Some US trials mutate into epic morality plays or vasty political metaphors that (it is said) are a Microcosm of Society. Especially when there is a ‘racial’ element involved (or said to be involved) the fairness or otherwise of the process and the eventual outcome is scrutinised in astonishing detail by the media and web pundits alike.

The current trial of George Zimmerman who is on trial for the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin is right up there with the best. The core facts are clear enough. George Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch person who ended up in a night-time confrontation with Trayvon Martin and ended up shooting him dead. The legal issues to be decided are clear enough: was this reasonable self-defence, or some sort of unlawful killing?

But it gets fiendishly complicated as the ‘other factors’ get brought in. Trayvon Martin was young and ‘black’, while George Zimmerman was older and ‘white’ (although not that ‘white’ – he is an Hispanic-American). This case even played a walk-on part in the re-election of President Obama, being presented by Obama supporters as yet another example of black Americans being gunned down by racist whites. Say no to racism! Say no to guns!

Obama opponents retort that the facts speak for themselves. Zimmerman was reasonably entitled to defend himself using a gun under these circumstances, and the case is a disgrace that is continuing for politically motivated reasons that suit the Democrats.

The prosecution case has concluded. Here is a lively summary of the arguments presented by the defence as to why the judge should have dismissed the case at this stage.

Basically, under our shared common law legal tradition there are all sorts of subtle rules in English and US law about the burden of proof and the onus of proof, and how and when they shift between prosecution and defence as a trial unfolds. Here the defence are arguing that the prosecution have obviously failed to adduce solid evidence demolishing the key components of the defence case (namely lawful self-defence in extremis), so the trial should not proceed:

Only then, with death seconds away, and no other alternative left to him, did Zimmerman draw his weapon and fire a single round into his attackers body above him.

Again, O’Mara notes, the State has introduced not one scintilla of evidence to contradict any of those claims.

As a result, Zimmerman’s claims of lawful self-defense remain uncontested by any evidence, direct or circumstantial by the state. Self-defense is an absolute defense against the charge both second degree murder or manslaughter

 The State, then, had failed in its charge to exclude all reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with innocence—indeed, dramatically so—and under Walker, Barwick and other controlling Florida case law a judgment of acquittal was the only appropriate decision to be made.

One of the particularly interesting of these cases involving a judgment of acquittal (JOA) in the context of self-defense is Jenkins v. Florida, 942, So.2d 910 (FL Ct. App. 2006). In that case the defendant went outside of his home to confront a noise maker. The other fellow punched him, knocking Jenkins back, then came at him again. Jenkins grabbed his knife, which penetrated the attacker’s heart, killing him. Jenkins sought a judgment of acquittal, which was denied, and he was convicted. On appeal, however, the appellate court ruled that the denial of the JOA was inappropriate, and the verdict was vacated. The similarities to the present case are striking.

That essentially concluded the first half of O’Mara’s argument to the judge—in essence that a judgment of acquittal should be granted on ALL the charges against Zimmerman on the basis of lawful self-defense. He then continued, on the assumption that Judge Nelson would reject that argument, to argue that at the very least a judgment of acquittal should be granted on the charge of murder in the second degree.

The judge briskly dismissed this plea as the defence expected, so the trial continues.

Black v White. Unarmed v Gun. Rich v Poor. Democrat v Republican. What’s not to relish about this one?

UPDATE

Another good piece arguing that the prosecution have not dealt at all fully with reasonable doubt on the key self-defence claim made by the defence:

What about the fact that prosecution witnesses have testified that his injuries were not that significant? While interesting (and debatable), the only relevant legal question is what was Zimmerman thinking or fearing at the time, not what already occurred.

In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let’s take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman “reasonably” feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty

All of which read, I always say that you have to be in a courtroom to get a feel of how convincing evidence has been one way or the other. It may be that Zimmerman has plenty of law and good sense on his side, but the jury just don’t believe his side of the story.