This morning, I saw a CNN interview with two attorneys who I believed were named Hostin and Cevallos, and I hope I spelled their names correctly. The defense attorney, i.e, Cevallos, claimed that he would not put the shooter of Trayvon Martin on the witness stand because the defense is already entitled to have the jury instructed on self-defense based on the evidence. However, maybe that attorney needs to read the case of Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424 - 2011, where the Florida appellate court of appeal for the 5th District, which includes Seminole County, Florida where the trial is taking place, held that a jury instruction was warranted in circumstances where the person claiming self-defense was the one being followed by an aggressive person. In Trayvon's case, Trayvon was the one being followed by an aggressive person and so under the Montijo case, I cannot see where the trial judge would be able to provide the shooter with a jury instruction on self defense since the shooter was the one following Trayvon. If the shooter is legally barred from seeking a jury instruction on self defense, based on the evidence presented so far, the shooter either has to change his story which relates that the shooter was following Trayvon, or the shooter has to accept not being able to obtain a jury instruction on self defense. Thus, the shooter has a big legal problem under the Montijo case, and the prosecution should pound and pound the fact that the shooter claimed, in taped conversations, that the shooter was following Trayvon despite being told to stay away.
↧