Jun 14 2012
What Does Judge Lester Know About George Zimmerman We Don’t Know?
I have been crystal clear about why I think George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter when he gunned down an unarmed Travyon Martin (and for all those who wanted to see the evil teenager who needed to be killed, I oblige above with a picture to haunt your souls). The early indications we had from the first sketchy information was that either this 17 old kid went berserk on Skittles, or George Zimmerman (GZ) was lying about what played out that night.
IF the latter is true (and I laid my bet early on that it would turn out to be true, based on personal experience with many other like-minded, vigilante types who get off on playing hero – with guns to embolden them) then I wagered Zimmerman was unaware of all the evidence around him. Especially the fact that a young lady was on the phone at the time of the incident and could speak to Zimmerman’s actions as she heard them, and as they were relayed DIRECTLY to her by Trayvon Martin himself. Without full knowledge of the perjury traps surrounding him, GZ was almost 100% likely to screw himself over while trying to gold plate his alibi.
We are close to seeing if my early observations do pan out, because now we are going to get the statements (but not necessarily a link to the contradictory evidence) that has given the State of Florida high confidence in a conviction of not just Manslaughter, but Murder 2.
This yet to be publicized evidence has been seen by both legal teams. The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. And the defense wanted it out of the public because it would make his client look even worse than he does.
And then there was Judge Lester – who recently noted the evidence is ‘strong’.
There is some strange confusion as to how Judge Lester made this determination, but it would seem obvious in such a case like this with heated media attenti0n and hot heads on both sides. The likely event that exposed the prosecutors case to the judge (and defense team) would appear to be a pretrial conference of some kind:
Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules.
…
Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.
Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).
It seems very likely that in discussing the withholding of this evidence from the public, the judge had to review said evidence in detail. Thus we can answer some marginal questions such as this:
Interestingly, he [Lester] writes for the first time that the state’s evidence is “strong.” The state chose not to present evidence on the facts of the case at the April 20 bond hearing, relying instead on its affidavit. The only testimony at the hearing on the facts of the case came from the state investigator, called by the defense, who acknowledged weaknesses in the state’s case. The state’s affidavit of probable cause, which as has been endlessly discussed, was a one-sided portrayal with factual inaccuracies and no mention defendant’s claim of self-defense. It didn’t contain evidence of the elements of second degree murder.
No, it did not. And that is because both legal teams have clearly been pushing from day one for the hard evidence against Zimmerman (his own words) to be kept out of the public light. It happens, not all the evidence is public.
Florida statutes, rules and case law provide that the accused has a right to bail unless the state establishes at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.” If the state fails to meet its burden, the judge must set bail. If the state meets is burden, the judge still has discretion (as opposed to the duty) to grant bail. Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing — that the state met its burden under the Arthur standard of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.
…
Judge Lester made no such finding in April (you can watch the video of closing arguments and his ruling here), and the State never presented evidence other than its affidavit to meet that burden.
This argument against Judge Lester’s decision is handicapped by severe blinders. If both sides want to keep evidence from being made public, the Judge has to go along until he has the opportunity to do the research and make a decision on the motion(s). So, to operate within the request to hold back evidence normally made public, the obvious process is not to expose it during open trial events.
I mean – duh!
The argument being presented actually proves how bad this really is for GZ by explaining how unprecedented things are, and what the conditions must be for them to be proper – and unprecedented:
Case law in Florida since the 1950’s has held that the state is unlikely to be able to meet such a burden in homicide cases where self-defense is raised. An accused’s version of the manner by which a homicide occurred (such as self-defense) is generally accepted for the purpose of determining whether the proof of his guilt was evident or the presumption great.
…
Defendant’s version of the homicide can not be ignored where there is an absence of other evidence legally sufficient to contradict his explanation.
I am assuming everyone here is acting in good faith and within the normal parameters of the law (being seasoned legal professionals of the criminal judicial system). Which means that the reason Judge Lester is coming down hard on GZ and able to take the positions he has is because there is evidence legally sufficient to contradict GZ’s self-defense explanation.
Imagine that. Clear evidence that GZ’s story was rapidly and awkwardly concocted on the spot to cover up his aggressive and criminal decisions and actions.
Those who support GZ without question or thought will be tested very soon. Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second. I am not emotionally hooked to any outcome. My position has been to go to trial and let the process work – for the real victim here. A dead 17 year old American kid with so much ahead of him. The only reason I stand pat is as details have emerged, they have supported and not contradicted my initial assessment. It happens.
Only until I see proof beyond a reasonable doubt Trayvon was a mortal threat to GZ (instead of his stalked victim) I am not buying this self defense crap. TM had a right to stand his ground too. And that included not going home and hiding from a vigilante. Sadly, that would have been the better decision for the young man, but if he thought the coast was clear and began going about is business. That is not a crime.
And that is not an decision worth being killed over.
GZ stalked, confronted and likely initiated the physical altercation. That is my guess based on the character of Zimmerman and how he builds his lies and alibis. He looks to be the kind who lies easily (like in bail hearings where we now have two lies recorded regarding TM’s apparent age and his financial situation – where the coward had his wife lie for him), and he looks to build these lies by twisting events that actually occurred to his view. I truly wonder who came up to whom from behind and began this deadly dance.
I will end with this observation:
If the state wants bail rejected on June 29, it seems to me it has to file a written motion for pre-trial detention under the pre-trial detention rule, 3.132, and both produce non-hearsay evidence in support of the charges and prove there are no conditions that would reasonable assure Zimmerman’s appearance at trial or the safety of the community. If it doesn’t do that, then the court is still proceeding under the pre-trial release rule, 3.131, which requires the state to produce far more evidence, hearsay or otherwise, than it did in April, to establish Zimmerman is guilty of the charged offense.
Is it really a coincidence new evidence is becoming public over the objections of both legal teams? Not if the judge wants to free his hands in this situation. The judge rightfully noted GZ admitted to killing TM, so there is no issue with releasing more evidence of same. The question is how did this come about, and we may get some answers very soon.
“I oblige above with a picture to haunt your souls)”
you didn’t have access to the picture with his gold teeth and two middle fingers held up? or the one with his angel wings attached?
“based on personal experience with many other like-minded, vigilante types who get off on playing hero – with guns to embolden them)” I am actually sorry to hear that you are in a place where a lot of vigilante types are running through your neighborhood waving guns and threatening people. Thank goodness that in my neighborhood we have real policemen to enforce the law. and I’ve never seen any of them waving their guns around. But I’m sure that if we did have the vigilantes running around and they killed someone, I wouldn’t want a judge out advocating that he be convicted prior to the trial.
“The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. ”
This can’t be true because clearly the defense is entitled to know the evidence against the defendant ‘prior’ to the trial. It can’t be ‘sprung’ on them without time to prepare a defense.
(but if the objective of the trial is to convict someone and not do justice, then I guess it would be ok.)
This entire post appears to be about an attempt by the judge to justify a conviction without a trial. A judge making public statements about a defendant in an upcoming trial in his courtroom should be cause for immediate impeachment of the judge.
Maybe some day we will all actually advocate that only justice be done in a courtroom. There might have been a right time for Judge Roy Bean, but this is not the day and time or country.
“Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second. I am not emotionally hooked to any outcome. My position has been to go to trial and let the process work – for the real victim here. A dead 17 year old American kid”
no comment. It speaks for itself.
“you didn’t have access to the picture with his gold teeth and two middle fingers held up?”
Oh, you mean the picture of someone besides Trayvon Martin that white supremacists claimed was him?
“But I’m sure that if we did have the vigilantes running around and they killed someone, I wouldn’t want a judge out advocating that he be convicted prior to the trial.”
And you don’t have one doing that here, so all is right.
“This can’t be true because clearly the defense is entitled to know the evidence against the defendant ‘prior’ to the trial. It can’t be ‘sprung’ on them without time to prepare a defense.”
You failed to recognize the word “public.”
“A judge making public statements about a defendant in an upcoming trial in his courtroom should be cause for immediate impeachment of the judge.”
You obviously know next to nothing about the courts, despite the fact that Strata spells out exactly why the judge was making a determination about the strength of the evidence presented.
I’m with Redteam on this. From Deshowitz:
“Corey seems to believe that our criminal justice system is like a poker game in which the prosecution is entitled to show its cards only after the judge has decided to charge the defendant with second degree murder. That’s not the way the system is supposed to work and that’s not the way prosecutors are supposed to act. That a prosecutor would hide behind the claim that she did not have an obligation to tell the whole truth until after the judge ruled on probable cause displays a kind of gamesmanship in which prosecutors should not engage. The prisons, both in Florida and throughout the United States, are filled with felons who submitted sworn statements that contained misleading half truths. Corey herself has plausibly prosecuted such cases.”
Me, I will let the Jury decide, I have no opinion.
There are bigger things going on.
No one got too outraged about the Sarasota murders of 2 Brit tourists shot
in an ethnic neighborhood.
Looks like selective out rage to me.
Let the Juyr decide.
Another story I have no interest in:
Rupert Murdoch / phone Hacking / Levinson enquiry
There are much more important things about to fall.
teh mantis:
“Oh, you mean the picture of someone besides Trayvon Martin that white supremacists claimed was him?”
The one with angel wings? yea, that’s it.
“And you don’t have one doing that here, so all is right.”
you didn’t read the post? That’s what the whole story is about.
“You failed to recognize the word “public.” ”
No, and I also did not fail to see this sentence that you either missed or overlooked.
“The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. ”
tip their hand to the public? chuckle……
As I said, the prosecution is not entitled to ‘spring evidence’ on the defense during a trial.
“You obviously know next to nothing about the courts,”
would you tell us what your qualifications are for judging other persons knowledge of the courts? Are you rated, beginner? amateur? Average? above average? expert? in that field?
But let’s get this clear from a ‘judge of persons knowledge of the courts’ you are ok with this judge going out to the public and making statements that the ‘evidence is strong against GZ’ ? You think that is something a presiding judge should do? And since you are ok with it, is it also ok for the judge to tell the public what the sentence will be ‘when’ the defendant is found guilty?
What has destroyed your faith in the integrity of the American justice system to the point that you think judges should be out talking about the guilt of defendants prior to trial?
It still looks to me like a legal lynching of George Zimmerman because he refused to submit to letting this 6 ft. 3 in. black “kid” bash his brains out on the sidewalk. Unless someone can show me evidence that Zimmerman initiated the actual fight, Martin’s damaged knuckles, and Zimmerman’s broken nose and banged up head are enoughevidence to convince me to believe Zimmerman was justified in shooting his assialant. Judges’s can lie and take side the same as anyone else. Maybe this judge is trying to avoid being labeled a racist . I have a question…Has anyone checked out that address that Martin was supposed to be headed for? Did the people who live there even know who Treyvon was? The facts as I see them are. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch duty. He sees someone suspicious, reports him to the police. The police tell him not to confront the individual. Zimmerman may, or may not have continued to follow him. If he did, he was just doing his job by watching a suspicious individual. Treyvon confronts Zimmerman, hits him in the nose, breaking i and apparently knocking Zimmerman to the ground. Treyvon then gets on top of Zimmerman and proceeds to bang his head on the sidewalk. Thank goodness Zimmerman had a gun. If he hadn’t had one he would be probably just another dead honkey victim of Justified black rage, and nobody would ever have heard of him. Give us a break Al, Just how dumb do you think we are?
momdear1, I second that. I’ve seen no evidence of a raving maniac, gun waving sheriff wannbe vigilante. Others seem to see evidence of that. What I see absolute positive proof of is a judge that has publicly stated that he is sure that GZ is guilty and it’s only a matter of what the sentence is.
I wonder how those lacerations actually got on GZ’s head. Did he self impose them to support his story. Maybe after he shot TM at point blank range he decided he’d better cook up a story so he took TM’s fist and slammed it against his nose until he broke it, then flopped down on the sidewalk and bashed his head on the concrete. But, the truth is slowly unraveling. all this will come out. or something…
Actually, there is the slightest suspicion on my part that TM might actually have done the wounds prior to his demise. or something…
Well, by golly, if the judge has his way, we’ll never know the truth, only what he is attempting to sell to the public… it’s working…
A.J. says:
“Only until I see proof beyond a reasonable doubt Trayvon was a mortal threat to GZ (instead of his stalked victim) I am not buying this self defense crap.”
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not the standard which applies to a defendant.
re A.J.’s theory
Your theory is that the judge granted bond to GZ before reviewing the pertinent evidence. That would mean that a guilty GZ was granted opportunity to flee before facing justice (on account of the judge granting bond before reviewing pertinent evidence). I am not a legal expert. Maybe your theory is what happened. But, from my lay person perspective, it violates common sense.
A.J. says:
“GZ stalked, confronted and likely initiated the physical altercation.”
If Trayvon was mounted on GZ and assaulting GZ with deadly pillow fight force, then none of the above (stalked, confronted, initiated) is relevant. Self defense would be a legit reason for use of deadly force.
A.J. says:
“I have been crystal clear about why I think George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter….”
First, are these your crystal clear reasons?
1. the single audio expert
2. GZ lied (thus evincing consciousness of guilt)
Second: GZ has not been charged with manslaughter.
A.J. says:
“I am assuming everyone here is acting in good faith and within the normal parameters of the law”
Do you think this statement is a sweet way to absolve yourself of responsibility for your own bad judgment? Have you WATCHED Corey in action?
You are not absolved, any more Ann Althouse and Peggy Noonan are absolved for being so foolish as to believe in Barack Obama in 2008, DESPITE massive evidence that Barack was misguided, misleading, and not up to the job.
A.J. says:
“Those who support GZ without question or thought”
Can we just stick to the evidence and reasoning? Do we have to call names and issue insults? How long must we behave like leftists who ignore evidence and reasoning in favor of name calling and skewing the issues?
There is not one commenter here who supports GZ w/o question or thought. I argue that it is even incorrect to say that commenters “support” GZ. What we support is truth and justice. Re GZ, we have said, again and again: let the chips fall where they may.
A.J. says:
“Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second.”
Again with the insults, via implying that we are not willing to follow the evidence.
A.J. says:
“My position has been to go to trial and let the process work”
Who doesn’t have this position? We are all motivated by desire to see justice done. An honorable desire.
gcotharn,
This not a court of law. As the evidence mounts against GZ my bar has risen in response.
Get a clue, I don’t have to subscribe to the same level as a court (e.g., OJ Simpson). I will abide the ruling, I am allowed to not agree with it.
Free Speech and all
A.J.
What are your crystal clear reasons for believing GZ is guilty? Are they
1. the single audio expert
2. GZ lied, thus evincing evidence of guilt?
Are there other reasons?
“This not a court of law. As the evidence mounts against GZ”
It’s all perspective I guess. The only direction I’ve seen the evidence is going is DOWN.
It’s gotten to the point where you’re resorting to posting about the presiding Judge violating the law by polluting his jury pool. Anytime a judge is publicly stating an opinion on the innocence or guilt of a person that will be tried in his court, he should be impeached. now.
If any evidence is mounting it is that the judge and prosecutor have an agenda and it bears no resemblance to justice.
gcotharn, you are aware that the ‘audio expert’ that was widely publicized was actually not an audio expert. It’s been a while since that was bandied about so it might be a little trouble to find a link, but he was pretty well discredited as being ‘an expert’ audio guy.
I am unaware of that, about the audio guy’s findings. I do not, so far, know of a reason to completely dismiss the guy’s findings. Can you remember which blogs have written about it?
I think this is the original story I was referring to:
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/about-those-audio-forsenic-experts
If any evidence is mounting it is that the judge and prosecutor have an agenda and it bears no resemblance to justice.
Redteam, that’s how I see it, as well.
Wow… news and more misconceptions and now assaults on our judicial system as a GZ “defense”. Perhaps attempting to shine a light on discovery, the process and FL’s sunshine law is in order… not to mention a Judge’s job in general.
These are comments about AJ’s perspective, but they are based on two different rulings, so let me speak to the first INRE discovery process.
The Prosecution has all this stuff pretty much already. The defense files the requests for that evidence during the discovery period. But as AJ tried to point out, there is some evidence that both the prosecutors wanted sealed, or inadmissible, for their own reasons. Because of FL’s Sunshine law, filed evidence turned over in the discovery period becomes public virtually immediately, with some exceptions. Hence both State and defense teams filed motions for the sealing or inadmissibility of certain of those documents before they reached the public “sunshine” stage. Just because you don’t know as Joe Q. Public doesn’t mean that O’Mara doesn’t know.
The result of both the State and O’mara filing those motions to supress some of the documentation is the Judge’s ruling on that request…. which stated that most of the witnesses names were to be disclosed, and that Zimmerman’s statements to the police were not tantamount to a confession.
If you read the order, you will notice that Judge Lester makes reference to the “elements” I’ve told you about over and over, required to prove 2nd degree murder”. Those elements are… again (sigh)…
1: The victim is dead
2: The defendant created a “criminal act”, defined specifically for 2nd degree murder as a series of acts or events that created the dangerous conditions that led to the death (i.e. continued following, hunting, pursuit of a retreating TM when he was no threat to GZ)
3: The defendant demonstrated a “depraved mind”, defined specifically for 2nd degree murder as an utter disregard for human life (setting out, on foot, to search for the retreating TM while armed and disregarding the fact that a confrontation that required the use of that firearm could result in death or serious bodily injury)
GZ’s defense is going to have to establish reasonable doubt that his actions were the reason he was getting his head pounded in the first place. O’Mara will certainly use self-defense in part of his strategy, but he will first have to create enough doubt that GZ didn’t irresponsibly create the conditions for the fight himself.
O’Mara wanted the GZ statements not to be admissible and/or sealed), but Lester said that GZ’s own confession to killing TM in the bond hearing already made that public domain. His other statements do not confess any guilt to the other above two specific elements that the State must prove for a conviction.
AJ is correct that the evidence that both State and prosecution must be provided to the Judge to review prior to making a ruling about inadmissibility or sealing. That’s all that order is.
If you think the State can “spring” undisclosed evidence on the defense, unannounced, you’ve been watching too many Hollywood movies and TV episodics. The State is required to turn over both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, and does so at the defense team’s demand. However because of FL’s sunshine law, criminal defense attorneys often handle that discovery demand differently in order to avoid getting unfavorable material into the public and media’s hands. So the State isn’t holding out on O’Mara. He’s just hunting and pecking thru what he knows about and filing motions to seal or suppress based on what he feels may hurt GZ’s case.
To the last paragraph: I believe you also attacked the judge far more harshly on another thread, RG. What you are doing is letting your emotions cloud the issue merely because he sees something different than you do. Then again, until you start recognizing what the State is attempt to prove, and stop resting all opinions on the fight alone, you will continue to let your emotions cloud the legal reality.
A judge’s fiduciary duty *is* to examine evidence, and make assessments as to their strength or weakness. This is how stuff get’s into trial as evidence to begin with, as well as whether a trial is held at all. .
If JeraLyn Merritt, Dershowitz, or other legal talking heads want to disagree with his opinion on the strength of that evidence, that’s not unusual. Lawyers and judges are not lockstep types, and adversarial positions are the norm in the legal world. However Dershowitz or Merritt have not seen all the evidence that the State has, so they are speaking without being in full possession of the facts, and making some bizarre statements of late
Dershowitz, for example. A judge doesn’t decide the charges, the prosecutors office does. Affidavits have no obligation to lay out all details of their case, and without being in possession of all the evidence, Dershowitz is in no position to consider something a “half lie”. While Dershowitz has engaged in consulting as an appellate criminal attorney for some high profile cases, the bulk of his legal career has been I professorial and other clerical positions.. not as a trial attorney on the front line.
TalkLeft JeraLyn Merritt’s observation, wondering what Lester knows now that he didn’t know at the original bond hearing is somewhat baffling for a criminal defense lawyer of her stature. Obviously the judge, as well as the public who had access to that evidence because of FL’s sunshine law, all knew a lot more than at the end of April.
When she ponders as why the prosecution didn’t press the website funds issue in the original bond hearing, the simplicity seems to elude her:
1: They did not know that the Zimmerman’s would not disclose even an “estimate” as to the amount of funds they had obtained and collected as of that moment (to which Ms. Z answered “I do not”…. yet their jail cell calls indicates they did speak of amounts and transfers)
2: Even listening to the jail calls, the State would not have any idea the amount of the funds were because of their use of “code”… speaking of $155, or $8.60. The genuine amount of funds at the disposal of, and used by, the Zimmermans was not discovered until after the hearing. Since the bail bond would revolve around the Zimmerman’s financial capabilities, and the State still had no idea of their financial means via the jail calls or the testimony, they had no way to press the issue.
Additionally, these legal talking heads are irrelevant, except for firing up the Internet and keeping their faces in the public for their own careers. Only the judge, the State and defense teams, and the jury’s opinions are relevant because it is they who will decide GZ’s fate.
Lastly, it’s somewhat embarrassing to find some, like momdear using pretty offensive language towards anyone who may support the legal process, and repeating incorrect facts by saying:
First of all, if Ms mom would go and read the readily available evidence dump PDF file, she would find that the autopsy report has documented Martin as 71″ (or 5’11”, not 6′ anything), and 158 lbs. GZ, on his most loveable and personable 2005 MySpace site as Joe G, describes himself as 5’10” tall. The night of the killing, GZ was well over 158 lbs. So this meme about a larger than life 17 year old seems to be taking on a life of it’s own, and facts don’t seem to matter.
Such language of “legal lynching” is not only an insult to our judicial system and our 1st Amendment to opine on the evidence we’ve seen, but it’s the same type of language used by Al Sharpton and the Black Congressional Caucus. This makes GZ devotees of this caliber virtually undistinguishable from the other extreme in their misguided passion for their horse in the race.
It’s as simple as this. Some of us believe there is enough evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge and trial because what we have seen lends credibility GZ did, indeed, spend a great deal of time following and searching for a teen who was doing nothing illegal. And he did so while armed. At that lies the heart of a second degree murder charge.
There is no law that says GZ cannot ignore neighborhood watch guidelines and search, follow and confront a “suspicious” individual while armed. But there is no pass, and no glorification when he does so and a a death results from those choices. If a jury finds his actions and decisions responsible for the fight happening to begin with, then his head being pounded won’t matter at all because he put himself in that position. If they don’t believe he created the conditions for the fight, he will be acquitted. Simple as that. But there is certainly enough evidence that he did for a trial to happen.. and that is what many of us are trying to say.
GZ was an irresponsible gun owner – not only because he made bad choices, but as the armed adult he was responsible for defusing the situation. He needed only identify himself to Martin as the neighborhood watch (since he was obviously not law enforcement), and note that he was just checking since he didn’t recognize Martin.
Zimmerman’ irresponsibility will be the poster child for seizing more gun rights, and making stricter criteria on CCW. And if you’ll notice, the NRA isn’t out front, backing Zimmerman’s self defense actions. He’s done more damage to RKBA than most of you realize at this moment. And that’s the only reason I care about this case at all.
Mata,
Let me thank you for spending the time to explain things very clearly and professionally here. I appreciate (and noticed) your legal background. My own is, sadly, through osmosis from a sybling (now a judge but once a state prosecutor), an in-law who is a federal prosecutor, a grandfather who was in state and federal government, and several uncles on various police forces at various levels.
My dad got his law degree and many of us engineer types also dabble in contract law a lot.
Your explanations (and concurrence or correction of my views) are very helpful on this very controversial topic.
Again, my deepest thanks for your time and effort.
Mata,
BTW we do agree 100% on something paramount to this case:
“GZ was an irresponsible gun owner – not only because he made bad choices, but as the armed adult he was responsible for defusing the situation. He needed only identify himself to Martin as the neighborhood watch …
Zimmerman’ irresponsibility will be the poster child for seizing more gun rights, and making stricter criteria on CCW. And if you’ll notice, the NRA isn’t out front, backing Zimmerman’s self defense actions. “
This I see two major crimes here. First is vigilante Zimmerman (and I know his kind all too well) trying to play superior being (not policeman, which as you noted would identify himself and try to understand the situation – not get off on bullying a young kid).
Second is gun nut Zimmerman. The guy who makes anyone with a gun look like a loose cannon willing and able to kill anyone’s kid on the slightest of suspicions. My son the Marine loves hoodies and skittles. But if GZ came up to give him shit he would have been out in 2 seconds – and disarmed.
GZ picked on the wrong person. One he could dominate. A kid. And he will go to court and see if any one is gullible enough to confuse him with some kind of twisted saint.
Well, AJ… happen to be going thru the same thing at FA, but I will say your crowd is far more polite. LOL
I’m not an attorney, but my job involves contract law … just not in the criminal world. But over the decades, I’ve developed a geek hobby of reading court opinions at all jurisdiction levels, and for various aspects. The legal world is as fascinating as it can be frustrating. For example, higher courts bust out lawsuits we all think should be revisited in the appeal process, but every bit of it depends on what the court is supposed to be ruling on specifically with that appeal. i.e. is is the merits of the case, or some flaw in the process while the case was tried.
To put this in a realm where many here might find some common ground, recently the SCOTUS refused to hear the Obama ineligible suit filed by Alan Keyes and two other candidates. Without addressing the merits of the lawsuit, the court refused to hear the case based on no standing. This is not a determination that Obama was, or was not, ineligible. Only that the SCOTUS decided the candidates had no standing and thereby they won’t even touch the merits of the legal argument.
I think that most of the GZ/TM case is baffling because self-defense is a passionate right with which all of us can agree. However I can’t seem to make it gel with many that Zimmerman isn’t being tried on whether he exercised self-defense, but whether he created the condition that required he use self-defense. As long as they cling to Zimmerman losing in the fight for the outcome, they will miss the State’s strategy for prosecution of the Second Degree Murder charge.
Defense teams cannot ignore the evidence the State will use to prove this. So they have a two pronged task at hand…
1: muddy the waters for the jury so that at least one of them isn’t convinced that Zimmerman created the conditions for the fight to happen, and then
2: convince the jury that Zimmerman’s self defense of shooting Martin wasn’t an inappropriate, unreasonable, imperfect or overkill response to the fight, and that it was his only recourse.
There is sufficient evidence, even from what we see in the public, for a trial using that charge because Zimmerman did not abandon his search timely and immediately, and that his continued quest to track TM or his movements may have escalated that night to it’s end. As to whether or not that is successful, we’ll all only know after the trial and the verdict is in.