[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will share my evolving reviews on how the gun type influences juries and perhaps this one. It is not an argument about stopping power but how presentation of gun issues can influence juries as seen in jury simulations.

We have seen in past posts folks saying if it is a good shoot then this doesn't matter as compared to trials where ammo types, training, timing of shots, etc. have been brought up to convince the jury that the defendant was guilty. Frank Ettin has posted a series of trials about these issues. I have a pretty good handle on the simulation literature and that's what I'm basing some of my opinions on. Thus, the quote blocks indicate my evolving views.

It is not a stopping power debate or whether the gun is a good gun - it is jury perception and strategies about discussing the gun.

Before the gun testimony:
I don't know about him testifying. It's a double edged sword.

Not being Perry Mason, I might as a DA ask:

1. Why did you carry a gun when the neighborhood watch instructions weren't to do so?

2. Why did you get out of the car when instructed not to?

3. Have you any formal training in how to use a firearm? Do you know that most practical courses teach avoidance? Why didn't you take such a course if you wanted to carry a gun.

4. Please explain your comments about those kind of people getting away with it, etc.?

5. You carried a gun without a safety, why? Ans: So it would be ready to use. Att. So you had the mindset that you were ready to use the gun when you got out of the car (which you were told by the dispatcher not to).

6. You carried a 9mm semi - why. Ans: That is the type of gun and ammo that the police use (a common defense that an expert like Mas might testify to). DA - so you see yourself as a police type ready to intervene?

7. What did you say to him when you confronted Martin? That would be a tricky answer - if he says he was forceful - looks like a commando. If he sounds disingenuous - bad too.

I also think and we can't tell that George (being a hot head from other interactions) might have flashed the gun at Martin. In that case, Martin, IMHO would be justified in using necessary force against him to neutralize the gun.

Here's another point - while one person can keep him from conviction, another can hang the jury and they have to go through this again (if the state wants).

Thus, I opine, Judge Judy - that he shouldn't testify as he can blow away reasonable doubt by screwing up on the stand.

I wonder if they are going to discuss how the gun was concealed.

I watched the gun expert interchange and it was weird.

The prosecution was attempting to hint at the gun was ready to go. The defense tried to make it a nice gun and present that the Kel-tec had myriad safety features (sound like a Glock debate). However, they kept on emphasizing how Martin was shot and the gun was up against him. Is that a good idea given the shooting is being portrayed as illegitimate?

Too much exposure of the gun in my view. They also wandered into the trigger pull, the police carry chambered, SA vs DA/SA. I don't know if that makes Zim a good guy because of the gun's characteristics.

This is what I said previously. Watching the presentations - and comparing it to the literature on weapons effects on juries - my evaluation is that:

1. The 9mm was not specifically emphasized as an evil round. Unless the term 9mm in general primes some negative attitudes, this seems a wash.

2. The safety issue and chambered issue. The prosecution seemed to want to mention 'safety' quite a bit. There was a discussion of a thumb safety on other guns. One can take this as implying that a gun with a safety is better and/or protects against impulsive usage. You have to make a deliberate removal of it. Using one without a safety, might mean mindset of read to shoot. The idea of a chambered round is the same concept. The gun is hot and ready to go.

The defense wanted to play up that the trigger pull weight and distance were such that the Kel-tec is a safe gun and that it was well thought out choice to avoid impulsive shooting. Contrasting it to SA/DA or DA guns was the point. There was some implication that those guns were less safe than the Kel-tec and that made it a nice gun. Some suggestion that cop guns were not so nice. The expert dismissed this.

In reality, the Kel-tec appeal is that it is a cheap gun.

The literature suggests that increased presentation of the gun primes negative attitudes towards the user. Thus, having the expert hold the gun, dry fire it repeatedly - may give just give a negative attitude - it just reminds one that it was fired into a minor. That might wash away a techy discussion of DA/SA, trigger pull, etc.

Similarly, the discussion of how the gun was either pressed into the body or just touching the clothes has a macro negative. It goes over and over pressing the gun or firing closely into the body of a minor. If you are sympathetic to Martin - that's the take away. They were trying to make a micro point which may not be worth it.

Decisions are made on two levels - emotional and quick or slow and rational. Jury research sometimes suggests the emotional has more power. Based on my professional knowledge, research, and experience - I think the gun debate is 60/40 negative for Zim.

On decision processes - do the minute details count:
If George gets convicted, I think the micro level issue of self-defense will be swamped by the macro issue of George starting the incident. That's what the jury may key on. Yeah, you were getting beat but it might have been an educational beat down. I read that term in a book Kathy recommended. It's when you do something stupid and the BG decides to educate you.

I wonder if the gun type will surface in summation. Frank Ettin says that sometimes the 'inside baseball' details, that sound so good to the choir, don't have the same impact on the jury.

We will see.

Certainly, the good shoot fans should take away something. If the shoot is ambiguous, all these issues can come up.

Glenn