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
“It is probably indisputed” is defense counsel speak for “I said it more than three times.”
George’s nose just got brokener and brokener as time went on. Love’s that way.
I read some press reports, but the actual video of the press call is way better 🙂
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-video-zimmermans-attorney-holds-news/vdM6X/
O’Mara is very keen on evidence.
At 5 minutes in…..
Hello? Say what?
There was a vote?
Will the result of the ballot be submitted in evidence?
OK, from the comments being published I think what O’Mara is doing is giving a pre-excuse for losing at the “self-defense immunity hearing” — which doesn’t even exist under FL law so maybe it will be a “hearing on motion to dismiss the indictment” or something — while he tries to use the unsuccessful hearing, whatever it will be, to bolster his claim that Judge Lester was prejudiced OR to try to get a change of venue for his guy.
At any rate, he knows he will lose at a hearing and will have to either go to trial or plead. That’s my guess now. Even the supportive law professors’ comments are becoming paler.
Tony C, Sling, I think the physical evidence shows more or less the following:
George got some injuries, none serious;
Trayvon had no signs on his fists of serious punching;
Whoever was on top for any one few-seconds-long part of the struggle is pretty much irrelevant in that if Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight at any point in time, there probably would have been more damage to George than there was, PLUS if he had the upper hand at any point is also irrelevant because HE was acting in self-defense; and
The head-slam story is not credible, and there are no scratches on George’s ears, and the “broken nose” was not proven and cannot be proven, and could have even happened, if it were true, by almost any means, even by Trayvon’s head falling ON George’s face AS Trayvon fell forward and his head struck George’s nose. Remember, they did not send George to the hospital for proper collection of evidence off HIS body after the killing.
I’m sure the prosecutor can allow for the fact that George’s nose could have been hurt, and his head could have been hurt, while he was killing a kid who was unwilling to be restrained by him. But as for MY BELIEF, it’s this:
George had the upper hand in the conflict;
George didn’t think he was going to have to kill Trayvon until late in the encounter;
Afterwards, George figured he better be “the victim” so he could walk.
I agree that the forensic physics of the bullet shot itself will be an enormous piece of the evidence in the case, if there is a trial.
“that supports Zimmerman’s story that he got his head pounded on the ground or sidewalk and that Trayvon broke his nose.”
Apart from reporting only a suspicion of a closed fracture of the nose, Zimmerman#s medical report indicates against “pounding”.
There is witness evidence that he was on his back, trying to raise his upper body, and falling back. That would be enough to explain the minor cuts and lack of any more serious injury.
There is no witness evidence of punching.
From what I have read about the gun, it packs a hefty recoil.
Zimmerman’s account of the shot, with Martin down over him would have him hold the gun very awkwardly – and close to his face. That’s a recipe for getting “a suspected closed fracture”.
Detailed forensics and ballistic expertise should clarify the recoil effect in the particular circumstances.
There was no witness to moment of the shot. Experts should able to be reconstruct a great deal of it.
@Malisha: I’m not even sure there WAS a time when Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight; that’s George’s story. Less and less are there any other witnesses willing to speak about it that way now.
I disagree; we have at least one witness that has said the two men were struggling and Trayvon was on top. We also have Zimmerman’s broken nose and cuts on the back of his head which both passersby and the police are going to testify were present at the scene; that supports Zimmerman’s story that he got his head pounded on the ground or sidewalk and that Trayvon broke his nose.
Do not let your zeal for Trayvon blind you to the facts. I do believe the calls for help were from Trayvon, whether he had the upper hand in the wrestling match or not, but the idea that Trayvon NEVER had the upper hand and was NEVER on top is very unlikely, or Zimmerman would not have cuts on the BACK of his head.
I think Zimmerman is guilty, I think Zimmerman should spend a long time in prison for murdering a child, but I will not ignore reality and engage in fantasy. In fact doing so can be harmful to the case.
If I were on the jury right now, I would believe that at some point there was a struggle and during that struggle Zimmerman received injuries to the back of his head. If the prosecutor tried to argue that Trayvon was NEVER on top, I would conclude the prosecutor was lying to me, and that would make me wonder what ELSE he was lying about.
Trayvon having the upper hand in the struggle does not exonerate Zimmerman in any way; if Zimmerman frightened Trayvon into taking a swing that broke Zimmerman’s nose, and tackling Zimmerman, then it was Trayvon acting in self-defense and fear of his life. Trayvon may have been struggling for the gun and calling for help, we may never know. The testimony that has been made public and the injury evidence support Zimmerman’s story of Trayvon on top, but that does not exonerate Zimmerman if Trayvon was fighting in self-defense (as I think he clearly was) and gained a temporary advantage.
Denying reality doesn’t help the cause of justice.
Dershowitz, Dershowitz, HELP HELP HELP!!!
Sling, thanks.
Tony C, I’m not even sure there WAS a time when Trayvon had the upper hand in the fight; that’s George’s story. Less and less are there any other witnesses willing to speak about it that way now.
Furthermore, it looks to me like George’s version of how he got his gun out is not a very good one; he had it out a lot earlier than he says. O’Mara has a real problem with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE stuff, including (although we have not been hearing much about it recently) the “Help Help” story. George will not be a witness in this case, that’s my prediction.
Now, we see this interesting sentence from O’Mara:
“The facts don’t seem to support a ‘stand your ground’ defense,” O’Mara said.
Right. Well the fact don’t even seem to support a “self-defense” defense, either, but we’ll get there several months from now, at least, and it will never be actually SAID.
So we have the law professor softening her stance from — His case is so strong without it that he doesn’t need to bother — to…
PROFESSOR TAMARA LAVE NOW SAYS:
“‘Stand your ground’ makes it easier to prevail under self-defense theory than the law that existed beforehand,” Lave said. “I think what he’s saying is his case is so strong that he doesn’t need ‘stand your ground.'”
UM, NO, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying “the facts don’t seem to support a ‘stand your ground’ defense.”
Facts DO NOT SUPPORT it. Not, “His case is so strong he doesn’t need it.”
How many students does Professor Lave have in her courses on criminal law, anyway? Can you just see this commentary in a law school exam essay:
“The SYG law makes it easier to use self-defense as a defense. Therefore, when the facts do not fit SYG, you have a stronger case for self-defense without it.”
@Malisha: Well, that is news. In my experience defense lawyers do not forego their strongest play, they use it. That is their responsibility in defense, to play the strongest hand they have.
So I wouldn’t worry, I believe you are correct, he is backing off SYG because it doesn’t fit. What O’Mara is hiding is why it doesn’t fit, which we have hashed out in detail; it doesn’t fit because early on Z was actively hunting Trayvon with a gun, not just refusing to run away.
O’Mara thinks a simple self-defense can save Z, and he is right that the scenario he is spinning will sound more plausible to the jury. The scenario he is spinning tries to divorce the fight from what led up to the fight, he wants the jury to treat the situation as if a fist-fight just broke out in a bar, then poor G got a broken nose and was on the ground and had to shoot.
Hopefully that will not fly with the jury; O’Mara will not be able to suppress the incidents or testimony we already know that speak to the intent of Z and the intent of Trayvon. They will not just put aside the stalking, the conversation with the girlfriend, Trayvon’s attempt to defuse the situation by getting away from the road, Zimmerman chasing him, or Trayvon’s confusion as to what the whole thing was even about.
If you edit the sequence of events and leave some on the cutting room floor, the segment that looks best for Z is the few seconds of wrestling when Trayvon had the upper hand. If you did not know what went before, that might look like self-defense. We just have to trust the prosecution, judge and jury to ensure all the facts leading up to that moment are shown.
You do not get to frighten and threaten a victim into fighting for his life and then claim you killed him in self-defense because you got injured in that fight. The jury needs to see that is exactly what happened.
“* He wasn’t in position where I think there was any suggestion where he could retreat, which he is allowed to do under the statute.”
My reading is that he’s still going for a SYG hearing, but….
In this hearing, he would say that even though the law allows someone to decide to stand their ground and use deadly force, this aspect does not come into play.
The story would be that Zimmerman was pinned down, so there was no question of him making any decision to stand his ground.
He would say that if a SYG hearing would grant Zimmerman immunity under SYG if he had made a decision to not retreat, then it must logically grant immunity in the situation where he wasn’t even in a position to make such a decision.
O’Mara is bangs on about “Waiting for all the evidence to come in” and “Not rush to judgement”
That got me to thinking again about evidence, and I started to type.
After a while, it started to bit big – even for one of my comments 🙂
So I dumped it into the top of my SYG page : http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.ie/p/stand-your-ground.html
Well well, here we have a sudden change of strategy on the part of George Zimmerman’s defense. Now, O’Mara says “SYG” law does not apply. (Duh –)
Now O’Mara says that his client was just covered by regular, ordinary, uncomplicated self-defense.
I thought I had read the sentence wrong, or that the journalist had written it wrong, because I read:
=======================
Mark O’Mara … said … “The facts don’t seem to support a ‘stand your ground’ defense….”
“My concern with even calling it a ‘stand your ground’ hearing is we need to be more realistic,” O’Mara said. “I’ve said from Day 1 we need to wait until all the evidence comes out.”
“People look at ‘stand your ground’ and immediately think somebody’s standing there with deadly force — be it a gun or a weapon — and having the opportunity to back up but not having the need to under the statute,” he said. “I think the evidence in this case suggests that my client was reacting to having his nose broken and reacted to that by screaming out for help. * * * He wasn’t in position where I think there was any suggestion where he could retreat, which he is allowed to do under the statute.”
O’Mara said that he would not have to invoke any part of the “stand your ground” statute under the strategy he plans to use.
“I think the facts seem to support that though we have a stand-your-ground immunity hearing, what this really is, is a simple, self-defense immunity hearing,” the defense attorney said.
University of Miami law professor Tamara Lave said O’Mara’s shift may signal that he thinks his case for self-defense is solid even without the special provisions afforded by “stand your ground.”
“‘Stand your ground’ makes it easier to prevail under self-defense theory than the law that existed beforehand,” Lave said. “I think what he’s saying is, his case is so strong that he doesn’t need ‘stand your ground.'”
Before O’ Mara can address the ‘stand your ground’ hearing, he is filing an appeal this week of trial Judge Kenneth Lester’s recent decision to stay on the case.
========================
OK, now the professor giving a pro-defense opinion about how easy it will be for George to get off is Tamara Lave, a different expert than the one who said the same thing in different words yesterday. Lave is also no Dershowitz. But she really loves commenting on the Zimmerman case. After spending ten years as a public defender she started to teach criminal law at law school, and her students give her mixed ratings, but generally say the tests are easy. She has commented on the Zimmerman case since the early days, when she opined that Hannity could be forced to testify.
It’s almost comical. Each time some kind of “bombshell” comes out that the pro-Zims claim is good for his side, the dust settles on it not being so good after all. They come up with a picture of George’s bloody head, Professor Turley jumps in and proclaims that it probably exonerates George and that it is the single most important pro-defense evidence, and then O’Mara has to issue a statement saying he is not sure how the “evidence” will be used. But there’s lots of blah blah blah published about how Zim was overcharged and he was attacked and he was innocent and so forth. Then they come out with the alleged “lie detector test” and while the “he always tells the truth” frenzy is still going on, he lies about money to the judge and his wife gets charged with a felony! Then they start screaming about how this will all go away with a SYG hearing because George was standing his ground, and — oops, there’s almost immediately a public backpedal by his lawyer saying these facts don’t really fit into the SYG law! OOPS!
So what we have now is the following:
The little boo boos on George’s head prove nothing;
He’s a liar; and
SYG won’t save him, but he will still try to argue self-defense.
Lo and Behold, though, a law professor (again, who has been a defense counsel and never a prosecutor for her career) comes out saying that Zim will not use SYG BECAUSE HE HAS SUCH A STRONG CASE!
My prediction: O’Mara cannot put George on the stand under oath EVER AGAIN. There will be more posturing, an appeal of the judge’s correct decision not to recuse, which appeal will fail, and there will be this and that and lots more law professors opining and getting their 14 minutes’ worth, and then, plea bargain.
Here’s another legal scholar saying why a SYG hearing will exonerate Zimmerman:
“He’s assaulted, and he claims he’s on the ground, fighting for his life. I don’t see how a judge does not grant that motion,” Florida defense lawyer Robert Buonauro, who has worked on multiple “Stand Your Ground” cases, told the Orlando Sentinel. “He was in a place where he had a right to be. He wasn’t violating any laws.”
Well, Mr. Buonauro just assumed facts not in evidence.
1. The legal expert starts of “He’s assaulted,” — assuming fact not in evidence. ONLY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN can say he was assaulted. Trayvon Martin’s knuckles don’t back him up on that allegation. Trayvon Martin’s history don’t back him up on that allegation. No other witness backs him up on that allegation. One earwitness would tend to controvert that claim, right off the bat (girlfriend Dee Dee). So, can’t assume that.
2. Only THEN does Buonauro qualify the rest of his statements with the phrase “he claims” — well, yeah. George claims things but that doesn’t mean they are either credible or provable. He certainly has incentive to lie.
3. Buonauro then proclaims: “I don’t see how a judge does not grant that motion.” HA HA HA HA HA: Here’s how. A judge does not BELIEVE George when the physical evidence and Dee Dee and common sense all dictate otherwise.
4. Buonauro then says, “He was in a place where he had a right to be. He wasn’t violating any laws.” Well, we don’t know that either, do we? We don’t know that he wasn’t, for instance: (a) trying to illegally restrain a person who also had a right to be in that place; or (b) brandishing his loaded gun and threatening the person who also had a right to be in that place; or (c) physically assaulting and battering a person who also had a right to be in that place. From the language he was using with the dispatcher, we DO know that he had animus towards Trayvon Martin, that he did not want to let Trayvon Martin “get away,” and that he assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal whom he believed he should apprehend.
So, these pro-defense lawyers giving all these pro-defense statements seem, to me, to be part of the theater O’Mara is setting up, and this is why I believe he is setting up this theater: I believe he will plead George out, while saying that he had to do so because of all the prejudice drummed up against his poor innocent client. I also think he wants to plead George out for a small sentence, and he can only get away with doing that IF and ONLY IF the public will go for it, because otherwise, the prosecutor won’t take it. So I think the SYG hearing is meant to try to show that George really WAS acting in self-defense so a sizeable enough segment of the public will go along with that idea and O’Mara can plead his client out while issuing pro-George statements to drum up sympathy for the poor little Hispanic wus who was railroaded by the big black bad guys, who thought their pet teen-age thug had a right to give Georgie a boo boo before being killed.
Serino also says to George that he has, on his head, “capillary type lacerations.” Serino says they are “not coincident [sic] with” the kind of beating George describes. He wonders how that can be. George has no explanation.
So, George did really well in two courses:
Despite solid grades of an A in criminal litigation and a B in criminal investigation,
Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/08/10/zimmerman-academic-records-released-in-botched-evidence-dump/#ixzz23BToo7Q1
And that information tells ME that Judge Lester was correct to say that George Zimmerman was in fact well versed in the criminal law aspects of his own case, and can’t “get off” lying to the court in the first bond hearing simply because he “didn’t know” what to do.
A in criminal litigation.
B in criminal investigation.
He knew enough to change his story, make up new “facts,” throw off the investigation, bring up stuff he thought would fly to excuse his act in killing an innocent kid, etc. etc. etc.
He knew enough to get away with murder, but for the fact that this case became a cause celebre and a new prosecutor was appointed.
And another lie: Serino asks him, in the recorded interview, “You have a degree in criminal justice?” George answers, “Yes.”
What I should have said was:
What’s the difference between Goerge Zimmerman and Frank Taaffe?
George Zimmerman’s dangerous when he gets out of his vehicle;
Frank Taaffe’s dangerous when he gets INTO his.
It looks like Frank Taaffe was arrested Friday night on a DUI, held overnight in jail, then bailed out Saturday morning for $500. He claims that he didn’t read the warnings on a medicine bottle and therefore the effect of the alcohol was greater than it otherwise would have been — ridiculous, since blood alcohol level is not affected by that. But you know that crowd, they have a facile answer for everything and an excuse for every bad behavior, from drunk driving to murder and back again. I’d like to hear MADD’s commentary on this new one. Apparently Zimmerman’s not safe if he gets OUT of his vehicle; Taaffe’s not safe if he stays IN his.
Sling T, why don’t you go over to the Wikipedia write-up on the case and add your web-site to the websites that are listed with maps and explanations of the timeline; yours is better than the ones listed there.
Just add in a sentence in the narrative and cite to your web-page. It should really be up there. Thanks. 🙂
SanfordDailyNews does smell somewhat.
It’s a WordPress blog that has only two blog postings
1. Hello World
2. The gay porn story
There’s nothing else.
This simply indicates that some J. Random Doe has put it up – rather than some established newspaper doing so.
As you say, if the story has not hit mainstream, it’s probably a hoax.
I’m now 99.9% sure the report of the FBI learning that George Zimmerman was watching gay porn was a total fake and fraud.
The report seemed strange, coming out when it did, but at first reading I assumed the SanfordDailyNews website was the publication of the local newspaper. Now I have re-read this thing a few times because it seemed so strange that it had no repercussions in the larger media outlets, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a fake and a fraud, and that there is no such data “stumbled upon” by the FBI or anybody else.
It’s somebody capitalizing on the fact that people often google the name “George Zimmerman” so they are able to get people to click on them a lot.
It does seem, however, that this particular form of Internet fraud should be actionable. Who knows? If it is actionable, I hope it ends up getting punished. Not for George’s sake (really, what he did getting him false bad press as well as true bad press doesn’t make me weep big tears for the guy) but for the sake of at least trying to prevent fraud.
Of course, I also think the purveyors of the Trayvon Martin targets should have been punished using the law, or even using “the law” — but they probably got a free card on their hideous and immoral behavior.
The news is all about how Zimmerman’s parents have launched a website looking for more money. George also re-posted his website, asking for more financial support.
I know how George can make money. Perfectly legally, and it will bring in the money. I got this idea because apparently either George or Shellie was paying for access to gay porn sites showing young Black gay men having sex, and I didn’t realize (but probably should have) that you can put up a porn site that charges money per view or something. George and Shellie should make love while exclaiming things about George’s innocence (and Shellie’s innocence because she is also an alleged felon) and they should post this on a porn website that charges money, pay per view. That would earn them enough to pay for the defense and probably a lot extra. They could give some of it to their parents — oh, hey wait a minute —
The parents could make their own heterosexual married “more mature” porn website on which they make love while exclaiming things about their son’s innocence — yeah, yeah, I bet that would work too! Perfectly legal. Each of them could put in links for the other!
Suggested names:
innocent-on-innocent sex dotcom
judge-on-clerk sex dotcom
it-is-all-god’s-plan-sex dot-come
this-is-my-constitutional-right-sex dotcom
don’t-rush-to-judgment-sex dotcom
and all like that.