If Florida prosecutors choose to bring a charge of Murder-2, how does the process go where it is reduced to manslaughter? Is that a prosecutorial decision, judicial decision, or something the Jury can do?

If Florida prosecutors choose to bring a charge of Murder-2, how does the process go where it is reduced to manslaughter? Is that a prosecutorial decision, judicial decision, or something the Jury can do?

 

Prosecutors bring the charges they want to bring, so if it gets dropped to something lower it'd be their decision to do so.

Assuming (I know, but let's assume anyways) that part of the decision to arrest him and charge him with murder 2 was based on the pressure from the public. What is their gameplan?

 

And if someone totally disagrees that this was fueled in a large part because of public outrage, I would like to hear those thoughts.

 

 

I don't think the decision to charge him with murder 2 was fueled by public pressure. Why would prosecutors go after a charge they're not likely to get?

Unless the Prosecutor drops it, its generally up to the jury as the Prosecutor will plead Murder 2 and in the alternative manslaughter.

 

Why did the Prosecutor charge with murder 2?

 

Because its the lowest possible murder crime with a gun. Florida law is hilarious. On one hand it has SYG, on the other it has 10-20-Life.

 

 

I don't think the decision to charge him with murder 2 was fueled by public pressure. Why would prosecutors go after a charge they're not likely to get?

 

 

Because anything else would look like they were being lenient and letting Zimmerman off easy. They can say they tried to really nail him to the wall but the jury didn't agree or Florida law was against them. Looking really tough on crime gets people elected and favorable reviews.

No, Florida requires that a crime committed with a gun automatically results in an increase of the charges.

 

For example, If the Prosecutor thought it was Murder 2, they would have had to bump it up to Murder 1.

 

If the Prosecutor thought it was manslaughter, a 2nd degree felony, it would have to be bumped to a 1st degree felony, which in theory is Murder 2, it really doesnt matter as all of them are subject to penalty under 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

Because anything else would look like they were being lenient and letting Zimmerman off easy. They can say they tried to really nail him to the wall but the jury didn't agree or Florida law was against them. Looking really tough on crime gets people elected and favorable reviews.

 

Failing to make a good case for the charges you brought in the national spotlight seems like a politically unwise move.

No, Florida requires that a crime committed with a gun automatically results in an increase of the charges.

 

For example, If the Prosecutor thought it was Murder 2, they would have had to bump it up to Murder 1.

 

If the Prosecutor thought it was manslaughter, a 2nd degree felony, it would have to be bumped to a 1st degree felony, which in theory is Murder 2, it really doesnt matter as all of them are subject to penalty under 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

where are you reading this?

Look at my post above at 02:16 PM

 

 

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/index.html

 

Its called the 10-20-Life program, there are a ton of articles about it.

Edited April 12, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

Here is the affidavit:

 

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

 

Its important to remember that this is jaded to the Prosecutor's perspective. The reason I say that is because obviously there is a question of fact as to whether Zimmerman actually continued to follow Martin, or if he stopped pursuing to return to his car, where he was subsequently "jumped" by Martin.

 

The real damning evidence is the multiple 911 calls and the determination it was Martin calling for help. If those calls can be reproduced and the calls for help are immediately followed by a gun shot, it will be hard to convince a jury that Martin had the upper hand and forced Zimmerman to shoot him. Obviously if I was the Defense Id argue that merely yelling for help does not really indicate who was winning and since you cant see what is going on, it is possible Martin was on top of Zimmerman but still yelling for help.

 

 

If the prosecution had something not publicly known, whether it be another eyewitness or some other analysis of some phone call or some other analysis of the injuries, or perhaps an analysis based on the autopsy, whatever...would the prosecution be compelled by law to release it in that affidavit? Or is that a statement of some portion of what they might know, including enough information to bring charges but not necessarily everything?

 

For example, if Martin's body had an injury which suggested Zimmerman had hurt him as well prior to the shot (just an example), would they be compelled to state something like that?

If the prosecution had something not publicly known, whether it be another eyewitness or some other analysis of some phone call or some other analysis of the injuries, or perhaps an analysis based on the autopsy, whatever...would the prosecution be compelled by law to release it in that affidavit? Or is that a statement of some portion of what they might know, including enough information to bring charges but not necessarily everything?

 

that comes out during discovery

that comes out during discovery

Obviously they are required to give their evidence to the defense, I'm just trying to see now if the prosecution appears to have a stronger case than the fairly weak one presented in the media.

Affidavit of probable cause? But I thought that the SYG statute didn't even allow prosecutors/the police to investigate these cases if the guy claims self defense?

 

Edit: And that affidavit was pretty freakin' bare bones, and added nothing knew that Zimmerman basically didn't already admit, except maybe the mother somehow knowing for certain what Martin's screams sound like.

 

Otherwise it seems like people's unfounded fears were pretty much that...unfounded.

Edited April 12, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

If the prosecution had something not publicly known, whether it be another eyewitness or some other analysis of some phone call or some other analysis of the injuries, or perhaps an analysis based on the autopsy, whatever...would the prosecution be compelled by law to release it in that affidavit? Or is that a statement of some portion of what they might know, including enough information to bring charges but not necessarily everything?

 

For example, if Martin's body had an injury which suggested Zimmerman had hurt him as well prior to the shot (just an example), would they be compelled to state something like that?

I've been away from the procedural stuff for several years now, but I don't believe they have to release any additional evidence like that now.

Youd have to ask a prosecutor, but I think its like a Complaint, you only have to allege enough facts to get you through the door.

I do not like the case being tried in the media................somebody may have a little egg on there face when this is all said and done.

Why?

 

The media has been wrong before when it comes to trials. 2 days after no one remembers or cares.

 

The person with egg on their face (at this point) is the original prosecutor who declined to bring charges.

The person with egg on their face (at this point) is the original prosecutor who declined to bring charges.

 

not really. the only reason charges are being pressed now is the media frenzy (created in large part by fabricated reporting) that led to a lynch mob out to get Zimmerman. The angry mindless mob got want they wanted.

not really. the only reason charges are being pressed now is the media frenzy (created in large part by fabricated reporting) that led to a lynch mob out to get Zimmerman. The angry mindless mob got want they wanted.

If that's the case then this prosecutor should lose her job.

 

Alternatively, if she has a solid case, then the previous prosecutor should lose his job.

not really. the only reason charges are being pressed now is the media frenzy (created in large part by fabricated reporting) that led to a lynch mob out to get Zimmerman. The angry mindless mob got want they wanted.

 

So, are you saying that you disagree with the police?

 

Because the police wanted Zimmerman charged. Or are you saying the police were wrong.

 

Id just like to know why you so strongly agree with the original prosecutor who 1) went against the police's recommendation and 2) there is now another prosecutor who is bringing the charges the police originally sought.

 

Because Ive yet to see you bring any evidence into the thread as to why Zimmerman should not have been charged.

 

(Edit)

 

Id also like you to point out in the affidavit which of the facts were created by "fabricated reporting."

 

Im not going to hold my breathe and wait for you to produce this though, because historically speaking, members of the mindless mob rely on repeating what they hear in the news, instead of making independent evaluations based on the facts.

 

 

Edited April 13, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

If that's the case then this prosecutor should lose her job.

 

Alternatively, if she has a solid case, then the previous prosecutor should lose his job.

Or maybe it's a bit more complex than that...

Or maybe it's a bit more complex than that...

Really, no it isn't. If this case is being brought because of politics, and not because they can prove their case, fire her.

 

If the previous prosecutor shut down this case before the investigation was over, for whatever reason, same deal.

Really, no it isn't. If this case is being brought because of politics, and not because they can prove their case, fire her.

 

If the previous prosecutor shut down this case before the investigation was over, for whatever reason, same deal.

Or maybe the facts and evidence are on the fence...