The Sanford Florida incident....

[BaiHu]

Not at all unusual to allow the jury to consider lesser included charges.

Also not really unusual for a judge to question a defendant regarding his actions to make sure he understands what he is doing. Note that was done without the jury being present.

After the defense essentially rests??

Understood, just odd and it's not like this isn't a public trial-I don't think the jury is impervious to current technology no matter how 'clean room' you keep 'em. Oooh, maybe Obama will use EMPs and Drones to watch juries in the future

[ToddG]

There's a difference between a lesser included offense (meaning it doesn't have any element unique from the ones in the more egregious charged offense) and adding a new element (like "child abuse").

[BaiHu]

There's a difference between a lesser included offense (meaning it doesn't have any element unique from the ones in the more egregious charged offense) and adding a new element (like "child abuse").

That's what I don't get.

2nd degree in Florida, from what I've seen is 25 to life when a firearm is used.

Manslaughter in Florida looks like min/max of 25-30 with a firearm.

So......how can he beat the case on 2nd and still end up with essentially the same punishment??

And child abuse??? Really?? How does a 2nd degree murder case end up in a child abuse case, especially given the clear evidence that there was a fight that the defendant was not winning??

[ToddG]

It's not the penalties. It's the elements of the crime. If the statutory definition of "manslaughter" doesn't require evidence of any particular fact not already covered in proving "murder" then it's fair game to offer a jury the option for both.

Look at it this way:

1st Degree Biffery: Premeditated biffing of someone with the express intent to cause the victim public embarrassment for being biffed.
2nd Degree Biffery: Knowingly biffing someone.
3rd Degree Biffery: Causing someone to be biffed.

You get charged with 1st degree biffery. Prosecution tries to prove that:

• you biffed someone
• you did it in a premeditated way
• you intended to embarrass the victim

Somewhere along the way, the prosecution realizes that it did a lousy job proving your intent. But they still proved you biffed someone (3rd degree) and still proved you did so on purpose (satisfies 2nd degree). They could ask the judge to include those lesser offenses in the charge to the jury. Doing so often means you've given up on winning the top count but it gives the jury a fallback position other than not guilty.

In many cases, lesser included offenses are listed in the original charging document and are considered from the very beginning of the trial.

Now let's suppose there is also another law:

Child Biffery: intentionally or knowingly biffing anyone under the age of 18

That is not a lesser included offense because there is a new element (age of the victim). While the prosecution could argue that the defendant's age was never in dispute, strictly speaking it still shouldn't be allowed because the defense didn't know that issue was important enough to dispute. It could be something as simple as, "If we'd known, we would have demanded to see a birth certificate."

[BaiHu]

I've been biffed. Thanks for explain how I was biffered

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Savage Hands]

"Knock Knock"

"Who's there"

"Prosecution?"

"Prosecution Who?"


exactly...

[Tamara]

"Knock Knock"

"Who's there"

"Prosecution?"

"Prosecution Who?"


exactly...

You watch; the conspiranoiacs are going to call this intentional grounding.

[EricP]

So now that the defense has rested, do they get a chance to address the new charges?

[RoyGBiv]

I would hope that adding a child abuse charge at this point in the trial would be grounds for a mistrial on appeal.

[Jason F]

So now that the defense has rested, do they get a chance to address the new charges?

The judge didn't allow the charge of child abuse to be on the verdict form or jury instructions. Something along the lines of, "Gentlemen, if there's a doubt in my mind as to whether you have the evidence for the charge, I'm not going to include it".

Beyond the fact that the defense got sucker punched by that. It was pretty clear watching the defense attorney's reactions when the State brought it up that they had no idea it was on the table and they were unprepared for it. Seemed pretty sneaky and low-ball for the STate.

But then again, the entirety of the prosecutions closing argument sounded awful. I'm no lawyer, but trying to put myself in the jury box mentally, wow, those dudes didn't prove jack beyond a reasonable doubt other than George Z was there, Trayvon was there, and only one walked away.

Sad either way because two families lives have been forever scarred if not ruined.