Zimmerman Trial

[DerekClouser]

Please explain the recent changes...??

 

Self Defense is one of the "Standard Defenses" to all crimes that are not Strict Liability, and it nullifies the Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) that is a required part of the prosecution.

 

I think you are referencing Castle Doctrine wherein there is a rebuttable presumption that a person who breaks in to your home or car without permission is there to do you harm.  This places more burden on the prosecutor as they now have to prove that you knew you were not in danger, rather than you proving that you were.  I believe the threshold is still preponderance, though...

 

Florida goes one stop further and creates the "Stand your Ground" law which states that you do NOT have the duty to flee, and can meet deadly force where and when it is used against you.  This is not relevant in this trial, though, as Zimmerman claims he had no opportunity to flee.

 

 

Yes, you are exactly right. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as you are in the topic, therefore, I'll trust you are right.

 

Does the fact that he followed TM around against the words of the operator have any bearing on the case? I guess in the sense if he was 'looking for trouble', but if I leave my car keys in the car and someone steals it, does it make my fault?

[baptizo]

I love chicken, and watermelon, and sweet iced tea, and turnip greens, and.......well, black people aren't the only one's who enjoy good Southern food.

 

As for Z, he's innocent until proven guilty and the state is doing a wonderful job of proving him innocent.  

[Scruit]

Did anyone hear that big bang sound?  That was Police Investigator Serino dropping a hand grenade into the middle of the prosecution case...

 

Basically, during a police interview they bluffed Zimmerman by suggesting the event was on video.  His reaction was "Thank God".  The investigator said he believes that Z was honestly relieved at the thought of video of the confrontation.

 

 

 

5:48 p.m. ET: Zimmerman's injuries were NOT life-threatening in Serino's opinion

 

5:56 p.m. ET: Serino had told Zimmerman he believed Martin may have videotaped the incident.

"I believe his words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

Serino says nothing indicated to him that Zimmerman was a pathological liar.

"You think he was telling the truth?" asked O'Mara.

"Yes," said Serino.

 

 

And this guy is a prosecution witness.  

The prosecution team filed a motion for some aloe for that buuuurn.  

Edited July 2, 2013 by Scruit

[Medina]

recognizing how poorly the case is going for the prosecution.

Because there was no case to begin with. 

I do grieve for the family, kids are not supposed to die before their parents.

i feel badly for zimmerman clan, the hell they went thru, and will go thru for some time to come. Didn't I read CNN just released his SS number or some crap?

 

but.....if you want to be act like a thug, you need to accept the consequences. black, white, teen- you walk around thinking you're a tough guy in a movie, it will catch up to you

[Medina]

I love chicken, and watermelon, and sweet iced tea

I just murdered a plate full-but brocoli, my kid doesn't like too many kinds of greens, and as soon as it settles a bit, chocolate f'ing cake awaits...

chocolate f'ing cake, did you read that?? I feeling I'm like having a stroke just looking over at it.

Thank God I dont have to drive, I'd probably drive off with the kickstand down so I could rest at lights.

[Scruit]

Yes, you are exactly right. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as you are in the topic, therefore, I'll trust you are right.

 

Does the fact that he followed TM around against the words of the operator have any bearing on the case? I guess in the sense if he was 'looking for trouble', but if I leave my car keys in the car and someone steals it, does it make my fault?

 

Following someone does not justify getting your ass beat.  It might not be smart, and it might be a likely result depending on who you follow and when, but it still does not justify said beating.

 

The operator told Z that "We don need you to (follow)".  Then subsequently asked where M was and where he was going.  

Z explained in an interview the night of the shooting that he was not told to stay in the car, was just told not to follow M.  He further stated that he left his car to go look for a street name so he could tell the police where to meet him, not because he was following M.    It's something I would consider to be a "convenient" excuse if not for the fact that he used it right after the shooting.  I give extra credibility to anything that a suspect say right after the event (before he had a chance to talk to anyone except the police) compared with stuff he says much later (after he's had a chance to think of a good story).

 

If he was chasing M then M would have a case for defending himself, but I've not seen any credible evidence of that (the lady who heard the running never mentioned it before in any prior statement or deposition - it was surprising new testimony at the trial).   This is what I mean by trusting things said before the person has a chance to think of a good story.  I an VERY dubious of new testimony now that was never mentioned before.

 

The other thing in Z's favor is that that both he, and his neighborhood, had a recent established pattern of calling in tips about suspicious persons and they had discovered/prevented crimes and resulted in arrested.  That pattern matched how Martin was handled.  They had an arrest soon before the shooting where people in the area called in a suspicious person(s) and they followed at a distance - the police arrived and made the arrest(s),.  Without the following they would have got away.  The fact that Z was continuing what had proven to be an effective technique for handling suspicious persons definitely works in his favor.

[Hwilli]

I still think he shot him.

[Bitani]

I still think he shot him.

No you're wrong. I think Trayvon's hiding at a friend's house.

[Scruit]

OK, armchair lawyers...  You are tasked with defending Zimmerman.  The prosecution is about to rest (they will probably call one or two filler witnesses then time it so that jury goes to their weekend sequestration with M's mother crying on the stand as the last image in their minds..  Think of football coaches managing the last minutes of the clock)

 

What witnesses do you call?  What do you ask them?  Consider the risk that they have to be cross-examined by the prosecution.

[Scruit]

My witness list addresses the aspects of the prosecution's case that I see as the most likely to lead a juror to think Z was the bad guy.  

 

1) Z's MMA instructor.  To testify about the amount of training Z had and the level of proficiency he attained.  Also discuss the decline in proficiency once training has stopped.  Discuss the reality that even a trained fighter can lose out if they are sucker-punched.  Hypothesize that Z must not have been in a fighting posture when his nose was broken otherwise he could have blocked, suggesting that Z was not expecting a fight.  (If he was not expecting a fight then could he really have been the attacker?)  Also give testimony to put the jury in the mindset that at the time of the assault Z could not have been expected to make a rational determination of the extent of his injuries.  Possibly give a live demonstration of the mount position and show how hopeless it is for the guy on the bottom.    Be ready to explain why Z may not have used his trained mount escapes.

 

2) Z's CCW instructor, or a CCW expert. (Ayoob?)  Testify as to the choice of gun, ammo and carry condition (one in the pipe) as being appropriate for self defense.  Clearly show that carrying a Kahr PF9 with no round in the chamber is a terrible idea.  Explain why a CCW holder would carry a gun going to the store.  "Normalize" carrying the gun everywhere.  Make the jury understand that carrying a gun does not make you an attacker.  Put it in the jury's minds that carrying the gun in this case is perfectly normal.  Explain that phrases like "Unholstered" are NOT police-talk, and that normal gun owners use that phrase.

 

3) Target or credit card representative.  It was suggested that Z goes to target every week at the same time.  If this is accurate then have a records custodian from Target or the cc company/bank bring records, receipts, etc to show this is true.  Show that Z's reason for being outside was not some kind of vigilante patrol, but was his normal shopping routine.

 

4) Police officers involved in prior arrests in the neighborhood that were attributed to observant witnesses.  Show that the TM case was just yet another in a long line, and that it was handled in the same way and prior successful arrests (the stucco guys, etc)  Have them testify about the correct way to contact the police under those circumstances (non-emergency number) and provide updates.  Head off the prosecution cross about "Are you supposed to chase" by asking those questions yourself, eliciting the appropriate response then follow up quickly with; "Are you aware of any information that would indicate that Z chased?" etc.  The goal is to show that Z's actions in calling the police are consistent with a conscientious resident looking out for his neighborhood. 

 

5) Zimmerman himself.   AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH.  Just kidding.  He has already testified several times by proxy (video, police testimony, his friend's testimony) with no risk of cross.

 

6) An expert on victims of violent crime.  Testify as to the fact when someone is the victim of a violent crime the kind of inconsistencies in the stories that Z told are expected and not evidence of lies.  

 

7) Police recruiter/academy type.  Testify about what a "Wannabe" is, and how that person is different from a "want to be".  Explain how wannabes think they are already cops by driving ex-police crown vics with the wigwags still working and customize the car to look like an unmarked police car.  Differentiate between the scary wannabe and the conscientious resident.   Distance Z's actions from the "wannabe" image the prosecution is trying to suggest Z is.  Ideally you want this person to testify that carrying a gun and reporting a suspicious person is not being a wannabe, nor is getting out of the truck when the dispatcher asked where M was going.

 

8) There was some friendship between the mom and someone in a position of authority over the case - I'd like to expose that to show the investigation originaly ruled self defense until nepotism/favoritism/PR made them file charges anyway

 

 

Can't think of any more right now, except for potentially crossing Sabryna Fulton (M's mom) in a manner that would open the door for testimony on M's bad behavior and how it might contribute to him attacking Z.

 

Closing:  I want to see a picture of TM as he was the night of the shooting.  Start off with a poster-sized picture of the happy smiling 12yo M and teear off the top layer to reveal the current sized full grown M.  Avoid pics that show guns/drugs etc and other ruled-irrelevant factors (*unless mom opens that door) and argue that Z was not attacked by an angelic cherub-faced smiling 12yo, but by a full grown teenager who was ready, willing and fully capable of leaving him for dead on the sidewalk.

[magley64]

IF everything Z said is true, then fine... it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and he should not be convicted of anything criminal...

 

Big "if", because there is no "other side" of the story (he's dead). Z could have done any number of things to start the altercation in question, and simply lied about it. (grabbed M, tried to detain M, etc.) and I can't imagine why someone would lie about or omit such details if a murder charge was on the table...

[Scruit]

IF everything Z said is true, then fine... it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and he should not be convicted of anything criminal...

 

Big "if", because there is no "other side" of the story (he's dead). Z could have done any number of things to start the altercation in question, and simply lied about it. (grabbed M, tried to detain M, etc.) and I can't imagine why someone would lie about or omit such details if a murder charge was on the table...

 

There's plenty of speculation that can be done.  It's perfectly plausible that Z tried to apprehend M and got the worst end of that confrontation. 

 

I'm sure the prosecution will push that theory.  Still, absent any evidence of that, the jury cannot convict for that.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Scruit

[Pokey]

There's plenty of speculation that can be done.  It's perfectly plausible that Z tried to apprehend M and got the worst end of that confrontation. 

 

I'm sure the prosecution will push that theory.  Still, absent any evidence of that, the jury cannot convict for that.

 

Yet they likely still will, and just think about the poor jury members if they find Z not guilty.....think their lives won't be in danger? Race is a wound that just won't heal in this country, mainly because many do not want it to "on both sides". Oh and the media would be devastated if they could no longer invoke rage and speculation among us. The entire Zimmerman family will forever be ruined regardless of the outcome, that is a sad reality. The Martin family will probably get a book deal or possibly even a movie made, anyone want to dispute that possibility? The country has become polarized and consumed by something that more than likely would not have even made the national news had it been 2 whites, 2 blacks, or any other combination of ethnicity. 

Edited July 5, 2013 by Pokey

[mfs81]

Flipping thru the channels... Nancy Grace sure knows how get fired up about this case.....LOL

[Scruit]

Flipping thru the channels... Nancy Grace sure knows how get fired up about this case.....LOL

 

Strange.  Nancy Grace is usually so calm.  

[Scruit]

M's mom is on the stand first.  There goes the theory of having her wrap up the prosecution testimony, leaving an emotional taste in the juror's mouths as the case ends.

 

They still haven't heard from the ME that performed the autopsy, so this can't be the end of the case.

[Scruit]

Huh.  Only one actual question for the mom - identify the voice.  No further questions, subject to recall.  Wierd.  What are they up to?

[Scruit]

Defense cross needs to be very delicate here.  And I don't like some of their questions.  

 

How the hell can he ask he if she 'hoped' she hear her son screaming.  That's opening the door to some emotional re-direct.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Scruit

[magley64]

That does seem like a stupid question

[Scruit]

That does seem like a stupid question

 

He asked some relevant questions, seeking to establish that her identification of M's voice in the 911 call tainted the other people in the room...  But it was nothing but awkwardness when he was trying to get the mom to hypothesize about the circumstances under which M might have caused his own death.   You can't rub salt into a mother's wounds in front of a jury full of mothers...

[Scruit]

Apparently they can't open the evidence locker so they can't have the ME testimony yet - they are forced to hear the mom's testimony now, then close with ME.

[Medina]

yeah, that wont sill well

seems the defense is as incompetent as the prosecutors 

[Pokey]

yeah, that wont sill well

seems the defense is as incompetent as the prosecutors 

 

Incompetent is a great word to describe this entire clusterfuck for many involved.

[Medina]

that being said...........truth is black on black crime is over the top and often overlooked.

 

[Pokey]

Wow now that is a wild looking picture!!! I have a really good buddy that is black, and he fully admits that he profiles "because everyone does", so does that make him a racist?