ONCE AGAIN, INTO THE ZIMMERMAN FRAY

"...Ladies and gentlemen, you are to determine the facts from the evidence... you may find facts from the evidence, a conflict in the evidence or a lack of evidence..." Paraphrase of the Florida Standard Jury Instructions...in criminal jury trials

I speak here, of the original George Zimmerman case and trial. 

As a Florida licensed lawyer, I have some input. Stepping aside from the emotional vilification, which is likely justified, the problem is that, based on the provable and admissible facts, Zimmerman was overcharged. Every crime, even shoplifting, has elements. 1,2,3,4 etc. Each must be proven to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Because of the circumstances (time, place, chance) - the elements of a first degree murder in Florida were not proved. Nor was it likely they could be. Indeed, I saw no chance at all, from day one. I think it was prosecutorial grandstanding and bending to community outrage. Myself and other experienced trial lawyers saw this coming from the first. 

Had the state Attorney properly charged, set up, built and carefully proven the proper, obvious, clean case, under the law, Zimmerman would very likely have been convicted of manslaughter and given the high end of the range in punishment. 

The stand your ground element of our law was NOT part of this case, on either side. It was made a part of the mix by the media and by mixing it up with a couple other cases. It was not a defense here and was not used as one. That was all hype. Generally, the stand your ground defense would operate to negate the killing, or stop the prosecution before a trial (Motion to Dismiss). 

Before one is sent to life in prison, or executed, there must first be absolute proof, of every element of the crime of a premeditated murder. You may think that is what happened, but the evidence available to the jury did not support that murder,  

Florida law, proof may be found by evidence, by lack of evidence or by a conflict in the evidence. Using those three criteria, there were certain evidentiary conflicts that could not be resolved to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. 

I will not go on. This is dispassionate, but so was the jury's job.