Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kaosium]

Um, no they had probable cause, and Franks does not apply, unless:
they can show here has it been applied specifically in the execution of a prosecutor making a charge, such as in this case.

I posted an appellate case recently from the Florida Supreme Court that showed how Franks had been applied specifically in the execution of an arrest warrant. I suspect the prosecutor is the one most likely to be held responsible for that document, regardless of whether she signed it or not. That one failed (mainly) because the objections were silly and irrelevant, I think there's a substantial possibility that might not turn out to be the case in this instance when all is said and done.

SCOTUS rulings and appeals ruling have specific applications, it may be that Frank applies here, but where is the precedent?

The fourth amendment does matter, but they have yet to show anything that would apply to Corey in this specific. What Corey did is common practice in Florida and there would be many successful appeals based upon Frank, where are they? Or do you think this will be the first, it may well be.

I don't know if there is a specific precedent or not, but I do know that (as you allowed) it's not necessarily required and also that were I to come up with one it would likely take time to become relevant anyway. It just so happens I spent a great deal of time recently here and (mostly) elsewhere delving through legal minutia and at this instant don't feel like doing so. That doesn't preclude me doing it in the future.

At this juncture I am uncertain that what Corey did (in totality) is in fact common practice in Florida, if one takes into account the actual facts of the case, which in my view will be considered divorced from the representations in the APC once those actual facts of the case are legally established in court. I suspect the judge (and others) are naturally inclined for very good reasons to wait for that to occur, which makes sense if you think about it, but also suggests that it will take them longer to come to the correct conclusion if I (and Alan Dershowitz) am right regardless. I'm not talking only about nitpicks or 'fudges' that might be considered irrelevant or within the operating parameters of a system that must function when operated by humans, I'm especially talking about the complete absence of the physical evidence in the APC regarding the fight that almost certainly lead to TM's death. My suspicion is that in the final analysis more people will think that relevant than they do now and there might just be...consequences.

I also think by that time it is possible that the APC might be considered 'small potatoes' compared to subsequent (and possibly past!) events when considering how long this particular prosecutor should be jailed for her crimes.

But seriously, a judge is going to try to avoid appeals if at all possible, so why would they not have done so?

I would suspect there might be factors such as those I suggested above and others that lead to the fact that the affirmation rate of appeals to federal courts have been in recent history (outside the fallout from Booker) roughly 80%, not 100%. However we will see!

 

[crimresearch]

How many of those appeals were on the grounds raised in Franks?

That should only take you a second.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/start/si...6E5894-ECCF-E1F1-8EA6-CF8460037AB6&event=form

 

[Kaosium]

Franks applies here to the extent that it sets forth specific requirements for proof of prosecutorial misbehavior... none of which are even close to being met in this case.

I found Alan Dershowitz's argument more compelling than yours, and think 'none of which are even close' is a bizarre statement, but quite possibly one very popular in some venues or 'sources' that I don't bother frequenting or even enduring if I can avoid it--for that very reason.

'Probable cause' (a term which predates the 4th amendment's use of it) applies here because it sets such a low threshold for evidence, which has been clearly exceeded in this case.

I disagree and think 'clearly exceeded' is ridiculous. It may turn out to be 'close enough for government work,' but I don't think in the long run anyone will ever say that APC 'clearly exceeded' the probable cause threshold for murder.

And Google applies here because that is where the posters misstating those other things, didn't bother to thoroughly read the parts that contradict them.

Dunno specifically what you're talking about, but just because I'm curious I cannot help but ask this: do you realize that 'not required to include exculpatory evidence' does not mean the same thing as 'any exculpatory evidence may be omitted at the option of the prosecutor?'

If you do, can you tell me why?

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

Could you please explain this view to me? How are you so sure that TM started the conflict? Dee Dee's statement has GZ continuing to follow TM. GZ isn't surprised. He asks TM "What are you doing around here?".

What am I missing?

That actually suggests to me that TM 'confronted' GZ about GZ 'following' him, nor do I necessarily think that TM's perception of what GZ was doing the second time is necessarily accurate, or was conveyed perfectly through 'Dee Dee' weeks after the event. It strikes me as more likely that TM 'confronted' GZ near the 'T' as GZ headed back to his truck and while he might have thought GZ was 'following' him, (or just said so) in reality GZ was just headed back to his truck and went by where TM was.

I'm not certain that TM started the fight, but for various reasons including the actions of both of them that night, the physical evidence, that GZ knew the police would be there momentarily, that GZ had plenty of occasions to 'confront' the ones he called the police on but preferred the latter option including that night and that TM was still in the vicinity for the fight to even occur I think it highly likely that TM did throw the first punch.

Look at it this way: the physical evidence shows GZ with several marks on his face and TM with one on his fist. GZ endured three separate grillings from police on this subject and passed a voice-stress analyzer regarding his account. None of those are absolute proof, of course, but along with other things they suggest to me that TM probably threw the first punch.

The 'evidence' in 'support' of the contention that GZ started the fight is extremely weak in comparison, if not even less suggestive when put into proper context.

Incidentally I don't think 'Dee-Dee's' account of TM not running is very likely at all, however it doesn't necessarily mean she is lying--or even mistaken--in what she said. I think it quite possible she misunderstood what TM meant by 'running' or that TM might have been blustering at that juncture amongst other more likely possibilities than TM never breaking into a run as GZ reported in the 911 call. I think the account of TM 'breathing heavy' in 'Dee Dee's own account is more supportive of TM running than the conclusion 'Dee-Dee' apparently drew from it.

 

[Dancing David]

Wouldn't that be the mysterious "Information" that we still haven't seen?

Along with the actual statements of GZ in evidence to investigators.

 

[Dancing David]

OK. Does Corey have to present a witness to testify to each point Gilbreath and O'Steen put in the affidavit?

ETA - The reason I ask is there is a pretty long list of sources at the beginning of the affidavit, and no part of the affidavit is tied by name to any particular witness.

This is a fine legal question, are you asking if they must call which witness here in the court?

My understanding is that they don't have to call any specific witnesses, it is a list of potential witnesses.

But I have to back track posts to make sure I know the context here.

ETA: And looking, no the probable cause document is not likely to be contested, unless it contains gross errors. So no link has to be made.

 

[Unabogie]

That actually suggests to me that TM 'confronted' GZ about GZ 'following' him, nor do I necessarily think that TM's perception of what GZ was doing the second time is necessarily accurate, or was conveyed perfectly through 'Dee Dee' weeks after the event. It strikes me as more likely that TM 'confronted' GZ near the 'T' as GZ headed back to his truck and while he might have thought GZ was 'following' him, (or just said so) in reality GZ was just headed back to his truck and went by where TM was.

I'm not certain that TM started the fight, but for various reasons including the actions of both of them that night, the physical evidence, that GZ knew the police would be there momentarily, that GZ had plenty of occasions to 'confront' the ones he called the police on but preferred the latter option including that night and that TM was still in the vicinity for the fight to even occur I think it highly likely that TM did throw the first punch.

Look at it this way: the physical evidence shows GZ with several marks on his face and TM with one on his fist. GZ endured three separate grillings from police on this subject and passed a voice-stress analyzer regarding his account. None of those are absolute proof, of course, but along with other things they suggest to me that TM probably threw the first punch.

The 'evidence' in 'support' of the contention that GZ started the fight is extremely weak in comparison, if not even less suggestive when put into proper context.

Incidentally I don't think 'Dee-Dee's' account of TM not running is very likely at all, however it doesn't necessarily mean she is lying--or even mistaken--in what she said. I think it quite possible she misunderstood what TM meant by 'running' or that TM might have been blustering at that juncture amongst other more likely possibilities than TM never breaking into a run as GZ reported in the 911 call. I think the account of TM 'breathing heavy' in 'Dee Dee's own account is more supportive of TM running than the conclusion 'Dee-Dee' apparently drew from it.

That's false. Trayvon had a small mark on his LEFT hand, high up on the ring finger. Other than the bullet hole in his torso, that's the only mark on him.

Unless you have proof that he's a left handed person, he did NOT have a mark on his fist.

 

[GWCarver]

That's false. Trayvon had a small mark on his LEFT hand, high up on the ring finger. Other than the bullet hole in his torso, that's the only mark on him.

Unless you have proof that he's a left handed person, he did NOT have a mark on his fist.

So you're certain TM didn't hit Z with a crisp left jab, breaking his nose, then missed with a following right because Z had stumbled backwards, due to being off-balance after being caught off-guard? (Assuming TM was right-handed.)

 

[KatieG]

So you're certain TM didn't hit Z with a crisp left jab, breaking his nose, then missed with a following right because Z had stumbled backwards, off-balance after being caught off guard? (Assuming TM was right-handed.)

I don't think GZ's nose was broken. I sure don't think you can slam someone hard enough with your fist to break their nose and just leave a tiny scratch on your hand.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I don't think GZ's nose was broken. I sure don't think you can slam someone hard enough with your fist to break their nose and just leave a tiny scratch on your hand.

I take it you haven't punched very many people in your life, have you?

 

[Unabogie]

So you're certain TM didn't hit Z with a crisp left jab, breaking his nose, then missed with a following right because Z had stumbled backwards, due to being off-balance after being caught off-guard? (Assuming TM was right-handed.)

What reason do you have to assume that Trayvon knew how to deliver a crisp hard jab, powerful enough to break someone's nose and send them down?

Second, the mark isn't on his knuckles. But I'm glad we're down to an agreement that it was at most a single punch, plus wrestling on the ground. I can't wait to hear what George's story was regarding how many times he was hit.

Getting hit once and then getting tackled doesn't strike me as grounds for deadly force, but then again, NOTHING about this case has seemed right to me.

But for the record, there are NO marks on his right hand and a tiny abrasion on one finger on his left. There's none of George's blood under his nails or on his hands. There's just something missing here. It just doesn't add up to any kind of "pummeling" or massive beating. It seems like one punch and then wrestling on the ground while Trayvon yelled for help, followed by an unhinged man who lost his cool and shot him.

 

[Unabogie]

I take it you haven't punched very many people in your life, have you?

Why is the only mark on the offhand, while there are no marks on his dominant hand and absolutely none of George's blood?

ETA:

Let me flesh this out a bit and describe all the ways George's blood could get on Trayvon, and then we can ask how likely it is that none of these things occurred.

1. George says he was being hit while on his back. He would have tried to cover himself and gotten at least a tiny amount of blood on his own hands. He says he touched Trayvon after the shooting. So he had none of his own blood on his hands at this time. It should be noted that the EMT guy says he cleaned up blood off of George's hands. So blood was there, just none at the time he touched Trayvon.
2. Trayvon was supposed to have grabbed his face in order to cover his mouth and nose. But this is after he allegedly broke his nose enough to cause bleeding. So during this time, none of George's blood gets on Trayvon.
3. Trayvon allegedly grabbed his head and slammed it in the ground. We can see from photos that George had blood around the back of his head. Quite a bit. In order to grab someone's head, you place both hands across the ears with the fingers behind the head. George had blood on his face and more on the back of his head. None of it gets on Trayvon.

There's something weird about this part of the story. One explanation for all of this is that George wasn't bleeding until after the shooting. Another is that he wasn't having his head slammed. A third is that he was the man on top.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I don't think GZ's nose was broken.

Katie, please tell me you aren't serious and we aren't back to this again ? So are we back to accusations that GZ broke his own nose? Or are we back to suggesting that the doctors and lawyers are engaged in a massive conspiracy to claim GZ had is nose broken but he really didn't? Is GZ really a member of the secret reptile race too?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why is the only mark on the offhand, while there are no marks on his dominant hand and absolutely none of George's blood?

Why do you think there should be abrasions on TM's hands or blood on his hands?

 

[Unabogie]

Why do you think there should be abrasions on TM's hands or blood on his hands?

Because he allegedly pummelled the guy with his fists. And he allegedly caused him to bleed.

See my post above.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

What reason do you have to assume that Trayvon knew how to deliver a crisp hard jab, powerful enough to break someone's nose and send them down?

Second, the mark isn't on his knuckles. But I'm glad we're down to an agreement that it was at most a single punch, plus wrestling on the ground. I can't wait to hear what George's story was regarding how many times he was hit.

Getting hit once and then getting tackled doesn't strike me as grounds for deadly force, but then again, NOTHING about this case has seemed right to me.

But for the record, there are NO marks on his right hand and a tiny abrasion on one finger on his left. There's none of George's blood under his nails or on his hands. There's just something missing here. It just doesn't add up to any kind of "pummeling" or massive beating. It seems like one punch and then wrestling on the ground while Trayvon yelled for help, followed by an unhinged man who lost his cool and shot him.

Did you also think that nothing seemed right about the OJ case and that he was framed by Mark Fuhrman?

 

[Unabogie]

Did you also think that nothing seemed right about the OJ case and that he was framed by Mark Fuhrman?

So nothing to say, huh?

Back on ignore.

 

[GWCarver]

What reason do you have to assume that Trayvon knew how to deliver a crisp hard jab, powerful enough to break someone's nose and send them down?

You make a good point here. One either knows whether TM could hit someone hard enough to break his nose with a jab, or not. I would say we all fall into the "or not" category.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Did you also think that nothing seemed right about the OJ case and that he was framed by Mark Fuhrman?

Back on ignore.

I knew it! Did you think it was Kato or the butler?

 

[Unabogie]

Deleted