Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

Finally! Some sense!

[JoeRedskin]

Just read through prosecution's witnesses regarding Z's "wannabe cop" status. Again, tell me how putting an African-American law professor on the stand who clearly likes the defendant (He waved and said "Hey George" when he took the stand), gave him an A in his class, and says Z was "one of the smarter students", is helpful to the prosecution. I am missing that.

On top of that, on Cross-X, the professor gives the defense a gold mine of good stuff:

- Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries. "You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West. "No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

- "It’s fluid, the law [on self-defense] as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter.

- Carter says he taught his class: "When stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard, objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt." Carter also says part of self-defense is the individual's subjective feelings of facing death or "grievous bodily harm."

So, you put up a guy to testify about the applicable law who (1) is an African-American professional that likes your defendant and thinks highly of him and (2) opines on the law in a way that calls into question (by saying self-defense relies on subjective belief) the relevance of your medical expert's (Rao's) testimony about how, objectively and in-hind sight, Z should not have been reasonably in fear of his life.

Mind you, the prosecution fought to put this guy on the stand. I admit, I don't get it. Can someone from the pitchforks & torches mob inform me how Prof. Carter's testimony supported your belief that Z committed murder? Is it just - He studied law, he should have known better? He was a wannabe lawyer/cop? How does that alter the underlying speculative nature of the key legal elements of this case?

[JoeRedskin]

Today's running notes on the testimony:
Live blog: Was Zimmerman a 'wannabe cop?' | HLNtv.com

[RedskinRat]

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

[JoeRedskin]

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Joe I disagree, you can't claim your life was in danger and then kill people. Sorry, proclaiming your life is in danger has to be supported by evidence. Z's injuries were characterized as insignificant by the doctors today. He killed someone we know this. Was his life in danger? The person he shot was not armed. Even cops can't get away with that.

100% correct. You can't simply claim fear of death and kill someone. BUT it's one of the main issues of the trial. Was Z REASONABLY in fear for his life? You say no. But a) you weren't there and b) they have testimony from an EMT lending credence to the notion that he could have been. Your personal opinion on how one should react in some vaguely familiar situation is irrelevant (otherwise...someone quick call the prosecutor so G84C can testify). Are there situations in which you can't shoot and kill someone during a fist-fight? Yes. Are there situations where you can? Yes. It's not either or. The context of the situation matters above all. Why is that hard to understand?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

i can only tell you maryland law. there is a strange twist.

1) if a person pays a traffic fine by mail = cant use in civil trial (this only applied to fine traffic citations and not murder) reason is that the person may have just paid the fine out of convenience and it is not considered an admission of guilt

2) if a person pleads guilty in open court = can be used as admissible evidence of negligence in the civil trial

3) if the person pleads not guilty and is found guilty after a trial = the conviction can not be used in the civil trial as evidence of negligence. the person's statements under oath (if they took the stand) can be used in the civil trial for impeachment/inconsistent statement issues if they arise in the civil trial.

its weird, you would think that if a person was found guilty where the burden of proof was the highest standard of "beyond a reas doubt", that it surely should be admissible for a civil trial with the lesser burden of proof being a "preponderance of evidence" = is something more likely than not likely = 51% true vs 49% not true.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

In defense of prosecutors: This may be their biggest case of the year, it is certainly not their only one. If it's anything like Baltimore, these folks are vastly overworked.

It's not like on TV where you have nothing to do for three weeks and are spending night and day on this matter and have unlimited time to prep every witness to the nth degree. Even in the best of circumstances, putting on a trial is difficult work - so many variables. While the State has vast resources, it doesn't have vast resources to pinpoint on this one prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, can pretty much manipulate its case load to clear away substantial prep time and can focus all its financial reserves on this matter.

[I once went to observe one of the attorneys from my office at a trial. I walked in and, on one side of the room was one attorney, one paralegal, several notepads and 50 or so file boxes and manila folders in the benches behind her. On the other side were three attorneys, four paralegals, two law clerks, several laptops and a rolling bookcase of relevant caselaw and binders of clearly marked documents. Guess which side was the State?]

Generally, in run-of-the-mill cases, the prosecution gets a benefit from being the State and being able to call whatever crime scene investigators, DNA experts, accident reconstructionists, etc. at no particular expense b/c these folks work for the State. To oppose them, defendants usually have to spend big bucks to scrutinize all the evidence, chains of control, validity of methodology, etc.

With defendants who have a large war chest, this prosecutorial benefit goes to the wayside. In any real controversy, prosecutors have the much harder job. It's just a tough job and I don't envy them.

With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.

I imagine it's going to sound a little like G84C. Because they certainly haven't proven much of anything other than no one knows what the heck happened for real.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.

That is not the question I asked. Reading is fundamental.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......



Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he SHOULD have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't appear to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't act like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?

If TM felt unlawfully harrassed by Zimmerman, what law says TM could initiate a physical confrontation?

[Gary84Clark]

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened?

In what manner? To ask for directions? To ask him his name and his intentions? To tell him to go back where came from? To tell him he had a gun and was going to shoot him? To call him a n**** and make him cry? Give us, oh knower of all things, the exact situation. Not a general happenstance.