The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[badgeguy]

The Widmer case is a case where the evidence actually leaves reasonable doubt and although he's been found guilty it was done so many believe erroneously. Many believe that his wife died due to a medical condition and all three trials this far tried to prove that but the prosecution kept doing whatever it had to to get the guilty verdict. From an outside view this trial is opposite o the Zimmerman case where the defense is trying to prove his innocence and some of the public views support this. Zimmerman may be guilty, but there was reasonable doubt and no concrete evidence to prove any guilt. Widmer was found guilty with similarities to the Zimmerman trial where there was no concrete evidence to prove his story or his guilt, but was found guilty by a jury.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

The Widmer case is a case where the evidence actually leaves reasonable doubt and although he's been found guilty it was done so many believe erroneously. Many believe that his wife died due to a medical condition and all three trials this far tried to prove that but the prosecution kept doing whatever it had to to get the guilty verdict. From an outside view this trial is opposite o the Zimmerman case where the defense is trying to prove his innocence and some of the public views support this. Zimmerman may be guilty, but there was reasonable doubt and no concrete evidence to prove any guilt. Widmer was found guilty with similarities to the Zimmerman trial where there was no concrete evidence to prove his story or his guilt, but was found guilty by a jury.

I guess there are parallels on the level of generality that all murder trials have defendants, facts and maybe a little legal arguing.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Probably not but depending on the actions involved there isn't a legal obligation to abide by the 911 Dispatcher. Yes, what the 911 Dispatcher said can be used in a court of law. Yes, people can say that Zimmerman disobeyed the Dispatcher (which isn't automatically disobeying the law) and therefore got what he deserved.

But, that isn't groundbreaking evidence to lead to a conviction in these types of trials. I keep using Joe Horn as an example but he is someone who was acquitted by a grand jury. He was an idiot who disobeyed the 911 Dispatcher, excitedly went outside with a gun, and shot his neighbor's burglars while saying "bang, bang, you're dead". This was all recorded because he remained on the phone with the 911 Dispatcher. He claimed Stand Your Ground --the 911 Dispatcher's instructions to Horn were not instructions under the law--and Horn remains a free man.

I agree, it isn't groundbreaking evidence, but the prosecutor wasn't on their A-game like they should have been.

Originally Posted by Kevin

3) They have a wrestling match in which all of the evidence showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman getting the better of Zimmerman,

Martin wasn't "Standing his ground"? Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.

Originally Posted by Kevin

So the amount of time they took to deliberate, the request for further instruction on manslaughter, etc., was just an act?

Would it be illegal if it was an act? If all the evidence is pointing to the defense, aren't, most murder cases based on an act to convince the jury to give their clients a lesser sentence or to get them off the hook? Based on my observation, it happened in the Casey Anthony case, it happened with OJ, it happened with Jodi Arias, and it happened in this case too.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I agree, it isn't groundbreaking evidence, but the prosecutor wasn't on their A-game like they should have been.

But, that has little to nothing to do with the 911 Dispatcher.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Martin wasn't "Standing his ground"? Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.

That is the debate. Zimmerman's defense used self-defense rather than Stand Your Ground. I think Zimmerman's scars looked like a perhaps much deserved ass kicking. However, in a court of law evidence outweighs theory and personal opinions. Prosecution had more theory and opinions and the defense had more solid evidence (including stronger expert opinions).

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Would it be illegal if it was an act? If all the evidence is pointing to the defense, aren't, most murder cases based on an act to convince the jury to give their clients a lesser sentence or to get them off the hook? Based on my observation, it happened in the Casey Anthony case, it happened with OJ, it happened with Jodi Arias, and it happened in this case too.

All trials are an act, regardless of the verdict and whether we individually agree with the verdict. And regardless of the gender, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic, and other dynamics that serve as extralegal factors (that are technically supposed to be ignored or outweighed by legal factors).

However, I think people who are using this truth to protest the Zimmerman verdict need to find a stronger argument. They need to find something that specifically pertains to the Zimmerman trial lest we are protesting every trial--Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, etc.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

However, I think people who are using this truth to protest the Zimmerman verdict need to find a stronger argument. They need to find something that specifically pertains to the Zimmerman trial lest we are protesting every trial--Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, etc.

This.

Or maybe there needs to be a refined message as to what exactly is outrageous about the verdict. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to exactly what happened, and when that happens, we're not supposed to lock people up (although we do it all the time).

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

But, that has little to nothing to do with the 911 Dispatcher.




That is the debate. Zimmerman's defense used self-defense rather than Stand Your Ground. I think Zimmerman's scars looked like a perhaps much deserved ass kicking. However, in a court of law evidence outweighs theory and personal opinions. Prosecution had more theory and opinions and the defense had more solid evidence (including stronger expert opinions).



All trials are an act, regardless of the verdict and whether we individually agree with the verdict. And regardless of the gender, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic, and other dynamics that serve as extralegal factors (that are technically supposed to be ignored or outweighed by legal factors).

However, I think people who are using this truth to protest the Zimmerman verdict need to find a stronger argument. They need to find something that specifically pertains to the Zimmerman trial lest we are protesting every trial--Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson, Jodi Arias, etc.

Makes sense. They really need to do-away with that law.

Originally Posted by Kevin

This.

Or maybe there needs to be a refined message as to what exactly is outrageous about the verdict. There's still a lot of uncertainty as to exactly what happened, and when that happens, we're not supposed to lock people up (although we do it all the time).

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Makes sense. They really need to do-away with that law.

(ETA: The defense did not use Stand Your Ground during the trial but this has arguably been a convenient combination of self-defense and Stand Your Ground. People use self-defense when convenient and Stand Your Ground when convenient. Some people have attached a duty to retreat to Martin and some people have attached it to Zimmerman. Some people say Martin should have gone home, some people say Zimmerman should have stayed his gun toting ass in the car. Ignoring the duty to retreat for self-defense, Martin or Zimmerman then had the right to Stand Their Ground.)

I agree but Stand Your Ground is gaining momentum. As long as we have the NRA and gun rights lobbyists, we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have people (predominantly whites) who are being told that society is being overtaken by violent criminals (disproportionately Black and Hispanic), we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have states passing laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, theaters, restaurants, and some K-12 and college classrooms we will have Stand Your Ground.

I still say all of the above would be axed if it was racial and ethnic minorities and people lower socioeconomic status who were pushing for gun rights and Stand Your Ground. Gun buyback programs in inner cities do not care whether those law abiding citizens who sell their guns are "standing their ground."

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

True and this continues to be researched and protested. People know the difference between protesting a specific trial and protesting a general message. There is a difference between filing a civil suit and arguing a civil rights violation. The Zimmerman trial probably ended how it should have ended based on the circumstances.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

You'll get no argument from me there. It's a real shame how our criminal justice system works sometimes. In Oklahoma, if you can afford to post bail, they believe you can hire an attorney--a total ridiculous fiction.

And of course, if you can't post bail, our lovely county facility is so overcrowded that the cells are on 24/7 lockdown, 4 to a cell. If we kept POWs in the Oklahoma County Jail, we'd be violating the Geneva Convention.

[Mizeree I2K]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Makes sense.

None of it makes sense, because it's bullshit! Zimmerman shot Martin for no reason other than to fuck with a young black kid who he thought fit the stereotype of a thug. When the police showed up, Zimmerman was standing there with a dead body and a gun. The police questioned him, he explained what happened, and then they let his fat ass go.

If the police would have showed up and Martin was holding a gun with Zimmerman on the ground dead, they would have hauled his ass to jail. And if he asked if he could explain what happened, they would have said explain it to the judge. And before anybody pulls the word "Possibly" out of his or her ass, you know damn well what the outcome would have been. But this is the racist ass country we live in.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Martin wasn't "Standing his ground"? Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.

None of the state's evidence showed that Zimmerman was ever the aggressor except perhaps the claims of Zimmerman's parents that the voice yelling for help was Martin's. Zimmerman's family testified as well, so at best, you have a wash on that point. If, as Zimmerman told the police, Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was following Martin with 911 on the phone, then no, that's not standing your ground, that's assault and battery.

That's why I've continued to press the point that this is perhaps not the ideal set of facts to be outraged over because you really don't know who did what and how responsible for his own death Martin was.

Would it be illegal if it was an act?

Illegal? Probably not. Could it lead to a possible retrial? Yeah, possibly under the right circumstances. From what little we know from B37, the jurors worked very hard on their verdict and based on the evidence I saw and heard, there was reasonable doubt. I haven't heard or read anything to cause me to doubt that. Because you are unhappy with the verdict isn't rational cause for you to think the jury was fixed from the beginning.

If all the evidence is pointing to the defense, aren't, most murder cases based on an act to convince the jury to give their clients a lesser sentence or to get them off the hook?

I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that all of the evidence was pointing toward guilt? For whatever reason (luck?) 90% of the cases I work on involve a client who has confessed to everything before he bothered to call me (a few have even confessed on the 10 o'clock news before calling me). Those get plead out.

About 1% of cases go to trial, and yes, as Phil said, trials are a lot about acting. In fact, I've taken acting classes for CLE credit to help me better relate to juries. You have a job as an attorney--use the evidence and witnesses, and if you've got it, your personality, to persuade. That's what we do in trials.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

The Widmer case is a case where the evidence actually leaves reasonable doubt and although he's been found guilty it was done so many believe erroneously.

Apparently two juries who actually heard all of the evidence and were in a position to evaluate the witnesses disagree that there was reasonable doubt.

Many believe that his wife died due to a medical condition and all three trials this far tried to prove that but the prosecution kept doing whatever it had to to get the guilty verdict.

The "trials" didn't try to prove anything. The prosecution tried to prove guilt, the defense tried to prove that the wife died of a medical condition, or at least suggest reasonable doubt about that. While "many" may believe that he didn't do it, two juries disagreed and one couldn't decide.

FYI, when a verdict is set aside for something like juror misconduct, the result isn't dismissal of charges; the result is a new trial.

I get that there may be people who think he's innocent and has been wrongly convicted. But really, a case where there have been two guilty verdicts, one of which was overturned not because of insufficiency of the evidence or evidence that shouldn't have been admitted but because of juror misconduct and one of which was upheld on appeal (as best I can tell), doesn't work very well as a poster child for prosecutors who'll do anything for a conviction.