Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kaosium]

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.

No, I disagree, that blog entry is prima facie p) evidence she is completely wrong about the Zimmerman case, and will probably continue to be.

It's called 'probable cause,' not possible cause, and the affidavit was for murder 2, not anything else. Dershowitz's argument is that her presentation doesn't contain facts, but 'half-facts,' and that a reasonable person's interpretation of them would not lead to a conclusion that murder had probably been committed. Her referring to having reviewed the photographic evidence and saying a struggle ensued without noting the nature of George Zimmerman's wounds and the lack thereof on Trayvon Martin is dishonest and misleading. How exactly does GZ end up with all those injuries during the 'struggle' while he has a gun and the most likely probability being he murdered TM in a state of depraved mind--and not something else?

That very well might cause said reasonable people to question the 'probable' nature of George Zimmerman having committed murder 2 and suspect it was more likely self defense or perhaps something else less than murder. The evidence actually suggests that George Zimmerman was getting the worst of the fight, and while it's still possible he might have (somehow) chased down TM and attacked him in a state of 'depraved mind,' the fact that the evidence from the 'struggle' that she reviewed suggests he was getting his ass kicked implies more likely probabilities like desperation, not depravity.

Having said that, there's also the difference between how things are in the books, and how they're done in the real world. I understand the distinction and similarly misleading affidavits might well be common practice in Florida as they just go through the motions of due process and the appellate courts don't even care. I don't think that's a good thing if true, and would rather live in Alan Dershowitz's America than Susan's or Corey's, as I suspect their attitudes lead to miscarriages of justice, which is what that process is supposed to protect us from. I also think it quite possible that Florida prosecutors don't actually mislead the court as badly as Corey did here in support of her murder charge, which was the elephant in Dershowitz's argument that totally escaped her notice.

I read some of the rest of her blog and she seems like an interesting enough person, someone ought to go and point out to her how damned silly she looks making an argument that Corey might not have seen that specific ABC picture that Dershowitz referred to! Corey herself noted in her probable cause affidavit that she'd reviewed the far more extensive photographic evidence available to police, and at the time Dershowitz was interviewed he had only that one picture as pictorial confirmation of the extent of GZ's injuries, which is probably why he referred to it specifically, the whole truth was far more damning to Corey on this issue than that one little picture!

I do hope there's more people who follow her (and Corey's!) 'lead' and try to impugn Dershowitz's competence and integrity, I think they'll find he knows the subject of which he speaks and I for one am dying to know more about that forty minute (!!) haranguing of Harvard, which apparently is part of a pattern with her. I think there should be demands from prosecution supporters who are 'skeptical' of AD's account (or his source) so we will hear more about it! Wouldn't it be nice if there was a recording for 'quality control' purposes or something?

 

[Dcdrac]

To me this case and the way people approach it boils down to whatever the partisan group they are attached to.

1. Conservatives who regardless of the details of this case, need Stand your Ground protected and have presented distortions on various websites about the victim yes the victim TM as some kind of hooded gangster prone to violence.

2. Liberals who badly want GM the Killer , yes killer to have been engaged in racial profiling and the killing there of, of a young black man.

Me I belong to a third group I have no politcial axe to grind over this, I do not accept that GZ set out to murder or was engaged in racial profiling, he has however on the basis of what i have seen and read about him to date and the case proved to be a reckless danger to himself and tragically to another.

 

[Dancing David]

OK. When I say I think each step Corey has taken is legal, it isn't just my opinion. I don't know the law. I arrived at that conclusion by going through Jeralyn Merritt's site "TalkLeft", and found it all there. She is a lawyer and addresses these issues in pretty good detail. In addition, there are contributors there who have put up pertinent Supreme Court decisions and other relevant data. She does take issue with the way Corey has done things, but she is much more eloquent in her criticism than I am.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Jeralyn has the same position on this that I do, just that the information I found at her site led me to the conclusion I have reached.

Also, I hope Dershowitz continues to blast Corey, whether he is right or not.

That may be, but unless they address the specifics of Florida law then they are philosophical in nature.

US law is based upon case law and in practice that is important, so while the broad ideas may sound good, they have to have a basis in specific case law.

So without the basis in Florida case law and appeals courts rulings it is about preference not the practice of law.

Judges are well versed in appeals cases and applications of case law. So I think it is highly likely that what the judge did and what Corey did are within the case law and will follow the interpretations of appeals cases.

Having sat in on my clients trials when I was a mental health case manager was interesting, when my client was sentenced in abstensia for example, the judge specifically cited three appeals cases in the ruling.

So again I am just pointing out, as a broad issue here, what people say is mainly a matter of opinion until they cite the specific case law as it apples. Judges and States Attorney's are very accountable for the choices they make, and while the system makes errors all the time, things like not using a grand jury and evidence presentation are heavily reviewed.

 

[epepke]

1. Conservatives who regardless of the details of this case, need Stand your Ground protected and have presented distortions on various websites about the victim yes the victim TM as some kind of hooded gangster prone to violence.

That would be really dumb, as this case doesn't have much if anything to do with SYG. Oh, I know that various people believe that it does. I'm just saying it doesn't.

Then again, most of this thread is pretty dumb. I'm just impressed people have gotten over "the results of the software are conclusive because the website looks nice" phase, which went about 100 pages. What are we on now? There seems enough backpedalling that the chain is white-hot.

 

[Cylinder]

But in every state I can find information on, PC hearings or indictments don't need to include "all information, even exculpatory"...

Not "all information, even exculpatory," All information material to the statement. Even in the APC, the state discloses some of the exculpatory information (e.g. "an altercation occurred") but leaves out others (e.g. Zimmerman's and more importantly Martin's voice ID).

 

[Dan O.]

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

No, I am exploring what happens if George never takes the stand. Everything that George has said is inadmissible as hearsay if George doesn't say it himself in court where he can be cross examined. For the sake of this argument, let's pretend that George has not said anything since the shooting ans see what we have.

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.

There is no question that Zed was in an altercation and some homies had gotten mideavile on his face. But the only indication that the assailant was Trayvon is a small abrasion on one finger. In the not911 call, George is following some kid in a grey hoodie but we see in the 7-11 video (and at the scene) that Trayvon is wearing a black hoodie. We have to rely on DeeDee to put these two together before the shooting. Some are saying that DeeDee's story is fabricated. If we loose DeeDee, we loose that evidence.

So what's left? Some witnesses that didn't really see anything. They hear someone yelling hysterically for help and all run inside. One witness sees someone running from Trayvon's place at the end of the block. Could she be seeing Trayvon running to help after the guy in the grey hoodie left?

 

[Unabogie]

Not "all information, even exculpatory," All information material to the statement. Even in the APC, the state discloses some of the exculpatory information (e.g. "an altercation occurred") but leaves out others (e.g. Zimmerman's and more importantly Martin's voice ID).

This is just more argument by assertion. My challenge to you is to find a single example of what you claim should be the norm.

I pointed out one example: Kobe Bryant. In that case, by the time of the PC hearing, the DA had already gotten back DNA samples and had heard from the analysts that the accuser had multiple sexual partners that she had lied about, and most damning, that the blood found on her was mixed with a donor not Bryant. That's pretty damning and exculpatory!

But the DA didn't present that to the judge at the PC hearing and Bryant's high powered lawyers didn't accuse the DA of breaking the law. Granted, that was Colorado, but if it happens differently in Florida, there ought to be examples.

Please provide one.

 

[GWCarver]

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?

Disclaimer - I am just a guy presenting my opinion.

No, I think they should see these laws in the same light as the judge, or at least try to do so, and, if need be, adjust their case strategy accordingly. We aren't dealing with esoteric, fringe stuff here.

I think understanding the law is one of the things those of us on both sides of this case should try to accomplish, and work on together, rather than fight about it. Although we can and will fight about the particulars of the case, I think we could look at the law as a constant sitting in-between our two sides, and that is what the judge uses for his decision. In fact, the judge will give a jury instructions before it deliberates, and his instructions are the legal rules the jury should follow when deciding the case. So it would behoove both the prosecution and defense if their arguments mesh with what the judge is going to be telling the jury before it begins deliberations.

I have a great example to bring home what I am talking about, but it involves another case, and bringing those up is frowned upon here.

 

[GWCarver]

Is this a serious question?

Here is what you said:

"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."

The evidence suggests TM was not "minding his own business" when he got shot, he was at the other end of the sidewalk from where he was living, on top of Zimmerman, inflicting wounds, and ignoring his screams. (If you want to take the position it was TM screaming, try to picture yourself defending it to a jury that is looking at a picture of Z's wounds, right after the officer testifies Z's back was wet and covered in grass, and John has testified TM was definitely on top.)

So, yes, if you want to claim TM was shot while minding his own business, I would like to see a source.

 

[Unabogie]

Here is what you said:

"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."

The evidence suggests TM was not "minding his own business" when he got shot, he was at the other end of the sidewalk from where he was living, on top of Zimmerman, inflicting wounds, and ignoring his screams. (If you want to take the position it was TM screaming, try to picture yourself defending it to a jury that is looking at a picture of Z's wounds, right after the officer testifies Z's back was wet and covered in grass, and John has testified TM was definitely on top.)

So, yes, if you want to claim TM was shot while minding his own business, I would like to see a source.

Right. If you ignore everything up until then. If George had simply not bothered Martin, none of this would have happened. That's indisputable.

Devoid of any context, if you take George's word as gospel, then yes, you can twist things to declare that Trayvon wasn't minding his own business.

Sorry, that's just a bizarre take.

 

[crimresearch]

To me this case and the way people approach it boils down to whatever the partisan group they are attached to.

1. Conservatives who regardless of the details of this case, need Stand your Ground protected and have presented distortions on various websites about the victim yes the victim TM as some kind of hooded gangster prone to violence.

2. Liberals who badly want GM the Killer , yes killer to have been engaged in racial profiling and the killing there of, of a young black man.

Me I belong to a third group I have no politcial axe to grind over this, I do not accept that GZ set out to murder or was engaged in racial profiling, he has however on the basis of what i have seen and read about him to date and the case proved to be a reckless danger to himself and tragically to another.

So if you aren't doing it as part of a political agenda, then what is your purpose in:

A> Ignoring that many posts here have no such agenda or pattern as you describe,

B> Repeating wild fabrications like 'Zimmerman ran away', and then running away yourself when people ask you questions?

 

[GWCarver]

That may be, but unless they address the specifics of Florida law then they are philosophical in nature.

US law is based upon case law and in practice that is important, so while the broad ideas may sound good, they have to have a basis in specific case law.

So without the basis in Florida case law and appeals courts rulings it is about preference not the practice of law.

Judges are well versed in appeals cases and applications of case law. So I think it is highly likely that what the judge did and what Corey did are within the case law and will follow the interpretations of appeals cases.

Having sat in on my clients trials when I was a mental health case manager was interesting, when my client was sentenced in abstensia for example, the judge specifically cited three appeals cases in the ruling.

So again I am just pointing out, as a broad issue here, what people say is mainly a matter of opinion until they cite the specific case law as it apples. Judges and States Attorney's are very accountable for the choices they make, and while the system makes errors all the time, things like not using a grand jury and evidence presentation are heavily reviewed.

I understand what you are saying here. What I don't understand is why.

ETA:

After giving it some thought, I wonder if you are you trying to criticize Jeralyn Merritt without coming out and saying it. Is that it? I thought about putting up links to her site to source the various points, but the information is scattered around, is extremely hard - if not impossible - to link, and copying and pasting long posts on legal matters is not copyright friendly.

 

[crimresearch]

No, I disagree, that blog entry is prima facie p) evidence she is completely wrong about the Zimmerman case, and will probably continue to be.

It's called 'probable cause,' not possible cause, and the affidavit was for murder 2, not anything else. Dershowitz's argument is that her presentation doesn't contain facts, but 'half-facts,' and that a reasonable person's interpretation of them would not lead to a conclusion that murder had probably been committed. Her referring to having reviewed the photographic evidence and saying a struggle ensued without noting the nature of George Zimmerman's wounds and the lack thereof on Trayvon Martin is dishonest and misleading. How exactly does GZ end up with all those injuries during the 'struggle' while he has a gun and the most likely probability being he murdered TM in a state of depraved mind--and not something else?

That very well might cause said reasonable people to question the 'probable' nature of George Zimmerman having committed murder 2 and suspect it was more likely self defense or perhaps something else less than murder. The evidence actually suggests that George Zimmerman was getting the worst of the fight, and while it's still possible he might have (somehow) chased down TM and attacked him in a state of 'depraved mind,' the fact that the evidence from the 'struggle' that she reviewed suggests he was getting his ass kicked implies more likely probabilities like desperation, not depravity.

Having said that, there's also the difference between how things are in the books, and how they're done in the real world. I understand the distinction and similarly misleading affidavits might well be common practice in Florida as they just go through the motions of due process and the appellate courts don't even care. I don't think that's a good thing if true, and would rather live in Alan Dershowitz's America than Susan's or Corey's, as I suspect their attitudes lead to miscarriages of justice, which is what that process is supposed to protect us from. I also think it quite possible that Florida prosecutors don't actually mislead the court as badly as Corey did here in support of her murder charge, which was the elephant in Dershowitz's argument that totally escaped her notice.

I read some of the rest of her blog and she seems like an interesting enough person, someone ought to go and point out to her how damned silly she looks making an argument that Corey might not have seen that specific ABC picture that Dershowitz referred to! Corey herself noted in her probable cause affidavit that she'd reviewed the far more extensive photographic evidence available to police, and at the time Dershowitz was interviewed he had only that one picture as pictorial confirmation of the extent of GZ's injuries, which is probably why he referred to it specifically, the whole truth was far more damning to Corey on this issue than that one little picture!

I do hope there's more people who follow her (and Corey's!) 'lead' and try to impugn Dershowitz's competence and integrity, I think they'll find he knows the subject of which he speaks and I for one am dying to know more about that forty minute (!!) haranguing of Harvard, which apparently is part of a pattern with her. I think there should be demands from prosecution supporters who are 'skeptical' of AD's account (or his source) so we will hear more about it! Wouldn't it be nice if there was a recording for 'quality control' purposes or something?

Corey herself noted in her probable cause affidavit that she'd reviewed the far more extensive photographic evidence available to police,

That was the sworn statement of 2 investigators, not Corey herself.

Here is her sworn statement of charges, an entirely different matter.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf

Where exactly does she note that she saw any pictures?

 

[crimresearch]

Not "all information, even exculpatory," All information material to the statement. Even in the APC, the state discloses some of the exculpatory information (e.g. "an altercation occurred") but leaves out others (e.g. Zimmerman's and more importantly Martin's voice ID).

'All information material' is not the standard for PC, as explained many times. 'Any information, observation, set of circumstances, blaah, blaah, blaah' is.


From the APC as linked above:

Before me personally appeared T.C. O'Steen, and K.D. Gilbreath, who after being duly sworn; deposes and says:

The facts mentioned in this affidavit are not a complete recitiation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case, but are only presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.

Corey made no sworn statement on the APC, signed no part of it, and it is the standard for PC used thoughout the US and elsewhere.

 

[GWCarver]

Speaking of "The Information", has anyone seen it? The seems like a pretty important document to remain hidden from the public.

 

[johnny karate]

I asked this earlier in the thread without a response. Can anyone tell me at what stage is the disbarment process for Corey?

 

[GWCarver]

I asked this earlier in the thread without a response. Can anyone tell me at what stage is the disbarment process for Corey?

Corey is getting disbarred? Yea!

 

[johnny karate]

Corey is getting disbarred? Yea!

I would assume so. Specific rules of the ABA she has violated were cited. A constitutional right was infringed upon. Our justice system has taken one step closer the oppressive totalitarianism of North Korea.

Surely there must be some real-world consequences for such blatant subversion of the American justice system and way of life.

Surely this isn't just some internet circle jerk among people who have decided to dislike Corey.

Surely Corey must be on her way to disbarment, and possibly the gas chamber, for her crimes against humanity.

I'm just curious to know where in that process we are.

 

[GWCarver]

I would assume so. Specific rules of the ABA she has violated were cited. A constitutional right was infringed upon. Our justice system has taken one step closer the oppressive totalitarianism of North Korea.

Surely there must be some real-world consequences for such blatant subversion of the American justice system and way of life.

Surely this isn't just some internet circle jerk among people who have decided to dislike Corey.

Surely Corey must be on her way to disbarment, and possibly the gas chamber, for her crimes against humanity.

I'm just curious to know where in that process we are.

Good point about North Korea.

Speaking for myself only, I dislike almost all prosecutors, so Corey isn't getting a special treatment from me. A huge exception is Craig Watkins, Dallas County D.A. who is a personal hero.

 

[Cylinder]

'All information material' is not the standard for PC, as explained many times. 'Any information, observation, set of circumstances, blaah, blaah, blaah' is.

Maybe I'm being unclear. An APC is supposed to contain all information material to the statements it contains supporting probable cause - not just those favorable to the state. It doesn't have to include all information material to the case. It doesn't have to include every possible scenario that can explain away the statement. It has to include all material information that the state knew, or reasonably should have known (in some jurisdictions), to be true and material.

Police investigate a theft. They take ten witness statements. Nine of the statements identify John Doe. One statement identifies Bob Smith. The police cannot write a APC that uses the ID of Bob Smith without mentioning the ones for John Doe. If they do, the defendant can issue a Franks challenge citing a material misstatement - the omission of the exculpatory IDs. If it's found to be true and material, the ID is stripped from the APC and it is reevaluated. If at that time it lacks probable cause, then the seizure is illegal.

This APC contains some of that information (e.g. "an altercation occured") but it is woefully incomplete. In other places (e.g. Martin's voice ID, it is absent).