Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

Firing the shot was the conclusion of the physical confrontation - not it's initiation. Sorry, since "who initiated the physical confrontation" has been my central theme, I thought you smart enough to pick up on the nuance. Going forward, I shall not make any assumptions as to your ability for basic contextual analysis or, for that matter, any semblance of intelligence on your part.

Martin had a right to be where he was. Z had a right to be where he was. What neither had the right to do was initiate a physical confrontation or put the other in fear of imminent physical danger. Has the State shown beyond a a reasonable doubt that Z initiated a physical confrontation or put the TM in fear of imminent physical danger? Does not appear that way to me.

Was TM a "scary unusual person"? Don't know, don't care and have never asserted anything one way or the other on the topic.

The assertion "they get into a wrestling match" glosses over most of the key factual elements the State needs to prove and completely eliminates others.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.

See, now you're just being obtuse and stupid. Confess, you're really Goat.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

Fine, but Z is charged with the crime and the State has to prove all the requisite elements of the crime they allege he committed. It's not enough to say TM was not guilty the State has to demonstrate, with evidence, that Z is guilty.

In your outline above, because the evidence generated to date indicates a claim for self-defence, the allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that all TM did was "punch someone".

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

If those are the facts, all the facts, and, at the trial, the prosecution introduces my statements to them where I claim self-defense and they have nothing to contradict it. I go free. I don't even have to testify under oath.

It's the State's burden to prove my guilt, not mine to prove my innocence. Hopefully, it will remain that way as long as I live and beyond.

Besides, I have a feeling the only Rat and I would kill is a bottle of Jack while we called each other names and argued about the existence of the dragon in the garage.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:
[/LIST]No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

Be happy to address this. Just not today ... maybe later tonight.

[Gary84Clark]

Trayvon Martin's DNA was not found on the grip of George Zimmerman's gun, and Zimmerman's DNA was not found under the unarmed teen's fingernails, a law enforcement expert said Wednesday in testimony that prosecutors hope will refute the neighborhood watch volunteer's self-defense claim.

[Gary84Clark]

They called Gorgone on the same day they presented evidence that they say shows Zimmerman had aspirations of becoming a police officer and knew about Florida's "stand-your-ground" law. The law says a person has no duty to retreat and can invoke self-defense in killing someone if it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Zimmerman had maintained in an interview with Fox News last year that he did not know about the law.

[JoeRedskin]

And on cross exam, the DNA expert indicated that (1) b/c it had been raining, that could affect the ability to collect DNA and (2) he could neither identify nor exclude the existence of Martin's DNA in the specific areas identified; and (3) he did not collect the DNA and could not verify how it was specifically collected.

Big difference from asserting that Martin's DNA could be conclusively excluded. Cross did what a good cross does, exposed the flaws in the methodology and conclusiveness.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules requiring the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: Peterson v. State Decision result | Leagle.com

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012. I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority requiring the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion post-trial is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that requiring the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the Peterson decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
•Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
•Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
•Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we think we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- Was he engaged in an unlawful activity: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The only way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z was in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't.

[JoeRedskin]

By the way ... Who's paying my retainer?

[FRPLG]

mic drop...

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. <SNIP>

Hey! Hey! Hey! WTF am I even doing agreeing to go to a hotel with a lawyer!

A drug ravaged, disease-ridden hooker, possibly.....but a lawyer?


I have some standards, damn it!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

... I have some standards, damn it!

Really? Since when?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Really? Since when?

Mostly ever other Leap Year or when I remember.

Hope you're having a fantastic 4th!