Expert Witnesses: Crucial Role in Court Cases - Essay Sample

Introduction

An expert witness, also called a professional witness, is a person that testifies in a court hearing. The witness is considered an 'expert' since the individual possesses a certain knowledge on the subject matter being evaluated in a court case. Expert witnesses play a crucial role in clarifying complicated occurrences in many court cases. In addition, expert witnesses help the jurors to understand nuanced and intricate information on cases, so as to create a sense of objectivity as well as credibility in making legal verdicts. Moreover, expert witnesses integrate with the judicial legal teams to enhance the strength of a filed case. The focus on this project is to portray the strength as well as weaknesses of witness testimony in the court of law. The expert witness' testimony that was provided during the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was not sufficient enough to support a murder charge against the accused.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Brief Background of the Case

The following case is that of State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, which took place in 2012 (CNN, 2019). In the criminal prosecution, a twenty-nine-year-old Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder after he was apprehended following the shooting of a seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin (DOJ, 2015). The act took place on February 26, 2012 (CNN, 2019). Moreover, to support the charges, the State of Florida filed an affidavit against Zimmerman based on probable cause. The affidavit stipulated that Zimmerman had profiled and also confronted Martin before he shot him dead. Additionally, that is although Martin had not committed any crime. Zimmerman turned himself to the law enforcement agencies after committing the crime and he reported that he shot the deceased in self-defense (PBS, 2013). At trial, the six-person jury that oversaw the case concluded that all charges against the defendant were inconclusive as they were supported by insufficient evidence. As such, they rendered a not guilty verdict against Zimmerman and dropped all charge counts against him.

Strengths

The first strength of the expert witness presented in the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman case was the evidence of forensic analysis performed on Martin's body (Conway, 2012). The evidence stated that the trajectory of the bullet that pierced the deceased's chest as well as the gun powder that was found on his body was consistent with Zimmerman's version of the shooting. According to the expert testimony, the attire worn by Martin during the time of the shooting was pulled towards the direction where the bullet was projected. Furthermore, based on the stated premise, the expert witness stated that the projection of the bullet was consistent with a case where a person is lying over another in a tussle. That is similar to what Zimmerman had said about the manner in which the shooting occurred. Cumulatively, the stated strengths of the expert witness testimonies offered the jury a strong affirmation that Zimmerman had shot Martin in self-defense.

Weaknesses

The major weakness that was found in the expert witness was that it was not clear for how long Martin was alive after being shot. That is because the expert witness provided contradicting information on the period that Martin was alive. The first testimony by the expert witness stated that Martin lived between 1-3 minutes after being shot (DOJ, 2015; The New York Times, 2012). However, later on, the expert witness made a re-evaluation of the testimony, whereby he stated that Martin must have been alive for at least ten minutes after being shot. Such a contradicting statement weakened the credibility of the expert witness before the jury. The time difference between the shooting and death was an important factor that could have been clear from the first time the expert witness was presented in court. Furthermore, the precision between the times' differences would also be important in differentiating whether Martin's shooting could have been classified as murder and manslaughter.

The second weakness of the expert witness was that he was not stating who between Martin and Zimmerman attacked the other prior to the shooting. As such, there was no ground of convicting Zimmerman as having initiated the conflict that led to the shooting. The other weakness that was illustrated in the expert witness' testimony was that he could not support his argument that Zimmerman could have been pulling away from Martin during the confrontation. In such a circumstance, Zimmerman could have also been attacking Martin, and also shot him on purpose. Also, on that account, it was impossible for the expert witness to prove that Zimmerman did not shoot Martin in self-defense. Furthermore, the expert witness failed to convince the jury that the flashlight that Martin had would also have been used to hit Zimmerman during the shooting event. Subsequently, it was not easy to rule out that Zimmerman had felt the flashlight when Martin was holding him under, which is a phenomenon that could also have made Zimmerman shoot the deceased.

Ultimately, the expert witness provided a conflicting testimony in relation to how marijuana that was found on Martin's body system could have altered the witness' first testimony. Additionally, that is because at first, in the testimony there was an indication that it could have influenced Martin's actions. Nevertheless, the toxicology results presented to the court portrayed that the level of Marijuana that was in Martin's bloodstream could not have affected his mental, emotional or physical wellness when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, the expert witness stated that his decision to recount on the effect of marijuana on Martin's body was based on a different case that he and other experts were working on at the time. The explanation was not sufficient to justify a murder charge against the defendant (Zimmerman) actions to the jury that was overseeing the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the expert witness' testimony that was provided during the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman was not sufficient enough to support a murder charge against the accused. However, some of the strengths that were portrayed by the research entailed provision of good forensic evidence on the projectile of the bullet from the gun when it pierced Martin's chest. The next strength was the testimony that clarified the position of Martin's clothing upon the impact of the bullet on his body. The latter evidence supported Zimmerman's alibi that Martin held him down at the time he shot him. Nevertheless, there were also weaknesses that were brought out by the expert testimony that was provided in court. The weakness was inclusive of the ambiguity in the duration of time when Martin was alive after being shot by Zimmerman. Additionally, it was not clear who attacked who between Martin and Zimmerman and the forensic evidence was imprecise because it could also support the argument that Zimmerman could have been pulling away from the Martin. Furthermore, the expert witness failed to convince that the flashlight was not a potentially dangerous tool that Martin could have been carrying. In reference to the stated weakness of the expert testimony, it was right for the Jury to dismiss all charges filed against Zimmerman by the State.

References

CNN. (2019). Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/index.html

Conway, D. (2012). State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman (3): Why the Case was brought. Retrieved from Law Liberty: https://www.lawliberty.org/2012/07/02/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-3-why-the-case-was-brought/

DOJ. (2015). Federal Officials Close Investigation Into Death of Trayvon Martin. Retrieved from The United States Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-trayvon-martin

PBS. (2013). Florida Jury Finds George Zimmerman Not Guilty of Murder. Retrieved from PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/florida-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty-of-murder-1

The New York Times. (2012). State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html?ref=us