Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

I worked on corrections with juvenile offenders for 3 years. Mostly saw wannabies. I didnt know there were still folk but I doubt he would be a latin king. Some claimed they made alot of money before they were incarcerated but the only one who put a number on it said 2k a week. There are jobs where you dont go to jail that make that. I remember one coworker who said that one of the Juvies had about 9 marks on his head so he would be dead on the street but he seemed to do just fine in his life of crime when he got out. Its funny, the term mark seems to be used by the aliens I have met and it means about the same thing. If someone wants to know what an alien mark looks like write me and I will explain.

Then why would you 'guess' that a praying hands tattoo means that a black kid from Miami is gang affiliated? Wouldn't a trident have made more sense?

 

[johnny karate]

In boxing, this would be called, "leading with your chin". But, I'll pass...

Don't do me any favors. Take your shot.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Then why would you 'guess' that a praying hands tattoo means that a black kid from Miami is gang affiliated? Wouldn't a trident have made more sense?

Hmm never seen that. Its a professionally done tattoo which is rare for teen gangbangers. It suggests he had some money. The tattoo suggests remembering someone dead. Gangbangers are always doing that. Its a little more subtle than what you are suggesting. I am just saying that the pieces fit. teen gangbanger. I am also for gun control and think the situation could have been much better handled if a gun did not come into play.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631

Jeralyn on GZ's credibility.

 

[Kaosium]

Going down for what? Please be specific.

Abuse of power, and specifically it might well be this affidavit, though she and her friends might produce more before this ordeal is complete. As it stands, in my view we're still at the 'appalling vista' stage, most aren't quite capable of easily contemplating the distinct possibility there's not going to be any more evidence of murder than there was evidence of gang-rape in the Duke Lacrosse case. If that happens I suspect there will be consequences, and filing an affidavit that alleged murder without bothering with the physical evidence of the fight which by all accounts was directly responsible for the shot being fired, is fraudulent. There was significant evidence of that fight on the persons of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, evidence which doesn't suggest the most likely cause of TM's death was George Zimmerman murdering him in a depraved mind.

I'm sorry to inform you the irony is all in your head. You've manufactured a rather ridiculous straw man that doesn't even remotely approach anything I've argued.

Oh, c'mon! That was banter not a 'straw man.' A straw man is an actual argument and it's pointless to do because all one has done is 'defeated' (displayed!) their own misunderstanding/ignorance for all the world to see.

I don't have to personally approve of Corey, or "defend" her as you have erroneously accused me of doing, in order to request evidence of her wrongdoing.

Fair enough, however I and others haven't been exactly shy about what is considered evidence of her wrongdoing either, expecting a citizen's arrest is probably a little much!

If she's actually guilty of illegal or unethical behavior than it should be relatively easy to point out what that behavior is, and explain why no one in a position of power or oversight has done anything to stop.

At this point there might well be the expectation from many that she'll be able to produce evidence of her charge and should be given the chance (or enough rope...) to make good on her charge. I tend to doubt that however, I don't think there's room for legitimate evidence of murder in this case. This is not a complicated event, there's a plethora of evidence available starting with GZ's 911 call, then picked up by other 911 callers and witnesses within literally minutes and the police there almost instantaneously after the shot was fired. Absent video cameras or dedicated audio you're not going to find many 'murder' scenarios this well documented.

As a result I suspect the APC might not be the beginning of her unethical dealings in this case, nor for that matter does it appear to be confined to this one difficult case. It's hardly just Alan Deshowitz who has concerns regarding this prosecutor, look at what a former ABA and FSU president had to say:

Sandy D’Alemberte, former president of the American Bar Association and former president of Florida State University, criticized Scott’s selection of Corey for the Martin case.

“I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case,” D’Alemberte said in an email. “There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for this task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.”

That's hardly it, the whole article is worth reading, and there's certainly additional grounds to criticize her, so much so that when I first looked into it I discounted half of what I read--then found out that many of the 'unbelievable' things were actually true and what I wrote off as sour grapes or personality conflicts might well have been justified. It confirms more and more my suspicion this is an unhinged loose-cannon prosecutor who 'rose' to the occasion and made a ridiculous case against TM and quite possibly has done similar things in past cases. I think rooting around her conviction record might well be fertile grounds for those looking for miscarriages of justice, especially those involving minority defendants.

As such, going by the APC and other curious dealings since (I would not be terribly surprised if she charges GZ's wife at the next hearing) and the past plethora of excesses and detractors I would expect the pattern to continue. This judge so far seems amenable to her 'style' and may very well give her enough rope to hang herself, perhaps even inadvertently. Until then all one can do is keep track of what she's doing and what she's done and see how long it takes those power brokers playing the political game to get some cojones, or one honest (wo)man with the authority to bring her to heel.

Or maybe she does have evidence of George Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin and this is just all part of her 'eccentric' but effective 'style' and she'll be able to produce in court that which has not come out in discovery. However, if she garners a conviction with the 'theory' advanced in the APC she may 'win'--but she'll never be right. Relief will come eventually, that APC itself is likely grounds for appeal not only directly but also with writs of habeas corpus, both state and (eventually) federal. Here's an interesting appellate case that illustrates what the standards are in the State of Florida for meaningful errors. That case failed because the 'grounds' were silly little things like whether the money raised at a church bake sale was 'small' or not, 'errors' like whether the appellant had been convicted of 'robbery' or armed robbery (he insisted on the latter! I'm not making this up!) one or four months ago. However it did suggest what sort of errors that would be considered significant, notably:

that there was no deliberate falsity or reckless disregard by the investigating police agencies. Here, at best, there was a possible negligence or innocent mistake concerning a blood typing and evidence on that regard.
Moreover, assuming arguendo, there even was a falsity or disregard, there remains sufficient contents within the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause.

My guess would be that failing to include the physical evidence of the fight that directly preceded the shot would be a lot closer to 'deliberate falsity or reckless disregard' than a mistake in the APC regarding blood type that matched anyway in reality. I also suspect that an appellate court might look askance regarding whether there was ever sufficient contents in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause for Murder 2. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I do think making such egregious errors in the APC likely a strong indication of just how the rest of the trial might go.

So while I don't (any longer) expect anything to happen to end this farce soon, I do suspect it will be eventually decided in the favor of George Zimmerman, and until then one can keep track of Angela Corey's errors and threats and see just how long it takes someone to eventually realize what they're dealing with and be able to do something about it. Politics, which perverts virtue with a thousand cunning tricks must play its part as well I suspect.

 

[GWCarver]

Don't do me any favors. Take your shot.

Actually, I'm doing you a favor by passing on this. Enough time has been wasted by many of us responding to these unnecessarily provocative posts, which are invariably followed by exchanges that have nothing to do with what happened at the "T", or the legal proceedings resulting from it.

So, unless there comes a time when past missteps by Z and TM become relevant to what is happening in the present, I would just as soon leave them alone.

 

[Kaosium]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631

Jeralyn on GZ's credibility.

Very interesting article, I especially like how she noted how Mark O'Mara was forced to defend this 'on the fly' due to the prosecution blindsiding the defense at a hearing that was supposed to be about something entirely different. That judge, going from the audio I linked a few days ago (a week?) in a post to Dan-O, seemed quite smitten with the prosecution and wondered why they hadn't preferred charges (betcha they're coming!) and it seemed almost like he enjoyed making M O'M dance without the music.

That also means O'Mara didn't have much of a chance to prepare a defense so just about everything we'd heard was simply the prosecution's contentions, and going by what Jeralyn put together the totality of the information doesn't really suggest much 'deception' at all. GZ just sat there like a good little client and let his lawyer handle things and his wife had already told them she didn't know for sure and who to get into contact with for the actual information. It's quite possible she figured she'd already answered anything regarding the paypal money and they knew where to go for the actual amount.

I do hope that the judge reconsiders his fawning over the prosecution's great 'find' and realizes he was played a little by what may very well be a disingenuous prosecution. He ought not be allowing these 'blindside' sessions where the prosecution puts together a prepared presentation and then the defense has to attempt to address those claims without any time to research or prepare for their client. I wonder if by the next hearing they'll have two clients, George and wife. Just reading through what's publicly available on this Corey I get the feeling she likes to play by vae victis rules of engagement...

 

[KatieG]

Very interesting article, I especially like how she noted how Mark O'Mara was forced to defend this 'on the fly' due to the prosecution blindsiding the defense at a hearing that was supposed to be about something entirely different. That judge, going from the audio I linked a few days ago (a week?) in a post to Dan-O, seemed quite smitten with the prosecution and wondered why they hadn't preferred charges (betcha they're coming!) and it seemed almost like he enjoyed making M O'M dance without the music.

That also means O'Mara didn't have much of a chance to prepare a defense so just about everything we'd heard was simply the prosecution's contentions, and going by what Jeralyn put together the totality of the information doesn't really suggest much 'deception' at all. GZ just sat there like a good little client and let his lawyer handle things and his wife had already told them she didn't know for sure and who to get into contact with for the actual information. It's quite possible she figured she'd already answered anything regarding the paypal money and they knew where to go for the actual amount.

I do hope that the judge reconsiders his fawning over the prosecution's great 'find' and realizes he was played a little by what may very well be a disingenuous prosecution. He ought not be allowing these 'blindside' sessions where the prosecution puts together a prepared presentation and then the defense has to attempt to address those claims without any time to research or prepare for their client. I wonder if by the next hearing they'll have two clients, George and wife. Just reading through what's publicly available on this Corey I get the feeling she likes to play by vae victis rules of engagement...

O'M was notified at 8:30 that morning. He spoke with BDLR about the motion and knew it would come up. There was no blindsiding by the prosecution.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631

Jeralyn on GZ's credibility.

Well, I read all of that.

Jeralyn is definitely a defense attorney.

 

[Dcdrac]

Zimmerman has blown his creadability out of the water caught lying to a judge not clever

 

[Kaosium]

O'M was notified at 8:30 that morning. He spoke with BDLR about the motion and knew it would come up. There was no blindsiding by the prosecution.

What makes you think being told the morning of a hearing that something entirely new would come up that he hadn't prepared for doesn't constitute a blindsiding? Did you listen to the audio of the hearing I posted a week ago? He didn't sound happy about it, but the judge insisted he do it 'on the fly.'

Do you think this practice will continue, and should it?

 

[Dcdrac]

What makes you think being told the morning of a hearing that something entirely new would come up that he hadn't prepared for doesn't constitute a blindsiding? Did you listen to the audio of the hearing I posted a week ago? He didn't sound happy about it, but the judge insisted he do it 'on the fly.'

Do you think this practice will continue, and should it?

If the uS legal approach is anything like the UKs it is an adversarial one bit like a duel between each of the advocates, so this is not that surprising

 

[KatieG]

What makes you think being told the morning of a hearing that something entirely new would come up that he hadn't prepared for doesn't constitute a blindsiding? Did you listen to the audio of the hearing I posted a week ago? He didn't sound happy about it, but the judge insisted he do it 'on the fly.'

Do you think this practice will continue, and should it?

It stems from GZ not being truthful with MO'M. I think MO'M has a stupid client. Both the judge and BLDR handled things and the judge commented on MO'M reputation. The only one in this situation that looks bad is GZ.

 

[Kaosium]

It stems from GZ not being truthful with MO'M. I think MO'M has a stupid client. Both the judge and BLDR handled things and the judge commented on MO'M reputation. The only one in this situation that looks bad is GZ.

I was trying to point out perhaps Mark O'Mara would have liked an opportunity to put together evidence (documents etc) like the prosecution was able to.

Right now some may be under the assumption that whatever the prosecution alleged was undoubtedly true, whereas given an opportunity like the post that Jerelyn (?) wrote it might be the actual record indicates what happened wasn't actually all that deceiving and being as it had been addressed with instructions on where the prosecution could get the information they sought, for something that didn't actually matter anyway. What difference could it actually have had?

However the prosecution got the 'jump' and from the audio it sounds like they convinced the judge it was something dire and Mark O'Mara was left with no way to present evidence to refute the allegation and thus George Zimmerman 'looked bad' even though he didn't actually lie about anything at the bond hearing, did he?

How will you feel about it if they try to charge his wife with a crime possibly punishable with years of jail time?

 

[This is The End]

I'm not sure that you (or Jeralyn) have much of an argument considering the fact that on both issues, the money and the passport, O'Mara knew about them being issues for several weeks.

He knew all about how his client had sat there at the first bond hearing and let him lie to the judge about both issues.

That's plenty of time to prepare.

So then you may respond "well he didn't know that that specific day would be the day".

To that I would say that it was the very next court date! If he didn't think it was going to be brought up that day he is quite naive or inexperienced. And we know he's neither.

In light of all that and the fact that he was warned at 8:30 AM, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Dancing David]

Here is a partial quote from one of her posts:

_____________________________

Of course Franks v. Delaware applies to arrest warrants. It applies to probable cause showings for all warrants under the 4th Amendment. Even in Florida:

See, for example, State v. Swain, 689 So. 2d 343, 344-345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1997)

Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's [*345] false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.438 U.S. at 155-56.

While the Court was considering a search warrant, our supreme court has applied the same analysis to arrest warrants. Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1550 (1996); Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963, 80 L. Ed. 2d 563, 104 S. Ct. 2181 (1984).

_______________________________

comment #135
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/6/63420/28270

And having looked at that specific page, it is not relevant from what my uneducated mind can tell.

There would need to be perjury or material mi statements for it to matter. It does not apply to the TM case. And it regard search warrant in the exact case law referenced.

So I am not really seeing Jeralyn's statements as really constructed very well, but then I am not a lawyer.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not sure that you (or Jeralyn) have much of an argument considering the fact that on both issues, the money and the passport, O'Mara knew about them being issues for several weeks.

How were they 'issues?' When did this actually matter other than a cheap stunt to try to 'discredit' George Zimmerman on something entirely irrelevant to the murder charge he faced?

He knew all about how his client had sat there at the first bond hearing and let him lie to the judge about both issues.

Would this be the day he became the lawyer? What's the evidence he was lying? How do you define a 'lie' incidentally?

That's plenty of time to prepare.

Not and provide evidence and documentation. Just because George Zimmerman didn't say anything doesn't mean he 'lied.' After all, to what benefit would lying avail him? What purpose would it serve to deliberately try to deceive the court about something that was public knowledge?

So then you may respond "well he didn't know that that specific day would be the day".

Regarding the extra passport it was mailed to him a few days after George got out of jail and he'd thought he'd turned it in, so he wouldn't know that could possibly be an issue. Do you think he faked that documentation in that little time and the prosecutor fail to correct him in front of the judge when he said that the prosecutor would back him up regarding his 'surprise' at being asked about it?

To that I would say that it was the very next court date! If he didn't think it was going to be brought up that day he is quite naive or inexperienced. And we know he's neither.

So what's the other possibility here you're not contemplating?

In light of all that and the fact that he was warned at 8:30 AM, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

You're right, it doesn't make sense at all, but that's not necessarily Mark O'Mara's fault. What makes the least sense is the prosecution being so interested long after this issue was resolved. They lie about the big things, the hurtful things, and accuse him of lying about something irrelevant that hurt no one and was taken care of in short order.

A false accusation is the worst sort of lie, those are the ones that destroy lives.

 

[This is The End]

Wow, just wow.

All I can say is that I hope everyone reads my post and your response carefully.

 

[Rare Truth]

Wow, just wow.

All I can say is that I hope everyone reads my post and your response carefully.

I know, huh?

Amazing contortions. It's what's for breakfast!

 

[Kaosium]

And having looked at that specific page, it is not relevant from what my uneducated mind can tell.

There would need to be perjury or material mis-statements for it to matter. It does not apply to the TM case. And it regard search warrant in the exact case law referenced.

So I am not really seeing Jeralyn's statements as really constructed very well, but then I am not a lawyer.

What's relevant is 'probable cause' not whether it's a search or arrest warrant. The definition and importance of probable cause doesn't change in either instance, it's derived from the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. That's how Franks would apply, most easily understood from:

"[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to comprise 'probable cause,' the obvious assumption is that there will be a 'truthful showing' (emphasis in original). This does not mean 'truthful' in the sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant's own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily.

But surely it is to be 'truthful' in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true. It is established law, see Nathanson v. United States, 290 U. S. 41, 290 U. S. 47 (1933); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480, 357 U. S. 485-486 (1958); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 378 U. S. 114-115 (1964), that a warrant affidavit must set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter.