In this July 2013 trial, George Zimmerman stood accused of the second-degree murder of teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman had shot Martin in February 2012 after a confrontation between the two in Sanford, Florida. From the beginning, Zimmerman defense team did not deny that he had shot Martin but rather that he shot Martin in self-defense (Linder, 2014).
Claiming self-defense is one of the fundamental principles of exculpation in criminal law. The theory underlying exculpation holds that in some situations although a person has otherwise acted criminally, their actions are justified and therefore should not be subject to punishment. In common law, the defense of self-defense argues that in those situations where a person is threatened with immediate death or serious injury from an unlawful force that they did not play a part in bringing about, then they may use deadly force to repel the attack or otherwise save themselves from death or harm (LaFave, 2000). In the Zimmerman’s case, in addition to the common law self-defense justification, there was also a statutory defense known as a “stand your ground” law. Under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which was enacted in 2005, the state government, removed the common law requirement in a self-defense claim that the defendant must first retreat from, or attempt to flee, the harmful force confronting them before their use of force is valid (Linder, 2014). Accordingly, in Florida, Zimmerman, once confronted by a deadly force could immediately respond with his own deadly force.
Consequently, Zimmerman’s defense team argued that in the confrontation between him and Martin, which began with Zimmerman confronting Martin on account that he thought he was or had committed a crime, Martin’s response was so aggressive and fierce that Zimmerman had no choice but the use his own deadly force to save himself. Moreover, under Florida’s “stand your ground” legal framework, Zimmerman just had to show he was confronted by a deadly force and that he was reasonably afraid that he would die or be seriously injured. Moreover, Zimmerman was not at fault because he was doing his job as a “Neighborhood Watch” member of protecting the community when he confronted Martin.
After less than a day of deliberations, the jury acquitted Zimmerman of the charge of second degree murder. As one juror described Zimmerman, “he had a right to defend himself” (Linder, 2014)
In June 2001 Andre Yates called the police then her husband Rusty saying that they needed to come to their house immediately. When they arrived, Yates took them to the bathroom and showed them the bodies of her five dead children. Yates confessed that she had killed all of them by drowning them in the bathtub because she wanted to save their souls from being influenced or taken over by the devil (Resnick, 2007). Yates was arrested and charged five counts of first degree murder. At trial, her defense team argued that Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity (Resnick, 2007).
The insanity defense is one of the most commonly used excuse to a criminal act. An excuse in criminal law refers to the circumstances where although a person is clearly guilty of the crime, they are nevertheless not guilty under the law because of the existence of an abnormal mental condition at the time that the crime was committed (LaFave, 2000). That abnormal mental condition is such that the person could not satisfy the one of the basic elements of all crimes, namely, the requisite mental state or mens rea (LaFave, 2000).
With an insanity defense, the argument is that no necessarily that the person is clinically insane but that they are legal insane. Legally insane, as mentioned, an abnormal mental state of a defendant that illustrates the absence of a “guilty mind” in their commission of a crime (LaFave, 2000).
In Yates case, she illustrated her lack of mental capacity because at the time of the crimes, she showed that she did not have the ability to either: understand that killing her children to save them from the devil was wrong or that if there really was a devil there are other, safer ways to protect your children from them than drowning them in the bathtub.
In July 2006, the jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity. As one juror said of Yates, “we understand that she knew it was legally wrong, but in her delusional mind, we believed she thought what she did was right” (Resnick, 2007).
References
LaFave, Wayne, R. (2000). Criminal Law, 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
Linder, D.O. (2014). The George Zimmerman trial: An account. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zimmerman1/zimmermanaccount.html
Resnick P. J. (2007). The Andrea Yates case: Insanity on trial. Retrieved from http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=clevstlrev
