The evidence for the trial of George Zimmerman is slowly taking form. Yesterday, a medical report was disclosed by the family physician of George Zimmerman where the doctor found a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin. While this is the family physician, it would still constitute important evidence in claiming self-defense, particularly when combined with accounts from the paramedics that found injuries to Zimmerman. An autopsy report released today also revealed bruises on Martin’s knuckles, consistent with a fight (though they could be bruises sustained in self-defense). In the meantime, the Justice Department has indicated that it may bring hate crime charges against Zimmerman — charges that would be questionable on the current evidence that has been made public in the case.
The prosecution is likely to explore any differences between the paramedics and the doctor. Some issues are likely to be raise such as whether the paramedics saw a broken nose and whether such “closed fractures” can be easily missed by a paramedic on an street at night. Moreover, such injuries could be sustained by Zimmerman as a result of Martin defending himself.
The leak of possible civil rights charges may be designed to try to get Zimmerman to accept a plea with prosecutors. I have reservations about such a charge based on the evidence that is available — as I have expressed over the overcharging in the case as second degree murder. This case has already raised serious questions of the influence of public pressure on the prosecutors. While there may be additional evidence that would support such a hate crime charge, the current evidence, in my view, falls short of the threshold showing needed for such a charge. The crime is defined as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The “in part” component gives some wiggle room for prosecutors but you need to still show clear intent on the race issue. While state courts have rejected the need under state law for race to be the “primary” factor, there remains unease in cases where race appears a secondary issue. The Justice Department has sometimes moved against defendants who were acquitted of the same offense under state law as in the Pennsylvania case involving the death of a hispanic man. These cases raise serious questions of when trash talk reflects racial motivations.
We have seen the same type of claim under “Stand Your Ground” in mixed-race shootings without such hate crime allegations. I have previously express unease over the standard used for hate crime charges and the decision to pursue some cases while refusing to move on others with similar or stronger facts. This is a case that could be explained as a crime-obsessed as opposed to a race-obsessed neighborhood watch captain. Indeed, Zimmerman’s past violent record may indicate that he is prone to violence generally. There has been no new evidence revealed that shows that Zimmerman’s shooting was race motivated. His own mixed race background and injuries from the fight militate against such a charge. They certainly do not rule out such a charge, but more has to be shown in my view.
The case is already over-charged as second degree murder. If the Justice Department is going to bring a hate crime charge, it better have stronger evidence than we have seen from Angela Corey to support a second-degree murder charge. Corey was in my view clearly affected by the public pressure in the case in charging the case as second degree murder rather than manslaughter. I am equally troubled by Attorney General Eric Holder discussing the case in public speeches when his department is supposed to be conducting an unbiased review of the facts involving a man who has not been convicted of a crime.
The combination of the leak on the civil rights charges and Holder’s public statements leave the impression that the DOJ will not accept acquittal as an answer in the case if Zimmerman does prevail. The impression, in my view, diminishes the appearance of due process and fair trial for the accused.
What do you think?
Source: ABC
Malisha:
I initially believed that the case was overcharged in order to negotiate an eventual manslaughter plea. That may still be the case, but I am not so sure. I know Mark O’Mara and he is a very skilled, rational and unflappable lawyer. I don’t see him accepting something that will involve jail time if he has reasonable prospects for a verdict on a lesser included.
Thanks, Swarthmore mom. In the long run, good news for all of us, perhaps.
OT, but since the issue was raised:
36 Hours Left! Tell Congress to Pass the Smith-Amash Amendment to the NDAA
By Chris Anders, Washington Legislative Office at 11:26am
Thirty-six hours might not seem like much time. But we are hoping it will be just enough time for all Americans to convince our members of Congress that no president should have the authority to order the military to detain civilians without charge or trial in the United States, or put anyone in our country on trial in front of military commissions.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/36-hours-left-tell-congress-pass-smith-amash-amendment-ndaa
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” –Thomas Jefferson
typo, sorry. I “half expect,” not I have expect.
I seem to type phonetically while listening to my subvocalized monologue. HA HA! But there is good background music: James Brown “please, please, please.”
Judge Forrest is an Obama appointee. She replaced Judge Rakoff.
Mike Appleton, I respectfully disagree. I think the fact that we’re getting little bits of evidence to temper this or that view of the situation is all theater, and that the real point of it is to absorb the public energy so that a plea deal will be the way out. After the plea deal, I have expect that the federal investigation will take so long that people will forget about the people who REALLY brought this mess into the foreground of our national malaise: the police and prosecutors in Seminole County, FL. They will get off because once all the mental energy of the public is used up arguing about rivulets of blood, skinned knuckles, skittles and assholes, people will go along their way trying to make what they can of their irritated private lives and the feds can close the book and get on to their other work defending the government from lawsuits when they accidentally arrest the wrong John Doe and/or unearthing “evidence” against people they’ve held in Guantanamo for a decade. Oh yeah, and mowing the lawn on the grassy knoll.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.html Here is some good news for you, anon nurse.
Once we have all finished speculating, the real significance of these reports is merely an increased likelihood that the case will actually go to trial.
Patrickparamedic, thanks for the info. It makes good sense. Two things I would like to add:
1. The police on the scene were allegedly taking someone in for questioning after he admitted fatally shooting someone. We heard from a 911 caller that even people who simply HEARD the scene were very upset and very volatile, and needed care, and were advised to get care if they became agitated. Here the cops have the SHOOTER. Who is to say that if they do not send him to the hospital for at least a check-up after whatever took place, they will not be guilty of a wrongful death or charged with police brutality. My point: If he was bleeding, injured, speaking about calling for help and not getting any, he needed to be seen by a physician licensed by the law of Florida to administer medical care and to make a decision about whether or not Zimmerman could be questioned at all. No one can convince me there is no SOP or protocol for the police in that county to deal with that situation. Not possible.
2. There was a case in Virginia I think in the 1980s I refer to as the “chest wall habeas case.” I have forgotten the name of the defendant. I think the lawyer was someone named Winston, from somewhere in SW Virginia. I spoke w/him once on the phone; brilliant guy. (See Anon, I didn’t hate him!) Anyway, he was court-assigned to defend a guy who was charged with armed robbery of a liquor store, I believe. The guy had allegedly gone into the store and tried to hold up the place, but the liquor store owner had a gun and shot the robber in the chest, and the guy was not injured very badly (maybe low caliber bullet, maybe just luck or something) and he fled. There was little or no physical evidence that the suspect arrested was actually the man in the liquor store, other than the bullet which was still lodged in his chest. If it matched the other bullets from that gun, then he would be looking at big time in the big house. The prosecutor wanted the judge to grant an order assigning the hospital to operate on the man and remove the bullet. The doctor (who had taken the oath to “first, do no harm”) thought that he was not allowed to operate (and the anesthesiologist thought he was not allowed to administer anesthesia) unless he had consent from the patient. The judge had to decide whether to order the surgery or not, when it had nothing to do with improving the man’s health, but was basically a “search and seizure” operation for evidence. The defendant’s assigned counsel brought an emergency habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that although his client was already IN JAIL, taking him into surgery would be a higher degree of restraint (complete with unconsciousness administered by medical personnel) than a jail, and that therefore, he would be unconstitutional to operate on the man until he was proven guilty of some crime, which was in fact quite logical.
Anyway, it seems to me that the principle of the thing with the police who arrest a suspect is that they have probable cause (especially after the guy admits having killed somebody!) to investigate his clothing and his person. They surely have probable cause to do blood tests if he is bleeding and if there is blood on the person he just killed. And there is reason to get him into an ER right away as well to both document his injuries (to protect the police department from having to pay the citizens’ tax money to somebody for having committed police brutality at least) and to treat him if need be.
The problem was that they pretty much let Zimmerman call the shots. He was not technically arrested. Nobody apparently investigated the calls on his cell phone made in the minutes between his conversation with the police dispatcher and their arrival on the scene (and perhaps even after that). He was allowed to choose whether to visit the hospital or not although he sported injuries and had a private party take souvenir pictures right under the cops’ noses. The thing was not handled properly from the get go and possibly even before the get gone.
All this could have blown over if only people hadn’t made a fuss about that one dead kid.
Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
Published: May 16, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?hp
ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7LfFM3m_84
Excerpt:
Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman’s trial — including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman’s questioning by police.
Zimmerman’s three-page medical report is included in those documents that the defense could use as evidence.
The morning after the shooting, on Feb. 27, Zimmerman sought treatment at the offices of a general physician at a family practice near Sanford, Fla. The doctor notes Zimmerman sought an appointment to get legal clearance to return to work.
The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month.
But the report also shows Zimmerman declined hospitalization the night of the shooting, and then declined the advice of his doctor to make a follow-up appointment with an ear nose and throat doctor.
In addition to his physical injuries, Zimmerman complained of stress and “occasional nausea when thinking about the violence.” But he was not diagnosed with a concussion. The doctor noted that it was “imperative” that Zimmerman “be seen with [sic] his psychologist for evaluation.”
According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.
@Shano, leander22
I had a comment that started off with a warning to all sides that by bringing up Adderall they were meddling with the primal forces of nature. (Big Pharma),
Regardless, I think that Pierce’s presentation of Adderall and Temazepam as simply “mood altering drugs” is highly disingenuous — and I like Charlie Pierce.
Grr. Filtered?
So Pharma is going to finance a plea deal in order to head off getting sued by people who use their drugs and commit murder or other harmful deeds.
Who makes Adderall and Temazepam?
his own doctors say now, was on mood-altering prescription drugs
this would be interesting, but were exactly do they get this from?
If it turns out that the young man who died was fueled by drugs known to cause violent behavior, could that change our perceptions?
Ayoob said “If it turns out” not “once it would be known”.
If it wasn’t inspired by Zimmerman’s statement: “he looks like his is on drugs or something”, why did he care to mention it in this context? If he didn’t know this was part of the discussion triggered by Zimmerman’s “perception”, do you think he would have added it to his article? He puts it in the larger context of all the things we do not know yet, and that are indeed things that could turn out right from his perspective.
What violence causing drugs do you think he has in mind? Or what drugs are you thinking of if you read his statement? What drugs would have caused violent behavior. I am curious.
Trayvon Martin and the Limits of Belief
By Charles P. Pierce
May 16, 2012
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-autopsy-report-8893957
If only the police in Sanford, Florida, had acted remotely like investigators, and not chauffeurs with badges, we wouldn’t currently be going through the ungodly mess that is the pre-trial process in the case of Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman for the crime of possessing snack food in a neighborhood where Zimmerman thought Martin didn’t belong. Now we seem to have dueling medical reports. One of them, from Zimmerman’s family doctor, indicates that Zimmerman’s face apparently went through a wood-chipper. At the same time, remarkably, some Zimmerman-friendly details of Martin’s autopsy also have leaked. How you believe Martin happened to skin his knuckles — and remember, the indisputable fact is that he was being pursued by an armed yahoo who, his own doctors say now, was on mood-altering prescription drugs — is, I suspect, going to become something of a litmus test in this whole business.
The big problem here still hast to do with the way Zimmerman was treated the night of the shooting. He was the primary evidence the cops had as to what happened. They did no testing. They did not look to see, for example, if any of Martin’s skin, blood, or DNA was left behind on Zimmerman during their alleged scuffle. He wasn’t even tested for drugs and alcohol. (The dead kid was.) If anything, the police seemed determined to create their own narrative….
Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help. The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, that it was Zimmerman who cried for help, the witness told ABC News.
And now, after the botched investigation touched off a national uproar, the lawyers for both sides are caught up in trying in their own ways to investigate the events in question and doing so with their own agendas paramount in their minds. There will be no telling at the end what the truth of the case actually is. It will always be a matter of what you believe happened.
Meanwhile, the FBI and the prosecutors appear to be getting a little nervous. That leak about the “possibility” of charging Zimmerman with a federal hate crime — which would carry the death penalty — looks like nothing more than a clumsy attempt to scare Zimmerman into taking a deal on the state charges. To me, anyway, unless there is a massive amount of evidence of which we are not aware, it seems beyond possibility that a federal hate-crime charge could possibly succeed, given the terrible hash that a bad investigation and a lunatic state law have made of this case. I’ve said it before: Nothing good will come of this case. Nothing at all.
ABC, who were also first to break the bloodied images of Zimmerman’s head that disputed video seemingly showing him unharmed, have now obtained Zimmerman’s detailed medical records.
The document describes Zimmerman as having suffered two black eyes, wounds to the back of the head, as well as a broken nose but that he declined both hospitalization after the encounter as well as a follow up with an ENT doctor. The doctor who wrote the document also writes that Zimmerman suffers from stress and “nausea” when thinking about the night and was strongly advised to see a psychologist.
It also states that, prior to the shooting, Zimmerman had been prescribed the drugs Adderall and Temazepam, medication that ABC points out “can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.”
Of course, none of this proves exactly what the events were that led to Martin’s death. But they are important facts to add to this sad, sad story.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news-reports-medical-records-support-george-zimmermans-account-of-broken-nose-and-scalp-injuries/
According to NBC news, Zimmerman’s doctor did NOT say he HAD a broken nose, but a possible broken nose. You would need X-rays to make a definitive call. So even that so called injury is at question, and I would NOT believe his nose was broken unless there were X-rays PROVING it.
Trayvon Martin case: Lead investigator wanted to arrest George Zimmerman for shooting, ABC News says
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/trayvon-martin-case-lead-investigator-wanted-to-arrest-george-zimmerman-for-shooting-abc-news-says
SANFORD, Fla. – A lead investigator into the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin wanted to charge neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman with manslaughter, according to a report from ABC News.
The news agency said they confirmed the information from ‘multiple sources.’
The state attorney’s office, headed by Norman Wolfinger, told the investigator, Chris Serino, there was not enough evidence to press charges.
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, saying he did not believe Zimmerman’s version of events.
Lead investigator recommendation was manslaughter or murder 2
Mespo727272,
I have had a broken nose. It happened mid-afternoon. The black eyes did not show up until the next morning.
I would not expect the police report to document a broken nose. Depending on the type of break, it might not be possible to determine without an x-ray.
Not that it’s particularly significant, but where is the statement from the lead investigator saying that he didn’t believe Zimmerman? Could he have stated that to witnesses in order to encourage them to tell a story that didn’t go along with Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? In other words, is the lead investigator on record saying that he didn’t believe Zimmerman, and does he identify which parts of Zimmerman’s story he doesn’t believe?