A new report shows that the day after killing Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman passed a police lie detector test. He registered truthful in stating that he was afraid for his life before shooting the teen. The report does not materially affect the trial since such tests are not admissible but may explain the the resistance of local officials to bring the case. It also further supports the view, again, that Angela Corey overcharged the case. She was no doubt aware of the test which, while not admissible as evidence because their reliability is questioned, can be considered by the prosecutors in determining the appropriate charge. UPDATE: A police report shows a critical view of Zimmerman’s account and says that he missed two opportunities to defuse the situation.
Zimmerman willingly submitted to a computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) “truth verification” on February 27 and the test “was classified as No Deception Indicated (NDI).” This included the question of “Did you confront the guy you shot?’ He answered, “No.” He was rated as telling the truth in both saying that he did not confront Martin and that he was in fear of his life.
Also released recently are further details from Zimmerman to the police. Zimmerman insisted that the teen knocked him down and began to pound his head in the sidewalk while telling him “You’re going to die.” Zimmerman claims Trayvon reached for the gun and that he grabbed it to protect himself.
Both the question of fear and the party responsible for the confrontation could be distorted by Zimmerman’s perspective and not accepted objectively by third parties. Of the two questions, however, the confrontation question is the most interesting. It is rare for targeted suspects to agree to lie detectors, though I have agreed to such tests in past cases.
Once again, this evidence does not rule out the basis for a criminal charge, but in my view strongly militates against a charge greater than manslaughter. In fairness to the local officials, the evidence also offers support for their view that no charge was appropriate. One can disagree with that conclusion, but they may have had solid reasons for opposing a charge. That does not excuse sloppy police work and there was still a basis to detain Zimmerman at the scene. However, the case has become more muddled with such new evidence. As a criminal defense attorney, I have always viewed this case as one with strong defense arguments for trial. While the odds always favor the prosecution, the factual record has a number of elements that could create reasonable doubt. Obviously, the trial itself can present facts in different light and the prosecution has yet to be fully heard in the case.
Source: NY Daily News
Darren: you say ” Don’t jump to conclusions on this case until all the facts have been declared at trial.”
Well, that is exactly what the Sanford Police Department did when they ‘helped’ George take this little farce of a ‘test’ so they could send him home to nurse his little scrapes on his noggin.
The police decided to protect George, for whatever reason, to not charge him- to say that he was clear under SYG with NO TRIAL whatsoever. Who was jumping to conclusions?
Certainly not the people who are willing to explore the fact that there is only one survivor of Zimmermans actions that night.
And for that reason we are only getting one side of the story, so why should we believe anything that is not supported by the physical evidence or the timeline or the superficial injuries sustained by this armed man who shot a teen on a dark night?
Why should we take George at his word like the Sanford PD? It seems to me that most Americans do not like even the idea that the police can be the judge & jury & executioner all in one.
I have said before that if there is a bias to be held, it should be towards a CHILD, unarmed, who had the complete right to be where he was, to NOT BE STALKED, JUDGED and CONVICTED by some wanna-be officer. Trayvon had the right to be scared and turn on George (If this even happened) at some point and defend HIMSELF. In my mind, you simply can not claim self-defense and hope to have any credibility when you are willing to go after someone with a preconceived predatory and discriminatory mindset that has been pretty well-established by the existing evidence, be completely wrong in your judgment about any criminal intent, be told NOT to pursue, put the other in a position of having to defend himself, and then cry, “Oops, my bad, but now *I* had to KILL to defend myself.” Does not work for me.
And Jeff from up above: Would love to see who you are. Probably pretty pathetic, based on your statement.
Darren Smith, I think it’s perfectly OK to have preconceived (after all, they were conceived after we read the news reports and this blog) notions of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. I also think that supporting our preconceived notions with whatever evidence has been made public is a good exercise. Here’s why:
1. We’re not going to be jurors in this case;
2. It’s important;
3. We’re each bringing up things the other may not have thought of.
Now, my reasoning for my firm belief in Zimmerman’s guilt is the same today as it was when I first read up about the case and listened to Zimmerman’s non-emergency police call. It is based on a few very firm very early points. Other information that has come in has confirmed it. Of course, had I initially “decided” that Zimmerman was probably innocent, I would have looked at all that evidence differently.
BUT THAT IS THE POINT.
The police decided (I believe) right there in the drizzle that night between 7 and 7:30 that George was going to be “held innocent” by THEM and they therefore looked at all the evidence that way.
I’m allowed to do that; they’re NOT.
So right now, I am determined to find more and more evidence supporting my position, and here I am saying it openly. Dershowitz, in my opinion, is not just a fool but a conscience-free public menace — and again, I have thought that for many years (although 20 years ago I was his fan). So I can change my opinion. But it takes a lot (and Dershowitz provided a lot) for me to change my opinion. In the Zimmerman case, for instance, NO amount of unscientific claptrap about how “credible” Zimmerman is would ever change my mind. The timing of the whining and squealing about his poor nosey-wosey and the failure to go to the hospital that night to see if his head had actually exploded is all I really need in the “George Zimmerman’s credibility” box. And in the “malice” box to see whether or not Corey over-charged the case (and I am NOT A FAN of Corey and consider HER a corrupt public official for different reasons), all I have and all I need are “the suspect disappeared into the darkness” and “the suspect once again emerged from the darkness” and “these a55holes always get away” and “f00king [whatevers]” and “sh1t, he ran.” That’s enough malice for me.
So put me down as “holding preconceived notions and unwilling to wait for the outcome of a trial, as she should,” and I guess we can move forward.
And I’m telling the truth on that one. You can give me a polygraph.
Folks, Please read this (if it is too long, just read the last two paragraphs)
I would also again re-iterate that it is unwise to draw conclusions based upon preconceptions. I know you have your beliefs here but remember that this is a serious affair involving many points of view with much evidence that is needed to be reviewed by both sides and untimately a trier of fact. No matter how diabolical some members of the public have scarlet lettered Z into being, he absolutely must have a clear and fair trial. All the poisoning of the well going about is not helping the justice in this case.
For one, it puts pressure on the system to arrive at a particular outcome. While it at least it might be subtle or at worse convince someone in power to manipulate the system to achieve what the mob mentality desires. I would like to think the CJ system is above this kind of influence but individuals comprise this so it would be rather negligent to believe it completely does not. it also makes the case vulnerable to political grandstanding or advantage seeking from those trying to attain election or publicity from their support / advocacy / or persecution of one of the parties.
I would say it is reasonable to conclude both the prosecution and the defense have not submitted all their evidence or strategy to the court of public opinion here. The time has not come yet for this to be revealed but it will in due time. From that I would caution against assuming that any one of us here on the outside has all the necessary evidence to support and absolute judgement either way.
Additionally, in a global sense, I find it both rather odd and in some way unsettling to see that there has been such a strident rush to condemn an individual accused of a capital crime to a summary judgement: Especially coming from a group of us who are contributors to a legal forum that essentially professes itself to be advocates of individual liberty, civil rights, due process of law, and most importantly the removal of arbitrary and unilateral subjugation of the rights of individuals by the state. How rightful are we to conveniently abandon these principles when we seek to pillory another fellow citizen. Frankly this is rather disappointing to say the least.
oh, and his injuries do not support this claim “This guy was lying on his back getting his head beaten into concrete when he shot the attacker. ”
No, not at all. Zimmerman had superficial injuries, no black eyes to support a broken nose, no real skin injuries or bruising showing head being slammed into concrete. or even being punched at all.
George did not like that Martin was holding him down, preventing him from reaching his gun while the cops were on the way. He could not possibly let the police see him in this position. His ego alone shot that teen to death. that is all, not mortal danger.
doggie: Why cant he testify and why cant he say in open court in front of the jury that he took the lie detector test and passed it? Why”?
Because George can never, ever take the stand.
He is a pathological liar. He cannot help himself one bit.
There you guys go. Throwing rocks at each other after JT tried to quell the mudslinging.
Two questions here: Did Zimmerman testify at his original bail hearing? I thought that only his wife did. Did Zimmerman’s wife get put in jail for lying at that hearing? Someone above said she was.
A lie detector may be inadmissible. A person who hears a defendant make a statement can testify that he (the hearer) believed the defendant to be telling the truth.
There will not be a juror in that county that will not hear that Zimmerman passed the lie detector tests. What is the prosecutor going to do at jury selection time? Not ask if they have preconceived notions of Zimmerman’s guilt? Not ask where they got their notion?
If I was Zimmerman I would spend some money on billboards in that county.
The state is in another trickbag. If they offer any statement that Z made then Z should have a right to counter with contemporaneous statements on the same subject.
Why cant he testify and why cant he say in open court in front of the jury that he took the lie detector test and passed it? Why cant he call the lie detector grill instructor as a character witness?
Does Florida allow depositions in criminal cases?
This guy was lying on his back getting his head beaten into concrete when he shot the attacker. Not Guilty. The prosecutor who filed these charges needs to think about a career representing bankruptcy clients.
Gene, the FSM is gonna rain soggy meatballs on your head for that one.
mespo,
Well played. That gets the seal of approval.
mespo: oh snap!
“His investigator was a human lie-detector.”
And someone to avoid at the poker table.
Oro Lee
1, June 26, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Definition: Thuggery – what happens to a young, black man who stands his ground
pete
1, June 26, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Oro Lee
while wearing a hoodie
blousie
1, June 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm
and talking on the phone
****************************
I think we’ve gone from simple thuggery to aggravated thuggery
The reports of the lie detector test are here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98332017/Pages-From-Police-Reports-Without-Statements-Redacted
They are at the end of the file. The computer squiggles are printed for both the practice run and the “real” run and include the results where the question was asked twice. The questions that were asked follow the squiggles.
In the “real” run it looks like he might have lied the first time he was asked if his name is George, the first time he was asked if the month is Feb. and the last 2 control questions where he was supposed to lie. It looks to me like the not-a-Green-wall that was supposed to be a lie wasn’t. But I have no experience interpreting this stuff.
Amen Mespo!
Manny: “So it doesnt matter what the headline says…the conclusion is the same in those whose minds are already made up and they are just looking for any data that supports their forgone conclusion and contrary data is just water off a ducks back”
—-
You overlook the class of people like me that wouldn’t believe the results of a polygraph no matter what the outcome, because they are total BS. Just say’n.
mespo:
Zing!
Zimmerman already failed his “lie detector” test. It was called his bail hearing.
George Zimmerman Evidence Shows Extent To Which Police Doubted Self-Defense Claim
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/george-zimmerman-evidence-police-doubt-self-defense_n_1628209.html
Excerpt:
A new trove of evidence released by the Florida state attorney prosecuting George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin reveals the extent to which law enforcement doubted Zimmerman’s early claims of self-defense.
“His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject,” an investigator wrote in an early report on the Feb. 26 shooting. “Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances,” and Zimmerman twice “failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member.”
The report also said that Martin’s and Zimmerman’s respective physical dimensions did not place Zimmerman at a disadvantage worthy of lethal force.
“Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by [Zimmerman] are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin,” the report said.
The evidence released this afternoon includes a one-hour video recording of an interview between lead investigator Christopher Serino and Zimmerman at the Sanford, Fla., police headquarters, a pair of audio recordings between Serino and Zimmerman, and 29 pages of police reports and notes, including a handwritten narrative by Zimmerman recounting the events on the night of Feb. 26.
Hours after the release of the new evidence, Serino, who had expressed doubts over Zimmerman’s story and suggested that charges be filed, was reassigned to the patrol division, according to the Associated Press. The reassignment came at his own request, AP reports.
I hope this isn’t the case here in the forum where some would automatically dismiss the “Truthful” conclusion of the lie detector test because there are already so many pre-conceived notions as to the guilt of Zimmerman that it clouds judgement to be receptive to other possibilities.
In viewing this for yourselves. Ask yourself: If the test result was he was lying, would you then declare “Zimmerman said nothing but lies all along, the machine proves it.” BUT if the machine indicated he was being truthful, would you then say “The machine is flawed, nobody can believe the results.”
I think it is more than rational to question this, especially in regard to what I have said all along. Don’t jump to conclusions on this case until all the facts have been declared at trial. I agree it is a healthy learning environment for us here in the forum to debate the legal aspects of the case, but to come to a conclusion so early on can affect your investigation as to the conclusion.
In criminal investigations, it is dangerous to assume from the beginning during anything short of a slam dunk, happening in front of you case that a particular person “must be the guilty one.” Even if you are the most fair and open minded investigator possible, human nature is such that you might subconsciously steer your investigation to support only factual information that supports your initial conclusion, while disregarding or dismissing other evidence to the contrary.
I don’t know about the admissibility issue with the lie detector devide in Florida, in our state a defendant may take the polygraph and can admit it as evidence but the defendant has a right to nullify this result as being admissable. If the defendant chooses to supress the poly, the state is barred from even mentioning the test in any form at trial.
I wonder if the test in Zimmerman’s case might be used as an impeachment of statements made of LEOs that declare they believed Zimmerman was not being forthcoming. Additionally, I wonder if there would be a due process violation if the state found a way to not premit the admission of the poly at trial but under Brady v. Maryland the poly results could be exculpable or mitigating in nature.
Your thoughts?
First #10 should read the same as #11.