Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dancing David]

Once again, strong evidence does not meet the threshold. That's not my opinion - it's the opinion of the district court.

The court had the authority to revoke the original bond, BTW. It just doesn't have the authority to order pre-trial detention. The simple fact that Det. Serino stated that Zimmerman's injury was "marginally consistent with a life or death struggle" would defeat the standard as articulated in Perry

I think the judge knows the law rather well?

Don't you?

 

[quadraginta]

Florida -like the vast majority of states - has no such requirement.

Wright v. State

Because of course, Googling *civil* law definitions, editing out some words and claiming that is 'the same' standard for *criminal* cases, is soooo useful...

With tricks like that, who needs knowledge?



http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

These crucial elements of criminal defense total strategy include the following affirmative defense measures:
•Alibi, which as the Latin translation approximates, states a defendant was “elsewhere” at the time of the alleged crime. Coupled with sufficient proof of whereabouts away from a crime scene, an alibi is a solid affirmative defense strategy.

<snip>

The other examples in the list you quoted made sense to me, but this first one caught my attention.

My (admittedly lay) understanding of "affirmative defense" was a defense which acknowledged that the defendant had indeed committed the act in question, but had a legal justification or at least an excuse for doing it.

Or, in the words of Cornell's Law School ...

A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

I was puzzled to see "alibi" as the first point on the bullet list, since it is a defense which asserts that not only did the defendant not do it, but they weren't anywhere around when it happened.

Referring to the link for your cite, I find a different definition for "affirmative defense".

When defense counsel takes an offensive stance when representing their clients, this is known as executing an affirmative defense. Affirmative defense actions, much like any defensive action using an offensive maneuver, attempts to stymie existing and future attempts of prosecutors to proceed with criminal charges and cases. By setting the prosecutor’s case far enough back through affirmative defenses, the defense counsel may hinder a criminal prosecution, or in favorable outcomes, obtain an outright dismissal of criminal charges, in large part due to the affirmative defense actions taken.

This would explain the inclusion of "alibi", but seems to suggest that any defense action which proactively contradicts an assertion by the prosecution is an "affirmative defense".

I'm not familiar with this usage. Perhaps you could help explain it further. Is this just an obscure legal application of the term? Would it be helpful to the current discussion to appreciate the distinction between this usage and the one which is most commonly understood?

 

[Rare Truth]

Another doc dump coming up.

06/29/2012 SUDI STATE'S 3RD SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A

 

[Dan O.]

He was wrong, and that's why they said his story doesn't match. Even the adjoining patio is 45' away from the T. Remember, his first story was one punch, then down to the ground.

I find no evidence to believe that George ever went through to Retreat View Circle. There are no witnesses that saw him there and he says he saw Trayvon turn at the tee and run behind the houses. I've tried to picture it George's was with the attack hapening as George returned to his truck from Retate View Circle. But his keys are well south of the tee. Why doesn't he admit that he was following Trayvon and wanted to see which way he went?

It begins with the dispatcher's question "Are you following him?" and George's conscious decission that he was going to disregard the dispatcher and continue to follow anyway. George knows that it was this decission of his to play junior detective that led to the confrontation and subsequent shooting and George is incapable of accepting any culpability so he lies to make it not his fault.

George will never be able to take the stand in his own defense because his story begins with that lie and is compounded by other lies piled on top of more lies. He will be shredded by the prosecution if he ever takes the stand and is subject to cross examination.

 

[Moss]

One thing I have been musing over for a while is whether there is a legitimate reason for TM not going directly back to the house despite the encounter with GZ in his car.
So I wonder if he wanted to continue his phone conversation with DD undisturbed and not in listening range of his family. His alleged slow walking before could also possibly be explained by that.
No idea if that idea has any merit.

 

[crimresearch]

The other examples in the list you quoted made sense to me, but this first one caught my attention.

My (admittedly lay) understanding of "affirmative defense" was a defense which acknowledged that the defendant had indeed committed the act in question, but had a legal justification or at least an excuse for doing it.

Or, in the words of Cornell's Law School ...



I was puzzled to see "alibi" as the first point on the bullet list, since it is a defense which asserts that not only did the defendant not do it, but they weren't anywhere around when it happened.

Referring to the link for your cite, I find a different definition for "affirmative defense".




This would explain the inclusion of "alibi", but seems to suggest that any defense action which proactively contradicts an assertion by the prosecution is an "affirmative defense".

I'm not familiar with this usage. Perhaps you could help explain it further. Is this just an obscure legal application of the term? Would it be helpful to the current discussion to appreciate the distinction between this usage and the one which is most commonly understood?

I posted that to show that there are more examples than just the insanity defense.

I teach that an affirmative defense affirms that the act happened.
After making an affirmative defense, there must be some showing as to what elements of the crime are missing.

Most common are the 'Yes I did the act, but...' affirmations:

'Yes, I intentionally robbed the store, but there was a gun at my wife's head'. This removes the necessary element of mens rea (*bad* intent).

'Yes, I opened the package with the kiddy porn in it, but the police kept telling me that I should do, it every time I said no... until I gave in'. Jacobson v US classic entrapment affirmative defense.

'Yes I broke into the house, but my plane had crash landed nearby during a blizzard, and I needed food and shelter'. Necessity affirmative defense.

Other defenses, like 'The police framed me and planted the drugs' are not affirmative, since they deny doing the underlying act at all.

I'd suppose that an unusual set of circumstance could cause an alibi to be affirmative... maybe something similar to Richard Jewell, where the feds tried to get him to make a 'training video', only getting a person to act out a recreation of the crime?
'Yes, that's me pulling the trigger, but that was acting, when the real shooting happened, I was 1,000 miles away'.

 

[WildCat]

No, to me it means GZ didn't get beat up at all. Yes, he has injuries. Yes, some blood flowed. Doesn't look like someone who got punched repeatedly and had his head slammed into the concrete. That's my opinion, worth no more, no less than anyone else's.

OK, so you're just going to deny inconvenient facts.

Good luck with that.

 

[Rare Truth]

OK, so you're just going to deny inconvenient facts.

Good luck with that.

 

[Moss]

OK, so you're just going to deny inconvenient facts.

Good luck with that.

She isn't denying inconvenient facts. She is interpreting the evidence we have in a different way than you.
Since when are interpretations like that facts?

 

[WildCat]

She isn't denying inconvenient facts. She is interpreting the evidence we have in a different way than you.
Since when are interpretations like that facts?

The fact is either Martin caused the injuries to Zimmerman or someone or something else did.

What is your opinion?

eta: and we had dozens of pages here of people denying Zimmerman had any injuries at all. Now that they're documented those same peopel are saying Martin didn't cause those injuries? D'Nile, not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Rare Truth]

The fact is either Martin caused the injuries to Zimmerman or someone or something else did.

What is your opinion?

eta: and we had dozens of pages here of people denying Zimmerman had any injuries at all.
...

OK. You're on.

If there are "dozens of pages" of people denying Zimmerman had any injuries at all, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a couple of them to back up your claim.

Think you can?

 

[Moss]

The fact is either Martin caused the injuries to Zimmerman or someone or something else did.

What is your opinion?

Maybe we are quibbling about different parts of Katie's statement.
The interpretation part is the extent of his injuries and whether the lacerations stem from slamming his head or from a fall.
His injured nose clearly stems from a punch and thus far I see no reason to suspect it was anyone else but TM that punched GZ.
The other head injuries are more difficult to interpret. They could be the result of either one or more attempts to slam his head into the ground or could be the result from falling on concrete after a punch. I've seen a few head injuries from brawls that were caused by bad falls.
Whether that is a possibility in this case is something I am uncertain of.
To me as a medical layman it seem the injuries apart from the nose seem to be somewhat light for repeated attempts to slam his head against concrete. I'd expect more trauma, less lacerations.
What it looks like to me is like wrangling around on concrete and scraping his head. With such short hair the likelihood of that seems rather great.
But I will gladly acknowledge that I am no expert in this area. So I'm taking my interpretation with a grain of salt.

And that still does not fall under facts for me, but rather as interpretation of facts.

 

[Rare Truth]

Now that they're documented those same peopel are saying Martin didn't cause those injuries? D'Nile, not just a river in Egypt.

It would be a lot easier to prove if there were forensic evidence on TM's hand beside an itty bitty laceration no bigger than ---> --- <--- this on TM's left hand below his knuckle, and complete lack of Z DNA evidence on his fingers, cuffs and sleeves. The injuries to the back of Z's head are in no way consistent with a concrete head bashing multiple times. They just aren't.

That's a hurdle many Z defenders are going to have to overcome, and why so many find the story the accused murderer to be lacking in truth.

Why does the idea GZ fell on the wet grass, in a tugging scuffle, for example, seem completely out of the question? There seems to be no other option for those who chose to believe the accused murderer than he had injuries, the deceased teenager must have caused them.

 

[This is The End]

OK. You're on.

If there are "dozens of pages" of people denying Zimmerman had any injuries at all, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a couple of them to back up your claim.

Think you can?

Most likely your request will just be ignored. At the very most it will be responded to with a snarky one liner.

Why would someone back something up with facts when they can post one liners, distortion, and mockery with little to no effort?

 

[Rare Truth]

Most likely your request will just be ignored. At the very most it will be responded to with a snarky one liner.

Why would someone back something up with facts when they can post one liners, distortion, and mockery with little to no effort?

There are folks like that on all message boards. I think the appropriate term for them is: ankle-biters.

 

[johnny karate]

You seem to assume jurors are ignorant, that judges are ignorant, in fact you seem to assume everyone is ignorant. Court officers, police officers, investigators, and lawyers lawyers.Only you are suspicious and somehow you are the only one who thinks about these things.

How far does it go?

Reasonable extends to every one and their judgement, is everyone else ignorant?

Well, the constant theme in this thread is that reasonable suspicion and reasonable doubt are wholly separate things.

Clearly, Serino, is suspicious of Zimmerman and his story, but lacked the evidence to establish guilt.

So no, I'm not saying that judges, jurors, et al. are ignorant, I'm saying that the law in Florida - as explained in this thread - is constructed with a glaring loophole that would allow a clever enough person to get away with murder, regardless of anyone's suspicion.

But I could be wrong.

Allow me offer a more detailed version of my hypothetical:

A man is walking down the street and cuts through an alleyway. Out of sight of any other people, he comes across a homeless person. The homeless person does or says something to annoy the man. The man draws his licensed fire arm and shoots the homeless person dead. Careful not to leave any fingerprints, the man places a pipe in the hand of the dead homeless person. He calls the police. They arrive, and the man explains he was cutting through the alley on his way home, was accosted by a deranged man brandishing a pipe, and shot him in fear for his life. The ensuing investigation reveals the homeless person was intoxicated and had a history of mental illness and petty crime. The man who shot him is revealed to be an upstanding citizen with many friends and relatives who will vouch for his character. No charges are filed, and the man goes free.

I see the following parallels with the Zimmerman case:

1) Once the man makes the claim of self-defense, that essentially becomes the evidence that he acted in self-defense. No other evidence directly corroborates his claim, and none is needed.

2) Although not injured, that is irrelevant. As has been repeated numerous times in this thread, injuries don't matter. All that matters is a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

3) The police and district attorney may not believe the man's story, but that doesn't matter. They have no evidence to disprove it, and therefore, cannot press charges.

Feel free to tell me where I got it wrong.

 

[quadraginta]

I posted that to show that there are more examples than just the insanity defense.

I teach that an affirmative defense affirms that the act happened.
After making an affirmative defense, there must be some showing as to what elements of the crime are missing.

Most common are the 'Yes I did the act, but...' affirmations:

'Yes, I intentionally robbed the store, but there was a gun at my wife's head'. This removes the necessary element of mens rea (*bad* intent).

'Yes, I opened the package with the kiddy porn in it, but the police kept telling me that I should do, it every time I said no... until I gave in'. Jacobson v US classic entrapment affirmative defense.

'Yes I broke into the house, but my plane had crash landed nearby during a blizzard, and I needed food and shelter'. Necessity affirmative defense.

Other defenses, like 'The police framed me and planted the drugs' are not affirmative, since they deny doing the underlying act at all.

I'd suppose that an unusual set of circumstance could cause an alibi to be affirmative... maybe something similar to Richard Jewell, where the feds tried to get him to make a 'training video', only getting a person to act out a recreation of the crime?
'Yes, that's me pulling the trigger, but that was acting, when the real shooting happened, I was 1,000 miles away'.

So you also find that particular usage to be puzzling.

Is that a fair summation of your post?

 

[johnny karate]

The fact is either Martin caused the injuries to Zimmerman or someone or something else did.

No one is denying Martin caused the injury to Zimmerman's nose. And at this point, that's the only injury that can conclusively be said to have been caused by Martin.

You seem to want to interpret that as evidence that Zimmerman was "beaten up". Others, more reasonably, see that as evidenced that Martin - with his virtually unblemished hands - punched Zimmerman one time.

 

[crimresearch]

So you also find that particular usage to be puzzling.

Is that a fair summation of your post?

I wouldn't say puzzling, more like obscure.

Alibi isn't a strictly affirmative defense because it denies the underlying act, but in some odd circumstances it could be.

On the the other points, it functions like an affirmative defense, because it does require an offer of some form of proof.
You can't just pull an Allen Iverson and say 'I wasn't there'. You have to say, 'Here are 3 witnesses who saw me somewhere else at that time'.
And many jurisdictions have the same requirement as for affirmative defenses, namely that notice of using an alibi defense must precede its use at trial by a fixed time limit.

So to a practitioner, it makes sense to drop it in the 'affirmative' section of the toolbox.

To a professor, it can be catalogued as a different species.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

No, to me it means GZ didn't get beat up at all. Yes, he has injuries. Yes, some blood flowed. Doesn't look like someone who got punched repeatedly and had his head slammed into the concrete. That's my opinion, worth no more, no less than anyone else's.

Over the years I have seen many people who've had this kind of attack happen to them.

None have looked as good as GZ afterwards.

Just sayin'. I see his shots and think, "really, he got viciously attacked, killed his attacker, and looks basically unharmed..."