Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

A defendant doesn't have any affirmative responsibility to provide inculpatory evidence to the government.

That seems to be the opposite of what the link quadraginta found says. Refer to post #4733.

Participation by a defendant in the discovery process <snip>triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant.

That seems to be pretty clear. If it only counted evidence that isn't important it would be pretty pointless wouldn't it?

Do you have any links to back up what you say? Aside from a link to the 5th Amendment of course.

 

[This is The End]

I still maintain that when the DA gets George on the stand and walks him through all his contradictory statements and the location of the body, he's toast. I don't see how he testifies. He'll get chewed up.

Also didn't we learn that, unlike testimony from all other previous appearances related to this case, that testimony from a self-defense hearing is allowed in the real trial.

If so, that means there is no way for him to testify in a self-defense hearing and not testify in the trial.

Unless, of course, he wins the self-defense hearing. Which he surely can't do without testifying.

Sounds like a catch-22.

 

[quadraginta]

A defendant doesn't have any affirmative responsibility to provide inculpatory evidence to the government.

That seems to be the opposite of what the link quadraginta found says. Refer to post #4733.

Participation by a defendant in the discovery process <snip>triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant.

That seems to be pretty clear. If it only counted evidence that isn't important it would be pretty pointless wouldn't it?

Do you have any links to back up what you say? Aside from a link to the 5th Amendment of course.

I believe cylinder is correct, which is why I finished my post with

The rest of the statute can be found at the site I linked to above, but it's pretty straightforward. The act of accepting discovery from the prosecution "triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant" to share everything they have any intention of using in the trial,

The Fifth Amendment trumps a lot of stuff.

That aspect is more clear if you read through the whole statute, but it is also in parts of the pieces I quoted.

More problematic is that some states let the DA decide which bits of the evidence they gather might be exculpatory and which aren't. This can create a certain conflict of interest in that pursuit of the truth cylinder was talking about.

Lots of retrials have revolved around that judgement.

 

[Unabogie]

That state has to prove he's guilty. And they haven't shown us that they have any evidence that proves it. GZ doesn't have to take the stand.*shrugs*

You have no thoughts on the states star witness, Deedee ? You think all she is all set to testify , minor, not a minor, etc ?

George has to take the stand or he'll surely be convicted. The state can run through the fact that George chased him. They can show how George lied. But none of George's statements can be introduced by the defense without George. So how can they even claim self-defense without him telling the story he made up? They can't. He has to. And when he does, it's over. I don't even think DeeDee is important to the case.

He profiled the kid. He got out and chased him. He never identified himself. He shot him. He lied to the police about it.

Seriously, George. Good luck.

 

[Giz]

The state can run through the fact that George chased him.

Nope. No proof.

They can show how George lied.

When? (Do you mean about bail/passport?)

 

[Unabogie]

Nope. No proof.

Of course there's proof. There's George's own statement that he chased him. There's the time discrepancy with his story of "heading back to the truck", and there's the fact that the body is 40 feet to the south of where he took one punch and went down to the ground. That's going to be trivial to demonstrate in court.

When? (Do you mean about bail/passport?)

There's that, for sure, but I'm referring to his lying about how he went to look for an address (which he never provided) and how he got punched once and went down, but ended up 40 feet to the south. That's going to go very poorly for him. But believe what you want.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course there's proof. There's George's own statement that he chased him. There's the time discrepancy with his story of "heading back to the truck", and there's the fact that the body is 40 feet to the south of where he took one punch and went down to the ground. That's going to be trivial to demonstrate in court.

There's that, for sure, but I'm referring to his lying about how he went to look for an address (which he never provided) and how he got punched once and went down, but ended up 40 feet to the south. That's going to go very poorly for him. But believe what you want.

Not of that gives the state any evidence about who threw the first blow. None of that changes the fact the state has no evidence about whether GZ was defending himself as he claimed or not. According to Dale Gilbreath ... no evidence. So, good luck to the state proving murder 2 without any proof.

Do you really not have any thoughts re: deedee and the fact that she is not a minor and the other discrepencies ?

 

[Unabogie]

Not of that gives the state any evidence about who threw the first blow. None of that changes the fact the state has no evidence about whether GZ was defending himself as he claimed or not. According to Dale Gilbreath ... no evidence. So, good luck to the state proving murder 2 without any proof.

Do you really not have any thoughts re: deedee and the fact that she is not a minor and the other discrepencies ?

I already told you, I think DeeDee is irrelevant to George's fate. He's going to have to explain why he killed a 17 year old kid who he outweighed by 50 pounds, and then lied to investigators. Whether or not one of the state's witnesses has personal issues won't come into play. It's irrelevant. He's already sunk himself, even if you refuse to see it.

 

[Giz]

Of course there's proof. There's George's own statement that he chased him.

Followed him. Followed. (Note: maybe he did chase him. Maybe. But there's no proof.)

There's the time discrepancy with his story of "heading back to the truck",

Really - there's a huge effort to deny that TM took too long to get home, and yet the slightest deviation from what you feel is correct is some kinda "gotcha" at GZ? (Again, maybe it could be a sign of something. But proof, no sir.)

There's that, for sure, but I'm referring to his lying about how he went to look for an address (which he never provided) and how he got punched once and went down, but ended up 40 feet to the south. That's going to go very poorly for him. But believe what you want.

Not sure how any of that is proof of anything either.

 

[Unabogie]

Followed him. Followed. (Note: maybe he did chase him. Maybe. But there's no proof.)


Really - there's a huge effort to deny that TM took too long to get home, and yet the slightest deviation from what you feel is correct is some kinda "gotcha" at GZ? (Again, maybe it could be a sign of something. But proof, no sir.)



Not sure how any of that is proof of anything either.

Nor will you ever see it. He lied to the cops and they're going to flay him for it on the stand.

 

[johnny karate]

Followed him. Followed. (Note: maybe he did chase him. Maybe. But there's no proof.)

This particular semantic point has been bandied about since the early days of the original thread. Here's the thing, though: Not every single aspect of a criminal case has to be presented with ironclad proof. Juries are often left to decide certain things for themselves.

So while there may not be any direct evidence Zimmerman explicitly chased Martin, a very compelling case can be made that he did based on his own NEN call. I certainly believe he did, and so do many others in this thread. A jury of twelve just might as well.

Really - there's a huge effort to deny that TM took too long to get home, and yet the slightest deviation from what you feel is correct is some kinda "gotcha" at GZ? (Again, maybe it could be a sign of something. But proof, no sir.)

You're conflating two separate issues.

One is a situation in which Zimmerman is potentially being inconsistent in his own story. Which, of course, is important because it's an indication of the veracity of his story.

Another is a situation in which random people are arbitrarily claiming it took Martin too long to get home. Which, of course, is completely irrelevant because Martin was free to take however long he wanted to get home.

Not even remotely similar situations.

 

[johnny karate]

Do you really not have any thoughts re: deedee and the fact that she is not a minor and the other discrepencies ?

I'll have to agree with Unabogie on this. I don't see the importance in what Crump thought or said about DeeDee. Crump is a non-factor in this case.

As far as DeeDee, I don't see her as the prosecution's star witness. I think that honor will belong to Zimmerman himself.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll have to agree with Unabogie on this. I don't see the importance in what Crump thought or said about DeeDee. Crump is a non-factor in this case.

As far as DeeDee, I don't see her as the prosecution's star witness. I think that honor will belong to Zimmerman himself.

Well, I think we agree the state has no specific evidence regarding what exactly transpired from the time GZ ended his NEN call and the police showed, don't we ?

In broad terms, TM probably hit GZ one or more times, and they were grappling on the ground, and GZ shot TM when TM was on top of GZ. The witnesses and evidence appear to bear this out. I think we agree on those basics as well

I don't see how with just that, and over a year to review/practice/rehearse/whatever his testimony the state is going to convince a jury of six ( yes that was for you , FL has 6 person criminal juries ) that GZ is guilty of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with GZ not being the sharpest pencil in the box.

Let's recall that the state did not charge GZ until after we found out about DeeDee.
"This young lady connects the dots," said Crump. "Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood, today.
And she even played a role in the charging affadavit:
During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why

I think if it turns out that DeeDee doesn't testify, or she lied ... its going to look really bad for TM, and give jurors a lot of reasonable doubt, no matter how GZ performs on the stand.

Humor me - if DeeDee is so unimportant, why does the state appear to be stonewalling the defense regarding information about her ? Why did the state wait so long to give the defense evidence about the phone and its location ? Doesn't that all seem even a little bit hinky to you ? ABC reports this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...ance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897
The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead.
"When he saw the man behind him again he said this man is going to do something to him. And then he said this man is still behind him and I said run," she said.

Really, he said the man is going to do something to him ? I don't remember that in Crumps interview, do you ? Anyone ? You think ABC news didn't check her age, either ?

Seriously, there is definitely something hinky going on with her, and I think it's important to know what it is. Maybe if GZ is the star witness for state, DeeDee is the star witness for the defense ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Nor will you ever see it. He lied to the cops and they're going to flay him for it on the stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.
...
O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.

They have to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without any evidence. That may be a bit more difficult than you seem to think.

But since you have already posted that GZ will be found guilty if testifies, and guilty if he doesn't, I think we know where you stand on the issue.

 

[12AX7]

As far as DeeDee, I don't see her as the prosecution's star witness. I think that honor will belong to Zimmerman himself.

Agree.

Zimmerman not taking the stand? Bad. Zimmerman taking the stand? Worse.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I think we agree the state has no specific evidence regarding what exactly transpired from the time GZ ended his NEN call and the police showed, don't we ?

In broad terms, TM probably hit GZ one or more times, and they were grappling on the ground, and GZ shot TM when TM was on top of GZ. The witnesses and evidence appear to bear this out. I think we agree on those basics as well

I don't see how with just that, and over a year to review/practice/rehearse/whatever his testimony the state is going to convince a jury of six ( yes that was for you , FL has 6 person criminal juries ) that GZ is guilty of Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with GZ not being the sharpest pencil in the box.

Maybe you're right. Then again...

I think the state did a poor job answering the specific points the defense made in the motion to continue.

... maybe you're wrong.

Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting and killing Martin.

He claims it was in self-defense and paints a pretty vivid and specific picture of how exactly that went down.

If the prosecution is able to take his story apart, and even prove significant parts of it to be untrue, all we're left with is a guy who shot and killed someone and then lied about how it happened.

Doesn't seem like much a leap to me from there to Murder 2.

Let's recall that the state did not charge GZ until after we found out about DeeDee.
"This young lady connects the dots," said Crump. "Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood, today.
And she even played a role in the charging affadavit:
During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why

I think if it turns out that DeeDee doesn't testify, or she lied ... its going to look really bad for TM, and give jurors a lot of reasonable doubt, no matter how GZ performs on the stand.

I disagree. The focus is on Zimmerman and what he claimed happened. His self-defense claim relies on his story being believable. What DeeDee claims happened doesn't factor into that.

Humor me - if DeeDee is so unimportant, why does the state appear to be stonewalling the defense regarding information about her ? Why did the state wait so long to give the defense evidence about the phone and its location ? Doesn't that all seem even a little bit hinky to you ? ABC reports this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...ance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897
The 16-year-old girl, who is only being identified as DeeDee, recounted the final moments of her conversation with Martin before the line went dead.
"When he saw the man behind him again he said this man is going to do something to him. And then he said this man is still behind him and I said run," she said.

You'll have to ask the state. I have no idea what kind of machinations go on behind the scenes in a high-profile murder case.

By that same token, if the defense is so confident that the evidence shows Zimmerman acted in self-defense, why are they dragging their heels? Seems to me they'd want to get this over with as soon as possible in order to clear Zimmerman's good name.

Really, he said the man is going to do something to him ? I don't remember that in Crumps interview, do you ? Anyone ? You think ABC news didn't check her age, either ?

Seriously, there is definitely something hinky going on with her, and I think it's important to know what it is. Maybe if GZ is the star witness for state, DeeDee is the star witness for the defense ?

I'm not sure how that would work. The defense can only impugn what the prosecution presents as evidence. If DeeDee is really as weak a witness as various internet sleuths have determined, I'm almost certain the attorneys actually working the case would have also figured that out.

In short, if DeeDee isn't a good witness, the prosecution will have (and already has) plenty of time to suss that out. In which case, she won't be used, or only be used minimally.

 

[Virus]

We are lucky to have so many psychic detectives and fortune tellers on this forum.

 

[This is The End]

Juries are often left to decide certain things for themselves.

I agree with that.

Some people argue that you cannot "hear" someone running, but you can be sure that some if not all of those jury members will "hear" running when the not911 call is played.

 

[Unabogie]

Zimmerman has already admitted to shooting and killing Martin.

He claims it was in self-defense and paints a pretty vivid and specific picture of how exactly that went down.

If the prosecution is able to take his story apart, and even prove significant parts of it to be untrue, all we're left with is a guy who shot and killed someone and then lied about how it happened.

Doesn't seem like much a leap to me from there to Murder 2.

Precisely. We're not trying to figure out who killed Trayvon Martin, or whether or not it was homicide. We know it was an intentional homicide on the part of Zimmerman. He shot Trayvon Martin on purpose. The only relevant question is whether or not it was in self-defense. If the state can show that Zimmerman is lying about relevant facts, or changed his story in material ways, or that the forensics paint a vastly different story than his, or even that a jury simply finds his story incredible, then he's going to prison for murder.

I've been saying since he killed Trayvon that his story doesn't add up. That you have to believe that a hot-headed man, who assaulted a DEA agent and had a restraining order placed on him, who admitted chasing Trayvon and profiled him for no apparent reason, and outweighed him by 50 pounds, was attacked by a 17 year old boy for no reason at all, and that the 17 year old, 155 pound kid (who had no violence at all in his record) was intending to murder him with zero provocation, and that's that.

To me, that sounds laughable, so I waited for evidence that I was wrong. The only thing I've seen is that George Zimmerman routinely called the cops on black kids, and carried a gun everywhere he went, and chased Trayvon out of his car, and lied to the cops about how things went down that night, and lied about his defense fund.

In short, he's not trustworthy. He's a liar with a violent history. And it's much easier to believe that he was the aggressor that night because Trayvon Martin wasn't doing anything wrong and had no idea who this creep was.

So in my opinion, all evidence points to murder. And I predict he goes down for it.


*And this doesn't even get into the disgusting story of how he raped his cousin over a ten year span. The man is vile.

 

[This is The End]

I've been saying since he killed Trayvon that his story doesn't add up.

I believe the 2 huge contradictions between his re-enactment and his not911 call are going to be key. Also, both are so glaring that it can't be explained away with "normal memory loss".

Both are recorded, so it's a little hard to avoid.

Then you have other random stuff that we don't know for sure like that audio clip from the not911 call that many people, admittedly pro-M, are convinced is Z doing a "partial chamber check" on his gun. It seems to match up closely with a test "partial chamber check" on the same gun.

If that, or any other evidence, shows that Z was lying about not having the gun out at any point after he initially got out of the truck, it will be very bad for Z.