Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial are facing a collapsing case and renewed question over whether Angela Corey succumbed to the political pressure and overcharged the case. The prosecution’s case has thus far been a disaster and many are now questioning whether charges should have been brought at all, let alone charged as second degree murder. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutors led with Rachel Jeantel, who was one of the least compelling witnesses that they could have called from earlier perjury to ever-changing testimony. Now Angela Corey (right) and her office appear to be turning toward alternative areas of prosecution involving the daughter of one of the defense counsel.
Don West, who took apart Jeantel’s conflicted testimony on the stand, took his daughter out for ice cream and she posted on Instagram a picture with the caption: “We beat stupidity celebration cones #zimmerman #defense #dadkilledit.”
Prosecutors have asked for an inquiry on the basis that witnesses should be treated with respect. However, such rules apply to counsel not their progeny. West insists that he was not aware of the message.
The photo was actually taken the day before the cross examination.
I fail to see why the prosecutors would not accept the word of opposing counsel, particularly given the fact that this is his daughter.
Given the earlier allegations of withholding evidence in the case, the prosecutors should show a bit more judgment in my view. Of course, they have been busy presenting what appears a case for acquittal.
I have long been critical of Corey’s charging of the case as second degree murder and concerned that this was a case where public pressure influenced the prosecution. The video of Zimmerman’s account and the supporting testimony of these prosecution witnesses were known to Corey before the charges. Yet, she pursued second degree murder in what would be viewed as a difficult case even for manslaughter. I would leave counsel’s daughter alone and focus on the disaster unfolding in court.
Source: ABA Journal
nick, you’re right. i’d never be on that jury. if i lived in the county i wouldn’t have looked at all the discovery materials or the blogs, including this one. i don’t live in fl so i’ll exercise my right to look, analyze, and comment.
If you are white
Why prosecute. Isn’t it now legal to kill people in Florida, so long as you get them to touch you first
From what I’ve seen the lawyering is mediocre and the witnesses are terrible. I predict a hung jury.
Pretty civil so far. Kudos. Obviously most here would NEVER have gotten past voire dire, but I’m impressed w/ the civility, the analysis..ah, not so much. As a sidebar note, Zimmerman’s attorney said Zimmerman has put on 120lbs. since the incident. That is EXTREME stressful eating, although I doubt hardly anyone here has an empathy for that. I have total and absolute empathy for the Martin family, and I also empathize for Zimmerman and what his family has gone through. This is a nation of laws. Hopefully we can all agree upon that, and not go batshit crazy if you don’t agree w/ the verdict.
I’m sure Mr. Zimmerman was exercising his legal right in Florida to stalk a black man, confront him, instigate a life-threatening situation, and shoot him dead, using his legally-carried firearm. “Stand Your Ground” means “I declare wherever you’re standing to be my ground. BANG!”
Nemo,
Yes, Dan and Geraldo initiated conversations with people. Confrontational ones. But the folks that Dan and Geraldo confronted didn’t end up shot by Dan or Geraldo. They also didn’t just confront some anonymous black man who was minding his own business.
See any difference?
If Martin were a white 17 year old and Zimmerman were black, the killer would probably already be on death row.
bettykath wrote: “If Martin were a white 17 year old and Zimmerman were black, the killer would probably already be on death row.”
I respectfully disagree. Black men have killed white teens and not ended up on death row. For example, Roderick Scott is a 42 year old black man who killed a 17 year old white boy named Christopher Cervini in New York. The jury acquitted him on self defense grounds. http://themartialist.net/?p=306
A black woman named Crystal Scott shot a 22 year old white man named Jonathan Ables and it took six months before she was charged. The case has yet to be tried.
Black man John Harris White is not on death row for shooting white 17 year old Daniel Cicciaro on Long Island, New York.
And, of course, who can forget the OJ Simpson case, a black man acquitted of killing two white people, also not on death row.
While in the past we had impatient mobs of white people storming jails to bring their own brand of justice against blacks, now we have mobs of black people following the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to act against whites. Some people just haven’t woken up to understand the kind of discrimination now in play.
Plato’s Cave wrote: “It seems like there is some pervasive racism here because it seems no one can imagine using the “Stand Your Ground” to justify a Black man’s actions. Even if Martin threw the first punch, he had every right to do that after Zimmerman’s intimidation/stalking.”
Wait just a minute… there is a huge difference between following someone and having words with them and throwing punches. Martin would only have a right to throw punches if Zimmerman actually punched him first. Even if that happened, if Martin did tell Zimmerman he was going to kill him and Zimmerman believed he was about to lose consciousness and die if he did not shoot him, then Zimmerman was justified to kill Martin.
I am convinced that if Martin were a white 17 year old, none of this would have gone to trial. The entire reason for this case being prosecuted is race (IMHO).
Carterbo,
I don’t disagree…. But the prosecution has messed this case up from the get go……
I agree with what bettykath has written. I’m just waiting to see if Malisha is going to belly up to the bar?
Stupid for the prosecution to attack defense counsel’s daughter. There’s no good basis for the complaint and it makes them look petty and weak. It’s America and she’s as much entitled to say whatever she likes about a trial witness as everyone else.
” a prosecution witness testified that he was at the time Mr. Martin was shot. But that witness’s testimony is discredited because it would mean Mr. Martin was shot in the back as she described it”
First of all, there were at least 3, perhaps 4 witnesses who saw the defendant on top. As they said, the one on top is the one who walked away. Did it occur to you that Trayvon was on his back? This would make an “in the back” shot a bit difficult. Did the defendant then flip Trayvon, spread his hands (I know that didn’t happen), get on his back (according to witness), and then get up?
A side note – after all the hours and hours of coverage, I still have no idea of the relative size/weight of Zimmerman/Martin. With all the entertainment value the MSM sees in this case, couldn’t somebody do a graphic or find two people of similar size and put them next to one another.
It might go a long way in determining who was more likely to start a fistfight.
I’d be interested to hear how Mr. Turley would have prosecuted Zimmerman.
If he’s not guilty of anything, it means anyone who wants to commit murder merely has to conceal a weapon, start a fight with someone, and when they fight back, shoot them and claim self-defense.
Clearly Zimmerman initiated the fight under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by stalking Martin. It seems like there is some pervasive racism here because it seems no one can imagine using the “Stand Your Ground” to justify a Black man’s actions. Even if Martin threw the first punch, he had every right to do that after Zimmerman’s intimidation/stalking.
Are there any laws that penalize starting a fight that ends in the murder or injury of the guy who was just minding his own business?
I am not a lawyer an only heard a snippet of doc’s testimony this am but if prosecution was able to remind jurors how head wounds bleed like the dickens even if only one/small one it negates (potentially) the idea that Zimmerman was repeatedly hit on the head.(had his head pounded on the ground)
bettykath
The trial lawyers in the crowd may have a different take on this, but I assume the prosecution did not raise the recoil issue because they knew the testimony would not be favorable (or that it would be considered speculation). The same reasoning applies to the lacerations and contusions to the back of the head. And if the prosecution needs to rely on “could have” to prove its case (“beyond a reasonable doubt”), I’d say they don’t have much of a case.
It is difficult to know what is going on in the minds of the six jurors.
Which is the bottom line.
So, speculation on their mindset at this point is premature.
One can reasonably agree or disagree with Florida’s “stand your ground” law. But when the lead investigator was questioned at a pretrial hearing and under oath admitted they had no idea who the initial aggressor was, the case should have been dismissed.
bettykath,
Many pejoratives have innocent origins — (a former gov of Az got in hot water b/c he did not understand that pickaninny was no longer considered a term of endearment).
I assume you know, but the case will be decided not on the interviews that people gave (other than as impeachment of testimony) but on the testimony. I’ll admit I’ve not seen any reports that the evidence shows that Mr. Zimmerman was on top, with one exception: a prosecution witness testified that he was at the time Mr. Martin was shot. But that witness’s testimony is discredited because it would mean Mr. Martin was shot in the back as she described it. And she also testified that there were 3 shots, which is not supported by the other evidence.
With regard to Ms. Jeanatel, it does appear that language was an issue (which reflects poorly on the prosecution because they should have arranged to use an interpreter if English is indeed her 3rd language), but legal insurrection also reports that her attitude and demeanor were not helpful to the prosecution.
Many of the commenters on this blog “convicted” Mr. Zimmerman long ago; and it appears that at least some are not willing to the evidence change that.
In the disclosure/disclaimer category: most of what I “know” is from reading the legal insurrection blog and I have not read much of that (the coverage is extensive); and I understand that the jury may not see the evidence the same way that blog does
Depending on how you confront them is not a crime, killing them is, especially when you were advised not to follow, which then follows, and don’t confront. How about waiting for the real police? The fact that Zimmerman repeatedly called Martin a “suspect” in police interviews (and that he wanted to be a cop but couldn’t) indicates that there may well have been malice and the decision to play acop. I am not a cop in real life so I will play one anyway..