In what could be considered a possible fatal blow to George Martin’s ‘Stand-your-ground’ defense tactic, the DNA test results on the grip of the gun Martin used in his fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin revealed that Martin’s DNA is nowhere in it. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted the test.
Accordingly, the said finding virtually contradicted Zimmerman’s claim that Martin tried to grab his gun form its holder, which prompted him to shoot the teenager in the chest.
It can be recalled that on the night of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot Martin following an altercation between the two in Sanford, Florida gated community. The 28-year-old Zimmerman, a village watchman, was said to have accosted Martin due to the latter’s suspicious behavior.
Following Sanford police’s questioning, Zimmerman invoked the ‘Stand-your-ground’ as defense for his shooting of the unarmed Martin. He was initially released without charges, but is now facing second-degree murder lawsuit.
What ‘Stand-your-ground’?
However, with the recent development on the case, doubts are now being raised on the truth behind Zimmerman’s sworn statement on how the events happened, as well as to the applicability to the case of the controversial ‘Stand-your-ground’ law.
The ‘Stand-your-ground’ law states that an individual, who is under an unprovoked attack by another person and who, under such circumstances, perceives a serious threat to his life, may use justifiable or deadly force to defend his person.
If Zimmerman’s defense line is to be taken as it is, then he could eventually walk scot-free. However, legal observers and prosecution attorneys now believe that the ‘Stand-your-ground’ law will not hold water, especially with the recent DNA results on the gun used in the fatal incident.
Two scenarios
Consequently, at least two scenarios will likely come to play following this recent development. One, Zimmerman’s defense counsel, led by Attorney Mark O’Mara, could argue that the reason why Martin’s DNA was not found in the gun’s grip was because Zimmerman had pulled the gun out of the holster before Martin could even get his hands on it. Two, the prosecution team could stress the absence of Martin’s DNA on the gun’s grip as proof that Zimmerman’s claim about Martin trying to grab Zimmerman’s gun is nothing but a lie.
In this regard, it’s interesting to watch out for developments on the case, as the case is seen to become part of landmark judicial handling of a rather touchy criminal case due to its racial discrimination and profiling undertones.
But, between you and me, I’d have to say that the DNA results just tipped the scale in favor of the prosecution. Then again, the defense team could always pull a trick or two to revert from this setback.
About The Author:
Jesse Whitten has gained the reputation of a top notch Bakersfield criminal defense attorney. He founded The Law Office of Jesse Whitten, which has handled more than 2,000 criminal cases.
