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.