Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

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

You keep reposting that exchange with Gilbreath, as if it means the prosecution has no evidence with which to challenge who started the fight. If that's true, then what sort of risk is there for George?

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 ?

Which is funny, because (a) that's why Nelson scheduled it for 45 days before trial, and the defense passed on it, and (b) you're exactly echoing what Leatherman said, even though you spare no opportunity to mock him.

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.

Since you're obviously reading Leatherman sometimes, you should read what he says about the concept of timeliness in court cases. Judges like to schedule things so that the wheels turn reliably. When you decline to meet their deadlines, that's considered the same as waiving your right to something. Be it a motion, a hearing, or whatever. Furthermore, he discusses some of the problems with combining the two hearings and why it could lead to a reversal and a retrial. Again, I couldn't find any stories of trials being combined with immunity hearings, can you?

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.

Yeah, I don't support that either. I bet no one does. Because it's silly.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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?

You've already demonstrated you argue about legal motions with your emotions, why should I believe you when you say that's not how it works ?

If it's true that "What happened before in a person's life doesn't tell us what she did in the night in question." , why do you keep bringing up things in GZ past ?

 

[Unabogie]

You've already demonstrated you argue about legal motions with your emotions, why should I believe you when you say that's not how it works ?

This is a personal attack and rather ironic coming from someone who spends half his time saying "LEAVE GEORGE ALOOOOOONNE" around here. It's not worthy of an answer.

If it's true that "What happened before in a person's life doesn't tell us what she did in the night in question." , why do you keep bringing up things in GZ past ?

Because I'm talking about what we can glean here, on a message board, not what will be allowed at trial. Have I ever argued that his prior assault on a DEA agent, his rape of his cousin, or his violent outburst with his fiancee would be allowed at trial?

But I notice that you can't answer the question of what sort of things you think they'll find in his school records that will be used at trial.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You keep reposting that exchange with Gilbreath, as if it means the prosecution has no evidence with which to challenge who started the fight. If that's true, then what sort of risk is there for George?

Be more specific ? The risk of an immunity trial ? Hasn't that already been answered ?

Which is funny, because (a) that's why Nelson scheduled it for 45 days before trial, and the defense passed on it, and (b) you're exactly echoing what Leatherman said, even though you spare no opportunity to mock him.

Can you link to where Judge Nelson explained that the 45 days was to ensure that a ruling wouldn't prejudice potential jurors ?? I missed her reasoning.

Since you're obviously reading Leatherman sometimes, you should read what he says about the concept of timeliness in court cases. Judges like to schedule things so that the wheels turn reliably. When you decline to meet their deadlines, that's considered the same as waiving your right to something.

What's the deadline to file a motion for immunity ?

Be it a motion, a hearing, or whatever. Furthermore, he discusses some of the problems with combining the two hearings and why it could lead to a reversal and a retrial. Again, I couldn't find any stories of trials being combined with immunity hearings, can you?

I didn't look. Did you find any law prohibiting it ?

 

[Unabogie]

Be more specific ? The risk of an immunity trial ? Hasn't that already been answered ?

Not sufficiently, no.

Can you link to where Judge Nelson explained that the 45 days was to ensure that a ruling wouldn't prejudice potential jurors ?? I missed her reasoning.

Why else would she have said "no less than 45 days"?

What's the deadline to file a motion for immunity ?

The deadline for a hearing was 45 days. The defense passed on it. Do you think the judge can rule on immunity without a hearing?

I didn't look. Did you find any law prohibiting it ?

Here's what I found on it.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013...he-zimmerman-case-is-a-terrible-idea-part-ii/

In the absence of a procedure for handling these matters, we find guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987). In that case, the court decided that Colorado’s similar immunity statute authorized a trial court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the pretrial stage and did not merely create an affirmative defense for adjudication at trial. Id. at 976. The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress. Id.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is a personal attack and rather ironic coming from someone who spends half his time saying "LEAVE GEORGE ALOOOOOONNE" around here. It's not worthy of an answer.

I'm sorry you took it as a personal attack, it was meant to be a serious question.

After you say:

How is guessing wrongly about a matter of law or a judge's ruling a sign of a bad argument? I still think it's intrusive and abusive. I still think it's irrelevant to what happened that night.

The judge didn't explain in her order any of the legal reasoning behind it so I'll just assume this kind of order is more routine than I thought. That's ok, I don't pretend to be a lawyer."​

​

I'm reticent to accept your legal explanations without additional evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not sufficiently, no.

I'm sorry you don't find the reasons sufficient.

Why else would she have said "no less than 45 days"?

So no, you can't you link to where Judge Nelson explained that the 45 days was to ensure that a ruling wouldn't prejudice potential jurors. Thanks.

The deadline for a hearing was 45 days. The defense passed on it. Do you think the judge can rule on immunity without a hearing?

Well then, it will be interesting to see what happens. Either there will be an immunity hearing, or not.

Here's what I found on it.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013...he-zimmerman-case-is-a-terrible-idea-part-ii/

I don't see how that quote was relevant the the topic of combining a trial with an immunity hearing in FL.

 

[sgtbaker]

"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.

Wait, so you quote my post and respond to with with an argument against a perspective I don't have so you can say hardy har to someone else? Wouldn't it make more sense to find the post claiming it was an airtight case, quote that post and make your argument there?

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.

You are free to not like my reasoning and disagree with it, but please don't pretend I didn't say it. There is little logic to opting to use a hearing that he doesn't have a high chance at winning which only serves to limit his defense options at a criminal trial that he has more of a chance at winning. I explained it here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9064121&postcount=5630

 

[Dancing David]

At this point, we're putting little kids in handcuffs for throwing tantrums, and suspending them for biting Pop-Tarts into the shape of a gun. I think it's safe to say that being suspended is meaningless as far as wrongdoing goes.

I would say you have a sample bias going there.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

No, discovery is a different process,the defense can discover lots of stuff, what will be ruled as admissible is different.

the other question is why it would be relevant, TM's history is NOT relevant to the defenses case, TM's behavior outside of teat night has no bearing on why GZ shot him, the fact that TM went to the store is irrelevant window dressing as well.

TM did not have notched eyebrows, nor did he wear a hoodie that said Grangster Disciple Looking for Latin Kings to Kill.

If he had that would be relevant to GZ's state of mind when he shot TM, what TM did in school has absolutely no bearing on the case.

 

[WildCat]

"Air-tight" is certainly how Zimmerman's story has been presented in this thread.

This is a lie, and people wonder why I use the term "Trayvon truthers".

Because apparently you can't portray The Truth^TM without a whole bunch of lies.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, discovery is a different process,the defense can discover lots of stuff, what will be ruled as admissible is different.

the other question is why it would be relevant, TM's history is NOT relevant to the defenses case, TM's behavior outside of teat night has no bearing on why GZ shot him, the fact that TM went to the store is irrelevant window dressing as well.

TM did not have notched eyebrows, nor did he wear a hoodie that said Grangster Disciple Looking for Latin Kings to Kill.

If he had that would be relevant to GZ's state of mind when he shot TM, what TM did in school has absolutely no bearing on the case.

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...ense-receives-trayvon-martin-s-school-records

The Zimmerman defense received the school records of Trayvon Martin, as ordered by Judge Nelson. When we asked the Court to issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum for the school records, the State objected, and Mr. Crump, on behalf of the Martin family, registered a public objection. They argued, in part, that George Zimmerman did not know Trayvon Martin before the night of February 26, 2012, and so the nature of Trayvon’s character as revealed in the school records is irrelevant to the case at hand.

The Judge ruled that the defense should have the records. This ruling was based, in large part, on a case called State v. Munoz, 45 So 3d 954 (3 DCA 2010). That case holds that, under the right circumstances, a person's reputation for violence may be admissible in a case, even if the person accused of the crime was unaware of the reputation. The case focuses on the issue of the whether the person with the reputation may have acted aggressively in this case.

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.

I'm sorry, I am still not seeing how what I said was wrong. It looks like there was an objection that the records were not relevant, and the judge said they might be. And there is case history showing what TM did in school may have a bearing on the case.

 

[johnny karate]

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

It has been asserted that the prosecution has no evidence to refute Zimmerman's story.

It has been asserted that the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are insignificant.

How does that not render Zimmerman's story air-tight?

And by the way, the last time we went through a similar semantic exercise was when you were claiming that Zimmerman's account of the assault wasn't being fairly described by me as brutal and cold-blooded.

Of course you never explained how someone willfully trying to murder someone else by bashing their head against the pavement, smothering them, and finally attempting to shoot them with their own gun before saying "You're going to die tonight" isn't brutal and cold-blooded, so I don't expect much of an argument from you on this point either.

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 any more than any other aspect of a high-profile murder case.

If you wish to assert otherwise, please provide evidence that losing an immunity hearing serves as a detriment to the defendant in the subsequent trial based on jury prejudice.

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.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[johnny karate]

Wait, so you quote my post and respond to with with an argument against a perspective I don't have so you can say hardy har to someone else? Wouldn't it make more sense to find the post claiming it was an airtight case, quote that post and make your argument there?

What would make sense is for you to clearly articulate what specifically Zimmerman has to fear in losing an immunity hearing.

You are free to not like my reasoning and disagree with it, but please don't pretend I didn't say it. There is little logic to opting to use a hearing that he doesn't have a high chance at winning which only serves to limit his defense options at a criminal trial that he has more of a chance at winning. I explained it here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9064121&postcount=5630

Your reasoning is vague and unspecific. In the linked post you basically just describe how immunity hearings are different from trials.

I want to know what specific reason you think Zimmerman has to fear in losing an immunity hearing, as opposed to generalities about defendants taking the stand.

 

[johnny karate]

This is a lie, and people wonder why I use the term "Trayvon truthers".

Because apparently you can't portray The Truth^TM without a whole bunch of lies.

It has been asserted that the prosecution has no evidence to refute Zimmerman's story.

It has been asserted that the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are insignificant.

How does that not render Zimmerman's story air-tight?

 

[sgtbaker]

What would make sense is for you to clearly articulate what specifically Zimmerman has to fear in losing an immunity hearing.



Your reasoning is vague and unspecific. In the linked post you basically just describe how immunity hearings are different from trials.

I want to know what specific reason you think Zimmerman has to fear in losing an immunity hearing, as opposed to generalities about defendants taking the stand.

What would make even more sense is if you stop telling me how to make my arguments.

I stressed this was my opinion. I offered my opinion and you tell me not good enough because you want me to frame an argument around something I am not talking about? I am sorry but you are going to have to live with the wanting on that one.

 

[WildCat]

It has been asserted that the prosecution has no evidence to refute Zimmerman's story.

It has been asserted that the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are insignificant.

How does that not render Zimmerman's story air-tight?

None of that translates to "air tight case", that's purely your spin.

There's a local case here where someone was convicted of a serious crime even though records clearly show he was in a police lockup at the time it was committed.

There's no such thing as an "air tight case", as that and the many other wrongful convictions which have come to light show beyond doubt.

It's hard to discuss this issue when the other side constantly resorts to strawman arguments. That you and others here do this continually shows you are the ones moat concerned about the strength of the prosecution's case.

 

[johnny karate]

What would make even more sense is if you stop telling me how to make my arguments.

I stressed this was my opinion. I offered my opinion and you tell me not good enough because you want me to frame an argument around something I am not talking about? I am sorry but you are going to have to live with the wanting on that one.

You are absolutely correct. You have every right to make poor arguments in which you refuse to substantiate your opinions with anything more than vague generalities. I apologize if my request for clarification offended you.

 

[johnny karate]

None of that translates to "air tight case", that's purely your spin.

There's a local case here where someone was convicted of a serious crime even though records clearly show he was in a police lockup at the time it was committed.

There's no such thing as an "air tight case", as that and the many other wrongful convictions which have come to light show beyond doubt.

It's hard to discuss this issue when the other side constantly resorts to strawman arguments. That you and others here do this continually shows you are the ones moat concerned about the strength of the prosecution's case.

I never said Zimmerman had an "air tight case" (despite the fact that you, for some reason, put that in quotes twice).

It's hard to discuss the issue when the other side can't even do something as simple as correctly quote what I actually stated.

 

[wasapi]

You are absolutely correct. You have every right to make poor arguments in which you refuse to substantiate your opinions with anything more than vague generalities. I apologize if my request for clarification offended you.

Having an interest in this case, I have been trying to follow this thread.

Opposing beliefs shared by posters often make a thread more interesting.

Having said that, your sarcasm sucks. I can't recall who said it, but the quote I recall reading said something like, "Sarcasm is a sign of a defeated wit."

Really, it doesn't make your stand on this issue more palpable.