So Bosk, can Zimmerman still be convicted of manslaughter in this scenario, or must be in be second degree murder? Becomes easier to ask the question now that there''s a direct example. Of course, I'm not saying he should be convicted, I'm just wondering what the legal possibilities are.
Sorry, I meant to respond to this yesterday, and I got sidetracked by a few phone calls right before I left the office. Barto nailed it in referencing the "lesser included offense" doctrine. But what I cannot remember and am not sure about how it is applied from state to state is how that actually plays out in practice. (remember, I am not a criminal lawyer) A believe (but am not 100% certain) that if the lesser included offense is not initially pled by the prosecution, that it is off the table. Let me illustrate it this way in very simple, straightforward terms:
Without worrying about what the elements are, let's say you have to prove elements 1, 2, 3, and 4 to establish murder2. Of those, if you prove 1, 2, and 3, you have established manslaughter regardless of whether or not you prove 4. So here's how it works. The jury goes back to deliberate and is given jury instructions that list those 4 elements. They jury must find that for each and every one of those elements, there is enough evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists as to any element, there is no conviction. But if the jury finds that 1, 2, 3, and 4 are established beyond a reasonable doubt, they come back and tell the judge that they find the defendant is guilty of man2. What that means, according to the lesser included offense doctrine, is that they don't even need to reach a verdict as to manslaughter, because they had to have found that the 3 elements were already established in reaching their verdict on murder2. BUT, as a practical matter, there are other legal doctrines that come into play that say if a defendant is convicted of the greater crime, he is sentenced according to that conviction and the lesser one essentially just gets merged or absorbed into that. So, for instance, if murder2 carries 20 years and manslaughter carries 5 (hypothetically), you will get 20 years, not 25.
But it doesn't work the way you were asking, Scheavo. At least, not precisely. If murder2 is the only charge, if the jury acquits a defendant, a judge does not know which elements the jury found established and which ones they didn't, so he cannot on his own say that the lesser included offense is established. The jury may have found 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. They may have found 1, 2, and 3, but not 4. Or they may have found none established. The judge doesn't know. So, no, the judge cannot impose a sentence based on a lesser included offense that the jury did not convict on, and the jury cannot convict on a lesser included offense that was not pled.
HOWEVER, as a practical matter in murder cases, that is usually taken care of BEFORE TRIAL. If the prosecution pleads ONLY murder2, that is a mistake on their part. They aren't really supposed to take an "all-or-nothing" approach when there is a middle ground available. So they are
supposed to also plead manslaughter. The system is designed that way to protect the interests of both the defendant AND the state. It protects the state because you may otherwise have a guilty defendant walk simply because the prosecution aimed too high and did not include a lesser offense, and the jury found that the evidence fell just short of what was actually charged. (e.g., if Zimmerman should be guilty of manslaughter, but it isn't pled, and the jury lets him walk because there just isn't quite enough for murder2) Conversely, it protects the defendant who might be in a situation where he should be guilty of a lesser offense that isn't pled, but not of the greater offense, and you have a jury that says, "well, even though there isn't
quite enough evidence to convict of murder2, it's obvious he's guilty of
something, and we can't just let him walk, so since murder2 is our only option, that's what he gets." So, usually, the prosecutor's office takes care of making sure the lesser offense is pled. And if they don't, I believe (but am not certain, and it may vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) the judge will get it added BEFORE trial so that the jury has the option.
*And please take careful note of my disclaimers. People sometimes assume lawyers must know everything about every kind of law, but that isn't the case. I am trying to share what level of knowledge I have while also being quick to point out that there are gaps in my knowledge because this is an area that is far outside of my practice. Both the substantive law and the procedure are very, very different than what I do and, believe it or not, MOST of the practical application of the procedure is not something that is taught in law school. It is something you pick up when you start working in a given area. So, just want to point out that I am not claiming to be a legal know-it-all.
Topic: Trayvon Martin (Read 47846 times)
