Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

When the parents lie about the school record, and then lie by omission about family life, it's easy to draw what might be the wrong conclusion about whether TM was the kind of kid who would assault people or not.

I'm not sure for who you think these misconceptions need to be cleared up.

A jury? Attacking the victim with such dubious leaps of logic won't play well for the defense team.

The public? People dedicated to believing the worst about Martin are already doing so without much to warrant that belief. Such irrationality doesn't usually respond to facts and reason.

Nothing in Martin's history offers evidence that he was a violent person who would attack and attempt to murder someone without provocation, no matter how much Zimmerman's defenders try to drag his name through the mud.

 

[Cylinder]

At this point, it's quite evident that not even Zimmerman's defenders can explain what O'Mara is after with this motion.

How is this skepticism?

It's delusional to pretend that a witness' financial motive is somehow irrelevant to testimony. Not only is it settled law, it's deemed important enough to be included in standard jury instructions. Like another brand of argument, this case does not exist in its own bubble where usual rules can be cast aside in order to prop up the same tired assertions.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not sure for who you think these misconceptions need to be cleared up.

A jury? Attacking the victim with such dubious leaps of logic won't play well for the defense team.

The public? People dedicated to believing the worst about Martin are already doing so without much to warrant that belief. Such irrationality doesn't usually respond to facts and reason.

Nothing in Martin's history offers evidence that he was a violent person who would attack and attempt to murder someone without provocation, no matter how much Zimmerman's defenders try to drag his name through the mud.

Actually, it's not even attacking the victim. It's attacking the victim's parents. Just imagine the spectacle in court --

The prosecution calls Trayvon's mother to the stand and plays for her the tape of her son dying. Her eyes are filled with tears as she listens and then tells the jury that the voice heard screaming for mercy, just as the fatal shot rings out, was her son. The prosecution excuses her and then Mark O'Mara gets up to accuse her of lying for money and brings up her successful suit against the HOA for ever letting a cretin like Zimmerman run their NW program.

Then comes that cliche moment where the mother of the victim says "do you really think I wouldn't trade all that filthy money for one more minute with my son who that monster, your client, murdered??? Have you no decency???"

Would O'Mara really risk such a scene?

Victim blaming never works if the jury thinks you're bullying a grieving parent to try and get a guilty defendant off the hook, and they'll take that out on your client. Furthermore, I've seen Sybrina Fulton speak, and she comes across with class and character. I really don't know what O'Mara is thinking if he's planning on trying to make her into some sort of grifter.

 

[johnny karate]

How is this skepticism?

It's delusional to pretend that a witness' financial motive is somehow irrelevant to testimony. Not only is it settled law, it's deemed important enough to be included in standard jury instructions. Like another brand of argument, this case does not exist in its own bubble where usual rules can be cast aside in order to prop up the same tired assertions.

What specific financial motive do the Martins have?

And what specific piece of testimony would this supposed financial motive impeach?

And how is determining any of this more important to an attorney with dwindling time and resources than simply gathering all the evidence that proves his client acted in self-defense?

These are not difficult questions.

 

[This is The End]

It's delusional to pretend that a witness' financial motive is somehow irrelevant to testimony. Not only is it settled law, it's deemed important enough to be included in standard jury instructions.

You're talking about Shelly Z right?

 

[Dancing David]

How is this skepticism?

It's delusional to pretend that a witness' financial motive is somehow irrelevant to testimony. Not only is it settled law, it's deemed important enough to be included in standard jury instructions. Like another brand of argument, this case does not exist in its own bubble where usual rules can be cast aside in order to prop up the same tired assertions.

Except for some things, like what testimony might have been given at the civil case that is relevant to GZ's criminal case and how could it be dealt with other wise.

You still have just not said why they should unseal the civil case at all. What could not be dealt with through regular proceeding at GZ's trial?

Please quote what the standard jury instructions are is unsealing a civil lawsuit?

 

[Cylinder]

What specific financial motive do the Martins have?

In the case of the HOA settlement, Martin/Fulton levereged their version of events where Zimmerman murdered Martin into a (presumably) multi-million dollar settlement from the HOA and/or its agent and that this version was given at the time before the settlement was entered.

And what specific piece of testimony would this supposed financial motive impeach?

As I've stated repeatedly, it's not fact impeachment - it's evidence of financial motive as witness impeachment.

And how is determining any of this more important to an attorney with dwindling time and resources than simply gathering all the evidence that proves his client acted in self-defense?

That's another ridiculous bubble argument. It's not MOM's job simply to provide an alternative narrative to the state's and then allow the jury decide between the two. The defense is also going to work to impeach the narrative provided by the state. They're also going act to preserve Zimmerman's appeal record.

 

[Cylinder]

What could not be dealt with through regular proceeding at GZ's trial?

Disovery (in Florida) is the "regular proceeding." Trial testiomy isn't fact-finding for the defendant - it's a presentaion of those facts to the jury.

 

[Dancing David]

Cylinder, you still have not answered the question, this does not address any of the points in the appeals case you cited. Why would they not just address this during redirect?

The financial motive does not exist in this criminal case.

 

[johnny karate]

In the case of the HOA settlement, Martin/Fulton levereged their version of events where Zimmerman murdered Martin into a (presumably) multi-million dollar settlement from the HOA and/or its agent and that this version was given at the time before the settlement was entered.

They don't have a "version of events". They weren't there. All they have is speculation.

The Martins have absolutely nothing factual to offer about what transpired the night their son was killed.

As I've stated repeatedly, it's not fact impeachment - it's evidence of financial motive as witness impeachment.

Again, the Martins were not there when Zimmerman shot and killed their child. They cannot tell us whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

So why is it so important to impeach them as witnesses considering that they didn't actually witness anything?

That's another ridiculous bubble argument. It's not MOM's job simply to provide an alternative narrative to the state's and then allow the jury decide between the two. The defense is also going to work to impeach the narrative provided by the state. They're also going act to preserve Zimmerman's appeal record.

The narrative provided by the prosecution will have nothing to do with anything the Martins have to say. It will be based on evidence, of which the Martins have none to provide because they weren't there when Zimmerman killed their son.

And as to your assessment of my argument as ridiculous, it is quite the contrary.

O'Mara is pressed for time and has no money.

The Martins have absolutely nothing to offer in determining the facts of Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

It is perfectly reasonable to query why O'Mara would spend precious time and resources trying to unseal a document that has no bearing on the facts of this case, as opposed to gathering and preparing the evidence that actually does.

I anxiously await you - or anyone - to offer illumination on this point.

 

[phonebook]

Cylinder, you still have not answered the question, this does not address any of the points in the appeals case you cited. Why would they not just address this during redirect?

The financial motive does not exist in this criminal case.

Couldn't they be trying to impeach any potential statements by Crump, or perhaps his influence on the parents? I'm not sure if he's listed in the documents related to the HOA settlement or not. I'm assuming Crump got a sizable portion of that settlement, no? And he's likely to get a sizable portion from any rewards from civil action as well.

 

[johnny karate]

Couldn't they be trying to impeach any potential statements by Crump, or perhaps his influence on the parents? I'm not sure if he's listed in the documents related to the HOA settlement or not. I'm assuming Crump got a sizable portion of that settlement, no? And he's likely to get a sizable portion from any rewards from civil action as well.

What statements by Crump have any bearing on the facts of the case?

And how do those statements prove or disprove whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

They don't have a "version of events". They weren't there. All they have is speculation.

The Martins have absolutely nothing factual to offer about what transpired the night their son was killed.

<snip>

No, but they have relevant information to offer about the events of that evening. Such as whether they identify the screaming as TM or not.

There may be other reasons they are on the witness list, but that one above should be enough.

MOM has outlined, and it has already been explained earlier, why his client has the right to vis-a-vis discovery to know what is in that agreement, and if the martins have gained financially. Do you have disagree with his argument that GZ legally has the right to discover that information ?

I'll be content to trust that as an experienced attorney,working with this case for almost a year, MOM has sound reasons for pursuing this particular piece of information. Unless MOM has taken you into his confidence and explained his legal strategy, your speculation on whether or not this is relevant to the defense is just that, uninformed speculation from a non-attorney, and it's worth is assigned accordingly.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, I listened to the interview. No, she did not say what you say she said. The interviewer asks her if Trayvon lived with her, and she says "Um, Trayvon um actually lived with his uncle. Um, my brother [meaning Tracy] does live with me."

I re-listened, and you are correct, she made two separate statements. However, I'll stand by my statement that he was living at his uncle stephens, and I think it will come out in the trial.

 

[Unabogie]

Couldn't they be trying to impeach any potential statements by Crump, or perhaps his influence on the parents? I'm not sure if he's listed in the documents related to the HOA settlement or not. I'm assuming Crump got a sizable portion of that settlement, no? And he's likely to get a sizable portion from any rewards from civil action as well.

Crump isn't a witness to anything and won't be testifying. He's opposing counsel. Anything related to Witness 8 will be done with direct examination, based on her testimony and her deposition.

 

[Cylinder]

All they have is speculation...

The Martins have absolutely nothing factual to offer about what transpired the night their son was killed....

They cannot tell us whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense...

So why is it so important to impeach them as witnesses considering that they didn't actually witness anything? ...

The narrative provided by the prosecution will have nothing to do with anything the Martins have to say...

The Martins have absolutely nothing to offer in determining the facts of Zimmerman's self-defense claim...

Uhhh...the state used Fulton's voice ID in their probable cause affidavit.

 

[Cylinder]

STATE’S MOTION REQUESTING COURT INQUIRY OF DEFENDANT REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSELS WAIVER OF ANY PROCEEDING TO INVOKE IMMUNITY (SELF-DEFENSE/STAND YOUR GOUND HEARING) UNDER F.S. 776.032

 

[Unabogie]

The state asks the defense to stop playing coy and have the immunity hearing or get off the pot.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/mot_req_court_inquiry.pdf

 

[Cylinder]

Reponse to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

 

[johnny karate]

No, but they have relevant information to offer about the events of that evening. Such as whether they identify the screaming as TM or not.

I'm willing to bet the prosecution will have actual audio experts testify regarding the identity of the screamer as opposed to relying on the inherently biased, non-expert opinion of the victim's parents.

There may be other reasons they are on the witness list, but that one above should be enough.

The Martins will not be called to offer audio analysis anymore than Detective Serino will be called to offer a medical opinion.

MOM has outlined, and it has already been explained earlier, why his client has the right to vis-a-vis discovery to know what is in that agreement, and if the martins have gained financially. Do you have disagree with his argument that GZ legally has the right to discover that information ?

No one has ever argued that Zimmerman didn't have a right to this information, so I have no idea why you thought it relevant to mention.

I'll be content to trust that as an experienced attorney,working with this case for almost a year, MOM has sound reasons for pursuing this particular piece of information. Unless MOM has taken you into his confidence and explained his legal strategy, your speculation on whether or not this is relevant to the defense is just that, uninformed speculation from a non-attorney, and it's worth is assigned accordingly.

Yep, just like I said:

At this point, it's quite evident that not even Zimmerman's defenders can explain what O'Mara is after with this motion.

Funny how the detailed legal analysis dries up in the face of what is obviously a fishing expedition.