Idiots. Young fools.

Seriously?! Whether you believe Zimmerman or not where is the respect for Trayvon Martin's family?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...ry?id=16616864


As they said on GMA this morning, this story is just TOO perfect. It is TOO perfect that Zimmerman seems to have covered all of his bases.


Zimmerman followed Martin (against the advice of the 911 Dispatcher) and just so happened to have a gun. And then Martin just so happens to be the one who initiated an altercation (Martin's girlfriend admits that he wanted to see why Zimmerman was following him). Martin just so happens to see Zimmerman's gun. Martin just so happens to say "you're going to die tonight" and reach for the gun which prompts Zimmerman to grab his gun and fatally shoot Martin. Yeah, Zimmerman was such the subdued victim here (who just so happened to follow someone who he considered suspicious) who just so happened to have a gun on his hip.


We shall see if the prosecution can find inconsistencies.


Elements of this remind me of Latasha Harlins. The biggest lesson that I hope people learn from all of these cases is to breathe easy and not be Belinda Badass/Billy Badass (regardless of whether your state has an exaggerated version of self-defense laws). Take even a quick second to think about whether your actions are over the top and irreversible.

His defense would have had an easier time selling this story if he hadn't been proven a liar over the bail money. That will come back to haunt him later. Tsk, tsk.

Being a liar doesn't make you a killer.

I agree, it's a pretty dramatic picture he paints there as if someone told him what elements he needed to perfect a defense. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the state can prove it didn't happen beyond a reasonable doubt.

Certainly doesnt, but you know as well as I do that it will effect his credibility.

He doesn't have to take the stand and I doubt he does. It's going to be the state's job to prove he didn't kill in self-defense. I'm not really sure how they're going to accomplish that.

It's funny to go back through this thread and see the people unbelievably manipulated by the media. There's a lot of that in this thread

My problem with Zimmerman's story is that he said that Martin reached for the gun and, at the same time, continued to bash his head into the concrete. Unless Martin had three hands, it's hard to understand how that could happen.

His story just isn't credible. The logistics are weird and the dialogue is corny.

I think you misstate the evidence and its conclusivity. It only takes one hand to control someone's head.

As far as Martin going for Zimmerman's gun, that seems to be pretty subjective from Zimmerman's point of view, but according to the law, if his point of view was reasonable, that's all she wrote.

The state is going to have to prove Zimmerman was not acting in self defense and they're going to have to do that without the help of Zimmerman. With the perjury charges, no way in hell he takes the stand.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a hell of an uphill climb. Having just had a client confess to a serious felony on the 10 o'clock news just prior to hiring me to defend him, I can certainly appreciate the fact that obtaining counsel is a very important part of criminal defense.

The question here isn't whether Zimmerman is actually guilty, it's whether the state of Florida can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Zimmerman's case is going to very difficult to sell to a jury. The Martin was unarmed and has no history of violence. He was a kid. The girlfriend will testify that he was scared and trying to get away from Zimmerman. Another neighbor will testify that Martin was crying for help.

Another neighbor will testify that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman had physical injuries to the back of his head and, IRC, a broken nose.

I think Zimmerman has to take the stand, because so much of what happened depends on whether Zimmerman is credible or not. It is going to turn on whether the jury likes him and believes him. If he can't testify, it's going to be hard to sell the story.

I'm going to ignore what you said and respond to what I think you meant to say.

The girlfriend is not going to be able to testify as to Martin's state of mind because she doesn't have knowledge of it.

The neighbor testifying that Martin was crying for help can't be sure of anything and will likely be excluded from the trial. To that end, the quackery in the "voiceprint analysis" field will never survive a Daubert hearing. That voice print analysis crap you probably read a headline from back in April was some quack who ran some computer program and was "48 percent sure" that the voice wasn't Zimmerman's. That never gets into the trial.

Here's a good article from someone who knows what he's talking about in this area:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet...b_1468761.html

The only thing I see getting in is witnesses who can give a lay opinion as to whose voice that is, but if the defense is prepared to cross those folks (as I suspect they will do so in grand fashion), their testimony won't weigh too heavily on the jury.

All consistent with Zimmerman's story.

No, defendants seldom take the stand in their trials. I mean almost never. There's almost no way in hell that happens here. It's always the defendant's final call, but I won't say I'd never advise a client to take the stand, but I'll say almost never. The prosecution is going to have to prove its case without the help of the Defendant. It's his constitutional right to not testify and the jury will be instructed not to draw any conclusions from it.

Yes. I know this. I've worked as an ASA and an AG in a special prosecution unit. I can see a defense attorney putting him on this case because it is all down to his credibility. If I could get an in limine order to keep out the perjury in the bail proceedings (and absent a conviction, that's likely under Florida law), I would seriously consider putting him on.

You really think the only thing you need to MIL out is the perjury issue?

Also I can't see anything from his public interactions that points to a result other than "bad-to-middling witness" here, and there's simply no way he gets the kind of prep he would need to make the reward greater than the risk of train wreck (both due to time and cost).

With the evidence as it is as far as we the public are aware, I just don't see the state proving their case. As far as Zimmerman testifying, there's just no way. Without him getting up on the stand, the jury never hears about his record and a lot of bad stuff never comes in. If you're the defense attorney and you know the state really doesn't have any sort of smoking gun, there's nearly never a reason to recommend that the Defendant testify. It's always his decision at the end of the day, but so far, Zimmerman has a pretty good track record of following his attorney's advice except with the whole bail money thing. That was really stupid.

Putting your defendant on the stand is like throwing a Hail Mary pass at the end of a losing football game. It almost never works and often leads to the other side gaining some sort of advantage.

You have to understand that out of everyone testifying, the Defendant has more reason to lie than anyone and the fact that he's already lied about money means most jurors would have no problem assuming he'd lie about murder.

No. I didn't say that this was the only thing that I would file a MIL on. We were talking about a specific bit of evidence.

/eyeroll

What do ASA or AG stand for?

The lying about money is not coming in. Florida has really restrictive evidence rules on when evidence of untruthful conduct can come in. Unless he is convicted of perjury, that's not coming in.

I don't know about his record, but it's a good point. How bad is it?

To me, this case is primarily a swearing contest in which you believe Zimmerman or you don't. It's going to turn almost entirely on Zimmerman's credibility. If he is a decent witness at all, I would think about putting him on. That's big "IF," though.

I have to admit to seeing this case with the eyes of a prosecutor. My bias makes me see him as guilty.

If the state's case is a swearing contest, essentially a tie, ties should go to the defendant. Juries can do anything, but absent something else in this case, there's a reason that just about no prosecutor in the state of Florida wanted anything to do with this case.

Without the Defendant testifying, it won't be about whether the jury believes Zimmerman, but whether the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not use self defense and murdered Mr. Martin. As I've said over and over, that's a tough burden to overcome when all of the evidence is conjecture.

When the lead investigator has once gone on the record saying there was no evidence as to who started the struggle, it's not going to be the defense which is going to strain credulity.

A good skill to learn as a prosecutor is to be able to see the holes in your own case. This case has some big 'ol holes. Zimmerman may actually be guilty, only one person on Earth really knows. The state actually has to prove it before they can lock him up and throw away the key.

Ties should go to the defendant, but they often don't. You know that. Actually that's a good reason to keep Zimmerman's record out and keep him off the stand. If he's scummy or a lousy witness, he won't help his case. That's a huge reason that defendants don't testify. They're usually guilty of something, just maybe not what is in front of the jury.

Actually, there is evidence as to who started it. Martin's girlfriend was on the phone. She heard the scuffle start. Her version of what she heard does NOT match with Zimmerman's version. Martin told her that he was running away and then she heard a scuffle start. That is completely contradictory to what Zimmerman testified. Taken with Zimmerman's comment: "These assholes. They always get away." and you've got a decent case for Zimmerman starting the confrontation.

I believe the evidence will show that Zimmerman started the confrontation but then was losing. When he started losing, he shot Martin. I don't think that Martin is both bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground and reaching for the gun at the same time. Despite your belief, that just isn't credible.

Thank you for teaching me to suck eggs, son. I'm aware about seeing both sides. My point about prosecution bias was intended to be a gentle way of suggesting that we BOTH may be biased. You're showing quite a bit of defense bias and not seeing both sides. Clearly, I need to be more direct.

She has about as much of a reason to lie as Zimmerman. We'll see what kind of a witness she makes. An eye witness is pretty unreliable. Now we're talking about an 'ear-witness' to coin a term. Defense counsel should have a field day on cross.

I really don't see how it's not credible. I also don't see how the state proves otherwise.

I'm just calling things as I see 'em. It's a weak case.

Why? Specifically.
Is she looking at whatever time 2nd degree murder or manslaughter carries?

You don't think she wants Zimmerman in jail and might be willing to not tell the truth to make that happen?

I don't think that's a hard sell to a jury.

Upon what (beyond your own suspicion) are you basing your contention that she'd consider risking perjury to jail Zimmerman? To date, I've not, (and doubt you have either) heard either side even allege she's been anything other than truthful.

Setting aside all of that, you're saying you see her desire to see Zimmerman punished as equal to Zimmerman's potential to lie (again, considering the bail money lie to the court) to spare himself the possibility of 20 years to life, or whatever the sentence might be.

are you serious?

Kevin is right. Anyone can and potentially will lie (or conveniently forget details).

Yes, some people who feel strongly and passionately about something and feel as though they are fighting a greater cause will sacrifice themselves to commit perjury. That applies to both the prosecution and the defense. That is why certain laws and legal procedures exist.

Oh you are so wide eyed and naive. I want to just eat you up.

Gross. LOL.

She didn't answer, but I would assume Assistant State's Attorney and (Assistant) Attorney General.

I would never say "just no way." Best practices should never be confused with possible practices.

That's why any defense attorney worth his salt will offer up a strong cross examination which will leave the jury wondering who is being truthful here. Certainly no one is going to convict based on the word of a teenage girl whose boyfriend was shot shortly after he hung up the phone with her.

It won't be her word against Zimmerman's because as I mentioned, I would be shocked if Zimmerman testifies.

I consider his defense team to have done a fine job to date.

I'd be shocked if they called him.

going all "ad hominem" doesn't obscure the fact that you didn't (couldn't) answer my question.

It was a silly question.

People lie in court to get their way. Perjury ain't rare. The end.

I would never knowingly allow a client to lie on the stand and would disclose to them that if they do, I have a duty to inform the court of my client's perjured testimony. The fact is though that most folks don't warn their lawyers before or after they lie on the stand. Try representing a few meth heads and you'll start to get the picture.

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Clearly not.

I stand by my 'ad hominem' attack.

Sure, but you being shocked =/= no way it's going to happen, especially since the bottom line is it's his choice, not theirs. I've been suprised enough times at what happened in the cases of very competent counsel that I've learned never to say never.

Well, also, "no way it's going to happen" =/= "almost no way it's going to happen." I may have carelessly stated "no way" once, but I've been pretty consistent otherwise.

I obviously am not claiming to have the power to predict the future. I will say that the odds of Zimmerman testifying are somewhere between slim and none though which is a lot like saying almost no way it's going to happen.

Fair enough.

There's not enough in the story to really know what kind of a claim it is. It looks like the jurisdictional allegations point to a civil rights action, but I'd like to see how that was plead.

George Zimmerman is suing NBC. He alleges that they doctored the 911 call. According to records, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if the other person (Trayvon Martin) was "white, black, or hispanic". Zimmerman replied that the "He looks black". NBC News aired the call as Zimmerman saying, ""looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." editing out the dispatcher's inquiry.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...an-mark-o-mara