Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Thanks! Drinking beer. Playing wrestle and tumble with my boy. Having friends over later for beer, food and fireworks. It's a damn fine day.

Hope the you are enjoying yours as well.

[Gary84Clark]

Myths about the killing of Trayvon Martin

A widely circulated photograph of Martin wearing a Hollister T-shirt shows him much younger than he was the night he died.

Those who fervently believe that Martin was a thug or a thug-in-training are especially incensed by the photo of him smiling in a red Hollister T-shirt. Not only do they claim that the photo makes Martin look more innocent and sympathetic, they also charge that it depicts him at a much younger age than he was when he was killed. Their assumption is that Martin is between 11 and 14 years old in the photo. For more than a year, some have been sharing what one reader told me was “an up-to-date photo” of Martin. The person in the photo is the rapper Game, who was about 30 years old when the snapshot was taken for XXL magazine in 2010.

[JoeRedskin]

So ... stupid people with an agenda lied to counter a lie told by other stupid people with an agenda. That's relevant to the actions TM and Z took on the night in question how?

You continue to reach for stupidity and fall short of the mark.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.



My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this.

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

[Chico23231]

Zim is lying to save his ass at this point.

[RedskinRat]

Shiping Bao: Intellectual titan or burbling idiot?

I can't believe someone with his credentials is so inarticulate.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.

Must suck to be you.....

Reuters

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

[RedskinRat]

Deputy Sheriff (Zimmerman's Uncle) clearly has more weight to his testimony than any of the witnesses fielded by the Prosecution.

[saden1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXI...e_gdata_player

[RedskinRat]

All part of the dance, saden1.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

All part of the dance, saden1.

I see it different, I see it as laying out the facts of the case intuitively and soundly.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.



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.

Awesome! Thank you for continually providing the well thought out and thorough professional point of view. Unfortunately most people dont seem to have the ability to provide objective thoughts or comments regarding this case; i think nearly everyone here appreciates your willingness to offer the opposite.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

Ill make a $49 donation to the site in your name if you can predict the verdict correctly. I guess you just have to make your prediction before the jury gets back after closing statements.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

1. Reviewed EMT testimony - She never said that. The only testimony I saw to that effect was Dr. Rao who viewed the photos after the incident. As I said earlier, I think cross exposed her testimony for the speculation it was.

2. Maybe. I get the whole "Zimmerman is a liar" attack to discredit his account of the events. Since they don't get to ask him directly during a cross exam (at least I expecting Zimmerman not to testify), not sure putting the professors and others on to demonstrate what, to me, is essentially a tangential lie. I expect, the only lie the jury cares about is whether he thought he was in fear of his life. To me, the professors were a lot of work for not much gain and, possibly, very harmful to the prosecution.

I hear the "reckless disregard" and understand where you and Chico are coming from. I also understand that Zimmerman is to "truth challenged" (to say the least). I just don't think the prosecution has brought enough to the table to show (again, beyond a reasonable doubt) that Z 's actions were "reckless" or even negligent that night, because, even assuming all the defense has is a questionable "I was in fear of my life" claim from Z, I am just not seeing enough non-speculative evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to say, without any reasonable doubts, that Z didn't act in that fashion.