Last night saw an extraordinary confrontation between the defense and the court in the George Zimmerman trial. The defense is seeking to use photos and material from the phone of Martin. The most serious issue is that the defense claims that the government had this material since January and only recently gave it to the defense — another allegation of withholding evidence by the prosecution. The judge and the lawyers are clearly exhausted and I think the schedule is a bit too punishing. I realize that the jury is sequestered and want to go home. However, these days are diminishing the professional ability and clearly the personal restraint of the judge and lawyers alike. While I do not think that the defense should get a few days to rest, I do think that schedule has been unnecessarily demanding and even a few hours of more rest would be in order. I realize the jurors and courts have limited time but I have never agreed with the punishing schedule of many trials. However, I am more concerned with the delay in turning over this evidence until June.
The defense has a valid objection that they are being denied evidence due to the failure of the prosecution to turn over the evidence in a timely manner — to allow for authentication. Judge Debra Nelson clearly does not want to acknowledge the allegation of prosecutorial abuse and then refuses to deal with the objection that the attorneys are exhausted. I think the defense has a valid objection on both the misconduct and the schedule. However, Nelson just walks out on the defense and says that she will deal, not with the allegation of misconduct, but an alleged defense sequestration violation.
Defense attorney, Don West, objects that “I’m not physically able to keep up this pace much longer” as the judge walks out.
The judge has barred the use of a simulation of the scene. However, there are also those text messages on Martin’s phone where he refers to fighting. The prosecution has been able to introduce past comments from Zimmerman, but the court has barred the use of comments from Martin. In this case, she insisted that there was no authentication that it was Martin but the defense noted that they were denied the opportunity to authenticate by the prosecution.
I think most of the rulings in the case have been fair, though I have reservations about some of the excluded evidence and serious reservations about the failure to address the claims of withholding evidence. Judges regularly avoid dealing with such claims in trials, which only encourages prosecutors to game the system by holding on to evidence as long as possible before a trial.
If the various threads on this case prove anything, it is that the central theme of this trial in the minds of most of the public is race. There is also a large segment of people who appear to regard the very fact of prosecution to be at least an indirect attack on the Second Amendment. Both of these positions are unfortunate because they shift our focus away from the facts and the law.
I have no idea what the jury will conclude, but my view is that the evidence is sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction and that that would be a just result.
This case illustrates the perils of leaping to conclusions. Mr. Zimmerman was a volunteer neighborhood watchman in a community lacking an official Neighborhood Watch program. The program stresses vigilance, but forbids vigilantism. Once Mr. Zimmerman called in his report to the police, he had fulfilled his function. Based upon his comments, however, it is reasonable to find that Mr. Zimmerman had mentally profiled Mr. Martin, and had convinced himself that the latter had unlawful intentions. Therefore, he was determined to follow Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin was a visitor in a neighborhood with which he was not particularly familiar, but he had the lawful right to be walking those streets and owed no duty to explain his presence to Mr. Zimmerman. When he realized that he was being followed by a stranger in a strange vehicle, it is hardly surprising that he would experience fear, and then anger.
Mr. Martin confronted his pursuer. Mr. Zimmerman, having already concluded that Mr. Martin was engaging in criminal behavior, panicked, pulled his weapon and fired.
I believe that a rational jury could conclude that Mr. Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. Had he followed the dispatcher’s instructions, Mr. Martin would be alive. If he had not panicked, Mr. Martin would be alive. Had he acted in accordance with Neighborhood Watch guidelines, Mr. Martin would be alive.
I do not believe that Mr. Zimmerman, whatever racial biases he might harbor, had any intention of killing Mr. Martin, or that his actions demonstrated a depraved indifference. But his negligent overzealousness started a chain of events that directly resulted in Mr. Martin’s death.
While you boyz & girlz are dreaming tonight here’s a lil game for you & you can explain it to me tomorrow.
Take all your legalize BS you learned at Nazi U Law School or Commie U Law School & turn the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights” from the current “Law of the Land” that it remains, into a suggestion that may be followed if the SC, Congress & Obama/Bushs/Clintons feel like it.
Just as always, nothing to hang your hat on!
Name calling/pounding the table much lately friend? 😉
Ya right Jefferson called it correct on who the SC was & the dog house they should be stabled at.
Maybe John Yoo can help you boyz 😉
18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
USC-prelim
US Code
Notes
Updates
USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.
Current through Pub. L. 113-14. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
It’s troubling that Nelson hasn’t allowed the jury to hear ALL of Zimmerman’s
911 nuisance calls instead of only a few.
As I understand it,
<blockquote.A Defendant can offer specific acts of conduct of the victim to show the reasonableness of Defendant’s actions in a self-defense case, but it cannot be offered to show bad character, as it is not really character evidence at all. These specific acts are offered to show reasonableness of Defendant’s apprehension.
Unless the defense had witnesses who could testify that Trayvon was aggressive and regularly picked fights (as opposed to participating in refereed matches with other teenagers), that he regularly smoked pot, and that cannabis made him particularly aggressive or belligerent, the photographs and text messages related to these issues are utterly irrelevant. Ditto for the photograph of a hand holding a gun; not only is the photo innocuous (holding a stripped gun slightly above the table, pointed away from the camera? C’mon!), but there’s no evidence that it was his gun, that he sought to purchase a gun, or that he even relished the thought of using a gun.
None of this would have been known to Zimmerman, and therefore had no bearing on his own actions that evening. And even if he did know any of this, it would only serve to enhance his, at best, stupidity or, at worst, his malice in going after Martin.
As for the pot smoking, Martin’s blood levels for THC and a metabolite were extremely low and non-psychotic. These were not “under the influence” levels, particularly since there’s no way of knowing when he had last inhaled. This site explains this well.
For Gawd’s sake many of the those on the SCOTUS should be kicked out & up on treason charges over Bush v Gore & the SC’s own words on the matter!
They haven’t the finally say to anything, that belongs to the people in the end & then the states prior.
It’ll take more then the finest law school’s legalize to twist the founders Intent!
I am glad to see that OKY1 spits on the Constitution up front since he ignores the FACT that the SCOTUS is part of the Constitution. The founders knew what they were doing since many of them were lawyers, and knew the role it would play. It is only a delusional ignoramus who thinks that he is the ONLY one who can interpret the true intent and meaning of the Constitution. I think you need to have your head examined by a mental health professional.
Rather than focus solely on trial preparation, O’Mara wasted a great deal of time to (1) pursue media attention and donations for Zimmerman’s ‘defense’ fund; (2) associate with, and take suggestions from, a racist pro-Zimmerman web site; (3) complain for months about deposing Benjamin Crump for no purpose whatsoever; (4) raise issues about Witness 8/DeeDee for months, despite cancelling at the last minute a scheduled deposition with her, at State’s expense, and not deposing her until March 2013; (5) inform the media about jury sequestration that had been privately discussed in-camera;(6) mention the name of a friend of Rachel Jeantel during a court hearing; (7) call to the stand a witness who had been been in court throughout the trial; (8) use a sequestered witness to discuss his testimony with a contracted animator; (9) defame the victim by publicly releasing information and photographs from Martin’s cell phone that O’Mara knew would most likely not be allowed in as evidence; and (10) defame the victim further by describing a video retrieved from Martin’s cell phone that O’Mara depicted as Martin taping two friends beating up a homeless man over a bicycle.
O’Mara released those records and text messages after the summons for jury duty had been mailed. He apologized for ‘misinterpreting’ the video only after Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel printed an article correctly describing the video. And here’s the kicker: O’Mara and West knew about the video – and had the information from Martin’s cell phone SIM card – since at least September 2012.
As Fred Leatherman
wrote:
Professor Turley has been wrong to unconditionally accept the defense’s allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
“That is simply stupid.”
What is simple stupid is to ignore the “Intent” of the Bill of Rights!
And it’s as bright as a sunny day in Oklahoma!
I’ll grant you the Coast Guard, that’s not color of law.
Arthur Randolph Erb,
Color of Law is still Illegal friend!
OKY1 I see that you simply deny FACTS that do not match your idiotic comments and ideas. It IS under color of law since they operate under that, and until the SCOTUS says it is not, it most CERTAINLY IS UNDER COLOR of law. JEEZ did you ever go to high school and graduate?
The trolling is on PED’s today. I guess the creatures are restless in their swamp.
I like the comments of Vincent above.
If I lived in a private gated community near some bad neighborhoods with bad punks coming around then this case would motivate me to make some changes. I would want a fence around the joint and a real gate and a 24/7 security force. I would want a policy against the free ingress and egress of travelling willberrys on their way to get skiddles. If this case demonstrates that its child abuse to defend yourself against young punks then I would have the cops be especially rude about letting punks into the community if they don’t live there or have a sponsor. I would want my guards to be comprised of minorities and some women. I would end any lease law rules and let some dogs run free. Those of us on guard duty need something to hump.
randyjet,
The 1st step in stopping being a slave is in your own mind.
The founders even gave you a guide so simple a child can understand it.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights goes to the intent: Prevent the abuse of Govt Authority.
And then not exclusive, but to the point the 4th amendment, the govt has no right to detain anyone without probable cause to believe you’ve committed a crime.
Even the supreme court has ruled warrant-less check points are illegal yet the govt supplies bribery fraud funds to the locals to continue conducting them.
Saving, if LE has info of something like a child has been kidnapped & is reported to be in a red truck. Then LE can have check points, but only to look for children in red pickups.
If you wish to be a slave to Nazi check points fine, but ask the rest of us to also become foolish slaves.
Be the boss/owner the founders meant you to be, not the slave.
I see that you forget that the founders established the Coast Guard to stop and search without warrants all ships within the jurisdiction of the US. Then the SCOTUS HAS ruled that DIU checkpoints ARE legal without warrants being needed. The Congress has established an expanded border checkpoint system which is perfectly legal and has been sustained by the SCOTUS. So to say that the US has no right to secure our borders is factually incorrect, as well as defying common sense and history. Submitting to such reasonable searches is only onerous to those who think the government has no rights at all and that no law should be enforced unless the person wishes to obey. That is simply stupid.
The “scream” 911 tape did have other things on it. I have listened to it about 20 X and each time felt sick. You can hear Trayvon Martin exclaiming, “I don’t know [em]” and you can hear him yelp “no way” or “go’way” (hard to tell) and you can hear something that I couldn’t decipher but that an experienced sound engineer called “I’m begging you.” You do hear Z yell “help me” once but that is WHILE the death scream is ongoing so it cannot be from the same voice.
And how exactly were you insulted, bill?
By finding out that six is the normal number of jurors in a non-capital murder trial in Florida?
Or by being told that if you didn’t like that, it was irrelevant?
Or was it finding out that some people simply want a fair trial after someone was finally arrested for a shooting that would have meant immediate arrest and investigation for anyone whose daddy wasn’t a magistrate?
I’m really curious as to which part of that you found insulting.