Judge Will Issue Subpoenas for Trayvon Martin's School Records and Social Media Accounts

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 04:36:23 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The new judge in the George Zimmerman case agreed to issue defense subpoenas for Trayvon Martin's school records and social media account records, as well as the social media accounts of witness #8 "Dee Dee", the phone friend of Trayvon, who says she was on the phone with him just before the shooting. You can watch the Judge explain her ruling here.

As I wrote here and here, I think this is the correct ruling. A defendant raising self-defense may introduce evidence regarding a victim's reputation for a particular character trait like violence to show that the defendant was not the initial aggressor, even if the defendant did not previously know about the victim's reputation. Here's the Munoz case the Judge cites from, which quotes the Dwyer case.

The school records will not be released publicly. The judge also granted the state's request for Zimmerman's medical records, but like the school records, they will not be released publicly. [More]

From the Munoz case:

The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. Pino, 389 So.2d at 1194. Reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim's reputation in the community. See Dwyer v. State, 743 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that "a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind.")

The judge is not saying the records are relevant or admissible at trial. Her ruling is in response to a discovery request, and the issue is whether the records could lead to relevant and admissible evidence.

Also, keep in mind the subpoenas for the social media accounts are unlikely to result in the content in the accounts being turned over, as opposed to merely subscriber information. There are a host of hurdles the defense will have to jump over before getting content from the accounts, even assuming Twitter and Facebook still have it.

< George Zimmerman: State Moves for Another Gag Order | Saturday College Football Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Will Issue Subpoenas for Trayvon Martin's School Records and Social Media Accounts | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Maybe in your fevered imagination, Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Slayersrezo on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 09:16:05 PM EST

But one of the defenses main claims is that George Zimmerman was bushwhacked on his way back to his truck, not that he ever stopped or interacted with Trayvon Martin at all.

If Trayvon was hiding and then ambushed George either out of fear or out of a sense that he felt disrespected, then I have no trouble at all believing that Georges life was in danger, esp. since I'm convinced that Martin didn't know George had a gun until he was on top of Zimmerman, pounding him, and then either saw GZ reach for it, or felt it against his leg or thigh.

Fact is, I suspect Trayvon initially attacked either due to feeling disrespected or possibly because he was indeed feeling the effects of some drugs. Once he felt or saw Georges gun, I could easily see him getting scared and this whole thing escalating.

Thanks to the testimony of the vast majority of witnesses there (barring a change a few weeks later on the part of the boy and his mum, and barring DeeDee, whom I'm convinced is going to be caught out as a liar) and the fact that the only one who had any bruises was George we can be reasonably sure it was Trayvon on top.

All prosecution of George is pretty much going to have to explain :
A. Why Tray attacked first.
B. Why Tray was on top, and what George should have done about it.

: dadler's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:25:22 AM EST

for stating disputed information as fact and attacking Zimmerman's character

Oh, Please (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 12:57:41 AM EST

I think most would agree that the only drug, albeit speculatively, or hypothetically, that could be germane to TM would be marijuana.

Obviously false. Of course that is not to be discussed here.

And, anyone who has even a fleeting knowledge of mj would tell you that its effects would tend to decrease the penchant for violence, not exacerbate it.

Anyone with more than a fleeting knowledge knows that the effects of drugs differ between individuals.

I've never known a person on MJ to be violent, but it does make some people paranoid.

: if a stranger is following you around (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 11:16:19 AM EST

in the dark, for no obviously good reason, you are no longer paranoid.

I've never known a person on MJ to be violent, but it does make some people paranoid.

: the comments you are replying to were (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:37:00 AM EST

deleted. Commenters should know by now that character attacks on either Trayvon or Zimmerman will be deleted as will comments that state disputed allegations as undisputed fact.
Opinions are one thing, misstatments and attacks are another.
And for lawyers here opining on and quoting the law, please phrase your comments as your interpretation and analysis, so readers don't just assume you are correct. Lawyers don't always agree, that's why we have judges, and judges may get overruled by appellate courts, and even in appellate decisions, there may be dissenting opinions.

why did TM feel threatened? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by ding7777 on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 01:18:11 PM EST

When TM passed GZ parked in his silver truck while GZ was talking on his phone, somehow TM concludes that GZ is following him?

Did TM feel threatened because GZ rolled up his windows as TM passed?

Never crossed TM's mind that GZ was lost/getting directions and was afraid of him?

: the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#34)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 03:21:54 AM EST

was deleted for falsely stating the facts.

But how did George Zimmerman know? (4.00 / 3) (#2)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 06:30:57 PM EST

I would understand your POV if Zimmerman had had an understanding of this kid based on his prior comments/acts, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that Zimmerman somehow "sensed" that the kid was "bad" and then back up his claim with whatever stupidity a teenager chose to post online. There's a little "witch hunty" quality to that line of defense, imo.

I am actually all for the defense, generally-speaking, but I also see this notion of putting the victim on trial as a very slippery slope. What if Martin was a rape victim? What if he had posted and engaged in sexual come ons. Would he "deserve it" if someone then raped him randomly on the street?

What about it? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Slayersrezo on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:05:54 PM EST

"I would understand your POV if Zimmerman had had an understanding of this kid based on his prior comments/acts, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to argue that Zimmerman somehow "sensed" that the kid was "bad" and then back up his claim with whatever stupidity a teenager chose to post online. There's a little "witch hunty" quality to that line of defense, imo."

As if this case would have even went to court after the initial investigation if not for the narrative about the "innocent kid, going straight home and carrying tea &skittles".

Any propensity Martin might have to commit a violent act or any skills in hand to hand fighting are fair game in this case because some people apparently have trouble understanding or thinking of any reasons why:
A. Martin may have attacked first
B. How Martin could have posed any threat to Zimmerman to justify the drawing and use of his gun


unless you have some substantive evidence (3.50 / 2) (#19)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 10:49:23 AM EST

to the contrary (which i'm betting you don't. for the moment at least, stereotypes don't count as evidence), that's what happened:

i think i have the same problem. the defense is claiming that, because of a background it wasn't even aware of, mr. zimmerman had legitimate reason to be concerned about mr. martin. seems like more than a "stretch", seems like a position that shouldn't even be allowed in as evidence, since it's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. but, that's me.

in fact, it ordinarily isn't. a rape victim's background, unknown to the accused, isn't allowed into evidence, because generally, it isn't considered germane. why this would be different kind of baffles me.

what they're doing is fishing, hoping to find some evidence (thus far not indicated) that mr. martin had a secret history of physically accosting strangers, who followed him in the night, with a gun, for no discernable reason. this would be the only relevant information. odds are, mr. martin probably has no history of that, because the odds are it didn't happen much. but hey, good luck with that.


: earlier criminal career? (none / 0) (#24)
by LeaNder on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 01:06:55 PM EST

The school records suggests to me they may even be curious beyond earlier aggression but may in fact be interested the records reminiscent of Trayvon's "earlier criminal career" the widely distributed story--notice not by Crump & Co--of the jewelery supposedly found in Trayvon's bag, remember?
The discoveries mention a field contact in Florida, I read that as whatever encounter with l law authorities.
In this first interviews Zimmerman kept talking about "the suspect". He obviously stressed Trayvon's "suspicious behavior".
I have read more than twenty different stories about Trayvon hiding his stash somewhere and then returning to attack Zimmerman. In one Trayvon left via the back entrance and reentered RTL via the right corner close to where Zimmerman supposedly looked for a house number. ,,,

Question (none / 0) (#5)
by lawstudent on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:24:53 PM EST

Would evidence of Trayvon Martin's propensity for violence (assuming such evidence even exists) be admissible simply because this is a self-defense case, or would it be tied to the state's argument as to who was the initial aggressor?

In other words, assuming the state admits (as it appears to have done thus far) that Trayvon was the initial aggressor (at least in terms of physical contact), is the defense still allowed to put on this character evidence?


: The state has (none / 0) (#17)
by lousy1 on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 08:34:26 AM EST

only admitted to the obvious observation that Martin struck Zimmerman. It has not advanced a theory about who struck first or the details of that confrontation.

the answer to your iniitial question (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:19:44 PM EST

is in my post. And it's fully explained in the short clip I posted. It has nothing to do with what Zimmerman sensed, it's not about Zimmerman's state of mind, it's about his assertion that Trayvon was the initial aggressor. It's about acts, not state of mind. Your example is inflammatory and twisted logic. Zimmerman is raising self-defense. He says Trayvon Martin attacked him and was the aggressor. He's entitled to discovery of information that could lead to relevant admissible evidence in support of his defense. Any prior history of unprovoked attacks or violence by Martin could lead to such evidence. The rules of evidence specifically allow it, even though Martin was a stranger to him. Just listen to the clip of the Judge or read the cases she cited that I linked to.


: "... information that could lead to..." (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Jello333 on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 10:57:56 PM EST

"He's entitled to discovery of information that could lead to relevant admissible evidence in support of his defense. Any prior history of unprovoked attacks or violence by Martin could lead to such evidence."
I think some people are missing this point. Does MOM think that the actual text of, say, Twitter messages are gonna be a "smoking gun"? I don't think so. What I think he DOES believe is that those messages will lead to OTHER info, including actual people, that COULD be a big deal. I think MOM/West are gonna try to find friends of Trayvon who will be able to give statements as to "any prior history of unprovoked attacks or violence". And while the Facebook or Twitter posts themselves may not be admissible, the statements of people who are contacted BECAUSE OF those posts very likely will be.
And same goes for Dee Dee... except hers will be mostly re. the supposed phone conversations she had with Trayvon, and how she acted IRL after the shooting.

: I had no intention what so ever to be (none / 0) (#39)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:26:19 PM EST

inflammatory; and I don't think that it is "twisted logic" to think about rape shield laws given the fact that there are parallels that could be drawn here. In any case, I asked a question. I wasn't trying to score a point. Thank you for your response.

Zimmerman didn't need to know (none / 0) (#6)
by unitron on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 07:27:21 PM EST

If Martin initiated an unprovoked assault on Zimmerman, then it doesn't matter what Zimmerman "sensed" or didn't, other than he sensed he was getting beat up by this kid, and that the kid meant to keep on doing it, and that his life could be in danger if he didn't find a way to stop the attack.

When I say unprovoked assault, I mean not provoked by Zimmerman grabbing his arm or advancing on him in an aggressive and threatening manner or something like that.

It might, if it was originated by Martin, have theoretically been "provoked" by Zimmerman following him, in Martin's opinion, at first vehicularly, and then on foot.


that was my thought also. (3.50 / 2) (#20)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 11:03:53 AM EST

consider ms. merritt, so far, the focus has been solely on mr. zimmerman's right to "self-defense", under FL's "Stand Your Ground" law. conversely, mr. martin had that same right. the fact that he didn't have a gun, and ended up dead, doesn't negate that. as such, mr. zimmerman's position, that only he had that right, is wrong under the law itself. mr. martin's prior history (if any) notwithstanding.

this, of course, goes right to heart of why the law itself is wrong, it creates more problems than it purports to resolve. both parties can claim the exact same right to self-defense, and be correct under the same law. it turns common sense and logic on its head. of course, this is FL and the republican/tea party, so i guess that's at least consistent.

my guess is they aren't going to find anything. if something was there, the odds are, we'd have heard about it by now, as much publicity as this case has gotten. everyone wants their 15 minutes and all. the big problem i see for mr. zimmerman, is that he was clearly the aggressor. unless he and his attorney figure out a way to go back in time, and stop himself from following mr. martin. no doubt mr. mara is a good lawyer, i just don't see him being quite that good. einstein wasn't able to do it either, so he's at least in good company.


: Your assertion.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Cashmere on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 11:49:29 AM EST

that Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor is simply your opinion. It is by no means clear that Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor.

: All the evidence so far points to Martin.. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by deanno on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 09:00:06 AM EST

as the agressor.

: zimmerman, is that he was clearly the aggressor (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 02:24:12 PM EST

.
There appears to be no evidence of that. If following at distance to keep someone in sight is such extreme aggressive behavior that calls for a beat down, then your idea of aggression is a bit unique.
.

: Einstein ??????? (none / 0) (#30)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:21:36 AM EST

einstein wasn't able to do it either
Why do you bring Einstein in here? Since he was unhappy with the uncertainty principle?

: cpinva seems to think (none / 0) (#41)
by pngai on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:56 AM EST

Zimmerman "was clearly the aggressor" simply because he (allegedly) followed Martin.

FERPA, subpoenas, and school records (none / 0) (#1)
by Michael Masinter on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 05:08:34 PM EST

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(j)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. 99.31 (a)(9)(i) and (ii)(B), forbids a school that accepts any federal financial assistance from complying with a subpoena for school records unless the judge issuing the subpoena enters a nondisclosure order, so there's nothing surprising about her order forbidding disclosure of the school records, even in disclosure happy Florida.

What the referenced statute says (none / 0) (#8)
by MJW on Fri Oct 19, 2012 at 08:20:56 PM EST

20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(J)(ii) says:

(1) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following--
(J)(ii) the entity or persons designated in any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose, in which case the court or other issuing agency may order, for good cause shown, the educational agency or institution (and any officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney for such agency or institution) on which the subpoena is served, to not disclose to any person the existence or contents of the subpoena or any information furnished in response to the subpoena;

I don't see where that requires the judge to enter a nondisclosure agreement. As I read the federal regulation, the non-disclosure agreement is only required for subpoenas that don't provide notification to the student or parent so they have an opportunity to object.

§ 99.31 Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?
(9)(i) The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena.
(ii) The educational agency or institution may disclose information under paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this section only if the agency or institution makes a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance, so that the parent or eligible student may seek protective action, unless the disclosure is in compliance with-
(B) Any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose and the court or other issuing agency has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed;

Notice to parents or compliance with nondisclosure (none / 0) (#27)
by Michael Masinter on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:27:20 PM EST

A school district can release the records without a nondisclosure order, but only if the district has first notified the parents in sufficient time to enable them to challenge the subpoena. If either the party who seeks the records or the school district that is the target of the subpoena wishes to avoid the delay and cost of successive hearings on the subpoena (first hearing, by party seeking the issuance of the subpoena, second hearing, at the request of student or parent opposing release or release without a nondisclosure order), they will agree to a nondisclosure order. I think it certain that if the court had not entered a nondisclosure order, the Martin family counsel would have sought relief from the trial court once the subpoena had been served and the school district had notified them of service, and if unsuccessful in obtaining a nondisclosure order in that hearing, further review by certiorari if in that hearing the trial court did not enter a nondisclosure order. Entering the order in advance of ordering the subpoena avoids all that.

Here's a Department of Education letter that elaborates.

Because FERPA is a spending clause statute that binds school districts that accept federal money (all public school districts do), it only imposes limits on the school district's authority to comply with a subpoena, not on the court's authority to issue one. The judge can't violate FERPA; only the school district can.


With that, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by MJW on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 06:42:26 PM EST

A school district can release the records without a nondisclosure order, but only if the district has first notified the parents in sufficient time to enable them to challenge the subpoena.

That's correct, but I don't think that's what you originally said. You said the judge had to enter the nondisclosure order, period, not that she had to enter it or notify the Martin family so they could object. When the defense asked the judge to issue the subpoena, they provided a copy of the motion to the Martins' attorney, Crump, so the Martin family was already notified. I think the reason the judge required nondisclosure had a lot more to do with Florida's privacy requirements for school records than with the possibility the Martrins could successfully challenge the subpoena.


: Good catch (none / 0) (#37)
by Michael Masinter on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 01:09:17 PM EST

I wrote the initial post in haste, and should have been much clearer. Thanks, MJW, for the good eyes.

Hi There (none / 0) (#15)
by bmaz on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 03:46:50 AM EST

Are you replying to anything posted on this blog, much less this individual post, or just spewing general...well...spew?

What Makes Social Media Special? (none / 0) (#18)
by RickyJim on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 10:36:46 AM EST

Please explain the difference between discovery of social media material and that say of the school records. Both may have information about Trayvon's propensity for violence.

Anybody who has followed this case has been exposed to material that it is claimed come from Martin's tweets, facebook, youtube videos, etc. If the original media is no longer in the possession of the companies, it is possible that copies made by other people will make it into evidence?

Trayvon Martin's social media accounts (none / 0) (#31)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:34:01 AM EST

Quite a while back the New York Times blog had a useful article:

Bloggers Cherry-Pick From Social Media to Cast Trayvon Martin as a Menace by Robert Mackey.

My question would ,does Facebook keep any update logs? I hope someone in there or prosecution at one point realized that this might become relevant one day.


: My question would be, (none / 0) (#32)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:37:25 AM EST

sorry I deleted something, obviously slightly too much.

Physically larger? (none / 0) (#26)
by unitron on Sat Oct 20, 2012 at 02:01:16 PM EST

Martin, 3 inches taller.

Zimmerman, nearly 50 pounds heavier.

Sort of a toss-up.

Zimmerman was NOT 50 lbs. heavier than TM. (none / 0) (#35)
by deanno on Mon Oct 22, 2012 at 08:58:41 AM EST

GZ is around 5'7" tall and the post mortem listed TM as 5'11. BUT TM's own family told CBS News that TM was 6' 2"--and he sure looks in pics I've seen.

I think it's obvious that TM got "peeved" at the idea that some strange guy was talking on the phone about him and then doubled back to investigate who he was and why was he talking about him.

It's also obvious from DeeDee's interview with BDLR that TM had ample time to return to the safety of his destination "he is right by his father (sic) house" and chose not to.

: You're right - he was 46 pounds heavier (none / 0) (#40)
by Yman on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 09:14:46 AM EST

Zimmerman weighed 204 pounds the day after the shooting. Martin weighed 158 pounds, as indicated in the autopsy results. He was also 5'11" according to the medical examiner, despite whatever photos you may have seen.

: Better Evidence (none / 0) (#42)
by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 02:41:55 PM EST

It's also obvious from DeeDee's interview with BDLR that TM had ample time to return to the safety of his destination
We don't have to rely on Dee Dee's dubious statements for that. It has long been established, from the known distances, Zimmerman's police call, and the 911 calls.