On Saturday I wrote the following:
"I am not sure of the legal relevance of the facts as to how George Zimmerman's attention came to be on Trayvon Martin before they became engaged in a physical altercation..."
Having thought about it over the weekend I have changed my mind. The following fact, as reported in the media, is legally relevant and is added them to Saturday's list:
7. George Zimmerman pursued or followed Trayvon Martin before the physical altercation.
This fact is, to my knowledge uncontroverted. How is this relevant? The killer's state of mind is always at issue in a homicide investigation and the deceased's state of mind can be legally relevant in a self-defense homicide. Evidence that George Zimmerman pursued or followed Trayvon Martin is relevant to show that Zimmerman had a confrontational state of mind, that he was the aggressor.
Where does this fact come from? What what I've read Trayvon Martin's girlfriend has stated that she was on the phone with Trayvon right before the physical altercation, that Trayvon told her that he was being followed or pursued, I do not know the exact verb she used.
The above, what Trayvon said to his girlfriend, would, I believe, be admissible under the hearsay rule as a spontaneous statement or excited utterance or a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. What the girlfriend said to Trayvon in response, "Run!," I am not sure of the admissibility, I think not, but I am not sure.
If #7 above is legally relevant it would also tend to undercut the applicability of the "stand your ground" law to George Zimmerman. In fact, Zimmerman's lawyer has said that the "stand your ground" law is inapplicable to the case. Additionally, I am unaware of any evidence that George Zimmerman was "attacked" (in the language of the "stand your ground" law) by Trayvon Martin. I am unaware of any evidence on who "started" the physical altercation.
If #7 above is legally relevant and admissible does it constitute a crime that George Zimmerman was committing before the physical altercation? That would be important because then investigators could reason that Trayvon had the right to avail himself of the laws quoted in the Saturday post. Based on what I know of the facts at this point, the actions of George Zimmerman do not constitute assault or aggravated assault:
"An 'assault' is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."
Aggravated assault is the same but using a deadly weapon.
If Zimmerman's actions are deemed not to constitute a crime against Trayvon Martin then I do not believe investigators could reasonably conclude that Trayvon was "attacked" within the meaning of the "stand your ground law."
Zimmerman's pursuit or following of Trayvon is obviously relevant to Trayvon's state of mind. Even if the pursuit/following does not constitute a crime, it would produce some emotion in Trayvon: anger or fear are two obvious choices, if Trayvon's state of mind is deemed relevant. If Trayvon's state of mind is relevant then the two obvious choices, anger or fear, are cross-cutting. "Fight or flight?" the conclusion that investigators reach on which was in Trayvon's mind, or which predominated, is obviously important, but not necessarily determinative.
I also find the following fact legally relevant:
8. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman at some point during the physical altercation.
Even if George Zimmerman is deemed to have "started" the physical altercation, or to have instigated it by pursuing Trayvon Martin, there is another part of the "justifiable use of deadly force" law that applies:
"However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
George Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself unless:
the force asserted toward George Zimmerman was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Trayvon Martin."
The jury will get that law read to them if Zimmerman asserts self-defense, which he will. Jurors get read a lot of parts of the law that they must apply to the facts of the case if they find them relevant to the facts. I do not believe a jury will find that part of the law applicable to the facts as I know them right now.
"I am not sure of the legal relevance of the facts as to how George Zimmerman's attention came to be on Trayvon Martin before they became engaged in a physical altercation..."
Having thought about it over the weekend I have changed my mind. The following fact, as reported in the media, is legally relevant and is added them to Saturday's list:
7. George Zimmerman pursued or followed Trayvon Martin before the physical altercation.
This fact is, to my knowledge uncontroverted. How is this relevant? The killer's state of mind is always at issue in a homicide investigation and the deceased's state of mind can be legally relevant in a self-defense homicide. Evidence that George Zimmerman pursued or followed Trayvon Martin is relevant to show that Zimmerman had a confrontational state of mind, that he was the aggressor.
Where does this fact come from? What what I've read Trayvon Martin's girlfriend has stated that she was on the phone with Trayvon right before the physical altercation, that Trayvon told her that he was being followed or pursued, I do not know the exact verb she used.
The above, what Trayvon said to his girlfriend, would, I believe, be admissible under the hearsay rule as a spontaneous statement or excited utterance or a then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. What the girlfriend said to Trayvon in response, "Run!," I am not sure of the admissibility, I think not, but I am not sure.
If #7 above is legally relevant it would also tend to undercut the applicability of the "stand your ground" law to George Zimmerman. In fact, Zimmerman's lawyer has said that the "stand your ground" law is inapplicable to the case. Additionally, I am unaware of any evidence that George Zimmerman was "attacked" (in the language of the "stand your ground" law) by Trayvon Martin. I am unaware of any evidence on who "started" the physical altercation.
If #7 above is legally relevant and admissible does it constitute a crime that George Zimmerman was committing before the physical altercation? That would be important because then investigators could reason that Trayvon had the right to avail himself of the laws quoted in the Saturday post. Based on what I know of the facts at this point, the actions of George Zimmerman do not constitute assault or aggravated assault:
"An 'assault' is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."
Aggravated assault is the same but using a deadly weapon.
If Zimmerman's actions are deemed not to constitute a crime against Trayvon Martin then I do not believe investigators could reasonably conclude that Trayvon was "attacked" within the meaning of the "stand your ground law."
Zimmerman's pursuit or following of Trayvon is obviously relevant to Trayvon's state of mind. Even if the pursuit/following does not constitute a crime, it would produce some emotion in Trayvon: anger or fear are two obvious choices, if Trayvon's state of mind is deemed relevant. If Trayvon's state of mind is relevant then the two obvious choices, anger or fear, are cross-cutting. "Fight or flight?" the conclusion that investigators reach on which was in Trayvon's mind, or which predominated, is obviously important, but not necessarily determinative.
I also find the following fact legally relevant:
8. Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman at some point during the physical altercation.
Even if George Zimmerman is deemed to have "started" the physical altercation, or to have instigated it by pursuing Trayvon Martin, there is another part of the "justifiable use of deadly force" law that applies:
"However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
George Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself unless:
the force asserted toward George Zimmerman was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Trayvon Martin."
The jury will get that law read to them if Zimmerman asserts self-defense, which he will. Jurors get read a lot of parts of the law that they must apply to the facts of the case if they find them relevant to the facts. I do not believe a jury will find that part of the law applicable to the facts as I know them right now.
