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, I did not say that the soldiers who suffered, after killing, were guilty or felt guilty or had reason to feel guilty. I said that they DID SUFFER and I never met one who did NOT. (There may be those who did not, but I never met them.)
The words I used might not have been clear because I was responding with the phrase I read, “felt diminished by the act” of having killed in battle. What I mean by that is that those soldiers I met who had killed felt all of the following emotions:
1. They felt that they did the right thing;
2. They felt bad that doing the right thing made them have to kill;
3. They felt “changed”;
4. One of them said he kept feeling, when he was making love, that he was not able to physically act and respond the same, after the army, as he had been before — a space of only two years.
One of them (not the one in #4) told me that the feeling he had that moment was so extreme and complicated (relief, because he lived!) that he wanted to cry from that moment forward and yet, 43 years later, he still not only HAD NOT CRIED but could not cry.
That’s a lot. Those guys (and one girl) suffered.
@Malisha: I have been a soldier. Although I did not kill anybody, I was in a position (waiting to be vaporized in a nuclear war) where I talked every day with veteran soldiers that HAD killed in battle, and I think you are wrong. People find strong justifications for their actions, and the emotion I remember was righteous heroism, a patriotic protection of America and its way of life.
Isn’t that the emotion we encourage in soldiers? We give them medals for bravery in battle, many hero stories are of soldiers risking their lives to kill the enemy and protect their fellow soldiers or pull in the wounded.
Soldiers can suffer PTSD, but I do not think soldiers generally think of themselves as being less of a human for killing the enemy. To me, murderers are ALSO the enemy. Putting a murderer to death is not a murder, it is ending a life that has become a danger to innocent people; it is protecting society just as much as a soldier fighting an invasion is protecting society.
What has happened here is pretty clear. There were lots of people willing to give evidence to the police at the beginning. The police only wanted to hear from those who would back up the claim of self-defense, so others would not even get called back. Martin’s father had to call the cell phone company to even get the evidence from the girl-friend; cops did not want to hear it.
THEN anybody who would say anything to back up Zimmerman’s claims felt perfectly protected to say whatever they wanted because the police were not going to charge the guy so they would never face the music if, perhaps, they did not tell the whole truth, and nothing but…
And that worked until there was a public outcry about the way the police were handling the case, INCLUDING the way the police were trying to coerce people who offered their statements — into CHANGING them to fit what the police wanted to hear (to back up their own misconduct and protect themselves).
After a real prosecutor got into it, the witnesses all of a sudden do not see MMA punches, do not see Martin on top, do not see a murderous thug having to be put down in self defense — all of a sudden they just see a fight or a scuffle and they hear screams.
Hmmmmm…
The one witness who still says Martin was “definitely” on top says he “thinks” Martin was “definitely” on top. He is also the one who previously saw punches but no longer “thinks” he “definitely saw” any punches.
Looks like the only witness who keeps saying the same thing is Dee Dee.
I want to see Zimmerman’s three statements to the police and the video taped reenactment he performed for them while he still thought this whole thing would blow over.
And WHICH WITNESS is Frank Taafe, anyway?
I’m not certain that this will be news to those here who have been closely following this story. I’ve heard about differing witness accounts in the past, so I’m not certain that this will add anything:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trayvon-martin-case-witnesses-change-stories_n_1539077.html?icid=maing-
grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D163459
To the thought that Zimmerman’s complaints v. SPD would make it impossible that they covered for him on 2/26/2012 —
NOT AT ALL,
THere were politics going on in the Dept. Frank Taafe and George Zimmerman (and others) were not only aware of it, but also probably made use of it. We do not know who was doing what to whom. Or who won which little battles, or what hills the wars were being fought on.
Where is the official evidence that Zimmerman defended Ware’s rights after that police misconduct case? I have heard that rumor over and over and never seen any real evidence of it. In fact, I don’t believe it because as someone who wanted to join the force, I think Zimmerman would not have done THAT at a time when the whole force was under fire.
If he did, I’d like to see a lot more than his or his father’s or his brother’s statements about it. A statement from Ware, for instance, would be helpful.
Tony C, soldiers who kill DO feel diminished by the act, in many if not most cases.
I think that’s OK. It’s hard but I think it is as it should be. It’s one of the main reasons not to want your kids to be soldiers.
The death penalty is preplanned deliberate murder and those who participate are guilty of conspiracy. Just because legislatures make an exception for the state to do what is otherwise illegal doesn’t make it any less despicable. It’s bad enough that someone may (or may not) have killed someone and caused extreme distress for friends and family of the deceased, how does it help society for the state to cause extreme distress for friends and family of the person being executed? Especially if that person is not guilty? Does it bring back the victim? Is it really justice or is it retribution?
@Gene: Yes (cautiously). The real killer is society, as represented by the jury that convicted the person and sentenced that person to death. Carrying out their order is something that I believe can be done without feeling either malice or diminishment.
A soldier should not be diminished if he kills the enemy, and the situation is the same; he is protecting his society and freedom by doing so. Many veterans of WW II and Vietnam do not feel diminished for following their orders and bombing or killing the enemy.
A cop should not feel diminished for the no-choice killing of criminals in the line of duty, and are counseled to NOT feel diminished by such acts.
Perhaps this is an atheist thing with me, or related to the murders of people I know and loved, but for me personally, if I were given the opportunity to review the trial and I also agreed the evidence was compelling and overwhelming, I believe I could muster the courage to type in the fatal command myself.
The person actually IN that position is the judge, and I trust a judge would feel the same as me: If willing to give the order to put somebody to death, then willing to press the button that opens the valve that humanely ends their life. To accept the responsibility for the sentence and not the responsibility for the result seems like hypocrisy or cowardice to me.
Tony,
“2) The act of execution must surely diminish the person throwing the switch.
Why? They are carrying out orders.”
You’re really going to go with that?
@Sling:
1) The US justice system appears to be very broken.
That is not an argument against the philosophy of the death penalty. It is an argument against sloppy justice, which holds for all crimes: Being wrongly convicted of a felony in the USA is very nearly a financial death penalty; very few will hire an ex-con and give them any responsibility at all, which tends to mean very low-wage jobs, or under-the-table work, a life of crime, or in a few rare cases, self-employment that allows a record to be hidden.
2) The act of execution must surely diminish the person throwing the switch.
Why? They are carrying out orders. If need be, in the modern world, the actions that actually kill somebody could literally be carried out by the judge entering the sentence on a computer. The convict could be strapped onto a gurney by several guards; a computer could release probably the most humane lethal gas; carbon monoxide. There is plenty of accidental evidence this simply causes a loss of consciousness, followed by death. Autopsies reveal no adrenaline or other signs of fear in the blood; and people revived in the nick of time say they just felt sleepy and nodded off.
This too is not a real argument; it is about implementation, not execution.
3) I see the downside of killer being just locked up for life. They have nothing to lose in terms of imprisonment. Something other than the threat of imprisonment has to moderate their behaviour.
That is an argument for the death penalty, because it takes physical restraint and physically brutal measures to keep sociopaths and psychopaths in line. Shall we keep them chained and muzzled? Sever their spinal cords and paralyze them? Beat them?
You worry about diminishing a person throwing a switch, how about diminishing a guard by making him dehumanize another human being and treat them like a caged animal for a forty year career?
4) I don’t think I would have a problem with such people having the option to kill themselves.
They already have that option, unless they are chained to a wall. I’d wager most prisoners know, by word of mouth, two or three ways to kill themselves. For example, fall on a round steel bedrail with enough force to the throat, and the trauma is irreparable. A person can kill themselves with a shirt or roll of toilet paper. Very few take advantage of the option.
I think you assume they feel guilt, but, for the people I am talking about, that requires empathy they really do not feel. These people are pathologically self-centered and consider nobody but themselves, that is why they were willful killers in the first place: Pain, suffering, and despair of other people is not as important to them as what they want.
Tony, Sling and whoever else is interested, this might interest you.
If I avoid the German tax software I paid for, and simply discard it and simply use the US bookkeeping software, I used so far, this will save me quite a bit of time, I just realized. Concerning the software, it was a serious aversion, if not on first then at least on second check. Never mind the reviews and happy costumers.
This came in just a second ago. … Interesting, isn’t it?
@Bosco: You claimed we would discount your evidence that Zimmerman was a racist, I said long before you posted that it made no difference. I am not surprised you need to lie to support your claims. Not at all.
And so the expected discounting at this playground has started -not surprised. Not at all.
@Bosco: I think Zimmerman being a racist or not is irrelevant. Being a racist is entirely legal, being a bully is not, and Zimmerman being a bully prone to initiating violent confrontation is what I think led to the murder of Trayvon Martin.
Honestly, I do not care, either way, and I will say that if Martin’s race contributed to Zimmerman’s false conclusion that Martin was a criminal, even THAT, although wrong because it was a false accusation and a rush to judgment by Zimmerman, is not racism; he knew the race (and age) of at least some of the burglars in his neighborhood.
What is relevant is Zimmerman’s past violence and lack of self control. The only place I see race being a factor here is in MARTIN, as a modern black teen MARTIN would feel he had a lot to fear from white skinhead racists or racially composed gangs (Hispanics, Chinese, Japanese) that might target him by his skin color. Zimmerman doesn’t have to BE a racist, but Zimmerman’s shaved head and appearance may well have given MARTIN greater reason to feel alarmed by Zimmerman’s attention.
I also just read on Huffington that the witness that claimed MMA style punching by Martin refused to corroborate that under oath, he says he cannot say for sure if any punching occurred; just that there was a struggle going on, and he really cannot say for sure if it was Martin or Zimmerman that was calling for help. FWIW.
Coffee-break and a quick post on the death penalty from my view.
1) The US justice system appears to be very broken. We even see cases where evidence emerges to throw significant doubt, but bureaucracy won’t allow it to affect the machine grinding on. Not only is death irreversible, but the progress through available appeal stages is irreversible.
2) The act of execution must surely diminish the person throwing the switch. I can’t help but get the feeling that there is something wrong with someone who would take another person’s life in cold blood – even if that other person has committed horrible acts. I feel that institutionalising such a thing must diminish us all.
3) I see the downside of killer being just locked up for life. They have nothing to lose in terms of imprisonment. Something other than the threat of imprisonment has to moderate their behaviour.
4) I don’t think I would have a problem with such people having the option to kill themselves. One problem with that might be that some custodians might become self-appointed agents of vengeance and pressure to force the issue. That might be offset by commercial pressure as every live prisoner is revenue for the commercial organisations that run prisons.
It might make an interesting game. Make up a scenario, maybe culled from a newspaper article. Lay out some basic “facts”, some contradicting others, or at least seeming to. Form teams (one or more persons) to fill out the scenario to produce the most likely way things happened. Give each team time to produce their version, come together, present both (or more) sides, then present counter arguments, repeat until consensus is reached or everyone is exhausted. Do we need a referee to keep things civil? How do we determine the winner? Is that another team?
Bosco, Manny,
I don’t know if Zimmerman is a racist or not. I don’t think the claim that he is has been important in the arguments critical of his behavior.
===============
“like translating a “no” into an ‘Eff you'”
I tend to not use “eff you” but I sure can say “no” in a way that means pretty much the same thing.
Bosco
Perhaps you could supply a list of the main posters here who have asserted flat out that this was a racially-motivated killing.
By racially-motivated, I mean an assertion that Martin was killed purely because he was black – that the whole thing was about Martin being black.
You’ll find me from the very start saying that it wasn’t such a killing in my view. My belief is that Zimmerman was exercised by the break ins and not by the colour of the perps. It just happens that most or all appeared to be black. They could have been white, oriental or mid-eastern. The same thing would have happened.
Race in this matter is a red herring that distracts from the true issue – that of recklessness leading to a death.
Stay tuned, I’m managing to grab moments here and there in my day to compose a lesson in junior-school maths, geography and English for Manny.
I’ll maybe be able to post it in a few hours, depending on other demands on my time.
Perhaps you’d like to do a “racial-killing” analysis.
Comments from the youtube video…..
“What you should be learning is George Zimmerman was one of the few who actively demanded justice for Ware, went out into the community and to black churches placing fliers and talking to residents, organized a city hall meeting, and attempted to organize citizens in calling for the police who covered up for Collison be held accountable – including some of the very officers who brought Zimmerman in after the Trayvon Martin shooting.”
hglaske in reply to pete3great (Show the comment) 1 month ago 9
“This video needs to viral again. If only to show the same cops investigating the Zimmerman/Martin case are the SAME cops Zimmerman got in trouble for earlier. How can anyone believe that these cops would cover for Zimmerman after he got them disciplined? Wouldn’t you think they would try to hang him on it? Throw him under the bus as they say? Only gives MORE credibility to the accounts. Will also dispel the rumor that he is a racist. At least someone cared for this old, homeless Black man.”
IStandStrongAndProud 1 month ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME
Someone stated in the comments that this video ‘needs to go viral’
To be fair-minded one should research and CONSIDER everything.
Apparently Zimmerman was outraged enough to push for justice for that homeless BLACK MAN.! I’m sure that at this playground any of this will be minimized –(cant consider that Zimmerman just might NOT be a racist) which would put to question the racial motivation to shoot Martin,,cant have that .