Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

As far as the claim that the APC is unethical, that's black-and-white. Florida has adopted ABA Standards for professional conduct:

So are you alleging Corey violated those ethics?

Because unless you are - or can provide evidence that she did violate them - I'm not sure what the point of this whole tangent is.

Again, Corey may not receive anyone's vote for Miss Congeniality, but so far zero evidence has been presented that she's acted illegally or unethically.

 

[johnny karate]

It seems the more I understand how the legal system works, the more apparent it becomes that is simply a conviction machine. Innocent people caught up in it don't seem to have much of a chance.

Seriously. It's getting to the point where you can't even walk around your neighborhood at night shooting people without Johnny Law getting all up in your grill.

 

[Rare Truth]

I brought this up earlier:



Isn't Dershowith (or was at some point) also a Defense Attorney?

He is indeed. One of the slimiest. Representing the most depraved human beings to exist on this earth.

I think he is officially mentally unsound and delirious.

What the decrepit old man specializes in these days is media whoring.

He's a dismissible crank that is fast approaching the rubber room.

 

[Cylinder]

So are you alleging Corey violated those ethics?

Yes.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes.

And your evidence for this is... ?

 

[Cylinder]

And your evidence for this is... ?

Including Ms. Fulton's voice ID without including Mr. Martin's exclusion or Mr. Zimmerman's ID.

Not mentioning Zimmerman's claim of justification.

Incorrectly asserting that the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin and failing to include the fact that Zimmerman responded "OK."

failing to mention the disparity of injury prior to the fatal gunshot.

etc...

 

[Unabogie]

Including Ms. Fulton's voice ID without including Mr. Martin's exclusion or Mr. Zimmerman's ID.

Not mentioning Zimmerman's claim of justification.

Incorrectly asserting that the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin and failing to include the fact that Zimmerman responded "OK."

failing to mention the disparity of injury prior to the fatal gunshot.

etc...

When Mark Hurlbert charged Kobe Bryant with rape, for some odd reason, he didn't mention that his accuser was a mentally disturbed woman and that Bryant had asserted it was consensual.

So maybe it's SOP for a prosecutor to give the state's side of things?

If not, can you find a single example of an indictment or PC hearing in which the DA presented the defendant's side? A single one?

 

[crimresearch]

Franks Hearing: Invalid Arrest

From the Supreme Court website:

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)

his motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds items of clothing and a knife found in a search of his apartment, he challenged the truthfulness of certain factual statements made in the police affidavit supporting the warrant to search the apartment, and sought to call witnesses to prove the misstatements.

And from the holding:

The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.

Not 'material misstatements'.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/154/

I don't know why you think it is funny to play these games, but I'm done accomodating them.

 

[Cylinder]

If not, can you find a single example of an indictment or PC hearing in which the DA presented the defendant's side? A single one?

The state is not required to show the defendant's side - courts are clear on that. It has no obligation to show anything other than the facts that support probable cause. Within those facts it chooses to assert, it must include all information material to the statement - inculpatory or exculptory.

When concieve a system where the state can omit fact that tend to mitigate probable cause, you circumvent the detached, neutral's magistrate check on the state's otherwise unlimited power of search and seizure and render the US Constitution's warrant requirement meaningless.

 

[Unabogie]

The state is not required to show the defendant's side - courts are clear on that. It has no obligation to show anything other than the facts that support probable cause. Within those facts it chooses to assert, it must include all information material to the statement - inculpatory or exculptory.

When concieve a system where the state can omit fact that tend to mitigate probable cause, you circumvent the detached, neutral's magistrate check on the state's otherwise unlimited power of search and seizure and render the US Constitution's warrant requirement meaningless.

But in every state I can find information on, PC hearings or indictments don't need to include "all information, even exculpatory". Indeed, they are "in the light most favorable to the state", which means even evidence that could be taken in two ways MUST be presumed to be inculpatory. That's why I asked you to find me a single example of a PC hearing transcript or indictment in which the DA presented anything like a defense or said "on the other hand, your honor, he could be innocent..." When they charge you, they are calling you a criminal. They don't have to sugar coat that.

I don't think there is a single instance of what you are suggesting should have been done, but since you're saying that failure to do so is in itself a crime, then examples should be abundant, right?

How about just one?

 

[johnny karate]

Including Ms. Fulton's voice ID without including Mr. Martin's exclusion or Mr. Zimmerman's ID.

Not mentioning Zimmerman's claim of justification.

Incorrectly asserting that the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin and failing to include the fact that Zimmerman responded "OK."

failing to mention the disparity of injury prior to the fatal gunshot.

etc...

That just reads like a list if things that the defense should bring up at trial.

But I understand some in this thread disagree. And since I'm not a legal expert, I could be misinformed in my opinion.

Just out of curiosity, what point has the disbarment procedure for Ms. Corey reached?

 

[Unabogie]

That just reads like a list if things that the defense should bring up at trial.

But I understand some in this thread disagree. And since I'm not a legal expert, I could be misinformed in my opinion.

Just out of curiosity, what point has the disbarment procedure for Ms. Corey reached?

Sometimes I have to pinch myself to remind me that people are upset that a man who shot an unarmed teenager doing nothing but minding his own business has to explain himself in court.

INJUSTICE!

 

[KatieG]

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

Why Alan Dershowitz is completely wrong about the Zimmerman case.

 

[crimresearch]

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

Why Alan Dershowitz is completely wrong about the Zimmerman case.

Echo....

 

[GWCarver]

Sometimes I have to pinch myself to remind me that people are upset that a man who shot an unarmed teenager doing nothing but minding his own business has to explain himself in court.

INJUSTICE!

Cite for TM "minding his own business" at the wrong end of the "T"?

Z doesn't have to say anything in court, although O'Mara was quoted this week saying he feels he can limit Z's exposure to cross examination at the next hearing. Tantalizing, eh? Of course, the best way to limit his exposure for him not to testify at all, but I'm sure O'Mara is taking that into consideration.

Anyone know if any kind of cross-examination is allowed in camera? Can the judge ask Z questions with the prosecutor present?

 

[GWCarver]

I brought this up earlier:



Isn't Dershowith (or was at some point) also a Defense Attorney?

From my layman's viewpoint, I don't see any reason for a lawyer on either side of the case to see the law in any other light than its literal meaning. The laws we have been discussing have long been accepted by the players in the legal community, and many have been further defined by case law.

Spinning the meaning of any particular law would seem to put the spinner at a disadvantage, because it is the judge's job to understand the law as it is written and as it has been additionally defined. The lawyers need to be on the same page as the judge if they want to avoid looking foolish. So, the answer is no, I don't believe Jeralyn would bend her interpretation of a law to suit whatever position she might want to advocate. That would be a ticket to the legal boneyard.

IMO, of course.

 

[This is The End]

So you are saying that, in your opinion, you think that a Prosecuting Attorney and a Defense Attorney would see the case in the same light?

 

[Unabogie]

Cite for TM "minding his own business" at the wrong end of the "T"?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Dan O.]

Is there any actual evedence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman? There is hearsay that a certain witness saw/experienced first hand what happened. But if that witness can't be put on the stand To testify and be cross examined, I don't see how that information could be brought to the court.

 

[This is The End]

Is there any actual evedence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman?

Like I said in an earlier post* I believe you are leaving off an implied qualifier.

The answer to your question:

Is there any actual evidence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman?

Is yes, we can be almost 100% sure of that. There is very solid evidence that M assaulted Z.

On the other hand if you meant:

Is there any actual evidence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman first?

The answer is basically no. No solid evidence has been released so far that shows who initiated the fight.

*

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.