The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I didn't find any pertinent analysis in this article, but the title is pretty revealing of how things have gone for the prosecution so far: "Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to train wreck"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...l-went-from-star-witness-to-train-wreck-video

 

[Sam.I.Am]

There was a talking head attorney on CNN this morning who thinks that there is a decent chance the defense makes a motion for dismissal next week, and the judge grants it. He said the same thing - the state hasn't come remotely close to justifying the murder 2 charge.

In almost any other case he's probably right. But not this one. It has to run its full course otherwise there's going to be a taint hanging over it. The motion to dismiss will be made of course but the judge has to deny it unless something dramatic changes things up (and I do mean dramatic, like someone turns over NSA phone recordings that have Martin saying "I'm gonna go beat this guy up for following me" stored in a server farm somewhere), and I don't see that happening.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Also, as to why the prosecution might be destroying their own case, despite what you may have seen on Law & Order it's not their job to put people in jail. It's their job to discover the truth for the citizens that pay their salaries and if the truth leads to jail then so be it. That's not to say that they don't want to win given all of the time and money that they have spent but it's the jury's job to put people in jail that belong there based upon what they have learned in the trial.

If the truth is that Martins death was a result of self defense then the evidence will point to it and there's nothing at all that the prosecution can do about that short of breaking the law themselves.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In almost any other case he's probably right. But not this one.

I'd say that depends on the judge, the judges ambitions, and willingness to make decisions based on facts as opposed to politics. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I would not write off the possibility.

Personally I think a dismissal by the judge might be better than an acquittal by a jury. The advantage I see to a judge doing it is that it would be "this case should never have even been brought and isn't even strong enough to be prosecuted". That might force the media to do a little factual reporting. As opposed to "a bunch of white jurors just let him off".

Of course the screams of racism would be strong either way, I just see a possible advantage of the judge doing it.

 

[Cylinder]

John Good (W6) explains that confusing sketch here.

 

[Mister Earl]

Gonna have to agree with the rest of yas. The prosecution hasn't proven anything beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[bynmdsue]

I'd say that depends on the judge, the judges ambitions, and willingness to make decisions based on facts as opposed to politics. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I would not write off the possibility.

Personally I think a dismissal by the judge might be better than an acquittal by a jury. The advantage I see to a judge doing it is that it would be "this case should never have even been brought and isn't even strong enough to be prosecuted". That might force the media to do a little factual reporting. As opposed to "a bunch of white jurors just let him off".

Of course the screams of racism would be strong either way, I just see a possible advantage of the judge doing it.

I believe this is to be Nelson's last criminal case and she'll be moving to traffic court at it's completion.

 

[Cylinder]

The genesis of the racial narrative is described in this short video. It is also key testimony for anyone that even has a passing interest in this case.

 

[Freddy]

I think you're mistaken. It's an affirmative defense. Angela Corey even referred to it as an "affirmative defense" available in this case to the media fairly early on.

If a defendant invokes self-defense, but offers no evidence at all to support it, he will be convicted. The reason is the "affirmative" part of "affirmative defense" means the defendant is affirming that he did what is alleged. If he offers any evidence, as Cylinder points out, the state has to refute it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are right that there must be at least some competent evidence to support an affirmative defense, or else a judge will not allow the defense to argue it to the jury at all. That isn't what I meant, though I admit I was unclear. What I meant is that if the the defense has a good enough basis to be allowed to present a self-defense justification to a jury, then the defense does not carry the burden of proving self-defense by any standard of proof (in all states except OH and SC, assuming those two states have not changed that). If it's solid enough to reach the jury (no question in this case), then the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not entitled to an acquittal based on self-defense.

EDIT: I don't think that means the defendant must present the competent evidence in support of a self-defense justification. If the state's case-in-chief contains such evidence, the defendant would technically not be required to present any evidence at all.

 

[Skeletor]

I didn't find any pertinent analysis in this article, but the title is pretty revealing of how things have gone for the prosecution so far: "Trayvon Martin case: How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to train wreck"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...l-went-from-star-witness-to-train-wreck-video

That article was definitely lacking in analysis, but it does show that the prosecution needs to reevaluate why they charged GZ to begin with.

There was a talking head attorney on CNN this morning who thinks that there is a decent chance the defense makes a motion for dismissal next week, and the judge grants it. He said the same thing - the state hasn't come remotely close to justifying the murder 2 charge.

In almost any other case he's probably right. But not this one. It has to run its full course otherwise there's going to be a taint hanging over it. The motion to dismiss will be made of course but the judge has to deny it unless something dramatic changes things up (and I do mean dramatic, like someone turns over NSA phone recordings that have Martin saying "I'm gonna go beat this guy up for following me" stored in a server farm somewhere), and I don't see that happening.

I would love to see a clip of that, but I think the idea of tossing this case out is premature, and ill-advised. Let GZ have his days in court.

Also, as to why the prosecution might be destroying their own case, despite what you may have seen on Law & Order it's not their job to put people in jail. It's their job to discover the truth for the citizens that pay their salaries and if the truth leads to jail then so be it. That's not to say that they don't want to win given all of the time and money that they have spent but it's the jury's job to put people in jail that belong there based upon what they have learned in the trial.

If the truth is that Martins death was a result of self defense then the evidence will point to it and there's nothing at all that the prosecution can do about that short of breaking the law themselves.

I imagine that Jack McCoy wouldn't consider trying this case at all, if not for calls to oust Schiff.

In almost any other case he's probably right. But not this one.

I'd say that depends on the judge, the judges ambitions, and willingness to make decisions based on facts as opposed to politics. I am not saying you are wrong, just that I would not write off the possibility.

Personally I think a dismissal by the judge might be better than an acquittal by a jury. The advantage I see to a judge doing it is that it would be "this case should never have even been brought and isn't even strong enough to be prosecuted". That might force the media to do a little factual reporting. As opposed to "a bunch of white jurors just let him off".

Of course the screams of racism would be strong either way, I just see a possible advantage of the judge doing it.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. The trial will be over in a couple weeks, I think we can wait that long.

The genesis of the racial narrative is described in this short video. It is also key testimony for anyone that even has a passing interest in this case.

The video worked fine on my end. After reading several articles about the purported language barrier, I'm at a loss, as this woman speaks like a lot of African-american women I know do. Her initial lack of empathy towards the 'cracker' slur was troubling, and her credibility is diminished due to "small lies."

 

[Cylinder]

...her credibility is diminished due to "small lies."

I really would disregard the funeral issue if it weren't given in the same statement as the inculpatory stuff and then repeated. Nineteen-year-olds are prone to white lies, but if they are reliable nineteen-year-olds they would see the difference in this circumstance, in my opinion.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Never mind, it must be something on my end. I tried a different (earlier) video in this thread and had the same results.

 

[Freddy]

I really would disregard the funeral issue if it weren't given in the same statement as the inculpatory stuff and then repeated. Nineteen-year-olds are prone to white lies, but if they are reliable nineteen-year-olds they would see the difference in this circumstance, in my opinion.

In my view, what matters is that she didn't say anything that would support a prosecution initially, but she remembered new details when she was interviewed by the prosecutor in the presence of Trayvon's mother and the family lawyer. That is what is devastating to the state's case. Most of the inconsistencies and admitted lies in her various statements can be explained, and don't paint her as totally lacking credibility.

But when the prosecutor interviewed her, it wasn't at the prosecutor's office. It was in Trayvon's mom's living room, in front of her. Are you sure you don't remember anything else that might make her feel better? At this point I think she honestly can't distinguish what she remembers from that night from what she has heard since then, either from others or in the billion times she has tried to run through that night in her mind. This is actually a very common problem with human memory and eyewitness testimony.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

After reading several articles about the purported language barrier, I'm at a loss, as this woman speaks like a lot of African-american women I know do. Her initial lack of empathy towards the 'cracker' slur was troubling, and her credibility is diminished due to "small lies."

That's the thing. I don't think that it was a language barrier. I think that it was a combination of her wanting to protect Martin (and probably his family) and a less than average IQ. She knew what she wanted to do but couldn't quite figure out how to do it. She let "Slip" some things that she heard in the conversation and then changed her testimony later on to try and cover over what she had said previously. Take the "Creepy ass cracker bit" as an example. On the second day she claimed that she didn't say that the day before. She did the same thing when asked if she had read testimony previously on the stand. There comes a point where she becomes totally unreliable as a witness for or against anyone. Of course unless instructed by the judge otherwise the jury is free to take all or part of her testimony into the jury room. I predict that her testimony will be read back to the jury either in part or in whole during deliberations provided that they don't come back with a 2 unanimous hour decision.

I think that she clearly committed perjury on the stand but I wouldn't take her to task for it simply because I honestly think that she didn't know any better.

I also happen to think that someone had a talk with her because of her demeanor on the second day (Yes Sir, No Sir) was much different than the first day (Yeah, No). It was still not quite respectful in tone (one might even call it a bit on the surly side) but it was certainly different in wording.

While I cannot say who told her to change her attitude I certainly hope that it wasn't one of the prosecutors representatives that did it because that would certainly violate the spirit (if not the law) of the judges instructions at the end of day 3. It also may have been her watching news coverage of her own testimony and anyone that might have pointed this out. I don't believe that her instructions included not watching the news related to the case unlike the jurors but I may be wrong about that.

 

[ABC10]

I really would disregard the funeral issue if it weren't given in the same statement as the inculpatory stuff and then repeated. Nineteen-year-olds are prone to white lies, but if they are reliable nineteen-year-olds they would see the difference in this circumstance, in my opinion.

This 19 year old is 6 months away from turning 20. A kid or child, she is not.

 

[leftysergeant]

The state has to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, as that's what they have charged GZ with.

Self defense isn't as much of a factor, imo. It's whether or not the state can prove murder 2.

So far, the state seems to be a country mile away from their objective.

He killed a kid he had chased. Murder 2. Where's the problem?

Oh, almost forgot. He obviously told the cops a few lies so that they would stop bothering him about it.

 

[Scopedog]

He killed a kid he had chased. Murder 2. Where's the problem?

Oh, almost forgot. He obviously told the cops a few lies so that they would stop bothering him about it.

You're going to be so disappointed when he gets acquitted after the shortest jury deliberation in history. However, I'm okay with him being held liable civilly and having to pay Martin's family for the rest of his life.

 

[Scopedog]

Rachel Jeantel reminds me of those people that show up on People's Court or Judge Judy and don't seem to be prepared for their case or for a court environment in general or even how to comport themselves in front of authority figures (such as a judge). She also seemed like she was trying to answer as carefully as possible to help the prosecution but she wasn't really quick-thinking enough to accomplish this. I also don't think she's learning disabled. I think she's probably a young adult who's never been challenged or been held to any standards. It would mostly be her parent's fault but after she turned 18 it became her responsibility. I heard on the news that she speaks Spanish and Haitian Creole and in the discussion it was an argument for her different kind of intelligence that most people aren't used to. I don't think speaking three languages automatically makes her any kind of intelligent since I would bet she speaks Spanish and Haitian Creole just as poorly as she speaks English. I'll bet if she were male she'd have been treated completely differently and possibly scolded by the judge and threatened with contempt for her shameful display on her first day.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

He never heard any of Zimmerman's ridiculous dialog, never saw a single punch being thrown, and never hear slamming or punching. And he looked out for a maximum 10 seconds. He didn't see the shot.

I don't see how this guy "basically confirms" unless you want to use "basically" as a weasel word. He does not confirm Zimmerman's story of being slammed on concrete over and over, suffocated, and hit 20-30 times in the face.

Feel free to provide snippets of testimony that you feel support this.

Here's the thing...

If we're going to be realistic, we have to remember that what we're talking about is a situation that unfolded in the dark, in the rain, in a poorly lit dog path between the backs of houses... over the course of just a couple of minutes. It seems clear at this point, no video exists of it... no witness saw more than a few moments of it. Most of them only heard things, and among those who really SAW anything most of those only saw shadows at a distance in some sort of altercation, and a lot of them only saw things after the gunshot rang out.

There can be no debate about the fact that John Good had the clearest view of the altercation prior to the gunshot. He has remained steadfast since that very night about who was on top, and who was on bottom.

You can certainly feel free to point out that he can't know exactly what was going on before he looked out there, or after he went inside... and that's true. You can also point out that he can't say for certain that the arm movements he saw were punches and that they were connecting. Or head slams. That's true too.

But his little snapshot of what was going on out there has to be considered int he larger context of other information. You can't just look at one piece of evidence and interpret it the way you want it to be.

The reason I consider Zimmerman's story to be roughly close to the truth of what really happened, is that it matches the evidence and eyewitness testimony well. It also has several separate factors which independently come together to support it. So, here's what I mean about considering the evidence as a whole:

1.) Yes, John isn't sure it was punches or head slams he saw. However, the whole altercation seems to have only gone about a minute, and sometime during it GZ had to have sustained those injuries. We know he sustained them because of W13 seeing him still bleeding right after, and because of the pictures of the injuries. When you combine W6 + W13 + Pictures + GZ it becomes obvious that what he saw, whether he feels confident to say it or not, were in fact blows and/or head slams.

2.) Yes, some witnesses feel it was the younger person screaming. It's hard to know how much the media, and assumption, and jumping to conclusions about "well certainly the person who got shot must've been screaming!" etc played into this... but it seems safe to say these factors played HEAVILY into it. We've got a lot of tainted witnesses who didn't see much and loaded up a lot of assumption onto what they did see. Witnesses standing with the Martin family talking about "there was no fight, there were no words being screamed out there, just a little boy whimpering" etc... people who saw almost nothing and then latched onto the chance to be social justice warriors and get their 15 minutes. In this case, not all witnesses should be given equal weight. John Good saw the most and remained consistent about what he saw, if anything he attempted to be extra restrained and cautious in what he said as the gravity of it hit him. Unlike other witnesses who got more and more outrageous about what they were saying. Anyway... GZ + W6 + Injuries = The most reasonable conclusion is it was GZ screaming.

3.) As to what words were exchanged before it turned physical? Well, GZ has his version, sometimes with "homey" in it, sometimes not... but everyone seems to agree it was an exchange of about three phrases before it turned physical. DD says this, GZ says this, W11 says this. DD is an established liar and clearly a very low intelligence individual. How much weight can we give what she thinks and assumes? Who knows. Let's be generous and say she remembers exactly what was said even though she changed it and didn't tell anyone what was said until a month later. Whereas GZ was telling people what was said that very night. GZ was dazed and might be misremembering... but even if DD's version(s) are correct, it doesn't really change much about the dynamic. Trayvon spoke first in both versions. That TENDS to support the idea that he chose for direct contact to take place, and he "confronted" (it's not definitive) but when taken along with where W11 and GZ and other witnesses hear the speech and then physical altercation START AT, + the timeline + GZ's keys + GZ's account it seems everyone pretty much agrees, the physical altercation began at the "T" and moved rapidly south about 30 feet. A lot of different witnesses are coming together to agree on that.

So, if it started when it seems to have based on when GZ's NEN call ended... and it started at the "T"... it really becomes hard to reconcile why TM is at the "T" minutes later. Doesn't it? DD's narrative of him running until finally GZ catches up to him just doesn't work. Unless you want to believe GZ was completely misrepresenting where everything was taking place while he was still on the NEN call and in no legal peril. That seems to require far too much supervillain style intellect and planning from GZ, and nobody here seems to claim GZ was plotting a killing. So... whatever DD heard, or whatever she thinks was going on... it seems likely that Trayvon chose to return to the "T" or lay in wait around it.

You can entertain narratives of GZ taking a swing or trying to detain or grab him or whatever... til you're blue in the face, and in the end, we'll probably never know if something like that happened. We have no evidence of it. Even DD's "bump" could just as easily be Trayvon taking a swing as GZ doing so. If we had some injuries on Trayvon... that might be something. As it stands, we have no way to go anywhere with that narrative. I know a lot of people salivate at the idea of GZ getting on the stand, but do any of you really believe, honestly, that he's going to break down and confess to all the things you've imagined he might've done?

Let's be realistic. Yes, there are variations from one time GZ gave his account to the next. Some of us feel these are all well within normal human memory drift and conversational imprecision... others think they indicate he's hiding something... but in the end, never forget: the closer you get to TM and GZ before the shot, the more what you saw that night (John) matches what GZ was describing. That's a significant thing to keep in mind.

We can quibble til the end of time about whether the injuries were bad enough or not... but the law says "to prevent great bodily harm" it doesn't say you have to have already sustained it.

He's got the injuries, he's got John, he's got the law on his side, he's got numerous previous calls where he never attacked anyone or tried to personally detain anyone...

I just simply don't see any real evidence against him, or of a crime. I honestly don't see how anyone can feel that it would be appropriate for him to spend time in prison based on what we know.

 

[Bob001]

That article was definitely lacking in analysis, but it does show that the prosecution needs to reevaluate why they charged GZ to begin with.

I think a better question might be why did they charge him with second-degree murder? Making an armed adult who kills an unarmed teenager prove to a jury that it was reasonable to think his life was in danger doesn't seem like a stretch to me, but voluntary manslaughter seems like a more appropriate charge, and easier for a jury to reach. I think GZ is a vigilante thug who belongs in prison, but even I have trouble with a murder charge.