Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Freddy]

Add one more thing to the list of stuff I didn't know. If the prosecution pushes for that, will the defense be allowed to bring in any of TM's prior behaviour?

The general rule is that character evidence is not admissible to prove "conduct in conformity therewith." There are some exceptions, though. For example, if the defense presents evidence (usually witness testimony) that the victim had a violent character, and that that is evidence the victim started the fight, then the prosecution can present character evidence showing that the defendant has violent tendencies. Or if the defendant presents evidence that he has good character, the prosecution can present evidence refuting that.

Some past convictions are admissible in the prosecution's case, but generally anything that is not a felony and that does not involve making a false statement will not be admissible.

 

[crimresearch]

I seriously doubt that, unless Zimmerman opens the door by trying to raise Martin's character as an issue. And I don't think that is even a possibility, since only evidence that Martin had a violent character would be admissible for that purpose, and I don't know of any such evidence.

From what the judge said at the bond hearing, I'm thinking he will rule that there is little if any probative value in Zimmerman's past brushes with the law, and that they would be significantly prejudicial. Since he has no felonies, and since none of the charges ever made against him involved making false statements, I am pretty confident they will not be admissible.

I think that his sworn statement on his application to the police academy ('because my father is a Supreme Court judge, I would never do what I was accused of' or words to that effect) could be used to suggest a prediliction for making up exaggerated and self serving claims to avoid the consequences of violent behavior.

It is public record, it isn't sealed, it isn't overly inflammatory, I would think the judge might allow it.

As far as the rest, this is just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Zimmerman ignore his attorney's advice and try to testify. A halfway decent prosecutor should be able to get Zimmerman himself to open some doors if that happens.

 

[curi0us]

GZ had no prior knowledge of anything about TM. That we now know he had some problems at school doesn't mean GZ suspected TM of acting "suspicious" because of that. He was profiling a young man, wearing a hoodie. I won't even bring race into the discussion, how about that. A young man, wearing a hoodie, talking on his phone to his GF, making his way home from the store.

I wear hoodies all the time. I talk on my phone. Sometimes I don't take the most direct route to where I'm going. Are those legitimate reasons to suspect me of being up to no good at 7pm?

Since the judge at the bond hearing dismissed GZ's prior incidents, I don't see how anything about what TM ever did in his life will be allowed if this goes to trial.

What exactky is your evidence that GZ profiled TM?

Consider this other potential GZ profiling incident from just three weeks before the shooting:

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.

Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Is your argument that GZ profiled Emmanuel Burgess as well?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But if it's raining, then why is Zimmerman dry except, according to the police, his back? And why is the official rainfall total 0.02"?

Awesome. So he suspiciously put his hood up for no reason, and his 'girlfriend' is a liar. Thanks for letting me know where you stand on those issues.

This isn't evident based on what we know now, and, as you say, a poor reason to find someone suspicious.

I think we have covered suspicion is subjective. Do you think you could identify someone who was drunk ? How would you describe them ? perhaps ' they look like they are drunk or something' ? How about drugs ? Same thing ?

But this apparently has nothing to do with what Martin was doing. Now, if Martin had been running up to windows and peering into them, then that would be one thing, but at 7pm on a Sunday, that's likely a peeping Tom, not a burglar. And in any case, Zimmerman only says that Martin was "looking at houses", which again, is what people do when they're walking down the street.

But you find it impossible for someone to find that action suspicious. I see.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What size was the screwdriver? Was it a flathead or phillips? Obviously this matters, since his possession of a screwdriver at a time other than the night he was killed tells us what a violent person he was. Does anyone who claims it was a burglary tool know anything about it?

Bonus question, and one that I've been pondering.

Ignore the question of what Zimmerman was feeling or fearing or thinking.

Does anyone think that in actual fact, Trayvon Martin was attempting to murder George Zimmerman?

Just a yes or no please. Explanations are ok, but include a yes or no.

In hindsight, knowing what I know now, no.

I'll also answer a question I find more relevant. If I were GZ that night would I possibly believe that TM might kill me ? I think so.

 

[KatieG]

What exactky is your evidence that GZ profiled TM?

Consider this other potential GZ profiling incident from just three weeks before the shooting:


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Is your argument that GZ profiled Emmanuel Burgess as well?

"This guy is acting real suspicious" Almost word for word from the 911 call. If I discount race, what else is left? He also said, "these ******** always get away" and "He's looks like he's on drugs or something". He's determined that TM is doing something wrong.

Yes, I've read that article. It stated that GZ "spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home" When did GZ say that he saw TM peering into a neighbor's windows?

There are 263 units in that complex, many of them rented. How could one person possibly know everyone who lived in that complex from day to day?

 

[WildCat]

What size was the screwdriver? Was it a flathead or phillips?

The Miami Herald story already linked said it was a large flathead screwdriver.

 

[Freddy]

I'm counting about 200 households in the gated community - assuming four two homes per building unit. There's little to no chance that he knows everyone who lives in that community. Also, quite a few of the witnesses don't seem to recognize him.



But if it's raining, then why is Zimmerman dry except, according to the police, his back? And why is the official rainfall total 0.02"?



This isn't evident based on what we know now, and, as you say, a poor reason to find someone suspicious.



But this apparently has nothing to do with what Martin was doing. Now, if Martin had been running up to windows and peering into them, then that would be one thing, but at 7pm on a Sunday, that's likely a peeping Tom, not a burglar. And in any case, Zimmerman only says that Martin was "looking at houses", which again, is what people do when they're walking down the street.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this sort of thing a lot, and both myself and many of my friends (all of them black) have been harassed by police, because we were walking down the street and some idiot (whether nosy resident or over eager cop) decided that we were "suspicious". I see evidence that Zimmerman did this, and no evidence that he didn't.

Perhaps you are right. From the images of the neighborhood I had seen, it appeared the neighborhood was much smaller than you are saying. And since Zimmerman was active in the neighborhood...

I guess I will have to re-evaluate that. Though I would say that suspicion is a continuum, such that a little bit of suspicion may be objectively warranted in a situation where continued and escalated suspicion would most reasonably be attributed to racial profiling. For example, seeing a teenage boy with no apparent purpose might be enough for initial suspicion if there had been recent break ins. A teenager who is new to the neighborhood and is trying to figure out which house is the one he is staying at, well that can look a lot like casing houses.

It seems quite plausible that which explanation comes to mind first (i.e., innocent vs. nefarious) might be influenced by racial bias, perhaps even without the observer being aware of it. It seems quite implausible to suppose that Zimmerman saw a black teenager and just decided he was going to "get" him. Second degree murder would require a mental state closer to the latter. I don't see evidence for that. That doesn't mean it was not both a tragic misunderstanding and a misunderstanding that would not have happened if not for racial stereotyping of a young black male.

 

[WildCat]

I think that his sworn statement on his application to the police academy ('because my father is a Supreme Court judge, I would never do what I was accused of' or words to that effect) could be used to suggest a prediliction for making up exaggerated and self serving claims to avoid the consequences of violent behavior.

Yeah, I'm sure that will happen. Oh wait, actually I'd bet it won't be brought up at all.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This is the first time I have seen it suggested that there is any likelihood that Martin actually was about to commit a burglary. We know Martin was staying nearby and had walked to the store, and was returning home. Given that very plausible explanation of Martin's behavior prior to Zimmerman following him, how exactly does the screwdriver incident constitute a reasonable basis for concluding that it was even remotely likely that Martin was about to burglarize anyone's house?

No one wants to say it for fear of being called racists but there are some of us that suspect he may be the notorious Skittles bandit. Sanford police have been left confounded by a rash of break-ins over the last two years where the burglar steals women's jewelry, leaving Skittles in its place.

 

[KatieG]

No one wants to say it for fear of being called racists but there are some of us that suspect he may be the notorious Skittles burglar. Sanford police have been left confounded by a rash of break-ins over the last two years where the burglar steals women's jewelry, leaving Skittles in its place.

 

[Freddy]

I think that his sworn statement on his application to the police academy ('because my father is a Supreme Court judge, I would never do what I was accused of' or words to that effect) could be used to suggest a prediliction for making up exaggerated and self serving claims to avoid the consequences of violent behavior.

It is public record, it isn't sealed, it isn't overly inflammatory, I would think the judge might allow it.

As far as the rest, this is just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Zimmerman ignore his attorney's advice and try to testify. A halfway decent prosecutor should be able to get Zimmerman himself to open some doors if that happens.

I think you are wrong about admissibility. The statement you mention would never be admitted in the prosecution's case in chief. Even as impeachment evidence, I don't think it would get in. Denial of a bad act for which there was no conviction is hardly an obvious lie. And since it is not a prior conviction, if Zimmerman denied that what he said was a lie, the prosecutor would be stuck with that answer. No extrinsic evidence allowed in that situation.

Also, I think Zimmerman will testify, and I don't think his attorney will advise him not to. Think about it: claiming self-defense and then not testifying? What would you think as a juror? I don't think it's an option for Zimmerman not to testify. If he does not testify, I don't see how he can establish that he feared death/serious injury and that his fear was reasonable.

 

[eeyore1954]

GZ had no prior knowledge of anything about TM. That we now know he had some problems at school doesn't mean GZ suspected TM of acting "suspicious" because of that. He was profiling a young man, wearing a hoodie. I won't even bring race into the discussion, how about that. A young man, wearing a hoodie, talking on his phone to his GF, making his way home from the store.

I wear hoodies all the time. I talk on my phone. Sometimes I don't take the most direct route to where I'm going. Are those legitimate reasons to suspect me of being up to no good at 7pm?

Since the judge at the bond hearing dismissed GZ's prior incidents, I don't see how anything about what TM ever did in his life will be allowed if this goes to trial.

Did the girl friend say he went under an awning or something to get out of the rain. I heard that long ago but do not know if it was true? If it is that could cause suspicion.

 

[nadsat]

watch if you're not tired of Dershowitz yet

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

watch if you're not tired of Dershowitz yet

Interesting, watching it now, thanks for the post.

 

[KatieG]

Did the girl friend say he went under an awning or something to get out of the rain. I heard that long ago but do not know if it was true? If it is that could cause suspicion.

I hadn't heard that but it's a very good point.

 

[Freddy]

Did the girl friend say he went under an awning or something to get out of the rain. I heard that long ago but do not know if it was true? If it is that could cause suspicion.

I have wondered whether something like that might have happened. Maybe going under an awning to get out of the rain, or maybe checking out a TV through the un-blinded patio doors of a house to see if the second half of the game had started yet. Something totally innocent, but that would look suspicious as hell to someone in Zimmerman's position. Maybe the trial will shed some light, but who knows?

 

[crimresearch]

I think you are wrong about admissibility. The statement you mention would never be admitted in the prosecution's case in chief. Even as impeachment evidence, I don't think it would get in. Denial of a bad act for which there was no conviction is hardly an obvious lie. And since it is not a prior conviction, if Zimmerman denied that what he said was a lie, the prosecutor would be stuck with that answer. No extrinsic evidence allowed in that situation.

Also, I think Zimmerman will testify, and I don't think his attorney will advise him not to. Think about it: claiming self-defense and then not testifying? What would you think as a juror? I don't think it's an option for Zimmerman not to testify. If he does not testify, I don't see how he can establish that he feared death/serious injury and that his fear was reasonable.

I didn't say denial of a prior bad act, I said making up a false sworn statement in order to get an exemption from that arrest and court ordered diversion on his application for the police academy.

As you said, making a false official statement could be allowed in at trial. I haven't seen where it says it has to be a major, or a felonious false statement. It is a matter of public record that Zimmerman gave false information in that sworn statement to the authorities. That might call into question *any* statement he makes to the authorities, such as what he said after the shooting.

Going to the trouble of writing and signing 'my father is a Supreme Court judge in Virginia' when he was nothing of the sort, is like saying 'My father is a General in the Army', when he is really a Sgt. Not a huge exaggeration, but still a sworn false statement.
Zimmerman can make an explanation and say he misspoke, etc, but I think it could come in, and along with it, the circumstances under which he had to make that statement.


Since none of this has happened yet, I don't know how it will shake out, and I'm just examining possibilities. I don't think it is 100% impossible for some of Zimmerman's past to come in.
Trayvon Martin's past (as much of what the media says as can be believed) seems pretty much off limits.

If GZ testifies, a sharp prosecutor (if there is one) could get him to open the door to his past, and the judge shouldn't keep the prosecution from using what Zimmerman has brought into the courtroom.

We'll just have to wait and see on this.

 

[Freddy]

As you said, making a false official statement could be allowed in at trial. I haven't seen where it says it has to be a major, or a felonious false statement. It is a matter of public record that Zimmerman gave false information in that sworn statement to the authorities about his prior arrest and court ordered diversion.

Going to the trouble of writing and signing 'my father is a Supreme Court judge in Virginia' when he was nothing of the sort, is like saying 'My father is a General in the Army', when he is really a Sgt. Not a huge exaggeration, but still a sworn false statement.
Zimmerman can make an explanation and say he misspoke, etc, but I think it could come in, and along with it, the circumstances under which he had to make that statement.


Since none of this has happened yet, I don't know how it will shake out, and I'm just examining possibilities. I don't think it is 100% impossible for some of Zimmerman's past to come in.
Trayvon Martin's past (as much of what the media says as can be believed) seems pretty much off limits.

If GZ testifies, a sharp prosecutor (if there is one) could get him to open the door to his past, and the judge shouldn't keep the prosecution from using what Zimmerman has brought into the courtroom.

We'll just have to wait and see on this.

Interesting. Perhaps there is something to this, but I would need to know several things in order to know whether it would likely be admissible. Do you have a link to information about the incident you are talking about? I'd like to check out the details without making you answer all my questions.

Thanks.

 

[crimresearch]

Interesting. Perhaps there is something to this, but I would need to know several things in order to know whether it would likely be admissible. Do you have a link to information about the incident you are talking about? I'd like to check out the details without making you answer all my questions.

Thanks.

I posted it when this first came up thousands of posts ago, and there were also links explaining that in Virginia, a 'magistrate' is at the bottom of the system (a paperwork position like Justice of the Peace elsewhere), while the judges on the Supreme Court are at the top, and hold very different qualifications.

I'll see if I can find them again.


ETA: This is the actual statement, and I notice that this differs from the media account.. they said it was his application to the actual police academy, not the short citizen's informational version. Zimmerman also neglects to mention that the charges were dropped in exchange for some sort of court ordered diversion. Maybe he filled out both apps.

http://www.scribd.com/heidi_vries/d...ation-for-the-Citizens-Police-Academy-in-2008