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
Tony C.
Q: When did Zimmerman give up his right of self-defense?
Your answer: “Pretty much when he got out of the car and BEGAN following Trayvon Martin on foot.”
Should we make that the law of the land? If you see someone suspicious, and you get out of your vehicle to investigate further, you lose your right to defend yourself should that suspicious person decide to attack you.
Is it currently the law of the land we live in that if you follow someone they can legally kill you for doing so? If I’m understanding you correctly, that is what you’re saying the law is, aren’t you?
If Zimmerman had a knife in his pocket, instead of a gun in a concealed holster in his waistband, would that make a difference? If so, why?
You’re acting as if Zimmerman had his gun out the whole time. Anything to support that proposition? Was Martin scared of a man, or a man with a gun? How did Martin know he had a gun?
@Elaine: I believe that report is false; I know something about voice processing and recognition in a security context and I believe analysis of the tape beside other tapes of Zimmerman could show whether or not the voice was George Zimmerman calling for help. I do not know if his voice calling for help could be subpoenaed or not. blood and DNA can be subpoenaed, I am not sure if his voice acoustic characteristics, the echo profile of his mouth, lungs and sinus cavity and his specific formants, would be protected under his Fifth Amendment rights or not. It would not be “testifying against himself,” in my opinion.
David Larry, stalking is a crime. Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon and refusing to identify himself.
David Larry,
One has to look at the root of the problem–and that was Zimmerman. Zimmerman was the instigator in the story. His actions provoked the response by Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the one who put the ball in motion that night. He should have used better judgment. He should have listened to the police dispatcher. He should have waited for the police to arrive. He should not have been carrying a firearm. People involved with neighborhood watches are not supposed to carry guns.
anon nurse,
Silence is the best response when you would rather avoid the question. -So is answering the question with another question. -Or we could all just post what other people are saying so as to avoid expressing our own thoughts. -I see some people here have a habit of posting the thought’s of others much more than they do their own. Those people must have read Mark Twain. 🙂
@David Larry: When did Zimmerman give up his right of self-defense?
Pretty much when he got out of the car and BEGAN following Trayvon Martin on foot, which is something he admitted to doing during his 911 call.
That admission calls into question his claim of just getting out to check a house number; if that was his reason for getting out of the car then why was he following Trayvon? Plus, he did not NEED an address, he had already arranged for police to meet him in a specific place (by the mailboxes, I think) he could see from where he was. But he canceled that and told the dispatcher they should call him. The obvious reason for that: He didn’t know where he would be, because he intended to follow Trayvon.
When he got out of the car with a gun and followed, he stopped being a watchman and became an armed vigilante threatening Trayvon, a stranger making an aggressive pursuit of somebody else and scaring them into running.
That is intimidation, and is NOT within your rights as a citizen. As I said, I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is called “assault by intimidation,” and does not require a physical attack at all.
shano,
Before saying that what Carol posted is “so much bullshit”, maybe you should take the time to refamiliarize yourself with the call Zimmerman made to the Police Department. On that call, Zimmerman was about to give the person on the other end his home address, but stopped, saying that the person might be listening.
I’m sorry, Elaine. I thought answering on person’s questions before presenting your own was common courtesy. -David Larry
That’s the beauty of blogging — one gets to pick and choose. Sometimes, as it’s been said, “Silence is the best response.”
Trayvon evidence fails to answer who screamed for help
By Barbara Liston
ORLANDO, Florida | Fri May 18, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/18/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE84G1HF20120518
Excerpt;
(Reuters) – An FBI expert found crucial evidence in the Trayvon Martin case was inconclusive, saying it was impossible to tell if the voice screaming for help belonged to the black Florida teenager or his shooter George Zimmerman just before the neighborhood watch captain pulled the trigger.
Carol, that is so much bullshit. Seriously. You think Zimmerman thought Trayvon was listening in on his phone convo? Ridiculous. Trayvon was trying to get away, he wanted to talk to his girlfriend in private.
Keys can fall out of your pocket if you trip, (as one witness recalled) or if you are rolling on the ground.
I’m sorry, Elaine. I thought answering on person’s questions before presenting your own was common courtesy.
My questions were not rhetorical. I would appreciate it if you would kindly answer them.
The girlfriend’s account is not only evolving, it contradicts eyewitness testimony.
She’ll make a wonderful witness. NOT!
Daivd Larry,
“Why not answer my questions before presenting yours?
Unlike you, I’ll answer yours.”
*****
Getting a little testy, aren’t you? I assumed your questions were rhetorical.
BTW, I didn’t know there was a blog rule requiring one poster to answer another poster’s questions.
@David Larry: And later, Zimmerman says Trayvon ran, and perhaps Trayvon WAS scared and changed his mind about just walking fast, and decided to run. That would make her story consistent, wouldn’t it?
In any case, what she tells police and what she will testify to under oath is what will count. If that disagrees with what she told ABC news, she’s a teenager: She can say, “Well, that was a conversation, and it felt informal, but I know that under oath I have to say exactly what I heard, and that is what I am doing now.”
Zimmerman should have stayed in his car that night. It’s that simple.
More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 11:06 AM EDT, Fri May 18, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
Excerpt:
(CNN) — Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying, “get off, get off” in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording of the girl’s interview with a prosecutor released Friday.
The recording provides the most detailed look yet into the telephone conversation between the girl and Martin in the moments before he died.
Martin was shot to death February 26 while walking in the Sanford, Florida, neighborhood where he was staying during a visit with his father.
Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the death, which sparked nationwide protests and inflamed public passions over race relations and gun control.
The girl, whose name has not been made public, told Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda that Martin got away from the man, who turned out to be Zimmerman, but only temporarily.
He was out of breath from running away, and scared, she said, and decided not to keep running because he was close to the house where he was staying.
And as Zimmerman drew closer, the girl said, Martin called out,” Why you following me for?” according to the recording.
“I hear this man, like this old man, say, ‘What are you doing around here?’ ” the girl said.
The girl said she called out to Martin, asking what was happening, but he didn’t answer. The next thing she heard was a bumping sound, followed by what might have been a scuffle.
“I could hear it a little bit, ‘Get off, get off,’ then the phone just hung up,” the girl said.
Elaine,
Why not answer my questions before presenting yours?
Unlike you, I’ll answer yours.
“Did Trayvon Martin have a right to be spooked because a stranger was following him?”
I think we should first understand what is “a right”. Martin could think whatever he wanted to think. It’s how he reacts to those thoughts that would involve “a right”. So that you don’t think I’m avoiding your question, I’ll say that Martin had a right to be spooked. A burglar staking out the place would also have “a right” to be spooked if a stranger was following him. But that wouldn’t give either the right to batter the person following them.
“Did he have a right to be worried that Zimmerman might attack him?”
Again, he can think whatever he wants to think. By doing so, that did not create a right to batter Zimmerman. Force can be met with force. I see no evidence of Zimmerman exercising force against Martin by following him.
“Do you think Martin had any right to confront someone he thought might have had malicious intentions?”
That would depend on what you mean by “confront”. Martin could surely ask Zimmerman why he was following him, and Zimmerman could choose to answer or not. Unless Zimmerman said something that would make Martin feel that harm is imminent, that would not give Martin the right to hit Zimmerman. —Thanfully, we have Martin’s girlfriend telling us that Martin asked Zimmerman something along the lines of “Why are you following me?” With Zimmerman responding with “What are you doing here?” Neither are fighting words.
Martin’s girlfriend; “I told him, ‘Keep running!’”
Has anyone else noticed that her story has evolved? In the beginning she stated that she told Martin to run, but he said that he was not going to run. He was going to walk fast.
Just like Trayvon’s father, the story changes after Benjamin Crump does a little coaching.
David Larry 1, May 18, 2012 at 11:22 am
EEO Irish,
Not even “intermediate” is clear.
================================
Yep.
If it is not a term of art, it is an expression of the person who did the autopsy.
Technically “intermediate” means middle range, and in handguns there is close, intermediate, and long range.
It seems like that would depend on the handgun … 6″ long barrel, 4″ long barrel, etc,, plus the type of gunpower used, will all impact range, velocity, and residue.
This case will have a lot of expert testimony.
For those who wonder (no names).
The whole evening from Z out with his gun on patrol or going to the store (whatevee lie you prefer) to every step thereafter, partcularly the departures from mandatory
routine by the police, is vERY peculiar.
Now we just have ONE instance of a greater crime, which many have pointed out so far.
How do we indict them? And who does the investigation?
Can a govermental agency be investigated for failure to do its duty??
Individuals and agencies can here by the “ombudsman”. And internally with effective administrative “punishments” and criminal indictment (bribery) as results, IF the media is on the alert.