home

Zimmerman Open Thread

Just Zimmerman here.

Update: Please familiarize yourself with TalkLeft's commenting rules on this case before commenting.

Update: (Jeralyn): I extended my trip for a few days. I'm now in Telluride and have not been online -- not even to read email. This morning I opened my e-mail and there was one from the State's Attorney saying the Witness 9 calls and jail calls were available and additional money had to be in their office by Weds. Since I was not expecting another payment so soon, I did not bring either my fedex account info or a business check with me. Nonetheless, I made it to a bank to get a money order (they don't take personal checks) and to Fedex.

I listened to 2 minutes of the cousin's calls (added: and having previously heard her 2/28 interview) didn't believe a word she said. She was tentative and her tears sounded phoney. That of course, is just my opinion. I'm pretty surprised Judge Lester ordered their release.[More]

Also today, Judge Lester filed Mark O'Mara's May 18 letter describing the status of the funds. I surmise (but could be wrong) he's preparing to exit the case, and wanted to make sure that everything in his file is part of the court file. O'Mara hadn't filed the bank account details as a pleading, but as correspondence. Since it was sent to the judge personally, it wasn't part of the public record.

If you use our forums, please don't quote the comments you find objectionable. If I delete a comment as objectionable when I get back, I will also have to delete your reply. Just post the commenter's name and your response. I'll figure it out.

Remember that character attacks on Zimmerman or Trayvon are not allowed here or on the forums.

I'm not sure when I will be back posting. It could be a few days since I'm busy doing outdoor things. Thanks to BTD for putting up this thread.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    State's Response to Defendant's Amended Motion (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Tamta on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:07:43 PM EST
    to Reconsider.
    here

    Thanks for posting that (none / 0) (#60)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:27:51 PM EST
    I think everyone should note this statement on page 2:

    The State still believes W9's second statement should not be released at this time because of the potential prejudice to Defendant.

    So it appears that the prosecution agreed with the defense that the statement should not be publicly disclosed -- and Lester's decision was thus essentially made over objection from both sides.

    Parent

    Expy, is the State, or either side for that fact, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Tamta on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:34:11 PM EST
    required to release all statements from a witness to be able to use other statements that they deem as more relevant?

    If the State did not find her statements of sexual contact with GZ relevant to the Murder 2 case, why did they add it to discovery?

    Parent

    Yes, generally (none / 0) (#64)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:18:54 PM EST
    At least where I practice, the standard discovery orders have always included "all" statements of any witnesses that the prosecution may offer.

    Florida seems to have very broad discovery in any case. They seem to be going by an "open file" discovery rule, which means that the prosecution is simply giving the defense everything it has that could possibly be deemed relevant.  So by that rule... if they have the statement in their file, they are going to release it.

    But it would definitely be inappropriate to offer the witness at trial without having disclosed any and all recorded statements that exist of that witness.  (By "recorded" I don't mean tape-recorded, I mean all for which any sort of record exists, whether on tape or by a written statement or written notes made of such a statement.)

    Parent

    the media argued for its (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    release under public records laws.

    Parent
    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    Also today, Judge Lester filed Mark O'Mara's May 18 letter describing the status of the funds. I surmise (but could be wrong) he's preparing to exit the case, and wanted to make sure that everything in his file is part of the court file. O'Mara hadn't filed the bank account details as a pleading, but as correspondence. Since it was sent to the judge personally, it wasn't part of the public record.


    First, ... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    First, whatever is "sexual abuse" between kids?

    It's sexual abuse.  The alleged abuse occurred up until she was 16 and he was 18, not merely when they were 6 and 8.

    Second, has she been watching way too much of the Sandusky case and by being in some sort of jealous state over the attention her cousin (GZ) has received, thrives for the same in this way?

    Accusing her of lying because you think she is jealous over the attention Zimmerman is getting (heh) with absolutely no evidence or basis in fact is ridiculous.


    Third, given that her parents are involved, where is Matt Gutman now, when we need most, to give us the scoop for what they say about this?

    She hasn't spoken about this publicly and (presumably) her parents don't want to do so either.  Whatever bone you have to pick with Gutman has nothing to do with this allegation.

    Fourth, I personally have trouble thinking that Witness #9 is nothing short of deranged. I really find ironic so many commenters here seemingly unquestionably give her pathetic statements so much credibility.

    Jeralyn has already admonished people to refrain from making speculative assumptions or character attacks on the victims of sexual abuse:

    But the rules do not allow character attacks. And speculative assumptions about victims of sexual assault are neither relevant, helpful or appropriate. (so don't bother stating something like if W-9 were really the victim of a sexual assault, she would have done or not done X.)

    I personally did not believe W-9  listening to the interview. To my ear, it sounded phony. But that's a matter of opinion. That is fair opinion. What is not allowed is calling her unstable, crazy, vengeful or some other form of character attack.



    HLN reports.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    ... this morning that Witness #9's parents have declined comment.

    PS -

    I raise legitimate points to be seriously questioned, by someone, and to watch be answered in subtle ways, somewhere else. Lets not not bury our heads in the sand because it might be seen taboo to suggest "per some rules."

    As O'Mara stated on HLN this morning, it requires them to expend resources that they should not have to be expend ...for reason of Lester's opinion.  It is no more than news media fodder. I see this release as a not so sublte political attack (again) on Zimmerman by the Court. (Is Lester this far out of touch?) Again, Lester could have shown greater wisdom and done it differently, but he chose the way that garners the most nearterm publicity. Differently, as in keeping it from being released and let the networks appeal it if they chose to do so. That clearly would have shift the blame on the news media for being the ones having bad form...in the end.

    I suggest continue goolging "Witness #9 psychology" and my "character attack" might soon enough be seen having merit.

    As for "abuse" in the legal sense (now going abused as did the sense for the judicial process), isn't it assumed to only occur when someone has power over another, as in involving an adult (one over 18), and a child? So because the "victim" used the term, improperly, it goes drummed up and repeated as having happened without question! Occurring between children two years apart and by one who might not, at all times over the ten year period (we are to assume) of occurrence, always have had the size advantage, borders on preposterous meriting serious challenge.

    Parent

    No one is "burying heads" (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    It's just that these silly, baseless, evidence-free accusations made against W-9 and Lester are specifically prohibited by the comment rules, and for good reason.  Suggesting W9 is crazy or is making these claims because of psychological problems is just a scurrilous character attack.  The fact that you can find others making the same attacks on the internet is not evidence.

    BTW - By definition, sexual abuse covers instances where the victim is a child and the perpetrator is an adult, but it also includes the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another regardless of age.  There needn't be a size or age difference for sexual abuse to occur.

    Parent

    More like Open Season on Zimmerman Thread (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    When the cats away...

    Enjoy your schadenfreude while it lasts.

    I noticed no anti-Zimmerman comment per se (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    and to the degree they are not permitted, I am not aware of that policy.

    I thought the policy was no proclamations of guilt or speculation by either side.

    I admit to not paying much attention though.

    Parent

    Why did you create this thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    at this particular point in time, when Jeralyn specifically created a whole other forum for this purpose?

    Parent
    Because Zimmerman comments (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    were appearing in my other open thread.

    I thought that was pretty clear.

    I'm more than happy to delete this.

    Anyone else prefer deletion? But remember no Zimmerman comments anywhere else.

    Parent

    Please DO NOT delete (none / 0) (#57)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:18:05 PM EST
    The forum is not a particularly useful place for many of us.   I haven't been over there today but Anne's "ugly" comment tells me all I need to know.

    If you are concerned about the type of posts here, just add some guidelines to your post at the top.  That is, figure out a short list of DON'T's and post them.  

    Parent

    no deletion (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    please

    Parent
    it's an appropriate thread (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    because I said when starting the forums I would still post threads on Zimmerman here when there is news in the case. Today is such a day, and thank you BTD for putting up this post.

    Parent
    General Rules (none / 0) (#33)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    No stating speculation as fact

    No speculation that is counter to evidence

    No misstatement of legal principle (as true)

    No remarks about Martin's character or past

    There is plenty of room to play state's advocate, within those limits.

    Parent

    I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    But the no "misstating of legal principles" rule is murky at best in that many people disagree on what the applicable legal principles might be and what they exactly mean.

    Parent
    Murky is okay (none / 0) (#39)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    What I've seen Jearlyn delete are statements expressed as "fact", that are false.  For example, "At trial, Zimmerman has to prove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

    I know she lets stand debate about whether or not the law has been properly applied (in an opinion and order); and questions about which laws/rules apply, etc.

    Parent

    some people post (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:26:19 PM EST
    clearly erroneous legal statements. Those are deleted. Debate about the legal principles is welcome, Florida law is unusual in several respects.

    Parent
    No speculation that is counter to evidence... (none / 0) (#40)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    ...of course that still leaves room to argue about what is and isn't evidence.

    Over on the forum they're arguing that Zimmerman's statements are evidence (and apparently supposed to be given as much credence as actual undisputed evidence, like the shooting happened after sundown on the east side of the neighborhood).


    Parent

    Evidence for the purposes (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    of what is appropriate for discussion means matters brought up by one of the parties or released in discovery as well as that admitted at a hearing or filed in a court pleading. It excludes what people have read elsewhere that neither party has indicated will be part of the case -- such as Trayvon's twitter page or anything else that is a character attack.

    It's spelled out in the comment rules on the case and in past threads.

    Parent

    A portion of... (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    ...Witness #9 audio was aired on Local Central Florida Channel 13 (Continuous) News early yesterday afternoon.  The newscaster switched to the lawyer consultant who said "all hands" (my words) including producers were reviewing the material made available.  There was no hint for a "molestation" then. Maybe this was a hint of the upcoming bombshell and even if it should be aired, or not, for liability reasons.  I knew no more before seeing the "out of context" comments here at about midnight after missing the eleven o'clock Orlando WKMG local news.  

    The aprox 1 min snippet aired on Channel 13 early concerning Zimmerman "family racism" was odd enough to be taken seriously. So why not the rest later?  Witness #9 was earlier heard saying somthing about knowing the Zimmerman's all her life and that GZ's mother once said she was a "racist" and that the Zimmermans when she was growing up would talk about not having a problem with blacks so long as they acted like whites. These are things that people do not typically remember as ever being so serious they are repeated 15-20 years later to suggest people might be racist.  Certainly they are things that as a person matures should be seen in a different light than the way remmebered as heard. After all, GZ's mother being an immigrant from Peru, she would have a different manner of expression and really might be seen to have been naive in her English words at times, she possibly was even being facetious.

    Some people just do not get humor, and George is one of those, so why not his cousin, too? What does "night watchman" GZ remember when taken on a SPD patrol?  He remembered being shown where the cop took his naps! Saying later how disgusting that was to him. Likely, the cop saw how serious GZ took himself, and was likely just messin' with GZ's head! Then there are those that take derogatory speak heard from whites about blacks to be racist, but the same expressed by blacks about other blacks, would never be taken this way. Personally, having had a foriegn born wife whose native langiage was not English, I would place Witness #9 assessments in the catetgory of being too easily not fully understood.

    Facetious was my thought also (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    After all, GZ's mother being an immigrant from Peru, she would have a different manner of expression and really might be seen to have been naive in her English words at times, she possibly was even being facetious.

    Particularly if W9 was known to criticize the mother with observations like

    'You only like black people when they act white'

    Parent

    oculus (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    I gave you a 5 on your following the law comment that subsequently went the way of the Zimmerman posts on the other thread.  All I can think of when folks complain about the State Attorney's Office following the rules are:

    "Rules, we don't need no stinkin rules" (unless they benefit me)

    You missed my reply (none / 0) (#5)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    There is no duty to produce irrelevant material in discovery.

    The state had no duty to present W9's unwelcome sexual encounter interview to a murder defendant.

    Parent

    Who decides it's irrelevant? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    And when?

    Are you seriously telling us you want the state - or the defense - independently determining what is and isn't relevant?

    Parent

    What's the alternative? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    The state (or the parties) decides relevance in the first place.  If it's a close call, they produce.  The law inclines the state to be more generous about providing exculpatory material, FWIW, because of the Brady rule - but that's aside from the question of relevance in general.

    I don't find W9's statement about unwelcome sexual contact to be a close call as far as relevance to the murder case goes.  I'd have respected her request for privacy on that matter.  Perhaps you disagree, and see her unwelcome sexual contact statement as relevant to the murder case, I don't know.

    As far as making a relevancy determination independently, the state (and the defense) do that now, every day.  Somebody decides whether or not each piece of evidence they are handling has any bearing on the case.  If somebody calls the police and says they got food poisoning (or the best BBQ ribs ever) at a Zimmerman cookout, do you think the state has a duty to produce that to Zimmerman, defendant in a murder case?

    Does Zimmerman "have to" or get to produce all of his homework, report cards, gold stars, Boy Scout badges, attaboys, etc. etc. etc., because he thinks they show him as having good character?  Does he not independently decide what evidence is relevant to his defense?

    Anyway, the Discovery rule doesn't call for the production of irrelevant material.

    Parent

    Have you worked as a prosecutor? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    Ever had the judge repeatedly intone "Brady v. Maryland," Brady v. Maryland"?

    Parent
    Isn't Brady material generally (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    either favorable to the defendant and/or exculpatory in nature?


    Parent
    Relevant to witness credibility (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    It potentially falls under Brady because it undermines the credibility of W9's previously disclosed statement claiming that Z. is a racist (or whatever she said).

    You have to kind of fast-forward in time and imagine a hypothetical scenario in which she is called as a rebuttal witness by the prosecution; Zimmerman is convicted and then there is an appeal based on undisclosed information about the witness.

    The issue really isn't disclosure -- in my mind it isn't even a close call whether this statement should be given to the defense -- obviously the defense would want to have it, even if isn't Brady.

    The issue is Florida's sunshine law and the apparent lack of protection against release of clearly prejudicial information. O'Mara needs to have this info.   The blogosphere doesn't.

    Parent

    How does it undermine her credibility? (none / 0) (#78)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:47:36 PM EST
    I can see where not disclosing everything she said might get dragged up during an appeal, but now that it's all out there, how does it undermine what she said the first time she called?

    If the sex part is true, that makes her not impartial about him, so the racist part is probably made up just to get back at him, or something like that?

    Parent

    It shows bias & a motive to lie (none / 0) (#81)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 08:21:29 PM EST
    Anything about the relationship a witness has or had with the defendant, good or bad, might be relevant to undermining their story on the witness stand.

    I realize that if the prosecution doesn't bring this up, there's a huge pitfall for the defense to open that door -- but certainly the defense lawyer is entitled to know about the statement and allegation.

    Keep in mind that if the allegations are false, it could also be portrayed, on cross-examination, as a long-term history of making false allegations against the defendant. A skillful cross-examination could simply portray her as a habitual liar who has always disliked and lied about her cousin.  

    I mean, imagine she is brought in and testifies about George being racist & confrontational.

    Then picture O'Mara standing up and, as his first question, saying, "This isn't the first time you've lied about your cousin George, is it?"  (I could spell out where it goes from there... but I think you get the picture).  

    Whether her claims are true or not is not really relevant at that point-- if the lawyer starts off by calling her a liar, it only gets worse. In that setting, it doesn't matter that she denies lying -- the lawyers insinuation and tone of voice would get the message across. In that setting, the more outrageous (and potentially prejudicial) the statement, the more it looks suspect.    

    Parent

    You and I may think that. But the judge (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    doesn't necessarily agree.  Better to just dump everything on the defense and let them figure it out.  

    Parent
    So, apply that (none / 0) (#20)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    Apply the Brady rule to W9's statement relating to unwelcome sexual encounters, and ...

    Oh, wait, it doesn't apply, because W9's statement relating to unwelcome sexual encounters, if it is relevant, isn't exculpatory.

    Occulus, first things first.  Explain the relevance of W9's unwelcome sexual encounter statement, to the state's murder charge against Zimmerman.

    Parent

    In my opinion, it is relevant because (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    the Sanford P.D. decided to interview her.  The prosecution would be accused of cover up if they failed to provide this information to the defense but it somehow later came into evidence as refuting evidence of Zimmerman's good character, for example.  Zimmerman testifies, I've never hurt a flea.  

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    In a previously disclosed statement, W9 made comments adverse to Zimmerman (that he was racist, etc.).  She thus has a status as a potential negative character witness. The prosecutor could not use her in their case in chief, but they could use her as a rebuttal witness in the event that the defendant opts to open the door by putting on a character-base defense.  

    As discovery, the prior relationship and allegations establish a motive for W9 to lie about Zimmerman -- as it shows her bias against him, it would be absolutely necessary to be disclosed to the defense.  I know that to most it just seems inflammatory and negative to Zimmerman.... but the bottom line is that it also undermines the credibility of any testimony she might offer.

    I'd also note that Florida apparently follows a practice of "open file" discovery -- meaning that the prosecution appears to be simply giving the defense everything they have in their files.  If they are following that practice, then there is no room for cherry-picking.   ("We didn't think it the defense would want to know" is not going to make it on appeal).

    I'd note that I do agree that this report should not have been released to the public and, for me, it casts O'Mara's motion to disqualify the Judge in a new light.  I just don't see how any judge would fail to see the potentially prejudicial impact of this, so ordering the release over O'Mara's objection seems spiteful.  

    But I think that's just an illustration of the bigger problem with Florida's sunshine laws.  I think far too much information is released publicly and there really is no way to avoid prejudicing a defendant when so much investigatory information is released to the public, especially given that much will be inadmissible at trial.

    I think Florida would do better if the law provided for release of that information only at the conclusion of a trial, at the point at which a judgment or dismissal became final.  Just my opinion.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#118)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:59:36 AM EST
    I think that is exactly right, including the part about Lester's bias. It is hard to imagine there being a better example of where discretion militates in favor of protective order against public disclosure.

    Parent
    Sorry, BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    Posted something re: Zimmerman on the other thread.  Just saw the title and didn't see your statement - "No Zimmerman, please".

    snuffed (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    like a candle in the wind

    Is The Remedy for the Outrage? (none / 0) (#24)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    Repeal the "Sunshine Laws".  Or at least amend them to only allow only the release of material that can reasonable be considered relevant for the forthcoming trial?  Somebody explain why the public is better off knowing the evidence before the trial.

    See above (none / 0) (#26)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    According to oculus, the statement is relevant, because the state may use it to impeach testimony that Zimmerman is of good character.

    Parent
    That would be a nifty trick (none / 0) (#63)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    Since witness 9 categorizes the family, makes a ( rather remarkable) observation about the mother   but can't recall any derogatory observations about George himself.

    I could perhaps see her as a rebuttal witness if the family was being charged with conspiracy.

    Does anyone think the state would produce her as (evidently)their star rebuttal witness concerning Zimmermans character?

    Parent

    I doubt that was the purpose (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:35:05 PM EST
    To me, there is a difference between (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    "relevance" and whether the prosecutor should err on the side of turning something over or not.  

    Parent
    it's the witness not the particular statement (none / 0) (#77)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:30:53 PM EST
    W9 is a witness known to the prosecution who has given statements impugning the defendant's character.

    The prosecution can't initiate the introduction of such evidence, but it could be relevant in response to or to rebut testimony offered by the defense.

    It is unlikely that the prosecution would want to introduce the alleged molestation charge, but as noted already, they are obligated to provide all statement that they have available from any given witness.

    I seriously doubt they would use witness #9 in any case -- seems like a can of worms they would never want to get into -- but it would be a mistake to withhold that from discovery based on current plans.  Things could change down the line & the prosecution wouldn't want to set itself up to be precluded from using a witness because it hadn't made a timely disclosure. This is an overall policy concern, not this specific case - I am sure the prosecutor has its own internal standards and procedure manual about discovery compliance.

    Parent

    Regardless of the statement (none / 0) (#79)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:54:04 PM EST
    I hadn't viewed her remarks in the light you suggest, and thank you for the insight.  The bottom line is that all of what she says is potentially relevant, depending on how it is used.

    In other words, there is no question about relevancy.  The questions are all about whether she's called for tactical reasons (if Zimmerman offers positive character witnesses, does the state offer W9 in rebuttal?); and then, how counsel decide to examine and cross examine her.

    I think this can of worms can fairly be laid at W9's own feet.  She volunteered contact with investigators, and she volunteered more than one reason why she finds Zimmerman to be a skunk.  While my first reaction was to assign some blame to the state for calling the allegations of unwelcome sexual contact "discovery," you've persuaded me otherwise.  The state's hands are tied - it's all discoverable.

    I also agree that it would be unwise to try to predict, pretrial, whether or not (let alone how) a witness might be used at trial.  If the witness has relevant observations (unlike my example of a call about getting food poising at a Zimmerman BBQ), then EVERYTHING they say is in the discovery bucket.  It'll sort out later.

    Parent

    Tactics (none / 0) (#83)
    by expy on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    (if Zimmerman offers positive character witnesses, does the state offer W9 in rebuttal?)

    Exactly.

    And if W9 was the only rebuttal witness, then the prosecution call her despite all the possible pitfalls.

    But the issue in this case isn't going to be racism, it's going to be propensity for confrontation. And the prosecution's got better witnesses for rebuttal on that front, starting with the police officer who had the run in with Zimmerman years ago when he was trying to enforce state laws against underage drinking.
    adult?

    Parent

    Character evidence (none / 0) (#88)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:58:13 AM EST
    I don't believe the officer could testify to rebut Zimmerman's character witnesses.  Character witnesses could be asked if they were aware of the bar incident; supposedly not to put the incident in front of the jury, but instead to show how well the witnesses actually know Zimmerman's character.  The state, though, cannot use evidence of specific acts to rebut character testimony.

    Cornelius v. State:

    We hold that a witness who has testified as to general reputation or character may on cross examination be interrogated as to whether he had ever known or heard of specific acts of violence committed by the accused because the true purpose of such cross examination is to enlighten the jury as to whether the witness actually -- as a matter of fact -- knows the general reputation of the defendant and to place the jury in a better position to pass upon the credibility of the witness' testimony.

    It is further contended by the appellant that the trial Judge erred in allowing rebuttal evidence of specific acts of violence or turbulence after the defendant had placed in issue his general reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. This contention appears to be well taken but it does not follow that the error was harmful or prejudicial. The general rule is as stated in 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 436, p. 68, "As a general rule, specific acts, whether of good conduct or bad conduct, cannot be shown in rebuttal of evidence as to character."



    Parent
    You might want to check more recent (none / 0) (#96)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:01:33 AM EST
    case law.  Cornelius is a 1950 case, apparently decided on common law evidence standards, probably before the enactment of the Florida evidence code.  You'll want to look for cases decided under Section 90.404

    For example, look at Williams v. State (1959) and Bryan v. Florida (1988)

    I'm not in a position to research Florida law so I really don't know what comes in or not, if the defense opens the door to character evidence. I don't think that will actually happen, as I doubt that the defense lawyer would be stupid enough to fling that door open.

    If "specific acts" can't come in, that wouldn't preclude someone with knowledge of the bar incident from being called in purportedly to offer reputation or opinion evidence.

    My experience as a trial lawyer is that all sorts of stuff that shouldn't be admitted ends up getting in -- which is why an attorney would be wary of creating an opportunity for his client's character to be put on trial.  

    If you read the rather lengthy discussion in the above two cases, I think that it confirms my anecdotal experience. It seems to me that those cases spend a long time talking about why evidence that technically shouldn't come in, can come in.  I interpret the meandering discussion to pretty much mean that "relevancy" is more often the deciding factor.

    Parent

    You might want to read those cases (none / 0) (#169)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    Willaims v. State is a fundamental case which established the "Williams rule," now codified as section 90.404(2)(a):
    Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.

    What material fact regarding the 2nd degree murder charge is established by a bar fight with an undercover officer?  The only possible reason for introducing it in evidence is to try to prove bad character or propensity.

    As far as the age of Cornelius, it may be old, but it's still good law.

    DeFreitas v. State, 701 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997):

    It is thus difficult to understand how the state can claim that defendant opened the door when it was the prosecutor who asked the series of impermissible questions concerning prior acts of misconduct on cross-examination. See Weitz v. State, 510 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Renney v. State, 543 So.2d 420 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Dixon v. State, 426 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); cf. Bozeman v. State, 698 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Moreover, even when a defendant places a character trait in issue, it is erroneous for the state to rebut this evidence with specific acts of misconduct. See Dupont v. State, 556 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citing Cornelius v. State, 49 So.2d 332, 335 (Fla.1950)); Weitz, 510 So.2d at 1061.

    See also Wilson v. State, 72 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

    If "specific acts" can't come in, that wouldn't preclude someone with knowledge of the bar incident from being called in purportedly to offer reputation or opinion evidence.

    As I explained more fully another comment, only testimony about the person's reputation in the community is generally admissible to establish or rebut character.  An undercover officer who only met Zimmerman long enough to scuffle with him is not competent to testify to his reputation in the community.

    Dean v. State:

    There are a number of problems apparent in Detective Eld's testimony. First, there is no evidence that he is a member of the relevant community such that he would have the requisite knowledge of the community opinion regarding Mr. Bellot's reputation for violence. If the State wished to prove the victim's reputation for peacefulness, then it should have called Mr. Bellot's neighbors or other qualified persons within the community. Stripling v. State, 349 So.2d 187, 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1220 (Fla.1978).


    Parent
    Furthermore (none / 0) (#92)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:40:06 AM EST
    If Zimmernan testifies to his good character, I don't believe the prosecutor could bring up the bar arrest.

    Dixon v. State:

    The admission of evidence of an accused's prior arrests is ordinarily deemed so prejudicial that it automatically requires reversal of his conviction. Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1976). Here, the court permitted this line of inquiry upon the theory that when the defendant made the statement quoted above he put his character in issue, and as a consequence, the state was permitted to ask about prior arrests. This was a misapplication of Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which holds that the state may cross-examine a defendant's character witness by asking whether he knew of an existing felony charge pending against the defendant. Such a question is pertinent because the character witness's lack of knowledge of a prior arrest may affect his opinion concerning the defendant's reputation. Greenfield v. State, 336 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The same reasoning does not apply to the instant case because the defendant obviously knew about his prior arrests.


    Parent
    You confused it. The witness (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:48:00 AM EST
    Testifying to defendant's good reputation could be asked by the prosecutor on cross-examination if the witness was aware of X,y, and Z when the witness formed that opinion.  

    Parent
    I'm the one who's confused? (none / 0) (#95)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:59:15 AM EST
    I said:
    Character witnesses could be asked if they were aware of the bar incident; supposedly not to put the incident in front of the jury, but instead to show how well the witnesses actually know Zimmerman's character.

    Which is pretty much exactly what you just said when "correcting" me.

    Parent

    This caught my eye: (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:07:25 AM EST
    "The same reasoning does not apply to the instant case because the defendant obviously knew about his prior arrests."

    Parent
    That was my (and the court's) point (none / 0) (#100)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:15:02 AM EST
    As the court properly found, if the purpose of asking about prior arrests is to establish whether the witness knows enough about the defendant to properly form an opinion, then it makes no sense to ask the defendant about his own arrests, of which he is undoubtedly aware.  Therefore, even if Zimmerman opens the door on character evidence, the state can't cross examine him about the bar arrest.

    Parent
    He would be able to ask about the incident (none / 0) (#99)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:08:59 AM EST
    without referencing an "arrest".

    The defendant can't testify about his own character in any case-- that would have to come from other witnesses.   All he could do would be to make some broad assertion, and that's where specific facts could clearly be brought up on cross-examination.

    That is, if the defendant said, "I've never started a fight with anyone." -- then on cross, the prosecution could clearly ask about any specific incident that rebuts the "never" part.

    But again... I can't imagine a competent lawyer allowing that door to be opened.  

    Zimmerman's obviously got something of a rough past -- for example, his MySpace entries about the knife fights suggest that he's been in situations where things got physical before. It's just not a door that can imagining a defense lawyer ever wanting to open.  

    Parent

    Which might implode the defense case (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:16:04 AM EST
    if defendant even testifies, as client control seems shaky.

    Parent
    Do you have a cite? (none / 0) (#102)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:21:57 AM EST
    Cornelius v. State redux:
    It is further contended by the appellant that the trial Judge erred in allowing rebuttal evidence of specific acts of violence or turbulence after the defendant had placed in issue his general reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. This contention appears to be well taken but it does not follow that the error was harmful or prejudicial. The general rule is as stated in 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 436, p. 68, "As a general rule, specific acts, whether of good conduct or bad conduct, cannot be shown in rebuttal of evidence as to character."

    It says "specific acts of violence or turbulence," not arrests.

    Parent

    It depends on defendant's (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:26:59 AM EST
    testimony.

    Parent
    Yes, if he said that... (none / 0) (#104)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:34:06 AM EST
    That is, if the defendant said, "I've never started a fight with anyone." -- then on cross, the prosecution could clearly ask about any specific incident that rebuts the "never" part.

    That's obviously a specific factual claim not simply an assertion of "a general reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen."  It's  hard to imagine Zimmerman would make such a bold, absolute claim.  How would it come about?  Would O'Mara ask a question that might elicit that response?

    Parent

    But my point is (none / 0) (#108)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:49:07 AM EST
    Zimmerman could not offer testimony of his own character.

    If the defense tried to introduce positive character evidence, it would be through the testimony of another witness.  For example, a friend or family member who would testify that they know George, and in their opinion he is a peace-loving guy who would never initiate a confrontation with anyone.

    On cross-examination, that witness is then asked whether they know about the bar incident.  

    Then the prosecution in rebuttal could introduce witnesses to testify that Zimmerman is a short-tempered, confrontational guy.   They call one of the officer or agents from the bar incident. "Do you know GZ? Yes. Do you have an opinion as to his character for violence? Yes. Do you have facts to base that opinion on? Yes, I am basing that on my own observation and also what other people have told me.  What is that opinion?"  

    Again, this is the last thing any competent defense attorney would allow. The prosecution can ONLY introduce rebuttal evidence on character if the defendant opens the door, and it would be utter insanity to open the door to others "opinions" on a guy with a prior arrest for assaulting a police officer, a past domestic restraining order, a history of being ordered to attend anger management classes, a former co-worker who claims he is a bully, and an apparent diagnosis of ADHD ... not to mention the cousin with the molestation story. Why go there?

    Why open the door to the one type of evidence that allows lay people to report hearsay ("reputation") and offer up their "opinions"?  

    Obviously there are some people in GZ's past who dislike him and are probably willing to show up to court and say bad things about him. For strategic purposes, it doesn't matter whether their testimony is accurate or not -- it's damaging for the jury to hear it.  And  not a single one of them can testify to anything,  unless GZ's lawyer decides to put on GZ's friends and family to first testify as to what a great guy he is ... which is not the sort of thing would sway a jury in any case.  

    Parent

    Reputation, reputation, reputation (none / 0) (#159)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    Then the prosecution in rebuttal could introduce witnesses to testify that Zimmerman is a short-tempered, confrontational guy.   They call one of the officer or agents from the bar incident. "Do you know GZ? Yes. Do you have an opinion as to his character for violence? Yes. Do you have facts to base that opinion on? Yes, I am basing that on my own observation and also what other people have told me.  What is that opinion?"

    That may sound sensible, but in Florida, it doesn't fly.  As I've already pointed out, specific acts cannot be used to prove or rebut character. Generally, character testimony is limited to the witness's assessment of the person's reputation within the community.

    Hawthorne v. State (quoting Nelson v. State):

    When character for peacefulness or turbulence is put in issue in such cases, the general rule is that the proof thereof must be made by evidence of the general reputation of the party in the community for such character, and not by evidence of specific acts or conduct on particular occasions.

    Also, Dupont v. State:

    Section 90.609, Florida Statutes (1987), specifically requires that impeachment of a witness' credibility be by "evidence in the form of reputation," and that the evidence only refer to the witness' "character relating to truthfulness." Evidence of a defendant's pertinent character trait is inadmissible unless offered by the defendant. § 90.404(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987). From our review of the record, we conclude that appellant did not put his character trait for violence in issue. Even if he had, opinion testimony is the recognized method of proving character, section 90.405(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and error occurs when the prosecution is allowed to introduce rebuttal evidence of specific acts of violence or turbulence where the defendant only places his or her general reputation for being a peaceful person in issue. Cornelius v. State, 49 So.2d 332, 335 (Fla. 1950).


    Parent
    The case you cite (none / 0) (#164)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    has this quote:
    Even if he had, opinion testimony is the recognized method of proving character

    I provided a specific example of how opinion testimony could be elicited in rebuttal.  Note that my example did not involve any direct questions about specific instances of conduct.

    Presumably the officers involved in the earlier incident were capable of forming an opinion.  

    Parent

    Opinion of reputation (none / 0) (#170)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    Only the witness's opinion of the person's reputation in the community is allowed.  The undercover officer has no basis for such an opinion.

    Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011):

    Additionally, Farmer presented his testimony with regard to Mullins' allegedly violent nature in terms of his own opinion and generalized personal experiences, which is not a proper method to establish character or reputation evidence in Florida. See, e.g., Wyatt v. State, 578 So.2d 811, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that section 90.405, Florida Statutes, "specifically limits the introduction of character evidence to reputation. . . [and] does not permit evidence of character to be made by opinion" (citations omitted)).

    Thus, Farmer's testimony concerning Mullins appears to be based on "mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor," which this Court has stated is insufficient to satisfy section 90.405(1)'s admissibility predicate. Rogers, 511 So.2d at 526; see also Ibar v. State, 938 So.2d 451, 469 (Fla.2006) ("As a predicate to the introduction of . . . reputation evidence, . . . section 90.405, Florida Statutes (1999), requires the witness to be aware of the person's general reputation in the community and that the community must be sufficiently broad to provide adequate knowledge and a reliable assessment.").

    (Emphasis in original).

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#171)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:54:13 PM EST
    I'm talking trial strategy (none / 0) (#174)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:37:53 PM EST
    and you are talking appeals.

    I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

    Every single case you cite is some instance where evidence came in at trial, a person was convicted and sent to jail, and then argued on appeal that the evidence was improper.

    I think that in many, perhaps most, of the cases where the appeals court found the admission of evidence to be erroneous, they also found the error to be harmless and sustained the conviction.  

    The whole "specific instances of conduct" thing is    an area where prosecutors keep on pushing to get every conceivable prior bad act in front of the jury, and defense attorneys persist on objecting .. but stuff gets in.  

    To look at appellate rulings and decide that particular evidence won't be allowed is akin to looking at the road signs on a highway, and concluding that if the posted speed limit is 50 mph, no one could possibly be driving any faster.

    But like the highway, trial courts are an environment where the rules are consistently bent.   Evidence that might not be admissible under one rationale ends up coming in under another.

    It's dangerous territory in any case for a lawyer to allow his client's "character" to become part of the trial.  

    As to the "reputation" issue, it seems to me that GZ is someone who multiple previous contacts with the local police in his community, including the frequent calls he made to report various activity in his neighborhood, and participating in a ride-along, and it is not at all far fetched that there are police officers who do in fact know his "reputation". How do you define "community" in the 21st century, anyway?

    Parent

    Police as character witnesses (none / 0) (#178)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:08:41 PM EST
    Dean v. State:
    Finally, it is generally inappropriate for one who is a detective and who gains his knowledge of a person's reputation solely through his official position to be allowed to testify in this respect. See Parker v. State, 458 So.2d 750, 753-54 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1855, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Garcia v. Konckier, 771 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Young v. State, 598 So.2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Wolack v. State, 464 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 476 So.2d 676 (Fla.1985); Stripling; see also State v. Johnson, 540 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

    In any event, the question isn't whether some police officer working for SPD could testify to Zimmerman's character; it's whether the undercover cops he scuffled with at the bar could testify.

    Parent
    Character testimony from strangers (none / 0) (#168)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    Do you know Zimmerman?  Yes.

    One encounter, and you "know" the defendant?  The cop who wrote the assault complaint "knows" Zimmerman?  I doubt it.

    Your formula gets to the same place (the arresting officer doesn't "know" Zimmerman in a way that permits him to have an opinion on Zimmerman's character) by requiring the testimony to be in the nature of how the person is known within the community, rather than on a specific incident.


    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#107)
    by spectator on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 04:10:06 AM EST
    Zimmerman's obviously got something of a rough past

    you've got to be kidding me.

    Parent

    What "knife fights"? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Gandydancer on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 06:12:12 AM EST
    Do you have info on this from some other source than Myspace? Z complains of Mexicans pulling knives, but that's not the same as being involved in "knife fights".

    Parent
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#166)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    the prosecutor would love to ask Mr. Zimmerman that very question on the witness stand in front of a jury.

    My point is that it is party admission (GZ's words posted online) & would be something that could be brought up on cross-examination if the defense opened that door.

    A defense attorney isn't worried about whether potentially damaging information or evidence against the client is true;  false allegations or inferences can prejudice the jury as much as true ones.  

    In this case the defendant can be portrayed by the prosecution as a gun-toting vigilante who shot down an innocent unarmed teenager based simply on admitted facts.  His defense is based somewhat on an inference of naivete -- that he was foolish enough to enter a darkened area away from the street after seeing a suspected burglar run that way, without recognizing until too late the danger to which he was exposing himself.  I don't think a detailed cross-examination of the facts underlying his Myspace posts would help.

    Again, as noted, a competent defense attorney would never allow that to happen.  

    However, in light of the latest revelations from jail house tapes, I am no longer working from the assumption that GZ is represented by competent-counsel.

    Seems to me that GZ has been served very poorly by a series of publicity-hound attorneys & family members.  He would have been a lot better off last February if his former-magistrate father had advised him to hire private counsel immediately, before returning to the police station for a 2nd interview after the night he was detained & released.

     

    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    as someone that hasn't always agreed with you on political and economic issues in the past, I enjoy reading every post you have made on this topic.

    Those comments are but a memory, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    destined to be routinely deleted...gotta catch 'em while you can!

    Parent
    sounds real (none / 0) (#42)
    by pyrrho on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    matt gutman says the woman is GZ's cousin.

    I am shocked Lester released this... how the heck will this not bias a jury?  

    Why shock? (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cboldt on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    It seems the material is relevant, by many people (Corey, Crimp, oculus, here, and at least a few others), and potentially admissible at trial to rebut a Zimmerman contention of good character.

    I don't think it's relevant, because there is no allegation that Zimmerman was chasing Martin in order to get in his pants.

    Keep in mind that the "relevancy" hurdle is pretty low, compared with the "admissible" hurdle.  It is not uncommon for evidence to be relevant, but not admissible.

    I agree that there is a sense of bias, but I think most people are able to compartmentalize their jury inquiry such that they won't convict Zimmerman of murder for the offense contained in W9's allegation of unwanted sexual contact.  We'll see how it plays out.  I think this might be more "defamation bait," as I see the press running assertions that Zimmerman is accused of being a child molester.

    Parent

    The issue is not relevancy (none / 0) (#123)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:00:36 AM EST
    ...here, the issue is prejudice. Under Florida's broad disclosure rules ridiculously broad sunshine provisions, it is appropriate for disclosure as Expy and others stated for the reason they stated and, thus, also produceable to the public. But it SHOULD have been precluded because it is prejudicial.

    Parent
    Why wouldn't he? (none / 0) (#45)
    by redwolf on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    This trial stopped being about justice and became about getting Zimmerman at any cost the moment the DA bypassed the grand jury.  

    Parent
    To which DA do you specifically refer... (none / 0) (#80)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    ...as having bypassed the grand jury?

    'Cause Wolfinger announced he was going to the grand jury with it, and 2 days later they threw him under the bus (or so it appears to me).

    Parent

    O'mara says (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    public records laws (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:36:25 PM EST
    are the reason it was released. The judge said so at the last hearing.

    Parent
    it will be cleaned (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    as soon as I have internet access long enough to get through it.

    New twist or maybe not? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tamta on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 10:06:52 PM EST
     JVM tonight.

    Natalie Jackson, attorney for TMs family, was on and disclosed they've known W9 for some time.

    On May 12, Daralene Jones, reporter, tweets that she believes she received an anonymous call from W9, she asserts that the voice sounds the same and the story sounded the same.

    W9 is contacting the press in May?
    JVM
    (Transcript not up yet)

    NYT re "witness 9" allegations: (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:35:20 AM EST
    link  Very sad.  

    Comment to the article... (none / 0) (#87)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    ... from none other than RockyMtnMama at 10:37 PM July 16, 2012:
    Interesting bit in the Miami Herald: "O'Mara said he's now put in the position of having to discredit [Witness 9], by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine." (Full story) I thought she sounded honestly upset and traumatized, but now--if this is true that she tried to sell her story--I'm having second thoughts.


    The People Magazine (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Dilbert By Day on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    allegation is under dispute.

    George Zimmerman's Attorney Smears Molestation Accuser: Falsely Claims She Tried To Sell Story To People Magazine

    The Miami Herald reporter checked with People and tweeted today, "People magazine tells me Zimmerman's cousin never approached them for money or a story."


     Link

    Parent
    People magazine & racism (none / 0) (#122)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:53:36 AM EST
    Trying to sell your story to a publication does not prove you're lying.

    Also, I wish people would stop saying that 9 called GZ racism. In her sworn statement, she said at least a couple of times that he and his family didn't like blacks, unless they acted white.

    So, what did she mean? They didn't like African Americans who commit crimes? (Obviously, I don't think obeying laws is "acting white.' I'm just trying to think of what she means.) They didn't like young black men who ... wore hoodies ... who didn't speak Standard American English ... who listened to rap? (Again, white kids do these things, too.)

    Parent

    What is this, if not racism (none / 0) (#125)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    W9 said, "But I know George, and I know that he does not like black people, and he would start something, he's a very confrontational person, it's in his blood"

    Parent
    Given the fact that W9 (none / 0) (#133)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    could not justify this statement with one observation of a specific incident I would regard it as mere speculation on her part.


    Parent
    My mistake, cboldt (none / 0) (#180)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    I was thinking of the sworn statement, in which she seemed to equate racism with wanting blacks to act like whites, whatever that might mean in this case.

    Parent
    Its in his blood (none / 0) (#184)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    Is a bit unusual - almost weird.

    She states that  she hasn't witnessed any act that would  support  her assertion

    Is she speculating that George by reason of his heredity is a ticking time bomb?
    A baking Lester Maddox pop tart?.

    I really think W9 holds some real hate towards at least one of Zimmerman's parents. I wonder if they are the intended targets of her 'revelation"


    Parent

    His ex-girlfriend said (none / 0) (#187)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    GZ's mother was abusive and the father looked the other way. Perhaps 9 was alluding to his mother.

    Parent
    I do just read the FBI interview again (none / 0) (#194)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:27:26 PM EST
    the ex mentioned that in her opinion  the mother

    Did not like her.
    Would have preferred that GZ married a white girl.

    She also mention that the mother and grandmother exercised a lot of control over Zimmerman.

    I did not see any evidence that his ex fiancee found Zimmerman's mother abusive or any mention at all of his father.

    2nd Prosecution Doc Dump pg 142-144

    Perhaps another source?

    Parent

    "He touched her improperly, she said." (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jello333 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:00:12 AM EST
    This is referring to a 6-yr-old and an 8-yr-old! And you'd be cool with the 8-yr-old being "charged with molestation"? For real? Exactly how many kids, how many MILLIONS of kids, do you think should be behind bars?

    According to NYT article, to which (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:01:50 AM EST
    I linked in this thread, this occurred over a period of years.  

    Parent
    Could you specify which of the alleged incidents (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    rise to the level of sexual abuse?

    That may make the debate more coherent.

    Parent

    This is the kind of attitude that (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    keeps many girls and women from reporting abuse.  

    As far as I'm concerned, any unwarranted, unsolicited sexual or intimate contact is abusive.

    It isn't up to the one who is imposing the contact to determine what is and isn't abusive, it is the one on whom the contact is being imposed who makes that determination.

    Parent

    It's up to a bigger audience (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    -- It isn't up to the one who is imposing the contact to determine what is and isn't abusive --

    That is generally true, but not always true.  Similar to the law of self defense, the law imposes either specific acts and states of mind (on the actor), or uses that weasel word, "reasonable," which is NOT up to the victim to determine.

    Battery covers any unwelcome contact, but some sorts of contact that a person might personally be offended by (incidental contact on a sidewalk, for example), are part of normal interaction.

    [Don't go all strawman on me and claim that I'm saying Zimmerman's actions are part of normal interaction, that's not what I said.]

    The law tolerates a certain amount of boorish conduct, too, and puts some onus on the offended person to assert offense before finding the offender to have crossed a legal line.

    [Don't go all strawman on me and claim that I'm saying Zimmerman's alleged actions aren't abuse, that's not what I said.]

    Anyway, "offensive" and "abusive" aren't synonymous, and my general point was that while the offended person certainly does have a determination in mind (they may consider that they were abused), their determination isn't the last word.  W9 has told her story, and those in the audience are bound to arrive at various opinions about what that constitutes.

    Parent

    So you consider any allegation (3.00 / 2) (#142)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    that one classifies as abuse to be abuse - even, for instance, a phone conversation?

    Let me restate, which allegation if true would rise to the level of a crime?

    Under the facts alledged by W9 could George Z claim abuse based on his recollection on who was imposing contact?

    Parent

    Allegations based on he said she said (3.00 / 2) (#152)
    by lily on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    are a challenge to prove, its true. But in this case the woman making the allegations has demonstrated a lack of credibility when she alleged the entire Zimmerman family is racist yet was unable to recall a single detail to explain her belief.

    GZ denies her allegations of molestations. I think to be fair requires an investigation before jumping to the conclusion that abuse happened at all.

    The restaurant story does not mean anything and in my opinion is not believable.

    False allegations of sexual abuse are not  uncommon, and in this case her motivations are suspect.

    Parent

    I wasn't referring to the truthfulness (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    My remark about affixing the label "abuse" was that while the offended person may affix that label, their doing so is not conclusive.  IOW, I was disagreeing that "abuse" is defined by the person offended.  The line that represents "abuse" is defined either by some representative group of the outside public, that hypothetical "reasonable person" on the jury, or just viewing a news story and reaching their own opinion, if it's not to the level of a crime; or by specific acts and state of mind as described in the criminal code.

    That W9 calls it "abuse" does not make it so, as far as the public is concerned.  The public is going to reach its own conclusion, and that's just the way things have always worked.  For the most part, any given person and the public share about the same placement of that "line."  But some people are quick to claim abuse, sometimes when the offensive action is innocent.

    Most daterape cases don't involve a question of whether or not there was sex.  The issue is one of consent.  Similar here.  One can believe W9, everything she said happened, happened.  And it's obvious that she found it unwelcome and offensive, to the extent that it messed with her mind for a decade after the last contact.  I'm pretty sure the public will NOT have substantial agreement that she suffered "abuse," on the facts she alleges.  Some people will find it, others won't.  She could likely obtain a restraining or no-contact order, but I don't believe she ever had enough to obtain a criminal charge.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by lily on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    Abuse requires power imbalance, severity of harassment, persistence, motivation etc.

    Parent
    cbodlt (none / 0) (#191)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    And it's obvious that she found it unwelcome and offensive, to the extent that it messed with her mind for a decade after the last contact.

    That may be your opinion but it is certainly not a fact.

    We don't know if the behavior she described occurred
    Neither to we know what caused the apparent mind issues that your postulate (if they exist)

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    We're talking about kids who are of the age at which they will run out into traffic if you don't hold their hand at all times.

    Parent
    The cousin alleges incidents (none / 0) (#172)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    that went into the teen years.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#176)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:59:39 PM EST
    and the alledged behavior was different during those years.

    Would a reasonable person consider it abuse?

    Parent

    What would you reasonably conclude (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:08:39 PM EST
    if it was your daughter?

    Parent
    Do you mean if it were my daughter or son (1.00 / 2) (#186)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    who made false allegations

    Or my child  who made true allegations

    I think determining that would be my first step. In either case my child would require some attention - maybe professional attention.

    If the allegation were true, depending on the circumstance, the molester might require some professional attention also

    However if you 7 year old kid doesn't get off the bus and tell you * called me quack duck and grabbed my tail feathers so I knocked his books over - then your kid id not telling you everything.
    My personal observations that for at least twenty five years that the public school system and most youth organizations - more recently even many sports teams- are required to conduct age appropriate training for all youngsters. The material is standardized and any one I've seen explains a number of reporting options for the child.

    Parent

    I'd feel awful (none / 0) (#183)
    by leftwig on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    I'd constantly blame myself for not teaching my daughter properly on what is and isn't acceptable and for not having my daughters trust that she couldn't tell me when something inappropriate happened.  I'd probably blame my sister for not having explained to her son what is and isn't appropriate, but I can understand that a lot of people probably don't have that conversation with kids this age.

    I can't say I'd put a whole lot of blame on a 7 or 8 year old.

    Parent

    Could you or would you blame a 12, 13, 14, 15, (none / 0) (#185)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    16, 17 or 18 year old?  I ask because the allegations are not for something that happened only at the ages of 7 or 8.

    Parent
    Allegations are not (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    something that happened....

    Parent
    Well...guess that puts George's (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 06:36:55 AM EST
    allegations about what happened the night he shot Trayvon in the category of "not necessarily what happened," doesn't it?

    Funny how that works.

    Parent

    There is evidence to corroborate (3.67 / 3) (#202)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    Zimmerman's story.  There is no evidence to corroborate W9's allegation.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#197)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:58:51 AM EST
    its also means the States case is an allegation.

    Only they, like W9, have the obligation to prove their allegations.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#200)
    by Rojas on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    "Allegations" supported by physical evidence, independent witness corroboration and a voice stress test....

    Parent
    Depending on the circumstances - Yes (none / 0) (#188)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    Could you or would you blame a 12, 13, <...>17  year old?

    But what does that have to do with our discussion?

    Would you blame anyone  based on a mere allegation?


    Parent

    You would (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 07:16:48 AM EST
    Would you blame anyone  based on a mere allegation?

    ... and do, as long as the person's name is Trayvon.

    Shall we assume from now on that you'll be talking about Martin's actions in terms of allegations, an you will not "blame anyone based on a mere allegation"?

    Parent

    That is different... (3.50 / 2) (#201)
    by Cashmere on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    There is clear evidence that an incident occurred and that Zimmerman was assaulted.  There is no evidence re: the sexual molestation other than what W9 says.

    Parent
    That's the nature of ... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    ... sexual molestation - it's almost always just the two parties involved.  OTOH - the state has indicated in their pleading that there is corroborative evidence, we just haven't seen it yet.  In the statement, W9 indicates that she told her sister about it several years ago, and that her parents confronted Zimmerman in a restaurant, where he said he was sorry and immediately left.  These statements should be relatively easy for the state to corroborate, although it won't be enough for some.

    BTW - Of course there is evidence of "an incident" in this case.  But it has not been established that Martin started the physical fight or (even if he did) that he was not justified in doing so, other than Zimmerman's self-serving statements.

    Parent

    So, Zimmerman is innocent then? (none / 0) (#205)
    by MikeB on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    Zimmerman can corroborate his story as well using your standard.

    Parent
    I could, but I only know of 2 specific allegations (none / 0) (#198)
    by leftwig on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 08:50:36 AM EST
    To be fair, I've not listened to her statements and only read various articles, but I only saw two incidents mentioned with any detail.  The one that occurred when she was 6 and one when she was 16.  I believe she said that the families would get together about once a year and sometimes things would happen.. If you know what happened when say she was 12 and he was 13, I'd certainly take a look.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    Would a reasonable person consider it abuse?

    Most certainly.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#189)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:37:55 PM EST
    Would a reasonable person consider it abuse?
    Most certainly
    .

    Did you ask one?

    Parent

    You are trolling. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    You did not (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    even attempt to justify your remark of why any reasonable person would consider an allegation as abuse.

    Parent
    compare the actual interview (none / 0) (#98)
    by lily on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:08:35 AM EST
    by SPD of GZ cousin with the NYT reporting, there are real problems suggesting a biased report.
    Listen the cousin. Remember GZ already is on record saying it is not true.

    Parent
    Your insulting a sitting judge is (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 01:52:27 AM EST
    is not acceptable, in my opinion.

    it is not acceptable to (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    call the judge a name, or even remotely acceptable. That comment has been deleted and the commenter is warned not to do it again.

    Parent
    Ridicule is best when well founded (none / 0) (#112)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:53:49 AM EST
    Like most of us, Lester is a mixed bag.  My criticism of him is out in the open, and on the whole, I don't trust him to be fair in this case.  He might be (mostly) fine otherwise.

    I don't think he's particularly good at writing, and maybe not at complex reasoning; but that by no means makes him always wrong.

    Expy has convinced me that the allegations of unwelcome sexual contact have a role in this case.  They are relevant.  O'Mara wants to know more about W9, because W9 leveled this allegation: "I know George.  And I know that he does not like black people, and he would start something, he's a very confrontational person, it's in his blood."

    Knowing the relationship between W9 and Zimmerman facilitates getting to the basis for her allegation.

    I think both Corey and Lester's hands are tied by the nature and content of W9's statements.  In hindsight, I think all of them, W9 included, are going to say the unwelcome sexual contact issue would have been better kept private.  But W9 decided this was a good time to air her itch.  Again.

    I better go back... (none / 0) (#116)
    by heidelja on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:52:07 AM EST
    ...and reread Expy's points before they get deleted! (LOL)

    The subject of a forensic psychologist being helpful to understand GZ has been brought up before.  I think in the case of Witness #9, if the state were to use her in Court, they better have had her interviewed by one first. A jury can believe a witness or not. If I were a jurist I would find it hard to accept her testimony without support of a forensic psychologist's opinion of her and whether or not she is deranged. And I mean here the meaning of deranged to be as broad as the meaning of "respect for the jusdicial process" is to Lester. In other words, it means what I want it to mean to suit my purposes! (LOL)  

    Parent

    Lester ruled on the protective order motion (none / 0) (#120)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    Or, as they seem to oddly (Jeralyn is right, Florida has got some goofy law and terminology going on down there) YESTERDAY.

    Is that not inconsistent with his duties under the O'Mara disqualification motion if he was inclined to find it "legally sufficient"?  i.e. he could not rule on that disclosure motion if he felt bound to disqualify himself.

    Am I missing something here, or did Lester just telegraph the coming denial of the disqualification motion? And, in doing so, as Expy said above, prejudice Zimmerman in the process.

    The order of events (none / 0) (#127)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    Lester ruled on the closure / protective order motion before he was aware of the motion to disqualify.

    Parent
    Oops, my bad (none / 0) (#129)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    you are right. I was thinking O'Mara made a last second supplemental motion yesterday, but upon checking, that was a plea to Corey not to release. She, of course, did anyway.

    Parent
    "Of course" (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    I was thinking O'Mara made a last second supplemental motion yesterday, but upon checking, that was a plea to Corey not to release.  She, of course, did anyway.

    She was following the Court's order.

     

    Parent

    Golly (none / 0) (#131)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    Thanks for your brilliant help there.

    Parent
    Happy to help (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    Since you were having some trouble with the basic, procedural chronology, I thought your last statement could use a little clarification.  You seemed to be suggesting that the SA made a decision to release the statements for some sort of negative purpose when (in fact) she had objected to their release and was under court order to do so.

    But I guess you just meant she "of course" released them because she was ordered to do so.

    Parent

    Zimmerman said O'Mara knew (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    ... about at least some of the Paypal money prior to the original bail hearing.

    One interesting item in the newly released discovery that hasn't gotten any coverage.  Zimmerman discussed the Paypal contributions to his defense fund prior to the original bond hearing.  Zimmerman tells his friend "Scott" that he tried to transfer $37,000 from the Paypal account to his wife's account, but it was stopped due to Paypal limits:


    "He said he's going to have me declared indigent," Zimmerman told his friend. "I told him I didn't think that would be possible, because there was one sizable transfer I tried to make. It got stopped. You know, $37. He said: `Well that doesn't matter. Right now you're not working. You're not providing an income for your family. You're probably not going to be employable for the rest of your life.'"

    At one point the friend asks whether O'Mara knew "the volume" of the donations that came into the PayPal account Zimmerman had set up to solicit donations from the public. Zimmerman said O'Mara knew about the attempted transfer of $37,000, but not any more than that.

    ...

    Reached late Monday, O'Mara insisted he did not know about the money.

    "I recall now some conversation of a transfer, but I don't recall a specific amount," O'Mara told The Miami Herald. "If it was $10,000 or $100,000 or $30,000, I would have remembered. It's not the type of thing you would risk your license to practice law over."

    Link.

    Serious problem for O'Mara (none / 0) (#162)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    This isn't just a matter of his client's word against his... this is a contemporaneous tape recording made of a jail house conversation, at a time when Zimmerman has absolutely no possible motive to lie or misrepresent facts.

    So there is now a HUGE conflict of interest between attorney and client, one that calls into question the quality of O'Mara's representation at every step of the way. And basically Zimmerman spent a month in jail because of it.  Obviously everything that happened at the April bail hearing is cast in a new light if, 6 or more days prior to the hearing Z. is explicitly telling his lawyer that he is not indigent because he's got close to $40K sitting in a newly set up PayPal account... and the lawyer is telling him to shush up.

    And then the lawyer fails to own up to his own error in front of the Judge at the bail revocation hearing?

    At this point it is starting to look like Zimmerman spent a month in custody & more onerous & expensive bond conditions.... because the lawyer  has been playing cya games with the court all along.  

    I can see an "innocent" explanation but it doesn't make O'Mara look good. That is, it's possible that he's merely inept rather than corrupt....

    but again, this is major, major conflict-of-interest territory.

    And I'm also wondering why the prosecution failed to raise this before.

    Parent

    I'm not sure which call it is.......... (none / 0) (#167)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:18:48 PM EST
    but I seem to remember GZ and SZ discussing how
    MOM had been in contact with "Ken" the brother in law. Why, other than discussing Paypal, they would be conversing, is beyond me.

    Parent
    In order for O'Mara to get into trouble, (none / 0) (#199)
    by theexaminerguy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:09:49 AM EST
    Wouldn't GZ be required to (under oath)at some point in the future after this case is over reiterate what he said on the phone call to his buddy about the amount of money he told O'Mara about?

    And wouldn't that be something that GZ would have no interest in doing, what's in it for him?

    Parent

    O'Mara has a clear conflict of interest (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by expy on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    Zimmerman might stick with him now, but if Z. is convicted down the line, then the first thing he would do is raise the issue of inadequate assistance of counsel. With the conflict-of-interest case issues thrown in, it could be serious claim against O'Mara.

    Also, O'Mara has repeatedly given statements to the press reporting what his client said (or didn't say) to him. This appears to be a breach of attorney-client privilege.

    That is, even if Z. was completely lying on the telephone about telling O'Mara about the money, and even if O'Mara had a personal tape recording of all his contacts with Z. to prove it... O'Mara would not be allowed to disclose that info, unless Z. himself did something to authorize disclosure or waive the privilege.   So unless O'Mara has a signed, written waiver in hand from Z., then this press interview was improper:


    "He didn't have a conversation about 37 with me," Mr. O'Mara said. "If there was $37,000 floating around somewhere, I would have been interested in it for a number of reasons."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/us/zimmerman-lawyer-denies-revelations-in-martin-case.html

    A lawyer can't get into a public debate with his own client over who said what.  

    Parent

    Comments deleted from this thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    include those not about GZ but commenters' own experiences, comments generalizing about sex offenders and how they act, and one insulting me, and a few calling the witness names.

    Stay on topic -- Zimmerman -- and follow the commenting rules.

    State's Response to Motion to Disqualify (none / 0) (#173)
    by expy on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#181)
    by bmaz on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 08:37:06 PM EST
    Looks like they finally procured a deputy who could actually frame a pleading, cause that sure does not look like de la Rionda's work product.

    Also, I actually think the prosecution response is a little better than Jeralyn did. It certainly gives Lester enough cover if he is not inclined to bail on this mess.

    Parent

    Comments from a male cousin (none / 0) (#182)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Jul 17, 2012 at 09:01:26 PM EST
    The female cousin was interviewed 3/20. Then, on 3/28, AP ran a story that quoted a male cousin being supportive of GZ.

    Orlando Sentinel July 18, 2012 (none / 0) (#204)
    by Dilbert By Day on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 12:22:47 PM EST