains on Zimmerman's jacket tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA. At least two stains from Zimmerman's jacket, tested positive for a mixture of DNA that included Martin's DNA.

3:25 p.m. ET: Gorgone said a stain found on the back right shoulder of the jacket had a mixture of DNA. The major contributor to the mixture of the stain was Zimmerman, but the lesser contributor to that stain could not be determined. However, it is possible Martin contributed to that mixture.
3:22 p.m. ET: Two stains on Zimmerman's jacket tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA.

3:19 p.m. ET: Gorgone is pointing out to the jury all the different stains he tested from Zimmerman's jacket.
3:17 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to the DNA testing Gorgone did on Zimmerman's jacket he was wearing the night of the shooting.

3:13 p.m. ET: One stain on the grey sweatshirt did not yield any results of foreign DNA, but Gorgone could not exclude the possibility that Zimmerman's DNA was in that stain.

3:08 p.m. ET: Gorgone said one stain on Martin's gray sweatshirt contained Zimmerman's DNA. Another stain tested positive for Martin's DNA, and yet another had a mixture with both Martin's and Zimmmerman's were included in the DNA mixture.

3:03 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to testing Gorgone did on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing under his hooded jacket.

3:00 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he did not find anyone else's DNA on Martin's hooded jacket.
2:58 p.m. ET: One stain on Martin's hoodie did test positive for his DNA.

2:55 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is asking Gorgone to point to the stains he tested from Martin's clothing.

2:52 p.m. ET: Gorgone found Martin's DNA on the skittles bag he bought from the store moments before being shot.

2:48 p.m. ET: Scrapings from Martin's fingernails did not show the presence of Zimmerman's DNA.

2:46 p.m. ET: Gorgone did match DNA found on the holster for his gun to Zimmerman. He was able to exclude Martin's DNA as being on his holster.

2:44 p.m. ET: There was no testable DNA found on the slide of Zimmerman's gun.

2:41 p.m. ET: Gorgone was unable to find any testable DNA off the trigger of Zimmerman's gun.

2:38 p.m. ET: This chart shows the DNA testing results from DNA found on handle or grip of Zimmerman's gun. The DNA from the gun matched George Zimmerman's DNA profile. Martin's DNA was not present on the DNA mixture that was found on the grip of the gun.

2:36 p.m. ET: Defense attorney West is reviewing a chart that shows Gorgone's results from testing the DNA samples from Zimmerman's gun.
2:33 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is now asking Gorgone about DNA samples swabbed from Zimmerman's gun.
2:30 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is displaying results of the DNA testing in Zimmerman's case. Gorgone is explaining what the data means.

2:27 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is showing Gorgone the DNA samples he tested in this case.

2:24 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on Gorgone work in Zimmerman's case.
2:21 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining the probability another person in the population would match the DNA in sample from a crime scene.
2:17 p.m. ET: Gorgone said if he has a mixture of DNA from multiple people he can determine whose DNA is in the mixture.
2:14 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone how a DNA sample from a crime scene is compared to a DNA sample taken from a suspect.
2:11 p.m. ET: Gorgone is now talking about how a DNA sample can be taken by swabbing a surface like a gun or a table.
2:09 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how he makes a DNA profile for a DNA sample.
2:07 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is now asking Gorgone about the specific DNA testing he did in Zimmerman's case.
2:04 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone to tell the jury about the precautions he takes to make sure the DNA samples being tested are not contaminated.
2:00 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining DNA and how it is used to identify to criminal suspects.
1:58 p.m. ET: Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda has called Anthony Gorgone, Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime lab, to the stand.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07...ay-8?hpt=ju_c1

[hippifried]

Remember the Bernard Goetz story in NYC.

Apples & oranges. Goetz was under assault by multiple antagonists. Or at least that's the story that stuck. Zimmerman wasn't. He may have been unduly paranoid to start with, but Goetz was just sitting on the train, minding his own business. Zimmerman went out of his way to create a situation. He stalked, pursued. closed on, & confronted Martin. That's the assault. The fight is irrelevant because it began due to the initial assault. A rabbit will attack a hungry wolf if cornered. Zimmerman's 911 calls belie any claim of absent malice. That comparison doesn't work.

[broncofan]

In a case like this where the law is somewhat nuanced, jurors are often unable to compare the facts to the legal standard very well. There is some disagreement on this subject, but if you believe jurors should only be triers of fact, then they will have difficulty translating whatever factual scenario they believe into a verdict.

There is also some confusion about burdens of production. Can jurors infer that what happened was murder because the probability of proper self-defense is extremely low? It's impossible to prove a negative, for instance, that Zimmerman did not have the right to self-defense. I think he was probably getting beaten up. But did he have a concussion? Did he get an MRI? A catscan? Did he go to the hospital because he was vomiting in the days after the event and showing acute symptoms of a concussion? Or was it just a case of an insecure man policing a neighborhood out of some delusion that he served some public service, who couldn't stand the fact that he was being beaten up?

Nobody wants to lose a fight. But if the law permitted you to end fistfights with a gun and call it self-defense, you'd have a lot of matters settled out of court, with the wrong party prevailing.

[broncofan]

The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.

The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.

I've been using the word reckless and negligent as intent standards somewhat recklessly (and maybe negligently). Someone recklessly causes a death if they commit an act where their purpose is not to cause a death and they do not commit the act with the knowledge that it will lead to death. The standard for recklessness is stated as consciously disregarding a known risk. Of course, this depends how far back you go in the sequence of events. Did Zimmerman consciously disregard a known risk by confronting someone without knowing proper procedure for conducting a search, not identifying himself as being law enforcement or neighborhood watch, all the while carrying a gun?

Because he certainly committed the final act with "purpose" intent to kill. This was not a case where he fired a gun in the air, disregarding the risk that it might as a probability, result in someone's death. He killed someone, purposefully. If self-defense is an all or nothing affirmative defense, then the only issue is whether he met its strictures in full.

[starkem]

As the following author of the link describes a concise overview of self defense:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...-self-defense/

As soon as I read your prior post, I was motivated to find exactly what, if any, affirmative defenses were asserted by Zimmerman's defense team in this matter. I didn't locate reported (or actual) defendant's answer for this criminal proceeding. My search did yield the overview stated in the above link. Accordingly, there is a basic structure or principles for asserting this affirmative defense nationally. The author also mentions the procedures under penal codes for Florida as well.

For those not familiar with affirmative defense rules and terminology:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...mative+Defense
This procedural rule simply asserts a defendant is invoking a defense for which a law already exists to exhonorate or acquit a defendant whether said defendant has actually done as charged in the criminal complaint.

Otherwise, defendants answer (exclusive of this invocation of "affirmative defense") is tried on case law as to adjudication (court decision). Someone with more legal knowledge can correct my layperson explanation. Thanks!

The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.

The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.

I've been using the word reckless and negligent as intent standards somewhat recklessly (and maybe negligently). Someone recklessly causes a death if they commit an act where their purpose is not to cause a death and they do not commit the act with the knowledge that it will lead to death. The standard for recklessness is stated as consciously disregarding a known risk. Of course, this depends how far back you go in the sequence of events. Did Zimmerman consciously disregard a known risk by confronting someone without knowing proper procedure for conducting a search, not identifying himself as being law enforcement or neighborhood watch, all the while carrying a gun?

Because he certainly committed the final act with "purpose" intent to kill. This was not a case where he fired a gun in the air, disregarding the risk that it might as a probability, result in someone's death. He killed someone, purposefully. If self-defense is an all or nothing affirmative defense, then the only issue is whether he met its strictures in full.

[hippifried]

Wasn't Martin defending himself? Wasn't he "standing his ground"?

I'm just sick & tired of punks like Zimmerman, who think a gun makes them a badass & gives them impunity to act like jerks. All I see is pussies with a bunch of false bravado, who can't possibly back any of it up without that fake dick strapped on. Has he shown any remorse, or just tried to redirect blame? Despite legal nuance, the undisputed fact is that he shot & killed somebody who wasn't armed.

[starkem]

Defense has to establish some suspicion or reasonable cause for Zimmerman to be alarmed and subsequently resisted by Trevon Martin to meet self defense. This can be accomplished by merely be allowed to introduce the background or witnesses as to Martin's character flaws (not saying it is right -just the premise of such a legal strategy). Even if the above can not be reasonably established by defense, and even if Zimmerman is deemed wrongfully the aggressor, the defense (if they asserted affirmative defense in their answer) can assert that Zimmerman's wrongful action became legal self defense because Martin subsequently acted with deadly force or inescapable harm to Zimmerman.

I do understand your frustration though. This is why I have a love/hate relationship with legal matters.

Wasn't Martin defending himself? Wasn't he "standing his ground"?

I'm just sick & tired of punks like Zimmerman, who think a gun makes them a badass & gives them impunity to act like jerks. All I see is pussies with a bunch of false bravado, who can't possibly back any of it up without that fake dick strapped on. Has he shown any remorse, or just tried to redirect blame? Despite legal nuance, the undisputed fact is that he shot & killed somebody who wasn't armed.

[trish]

Good you're not on the jury.

[Queens Guy]

The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.

The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.

I think you may have 'affirmative defense' and 'burden of proof' confused. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so you could be right about those terms.

What I do know, though, is that the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution. For both the crime and the claim of self-defense.The State of Florida still must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. If the jurors think it's 50/50 or even only 20/80 that it was self-defense, they are supposed to vote 'not guilty'. They have to be convinced to 100%, or very close to that.

The defense doesn't have to prove self-defense, they only have to raise a 'reasonable doubt'.

Again, here are my disclaimers - I wasn't there that night. I don't know what happened. I'm not taking either side or making up my mind until the trial is over.

However, I am critical of the media because I think you should know the answers if they were doing their jobs properly.

Yesterday, while the news stressed that the Prosecution caught Zimmerman in a lie he made during the interview with Sean Hannity, they ignored the fact that the Professor that testified about it, also went on to explain 'stand-your-ground' and 'self-defense'. And that part of his testimony was VERY helpful to Zimmerman. It allowed the witness to play the role that the judge is supposed to play, and will play, when it comes to instructing the jury immediately before they deliberate. Normally, a witness can't explain the law and how it's supposed to be interpreted, but, technically, he was only saying what he told the class when he explained the law and how it is to be interpreted. I think the Professor came across as a credible witness. Maybe it shouldn't be true, but the fact that he was a Black man had to help. He also used to work for the Public Defender's Office, so he is no NRA-type whacko.

The Professor also explained 'imperfect self-defense', which cover the 'he shouldn't have gotten out of the car' and 'Zimmerman started it' parts of this trial. The witness testified that even if Person A starts it, using some low level of force, Person B can respond with a similar level of force, BUT if Person B responds with a great deal of force, the kind that would put Person A in fear for his life or serious physical injury, then Person A can respond with deadly physical force. Person A didn't lose their right to 'self-defense'. The professor also said that Person A doesn't have to wait for Person B to 'almost kill him'. If Person A is in fear of his life, and thinks his life is in danger, then he can use deadly physical force. Again, I found that part of his testimony also worth being mentioned on the news.

Yes, the Professor showed that Zimmerman lied about something during the Hannity interview. That certainly is important, and a headline. But did you hear the other stuff he said? I think it's almost as important. Certainly worth being reported. We all want to know what was in Zimmerman and Trayvon's heads that night. What were they thinking? Well, this part of the Professor's testimony help answer an important part of that question.

[broncofan]

Affirmative defenses almost always shift the burden of proof. They are for defendants to prove in order to escape liability despite committing the acts spelled out in statutory law. The prosecution has the burden of proof for the underlying defense, but typically not for an affirmative defense.

I just graduated from law school. This doesn't mean I am right about this jurisdiction and how they treat self-defense. There may be some jurisdictions where lack of justification is part of the prosecution's case but this seems fairly counter-intuitive.

As for using deadly force, the person asserting self-defense has to both believe he is required to use it and it has to be objectively reasonable. It can't just be his opinion but also that which a reasonable person in that situation would have.

The reason this area of the law is so confused is that each state may treat self-defense differently. As for murder there are model codes but each state is allowed to adopt it in their fashion. Further, each state has its own precedent from cases that help explain how the statutes have been interpreted when there were similar fact patterns.

The broad principles laid out in the article by starkem are useful. Imminence for instance. Is Zimmerman permitted to use deadly force prior to the point in time at which he faces a deadly threat? Anyone who is losing a fight is at the eventual mercy of their attacker if they have no duty to retreat. They just may anticipate the deadly threat before it's there.