27
   

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 09:45 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Having a witness removed is done all the time. That way the defense would call the same witness and the prosecution could alter the impact by impeaching them.

The state cannot eliminate some witnesses, particularly material witnesses or eyewitnesses, without being accused, by the defense, of deliberately withholding evidence that might exonerate the defendant. The state has much less leeway in picking and choosing their witnesses than the defense. There are certain witnesses, like those neighbors, they must put on. They had lengthy discussions about that issue on HLN every night last week after the trial finished for the day.

The state has to win by proving their case, not by withholding evidence, or by withholding material witnesses or eyewitnesses because they might give mixed testimony. In that regard, the system bends in favor of fairness to the defendant.

The prosecution knew Jeantel had lied in the past about some things (like her age), and they knew her description had varied slightly with each questioning by attorneys, but her basic story never varied, and her testimony is crucial to their case. I'm not sure that anything that Jeantel said on the stand was any surprise to the state. And her demeanor wasn't something they could control.

Her literacy and letter-writing ability is absolutely irrelevant as to whether she was credible, and honest, in reporting her conversation with Martin on the witness stand at trial. The letter was a brief statement to Martin's mother that involved no questioning by anyone as she wrote it. I wouldn't expect it to be as detailed as things she said in later formal depositions, or on the witness stand. And neither side doubts she authored the letter.

It wasn't a blunder putting Jeantel on the stand, she's the only person in the entire case who can speak for what Martin was feeling and thinking as Zimmerman followed him--and what she said is favorable to the state and bolsters their case. Either the jury will believe her or they won't. If they believe her, that's a significant gain for the state. If they don't believe her, the state's other evidence will have a bigger burden and have to carry even more weight. But she didn't damage the state's case, she just might not wind up strengthening it if the jury doesn't believe her.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 09:53 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

as I said, I will frequently change the odds prior to Post Time.


I realized this, any honest person is this way!
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:01 pm
david says:
Quote:
Well, it was really nice of Zimmy
to patrol the naborhood, in his effort to suppress the incidence of burglary. A tip of my hat to him




So that excuses him confronting and killing a kid who was not committing any burglary? I thank the gods you've retired from law, David. With your peculiar conception of justice out of the system, I think the future of our country is much brighter.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:11 pm
NY Times now saying the persecution is snaffed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/in-zimmerman-trial-prosecution-witnesses-bolster-self-defense-claims.html?_r=1&
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:22 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:

So that excuses him confronting and killing a kid who was not committing any burglary?

It doesn't. The whole tragedy is Zimmerman's fault--he created the conditions for it to happen.

But that doesn't mean they'll be able to convict him of anything.

Even if Martin was legitimately defending himself when he slugged Zimmerman, or responding to a direct provocation by Zimmerman, if during the ensuing fight, Zimmerman truly believed his life was in danger, he was legally justified in using deadly force.

They've got to show that either Zimmerman caused the confrontation and started the fight, or he was not justified in using deadly force to end it, to get any sort of conviction. That's not so easy to demonstrate in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt, and beyond any possibility Zimmerman acted in self defense.







0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:34 pm
@gungasnake,
No the article does not say they are snaffed. In fact, it points out where the prosecution was strong this week. It's just that the defense also had a good week, and, when that happens during the state's case, that's certainly not good for the state. But the trial isn't over, and no one knows what the jury is thinking.

I agree with the article that the state may have overreached with second degree murder and that they should have gone for manslaughter. That may turn out to be their biggest problem. They've set their own burden quite high.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:54 pm
@firefly,
Problem is, and what you get back to is that the police originally viewed the case as a straight-up self-defense case and never charged Zimmerman, and several of AMerica's top legal experts including Alan Dershowitz have stated that the state never had any sort of a case to begin with and that bringing charges at all is basically unethical conduct on the prosecutors' parts:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

Charges were brought after team Jackson/Sharpton threatened the state govt with riots if they did otherwise.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  0  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 10:55 pm
@RABEL222,
In exactly what way did I misstate any post of yours? And why? If you think the intent was to show you are moron, you don't need help from anyone.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 11:00 pm
@MontereyJack,
david says:
DAVID wrote:
Well, it was really nice of Zimmy
to patrol the naborhood, in his effort to suppress the incidence of burglary. A tip of my hat to him
MontereyJack wrote:
So that excuses him confronting
Free speech excuses confronting him.
It is perfectly moral, legal and honorable to follow someone
and to speak to him.



MontereyJack wrote:
and killing a kid who was not committing any burglary?
Yes; he was perpetrating a criminal assault
and an attempted murder. Killing him was justified by self defense; it was a good deed
from which the rest of us benefit. We owe Zimmy.



MontereyJack wrote:
I thank the gods you've retired from law, David.
With your peculiar conception of justice out of the system,
I think the future of our country is much brighter.
I don't wanna know about your religion.





David
gungasnake
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 02:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
MontereyJack wrote:
and killing a kid who was not committing any burglary?


More like killing a "kid(TM)" who was committing an attempted murder....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 04:24 am
@firefly,
Quote:
and no one knows what the jury is thinking.


EXACTLY

You must try to remain objective in such a discussion.
Ms Jaentel is an awful witness nd all the defense has to do is to discredit her as the defense proceeds.

We obviously see this unfolding story differently. Im not watching it and am getting most of my info from NYT and Wash Post and Wilm Journal, (with dips into the extremely subjective worlds of internet)

My point is that you've become one of the "highly subjective " data sources and gunga is as partisan as you.

farmerman
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 04:31 am
@roger,
Its amazing how even a thread about the weather can turn ugly when people see the same facts differently.

We cant have conversations without calling each other names.
The anonymity of the web leaves us with heightened machismo. Wink
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 06:52 am
@farmerman,
Trayvon Martin was not doing anything but simply walking home. Zimmerman started following him, Trayvon tried to lose him, Zimmerman kept following him. Somehow (which hasn't been established yet) a physical fight started. If Zimmerman had the been the one who died, Trayvon would have had a perfect circumstance for a stand your ground case. Trayvon was simply defending himself from some guy following him and Zimmerman killed him. He barely had any injuries, there isn't any DNA evidence on any of Trayvon Martin's clothes, much less enough of DNA on his clothes from Zimmerman's head being pounded into sidewalk repeatedly. The rain washing all of the DNA away seems a weak argument but I guess people are willing to buy it. If Trayvon Martin had been a barely seventeen year white kid and Zimmerman a black 29 year old, I imagine the conversations would be quite a bit different from certain folks .
DrewDad
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:08 am
@farmerman,
You're not allowed to watch a trial if you have preconceived notions of guilt?

I thought that only applied to the jury....
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:20 am
@DrewDad,
I don't care who watches it and what opinions they derive. Just don't try to be "legally convincing" on a PBB that we know of what we speak.
My judgement of this week was that(from my frame of reference) the prosecution didn't hammer down many of their points and , in fact, let the defense take the initiative in impeaching evidence. That's a thing that most people would stipulate to.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:22 am
@revelette,
Sorry to disagree completely but that goes to motive and none of that ha been well established yet. Youre just carrying your pre trial bias into that. I admit I was so disposed also, before the case started. NOW, not so much
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:26 am
@revelette,
Quote:
The rain washing all of the DNA away seems a weak argument but I guess people are willing to buy it. If Trayvon Martin had been a barely seventeen year white kid and Zimmerman a black 29 year old, I imagine the conversations would be quite a bit different from certain folks .
Did it rain that night? did anybody present weather data to support or deny that?

As far as black on black, it shows a certain disdain for the jury (where "opinion" actually counts)
DrewDad
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:29 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Did it rain that night?

Have you paid any attention to the case and/or testimony at all?

Maybe you could take a moment from patting yourself on the back for your neutrality, and allow some facts to penetrate the cloud of smug surrounding you.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:32 am
Dershowitz and Allred discuss why this case is so difficult.

revelette
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 07:40 am
@farmerman,
Actually it has been established that Zimmerman followed Martin and that Martin was merely walking home from the store. There is not any DNA evidence on Martin's clothes.

Quote:
I felt comfortable that Guy’s effective opening statement would extend into the case in chief and a conviction of Zimmerman. Ain’t gonna happen! On either count. As it turns out, the two lead prosecutors have turned out to be weak sisters. Time and time again on redirect, they’ve missed critical follow-up questions that would have given context to the awesomely misleading questions and tactics of the two sketchy defense attorneys, West and the consummate phony, Mark O’Mara, a media-savvy (he appears on TV both locally and nationally) silver tongued devil.

Let me give you a couple of examples. In Friday’s testimony, A Twin Lakes resident, Jonathan Good, testified that it was so dark that upon first investigating sounds outside his residence he could see a human, but didn’t know whether that human was interacting with another person or an animal. Later he confidently told the jury that the man on the bottom of a subsequent scuffle that went to the ground was wearing a red jacket. Another witness produced a photo of the upper body a face-down and deceased Trayvon Martin in the circle of his flashlight and you could absolutely not even see the youngster’s pants outside the circle. Nothing on that point from prosecutions redirect.

Good also fell for O’Mara’s constant reference to the Mixed Martial Art’s term “ground and pound.” That’s an MMA term for one fighter essentially sitting on top of another and beating him with his fists. Just like some of the more pugnacious of you did when you were in 4th grade. But instead of the standard scuffle, it was characterized as scary old “MMA GROUND AND POUND!”

Had the prosecution done ANY homework they would have checked into connections to MMA for both combatants; Martin and Zimmerman. They didn’t. They allowed the Defense to get away with constant and meaningless MMA references. And it wasn’t until the later testimony of a Physicians Assistant, that it came out that Zimmerman was the devotee of MMA and took MMA classes three times a week in addition to working so intensely at the outset of his MMA involvement that he couldn’t sleep.

The Christian Science Monitor quotes O’Mara as saying “I have had anecdotal evidence that there were videos out there suggesting that Trayvon involved himself in MMA fighting. Here’s one such video O’Mara was apparently referring to: Martin was not one of the fighters. His brother says he wasn’t there at all.

The defense earlier insisted that even though Zimmerman went to a gym for boxing lessons (no mention of MMA by the defense), he wasn’t allowed in the ring because he was too “soft.” Pure BS unchallenged by the prosecution. In fact, if you pay your money, you would be allowed into the ring, either fully protected with someone of your skill level or just working out with a trainer who wouldn’t hit back.

Speaking of the Physicians Assistant, the most egregious snake-oil the defense was allowed to get away with was O’Mara turning minor injuries as described by the PA into life-threatening near-death wounds; a legal necessity because the law stipulates that the “victim” who shoots his/her attacker must be in fear for his life or great bodily injury.

After conceding that Zimmerman might have broken his nose, in spite of the fact it was perfectly straight a day later, she shrugged off two minor cuts measured at 2 centimeters and 0.5 cm. There are about 2.5 cm per inch so these were baby cuts. There were also some inconsequential minor abrasions. Zimmerman’s weight was listed at 204, 46 lbs more than Martin. O’Mara came back on cross and flashed the bloody photo taken shortly after the shooting as if that was the Zimmerman the witness had examined.

A side note, in the photo, they may look like elongated cuts, but those were merely dry blood trails. The prosecutors never pressed the issue of the bloody photo. Here are the questions that should have been asked. Do scalp wounds bleed profusely? Yep; thinner skin, higher BP. Was there any indication that Mr. Zimmerman’s life was in ANY danger? How many people with similar injuries have died since you started practicing? Did Mr. Zimmerman tell you he felt like he was going to die? Of course he didn’t and, in fact, declined every opportunity to seek further professional treatment and sought the evaluation so he could return to work. Something pretty much ignored by the prosecution.

Neither cop on the witness stand was asked if there were any complaints lodged against Martin other than Zimmerman.

The state’s “star” witness, Rachel Jeantel, turned out to be a troubled teenage eccentric more to be pitied than censured and was totally unprotected by the prosecution as she was insulted repeatedly by Attorney West.

Yes, Trayvon pounded on Zimmerman and was most likely on top, but Zimmerman started it, picked the fight, was carrying a deadly weapon at the ready and who knows who struck the first blow? Maybe the state is saving the best for last, but I’m afraid “softie” will beat the rap. See if Zimmerman’s day-old account holds up here.

So Zimmerman can go back to being Block Watch Captain, seeking out his next OSON victim ‘er “real suspicious guy.”



source



So I guess a lot people, even clearly people on the side of the dead 17 year old, say the prosecution is doing a lousy job.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 10:28:06