home

Zimmerman Case: Attorney Warfare and Witness 8

As I wrote the other day, George Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara filed a motion for sanctions against Florida prosecutors for withholding information favorable to the defense. It was a very civilized pleading, supported by factual instances, letters and e-mails.

Late yesterday, in response, the state filed one of the most scurrilous, unprofessional pleadings I have ever had the misfortune to read. I have uploaded it here.

I cannot imagine such a pleading being filed in our federal courts by any Assistant U.S. Attorney. If this is acceptable protocol for Florida state prosecutors, I'm glad I neither practice nor live there.

I have no interest in the diatribe contained in the pleading. But I do want to discuss a few factual allegations and the legal issue.[more..]

The Witness 8 Letter

The state attached to its motion a handwritten letter from Witness 8, dated March 19, 2012, the day she was interviewed by Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump. The "letter" is her version of what she heard on the phone with Trayvon Martin the night of the shooting. Thanks to Diwata Man for transcribing it:

March 19, 2012

I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard. He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.

Thank you,

[Redacted signature]

First: Witness 8 twice misspells Trayvon's name as 'Trevon." Didn't she know him since kindergarten? I can't find any other friends of his who referred to him as "Trevon."

Second: According to the state, Witness 8 gave the "letter" to Sybrina Fulton on March 19, before her telephone interview with Benjamin Crump. ("See attached letter Witness 8 gave Victim's mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded telephone call with Trayvon Martin's attorney, Benjamin Crump. (Exhibit B)." The letter is not addressed to anyone, and consists solely of her version of events of Feb. 26. It seems to me Sybrina was just a conduit and the statement was intended for Crump. But Crump says in his affidavit he and Witness 8 never discussed the details of her conversations with Trayvon before their phone interview. In the description of his unrecorded preliminary interview with Witness 8, he emphasizes that he didn't want to know the details of her calls with Trayvon before taking her oral statement. He writes that he:

Briefly confirmed that, consistent with the phone records recently made available to my clients, Witness 8 had, in fact, been speaking with Trayvon for much of the day on February 26, 2012 and - without eliciting or then learning the substance of anything that Witness 8 might have heard while speaking with Trayvon - further confirmed that Witness 8 had been speaking with Trayvon in the minutes leading up to his death and that she appeared to be one of the last persons to speak with Trayvon while he was still alive [and]

....Instructed Witness 8 that, until we actually started the Interview in earnest, I did not want her to reveal to me, inter alia, the substance of anything she might have heard during her conversations with Trayvon on February 26, 2012 and that, whatever she knew, I needed her to provide a complete and truthful account during the Interview;

Had he read this letter? If he did read it before the phone call, isn't it a bit disingenuous of him to stress to the court that he instructed Witness 8 not to tell him the details of her account before he began recording her statement? Whether she told Crump orally or in writing seems like a distinction without a difference: If he read the statement, he knew the details of her account before conducting the interview. Since Sybrina Fulton was present for the interview, and had received the statement before he commenced the interview, it seems very unlikely she wouldn't have shown it to him before he called her.

Third: It seems to me the prosecutor has now joined Crump in throwing Sybrina Martin under the bus. I explain how Crump did so here. In the recorded interview of March 19, after Witness 8 tells her story to Crump the first time, he stops her, and not only asks her to repeat what Zimmerman said, but reminds her she had given a different version earlier to Tracy and Sybrina.

In Sybrina Fulton's April 2 statement to prosecutors, she told the prosecutor that she and Witness 8 had not discussed the details of Witness 8's last conversation with Trayvon. Tracy Martin similarly stated that he hadn't discussed the details of Witness 8's conversations with Trayvon in his April 2 interview.

By attaching the statement from Witness 8 to its motion, which the state says was given to Sybrina Fulton on March 19 before Crump's interview, and which solely consists of details of what she heard while on the phone with Trayvon before the shooting, the prosecutor, like Crump, is acknowledging that Sybrina Fulton's April 2 statement to prosecutors was not completely true: She had learned the details of Witness 8's version of events directly from Witness 8 well before April 2. The fact that Witness 8's version of her last calls with Trayvon was handed to her instead of relayed orally, seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. They were still communicated to her by Witness 8.

Why would Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin deny to prosecutors on April 2 they and Witness 8 had discussed the details of Witness 8's phone calls with their son? Take a look at the transcript of Crump's March 20 presser (available in the 3/22 CNN transcript of the press conference, trumpeting his discovery of Witness 8.) He bashes the Sanford police and says he doesn't trust them.

We're going to turn this over to the Department of Justice and their investigation because the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department in anything to do with the investigation.

On April 2, while the case had been transferred to the state prosecutor's office, no decision had been made to charge George Zimmerman. Perhaps Crump didn't trust the State's Attorney any more than the Sanford police at this time, and didn't want his clients sharing the details about Witness 8 with them. ( Crump was at Sybrina's on April 2 and met with the prosecutor. On March 26, one week after Crump interviewed Witness 8, Crump was present when Sybrina and Tracy were interviewed together . There is no reference to Witness 8 in that interview.)

Making a false statement to a law enforcement officer or prosecutor is not a trifling matter, regardless of whether it's under oath. Federally, it's a crime (ask Martha Stewart.) I'm not suggesting The Martins committed a crime. I'm suggesting their credibility as witnesses in this case is now in play, and the defense is entitled to investigate it further.

Fourth: This is now the third time Witness 8 has said Trayvon Martin initiated the verbal encounter between him and Zimmerman. In her March 19 account to Crump, her April 2 account to the prosecutor and again in this letter, she says Martin asked Zimmerman some variation of, "What are you following me for?" to which Zimmerman responded. The state continues to ignore its own witness' account. In its response, it writes:

....it is important to set the record straight about a few undisputed facts. ....Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin

Not only is that disputed rather than undisputed, it is contrary to the three statements of Witness 8 and the testimony of the state's investigator at the April 20 bond hearing:

O'Mara: So do you know who started the fight?
GILBREATH: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.

The motion has other misrepresentations of disputed allegations as undisputed facts (for a total of 3 out of 4):

  • " Defendant observed Trayvon Martin (incorrectly profiled him as a criminal)" - Disputed. According to Zimmerman, it was Martin's behavior and actions that caused him to report him as suspicious. He never mentioned race or clothes until asked about them by the dipatcher.
  • "Defendant followed Trayvon Martin (and continued to do so after being told not to)" - False: he was told "we don't need you to do that" to which he said "okay". Disputed: Zimmerman says he then began walking back to his car. Claiming he continued to follow him is disputed information, not a fact, and certainly not an undisputed fact.

On the legal issue, I'm out of time and will have to write a separate post. Let me just suggest that it is the prosecutor, not O'Mara, who needs a dictionary, and preferably a legal one, on exculpatory and impeaching information and the duties of disclosure. Significantly, he admits Witness 8's hospital lie is impeaching information he had a duty to disclose:

The State agrees that potential impeachment material should be (and has been) disclosed. Defense Counsel admits that he was informed on March 4, 2013, before any hearing on the matter, that the witness had not gone to the hospital. Defendant completely fails to identify any actual prejudice or additional cost affiliated with this issue.
See: Also see:
In a nutshell,
  • a Brady violation occurs when the government fails to disclose evidence materially favorable to the accused. Favorable information encompasses “exculpatory” and “impeaching” information. A prosecutor’s duty to disclose impeaching information is the same as his/her duty to disclose exculpatory information.
  • Favorable information is any information that might help the defense attack the government’s case or mount an affirmative defense: In determining what must be disclosed under Brady “the [prosecution’s] guiding principle must be that the critical task of evaluating the usefulness and exculpatory value of the information is a matter primarily for defense counsel, who has a different perspective and interest from that of the police or prosecutor.”
  • When the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within the general rule of Brady. Because of the value of cross-examination, when the credibility of a prosecution witness is important, impeaching evidence is subject to Brady disclosure. Impeaching information can be a substantive reason to doubt whether the Government has sufficiently proven defendant’s guilt. The obligation to disclose exists regardless of whether the information subject to disclosure would itself constitute admissible evidence.
  • The Brady doctrine encompasses any information, directly admissible or not, that would be favorable to the accused in preparing a defense, including information useful to preparation or investigation that may lead to admissible evidence or have some meaningful impact on defense strategy
  • Impeaching information includes inconsistent statements about the same incident (which also may be exculpatory) and witness specific information (such as evidence of past dishonesty).
  • The more specifically the defense requests certain evidence, thus putting the prosecutor on notice of its value, the more reasonable it is for the defense to assume from the nondisclosure that the evidence does not exist, and to make pretrial and trial decisions on the basis of this assumption. A reviewing court may consider directly any adverse effect that the prosecutor’s failure to respond might have had on the preparation or presentation of the defendant’s case. 473 U.S. at 682-83.
  • "When the prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if ever, excusable."It is illegitimate for a prosecutor to assert pretrial that it may withhold Brady information because the defense should be able to learn of this favorable information through other means. In Banks, 540 U.S. at 695-698, the Court declared that “[a] rule . . . declaring ‘prosecutor may hide, defendant must seek,’ is not tenable in a system constitutionally bound to accord defendants due process.”

That's all I have time for now....to be continued.

< Evil Koch Bros FGCU v. The Good Florida Gators | March Madness, Sweet Sixteen, Day 2 Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Did BDLR further support (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Nettles18 on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:50:20 AM EST
    the defense's claim that the State is withholding evidence favorable to the defense by including a hand-written letter that was previously unknown?

    BDLR, O'Steen, Trayvon's parents and their lawyers met on March 26th and didn't discuss W8?  Is more evidence being supressed?

    This is like an Easter egg hunt uncovering the discovery items.

    Agressor? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    Donald, you have law from Florida indicating that getting out of your car and following someone makes you the aggressor?

    Donald's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    for falsely stating the law, and representing his interpretation as fact.

    Parent
    Orlando Sentinel Report (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cboldt on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    George Zimmerman case: State reveals new letter from key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting -  By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, 3:08 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2013

    "I'm glad I have it now. I don't know when (the state) received it," O'Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.



    Um, you mean the "racial profiling"... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by bmaz on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    That the FBI could find no credible evidence of? Just lobbing unsupported inflammatory accusations around is not good argument.

    seriously? (none / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    After having typed out a response with links guaranteed to be deleted, let me just say instead that "I disagree".

    Parent
    good, because your comment would be (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    deleted. The state has not alleged Zimmerman racially profiled Martin. It has alleged he profiled him as a criminal. Racial profiling is not an issue. I think you will be  happier discussing this case on a pro-prosecution site and encourage you to do so.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    your coverage has been excellent. I just fear that the legal is clouding the moral and had my hackles raised by GZ's brother and the tone of some of the comments.

    I'll back off. TL rocks!

    Parent

    In Criminal Law... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bmaz on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    ...the "legal" must trump the "moral", that is how a defendant's rights are protected under the constitution and the presumption of innocence that is the backbone of American criminal law is enforced. Not to mention that it is somewhat unfathomable that folks do not consider self defense to be a morally justifiable concept as well as lashing out because there was a death. Mr. Martin's death is incredibly depressing and unfortunate, but the morality inquiry does not begin and end there.

    Parent
    Another News Report (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cboldt on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    In Zimmerman case, rhetoric heats up between prosecutor, defense -  By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel 5:54 p.m. EDT, March 29, 2013

    De la Rionda's pleading, said Orlando attorney Diana Tennis, read as if it were crafted by someone who "writes it drunk at 2 a.m."

    Bill Sheaffer, Orlando lawyer and analyst for WFTV-Channel 9, said it was "over the top and ... not professional."

    Said O'Mara: "I think it is unfortunate and inappropriate."

    What's not clear is what the judge will do about it. She is on vacation next week.

    One possibility is a lecture to both sides ...




    Based upon how Judge Nelson has rules thus far, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cashmere on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    I will not be surprised if she finds no issue with BDLR's pleading, and then rules in some pro-prosecution manner.

    Parent
    hyperbole allowed, actual words, not (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:50:53 PM EST
    Why no examples of De la Rionda's "drunk, over the top, not professional, unfortunate, and inappropriate" pleading?


    Parent
    If you read it, I am sure you will have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cashmere on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    finding such examples.

    Parent
    O.k, I see now (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:05:14 PM EST
    The link in "cboldt's" post brought up a Sentinel article about this pleading, not the pleading itself. Now that I looked around the article I found the link that brings up De la Rionda's document.

    Tell you the truth, I don't know what to make of it. It sure sounds like a guy who's irritated, agitated, and P. O'd big time. But, not being familiar with the protocol of how these pleadings normally are written, I can't offer an opinion as to how "off base" it is.

    What do you think, Cashmere? Did he hurt himself here?


    Parent

    NYShooter - professionalism (none / 0) (#42)
    by LeaNder on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:46:23 AM EST
    reminiscences of judge Lester, he even was on BDLR's mind. "Professionalism" basically means you have to learn to not let your anger show. I wish he had calmed down slightly, much maneuvering on the defense side lately. The letter is odd, or more precisely the date, but then admittedly I would like to chat with DeeDee too. In hindsight it would have been much better had Crump asked her in his call to prepare exactly such a statement. Considering she lives in Miami too, this may well have happened.

    I like his:

    "Moreover, Defense Counsel certainly understands that public statements by civilians, the vast majority of which were made before the State Attorney's Office was even assigned to this case, are hardly the responsibility of this office."

    That's the result of the defense's campaign against "media bias" combined with their own public relations efforts. To a certain extend they are fighting hearsay in this context.

    I can accept that the defense would love to have her identity and I am not sure how the video may have helped in this context, beyond the use at trial for impeachment and with the jury.

    Parent

    I Agree With the Prosecution on This Point" (4.00 / 4) (#7)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    "Defendant followed Trayvon Martin (and continue to do so after being told not to)" - false, he was told "we don't need you to do that" to which he said "okay". Zimmerman says he then began walking back to his car, so. At best, ita disputed fact.

    Ignoring the issue of what "following" means, it is undisputed that Zimmerman didn't begin walking back to his car, which he left 17 seconds before he said "okay".  He kept moving forward to Retreat View Circle and gave reasons for that which I don't believe.

    It most certainly is not undisputed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bmaz on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    In fact, "disputed" is about the most favorable to the prosecution position thing that can be said.

    Parent
    There is nothing undisputed (3.67 / 3) (#16)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    about Zimmerman, at first, ignoring the implied request that he should return to his car.  He admitted it in all his interviews.  When Serino and Singleton played the NEN call for him, he says he started moving back to his car somewhere in the range of 2.5 to 3 minutes after he said "okay" to the dispatcher. That was enough of a delay to explain why we are here now discussing the case.

    Parent
    I think its a stretch to say (none / 0) (#20)
    by leftwig on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    it was implied by Sean that GZ should return to his vehicle.  I buy that saying "we don't need you to do that" implied that he should stop following TM (as opposed to a simple disclaimer that we aren't asking you to do that).  IF Sean implied that GZ should return to his vehicle then why would he ask if police should meet GZ by the mail boxes, or simply agree to GZ's request to have police call him so he can direct them to his location?

    I do agree its clear GZ didn't walk directly back to his truck as soon as he hung up with NEN.  What he did for the next 90 seconds or so is somewhat of a mystery.  I haven't seen any evidence that indicates he moved anywhere but where he said he was (along the top of the 'T').

    Parent

    Zimmerman Thought it Meant Return to Vehicle (3.67 / 3) (#27)
    by RickyJim on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    (plays tape 2:26 to 2:34 )
    Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don't need you to do that, what went through your mind?
    Zimmerman: He's right.
    Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.
    Zimmerman: I still wanted to give him an address.

    This one of the many things that should keep Zimmerman off the stand.  The NEN operator hadn't asked for an address.  On a previous call he told the operator to have the cops to meet him at the back gate where he would let them in.  Of course, he never gave the operator an address.  This quote is from Feb. 29, 2012.  On the 26th it was a street sign he was looking for.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    Zimmerman's "he's right" refers only to the dispatcher' statement about not following. It's Serino who says "so you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle". GZ doesn't even agree to that, just follows with the comment about getting the address. Even if he had, agreeing to Serino's statement after the fact isn't the same as saying he felt the dispatcher's statement included a return to vehicle request (which has no legal weight anyway).

    Parent
    That is Just Plain Silly. (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    He didn't correct or argue with Serino like he did on other issues.  So you think Zimmerman really stopped "following him" even though he continued going in the same direction as before the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that."?  Just how did Zimmerman accomplish that?  Remember that on the call he agreed with the dispatcher that he was following him (even though I agree that he couldn't see him) and only in his interviews argued that he wasn't following but just "going in the same direction."  In any case, O'Mara better do everything possible to keep Zimmerman off the stand.  

    In previous NEN calls Zimmerman was very cautious and never considered getting closer to a suspect except the first such call where Shelly was with him and stopped him.  This time he seemed determined to improve his catch a bad guy record.  That is the defense's only problem and they should observe extreme caution in assuming the jury will buy into all of Zimmerman's claims.  I don't think they have to worry about the jury buying anything DeeDee might say.

    Parent

    following - sure enough (none / 0) (#58)
    by LeaNder on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    In previous NEN calls Zimmerman was very cautious and never considered getting closer to a suspect except the first such call where Shelly was with him and stopped him.

    That's not quite true, on 02/02/2012, I think, he called back police to report the new location of the suspect with the bomber hat and pajama pants. Not that long before 02/26/12. Considering it takes time and administrative processes to pass on the info to the officers on scene, it wasn't such a bad decision to ask for them to call him this time.

    On an earlier event he follows a car with his car through the city, till the complainant is advised to not longer follow the car. REM: COMPL ADV NO LONGER FOLLOWING. That was admittedly in 2004.
     

    Parent

    Zimmerman's Call on 2/2/12 (none / 0) (#59)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:18:16 PM EST
    That's not quite true, on 02/02/2012, I think, he called back police to report the new location of the suspect with the bomber hat and pajama pants.

    On 2/2/12, Zimmerman called a second time because he realized he had given the wrong address for Taaffe's unit.

    On the first call, Zimmerman said he didn't want to approach the subject, although he hadn't been asked to.

    Parent

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#87)
    by morphic on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:20:56 PM EST
      If you listen to the dispatcher call, after the dispatcher suggested Zimmerman not follow, the wind noise stopped, and you can hear Zimmerman repeatedly tapping something. He claimed it was his non functioning flashlight on something, which is likely the only plausible explanation. Any suggestion that the sound was chambering his gun is ludicrous, since a bullet is ejected, and his gun would have been empty. So Zimmerman did stop, since he would have had to be stationary to tap his flashlight on a sign post. Did he start following again? I personally doubt it. IMO, if the distance listed was correct, Trayvon's body was only 35 yards from Zimmerman's vehicle. Try walking 35 yards. Takes less than a minute, doesn't it? From DD's statement, Trayvon kept walking. There's no claim of being chased back to the T.

    Parent
    Walking and Tapping (none / 0) (#88)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    Who said Zimmerman was tapping his flashlight on a stationary object?

    Zimmerman at one point said that he was 'Walking back to my car', while the tapping was audible on the recording (2/29-3, 10:40-52).

    At another point Zimmerman said something not fully intelligible. Just after some taps on the recording, he alluded to the flashlight, and said 'as I was walking' (2/29-3, 11:52-12:08).

    Audio

    Parent

    In Point of Fact (none / 0) (#89)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:51:33 PM EST
    IMO, if the distance listed was correct, Trayvon's body was only 35 yards from Zimmerman's vehicle.

    More like 60 yards, at least.

    Parent

    "We don't need you to do that" (2.00 / 4) (#21)
    by lily on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:43:12 PM EST
    So much focus on that statement and yet in a prior request Sean asked GZ if he could see which way TM was running, it was this question that prompted GZ to leave the car.

    Not that any of that actually matters or makes any sense. The idea that one should stay in the car to avoid a possible altercation suggests GZ failed to recognize that TM was a "risky" person to make contact with. Such twisted logic.

    Parent

    "Sean asked GZ if he could see which way ... (3.67 / 3) (#36)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    ...TM was running..."

    A question that could have been answered by staying where he was and answering yes or no.

    "Can you see" is not the same as "I need you to go find out".

    And I remain convinced that is was Trayvon taking off running that prompted Zimmerman to jump out and "walk in the same direction" on foot where his truck could not easily go.

    Although such was his enthusiasm to "get that address (for which he had not yet been asked)" that I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd floored it and jumped the curb.

    Assuming, of course, that his truck actually was pointed toward the T and not the mailboxes.

    Parent

    so what? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    Is there some law that says if you do not follow the implied instructions of a 911 operator you lose the right to self defense?
    I am trying to figure out why anyone thinks what happened before the physical confrontation took place mattered.  It is not illegal to follow someone.  It is not illegal to ignore the advice of a 911 operator.  It is not illegal to be too enthusiastic about your neighborhood watch duties or even to think black kids in hoodies wandering around the housing development are suspicious. Ignorant yes, illegal no.  
    Everything that happened before the physical confrontation is prologue.

    Parent
    It may be prologue, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    But, it's not irrelevant.

    The verdict in this case is going to be decided by what was in the minds of the two participants. Those actions that Zimmerman took that you alluded to, ignoring an implied instruction by the dispatcher, etc. goes to the motivation and frame of mind of Zimmerman just prior to the confrontation. It's not beyond reason that a skilled prosecutor could paint a picture that Zimmerman, rejecting sound advice, and sensing the glory of being instrumental in the capture of a "would-be burglar, "went on the hunt."

    Yes, it's conjecture. But, that's what the jury will be asked determine. They will try to enter the minds of TM & Z, and ascertain their goals and motives.
    While speculation-as-fact is inadmissible, that's exactly what the jury will have to decide: which speculation makes the most sense, which rings the most true?


    Parent

    If one must "speculate", (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Cashmere on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    in order to convict, then a conviction should not be made.  Speculation hardly jives with proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    Parent
    Also, ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    Some people seem to think that, because Zimmerman's actions in following Martin were not illegal (he was "legally enitled" to have a gun, follow Martin, etc.), they cannot constitute "provocation" under the law.

    They would be wrong.

    Parent

    Irrelevant Point as Far as the Zimmerman Case (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by RickyJim on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    The defense is not relying on Stand Your Ground where not being the provoker is important.  They say he wasn't standing his group but just trying to prevent getting seriously injured or killed.

    Parent
    Anyone who believes that ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    Irrelevant Point (Provocation) as Far as the Zimmerman Case.  The defense is not relying on Stand Your Ground where not being the provoker is important.

    ... would also be wrong, as well as misstating Florida law.  The provisions of Florida Section 776.041 apply to all sections of Chapter 776, including 776.012 - "standard" self-defense, if you will - irrespective of 776.013 ("Stand your ground") or 776.032 (Immunity).

    Parent

    If you are the provoker or not, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by RickyJim on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    776 allows you to shoot somebody using force against you providing,

    Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

    That is from .041 which deals with provokers but .012 and .013 give a similar justification for the use of deadly countermeasures.  According to the defense, that is why Zimmerman is not guilty regardless of whether his behavior provoked Martin's beating of him.

    Parent

    Which is a completely ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    ... different argument than what you were stating previously, where you claimed it was "irrelevant" because the defense wasn't using an SYG defense.  It's not "irrelevant", and it's only moot if you assume the defense's theory of the case is true.

    Parent
    So Ya Wanna Qubble? (none / 0) (#76)
    by RickyJim on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    This actually relates to a significant issue in the case.  Alan Dershowitz has said that the defense should argue that the NEN call ought to be excluded as evidence because it relates only to the provocation question.  At least I think that is what he was saying.  Listen to the argument at 7:25 here.

    Parent
    It's not "quibbling" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:57:34 PM EST
    It's correcting your misstatement of the law.

    BTW - Good for Alan, who's discussing he's an argument he would make to exclude the NEN call and says that as long as the jury believes that the "young man" was banging his head on the ground (in his opinion) it's enough for self defense.

    Parent

    The NEN Call (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 05:24:04 AM EST
    I think it generally helps Zimmerman.  And since the whole world as heard that Zimmerman followed this guy "after being told not to" isn't that something the defense needs to confront?

    Parent
    If the NEN Call Doesn't Come In (none / 0) (#80)
    by RickyJim on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    then the jury will not have heard of it.  Don't laugh, there are loads of people who have paid no attention at all to this case.  I seriously doubt that the jury will even be able to understand what DeeDee is saying, let alone believe her.  If the defense can make the case all about what happened after M&Z finally met up, then the defense will have very little explaining to do -- just present the witnesses and police to report on the injuries, what W#6 saw of the fight and W#11 heard and an acquittal is a slam dunk.

    Parent
    Wishful thinking. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    To the point ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    ... of being funny.

    Parent
    I can't get over that ... (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    ... buying Skittles and Arizona iced tea can turn into a death sentence under Florida law. Looking more and more like GZ walks because TM was afraid enough to confront his armed stalker.

    stop with the misinformation (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    there is not a shred of evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed when he attacked Zimmerman.

    Martin did confront Zimmerman, with a punch that knocked him down. There are photos of his injuries. Future factually twisted and false comments will be deleted, see our comment rules for this case.

    Parent

    You've done an excellent job.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    ... poking holes in the case and in the actions of the prosecution and the Martin family's attorneys. So much so that I think GZ is acquitted. And it makes me mad.

    Parent
    I think its the actions of Trayvon that get GZ (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by leftwig on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    acquitted, not the actions of the prosecution or the Martin attorneys.

    Parent
    ... under FL law, I agree. (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    That's my problem.

    Parent
    FL's self-defense law (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    is not unique as it applies to this case. O'Mara isn't arguing that GZ  had a right to stand his ground. O'Mara is arguing that GZ was on the ground and had no way to escape.

    Parent
    I don't think GZ gets acquitted (none / 0) (#47)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:34:48 AM EST
    In my opinion (please note my exact words), GZ is not guilty of the crime with which he's been charged (second degree murder).

    But I don't think that matters. The arrest may or may not have been about the tragic death of this young man. And no matter which legal opinion you hold, this death was unbelievably sad and tragic. This was a 17-year-old kid who walked to the store and ended up DEAD. I understand the vitriol directed at GZ, but not at Trayvon. The WORST thing you can 'accuse' him of (and please understand I am not saying this is fact) is starting a fight (ignoring for the moment whether it was justified). And for this, his parents had to put him in a box and put him in the ground. As a parent, whose youngest is a boy who just turned 18, this breaks my heart.

    But I believe the trial will be more about the history of race relations in this country, and the ramifications of Zimmerman's acquittal. Even if they're inclined to believe the shooting was legally justified, it will be impossible for the jury to weed out these other factors amid the media spotlight, and decide the case solely on the arguments before them. The vast majority of people haven't followed any of the actual evidence in the case, and probably wouldn't care if they did. If Zimmerman walks, the resulting uproar will make the Rodney King riots look like a backyard cookout.

    Parent

    Only starting a fight? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:40:06 AM EST

    Don't forget Martin sitting atop the victim preventing escape and continuing the assault.  Once GZ was down, trapping the victim adds a whole new dimension.

    Parent
    I do think this is about race (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    and that there will be all sorts of uproar over race during the trial, there already is.  I think if Martin had been an Irish kid, the sympathy of the left would have been with the brown person in the equation who would have then been by default, Zimmerman and perhaps we would not even have heard about the case. There wouldn't have been stories about the poor little boy with pictures of him at the age of ten all over the internet.  
    It is tragic that this kid is dead.  But all the speculation about what happened before the moment that Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and sat on him, punching him in the face and pounding his head in to the side walk, (if in fact that is what happened) do not matter. At that point Zimmerman had the right to defend his life.

    I don't know about you, but I find this whole topic to be reaching the heights of the I/P debates..... a lot of people stuck in one gear unable to move and self righteously
    shouting over each other.  No one is more self righteous than those who can call others racist.


    Parent

    Clarify... (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Mad that the law permits the tragedy that occurred to go unpunished, not that the defense is doing an excellent job.

    Parent
    Huh?? (3.00 / 4) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    Magster, following someone is not illegal.

    If that person turns and attacks someone and that someone kills his attacker because he is in fear for his life there is no moral reason to punish the person being attacked.

    Legally, I'll not comment. But the tragedy was self inflicted by Martin.

    Parent

    please explain: jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by LeaNder on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 08:13:13 AM EST
    Legally, I'll not comment. But the tragedy was self inflicted by Martin.

    Are you suggesting, if you mistake me for a burglar and I having no direct telepathic connection into your mind do something that looks even more suspicious to you, like running because you e.g. seem to follow me in your car, if something happens as a result of your suspicion and you finally shoot me, it's all my fault? It does not matter that I was no burglar but simply wanted to go home?

    In other words there is a rule that when somebody follows me in the dark, I have to stand still and say: Yes, Sir/Madam, what is it you want me to do? Did I do anything that caused your concern by walking here?

    How the hell should I know your intention and realize you are not dangerous yourself, only I am dangerous to myself if I do not act the way you expect me to? It does not matter that your demands of right and wrong responses may be deeply colored by your misguided suspicion?

    Or is it not in the least known, that your suspicion was indeed misguided if you study me close enough, that I only seemed to be on my way home? Since the very fact that you had to shoot me, suggests something else in itself. It in fact suggests, that while I may not have been a burglar I was in fact an even more dangerous threat someone that actually wanted to kill you for no apparent motive? For pure joy?

    Parent

    tragic mistakes and miscalculations on both sides (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Jack203 on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:17:55 AM EST
    But....

    "if something happens as a result of your suspicion and you finally shoot me, it's all my fault?"

    If the "something happens" is that you do not go home when you have the opportunity, instead double back and assault the guy who was suspicious of you.  Then continue the assault for over 30 seconds with the man screaming for help.

    Something very well bad might happen to you.

    That is what the facts of this case strongly indicate happened.

    Parent

    don't forget the inital threat! (none / 0) (#57)
    by LeaNder on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    instead double back and assault the guy who was suspicious of you.

    Don't forget not only he was doubling back to almost kill him, TM also circled George's car. Which happened during the NEN call.

    In the only fitting context where he describes TM as coming towards him and checking him out, Sean the man taking the call, asks him to tell if the guy does anything else? And he mentions details like a button on the shirt coming to check him out, hand in waistband, something in his hand, but not that he circles his car? That's not even 2 minutes into the call:

    GZ: Now he is coming towards me. He has got his hand in his waistband and he is a black male.

    ...

    GZ: He is coming to check me out he's got something in his hand, I don't know what his deal is.

    Sean: Just let me know if this guy does anything else?

    Shortly after that he says TM ran and he gets out of his car and follows him, there is not the slightest chance to come back and circle his car for the simply reason GZ isn't there anymore.

    Parent

    More a reference to coneal carry .... (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    ... for non peace officers.

    Parent
    please explain: jimakaPPJ (none / 0) (#44)
    by LeaNder on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    Legally, I'll not comment. But the tragedy was self inflicted by Martin.

    Are you suggesting, if you mistake me for a burglar and I having no direct telepathic connection into your mind do something that looks even more suspicious to you, like running because you e.g. seem to follow me in your car, if something happens as a result of your suspicion and you finally shoot me, it's all my fault? It does not matter that I was no burglar but simply wanted to go home?

    In other words there is a rule that when somebody follows me in the dark, I have to stand still and say: Yes, Sir/Madam, what is it you want me to do? Did I do anything that caused your concern by walking here?

    How the hell should I know your intention and realize you are not dangerous yourself, only I am dangerous to myself if I do not act the way you expect me to? It does not matter that your demands of right and wrong responses may be deeply colored by your misguided suspicion?

    Or is it not in the least known, that your suspicion was indeed misguided if you study me close enough, that I only seemed to be on my way home? Since the very fact that you had to shoot me, suggests something else in itself. It in fact suggests, that while I may not have been a burglar I was in fact an even more dangerous threat someone that actually wanted to kill you for no apparent motive? For pure joy?

    Parent

    Signature or nickname? (none / 0) (#1)
    by cboldt on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 06:56:29 AM EST
    The handwritten statement allegedly prepared by Witness 8, is introduced by Bernie saying, "Witness 8 did everything she could to not being identified, including using her nickname so that she would not be subjected to what is now happening to her.  See attached letter Witness 8 gave Trayvon's mother ..."


    W8's Letter (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    It's quite interesting.  

    I'm sure she'll say that it was just a brief statement and not meant to include everything she heard, but it seems to rule out, for instance, hearing a push and some "get off" language.  I believe she told BDLR that she heard something after the phone fell.

    "I thought it was just a fight" is interesting as well.  Not how anyone would describe the chase and encounter as described to BDLR.

    The Letter (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    The date and the "thank you" are written larger (but the same size) from the rest of the letter.  

    She describes the altercation as starting when TM was on the way to the store.

    When was the letter written and at whose direction?

    The date is also printed and not in (none / 0) (#13)
    by leftwig on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    cursive form like the rest of the letter.  The handwriting looks similar though.

    I don't think she describes the altercation as happening on the way to the store.  I think she just leaves a whole lot out between him being on the way to the store, then walking through another neighborhood (which I take to be on the way back).

    I question why this narrative of walking through another neighborhood occurs in this letter but nowhere else in anything she's said.  Why would TM tell her this and even if he did, why would she point this out as an important fact when so many other details are left out of the letter?

    Parent

    The date (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    looks like it is written over something, such as white out or a sticker.

    The "another complex" language is interesting, as you note.

    Parent

    Look at the wiggle... (none / 0) (#34)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    ...in the ruled lines.

    I wouldn't count on this being an optically correct copy of the letter and would suspect anything "odd" looking might be an artifact of the copying process.

    Parent

    Trolls and Minions (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    Is BDLR's language so hostile to a man who is innocent until proven guilty that MOM could file a motion to have him removed from the case?

    Is it OK to prosecute someone that you have a personal grudge against?

    The Timing Issue (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    Jeralyn, you made an interesting point about the timing of the interview.  Supposedly Tracy finds out about W-8 being on the phone with TM on Sunday, March 18.  By the next day the reluctant witness is interviewed.  Seems like too little time, although possible.  

    Now we know that she wrote out a statement/letter.  Of course it doesn't take long to write something out, by why have her do it if in a couple hours you are going to have an interview?  It looks like a statement designed to avoid an interview.

    Oh, you mean... (none / 0) (#52)
    by unitron on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 11:06:00 AM EST
    "It looks like a statement designed to avoid an interview."

    ...kinda like Crump's instead-of-a-deposition affidavit?

    : - )

    Parent

    It seems . . . (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    that the statement was written to avoid further involvement in the case, but say enough to make Martin come across as the victim.  I don't see how this doesn't hurt her credibility, particularly if it was done before the 19th.

    Parent
    Distinction without a difference? (none / 0) (#48)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't there be a lot of legal wiggle room between receiving a note and having a discussion? It seems to me a lawyer could get away with saying they'd had no discussion with a witness about a matter, even if they'd received a quick statement about it. What do the lawyers think?

    What are possible consequences? (none / 0) (#54)
    by KZ on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:04:42 PM EST
    I'm curious as to the consequences toward the prosecution of  3 issues/ falsehoods related to Witness 8.

    -portraying W8 as a minor for an extended period of time (what are the ramifications of that?)

    -conveying W8 as being in/at the hospital the day of the funeral (The ramifications of this seem obvious-- it was false/ a lie, which goes to the believability of other comments made by W8-- but is there a consequence for the prosecution here?)

    -withholding this written statement by W8, or delay in producing it, etc (however that is legally characterized)

     Is it generally felt that there will only be a tongue lashing by the judge, or are there potentially other sanctions that the judge could impose? (What are they?)

    Will the defense be allowed to present the history and progress of these issues very openly to the jury in an attempt to impeach her testimony, or does the "ownership" of the misinformation more belong to the conduct of the prosecutor?  Will W8 be accountable for these issues during testimony, or only the prosecutor in some discussion away from the knowledge of the jury? TIA.
    Hope that makes sense!

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by bmaz on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    Explore and impeach her on the stand? Absolutely, unless the court makes a crazy limitation ruling, which I cannot see. any real accountability from the prosecution? No.

    Parent
    Crump said W-8 was a minor. (none / 0) (#60)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    portraying W8 as a minor

    The prosecution didn't do that.

    Parent

    No, they didn't... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by bmaz on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    ...they unethically just failed to inform the defense once they knew.

    Parent
    How Unethical? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    Why would the prosecution have an ethical duty to inform the defense of W-8's age? It isn't exculpatory.

    It might be if W-8 herself misrepresented her age, but I'm not aware that such has been alleged.

    Parent

    W8 age (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by KZ on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:17:53 PM EST
    Well, IANAL, but it sure seems to me that DOB is pretty easy to demonstrate, and any attempt to mislead ( even by benign neglect/ omission) seems like a deliberate effort to perpetrate a lie to distract and advance "something" else. It sure doesn't appear honest. It appears a number of individuals perpetrated this lie. That bothers me a lot. I would definitely notice this if I were a juror.

    Parent
    "Unethically"? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    Amazing how that word gets thrown around so freely.  To accuse another lawyer of unethical conduct is a very serious charge.  What ethics rule did the prosecution violate and how, precisely?

    Parent
    If you don't think... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by bmaz on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    ...Brady and Giglio present duties that rise to ethical violation, you are seriously misinformed. Perhaps you should review Banks v. Dretke.

    Parent
    Silly arguments made of straw (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:01:50 AM EST
    If you don't think Brady and Giglio present duties that rise to ethical violation, you are seriously misinformed.

    Oh, I'm sorry.  Given the broad nature of the ethics rules, virtually every act by an attorney "present duties that rise to an ethical consideration".  I thought you were accusing the prosecutors of an ethical violation in this case, which is why I asked about which rule and what conduct, specifically.  The violation must be fairly egregious and obvious, particularly given that you state it as a fact.  Perhaps you should review the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.  You can even let the Florida Bar know about such patently unethical conduct, should the judge disagree and/or fail to refer the matter to them.

    Parent

    Yman, give it a rest (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    You are chattering now, you have expressed your view numerous times and your tone is insulting. No more comments on you in this thread please (or the gun control threads.)

    Parent
    Brady And The Age Of W-8 (none / 0) (#86)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    If W-8 is not the source of the misinformation, would her true age be Brady material? If so, why?

    Parent
    W8's age (none / 0) (#63)
    by KZ on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 09:57:36 PM EST
    Is a minor treated differently than a legal adult in terms of official questioning, etc.? It seems so to me, but maybe not?

    It seems that the efforts to portray W8 as a minor were geared both toward protection from media interest, as well as any official questioning. If that perspective is a true perception, then, IMO, it goes to a deliberate effort to shield, or making W8 "less available" to both the media and the defense. That disturbs me on a number of levels.

    Was W8 treated as a minor during questioning? Were the parents/ guardians present or informed during the questioning?

    So much about W8 bothers me. This letter pegs my Hinky meter.  The letter is very stilted to me, and reads as a statement she was "directed" and coached to write. It seems inconsistent with everything else we have learned about W8, and how she spontaneously communicates.

    I have compassion for this young woman, but so much of what she's said is inconsistent, or sounds overly coached. I have a hard time believing most of her statements. She may be of legal age, but seems very immature and manipulated/ manipulative. W8 worries me, because it seems she is one of the primary witnesses, and there are so many issues about her testimony.

    Please Explain (none / 0) (#65)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Mar 30, 2013 at 10:22:50 PM EST
    It seems that the efforts to portray W8 as a minor were geared both toward protection from media interest, as well as any official questioning. If that perspective is a true perception, then, IMO, it goes to a deliberate effort to shield, or making W8 "less available" to both the media and the defense.

    How would W-8 be made less available to the defense?

    Parent

    Check the Court Account (none / 0) (#78)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:18:05 PM EST
    the Defense was still calling "Dee Dee" a minor, and BDLR commented "are you sure she is a minor" late in the game, well, if the Prosecution didn't feel like telling the Defense, then I'd consider that "less available" to track down her history/records

    Parent