The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!

Well if there's no evidence, then a person won't (or shouldn't) be convicted of anything.

And how was this person tried four times? Shouldn't double jeopardy apply?

The reason that there are lesser charges offered is because there are different levels of punishment. For example, let's say someone was driving while under the influence and killed someone, and the only charge on the table was first degree murder. Would you feel comfortable convicting someone of that, possibly sending them to death row? Probably not. This is why the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter exists.

95% of cases never make it to trial. People plea to lesser charges. This saves time and money, and it's necessary. It's not a matter of "let's convict this person of SOMETHING because we know he's guilty and even without evidence, we need a way to bring him down!" .. it's more about reaching justice quickly, having options when it comes to sentencing, and finding the correct charges for the crimes that are committed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!

Not going to bother commenting on the speculation and what ifs and stuff you'd want to know before delivering your opinion.

I took a minute to Google this local case. Your understanding of what happened must have come from one of those unburdened-by-fact email forwards you get from your ultra-right-wing friends.

The first trial was declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second was a hung jury. The third jury convicted. He's trying to get a fourth trial, but from what little I've seen, there's not much hope that'll go anywhere.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not going to bother commenting on the speculation and what ifs and stuff you'd want to know before delivering your opinion.

I took a minute to Google this local case. Your understanding of what happened must have come from one of those unburdened-by-fact email forwards you get from your ultra-right-wing friends.

The first trial was declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The second was a hung jury. The third jury convicted. He's trying to get a fourth trial, but from what little I've seen, there's not much hope that'll go anywhere.

I just Googled this as well. It looks like he was actually convicted during the first trial, but it was later overturned due to juror misconduct. So he's gone through three trials and he was convicted twice.

The fourth trial never happened. Widmer and his attorneys wanted one, but they were denied.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I just Googled this as well. It looks like he was actually convicted during the first trial, but it was later overturned due to juror misconduct. So he's gone through three trials and he was convicted twice.

The fourth trial never happened. Widmer and his attorneys wanted one, but they were denied.

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nothing offensive at all about that result...

Yea, I'm not really seeing what the problem is here. Could he have been wrongly convicted? Sure. But nowhere am I seeing a blatant disregard for the law by the prosecution, desperately seeking out a guilty verdict based on nothing but personal feelings, instead of the facts of the case.

[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).

[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.

[DrPhil]

I agree that Zimmerman's weight gain was intentional.

I thought Martin was 17. I will not assume Zimmerman was stronger than Martin just because he was an (shorter and) older man. I do not doubt Martin was a physically stronger high school athlete and kicked Zimmerman's ass. That was never the issue as far as I am concerned. The altercation happened but Zimmerman just so happened to have a gun. Lucky ducky. That's the issue as far as I am concerned. The prosecutors still did not have what they needed to get a conviction but the issue remains the issue.

I don't assume that juror's mind was made up before the case. She didn't say that is how she felt immediately. She may not have felt that way about Zimmerman until she heard most or all of the evidence. At the same time, everyone in that courtroom may have had their minds made up before the trial. Until we have robots in the court room, we will always have human attorneys, judges, jurors, and so forth. None of these people are fully capable of removing emotion, assumptions, and subjectivity. The legal system is designed to buffer much of this but arguably not all of this.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

Zimmerman, a more fit one at that, was 27, 28 at the time of confrontation? Martin was 16, and by most photos I've seen, tall and thin.

In general, men are stronger than boys.

Perhaps, but in general doesn't mean in this case or always. My son is 15, tall and thin, and very strong.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I will not assume Zimmerman was stronger than Martin just because he was an (shorter and) older man. I do not doubt Martin was a physically stronger high school athlete and kicked Zimmerman's ass. That was never the issue as far as I am concerned. The altercation happened but Zimmerman just so happened to have a gun. Lucky ducky. That's the issue as far as I am concerned. The prosecutors still did not have what they needed to get a conviction but the issue remains the issue.

I don't assume that juror's mind was made up before the case. She didn't say that is how she felt immediately. She may not have felt that way about Zimmerman until she heard most or all of the evidence. At the same time, everyone in that courtroom may have had their minds made up before the trial. Until we have robots in the court room, we will always have human attorneys, judges, jurors, and so forth. None of these people are fully capable of removing emotion, assumptions, and subjectivity. The legal system is designed to buffer much of this but arguably not all of this.

Agree with all of this.

[DrPhil]

I slam dunked on MysticCat's son, then put him in a headlock.

I wasn't impressed with this week's CNN Anderson Cooper town hall talk on race. I'm tired of these CNN's talks. I get the point but BLAH. The panelists were good but BLAH. Some of the comments were interesting but BLAH. Nothing new. Nas was on there. BLAH.