(Long Island, NY) Stephen P. Garvey, criminal law expert and professor of law at Cornell University, discusses the legal issues that will arise in the George Zimmerman murder trial after the jury selection.
Garvey says: “From the point of view of the substantive criminal law, and in particular the law of self-defense, the Zimmerman case raises two important and difficult questions.
“First, because Zimmerman can successfully claim self-defense only if he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself, the question is: what does it mean to ‘reasonably’ believe? Who is the reasonable person against whom Zimmerman’s belief is to be judged? Even though Florida law requires reasonable belief before someone can claim self-defense, why shouldn’t an honest belief be enough? Should the law expect someone who honestly – but unreasonably – believes they are about to be killed not to defend themselves?
“Second, even if Zimmerman would otherwise be entitled to claim self-defense, he will forfeit that defense if he was the ‘initial aggressor,’ if, in the language of Florida law, he ‘initially provoked’ use of force against himself. But what does it mean to ‘provoke’ the use of force against oneself? The language of the statute is unclear. Did Zimmerman provoke the use of force against himself just by following Martin? Or must he have followed Martin realizing that doing so might prompt Martin to attack him – assuming that’s what happened? Or must he have followed Martin with the goal or purpose of prompting Martin to attack him? These are the interesting questions the case raises for the criminal law.”
Contact the Media Relations Office for information about Cornell’s TV and radio studios.
For interviews contact: Joe Schwartz, Joe.Schwartz@cornell.edu, (607) 254-6235
