Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1014337] JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?[/quote]

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is [I]initially[/I] on Z to assert but, once asserted and a [I]prima facia[/I] case made, it is up to the State to disprove it[I] beyond a reasonable doubt[/I]. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant [B]because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence[/B] and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense ([B]or of relying upon evidence produced by the State[/B]) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant.[B] Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue[/B]. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate [I]beyond a reasonable doubt [/I]that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014343]Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. [COLOR="Red"] His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown. [/COLOR]

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014361]Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is [I]initially[/I] on Z to assert but, once asserted and a [I]prima facia[/I] case made, it is up to the State to disprove it[I] beyond a reasonable doubt[/I]. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant [B]because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence[/B] and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense ([B]or of relying upon evidence produced by the State[/B]) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant.[B] Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue[/B]. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate [I]beyond a reasonable doubt [/I]that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.[/quote]

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:
[quote]
The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:[LIST][*]Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.[*]Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.[*]Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.[/quote][/LIST][url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/live-blog-zimmerman-back-court-critical-hearing]No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com[/url]

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014333]Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law [I]requiring[/I] him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise [I]arguendo[/I] -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life [B]but[/B] TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM [I]did not[/I] put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.[/quote]



Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014362][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014343]Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. [COLOR="Red"] His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown. [/COLOR][/quote]

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.[/QUOTE]

Firing the shot was the conclusion of the physical confrontation - not it's initiation. Sorry, since "who initiated the physical confrontation" has been my central theme, I thought you smart enough to pick up on the nuance. Going forward, I shall not make any assumptions as to your ability for basic contextual analysis or, for that matter, any semblance of intelligence on your part.

Martin had a right to be where he was. Z had a right to be where he was. What neither had the right to do was initiate a physical confrontation or put the other in fear of imminent physical danger. Has the State shown [I]beyond a a reasonable doubt[/I] that Z initiated a physical confrontation or put the TM in fear of imminent physical danger? Does not appear that way to me.

Was TM a "scary unusual person"? Don't know, don't care and have never asserted anything one way or the other on the topic.

The assertion "they get into a wrestling match" glosses over most of the key factual elements the State needs to prove and completely eliminates others.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014371]The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.



These same statements apply to Martin. Making his murder an unlawful act.[/quote]

See, now you're just being obtuse and stupid. Confess, you're really Goat.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014369]Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. [B]What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.[/B][/quote]

Fine, but Z is charged with the crime and the State has to prove all the requisite elements of the crime they allege he committed. It's not enough to say TM was not guilty the State has to demonstrate, with evidence, that Z is guilty.

In your outline above, because the evidence generated to date indicates a claim for self-defence, the allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that [I]all[/I] TM did was "punch someone".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014365]Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. [B]No one can prove it was not self defense[/B]. Joe goes free?[/quote]

If those are the facts, all the facts, and, at the trial, the prosecution introduces my statements to them where I claim self-defense and they have nothing to contradict it. I go free. I don't even have to testify under oath.

It's the State's burden to prove my guilt, not mine to prove my innocence. Hopefully, it will remain that way as long as I live and beyond.

Besides, I have a feeling the only Rat and I would kill is a bottle of Jack while we called each other names and argued about the existence of the dragon in the garage.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014368]Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:
[/LIST][url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04/29/live-blog-zimmerman-back-court-critical-hearing]No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com[/url]

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?[/quote]

Be happy to address this. Just not today ... maybe later tonight.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Trayvon Martin's DNA was not found on the grip of George Zimmerman's gun, and Zimmerman's DNA was not found under the unarmed teen's fingernails, a law enforcement expert said Wednesday in testimony that prosecutors hope will refute the neighborhood watch volunteer's self-defense claim.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

They called Gorgone on the same day they presented evidence that they say shows Zimmerman had aspirations of becoming a police officer and knew about Florida's "stand-your-ground" law. The law says a person has no duty to retreat and can invoke self-defense in killing someone if it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Zimmerman had maintained in an interview with Fox News last year that he did not know about the law.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

And on cross exam, the DNA expert indicated that (1) b/c it had been raining, that could affect the ability to collect DNA and (2) he could neither identify nor exclude the existence of Martin's DNA in the specific areas identified; and (3) he did not collect the DNA and could not verify how it was specifically collected.

Big difference from asserting that Martin's DNA could be conclusively excluded. Cross did what a good cross does, exposed the flaws in the methodology and conclusiveness.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014368]Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.[/quote]

As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules [I]requiring[/I] the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: [I]Peterson v. State[/I] [url=http://www.leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/20081010983So2d27_1998.xml/docbase/CSLWAR3-2007-CURR]Decision result | Leagle.com[/url]

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: [url=http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/criminalprocedure.html]Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012[/url]. I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority [I]requiring[/I] the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion [I]post-trial [/I]is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that [I]requiring[/I] the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the [I]Peterson[/I] decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.

[quote=mlmpetert;1014368]In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?[/quote]

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
•Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
•Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
•Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we [I]think[/I] we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- [I]Was he engaged in an unlawful activity[/I]: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The [I]only[/I] way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- [I]Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be[/I]: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- [I]Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you[/I]: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z [I]was[/I] in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he [I]wasn't[/I].

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

By the way ... Who's paying my retainer?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

mic drop...

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014365]Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. <SNIP>[/quote]

Hey! Hey! Hey! WTF am I even doing agreeing to go to a hotel with a [B][I]lawyer![/I][/B]

A drug ravaged, disease-ridden hooker, possibly.....but a lawyer?


I have some standards, damn it!

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;1014427]... I have some standards, damn it![/QUOTE]

Really? Since when?

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014428]Really? Since when?[/QUOTE]

Mostly ever other Leap Year or when I remember.

Hope you're having a fantastic 4th!

Thanks! Drinking beer. Playing wrestle and tumble with my boy. Having friends over later for beer, food and fireworks. It's a damn fine day.

Hope the you are enjoying yours as well.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Myths about the killing of Trayvon Martin

A widely circulated photograph of Martin wearing a Hollister T-shirt shows him much younger than he was the night he died.

Those who fervently believe that Martin was a thug or a thug-in-training are especially incensed by the photo of him smiling in a red Hollister T-shirt. Not only do they claim that the photo makes Martin look more innocent and sympathetic, they also charge that it depicts him at a much younger age than he was when he was killed. Their assumption is that Martin is between 11 and 14 years old in the photo. For more than a year, some have been sharing what one reader told me was “an up-to-date photo” of Martin. The person in the photo is the rapper Game, who was about 30 years old when the snapshot was taken for XXL magazine in 2010.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

So ... stupid people with an agenda lied to counter a lie told by other stupid people with an agenda. That's relevant to the actions TM and Z took on the night in question how?

You continue to reach for stupidity and fall short of the mark.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014343] Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.



My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this.[/quote]

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zim is lying to save his ass at this point.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Shiping Bao: Intellectual titan or burbling idiot?

I can't believe someone with his credentials is so inarticulate.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014464]1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury[/quote]

Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014481]Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.[/quote]

Must suck to be you.....

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425"]Reuters[/URL]

[I]A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of [U]break-ins committed by young African-American men.[/U][/I]

[I] [/I][I]Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.[/I]

[I] [/I][I]"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "[U]There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,[/U]" she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."[/I]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Deputy Sheriff (Zimmerman's Uncle) clearly has more weight to his testimony than any of the witnesses fielded by the Prosecution.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXIBr8JhGA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/url]

All part of the dance, saden1.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014498]All part of the dance, saden1.[/quote]

I see it different, I see it as laying out the facts of the case intuitively and soundly.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014404]As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules [I]requiring[/I] the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: [I]Peterson v. State[/I] [url=http://www.leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/20081010983So2d27_1998.xml/docbase/CSLWAR3-2007-CURR]Decision result | Leagle.com[/url]

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: [url=http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/criminalprocedure.html]Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012[/url]. I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority [I]requiring[/I] the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion [I]post-trial [/I]is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that [I]requiring[/I] the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the [I]Peterson[/I] decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.



The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
•Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
•Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
•Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we [I]think[/I] we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- [I]Was he engaged in an unlawful activity[/I]: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The [I]only[/I] way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- [I]Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be[/I]: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- [I]Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you[/I]: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z [I]was[/I] in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he [I]wasn't[/I].[/quote]

Awesome! Thank you for continually providing the well thought out and thorough professional point of view. Unfortunately most people dont seem to have the ability to provide objective thoughts or comments regarding this case; i think nearly everyone here appreciates your willingness to offer the opposite.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014406]By the way ... Who's paying my retainer?[/quote]

Ill make a $49 donation to the site in your name if you can predict the verdict correctly. I guess you just have to make your prediction before the jury gets back after closing statements.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014464]1 - [B]the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said[/B].

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury[/quote]

1. Reviewed EMT testimony - She never said that. The only testimony I saw to that effect was Dr. Rao who viewed the photos after the incident. As I said earlier, I think cross exposed her testimony for the speculation it was.

2. Maybe. I get the whole "Zimmerman is a liar" attack to discredit his account of the events. Since they don't get to ask him directly during a cross exam (at least I expecting Zimmerman not to testify), not sure putting the professors and others on to demonstrate what, to me, is essentially a tangential lie. I expect, the only lie the jury cares about is whether he thought he was in fear of his life. To me, the professors were a lot of work for not much gain and, possibly, very harmful to the prosecution.

I hear the "reckless disregard" and understand where you and Chico are coming from. I also understand that Zimmerman is to "truth challenged" (to say the least). I just don't think the prosecution has brought enough to the table to show (again, beyond a reasonable doubt) that Z 's actions were "reckless" or even negligent that night, [I][B]because[/B][/i], even assuming all the defense has is a questionable "I was in fear of my life" claim from Z, I am just not seeing enough non-speculative evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to say, [I]without any reasonable doubts[/I], that Z [I]didn't[/I] act in that fashion.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014507]Ill make a $49 donation to the site in your name if you can predict the verdict correctly. I guess you just have to make your prediction before the jury gets back after closing statements.[/quote]

That's just tough - so many variables. If it's a jury of Chico's or OTM's, he is likley to be found guilty of manslaughter. If it's a jury of G84C's, 2nd degree. If it's a jury of me's, likely to be innocent.

I am going to say not guilty on the 2nd degree and manslaughter. A jury of women will be sympathetic to the death of a child, but not so much so as to outweigh their need for solid proof before condemning another man to prison.

My degree of confidence in this prediction is pretty low. Zimmerman is no saint and we have a dead kid. It's just a tragedy that could have been avoided by both.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014644]
My degree of confidence in this prediction is pretty low. Zimmerman is no saint and we have a dead kid. It's just a tragedy that could have been avoided by both.[/quote]

[quote=RedskinRat;902361]Over zealous curtain-twitcher meets mouthy teenager.[/quote]

I stick with my original assertion.

Horrible set of circumstances.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Looking at the testimony today, it highlights the central issue in this matter.

- On Friday, Trayvon's Mom and Brother were certain that the screams heard on the tape were Trayvon's. The Brother less so, but the Mother testified that it was Trayvon "without a doubt".

- So far today, several people who knew Z well testified "without a doubt" the screaming on the tapes was that of Zimmerman.

I don't think any were lying - I thik all firmly believed that they were telling the truth and were convinced of their correctness. Nonetheless, and despite their certainty, someone is wrong and there is simply no way to [I]prove[/I] who it is.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The jury has to go with 'Not guilty', anything else would be a travesty.

It doesn't change the fact that the 'Stand your ground' law needs to be revised.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014478]Shiping Bao: Intellectual titan or burbling idiot?

I can't believe someone with his credentials is so inarticulate.[/quote]

Read the Bao testimony the other day. The bit with his notes was another classic "WTF??" moment by the prosecution. While, ultimately, they ended up, IMO, being non-critical, I was thinking to myself "What? How could the prosecution let him on the stand with [I]anything[/I] in his hands, on his person or within his reach that hadn't been preapproved by the prosecutor." Serious nuts and bolts trial work.

My standard instruction is, bring nothing with you to Court I haven't seen and reviewed with you. Don't take anything to the stand unless I have put it in your hands. No notes, no documents, no business cards, etc. Don't have your briefcase in your car. Nothing, nothing, nothing. If you think you need something, give it to me. I have had folks dump out their wallets to make sure they didn't have something they shouldn't.

I just laughed when the guy said "I would prefer not to show you my notes." Tough sh** bozo - I get to see them; Hope you gave a copy of your handwritten notes to your attorney before I look at these, b/c, after you have referred to them during my questioning, I get them first.