The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[UVA17]

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

As to lesser included offenses "always" being an option, perhaps the legal folks will weigh in, but I know it was definitely an option in the Zimmerman trial.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

As to lesser included offenses "always" being an option, perhaps the legal folks will weigh in, but I know it was definitely an option in the Zimmerman trial.

From state to state YMMV, but around here, it's up to the state what the Defendant is charged with. If they want to allow the jury to convict of a lesser included, they can charge it. If they want murder in the first degree and nothing else, they can do that as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

From state to state YMMV, but around here, it's up to the state what the Defendant is charged with. If they want to allow the jury to convict of a lesser included, they can charge it. If they want murder in the first degree and nothing else, they can do that as well.

Yes, but here at least, it doesn't stop there. Here, regardless of what the state charges, if there is evidence at trial that will support a lesser included offense and if the defense requests that the lesser included offense be submitted to the jury, then the judge is required to submit it to the jury.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

If it was not allowed for the George Zimmerman trial, it would not have been permitted as part of the jury's deliberation. It was allowed, permitted, and failed. The failure was a mixture of evidence and the jury's clarification that manslaughter in Florida is not the lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence that it is in some states.

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If it was not allowed for the George Zimmerman trial, it would not have been permitted as part of the jury's deliberation. It was allowed, permitted, and failed. The failure was a mixture of evidence and the jury's clarification that manslaughter in Florida is not the lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence that it is in some states.

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

What does whether it is always an option have to do with the George Zimmerman trial?

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What does whether it is always an option have to do with the George Zimmerman trial?

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement. As you mentioned, the thread has reached its maximum redundancy. In 38 pages, surely these aren't the only posts that strayed off topic?

Love,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement.

Then you were making an analogy. Did you attempt the analogy because you believe the prosecution was reaching in the Zimmerman trial and it should not have been permitted?

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

What does it say about the jury's hard work, time and effort? What does it say about respect for them? Sure, there is the right to appeal. But, to me, it seems to be almost disrespectful in that by appealing, a message is being sent that their opinion, hard work and energy is not valued. It comes across as answer shopping that if you don't like verdict, appeal.

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

What message does this send to future juries? In other cases?
Hey, your decision is not valued. Why bother serving on a jury? It is just going to be appealed? Is that self-defeating to our system? As much as it is apart of it?
At some point, we need to respect a jury's decision for the good of the system.

Besides having basic respect for the U.S.A. legal system (and jury system) and acknowledgement of the verdict, we are not obligated to care about a particular jury's hard work, time, and effort. We are not obligated to respect a particular jury. The history and present day dynamics of our legal system is not conducive to what you are saying. Do you really want a society in which people care more about some jurors' feelings than about the larger point being made and the right to an appeal (when applicable) or civil suit? Seriously?

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

As for the race issue, I would like to think that we are past that.

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

I really never thought of this as a race case, until it was made out to be one and brought up in the media.

The media cannot be blamed for everything. Race and ethnicity exist. How societies respond to race and ethnicity is the problem. Not the existence of race and ethnicity.

Originally Posted by BAckbOwlsgIrl

Who really cares if the kid is black? I don't. I don't care if the guy is white. Why should it be a big deal. Oh, wait, because someone brought it up and wants to make it. Stop using race as an excuse to have chip your shoulder. People do things not because of race but because they feel compelled to. Both sides made mistakes that night. I really don't think race had to with it. By making it a race issue, we have put ourselves back.

Of course, you are free to feel however you feel about race. You don't care, you don't think it is an issue, but the world does not revolve around what we as individuals consider a reality. Race and ethnicity exist and disparities exist regardless of how individuals perceive race and ethnicity. You think we have "put ourselves back" but we were not as far ahead as you assumed. Instead, people have unveiled the issues that were disguised through "diversity rainbows" and "colorblindness claims".

Zimmerman wants to highlight his Hispanic identity now so we should respect that he is not white. I'm being partly sarcastic. Zimmerman may have not been even partly motivated by Martin's race and vice versa. That can't be proven so it's neither here nor there at this point. What many people are highlighting is how the response to that evening and the resulting trial would probably have been handled differently if the racial and ethnic dynamics were different. Of course, you are free to disagree because none of us have a crystal ball. But your disagreement is rooted in the facts of this specific case as opposed to generations of cases that have gotten us where we are in 2013.

ETA: Thanks for clarifying the lack of an appeal, MysticCat. I think I keep typing "file an appeal or civil suit" when instead it is just a potential civil suit.

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Then you were making an analogy. Did you attempt the analogy because you believe the prosecution was reaching in the Zimmerman trial and it should not have been permitted?

I swear you are thicker than cold maple syrup. Did you actually go to college? Keep up with the Homey the Clown impression though; it's entertaining