Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

I honestly think a significant percentage of the population were upset with the presumption of lack of probable cause.

Of course, there should always be a presumption of lack of probable cause, right?

 

[curi0us]

And most of those photos had been available via the press, weeks ago.

Sure, the date on the link is March 31st.

But the family's PR effort can be traced to the March 8th petition they started that uses the young photo of TM.

When did the family first release a recent photo of TM?

A critical point in the case timeline is Mary Cutcher's March 14th interview where she says she knew the screaming voice was the "little boy" and that there was no excuse for GZ to kill unarmed teenager who was "half his size."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/

Do you think if Mary Cutcher had ever seen an honest picture of TM at that point she would have said those things in the interview?

 

[RandFan]

Of course, there should always be a presumption of lack of probable cause, right?

A presumption of a lack of probable cause by law enforcement would result in no arrests, no charges being filed and no indictments, ever.

I think you are confused about what "presumption of innocence" means. Such presumptions are requisite of "triers of fact" (the judicial branch of govt). The police/investigators/prosecutors must demonstrate to a trier or triers of fact sufficient evidence to secure warrants, bind suspects over for trial etc. that A.) there is probable cause. and/or B.) there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

If an officer/investigator or prosecutor brings an action while believing there is a lack of probable cause then that is bad faith.

 

[Freddy]

Of course, there should always be a presumption of lack of probable cause, right?

Randfan can speak for himself, but in my opinion there are many genuinely open-minded people who were upset because it appeared that the police simply took Zimmerman's word for it, and did not investigate vigorously or thoroughly. That isn't to say that there aren't also many people who jumped to conclusions that reinforced their preconceived notions. I'm not sure how accurate that perception was, since I think it was based primarily on the fact that Zimmerman had not been arrested or charged. And that does not mean that the police were not still investigating.

There have been allegations that certain basic protocols of investigation were not followed by the Sanford Police, but I have read conflicting reports about that, and thanks to the bang-up job the media have done I have no idea what to believe about such claims. The history of this particular police department also contributed to the suspicion that the investigation was, at least initially, merely pro forma. But again, I'm not sure if that was really the case, or if it was just a case of members of the public not understanding what the law is and how investigations work.

I will say that in my opinion the prosecutor's affidavit of probable cause is an embarrassment to the legal profession. It consists mostly of conclusions and assertions that don't explain exactly what the evidence is for each claim. Even when there is evidence to support a claim, the affidavit does not explicitly cite it. In addition, it seems to me that even if every claim in the affidavit is presumed to be true, it still fails to establish all of the elements of 2nd degree murder. Maybe there is damning evidence that hasn't been made public, but given how thin the affidavit is, I do not understand why the prosecutor wouldn't mention it.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm sorry? What are you talking about? A presumption of a lack of probable cause would result in no arrests, no charges being filed and no indictments, ever.

I think you are confused about what "presumption of innocence" means. Such presumptions are requisite of "triers of fact". The police/investigators/prosecutors must demonstrate to a trier or triers of fact to secure warrants, bind suspects over for trial etc. that A.) there is probable cause. and B.) There is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

If an officer/investigator or prosecutor brings an action while believing there is a lack of probable cause then that is bad faith.

Right. There is a presumption of probable cause that can be overcome by evidence (or affidavit of evidence) but the starting point (presumption) is that probable cause does not exist. A defendant or judge doesn't prove that probable cause does not exist, they challenge the government's assertion that it does.

 

[RandFan]

Right. There is a presumption of probable cause that can be overcome by evidence (or affidavit of evidence) but the starting point (presumption) is that probable cause does not exist. A defendant or judge doesn't prove that probable cause does not exist, they challenge the government's assertion that it does.

Irrelevant. There is no requirement that law enforcement must always presume there is no probable cause prior to rulings by a trier of fact. Law enforcement is only required to prove probable cause. Again, the trier of fact must presume innocence.

BTW: I never meant rush to judgement. I meant presumption in the face of the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to arrest or bring charges then there is no longer a presumption of innocence on the part of law enforcement.

Now, you can argue that the evidence never met the threshold for probable cause but that has nothing to do with my point.

 

[Cylinder]

Irrelevant. There is no requirement that law enforcement must always presume there is no probable cause prior to rulings by a trier of fact. Law enforcement is only required to prove probable cause. Again, the trier of fact must presume innocence.

I'm kind of confused.

After an armed robbery at the corner store, the police interview a witness that states with certainty that the suspect fled to a row of townhouses. They did not see which particular home they entered. The police have no tangible evidence to suspect one home over another. Barring any Terry tricks, can the police search one of the homes without consent?

If not, why?

The point is that the police need to have tangible probable cause before doing things like searching or arresting suspects. Until that cause is established, they have to presume that such cause doesn't exist and act accordingly. That doesn't prevent them from establishing probable cause - it just means that they cannot act until it is established.

This is covered pretty clearly in the immunity statute. For a suspect that asserts self defense, the mere fact that they used force is not probable cause to detain, arrest or search.

 

[quadraginta]

The Florida Sunshine laws:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=->2008->Chapter 286

Thanks for taking the time to find the link, but it wasn't really needful. I had occasion to look into the Florida Sunshine Laws in some detail several years ago when the rather startling amount of information flowing from the Casey Anthony case piqued my interest on the subject.

Thing is, you offered a tangentially relevant source, but not the most appropriate one. The guidelines we need to look at are found in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. More specifically Rule 2.051.

Here is the section of that rule regarding exemptions to open court records from the Florida Ninth Circuit Court website.

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051


Public Access to Judicial Records

<snip>

(c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial branch shall be confidential:

<snip>

(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court rule on the grounds that

(A) confidentiality is required to

(i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice;
(ii) protect trade secrets;

(iii) protect a compelling governmental interest;

(iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;

(v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;

(vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed;

(vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case law;

(B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); (C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A); and (D) except as provided by law or rule of court, reasonable notice shall be given to the public of any order closing any court record.

I highlighted the parts we will probably see getting the biggest workout during the effort which has already begun to have the proceedings unsealed.

And Florida judges have no real impediment to issuing gag orders in sensationalized cases.

Well, we aren't exactly talking about a "gag" order yet, as no motion directing prior restraint has been issued that I am aware of.

In general, though, by comparison to most other jurisdictions Florida judges are much more constrained in the latitude they have to seal, and to keep sealed any court records, especially (but not limited to) those which have been submitted to the Clerk of Court, which, as I mentioned above includes anything exchanged through discovery.

When challenged it is the court's obligation to provide evidence that one or more of the (only ten) statutory exemptions to open court records in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration is relevant to the case at hand.

From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida.

1. Sunshine Law to be liberally construed while exceptions to the law to be narrowly construed

As a statute enacted for the public benefit, the Sunshine Law should be liberally construed to give effect to its public purpose while exemptions should be narrowly construed. See, e.g., Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1969); Wood v. Marston, 442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983).

Snip>

The courts have recognized that the Sunshine Law should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Wolfson v. State, 344 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, 278 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1973):

Past precedence suggests that this is a difficult hurdle. Few recent cases have received the national and international scrutiny which the Anthony case did, and yet the only court record which was keep from public access were the photographs of the child Caylee's remains. Even that might not have been possible had it not been for the 2001 Earnhardt Family Protection Act, which excluded autopsy photos from public dissemination without the surviving family's permission.

We'll see if the records seal withstands legal challenge in this case, but I am not sanguine about the prospects of a successful defense. It's gonna be tough to prove that adverse publicity is an insurmountable barrier to a fair trial in Florida after Casey Anthony walked away scot-free. The amount of information released to the public by the state in that case amounted to thousands of pages and hundreds of photos, videos, and audio recordings, almost all of them long (years) before she even went to trial.

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks for taking the time to find the link, but it wasn't really needful. I had occasion to look into the Florida Sunshine Laws in some detail several years ago when the rather startling amount of information flowing from the Casey Anthony case piqued my interest on the subject.

Thing is, you offered a tangentially relevant source, but not the most appropriate one. The guidelines we need to look at are found in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. More specifically Rule 2.051.

Here is the section of that rule regarding exemptions to open court records from the Florida Ninth Circuit Court website.

​

​

I highlighted the parts we will probably see getting the biggest workout during the effort which has already begun to have the proceedings unsealed.




Well, we aren't exactly talking about a "gag" order yet, as no motion directing prior restraint has been issued that I am aware of.

In general, though, by comparison to most other jurisdictions Florida judges are much more constrained in the latitude they have to seal, and to keep sealed any court records, especially (but not limited to) those which have been submitted to the Clerk of Court, which, as I mentioned above includes anything exchanged through discovery.

When challenged it is the court's obligation to provide evidence that one or more of the (only ten) statutory exemptions to open court records in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration is relevant to the case at hand.

From the website of the Office of the Attorney General of Florida.

​

Past precedence suggests that this is a difficult hurdle. Few recent cases have received the national and international scrutiny which the Anthony case did, and yet the only court record which was keep from public access were the photographs of the child Caylee's remains. Even that might not have been possible had it not been for the 2001 Earnhardt Family Protection Act, which excluded autopsy photos from public dissemination without the surviving family's permission.

We'll see if the records seal withstands legal challenge in this case, but I am not sanguine about the prospects of a successful defense. It's gonna be tough to prove that adverse publicity is an insurmountable barrier to a fair trial in Florida after Casey Anthony walked away scot-free. The amount of information released to the public by the state in that case amounted to thousands of pages and hundreds of photos, videos, and audio recordings, almost all of them long (years) before she even went to trial.

That's some fantastic prognistication there... almost MDC worthy.

Too bad the judge didn't know about it they agreed to seal everything except the PC statement... last week.

Prosecutors did not object when Zimmerman's attorneys asked Recksiedler to seal records last week. The judge ordered the court filings and other records sealed...

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/...e-jessica-recksiedler-will-leave-trayvon-case

And I never said anything about withstanding challenges, just about the ability of a Florida judge to issue such an order.

I also never said there were zero constraints, I said that with a good enough reason
(such as prejudicial publicity or the threats of violence against Zimmerman) judges were alllowed to do so under Florida law. The fact that the media is challenging it, does not mean that there was a major hurdle in the law to issuing it in the first place.

So you can put those goalposts right back where they came from.

 

[crimresearch]

Irrelevant. There is no requirement that law enforcement must always presume there is no probable cause prior to rulings by a trier of fact. Law enforcement is only required to prove probable cause. Again, the trier of fact must presume innocence.

BTW: I never meant rush to judgement. I meant presumption in the face of the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to arrest or bring charges then there is no longer a presumption of innocence on the part of law enforcement.

Now, you can argue that the evidence never met the threshold for probable cause but that has nothing to do with my point.

Your 'point' is that the Supreme Court, once again got it wrong in their landmark rulings requiring law enforcement to presume a requirement of probable cause (with clearly noted exceptions) before acting under the 4th amendment.

Once again, you and the Court will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[crimresearch]

Is this the 'prosecutor's affidavit' that everyone keeps calling such bad lawyering?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/interacti...vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

Because I don't see the prosecutor's signature on there anywhere... just her name on the letterhead and in the opening pararaph.
Also nothing about the 2 people who did write it and sign it having even been to law school, much less being SAs.

It is an investigative narrative, and a pretty cut and dried one.

The only affidavit signed by an attorney under Corey that I've seen, is a very short listing of the charges, also cut and dried.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

 

[quadraginta]

That's some fantastic prognistication there... almost MDC worthy.

Too bad the judge didn't know about it they agreed to seal everything except the PC statement... last week.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/...e-jessica-recksiedler-will-leave-trayvon-case

And I never said anything about withstanding challenges, just about the ability of a Florida judge to issue such an order.

I also never said there were zero constraints, I said that with a good enough reason
(such as prejudicial publicity or the threats of violence against Zimmerman) judges were alllowed to do so under Florida law. The fact that the media is challenging it, does not mean that there was a major hurdle in the law to issuing it in the first place.

So you can put those goalposts right back where they came from.

Ease up there, Bucky. Wipe the foam off your lips, and take a few deep breaths.

Not only did I not move any goalposts, I never even set any in the first place. My only comment was,

<snip>

Now that he's been charged the legendary Florida Sunshine Laws are gonna start to kick in (unless the judge pulls off keeping the records closed, which will be a tough chore.)

When something gets released to the defense through discovery in Florida it becomes fair game for the public. That ought to pep things up.

No prognostication, neither.

Nor did I claim you "said" anything at all. I simply cited the aspects of Florida law which supported my thoughts on the subject, as well as explaining the reasoning behind my expectations.

You're defending yourself from accusations which were never made, at least not by me. I have no idea why you are coming across as so adversarial about something which I expect we probably agree on.

 

[crimresearch]

Ease up there, Bucky. Wipe the foam off your lips, and take a few deep breaths.

Not only did I not move any goalposts, I never even set any in the first place. My only comment was,

​

No prognostication, neither.

Nor did I claim you "said" anything at all. I simply cited the aspects of Florida law which supported my thoughts on the subject, as well as explaining the reasoning behind my expectations.

You're defending yourself from accusations which were never made, at least not by me. I have no idea why you are coming across as so adversarial about something which I expect we probably agree on.

I suspect as long as you keep reading 'adversarial' into people's honest comments, and resort to those snarky personal jabs, that you will encounter disagreement.

But you'll have to continue this derail on your own.

 

[quadraginta]

I suspect as long as you keep reading 'adversarial' into people's honest comments, and resort to those snarky personal jabs, that you will encounter disagreement.

That's some fantastic prognistication there... almost MDC worthy.

<snip>

So you can put those goalposts right back where they came from.

Nope. Nothing adversarial there. I don't know what I could have been thinking.

But you'll have to continue this derail on your own.

Nah. I couldn't have done it without your help.

Thanks for everything. Keep up the good fight.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's some fantastic prognistication there... almost MDC worthy.

Too bad the judge didn't know about it they agreed to seal everything except the PC statement... last week.

I suspect as long as you keep reading 'adversarial' into people's honest comments, and resort to those snarky personal jabs, that you will encounter disagreement.

Pot, kettle, black ?

 

[RandFan]

I'm kind of confused.

After an armed robbery at the corner store, the police interview a witness that states with certainty that the suspect fled to a row of townhouses. They did not see which particular home they entered. The police have no tangible evidence to suspect one home over another. Barring any Terry tricks, can the police search one of the homes without consent?

I've no idea why you are confused. If there is probable cause to believe that a particular home has the suspect then they can request a warrant, right?

If not, why?

They need probable cause. If an officer has evidence that a suspect has entered a home then he or she no longer needs to presume an absent of probable cause, right?

The point is that the police need to have tangible probable cause before doing things like searching or arresting suspects.

That is what I said. (see my comment "in the face of evidence"). If an officer sees a suspect enter a home then he or she no longer need to presume there is no probable cause, right?

Until that cause is established, they have to presume that such cause doesn't exist and act accordingly.

Which is what I've been saying. Once there is sufficient evidence then law enforcement no longer need to presume lack of probable cause. Right? There is a point at which they no longer have to assume probable cause which is what I'm talking about.

That doesn't prevent them from establishing probable cause - it just means that they cannot act until it is established.

Yes, and that is what I'm saying. Once they have the evidence they no longer need a presumption that there is no probable cause.

This is covered pretty clearly in the immunity statute. For a suspect that asserts self defense, the mere fact that they used force is not probable cause to detain, arrest or search.

For crying in the dark. What is it that you don't understand?

• Once there is sufficient evidence to no longer have the presumption then law enforcement need not have such a presumption, right?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Back to the voice identification yoyos. I think this article can put to rest once and for all the notion that being considered an "expert witness" in a court of law means someone is an expert.

No Forensic Background, No Problem!

Some gems:

ACFEI also has given its stamp of approval to far less celebrated characters. It welcomed Seymour Schlager, whose credentials were mailed to the prison where he was incarcerated for attempted murder. Zoe D. Katz – the name of a house cat enrolled by her owner in 2002 to show how easy it was to become certified by ACFEI -- was issued credentials, too. More recently, Dr. Steven Hayne, a Mississippi pathologist whose testimony helped to convict two innocent men of murder, has used his ACFEI credential to bolster his status as an expert witness.

One afternoon early last year, I punched in my credit card information, paid $495 to the American College of Forensic Examiners International Inc. and registered for an online course.

After about 90 minutes of video instruction, I took an exam on the institute’s web site, answering 100multiple choice questions, aided by several ACFEI study packets.

As soon as I finished the test, a screen popped up saying that I had passed, earning me an impressive-sounding credential that could help establish my qualifications to be an expert witness in criminal and civil trials.

For another $50, ACFEI mailed me a white lab coat after sending my certificate.

For the last two years, ProPublica and PBS “Frontline,” in concert with other news organizations, have looked in-depth at death investigation in America, finding a pervasive lack of national standards that begins in the autopsy room and ends in court.

Expert witnesses routinely sway trial verdicts with testimony about fingerprints, ballistics, hair and fiber analysis and more, but there are no national standards to measure their competency or ensure that what they say is valid. A landmark 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences called this lack of standards one of the most pressing problems facing the criminal justice system.

In its 2009 report, the National Academy of Sciences called for several measures to address systemic flaws involving forensic examiners and expert testimony.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Guess where Mr. Primeau's primary certification comes from?

 

[curi0us]

Back to the voice identification yoyos. I think this article can put to rest once and for all the notion that being considered an "expert witness" in a court of law means someone is an expert.

No Forensic Background, No Problem!

Some gems:

I wasn't sure if it was mentioned before but Dr. O'block who started the ACFE is a woo graphologist:
http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Book-Handwriting-Analysis-ebook/dp/B002KYHZ70
^O'Block's high praise is listed first in the book description.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I wasn't sure if it was mentioned before but Dr. O'block who started the ACFE is a woo graphologist:
http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Book-Handwriting-Analysis-ebook/dp/B002KYHZ70
^O'Block's high praise is listed first in the book description.

While Thomas Owen appears to have some legit creds it appears that a huge number of his are also from this bogus institute.

Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Recorded Evidence - American College of Forensic Examiners 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

Mr. Owen has diligently and comprehensively examined the areas of Forensic Audio, Video, and Voice Identification in great detail since 1981. There are over seventy-five publications, presentations, and recordings available from the Audio Engineering Society, The American College of Forensic Examiners and others