Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

Go back and read the transcript. Bernie asks if the brother-in-law is in a location where they can speak to him. Shelly says she is pretty sure she can get him on the phone.

Go back and watch that bond hearing. When each of the family members came to the phone in their undisclosed location, they were sworn in by a notary that was present with them. This is basic Rules of Evidence. The court cannot hear testimony unless the witness is sworn in. That the brother in law was not present at the undisclosed location and was not in court, means that he could not be sworn in therefor he could not give evidence.

 

[Checkmite]

It makes the judge suspect. Have you ever heard of someone being punished because they were sent money by supporters? Facing potential liabilities of a million dollars or more for legal and other expenses, that money sent to him doesn't make it so he's not indigent. Let's say he'd put down a figure for money sent by supporters, a few days later it goes to court and by then the amount is much higher due to additional contributions, would that mean he's still 'lying?'

I would say no, because at the time he gave the figure it was accurate as far as he knew, so any judgment entered at that time would be based on the most complete information available.

However, the prosecution proved that at the time he told the court he was broke, he knew he had over a hundred thousand dollars in an account specifically set up to help with his "legal expenses" (bail is a legal expense). So that was a lie. He also made his family and friends scrimp together enough to pay his reduced bail when he knew he had more than enough to cover it, which is just plain skeezy.

 

[This is The End]

Go back and watch that bond hearing. When each of the family members came to the phone in their undisclosed location, they were sworn in by a notary that was present with them. This is basic Rules of Evidence. The court cannot hear testimony unless the witness is sworn in. That the brother in law was not present at the undisclosed location and was not in court, means that he could not be sworn in therefor he could not give evidence.

Just to re-iterate.

You are saying:

The brother-in-law did not have a notary with him at his separate location to swear him in.

 

[This is The End]

I just saw an article USA Today article about the side discussion of whether or not this will damage Z's credibility in the trial.

I doubt it has much to add since it's from the media, which is one step below JREF forum.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-02/zimmerman-credibility/55346970/1

A side note I noticed from that article.

It appears that Z is using up the entire 48 hours given to him on Friday and won't be turning himself in until Sunday.

 

[Unabogie]

I just saw an article USA Today article about the side discussion of whether or not this will damage Z's credibility in the trial.

I doubt it has much to add since it's from the media, which is one step below JREF forum.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-02/zimmerman-credibility/55346970/1

A side note I noticed from that article.

It appears that Z is using up the entire 48 hours given to him on Friday and won't be turning himself in until Sunday.

Another side note from that link. In the video the judge says that in order to gain another bond, Zimmerman will have to testify himself and explain why he allowed his wife to lie and why he allowed his lawyer to make material misrepresentations to the court.

So the state gets a whack at George in a completely unforced error.

Good move, George. There's that sterling judgement and honestly we've all come to expect from you.

Seeing this situation, I'm shocked that this is the same guy who ended up shooting an unarmed teenager.

Just shocked.

 

[This is The End]

Another side note from that link. In the video the judge says that in order to gain another bond, Zimmerman will have to testify himself and explain why he allowed his wife to lie and why he allowed his lawyer to make material misrepresentations to the court.

So the state gets a whack at George in a completely unforced error.

Good move, George. There's that sterling judgement and honestly we've all come to expect from you.

Seeing this situation, I'm shocked that this is the same guy who ended up shooting an unarmed teenager.

Just shocked.

Wow. That's a tough call for Z and his lawyer to make.

Z has to either sit in prison, or testify at another bond hearing.

Which makes the third option (which I believe JoeTheJuggler was the first to suggest after the news on Friday) sound a bit better than those two options.

Plea deal.

 

[bookworm]

No

No? Well, what would you say is the reason the black community was protesting?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

We started this with my OP care to show that in the OP?

I was talking about the media portrayal, not this thread.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Diwataman has come up with another gem. Look what de la Rionda left out of the bond hearing transcript presented to the judge yesterday - the part about Shelly saying she could get the brother-in-law on the phone to answer his questions. This guy is a real snake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MpzBX9Q56Ws

WOW, just WOW. This is revealing on two levels.

1. It shows the prosecution as unethical and willing to lie and twist about anything. No officer of the court should be able to get away with this type of thing.

2. It's equally revealing that some here immediately jumped in and defended it. So basically the prosecution edited out crucial elements of the recording that would have portrayed a completely different view of what took place, but that's OK. Got it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"The Supreme Court has defined our role on numerous occasions as prosecutors that we are not only ministers of justice, we are seekers of the truth."

-Angela Corey

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/trayvonmartin_04-11.html

I would say that is a spot on response. Well played

 

[Cylinder]

...or TM trying to disable an attacking GZ....

What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin?

 

[This is The End]

WOW, just WOW. This is revealing on two levels.

1. It shows the prosecution as unethical and willing to lie and twist about anything. No officer of the court should be able to get away with this type of thing.

2. It's equally revealing that some here immediately jumped in and defended it. So basically the prosecution edited out crucial elements of the recording that would have portrayed a completely different view of what took place, but that's OK. Got it.

Yeah that would be wow, just wow... Except for the nasty fact that the brother in law was in a location where there was no notary to swear him in...

 

[Giz]

Not that it's relevant to the case, but I'm not aware of any evidence that the victim here wasn't a good kid.

I don't know that anyone said he wasn't a "good kid". I mean, people have pointed out that he:
Attacked GZ,
Attacked a bus driver,
Possessed stolen jewelery,
Had a burglary tool,
Had been taking drugs,
was suspended 3 times in the last 6 months.

But I don't think that anyone has gone so far as to say he wasn't a "good kid".

 

[marplots]

WOW, just WOW. This is revealing on two levels.

1. It shows the prosecution as unethical and willing to lie and twist about anything. No officer of the court should be able to get away with this type of thing.

2. It's equally revealing that some here immediately jumped in and defended it. So basically the prosecution edited out crucial elements of the recording that would have portrayed a completely different view of what took place, but that's OK. Got it.

I think the issue was rather more straightforward. A statement was signed about assets. Conversations while still in custody revealed that statement was a lie. That's really all you need. The part about "I don't know, call this other guy" doesn't matter if the first part is factual. All the other stuff is immaterial if you can demonstrate the lie. I think the judge reading that statement in court pretty much tells the tale on why he ruled as he did.

The defense can call for another bond hearing if they want to rebut further.

 

[johnny karate]

WOW, just WOW. This is revealing on two levels.

1. It shows the prosecution as unethical and willing to lie and twist about anything. No officer of the court should be able to get away with this type of thing.

2. It's equally revealing that some here immediately jumped in and defended it. So basically the prosecution edited out crucial elements of the recording that would have portrayed a completely different view of what took place, but that's OK. Got it.

The only thing revealing here is how far some people will go to defend proven liars. This nonsense about how De la Rionda supposedly did something unethical is the red herring of all red herrings. Unless he somehow tricked Zimmerman's wife into lying, the fallout of this turn of events rests squarely on the shoulders of George Zimmerman and his wife.

Dishonest people got caught doing something dishonest.

Period.

Everything else is just sad rationalization and desperate attempts at deflection.

And by the way, here's O'Mara's contact information. Any legal geniuses who think they've cracked some kind of conspiracy can feel free to report this unethical behavior to Zimmerman's defense attorney directly. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. And if you do so, please report back with the results.

 

[This is The End]

What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin?

Well, if it is to be relevant, your question should read: What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin first?

The answer would be none.

As you word it: "What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin?"

The answer would be not much. Martin was very nearly unscathed in the fight until a weapon was used.

Likewise if you asked: "What evidence is consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman?"

The answer would be plenty. Zimmerman is quite beat up.

But if again, and most relevant to the case, if you word it with the important qualifying word at the end: "What evidence is consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman first?"

The answer would be: All we have is Zimmerman's word, which has been shown to be quite unreliable, especially on Friday.

Aside from Zimmerman's word there isn't relay any solid evidence of who attacked whom first.

Since, as far as we know, there were no witnesses to that crucial minute or so, there may never be any evidence towards who attacked whom first.

 

[KatieG]

I don't know that anyone said he wasn't a "good kid". I mean, people have pointed out that he:
Attacked GZ,
Attacked a bus driver,
Possessed stolen jewelery,
Had a burglary tool,
Had been taking drugs,
was suspended 3 times in the last 6 months.

But I don't think that anyone has gone so far as to say he wasn't a "good kid".

There is no evidence he attacked either a bus driver or GZ.

 

[quadraginta]

O'mera is claiming that his client turned that passport into him at an earlier date. Why even make that claim? If he had not notified the prosecution of the existence of the second passport that means the prosecution had discovered on their own that George still had a second passport and the one he turned in at the bond hearing was invalid. Since O'mera made the explicit claim to the court that this was his clients only passport, there should be an investigation into why O'mera was making that claim. It's possible that O'mera choose to head off that investigation with a little white fabrication to support a claim that his client had voluntarily surrendered the second passport before the prosecution brought up the issue. This fabrication will not be investigated. You yourself are arguing that it should not be investigated. Therefore there is no risk.

The risk is non-zero. It might be small, but it would be there nonetheless. We are certainly not the only ones having this conversation.

I am not arguing that it should not be investigated. I'm not sure what I might have said to give you that idea. I am suggesting that in my opinion there isn't enough reward for it to be worth the risk, which would make it an unlikely thing for an intelligent lawyer to do. It isn't clear to me how you get from that to "shouldn't be investigated".

What is the return. Apart from protecting his clients credibility in the trial itself, he is protecting the public's perception of his clients credibility. The public he would be concerned with are the ones making donations on his clients web site which goes directly into an account which he controls to be used for his client's defense. In other words, his client's reputation is money in his own pocket.

Zero risk to keep open a gravy train that neted $200K in a few weeks before the trial even started. That sounds like the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs.

Of course, this is all just speculation. Maybe George really did turn in that passport on his own.

There is no reason to expect that the sorts of people who were sending Z money in the first place would be any less inclined to do so should his bail be revoked. It could just as easily spur even greater sums from people who believe he is being railroaded as a result of political pressure.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yeah that would be wow, just wow... Except for the nasty fact that the brother in law was in a location where there was no notary to swear him in...

I think the issue was rather more straightforward. A statement was signed about assets. Conversations while still in custody revealed that statement was a lie. That's really all you need...

One has nothing to do with the other. I am waiting for all of the information to come out, which I expect it will at the next hearing, to determine what if any lies were told. That's not the issue. The issue is an officer of the court purposely editing a recording to leave out highly relevant information. You can excuse it away all you want by claiming the brother in law wasn't there, that it wasn't relevant etc., but no remotely ethical prosecutor or defense attorney would edit a recording like that.

Convictions have been overturned on this type of thing, when prosecutors have played parts of recordings for a jury to hear while omitting other parts that they purposely excluded that changed the meaning of what they included.

 

[johnny karate]

One has nothing to do with the other. I am waiting for all of the information to come out, which I expect it will at the next hearing, to determine what if any lies were told.

Lies were told. That has been proven. It's exactly why Zimmerman's bond was revoked.

That's not the issue.

No, of course not. Let's shift the focus back to what the other side might have done.

The issue is an officer of the court purposely editing a recording to leave out highly relevant information. You can excuse it away all you want by claiming the brother in law wasn't there, that it wasn't relevant etc., but no remotely ethical prosecutor or defense attorney would edit a recording like that.

Convictions have been overturned on this type of thing, when prosecutors have played parts of recordings for a jury to hear while omitting other parts that they purposely excluded that changed the meaning of what they included.

Too bad that didn't happen. Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand. No amount of "editing" on the part of De la Rionda changes or mitigates that inconvenient fact.

What's material is the fact that she lied. That was the only part of the transcript that has any relevance. The part about her brother-in-law has nothing to do with it.

This "issue" has been completely manufactured by those who wish to defend proven liars.

Once again, here's O'Mara's contact information. Let him know about this devastatingly unethical malfeasance that the Internet Lawyer Casebuster Squad has uncovered. I'm sure he'll be impressed.