Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Laughably enough, it's because of this:
Because nothing proves self-defense like demonstrating that the parents of the victim might be biased against the guy who killed their son. This is obviously the case-cracker.

At this point, I have to wonder if O'Mara has actually looked at any of the evidence. Because according to assertions made in this thread, it quite clearly exonerates his client.

So what's with all these weird desperation moves?

Asserting that they are "weird desperation moves" hardly makes them that.

And as pointed out below, the Clerk said it is being unsealed unless there is a good reason:

Evidence of financial motive as impeachment. Remember that the Clerk of Court opined that it should be unsealed. Zimmerman is asking for the settlement to either be unsealed or provided as discovery which presumably would be protected.

The weirdest thing about it is that Crump decided he needed to file that agreement in in the case to begin with ...

 

[Dancing David]

Because nothing proves self-defense like demonstrating that the parents of the victim might be biased against the guy who killed their son. This is obviously the case-cracker.

Well then you don't need the sealed records to try to defuse their testimony, it seems to be tossing spaghetti in the dark.

I doubt very much that they will be called to testify, unless it is part of the 'preponderance' of X behavior thing.

 

[Dancing David]

Evidence of financial motive as impeachment. /QUOTE]

Impeachment of what exactly? Seriously, this is specious. What could not be covered in the usual back and forth of testimony, cross and recross?

There is not going to be any conspiracy by TM's parents or witness tampering by them. Their testimony will be minor character witness stuff, and if TM's father decides to testify that was his son's voice, then there will be plenty of expert testimony to dilute it.

So impeachment of what? I know you may not know.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Some people here have made the contention that Trayvon's family was "dysfunctional" and I know that the defense is going to try and demonstrate that Trayvon was some sort of "thug" who was quick to anger, so I happened to read a story about George's ex girlfriend and what she said he was like.

For chewing gum? He hit someone with no provocation...for CHEWING GUM? What kind of creep treats a woman like that?

Oh, wait, this kind.

That's right. He locked the electrical box and left his mother without electricity because he was mad at her.

Just curious. Does turning off your mother's electricity, locking the junction box, and leaving the house constitute healthy behavior?

And finally, just to show he doesn't always target women...

Yep. He kicked her dog.

But wait, there's this...

You know, just in case we want to compare families, since dysfunctional families is somehow tied to who started things that night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/u...-trayvon-martin-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You missed all this in an article from over a year ago ?

And nice cherry picking, along with the tu quoque:

He never “exhibited any biases or prejudices against anyone and did not use racial epithets of any kind,” she told the F. B.I.

Mr. Zimmerman was the last person she would expect “to be involved in anything like that,” the woman told investigators. “Zimmerman was not the type of person to place himself in a physical confrontation. Zimmerman wanted to be a successful person,” she added.

You know, just in case the information you posted is is somehow tied to who started things that night.

Also, you neglected to explain why TM not living with his mother or father was perfectly normal. Why do you think he wasn't living with his mother ? After all, she said " transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home" Do you want to have a go at rationalizing how that is perfectly normal along with the dope and the school suspensions ?

 

[johnny karate]

Asserting that they are "weird desperation moves" hardly makes them that.

I didn't assert it, I argued it, by pointing out that these documents having nothing to do with determining whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and that O'Mara is wasting his time on this instead of compiling all that evidence that supposedly exonerates his client.

And as pointed out below, the Clerk said it is being unsealed unless there is a good reason:

The weirdest thing about it is that Crump decided he needed to file that agreement in in the case to begin with ...

Maybe. But that doesn't make any of it relevant to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, or explain why O'Mara - the lawyer with so much evidence that supposedly demonstrates his client acted in self-defense - would waste time and resources trying to get it unsealed.

 

[Unabogie]

I'd like to note something else from this article.

George made several claims about what he was doing that night, and specifically claimed he was not on one of his "patrols". In that article, he would sometimes drive with his headlights out and follow people. There was a CCTV at the clubhouse, and it would be interesting to see if they can spot his car driving with the lights off when he pulls in.

But here's another funny thing. George claimed that he didn't recall that he was even carrying a gun that night, and that he totally forgot he had one until Trayvon went for it during his vicious and brutal attack.

But the police found 3 loaded magazines in the car that night. So does this mean George left ammunition in his car, unattended, at all times? Why would someone have 4 magazines in their car when going to the store?

I think we'll hear more about this at the trial.

 

[Unabogie]

You missed all this in an article from over a year ago ?

Actually, yes, I missed the part where he shut off his own mother's electricity and locked the junction box, and left. I missed the part where he assaulted his girlfriend's dog. What a creep.

And nice cherry picking, along with the tu quoque:

He never “exhibited any biases or prejudices against anyone and did not use racial epithets of any kind,” she told the F. B.I.

And yet we know he did because we read his mySpace page where he ranted against Mexicans. We know his brother is flat out racist who says "black people mightB risky". So what does this prove?

Mr. Zimmerman was the last person she would expect “to be involved in anything like that,” the woman told investigators. “Zimmerman was not the type of person to place himself in a physical confrontation. Zimmerman wanted to be a successful person,” she added.

Except when he was assaulting police officers or his girlfriend, or her dog, or random women at a bar, or the unarmed child he murdered, he never placed himself in physical confrontation? Seriously?

You know, just in case the information you posted is is somehow tied to who started things that night.

It's more tied to it than dope smoking or living with an uncle, which you mentioned below.

Also, you neglected to explain why TM not living with his mother or father was perfectly normal. Why do you think he wasn't living with his mother ? After all, she said " transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home" Do you want to have a go at rationalizing how that is perfectly normal along with the dope and the school suspensions ?[

We don't know where he was living beyond that offhand comment from his relative. Maybe it was temporary due to money problems? Maybe he wanted to live closer to a girlfriend but had no car? Maybe the bus took too long to get to school. You're basing your entire theory on one comment with zero information.

By the way, our last THREE presidents, at least, all smoked dope in their teens. I don't think that means much, do you? Yet you keep bringing up smoking weed as if it's important, even though the tox screen on Trayvon showed he hadn't gotten high prior to George murdering him.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Unabogie]

Oh, and one last thing. Apparently Trayvon's uncle had very recently been in a car accident that had left him in a wheelchair. This happened just prior to Trayvon's murder. It's also possible he went to live with his favorite uncle to help his aunt care for him. If you've ever known anyone who's had a recent paralysis (and I have) it a devastating event. And you have to hire expensive nurses to help transfer people in and out of bed, or to the car, etc. It's not something his aunt would have been able to handle alone. Perhaps that's why he went to stay with them.

 

[Cylinder]

Help me understand what financial interest they would have with seeing (in their opinion) their son's murderer in prison? I'm not following. Unless I am reading and understanding this all wrong.

A criminal conviction would be stong evidence of wrongdoing or negligence in a civil case. A criminal aquittal would be strong evidence against wrongdoing and in the facts of this case go a long toward arguing against negligence.

Impeachment of what exactly? Seriously, this is specious. What could not be covered in the usual back and forth of testimony, cross and recross?

Impeachment of testimony from the Martins with evidence of financial motive. If the issue can be covered by testimony at trial, then Zimmerman has a right (in Florida) to prepare for that testimony through the discovery process. This isn't (nor have you framed it as) a question of Zimmerman's guilt. The question is if a criminal defendant has a right (in Florida) to uncover evidence of a financial motive - especially if that evidence is filed with the court in a foolish manner by a third party.

This isn't some under-handed tactic to smear the Martin familiy. The issue of financial motive is seen as important enough to include in the standard jury instructions. From the 3rd DCA:

Wooten v. State

While the rationales of the cases differ, it is generally held that a trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination of a witness concerning a then-pending civil action between the witness and the party seeking to cross-examine is reversible error.

[...]

The State argues that even if cross-examination concerning pending civil litigation with the defendant should have been permitted, the litigation here was not yet pending and was merely contemplated, and the contemplated litigation was a suit against the defendant's employer, not the defendant. In our view, these are distinctions without a difference. The rule that the pendency of a civil action brought against an accused by a witness in a criminal case is the proper subject of inquiry on cross-examination of the witness covers "the situation where no civil action has been commenced, but such a suit is or may be contemplated, as in the case of consultation with, or hiring of, an attorney,"

[...]

Likewise, it is of absolutely no moment that the pending or contemplated litigation is against the defendant's employer rather than the defendant, since, through the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer may be held liable for the defendant's conduct. Thus, the witness's interest in inculpating the defendant and exculpating himself from responsibility is identical in either case.

 

[Unabogie]

Turns out George isn't the only Zimmerman who can't stay out of the pokey.

http://dothprotesttoomuch.com/2013/04/11/will-the-real-robert-zimmerman-jr-please-stand-up/

Now I know it's not fair to blame George just because his brother is a racist who gets arrested for pulling double the legal limit while driving, but what I noticed is that just like his brother, when arrested, he listed himself as "white".

In George's medical records he lists himself as "white".

But now that George is on trial for killing a "mightB risky" kid, they both claim to be "Afro-Peruvian". Back then? Not so much.

 

[Dancing David]

A criminal conviction would be stong evidence of wrongdoing or negligence in a civil case. A criminal aquittal would be strong evidence against wrongdoing and in the facts of this case go a long toward arguing against negligence.



Impeachment of testimony from the Martins with evidence of financial motive. If the issue can be covered by testimony at trial, then Zimmerman has a right (in Florida) to prepare for that testimony through the discovery process. This isn't (nor have you framed it as) a question of Zimmerman's guilt. The question is if a criminal defendant has a right (in Florida) to uncover evidence of a financial motive - especially if that evidence is filed with the court in a foolish manner by a third party.

This isn't some under-handed tactic to smear the Martin familiy. The issue of financial motive is seen as important enough to include in the standard jury instructions. From the 3rd DCA:

Wooten v. State

I understand that, but you can't impeach any character testimony on that basis.

And I don't see how and what financial; motive would impeach what testimony?

From the appeals case

Since neither the defendant's nor Horton's version of the events was corroborated to any substantial degree by other witnesses, the jury's verdict necessarily turned on its assessment of the credibility of the two antagonists.
...
...
...
Thus, if Horton's retaining a lawyer to bring a civil action against the defendant's employer might have undermined Horton's credibility in the eyes of the jury, it was harmful error to prohibit cross-examination about it.

While the rationales of the cases differ, it is generally held that a trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination of a witness concerning a then-pending civil action between the witness and the party seeking to cross-examine is reversible error.

So in looking at the cause, we do not have mutual testimony, one exponential witness is dead. And the civil suit is not pending.

And if you look at the cited case law in the appeal, I see noting related to GZ's case.

So i ask again, what testimony , exactly and specifically would be impeached? The Wooten case does not involve a past civil suit, nor does it indicate any reason to unseal the settlement between TM's parents and the home owners association.

So I am confused on what bearing this would have.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We don't know where he was living beyond that offhand comment from his relative.

By offhand comment, do you mean a direct answer to a direct question of where he was living ? That kind of offhand comment ?

Maybe it was temporary due to money problems? Maybe he wanted to live closer to a girlfriend but had no car? Maybe the bus took too long to get to school. You're basing your entire theory on one comment with zero information.

Someone may be doing that, but it isn't me.

So you don't want to take a guess as to why the little angel wasn't living with mommy. Or address the how that is not functional and normal. That's fine.

By the way, our last THREE presidents, at least, all smoked dope in their teens.

I don't think that means much, do you? Yet you keep bringing up smoking weed as if it's important, even though the tox screen on Trayvon showed he hadn't gotten high prior to George murdering him.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think it's important in the overall picture of what kind of teen TM was.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't assert it, I argued it, by pointing out that these documents having nothing to do with determining whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and that O'Mara is wasting his time on this instead of compiling all that evidence that supposedly exonerates his client.

I'll just direct you to cylinders reply, as I think that covers the issue.

Maybe. But that doesn't make any of it relevant to Zimmerman's self-defense claim, or explain why O'Mara - the lawyer with so much evidence that supposedly demonstrates his client acted in self-defense - would waste time and resources trying to get it unsealed.

If it's not relevant, ,why did Crump file it with the case ?

 

[KatieG]

Poor taste? Most likely, yes. But an offense worth firing someone over? Nah. I'd suspect that he hires a lawyer and get's his job back.

I prefer the bleeding zombie ones myself....

I think it points more to bad judgment than poor taste. Even the other officers with him weren't amused. You may be right about the lawyer but I hope he doesn't get his job back.

 

[KatieG]

$400 for "dog care"? Was his dog in "hiding" too?

Maybe the dog needs separate security! Very few people care about or keep up with this case anymore. I'm not sure who he's hiding from.

 

[KatieG]

Evidence of financial motive as impeachment. Remember that the Clerk of Court opined that it should be unsealed. Zimmerman is asking for the settlement to either be unsealed or provided as discovery which presumably would be protected.

The Clerk of the Court is just that, a clerk of the court. His/her opinion isn't relevant to the case against GZ. Like others, I don't understand why the settlement is of any help to the case against GZ.

The Martins have rights also and this settlement was about the HOA condoning GZs participation in the NW for RATL.

What will be impeached? I truly want to know the reason behind this?

 

[KatieG]

You missed all this in an article from over a year ago ?

And nice cherry picking, along with the tu quoque:

He never “exhibited any biases or prejudices against anyone and did not use racial epithets of any kind,” she told the F. B.I.

Mr. Zimmerman was the last person she would expect “to be involved in anything like that,” the woman told investigators. “Zimmerman was not the type of person to place himself in a physical confrontation. Zimmerman wanted to be a successful person,” she added.

You know, just in case the information you posted is is somehow tied to who started things that night.

Also, you neglected to explain why TM not living with his mother or father was perfectly normal. Why do you think he wasn't living with his mother ? After all, she said " transferred him out of Carol City High School to be closer to home" Do you want to have a go at rationalizing how that is perfectly normal along with the dope and the school suspensions ?

Better yet, how is that relevant to what happened on the evening of February 26, 2012?

 

[Rare Truth]

I'd like to note something else from this article.

George made several claims about what he was doing that night, and specifically claimed he was not on one of his "patrols". In that article, he would sometimes drive with his headlights out and follow people. There was a CCTV at the clubhouse, and it would be interesting to see if they can spot his car driving with the lights off when he pulls in.

But here's another funny thing. George claimed that he didn't recall that he was even carrying a gun that night, and that he totally forgot he had one until Trayvon went for it during his vicious and brutal attack.

But the police found 3 loaded magazines in the car that night. So does this mean George left ammunition in his car, unattended, at all times? Why would someone have 4 magazines in their car when going to the store?

I think we'll hear more about this at the trial.

Re: loaded magazines.

That was the day he was arrested, not the night of the incident.

 

[KatieG]

I'd like to note something else from this article.

George made several claims about what he was doing that night, and specifically claimed he was not on one of his "patrols". In that article, he would sometimes drive with his headlights out and follow people. There was a CCTV at the clubhouse, and it would be interesting to see if they can spot his car driving with the lights off when he pulls in.

But here's another funny thing. George claimed that he didn't recall that he was even carrying a gun that night, and that he totally forgot he had one until Trayvon went for it during his vicious and brutal attack.
But the police found 3 loaded magazines in the car that night. So does this mean George left ammunition in his car, unattended, at all times? Why would someone have 4 magazines in their car when going to the store?

I think we'll hear more about this at the trial.

I find that to be one of the scariest things he's said in his statements. How do you not remember you're carrying a gun? My gun totin' friends never forget they have it on them. That's all part of the training. This will come back to bite him on the ass at the trial for sure.

 

[Dancing David]

The Clerk of the Court is just that, a clerk of the court. His/her opinion isn't relevant to the case against GZ. Like others, I don't understand why the settlement is of any help to the case against GZ.

The Martins have rights also and this settlement was about the HOA condoning GZs participation in the NW for RATL.

What will be impeached? I truly want to know the reason behind this?

My belief is that the housing association settled to prevent future liability, with no admission of negligence or wrong doing.