Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[KatieG]

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

The medical report said no such thing. They were unable to determine if GZ's nose was broken as no xrays or MRI were done. The PA suggested GZ follow up to determine if it was broken but she did not state that it was in her report. There was also no definite determination that he had black eyes. Everything was conditional, not conclusive.

Nice try though!

 

[johnny karate]

The personal incredulity of a non-lawyer speculating the outcomes in legal matters related to this case is as compelling as ever.

I see what you did there.

However, I'm not rendering an opinion on the law, but rather questioning O'Mara's claim based on his his own past statements.

He has repeatedly asserted that the state's case is weak, and that there is "clear support for a strong claim of self-defense" to Zimmerman.

Now suddenly the FBI is in possession of evidence so crucial the defense cannot go to trial without it?

All the FBI did was an investigation into whether or not Martin's civil right were violated. They did not do a criminal investigation into the shooting. And the findings released from their investigation were favorable for Zimmerman.

So again I ask: What possible evidence could the FBI have that O'Mara so desperately needs?

As the trial draws closer, the bravado and confidence O'Mara was displaying last year seems to be fading.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors accused of posturing and grandstanding are prepared to move forward.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Did you not read the article I posted?

I thought you were talking about people here
("According to all the people who took this stance) not Dershowitz. My mistake.

I'm curious how you think that can be read any differently than "if he has cuts and bruises, he must be set free"?

No, that's what it says, and it's not really off the mark.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.


Which goes to what I have repeatedly said earlier. It matters for immunity from future lawsuits if GZ or TM punched first. It doesn't matter for traditional self-defense, as the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ was not acting in self defense in fear of great bodily injury.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

The medical report said no such thing. They were unable to determine if GZ's nose was broken as no xrays or MRI were done. The PA suggested GZ follow up to determine if it was broken but she did not state that it was in her report. There was also no definite determination that he had black eyes. Everything was conditional, not conclusive.

Nice try though!

I really don't understand why people keep getting stuck on this point.

It has repeatedly been pointed out, that's how a broken nose is usually diagnosed. And the treatment is the same whether there was an x-ray or MRI to 'confirm' the brokenness of it.

He clearly has two black eyes on the walk through. I anticipate everyone on the SPD who saw him will be able to testify that he had two black eyes.

But what I really anticipate is BDLR won't challenge any of the above , because it would be pointless. GZ fear of great bodily injury isn't going to hinge on whether his nose was actually broken or just likely broken.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I see what you did there.

However, I'm not rendering an opinion on the law, but rather questioning O'Mara's claim based on his his own past statements.

He has repeatedly asserted that the state's case is weak, and that there is "clear support for a strong claim of self-defense" to Zimmerman.

Yes, that's what each side is supposed to do. Not walk around whining their case sucks and they may lose.

Now suddenly the FBI is in possession of evidence so crucial the defense cannot go to trial without it?

It's not 'now suddenly' - they started asking for this information in November.

As far as how crucial it is, I don't think that MOM would be doing his job properly if he didn't try to get every possible piece of evidence that could weigh in his clients favor or help his client. That's pretty much what he is supposed to do, AFAIK.

All the FBI did was an investigation into whether or not Martin's civil right were violated. They did not do a criminal investigation into the shooting. And the findings released from their investigation were favorable for Zimmerman.

So again I ask: What possible evidence could the FBI have that O'Mara so desperately needs?

I think the conclusions that the FBI drew that GZ was not a racist and did not racially profile TM are going to be important, as BDLR has already demonstrated he may go down that path. I don't recall that the 'findings were released' but that someone from the DOJ made some statements to the press. I could be mis-remembering though.

As the trial draws closer, the bravado and confidence O'Mara was displaying last year seems to be fading.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors accused of posturing and grandstanding are prepared to move forward.

I;m really not sure there is anything to read into it. I don't see any benefit for MOM in delaying the inevitable, if that's how it really is. Maybe he is just delaying - I don't know how you would go about showing that's all he is doing.

 

[Unabogie]

I thought you were talking about people here
("According to all the people who took this stance) not Dershowitz. My mistake.



No, that's what it says, and it's not really off the mark.

Right! It's you! You are also claiming that if he has cuts and bruises then he should be set free. If that were the case, then the defense would not be whining for a continuance, because you then go further and say...

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.


Which goes to what I have repeatedly said earlier. It matters for immunity from future lawsuits if GZ or TM punched first. It doesn't matter for traditional self-defense, as the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ was not acting in self defense in fear of great bodily injury.

See? So if all it took was cuts and bruises, then O'Mara would not need a continuance and would not even need experts. Just show a few pictures of George's face and spend all those defense fund dollars on some really nice champagne!

The fact that the defense is so worried about the trial that they are hiring experts and seeking more time, even though they've blown through a third of a million dollars and a YEAR of preparation should tell you that they see something you're missing.

 

[bookworm]

Well, I've read most every post of this thread and the first one. I've just got to say I'm glad I won't be a juror in this case. I think it will be difficult for the state to prove that GZ wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death at the instant he shot Trayvon. I'm not sure that it matters what George or Trayvon did up until the confrontation. I'm not even sure that it matters who actually confronted whom. Or who threw the first punch. I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

You can argue this is a terrible law until it is you who has to make the decision.

You're about to be very unpopular....but I agree with you. I've said that from the beginning.

 

[Bob001]

Well, I've read most every post of this thread and the first one. I've just got to say I'm glad I won't be a juror in this case. I think it will be difficult for the state to prove that GZ wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death at the instant he shot Trayvon. I'm not sure that it matters what George or Trayvon did up until the confrontation. I'm not even sure that it matters who actually confronted whom. Or who threw the first punch. I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

You can argue this is a terrible law until it is you who has to make the decision.

As I understand it, the jury will decide whether GZ "reasonably" believed that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm: not just what he believed, but whether a "reasonable" person would hold that belief under those circumstances. It seems to me that everything both parties said and did before and during the confrontation -- about which there seems to be substantial disagreement -- has to be factored into the question of what was reasonable.

Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013........

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

 

[Dan O.]

The personal incredulity of a non-lawyer speculating the outcomes in legal matters related to this case is as compelling as ever.

About half of all lawyers loose in court.


But they're smiling all the way to the bank

 

[Unabogie]

About half of all lawyers loose in court.

Sounds like pandemonium.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, that's what each side is supposed to do. Not walk around whining their case sucks and they may lose.

It is? I would think the job of the lawyers in a criminal case is to prepare for trial. You know, like the prosecution is doing.

It's not 'now suddenly' - they started asking for this information in November.

And the FBI indicates O'Mara is aware of the proper procedures for requesting that information. For some reason, he chose not to follow them.

As far as how crucial it is, I don't think that MOM would be doing his job properly if he didn't try to get every possible piece of evidence that could weigh in his clients favor or help his client. That's pretty much what he is supposed to do, AFAIK.

Is O'Mara doing his job properly when he seeks to delay the exoneration of his client with the strong self-defense claim who currently lives like a prisoner and is hemorrhaging money?

I think the conclusions that the FBI drew that GZ was not a racist and did not racially profile TM are going to be important, as BDLR has already demonstrated he may go down that path. I don't recall that the 'findings were released' but that someone from the DOJ made some statements to the press. I could be mis-remembering though.

But the issue is the self-defense claim. O'Mara said there was "clear support" for a "strong" one. It that were true, it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman was an Imperial Grand Dragon for the KKK.

I;m really not sure there is anything to read into it. I don't see any benefit for MOM in delaying the inevitable, if that's how it really is. Maybe he is just delaying - I don't know how you would go about showing that's all he is doing.

I don't know that I have to "show" anything. But I'm certainly free to render an opinion based on available information.

 

[Mumbles]

Well, I've read most every post of this thread and the first one. I've just got to say I'm glad I won't be a juror in this case. I think it will be difficult for the state to prove that GZ wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death at the instant he shot Trayvon. I'm not sure that it matters what George or Trayvon did up until the confrontation. I'm not even sure that it matters who actually confronted whom. Or who threw the first punch. I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

You can argue this is a terrible law until it is you who has to make the decision.

*shrug* I wouldn't get out of my car to chase a stranger who was just walking down the street. And, assuming that I actually did do something that foolish, I'd take my lumps. And so, I see no reason why Zimmerman should be given immunity.

 

[johnny karate]

I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

And what everyone here needs to consider is exactly how the prosecution can go about determining that.

Obviously, no one can ever definitively know what someone else was thinking at a particular moment. So any case like this has to be proven circumstantially.

And in this case, the prosecution's approach will probably be to systematically dismantle Zimmerman's narrative. Upon success, the jury will be left with a guy who told a fabricated story to the police, and they will have to decide if he was then being honest about being in fear for his life.

I think it will breakdown like this:

• Prove that the altercation did not take place the way Zimmerman described, and demonstrate that he was in fact the aggressor.
  
  I think this will be the easiest part as those of us just casually discussing it in this thread have already demonstrated that based on the location of body and debris, and Zimmerman's conflicting statements, the altercation couldn't have taken place in the manner in which Zimmerman described.

• Prove Zimmerman's injuries were not consistent with the type of assault he claimed to suffer.
  
  This is where the medical experts come into play. We've already seen the relatively minor nature of Zimmerman's injuries, and if the prosecution can put someone convincing on the stand who will tell us that Zimmerman's injuries were not consistent with being repeatedly punched (medical records indicate only a broken nose and minor abrasions) or having his head repeatedly slammed onto concrete (medical records indicate no concussion, skull fractures, or brain trauma), another important part of Zimmerman's narrative will crumble.

If the prosecution pulls that off, I think a jury would have a very difficult time believing Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It is? I would think the job of the lawyers in a criminal case is to prepare for trial. You know, like the prosecution is doing.

Are they mutually exclusive actions or something ? You know it is possible to both prepare a case and give a occasional press conference ?

And during that press conference, it's probably better for your client for you to say that you are confident about your case, rather than to say you doubt your client is innocent or similar.

I really don't get why you are trying to disparage MOM for saying positive things about his case. It's like you are just looking for anything to try legitimately criticize him for , and failing.

And the FBI indicates O'Mara is aware of the proper procedures for requesting that information. For some reason, he chose not to follow them.

He explained the reasons. Either you didn't bother reading them, or you are intentionally being disingenuous. They started this process last year to simply have the State give them the same information the FBI had given to the state.

The defense is well aware of the procedure for requesting documents from the FBI, as are we aware of the regulatory limitations, and as such, we are also aware that such a request would be unlikely to produce any more information that has already been provided to the State. The purpose for our DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY in regards to FBI documents, and the Court’s subsequent order, was to begin the long process of gaining access relevant aspects of the FBI file regarding its investigation into possible civil rights violations in regards to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Also, you forgot to acknowledge that the real problem lay in Judge Nelson thinking she could force the FBI to turn over the files - not in MOM requests that the State turn over the info.

Is O'Mara doing his job properly when he seeks to delay the exoneration of his client with the strong self-defense claim who currently lives like a prisoner and is hemorrhaging money?

I guess that's up to his client to decide. If he thinks that delaying the trial will garner a better possibility of winning an immunity hearing, or a better chance at being assured of winning the trial, then he probably is doing his job properly.

But the issue is the self-defense claim. O'Mara said there was "clear support" for a "strong" one. It that were true, it wouldn't matter if Zimmerman was an Imperial Grand Dragon for the KKK.

I don't know that I have to "show" anything. But I'm certainly free to render an opinion based on available information.

And I didn't claim that you have to show anything.

I simply pointed out that if you wanted to back up your opinion with any evidence, I don't know what such evidence would consist of.

 

[Unabogie]

And I didn't claim that you have to show anything.

I simply pointed out that if you wanted to back up your opinion with any evidence, I don't know what such evidence would consist of.

I think we've shown lots of evidence. From the deceit of the bond hearing, to the way the NEN phone call doesn't match the walkthrough, to the way the location of the debris and body don't match the initial statements, to the way other details of his story don't make sense. All of this is evidence that his claim of self-defense is not to be believed. So far, you've decided that none of that convinces you, but that doesn't mean you haven't seen it.

 

[KatieG]

Are they mutually exclusive actions or something ? You know it is possible to both prepare a case and give a occasional press conference ?

And during that press conference, it's probably better for your client for you to say that you are confident about your case, rather than to say you doubt your client is innocent or similar.

I really don't get why you are trying to disparage MOM for saying positive things about his case. It's like you are just looking for anything to try legitimately criticize him for , and failing.



He explained the reasons. Either you didn't bother reading them, or you are intentionally being disingenuous. They started this process last year to simply have the State give them the same information the FBI had given to the state.

The defense is well aware of the procedure for requesting documents from the FBI, as are we aware of the regulatory limitations, and as such, we are also aware that such a request would be unlikely to produce any more information that has already been provided to the State. The purpose for our DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY in regards to FBI documents, and the Court’s subsequent order, was to begin the long process of gaining access relevant aspects of the FBI file regarding its investigation into possible civil rights violations in regards to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Also, you forgot to acknowledge that the real problem lay in Judge Nelson thinking she could force the FBI to turn over the files - not in MOM requests that the State turn over the info.



I guess that's up to his client to decide. If he thinks that delaying the trial will garner a better possibility of winning an immunity hearing, or a better chance at being assured of winning the trial, then he probably is doing his job properly.



And I didn't claim that you have to show anything.

I simply pointed out that if you wanted to back up your opinion with any evidence, I don't know what such evidence would consist of.

So everyone is blame but O'Mara because he can't get it together? Doesn't look good for GZ.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think we've shown lots of evidence. From the deceit of the bond hearing, to the way the NEN phone call doesn't match the walkthrough, to the way the location of the debris and body don't match the initial statements, to the way other details of his story don't make sense. All of this is evidence that his claim of self-defense is not to be believed. So far, you've decided that none of that convinces you, but that doesn't mean you haven't seen it.

Your taking my statement out of context. I was referring to the possibility of MOM intentionally delaying things, to which I responded:

I;m really not sure there is anything to read into it. I don't see any benefit for MOM in delaying the inevitable, if that's how it really is. Maybe he is just delaying - I don't know how you would go about showing that's all he is doing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So everyone is blame but O'Mara because he can't get it together? Doesn't look good for GZ.

What is "it" that MOM can't get together ?

Judge Nelson is the one who put in a bonehead order. Is that supposed to be MOM fault ?

 

[johnny karate]

Are they mutually exclusive actions or something ? You know it is possible to both prepare a case and give a occasional press conference ?

And during that press conference, it's probably better for your client for you to say that you are confident about your case, rather than to say you doubt your client is innocent or similar.

I don't disagree with any of that.

However, none it changes the fact that O'Mara was somewhat full of crap when he crowed about the strength of Zimmerman's case.

I really don't get why you are trying to disparage MOM for saying positive things about his case. It's like you are just looking for anything to try legitimately criticize him for , and failing.

How am I failing?

He's taken two positions that contradict one another regarding his confidence in his case. He's been dragging his heels while the prosecution is ready to go to trial.

You can certainly mitigate that, but you can't deny it.

And I'm just pointing out how that looks.

He explained the reasons. Either you didn't bother reading them, or you are intentionally being disingenuous. They started this process last year to simply have the State give them the same information the FBI had given to the state.

The defense is well aware of the procedure for requesting documents from the FBI, as are we aware of the regulatory limitations, and as such, we are also aware that such a request would be unlikely to produce any more information that has already been provided to the State. The purpose for our DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY in regards to FBI documents, and the Court’s subsequent order, was to begin the long process of gaining access relevant aspects of the FBI file regarding its investigation into possible civil rights violations in regards to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

So O'Mara's excuse for not doing his job is that he thought following the proper procedures "would be unlikely to produce any more information that has already been provided to the State"?

Seems to me that he kind of set himself up to fail.

If O'Mara had followed proper procedure and still didn't get what he wanted, I'd think he had a point. But he didn't, so he doesn't.

Also, you forgot to acknowledge that the real problem lay in Judge Nelson thinking she could force the FBI to turn over the files - not in MOM requests that the State turn over the info.

If that's the real problem, then it begins with O'Mara not being competent enough to know that before he filed his motion with her instead of with the proper venue.

I guess that's up to his client to decide. If he thinks that delaying the trial will garner a better possibility of winning an immunity hearing, or a better chance at being assured of winning the trial, then he probably is doing his job properly.

And if Zimmerman's acquittal depends on getting those FRI records, I guess O'Mara's assertion about Zimmerman's self-defense claim being so strong was just PR smoke-blowing.

And I didn't claim that you have to show anything.

I simply pointed out that if you wanted to back up your opinion with any evidence, I don't know what such evidence would consist of.

What I find fascinating about your sudden ardent defense of O'Mara is that just a few pages ago you were accusing him of lying at a bond hearing at the expense of his client.

It seems odd that you would defend a man you believe to be guilty of such blatantly unethical and illegal behavior.

 

[johnny karate]

What is "it" that MOM can't get together ?

Judge Nelson is the one who put in a bonehead order. Is that supposed to be MOM fault ?

O'Mara is the one who requested the bonehead order.

If Lester is a bonehead for putting in the order, how is O'Mara not a bonehead for requesting her to?