Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

A lot of people in this thread have made some good calls and some bad calls. We've all argued what we thought and quite often it was based on absence of evidence. I, personally, don't see the evidence as damning as you do. That doesn't mean I know how a judge or jury is going to see the evidence.

Some of the things that won't help GZ's case are how politicized this case is, the judges history of being pro prosecution, and the media coverage of this case. There is a lack of evidence in favor of SYG application but it is the same lack of evidence against his claim. Neither side seems to have the evidence to, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, who started the altercation.

But if this were true, and if there's a lack of evidence for the state, then what's to lose by holding an immunity hearing? If there's reasonable doubt for the defendant, and the law says it only takes a preponderance of the evidence, then why not go for it?

In fact, if all you need for innocence is a record of cuts and bruises and a lack of witnesses, then why wouldn't this be a slam dunk for the defense? Why would they need more time? Why would they need experts? Obviously, they know more than we do, but judging by how much George's supporters boasted of his strong case, I don't see any downside to just asking the judge for immunity and seeing how it goes. Many defendants have won immunity hearings in Florida.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

Seems like pretty good odds here. I still see no explanation for not trying except that the case is stronger than his supporters will admit.

 

[sgtbaker]

But if this were true, and if there's a lack of evidence for the state, then what's to lose by holding an immunity hearing? If there's reasonable doubt for the defendant, and the law says it only takes a preponderance of the evidence, then why not go for it?

In fact, if all you need for innocence is a record of cuts and bruises and a lack of witnesses, then why wouldn't this be a slam dunk for the defense? Why would they need more time? Why would they need experts? Obviously, they know more than we do, but judging by how much George's supporters boasted of his strong case, I don't see any downside to just asking the judge for immunity and seeing how it goes. Many defendants have won immunity hearings in Florida.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133



Seems like pretty good odds here. I still see no explanation for not trying except that the case is stronger than his supporters will admit.

Are you pretending I haven't answered the question already or are you honestly not understanding the difference between the defense's role in an immunity hearing vs their role in a criminal trial?

 

[Unabogie]

Are you pretending I haven't answered the question already or are you honestly not understanding the difference between the defense's role in an immunity hearing vs their role in a criminal trial?

I don't understand what your objection is to what I wrote. You said that their loss at an immunity hearing would harm them at the trial. I argued that you weren't correct in this. Therefore, they don't have anything to lose by trying for immunity and a lot to gain. Then I pointed you to some stats on how good the odds were for people claiming immunity in Florida. It's pretty staggering how many people get off in that state. And yet, in light of this, the defense is passing up the hearing and hasn't explained why. I don't think you've presented a plausible explanation and I'm telling you why.

I am not pretending you haven't answered, just that I don't think your answer is sufficient.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't understand what your objection is to what I wrote. You said that their loss at an immunity hearing would harm them at the trial. I argued that you weren't correct in this. Therefore, they don't have anything to lose by trying for immunity and a lot to gain. Then I pointed you to some stats on how good the odds were for people claiming immunity in Florida. It's pretty staggering how many people get off in that state. And yet, in light of this, the defense is passing up the hearing and hasn't explained why. I don't think you've presented a plausible explanation and I'm telling you why.

I am not pretending you haven't answered, just that I don't think your answer is sufficient.

How does O'Mara prove, more likely than not, TM started the fight?
Lack of evidence to prove one thing does not mean evidence that proves the opposite.

 

[Unabogie]

How does O'Mara prove, more likely than not, TM started the fight?

He doesn't have to, does he? He has to prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that he was reasonably in fear for his life. All he has to avoid is evidence that this isn't true. If none exists, then all he has to do is show his cuts and bruises and explain what happened to him. If you believe his story, then he was in fear for his life. If the witnesses all support his version of things, then it should be easy, shouldn't it?

It seems fairly obvious that the defense is passing up a good opportunity for a reason that they won't explain.

 

[sgtbaker]

He doesn't have to, does he? He has to prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that he was reasonably in fear for his life. All he has to avoid is evidence that this isn't true. If none exists, then all he has to do is show his cuts and bruises and explain what happened to him. If you believe his story, then he was in fear for his life. If the witnesses all support his version of things, then it should be easy, shouldn't it?

It seems fairly obvious that the defense is passing up a good opportunity for a reason that they won't explain.

No because one of the nullifications of SYG is if GZ started the altercation. You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground.

 

[Unabogie]

No because one of the nullifications of SYG is if GZ started the altercation. You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground.

First off, I don't know if that's true. If you start a bar fight by pushing someone and he pulls a knife on you and tries to stab you, are you really precluded from responding?

But secondly, in his story he didn't start the fight and there's allegedly zero evidence to the contrary. If that's true, and all the witnesses support the rest of his story, there's no downside to trying for immunity.

I don't know how much clearer this situation could be. Almost every defendant who claims SYG tries for immunity before the trial. George seems to be in the minority here, and I don't see why we can't draw inferences from that.

That link from before has another crazy example:

Lewis was considering immunity motions stemming from a Tallahassee gang shooting that resulted in the death of one of the participants, a 15-year-old boy.

The judge said he had no choice but to grant immunity to two men who fired the AK-47 responsible for the death even though they fired 25 to 30 times outside an apartment complex. The reason: It could not be proved they fired first.

It seems as though "tie goes to the shooter" over there in Florida.

 

[sgtbaker]

First off, I don't know if that's true. If you start a bar fight by pushing someone and he pulls a knife on you and tries to stab you, are you really precluded from responding?

But secondly, in his story he didn't start the fight and there's allegedly zero evidence to the contrary. If that's true, and all the witnesses support the rest of his story, there's no downside to trying for immunity.

I don't know how much clearer this situation could be. Almost every defendant who claims SYG tries for immunity before the trial. George seems to be in the minority here, and I don't see why we can't draw inferences from that.

That link from before has another crazy example:



It seems as though "tie goes to the shooter" over there in Florida.

The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. To claim self-defense in such a scenario, Section 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. See Section 776.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html

 

[Unabogie]

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html

Doesn't that exactly describe what George claimed happened to him? He wasn't the aggressor. He didn't start the fight. Martin tried to murder him and in fact TOLD him he wanted to murder him.

As long as the judge believes him, why not try?

Do you now believe that George started the fight after all?

 

[johnny karate]

How does O'Mara prove, more likely than not, TM started the fight?
Lack of evidence to prove one thing does not mean evidence that proves the opposite.

If that's the stumbling block, I'm not seeing how it would be an issue to prevent an attempt at an immunity hearing.

Zimmerman takes the stand and tells his air-tight story.

The prosecution is, of course, unable to refute any part of it.

But the judge decides there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove Zimmerman didn't start the altercation.

It goes to trial, where the burden is now on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman did start the altercation, which the immunity hearing already demonstrated they couldn't do.

How is Zimmerman harmed by that?

 

[Unabogie]

If that's the stumbling block, I'm not seeing how it would be an issue to prevent an attempt at an immunity hearing.

Zimmerman takes the stand and tells his air-tight story.

The prosecution is, of course, unable to refute any part of it.

But the judge decides there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove Zimmerman didn't start the altercation.

It goes to trial, where the burden is now on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman did start the altercation, which the immunity hearing already demonstrated they couldn't do.

How is Zimmerman harmed by that?

Indeed. That article is just full of stories that sound very similar to this one.

Day said the immunity hearings are a critical backstop in self-defense cases that should never go to a jury. Of the cases in the Times' database that have been resolved, 23 percent were dismissed by a judge after an immunity hearing. That means 38 defendants facing the prospect of a jury trial were set free by a judge who ruled the evidence leaned in their favor.

"Where the defendant is clearly in the right and gets arrested, should you have to take your chance with what six people believe or don't believe?" Day said. "Judges are denying these motions where they should be denied and granting them in the limited number of cases statewide where they should be granted."

A prime example, he said, is the case of his client, Jorge Saavedra, a 14-year-old charged with aggravated manslaughter last year in the death of Dylan Nuno.

Saavedra was in special education classes at Palmetto Ridge High School in Collier County and was often the target of taunts. Nuno, 16, went to the same school.

On Jan. 24, 2011, the two boys were riding the bus home. Saavedra was warned repeatedly that Nuno intended to fight with him when he got off at his regular stop. Saavedra replied each time that he did not want to fight, but he also pulled out a pocketknife to show friends.

Saavedra got off the bus early with a friend to try to avoid a confrontation. But Nuno and his friends followed, and Nuno punched the younger boy in the back of the head.

For a while, Saavedra kept walking as he was being punched. Then he turned, reached in his pocket for the knife and stabbed Nuno 12 times.

Prosecutors pursued charges despite evidence that Saavedra tried to get away and felt cornered by an older boy and a crowd of teens shouting for a fight. They argued that because he brought a knife to a fistfight, he should be tried for murder. [ED: just like George, right? He brought a gun to a trip to Target]

Without "stand your ground," Saavedra would likely have gone to trial. But the law required a hearing before a judge and that judge granted him immunity.

Nuno's mother, Kim Maxwell, said her son made a bad decision to throw the first punch, but she's incredulous that it led to his death and even more stunned that his killer went free.

Said Day: "You don't have to wait until you're dead before you use deadly force."

The way the law works, if you can show that you were attacked and were in fear, you get to walk away and not risk trial. You also get to be immune from civil suit, and isn't that worth the extra effort?

Of note: none of these immunity hearings were "wrapped up with the trial". If that happens it would be the first of its kind as far as I can tell.

 

[sgtbaker]

Doesn't that exactly describe what George claimed happened to him? He wasn't the aggressor. He didn't start the fight. Martin tried to murder him and in fact TOLD him he wanted to murder him.

As long as the judge believes him, why not try?

Do you now believe that George started the fight after all?

No and we are officially talking in circles, see post 5644 and I am done.

 

[sgtbaker]

If that's the stumbling block, I'm not seeing how it would be an issue to prevent an attempt at an immunity hearing.

Zimmerman takes the stand and tells his air-tight story.

I don't know why you use the term air tight, with when talking with me because I've never indicated such. For the record, weren't you, pages ago, asking everyone to keep it civil? Seasoning my position so you can sarcastically beat it down is a part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[This is The End]

O'Mara originally asked him to recuse himself, accusing Lester of showing extreme bias. Lester disagreed but the appeals court ruled in favor of O'Mara's motion.

The appeals court was hardly overwhelming. At least one of the judges said they saw no bias.

Like I said earlier, we will know the evidence before the trial, what we don't know is how they are going to present it.

Oh great not this again.

That is flat out not true at all.

There can and will be new evidence after the trial starts. New things are not just limited to "how they present it".

How does O'Mara prove, more likely than not, TM started the fight?

What does that have to do with anything?

No because one of the nullifications of SYG is if GZ started the altercation. You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground.

Are you sure about that? Where did you hear that?

ETA: I see that you just posted a link that contradicts that entirely. It says what Unabogie first said to you. That it doesn't matter if he started the fight or not if he can prove that he couldn't escape and was in reasonable fear for his lift.

Your own link says the highlighted is not true at all.

 

[sgtbaker]

The appeals court was hardly overwhelming. At least one of the judges said they saw no bias.

Is there a point to that? I don't recall implying that it was overwhelming. Actually, the fact that there was a disagreement among the appeals court supports my point.

Oh great not this again.

That is flat out not true at all.

There can and will be new evidence after the trial starts. New things are not just limited to "how they present it".

If you decide to plead not guilty, your case will proceed to trial. During the pretrial process, Florida criminal lawyers prepare to defend you in court by:

• Regularly exchanging all evidence they plan to present in court with the prosecution. During this “discovery” phase, the prosecution must also share their evidence with your Florida criminal lawyer. If they have committed any procedural errors, your attorney may file a motion to dismiss the charges against you. Insufficient evidence that could reasonably be expected to lead a guilty verdict can also be grounds for dismissal.

If they plan on entering it as evidence, they have to share it. If the prosecution is in posession of evidence that they fail to disclose, it can result in a mistrial or having the verdict over turned. If any evidence comes up during the trial it has to be reviewed by the judge.

What does that have to do with anything?

That is GZ's claim, yes? They have to prove that his version is more likely than not, in the immunity hearing.

Are you sure about that? Where did you hear that?

ETA: I see that you just posted a link that contradicts that entirely. It says what Unabogie first said to you. That it doesn't matter if he started the fight or not if he can prove that he couldn't escape and was in reasonable fear for his lift.

Your own link says the highlighted is not true at all

Not quite "not true at all" given the first sentence. I didn't just snip the first sentence, I encluded the entire provision. I know what it says and it goes straight to my point, from the start. Just incase you jumped in the conversation, without reading the conversation leading up to this, I will go through it once again.

In the immunity hearing, the defense has to make the case, as opposed to the prosecution in the criminal trial. As I said before, the absence of evidence that is difficult for the prosecution in the criminal trial is the same absence of evidence that would be difficult for the defense in the immunity hearing. In the criminal trial, the defense can raise GZ's story in response to prosecutions claims. In the immunity hearing, the defense has to prove it.

 

[remirol]

In the immunity hearing, the defense has to make the case, as opposed to the prosecution in the criminal trial. As I said before, the absence of evidence that is difficult for the prosecution in the criminal trial is the same absence of evidence that would be difficult for the defense in the immunity hearing. In the criminal trial, the defense can raise GZ's story in response to prosecutions claims. In the immunity hearing, the defense has to prove it.

In the criminal trial, though, to raise GZ's story in response, they'll have to put him on the stand. That's what they're obviously trying to avoid doing.

I'm only tangentially following the whole immunity hearing thing, but lemme see if I can sum up:

* The defense has provisionally declined the opportunity for an immunity hearing; they have not formally waived it but they have very little time to arrange for another one before the time limit has passed, so it seems reasonable to assume they are just going to let time run out.
* An immunity hearing in stand-your-ground cases is an excellent opportunity for the defense to completely dismiss the charges if and only if the defense feels they can prove their case.
* The burden of proof in any such hearing rests on the defense, in direct contrast to the actual trial.

The reasons for declining such a hearing would seem obvious: the defense doesn't feel they can prove their case, and anything George says during such a hearing in response to questioning... from either attorney... would be admissible in trial.

Given that the defense is fully aware (or will be) of all the evidence the prosecution intends to bring to trial, my take is that they consider the hearing to be more of a risk (George's testimony is very dangerous -- see my earlier posts) than it could possibly be a benefit, especially since it would be impossible to prove their case without George's testimony. If the prosecution's case is very strong they'd be putting George on the stand anyway, so they still think they can gut it out without him... OR they have assessed his story and concluded that it can't possibly withstand cross-examination and so he's going to be sitting in the defendant's chair the whole time and stewing.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't know why you use the term air tight, with when talking with me because I've never indicated such. For the record, weren't you, pages ago, asking everyone to keep it civil? Seasoning my position so you can sarcastically beat it down is a part of the problem, not the solution.

"Air-tight" is certainly how Zimmerman's story has been presented in this thread. And while I'm not attributing that characterization to you, I am trying to get you to articulate specifically why you think an immunity hearing poses such a threat to Zimmerman.

So far, you've explained why you think he would lose an immunity hearing, but I've yet to see you explain why you think losing an immunity hearing would be so devastating as to make it not worth the risk.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"Air-tight" is certainly how Zimmerman's story has been presented in this thread. And while I'm not attributing that characterization to you, I am trying to get you to articulate specifically why you think an immunity hearing poses such a threat to Zimmerman.

No, that characterization is 100% you. What has been presented in this thread is the lack of evidence required to successfully prosecute GZ.

So far, you've explained why you think he would lose an immunity hearing,

Renmeber way back when ?

I am pretty sure you know you are conflating a "strong case for self defense" and winning an immunity hearing.

However, a lot of good information can be gleaned from this post from Talkleft.

Zimmerman takes the stand and tells his air-tight story.
The prosecution is, of course, unable to refute any part of it.
But the judge decides there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove Zimmerman didn't start the altercation.
It goes to trial, where the burden is now on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman did start the altercation, which the immunity hearing already demonstrated they couldn't do.
How is Zimmerman harmed by that?

I'm glad sgt baker helped you finally understand the difference.

but I've yet to see you explain why you think losing an immunity hearing would be so devastating as to make it not worth the risk.

If a judge ruled against GZ in an immunity hearing 2 weeks before the trial - do you think they would be able to find jurors who don't hear about that ruling ? Do you think it's possible that ruling could prejudice jurors against GZ ?

Not having one means, according to you, that means:

That either means O'Mara is a) and incompetent attorney, or b) he's not really interested in having an immunity hearing.

Here's the thing. What happens if MOM files for immunity April 25 ? We know the judge will not say , no, you can't have a hearing. He already threw out combining the hearing and the trial, and was not shot down by the judge. If they get combined, MOM get's to have his cake and eat it, too.

Here is an alternate theory I don't support, but is possible:
MOM wants to be a rock star, and go to trial no matter what.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And the link between school suspension to something relevant to the trial of GZ is what?

I'm not sure. My understanding is it could possibly be brought up if certain characterizations are made.

But I assume the school records are relevant in some regard, or the judge would not have granted them to the defense.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not sure. My understanding is it could possibly be brought up if certain characterizations are made.

But I assume the school records are relevant in some regard, or the judge would not have granted them to the defense.

That's not how it works. The judge will only entertain a motion as to why the materials are relevant, and then will also consider why they are more probative than prejudicial. Just granting them to the defense doesn't mean they are relevant to the case. That's up to the defense to argue. Usually the answer is no. For instance, you can't present to a jury "all the men a woman slept with" and use that to argue she likely consented to being raped. What happened before in a person's life doesn't tell us what she did in the night in question. However, a history of false rape accusations could possibly be presented at trial (although even then I'm not sure).

So just what sort of things do you think will be in his school records that are relevant here? And why they wouldn't be prejudicial?