The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
Manny O, you are a fascinating person 🙂
“Now, you mentioned Martin spoke first…exactly…he initiated and produced the confrontation in both contexts by speaking first….and that’s not in dispute. “
That’s hilarious.
A is following B
B says “Why are you following me?”
Your opinion is that B is starting a fight.
Whatever you are smoking, stop.
It’s a brilliant concept.
First the Stand Your Ground Law.
Now the Don’t Speak First Law.
Is the Stand Your Ground Law applicable as a defence if the person standing their ground is the first to speak?
Manny O: “Dont forget, Zimmerman was the long time resident. Martin was a visitor on private property”
There you go again ignoring the context of everything.
Martin was a visitor who had a perfect right to be where he was. He was returning from the 7-11.
Zimmerman was this weird guy who followed him down a dark path behind the houses.
If Zimmerman wants all visitors to know that he is a long time resident, then he should carry a lighted sign to that effect.
If Zimmerman wants all visitors to know that he is Neighbourhood Watch, ditto or wear a uniform.
Without signs or uniforms he’s just a weird guy.
If a weird guy starts following Martin in the dark, Martin – who is entitled to be walking home there – would be quite right to feel threatened by the weird guy.
Hey Sling
This is a non-sequitur…
Martin: “Why are you following me?”
Zimmerman “What are you doing around here?”
It was Martin that asked the ‘perfectly fair question’. Those were the first words spoken by either of them.
Zimmerman’s response was threatening, because he was refusing to answer Martin’s perfectly fair question.
Zimmerman was bullying Martin.
First, answering a question with a question is not “threatening”. That’s a huge stretch. Saying FU…now that would have been threatening. Sheesh the people on this forum answering questions with questions would be “threatening” by that obtuse definition
I don’t know how you can construe anything Z said as “bullying” on the part of Zimmerman either.
Now, you mentioned Martin spoke first…exactly…he initiated and produced the confrontation in both contexts by speaking first….and that’s not in dispute. If martin was “scared/terrified” then why did he initiate verbal contact? The aggressor would have been who initiated verbal contact in most peoples minds, its going to be difficult to prove otherwise
And if anything Martins alleged words are much more threatening than anything Zimmerman is reported to have said.
Dont forget, Zimmerman was the long time resident. Martin was a visitor on private property
Manny O: “However, if he was circling around at intermediate distance after starting to approach and then thinking better about it in order to come up behind him and outflank him…”
Yes I can see it now. You’re right.
That’s a good way to outflank a guy who is sitting safe inside a SUV. You could creep up behind the SUV and shout “BOO!”.
What fun!
By the way. Try to avoid references to “intermediate”. It only starts an argument as to what it actually means.
Manny O., I’ll take that as a “yes.”
Manny O: “…but in terms of all we have seen Zimmerman never said anything menacing beyond “what are you doing” possibly based on the girlfriends story
…….
There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything to be construed as assault beyond asking a perfectly fair question”
If you go by the girl’s account, then Zimmerman did indeed ask “What are you doing here?”
BUT
If you want to go by the girl’s account of the conversation that happened before anybody got physical, then you should consider all of it.
It’s been quoted above, but to save you the trouble of having to read up, the conversation went:
Martin: “Why are you following me?”
Zimmerman “What are you doing around here?”
It was Martin that asked the ‘perfectly fair question’. Those were the first words spoken by either of them.
Zimmerman’s response was threatening, because he was refusing to answer Martin’s perfectly fair question.
Zimmerman was bullying Martin.
On the other hand, if you accept Zimmerman’s version of the conversation that happened before anybody got physical then:
Martin: “You got a problem, homie?”
Zimmerman: “No”
In this version, Zimmerman is also inflaming the situation. This was his chance to say what he was doing. Instead he gets ‘cute’ – “No”.
That “No” is very confrontational. They both know that Zimmerman was following in the dark.
No matter which version of the conversation you choose to accept, Zimmerman was inflaming the situation.
What you are doing with that “perfectly fair question” stunt is to ignore the context of everything.
This is just a layer within the larger stunt of of ignoring the context within which the fight broke out..
The fight was not something that broke out between two people that just happened to meet on the street. It broke out because Zimmerman had followed Martin down a dark path for at least as far as the place where the fight broke out.
From the Orlando Sentinel article”
excerpt
Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:
Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.
Zimmerman, though, never described that to the dispatcher.
At one point, about halfway through the four-minute call, he told the dispatcher, “Now he’s just staring at me. … Now he’s coming towards me. He’s got his hand in his waistband. … He’s coming to check me out.”
Trayvon then disappeared, Zimmerman later told authorities, according to the source, and while Zimmerman was still on the phone, he parked his vehicle, got out and began trying to find Trayvon on foot.
[I’m curious how M was able to circle the SUV while it was not parked and if Z felt threatened by M’s circling why didn’t he tell the dispatcher about the circling.]
Zimmerman can be heard huffing and puffing on the call to police.
“Are you following him?” the dispatcher asks.
“Yeah,” Zimmerman said.
“We don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher says.
[This is a police dispatcher, not a 911 operator.]
Zimmerman later told investigators he could not find Trayvon, so he turned and was walking back toward his SUV. A short time later, Trayvon approached him from the rear, and the two exchanged words, he told authorities.
[Z was so scared of M circling his moving(?) SUV that he got out of it to go looking for M? I don’t know about you but if I feel threatened when in my car I make sure the doors are locked and I, for damned sure, don’t get out and try to find the person doing the threatening. Of course, I don’t carry a gun.]
Tony – By that defintion of “assault” Trayvon martin could have felt threatened just that someone was calling the cops on him and staring at him
Old ladies in houses peering out their window and staring for long periods of time at people hanging out on the streen while having a phone to the ear…could feel threatened as well.
People get pissed just being stared at continually…but is that assault? Though the person may feel threatned by the perception of a menacing stare?
What if that person is on drugs and paranoid so they amplify a non-menacing stare to a menacing stare
The whole thing is a slippery slope…but in terms of all we have seen Zimmerman never said anything menacing beyond “what are you doing” possibly based on the girlfriends story
Doubtful thats assault either and just because Martin “may” have been ultra paranoid because he had drugs in is system., hormones raging, shouldnt mean he gets to commit battery with a free pass
There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything to be construed as assault beyond asking a perfectly fair question possibly, look at him (observe), and call the police
You assume the circling was directly outside the SUV, but its not necessarily
However, if he was circling around at intermediate distance after starting to approach and then thinking better about it in order to come up behind him and outflank him…
Here is George in his most fantastic fantasy stage. Martin “circled his SUV” while he was talking to the dispatcher. But he doesn’t tell the dispatcher this crucial fact. This is a lie, an obvious lie. Why would Martin ‘circle’ the SUV?
George also says that Martin had his hand over his mouth. If so, then how is George the one calling for help?
George has screwed himself here by telling fabulous lies. I do not believe a word he says:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department?obref=obinsite
Manny,
“I have asked for a CITE of either a police report, witness report, video, anything that contradicts the 911 recording showing Zimmerman verbally agreeing to not follow Martin after dispatch told him it was needed. Where is the cite, I’d like to see it so I and many others can change our mind about who produced the confrontation
It’s a matter of what Z meant by “ok”. It could have meant, as you see it, that Z agreed to stop following M. It could also have meant “I hear you” (but I’ll decide what I’m going to do and I’m going to continue to follow him). Have you ever responded “OK” to someone just to acknowledge that you heard what they said?
Did he stay in his car? Return to his car? Or did he continue to follow M? I don’ t have enough info to know the answer.
One key witness changing his story. Now undecided about who was shouting “help” that night: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-18/news/os-trayvon-martin-evidence-witness6-20120518_1_key-witness-ground-dog-fight
Are you, by any chance, a part of one of these “watch” programs, Manny O.?
Gee Elaine, I have been so curious about why there is so much discrimination in this case. I guess these people do not have any youngsters in their lives.
My 18 year old nephew (mostly white kid) has all the same fb picture poses and uses the same language that Trayvon used. I have a sneaking suspicion that he has smoked marijuana. Nevertheless, he is not a “thug”. He is going to school to be a chef. I just wish he would pull up his pants.
here is the witness list: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-16/news/os-george-zimmernman-omara-gets-discovery-20120514_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-evidence-rachel-fugate
Most names were redacted from the witness and evidence document obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, but six civilian witnesses were named: Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin; his brother, Jahvarius Fulton; and Zimmerman’s neighbor Frank Taaffe, friend Joe Oliver and father, Robert Zimmerman.
The document listed 18 Sanford police officers as primary witnesses, including lead Investigator Chris Serino. Corey’s office also turned over five reports prepared by him, as well as written reports prepared by four other Sanford officers.
The list includes new video evidence from the night of the shooting — both from the 7-Eleven store where Trayvon reportedly purchased Skittles and Arizona iced tea and from a clubhouse in Retreat at Twin Lakes, the townhouse complex where the teen was killed.
Other video, showing Zimmerman being taken into the Sanford Police Department after the shooting, has already been made public. Crime-scene photos of both Zimmerman and the teen are also listed in the document filed Monday, as is Trayvon’s autopsy report.
Also included in the evidence are phone records — Zimmerman’s from Feb. 20 to Feb. 28 and from March 7 to March 22, Trayvon’s from Jan. 1 through March 1, and those of an unnamed witness labeled “W8” from Feb. 26 through April 2.
The list includes 40 audio-recorded statements. One of the 911 callers, identified as “W6,” gave four statements to authorities about the shooting, two to Sanford police, one to FDLE and one to the prosecution’s lead trial attorney, Bernie de la Rionda.
W8 gave two statements — one to prosecutors and one to Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, which suggests W8 may be the girl described by Crump as Trayvon’s girlfriend.
Other primary witnesses include four FDLE investigators, three investigators from the office of State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and two from Corey’s office, including Dale Gilbreath, who hand-delivered the list to Seminole County clerks about 20 minutes before their doors closed for the day Monday.
@Manny O: that whole “state of mind” baloney is what is so unacceptable about the “Martin had a right to do unleash violence on Zimmerman” just because of how Martin may have “felt”.
On the contrary, Martin’s state of mind is paramount. What the judge and/or jury infers from the evidence about Martin’s most probable state of mind was is what will determine, for them, if Martin was committing unprovoked battery of Zimmerman, or Martin was acting in justifiable self-defense against Zimmerman’s assault by acts of intimidation.
That is a point you seem to miss. If the court concludes that Zimmerman, by his acts, was intimidating Martin and Martin had cause to be afraid of imminent harm, then the court will conclude Zimmerman, by his acts, committed assault on Martin. In Florida, “Assault” does not require any touch or spoken threat whatsoever, simply acting in a threatening manner is sufficient to be guilty of Assault. If they think Zimmerman by his actions committed Assault on Martin, then it makes no difference if Martin threw the first punch or tackled Zimmerman, because it would have been in self defense against a crime of Assault.
If the court believes that Martin sought out Zimmerman and then attacked him, I think Zimmerman would be found not guilty. That is what Zimmerman wants us to believe, but to my ears his story is implausible and does not fit with the sworn testimony of the girlfriend or the location of the fight: I think the reason the fight was where it was is that Zimmerman followed the path he saw Martin take, and got close enough to cross the line from legal following to illegal intimidation; by his own testimony he was close enough to physically attack Martin, he must have been or Martin could not have attacked him.
The point was about when can a non-violent interaction turn violent with impunity
Malisha and many others asserts its just fine and dandy for Martin to INITIATE violence on Zimmerman, just because he might worried/scared/paranoid. Totally disagree.
Do I think Zimmerman had a right to save his own life before it was extinguished at the hands of a violent and aggressive young thug who furnished every single blow in the fight? Yes, under good ole fashioned self defense.
Its not hard to kill someone with bare hands, not hard at all. There are so many ways and often they aren’t even on purpose. What starts as just a fist fight can result in death even without the excessive tactics that Martin uses (slamming head into ground). The human body is remarkably fragile…people have gone to prison for 25 to life for a good ole fashioned fist fight just because a guy got hit in the head at a certain angle and it caused a hemorrhage killing him. Even one punch fights. Minimizing Martin’s lethality because he wasn’t carrying a gun is just misplaced
George didn’t want to have to kill him, the witnesses in the discovery reported him calling for help 20 times. 20 times…I almost couldnt believe it
If only one of the neighbors had intervened and dragged Martin off of Zimmerman, Martin might still be living, unfortunatley all people did was call out to Martin toothlessly and then go call the police
It was truly a last resort that he shot the vicious attacker, martin
shano,
It was okay for Zimmerman to use a gun but not okay for Trayvon to use his fists? It was okay for Zimmerman to feel suspicious, worried, frightened, angry but not okay for Trayvon to have some of the same emotions? Is that what Manny is saying?
MannyO: “I (and hordes of others) just don’t agree that being scared/paranoid/worried is any right to unleach violence or death on someone “.
so you agree that George should never have used deadly force in a fist fight that he may have started?
George was scared/paranoid/worried too. But he was the only one with a deadly weapon and he chose to use it on an unarmed teen.
I would have had more respect for George if he had just fought it out with his fists. Everyone would have respected him more. He knew the cops were coming, unlike Trayvon.
George had all the advantages here.
He just chose to use them in the worst possible way.
When I said FreeforAll I was referencing Tony’s post that said someone could walk up to a strangers door, knock on it, and then if the guy answers the door with an angry face, the knocker can shoot him dead because he was scared by the angry face. I guess should have said Anarchy versus a FreeforAll.
I (and hordes of others) just don’t agree that being scared/paranoid/worried is any right to unleach violence or death on someone as you assert was Martin’s right and why you care nothing at all for posts about Zimmerman’s injuries.
Manny O, it still IS a free-for-all in this country for people like Trayvon Martin to defend themselves against people like George Zimmerman. FREE for ALL is another way of expressing the 14th Amendment, which is still good law in Florida until and unless they decide to secede from the Union. The state of mind of Martin will be weighed with the same criteria as the state of mind of Zimmerman. That is where Zimmerman’s vulnerability lies. And that is also where his lies are vulnerable.