For those unversed in the law the killing of an unarmed person who was not committing any crime might seem like a slam dunk for conviction. However, an understanding of self defense laws which are very similar across the nation, helps explain why a conviction was never a foregone conclusion.

Deadly force may be used against someone in Florida if the person feels like he may suffer death or great bodily injury if he does not use deadly force. In California the force used may be deadly if it is necessary for the person to protect himself against the threat. In the Trayvon Martin matter Mr. Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head that were bleeding and a swollen nose. He claimed that Trayvon slammed his head into the sidewalk multiple times and punched him in the nose. An independent witness said that he saw Trayvon on top of Mr. Zimmerman giving him a “MMA style” “ground and pound”. That description can be summarized by saying that Mr. Zimmerman appeared to be receiving a severe beating from Trayvon. During this altercation, Mr. Zimmerman shot Trayvon through the heart and killed him.

The jurors were probably conflicted in that Trayvon was unarmed and Mr. Zimmerman was told by the police not to pursue Trayvon or get involved. He ignored them and apparently confronted Trayvon when the altercation broke out. One significant gap in the evidence is that we only have Mr. Zimmerman’s recollection of his initial physical contact with Trayvon: he claims Trayvon jumped out and punched him. The fact that Mr. Zimmerman killed the only other witness to that initial confrontation angers many. Regardless, the jurors had to make a decision on the facts offered at trial. It seems clear that given Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his being attacked and that the bullet wound to Trayvon was also consistent with Mr. Zimmerman being on the bottom, it makes sense that a jury could have found that he was acting in self defense. Even if a juror was skeptical as to whether Mr. Zimmerman was acting in self defense, the juror might have had felt there was a reasonable doubt because Zimmerman may have been acting in self defense.

In the emotion that followed this case it is important to keep in mind that Mr. Zimmerman was not found innocent, he was found not guilty. This does not mean he did not commit a crime, it just means that the Government failed to prove its case or for whatever reason there was simply insufficient evidence to convict. See People of the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman(2013).

Criminal Law Updates by the Law Offices of Orange County Defense Lawyer William W. Bruzzo (714) 547-4636

Related Articles

• Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death (utsandiego.com)
• George Zimmerman acquitted of second-degree murder in shooting death of Trayvon Martin (jacksonville.com)

The San Francisco Chronicle reported, November 4th, that state court officials have recommended Los Angeles and San Diego counties as possible sites for the murder trial of former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police Officer Johannes Mehserle.

Mehserle resigned as a police officer in Oakland, California, after shooting 22-year-old Oscar Grant, who was unarmed on January 1, 2009 at a train station. Mehserle has said through his attorneys that he intended to use his Taser to subdue Grant, but mistakenly fired his pistol instead.

The location of the trial is extremely important in the potential outcome of this case. There is likelihood for jurors to be affected by protestors who view the case as part of a pattern of police abuse against people of color– Mehserle is white and Grant was black.

Potential jurors are randomly selected from a fair cross-section of one’s community; typically from voter registration or drivers’ license lists. Los Angeles and San Diego counties both have large jury pools that differ in certain respects. According to a 2008 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 53 percent of Los Angeles County residents are white and 9 percent are black. In San Diego, 73 percent are white and 5 percent are black. Hence, the location of this trial may determine the perspective of any potential juror and therefore effect the outcome of the case.

Grant’s family would prefer the trial take place in Los Angeles, a county whose diversity more closely mirrors the Bay Area. Whereas, the defense wants the case to take place in San Diego because it is known to be law enforcement friendly, which could benefit them. The judge has set a date for November 19 for both sides to argue their case. A decision is expected shortly after.

Southwestern University law professor, Robert Pugsley, states: “Where you try the case, and who you have on the jury, has everything to do with the outcome.” Had the OJ Simpson case been filed in Santa Monica rather than Downtown Los Angeles, the Simpson jury would have been mostly white instead of, as was the case, mostly African-American. With poll data showing that most whites believed Simpson to be guilty and most blacks believing him to be not guilty, the decision to file the case in Santa Monica may have been the biggest mistake the prosecution made. The exact same case–in Santa Monica– could have gotten Simpson a conviction. Final jury for the OJ Simpson trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Native American, half-white, and 1 white female. Jury selection may be the most important part of a criminal trial.

Associated Press News Video