New George Zimmerman Discovery: Trayvon Liked Guns, Fights and Pot

(Larger version here)

The defense in the George Zimmerman case today released another batch of discovery it has provided the state. They include text messages and photos extracted from Trayvon Martin's cell phone. Several texts pertain to guns (Martin wanted one), marijuana, fighting, and his school suspension. There are many messages with Witness 8.

You can view all the items here. Diwataman has some of the most relevant screenshots here. [More....]

[Deleted: photos of last text of W8 at 7:08 pm. The phone records show a 4 minute call at 7:12, so there's no reason to believe his phone went dead before 7:08.]

While it's up to the judge whether and how much evidence of Trayvon's drug use, fighting and interest in guns is admitted, it sure seems that the state would be wise to refrain from introducing evidence of Trayvon's good character in its case in chief. The defense has plenty to rebut it. Trayvon texted others he had gotten in trouble at school for fighting both on Jan. 6 and Feb. 14.

Yesterday, the defense filed another batch of discovery. It included 80 photos of evidence taken at the FDLE office. Among the photos are ones of Trayvon Martin's tan pants. They have stains (that look like grass stains) on the knees. I think they make a good case that as Zimmerman claims, Trayvon was on top of him on the grass, holding him down as he hit his head into the ground.

The defense also supplied several items that support Zimmerman's defense: emails about burglars in the neighborhood that got away, instructions from the homeowners association telling residents to report suspicious persons, and tweets about burglars being arrested for neighborhood burglaries. One of the burglars lived in the neighborhood.

The defense also intends to introduce Angela Corey's announcement of Zimmerman's arrest.

< Widow and Father of Ibragim Todashev Speak Out | Jodi Arias Jury Deadlocks on Death Penalty,, Mistrial Declared >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't hold (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    Trayvon wanting a gun, being interested in MMA, or even potentially doing some weed (whether the good kind or the stuff that can make you paranoid) against Trayvon.
    Such stuff is rather normal teenage stuff.
    However his habit of actually getting into fights I very much DO hold against him, and it very much is relevant as to whether he was the type of kid who might feel that perhaps he should teach this fat, hispanic "old" man who was giving him 'the eye' a lesson.

    "Habit"? "fights"? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:03:35 PM EST
    However his habit of actually getting into fights I very much DO hold against him, and it very much is relevant as to whether he was the type of kid who might feel that perhaps he should teach this fat, hispanic "old" man who was giving him 'the eye' a lesson.

    What "habit"?  What "fights"?  Assuming this fight actually occurred and wasn't some kind of teenage bravado, his texts talk about him being in one fight.


    Jeralyn mentioned (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    Two incidents. I doubt they were the same one b/c they were about a month apart.

    There are other remarks (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    There is a remark, I think attributed to W8, about fighting, and while it was in response to the three round fight that Martin took two out of three, it was a general reference to fighting, presumably fighting other than the three rounder.  IIRC, this exchange included something along the lines of "Until you get suspended again?"

    Evidence of a single incident wouldn't be admissible, unless Zimmerman knew of it, and obviously, he didn't.  But evidence of reputation is admissible, regardless of defendant's awareness of that reputation.  It appears to me that W8 could be a reputation witness.

    O'Mara has made a point of telling the public that this material is part of discovery, and whether or not character evidence as to Martin comes in is up to how the state chooses to proceed in its case presentation.  O'Mara considers this evidence to be highly relevant, and he must believe he has a good argument for admissibility.

    On the specific fight, he says that it shows Martin was aware and experienced in the advantages of mounting the opponent - it was how Martin lost the first round of his three rounder.  So, maybe O'Mara plans to attempt to introduce this, regardless.


    They're not the same (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:03:49 PM EST
    The latter one is one in which Martin says he was in a fight.  In the Jan. 6 exchange, Martin said he was watching a fight and a teacher said he hit a guy.  He has no trouble admitting it in the Feb. text exchange - and even sounds like he's bragging about it, but not the first exchange where he said he was watching a fight.

    comment deleted stating (4.33 / 3) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    Martin's parents "lied."

    We don't call people liars on this site. You can say you disbelieve someone, but you cannot make a factual claim that they lied. Being wrong about something (such as driving Trayvon halfway vs taking the bus) is an inaccuracy, but it may or may not be an intentional lie.

    The Martins acknowledged their wasn't perfect and had issues he was working through. There is no evidence released to support they knew of his interest in guns. They never denied he smoked marijuana. There's also no evidence they knew he had been in the fights he texted about.

    I do not want potentially libelous statements made on this site. Please choose your words carefully, state  your opinion as such and avoid name-calling (such as calling people liars.)

    DD and TM fighting in text messages (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lily on Sat May 25, 2013 at 12:37:01 AM EST
    Okay, help me out here, since lying is not an acceptable way to describe false statements, how would you describe DeeDee's misrepresentation of TM's emotional state on Feb 26 ? We now know text messages she and TM were arguing and fighting throughout the day.

    point out the inconsistencies (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:32:35 AM EST
    and leave it at that. No need to call anyone a liar.

    The President ... (4.25 / 4) (#68)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:08:45 PM EST
    ... of the local chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is not happy with O'Mara's release of this information:

    "There is no reason why this information has been released, other than to affect jurors," said attorney Gene Nichols. "The allegation, or what the Zimmerman defense team wants everyone to believe, is that Trayvon was a violent young man. They want you to believe that Trayvon was involved with drugs because maybe he made statements over his texts. These are texts that would most likely never see the light of day in court."

    Gene Nichols is Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by cboldt on Fri May 24, 2013 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    He says that an allegation that defendant (or victim) is violent would never see the light of day in court.  We know from case law and the rules of evidence that that statement is false.  This is about a crime of violence, and a self defense claim that has the victim acting violently.  How can this attorney claim that a reputation for violence would most likely never see the light of day in court?

    He says that an allegation that defendant (or victim) was involved with drugs would never see the light of day in court.  The prosecution claims that Zimmerman had no good reason to be suspicious of Martin, and a rebuttal to that claim would include evidence that Martin's actions were affected by drug impairment.

    If Gene Nichols would categorically refrain from discovery in these areas, then I question his competence as a defense lawyer.  If Gene Nichols had competent evidence that Martin had a reputation for violence, and/or that Martin was impaired as he made his way through RTL, and decide to not attempt to admit that evidence, I further question his competence as a defense lawyer.  If he had such evidence and it was excluded, and his client was convicted, and Gene Nichols did not appeal the conviction on the basis of excluding pivotal evidence, well, you get the point by now.  His claim is nonsense on stilts.

    If it is true that Martin was a violent young man, and/or that he was impaired at the time he interacted with Zimmerman, evidence of those truths belongs in court.  Turn the outcome around, where Martin lives and is on trial for battery.  Would this evidence never see the light of day in court?  Gene Nichols claims it would not.


    You keep using that word - "Wrong" (3.33 / 6) (#73)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:23:21 PM EST
    You claim his opinion is "false", then follow with a series of questions indicating uncertainty, all the while questioning his competence as a criminal defense attorney.  I think what you actually mean to say is his interpretation of FL law and rules of evidence is different than yours.

    I don't know - former public defender and currently criminal defense counsel, President of the local chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    I think I'll go with his opinion.

    BTW - So you would also be in favor of introducing evidence of Zimmerman's prescription drug use as evidence that his actions were affected by "drug impairment"?  Similarly, "if it is true that Martin (Zimmerman) was a violent young man, and/or that he was impaired at the time he interacted with Zimmerman (Martin), evidence of those truths belongs in court"?


    An infinite supply of strawmen (4.20 / 5) (#85)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 06:57:37 AM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, his remarks to the press don't give us a clue about his performance as a defense attorney.  What you mistake as a challenge to his competence was a challenge to his assertion that the evidence is inadmissible.

    IF he wouldn't discover violence reputation evidence of an attacker of his client, IF he would not endeavor to admit violence reputation evidence of an attacker of his client, or IF he would not appeal the exclusion of competent violence reputation evidence in a trial against his client (and he makes these decisions on his interpretation of law, not as a tactical matter), then, say I, he is incompetent.

    Your argument would be more persuasive if it relied on more than appeal to his "authority" as a leader in a chapter of defense lawyers.  I pointed to Simon v. State.


    that is an incorrect view (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:12:50 PM EST
    He must not be following the case very closely. The defense has repeatedly said whether it will seek to introduce evidence of Trayvon's character and past acts pertaining to fighting, guns and marijuana depends on the approach taken by the state at trial. In other words, if the state's witnesses testify that TM was a non-violent person who would never attack anyone without provocation, the defense will seek to introduce this information to rebut that.

    In its filing today, it uses this phrase more than once about such evidence:

    Mr. Martin regularly communicated through Face book, Twitter and other social media and the contents of those messages may become relevant depending on other evidence in the case and the approach taken by the prosecution

    (in another section it repeats as to different items, "This evidence may become relevant depending on other evidence in the case and the approach taken by the prosecution."

    In order to be able to introduce the evidence, should the state open that door at trial, the defense has to list the items on a discovery notice. The only reason the information is public is because of Florida open records laws which provide for public access to discovery in criminal cases (which is absurd in my view, but that's the law in Florida.)

    This information was not released in order to influence the jury. It was released to give the state notice of the information it would seek to introduce if the state opens the door by claiming Trayvon Martin was a  peaceful, non-violent person.

    The information about his marijuana use is relevant to rebut the state's claim that GZ profiled Martin as a criminal and reported him based on his looks and clothes. When he called the non-emergency number, he told the dispatcher Martin was acting weirdly, like  he was high on drugs. That Martin had marijuana in his system, and had referenced in texts bringing some to Sanford, and disclosed in texts and social media he was a frequent user of the drugs, and had been suspended for possessing a baggie containing marijuana, could support GZ's valid reasons for reporting Martin as a suspicious person and rebut the state's claim. Thus, it has relevance to an issue in the case.

    The defense also claims Martin attacked GZ for no apparent reason. It wants to be able to introduce evidence of research studies showing marijuana use can lead to impaired judgment or paranoia, which might explain Trayvon's unprovoked attack on GZ. It writes:

    Mr. Martin told friends that he was bringing marijuana with him to Sanford. It is established in research literature that marijuana can affect one's judgment and demeanor and is known to cause paranoia and aggression in some.

    That TV lawyer's blanket claim that this information was released for prejudicial purposes and would not be admissible for any purpose is wrong. Whether it is admissible will depend on its relevance, which in turn will depend on what the state introduces at trial. The defense had to put the information in a discovery notice or it would be precluded from using it at trial. No one can know right now if it will be relevant or admissible because that determination depends on the evidence the state introduces at trial.


    Telecommunications (none / 0) (#74)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:30:20 PM EST
    Why aren't the texts covered by telecommunications privacy?

    because they got search warrants (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 25, 2013 at 01:36:11 AM EST
    for the data on the phone. The warrants are referred to in FCLE reports and the state's discovery, but the actual documents have not been released (applications/motions, affidavits, orders.)

    Other Data (none / 0) (#99)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 25, 2013 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    Sorry to be a pain, but I still don't get it. If the warrant was for the phone, why doesn't the exception apply to all the data, including ping and GPS?

    Its admissible if it's sufficient (none / 0) (#84)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 06:41:23 AM EST
    I don't think admissibility of this evidence turns, as a matter of law, on the the state opening the door.  I think that conditioning an attempt to enter it into evidence on the state opening the door is a trial strategy expressed by O'Mara.

    I believe that the defense could introduce the evidence of Martin's character, especially as it pertains to fighting, if it chose to, in presentation of the claim of self defense, even if the state never claimed that Martin did not know how to fight, didn't fight, etc.

    I do agree that admissibility at trial would be a call of the judge, but if the judge precluded introduction, I think that decision would be reversible error.  To reach that conclusion, I offer my sense that the evidence appears to be sufficient to establish character reputation.  W8 is one witness who knows Martin and his circle of friends well enough to have basis for a well founded finding of reputation.  The individual who asked Martin to teach him how to fight is another potential witness that could speak to Martin's "fighting reputation."

    Simon v. State, 4D08-2903 (Fl 4th DCA, 2010) is a case where the witness was found, at trial and on appeal, to lack basis for finding reputation.

    the witness acknowledged that her basis of knowledge as to the victim's reputation
    was one brief meeting with the victim, and a remote conversation with the victim's ex-girlfriend. In fact, up until the time of trial, the witness did not know the victim's real name.

    That provides one data point of insufficient foundation on the part of the witness.  What the court claims is required, to support admission of evidence of reputation, is ...

    a witness must establish "that
    the community from which the reputation testimony is drawn is sufficiently broad to provide the witness with adequate knowledge to give
    a reliable assessment."

    But Did They Have to Release It to the Public? (none / 0) (#86)
    by RickyJim on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:28:04 AM EST
    Of course they had to let the prosecution discover this material (as if they hadn't already) so as to prepare for possible use in trial.  However the defense has been getting flak, being accused of trying to "poison" the jury pool, because they released it on their website.  Plenty was redacted and there seems to also have been discovery that has not been listed in any court document.  SP Corey has said that the Sunshine Law should be amended so that no evidence will be released to the public until it is ruled admissible at trial.  My question is whether or not O'Mara and West had to publicly release it.

    I think the State had to (none / 0) (#89)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    This material is part of the state's investigation into the death of Martin.  The state discovered these texts and photos before the defense did, and the state has an obligation to turn it over to the defense.

    The defense also discovered it, and not knowing the state already had it, turned it over to the state.

    Open book discovery is public information in Florida.  See Florida Sunshine Law Manual.

    The prosecution should know how to file motions with the court, to obtain orders that limit disclosure, and did so to redact witness names, addresses and phone numbers.  It can ask for more, but it has to justify the need for closure.


    Sunshine Manual is required reading (none / 0) (#90)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    I was a bit surprised to learn that depositions, the entire depositions, are public after the trial has concluded.  The depositions are court documents, but are protected through the course of the trial.

    The state can move to close discovery materials.  The sunshine law and case law has a substantial amount of precedent.  I take Corey's grousing at the disclosure of Martin's past as, well, "weak" and "self serving."  I'll look to see if I can find other cases where she has objected to sunshine.  She didn't object when it was Zimmerman's past coming out, and interestingly, she argued in court that having Zimmerman show up to arraignment in prison orange would not be prejudicial to a jury - they are able to sort it out just fine.  The state objected to Zimmerman being allowed to appear in street clothes.


    Ability to Object (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    I think it's also significant that the state has an avenue to dispute records release with the court - as they have done before. The problem that seemed to present itself to the state here is that they would had to have first acknowledged the existence of that information to the court and to Zimmerman.

    Doesn't Have 'Discovery' in the Index (none / 0) (#95)
    by RickyJim on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    It will take me a while before I find in the manual exactly what is relevant to the defense release of texts and photos.  The defense took the liberty of redacting certain texts for public release.  I would like to know, in particular, the applicable rules on that.

    Sunshine Manual Pages - Discovery (none / 0) (#96)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 10:17:03 AM EST
    Start on page 67, judicial branch records.  Page 69 covers "discovery" material.

    Law enforcement records (which includes investigations, and is arguably what Corey and Bernardo have been trying to hide) starts on page 95.  Note, in particular, how "active" and "inactive" investigations are distinguished, and note that Zimmerman has been arrested and charged.  There are also some exclusion from disclosure under pending prosecution and appeals, page 100.

    Page 172 describes the legal standard for overturning a trial court inhibition of public access to discovery material.


    State's Response to Defendant Motion (none / 0) (#97)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    This is the state, arguing on April 19, 2012.

    Defendant does so on the novel theory that "the manner in which [he] is portrayed by the media will have a tremendous impact on his ability to receive a fair trial."  This is, obviously, a false premise designed to provide a foundation for a meritless claim.  In fact, when the Defendant actually proceeds to trial ALL jurors (both prospective and seated) will be instructed (Per Standard Jury Instructions 1.0, 1.2, 2.1) that they are not to consider matters discussed or portrayed about the case outside the courtroom, including media both print and electronic.  Jurors are presumed to follow instructions.

    Emphasis in original.  Typos are, of course, all mine.


    No, O'Mara didn't have to release it. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:26:15 AM EST
    My question is whether or not O'Mara and West had to publicly release it.

    O'Mara did not have to release it, but someone did. This was covered in one of the early orders by Judge Lester:

    1. The State's motion for a gag order is denied.

    2. All documents filed with the Clerk of Court shall remain open for public inspection, with the exception of:

    a) Documents addressing the security of the parties, witnesses, or attorneys while at the courthouse; and

    b) Documents containing the current address or location of the Defendant or his spouse.

    1. Future documents may be filed under seal if accompanied by a Motion for Protective Order if the filing party has a good-faith belief that the information contained therein may be restricted according to law. The parties shall also file a redacted copy of any such pleading that obscures only the protected information. The redacted copy shall remain under seal until further order of the Court.

    2. The Court will endeavor to offer expedited hearing time to any entity that seeks full disclosure of such sealed records.

    Remember that the state decided to publish this information behind a paywall, which tended to limit access to media sources, most of which (at that time) had no interest in telling Zimmerman's side of the story or (for some) even restricting themselves to basic truth. When O'Mara started his social media site, he published an explanation of his goals:

    On June 18, we began posting public documents associated with the case. We feel that providing these documents directly on our website allows interested parties to access the information without the filter of the media and thereby serves the purpose of disputing any potential misinformation surrounding the documents. Moving forward, we will use our online presence to post public records, pleadings, and reciprocal discovery that is relevant to the case.

    Though the burden to release this information seems to lay mainly with the government, O'Mara not only provided a portal for distributing information helpful to his client, he went further and provided all information - including items that could have the effect of casting Zimmerman in a negative light.

    From interactions over a the forum, I'm guessing this isn't new information for you. I just thought it a good idea to recite it all here, since many others seem to adopt the meme that this release was some sort of dirty trick on the part of Team Zimmerman.


    Off Topic - Corey and Sunshine (none / 0) (#94)
    by cboldt on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Angela Corey Takes A Stand - June 11, 2009

    New State Attorney Angela Corey has informed City officials that she will not tolerate any violations of Florida's open government laws.  According to the Times-Union, Corey told officials that violations caused "irreparable public injury."  She said the public considers "themselves victims of any violation of the Sunshine Law and victims of any violations of public records law because they become victims of a loss of trust."

    The "violations" she claims she was going to prosecute are failures to disclose, or hiding public information, usually public notice and meetings of local city and town councils, behind bogus arguments that the materials were not public.

    Corey believes following the Sunshine Laws is a public trust matter as much as anything. She said violations represent irreparable public injury and her office will pursue any valid claims that are presented.

    Nobody expects you to be a lawyer, but ignorance of the law is no defense, said Corey, adding if there is any doubt about whether an action could be construed as a violation of the Sunshine Law there are two easy steps to take: dont do it or call someone and ask.

    Of course, criminal prosecutions are a horse of a different color.  Other than the Zimmerman case, I can't find remarks by or about her attitude toward sunshine.  In the Zimmerman case, she has fronted bogus arguments for closure, and lost in court.  I think her attitude toward sunshine depends on whose ox is being gored.


    I think there's another good reason (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:22:45 PM EST
    For the defense to release as much of it's discovery and the prosecutions discovery as it will be legally allowed; indeed I'd release anything I even considered "on the line" of legality if I was O'Mara. Why? Because transparency. This case stinks all to H,E, double L , and it might help to avoid a railroad or with appeals from said railroad.

    Judge Nelson on Reputation Evidence (none / 0) (#100)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 25, 2013 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    In the hearing that addressed discovery of the school records (10/19/12), Judge Nelson addressed whether evidence of Martin's reputation should be excluded on the ground that Zimmerman was unaware of it. She cited Munoz v. State, 45 So.3d 954, (3d DCA 2010), and Dwyer v. State, 743 So.2d 46, (5th DCA 1999) (16:47-18:44).

    Nelson quoting Munoz

    The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show the victim was the initial aggressor. Reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim's reputation in the community.

    Nelson quoting Dwyer, as quoted in Munoz

    [A] defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind.

    Nelson's conclusion.

    So, based upon those two cases, I think that you're entitled to those records. I noticed in the state, in their response, it said they didn't have an objection per se. So I think they have an understanding of that, the law, also.

    I wrote a post about that (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 26, 2013 at 02:00:51 AM EST
    not incriminating. (4.20 / 5) (#6)
    by tomchicago01 on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:27:15 PM EST
    These are just smears of Martin.  Many youth (for better or for worse) covet guns from the age of 8, and the use of marijuana is in no way relevant to any purpose except to show Martin in a "bad" light, portraying pot-smoking as dreadful and as some kind of gateway to armed violence.

    Does You Think (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    they could be allowed to be used to impeach witnesses who might testify that TM was a docile, non confrontational, polite young man who would never behave in the violent manner Zimmerman attributed to him?

    Not a smear (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat May 25, 2013 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    "Smear" is generally associated with slander, or spreading false accusations.

    As far as I know, the defense hasn't released any false information or speculated in a false way. If facts about GZ can be released, I don't understand why the same can't be done for TM.

    The public deserves to know the truth, which is what media lawyers would argue if anyone tries to amend FL's Sunshine Law.

    The latest releases speak to accusations against GZ. Previously, TM was described as someone who was laid-back with no interest in fighting, while GZ was described as aggressive, with the insinuation that TM was unlikely to be the aggressor; he must have been defending himself.

    The fact that TM had discussed fighting with Witness 8 makes her previous statements questionable. It also gives an explanation of why she didn't report her conversation earlier.  
    That TM wanted to be perceived as a "gangsta," at least among some of his friends, relates to how others perceived him.

    The fact that TM smoked pot relates to the smear campaign that GZ profiled TM only because he was a young black man wearing a hoodie. If he looked like he was on drugs, as GZ told the dispatcher, that would suggest GZ had other reasons to be suspicious.

    That TM took a bus part of the way to Brandy Green's home relates to Tracy Martin's truthfulness.


    hmmmm, guns and grass (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 27, 2013 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    not exactly skittles and iced tea either are they?

    Every youth wants a street gun (none / 0) (#9)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    Plus, it is cost efficient.  Cheaper to buy a street gun than to go through a dealer.

    The charge that this evidence is "just smears" is predictable.  But what do you call the presentation of a false positive impression?  And is it "just smears" when the state or Crump bring up Zimmerman's cousin?  His run in with an undercover alcohol enforcement officer?  DV complaints from his first wife?


    "Predictable", but true? (3.67 / 3) (#18)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:39:30 PM EST
    The charge that this evidence is "just smears" is predictable.  But what do you call the presentation of a false positive impression?  And is it "just smears" when the state or Crump bring up Zimmerman's cousin?  His run in with an undercover alcohol enforcement officer?  DV complaints from his first wife?

    You're saying the charge of "just smears (as it relates to the Martin evidence) is predicable", while equating it to similar evidence against Zimmerman.

    So are they both "smears" or not?


    Answer your own question (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:03:54 PM EST
    You are the relevance expert, so apply your expertise to the evidence all around, and label each piece as you see fit, "smear" or "not smear."  I don't have the patience to have a civil discussion with you.

    Bravo!! eom (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cashmere on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:06:40 PM EST
    Thanks! Good to see you recognize it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:22:43 PM EST
    I think they are smears, except (possibly) as rebuttal material.  But since you were the one analogizing the two, I was curious to see if you would be consistent.

    I took cbolt's comment to mean they are both (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cashmere on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:51:14 PM EST
    (meaning sides of the argument) predictable, both may be "smears", some or all or none on all sides "may be true".  IANAL of course...  but in my opinion, all of this type of evidence should be allowed if either the state or the defense chooses to present "character" as a point of consideration to the jury.  

    Trayvon is dead (none / 0) (#48)
    by Payaso on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:45:22 AM EST
    Zimmerman is going on trial for murder.  What is more important, Zimmerman getting a fair trial or preserving Trayvon's reputation?

    It depends, and which reputation? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cboldt on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:04:32 AM EST
    If you believe O'Mara, the importance of disclosure at trial depends on whether or not the state makes an issue of character.  But I see too much temptation to bring up Martin's experience on the point of showing proficiency and deficit of fear when it comes to fisticuffs.  And that issue comes up in the last five minutes, the part of the incident that O'Mara wants the jury to focus on.

    If you are promoting a "good clean kid" reputation for Martin, or a "just a normal teen" reputation (not squeaky clean, but won't initiate violence), then it is important that any information that cuts against that narrative be suppressed, both from the trial and from the public at large.  You will rationalize the outcome of suppression at trial as resulting in a more fair process.  Corey said this in a recent interview.  The jury is given filtered information, all, of course, in the interest of fairness and justice.

    If you are interested in a search for the truth or reality, what you find might change Martin's reputation in your own mind.  In that sense, "preserving a reputation" depends on whose impression of Martin's reputation is at stake.  I think what people really mean when they say "preserve a reputation" of a dead person is actually "preserve a narrative and memory that is incomplete and fictionalized in part."  Speak no ill of the dead and all that.

    More succinctly, which is more important depends on your personal agenda.


    This is ugly. (3.91 / 11) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    Anyone who's been ever been teenager themselves can tell you that if there's one common character trait amongst most teenaged boys Trayvon Martin's age, it's braggadocio.

    The sometimes scary or appalling things that teenaged boys will talk about either doing or having done -- particularly when talking with other teens -- and what they actually do or have done in real life are, more often than not, two entirely different things.

    In that regard, the notion that because Trayvon Martin perhaps boasted to friends about fighting or wanting a gun, he should therefore be considered a potentially violent threat is laughable on its face.

    Did Martin actually own a gun? No, he did not.

    Was Martin suspended from school for fighting? No, he was suspended on three separate occasions for: (1) possession of drug paraphernalia (a "marijuana pipe" and a baggie with some pot residue); (2) graffiti and possession of a flathead screwdriver (or "burglary tool"); and (3) truancy and showing up late for class.

    Does there exist a documented history of the deceased having gotten into fights? Certainly none that I can see. There has been an allegation that Martin may have once gotten into a fight with a bus driver, but no formal record of any such incident exists.

    Let me ask you, would we just naturally assume that because we overheard a 17-year-old boy talking to his buddies about having the hots for some girl, he should therefore be considered a potential threat for sexual assault? Of course we wouldn't -- at least, I should hope not, were we rational and sane.

    Look, I'm more than willing to concede that the deceased is hardly an ideal candidate for canonization, and that yes, it would be a mistake for the prosecution to paint a false portrait of him as St. Trayvon of Miami. The truth is that he was probably not unlike a lot of his peers, a braggart who was prone to exaggeration when talking to his friends, and who occasionally got into a little trouble. The primary difference between him and myself at that age is that I never got caught.

    All that said, and given the fact that the defendant and the deceased did not know one another, I find it very unseemly that the defense should now be seeking to just as questionably redefine the deceased's character ex post facto as some sort of unrepentant young bad a$$. Are they actually going to offer that up as a rationale for the defendant's actions that night, that George Zimmerman somehow did society a favor by taking out Trayvon Martin before he had an opportunity to mature into a violent adulthood?

    Is the counsel for the defense really that desperate? Because quite honestly, beased upon this batch of discovery, that's now my own personal perception. And given my previously stated contention that based upon what I know of this case, I could not in good conscience vote to convict the defendant of second-degree murder, were I a member of the trial jury, that would probably not be a place where the defense wants to lead me, albeit unwittingly or inadvertently.

    Aloha from your Devil's Advocate.

    Add another piece to your calculus (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    What about Zimmerman's injuries?  Do you believe Martin inflicted them?  Do you think W6 is mistaken as to Martin being on top of Zimmerman?

    Was Zimmerman injured by braggadocio?


    That seems to be Donald's argument (3.67 / 3) (#28)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:44:35 PM EST
    Man, that Trayvon - he had A LOT Of braggadocio!!

    Let us remember that the "Saint Trayvon" story was plastered everywhere after this incident went down and has contributed to problems with Zimmerman's safety and arguably his right to a fair trial as it was pressure concerning potential riots over the death of this Tea and Skittles Saint that arguably led the state to charge this at all.


    I believe Martin inflicted them (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with Donald's point about engaging in braggadocia in his text messages, a point reinforced by the actual text exchange where he calls himself a "hood boy" and asks the girl if she's a "hood chick".

    Didn't the individual he was texting with (none / 0) (#38)
    by leftwig on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:35:18 PM EST
    make several references to TM fighting a lot and even told him that he needed to stop?  Ah yes, here are the quotes: "yun always fightin man, yu got suspended?" followed up later with "you need to stop fightin".  I guess its possible this friend has taken TM's braggadocia hook line and sinker.

    Could very well be (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:50:42 PM EST
    You'd have to ask the friend.

    OTOH - I don't know what "always fighting" means - nor the basis for the sender's statement - but Martin had an exchange where was asked:  "U had a fight this year?", to which he replied "Yea, bt nt at skool" - which is how he described the fight he previously discussed.


    The text exchange I am referring to (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by leftwig on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:49:51 AM EST
    did not have the friend ask "U had a fight this year".  TM volunteered that he was sore and had just been in a fight with a guy because the guy snitched on him.  The friend responded that he was always fightin and asked if he got suspended.  I think a desire to fight someone who snitches on him should be considered relevant to this case.

    The one I'm referring to did (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 07:56:26 AM EST
    And unless the texter is testifying, we have no idea what "always fighting" means, and we have Martin's texts claiming he was in one fight.  Moreover, there is zero evidence that Martin perceived Zimmerman as a "snitch".  All of which is even before the prejudicial value of the statement is weighed, which is precisely why (IMO) this evidence will be excluded, with the possible exception as rebuttal evidence.

    There is circumstantial evidence that TM (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by leftwig on Fri May 24, 2013 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    may have thought GZ was a snitch.  GZ's statements are evidence in the case and he says TM approached him asking him if he had a problem.  W8 says TM saw GZ following him and that GZ was on the phone.  There are a few scenarios I could play for what TM was thinking.  One seems to fit better with the evidence that TM ran from GZ's sight, was right by his fathers house, then went walking back again to the spot where he could last see GZ and encountered him.

    I certainly wouldn't say we knew TM thought GZ was snitching, but given evidence and witness statements, its a distinct possibility.

    I do tend to agree that most of the stuff posted by the defense is rebuttal evidence.  I think evidence of fighting is the exception.


    Speculation about what TM ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    ... might have been thinking because it's a "possibility" is not evidence.  There are also a few "scenarios" where I could pretend to know what TM was thinking, but that would also be sheer speculation.

    Ignoring the self-serving nature of GZ's claim about Martin's purported statement ("Do you have a problem?"), that statement gives absolutely no indication that TM thought he was a "snitch".  It indicates he wants to know why he is following him.  Similarly, W8's statement that Martin was "right by" his father's house could mean almost anything.  Given the length of the walk from the house to the 7-11, Martin was "right by" BG's house when he was at the "T".  Heck, he was "right by" BG's house when he made it back to the development.  Finally, Martin would have absolutely no idea who Zimmerman was talking to on his phone.  In fact, if Martin thought that Zimmerman had "snitched" (i.e. called the police), it would make no sense for him to assault Zimmerman, struggle with him for a period of time and then threaten/attempt to kill him, believing that Zimmerman had 'snitched" and police would be there at any moment.


    Departure Point (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    In fact, if Martin thought that Zimmerman had "snitched" (i.e. called the police), it would make no sense for him to assault Zimmerman, struggle with him for a period of time and then threaten/attempt to kill him, believing that Zimmerman had 'snitched" and police would be there at any moment.

    That's a line for the state to walk. As soon as they ask the question why, the a criminal defendant should be entitled to respond with possible answers for the jury to consider.


    Who is the state going to ask "why?" (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    Who other than the dead Trayvon Martin could answer that without the kind of wild speculation you and others keep offering?  

    And let's say, just for fun, that the "criminal defendant" even takes the stand - what makes you think he's going to get to offer "possible answers" for what the person he shot and killed was thinking?

    I'll say one thing: the comments in these Zimmerman threads have more bad creative writing in them than an English 101 class at the local community college...


    we're not here for our writing skills (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:41:26 PM EST
    but to express our opinions. I don't want anyone to hesitate to comment because of concern their writing and grammar will be judged.

    A major goal of this site is to engage non-lawyers in discussion about legal cases. Please don't make readers feel intimidated in doing so. Or insult them because their comments aren't up to some  literary standard you have.

    Also, your criticism strikes me as elitist. There's nothing wrong with a local community college. And you shouldn't need to go to college to be able to express yourself on a blog.


    My comment had nothing to do with (3.67 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:38:42 AM EST
    grammar or spelling - it had everything to do with the creative nature of many of the comments I read about this case - comments loaded with speculation, people thinking they can divine what a now-dead teenager was thinking, or what his motives were.  They speculate and fabricate as if they are writing a novel, not dealing with the facts.

    And they seem to think - despite your detailed and lengthy posts - that these wild and creative things will actually make it into a trial - that someone will be able to sit on the witness stand and provide musings that are unable to be corroborated or supported by evidence.

    All the good grammar in the world wouldn't make those kind of comments acceptable - way to completely miss the point.  



    Well, I certainly understood (4.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Zorba on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:20:26 AM EST
    your point, Anne.  And I agree with you.

    On The Bright Side (none / 0) (#79)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    At least she didn't say 'English 001'.

    (For those who didn't go to community college, that would be the remedial class.)


    Uh no (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jack203 on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:09:41 PM EST
    "Anyone who's been ever been teenager themselves can tell you that if there's one common character trait amongst most teenaged boys Trayvon Martin's age, it's braggadocio."

    "Braggadocio" isn't cutting it.

    Plenty of 17 year olds use drugs, but I wouldn't use the term "common" for constantly suspended from school and getting kicked out of the house.   Maybe 2-3% of the boys in my highschool were ever suspended.

    The gun picture takes it to a different level.
    I'm in suburban NJ, the father-son hunting culture is not too big around here.  I'm guessing Trayvon wasn't holding the gun because he was about to go hunting with Pop.


    A perfect example ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    ... of why this type of material shouldn't be admitted:

    I'm guessing Trayvon wasn't holding the gun because he was about to go hunting with Pop.

    Leaving aside the issue of the fact that we don't know whose gun it was or who was holding the gun, what are you "guessing" he was about to go do?  If you saw a picture of GZ holding his gun, would you guess the same thing?  


    Actually (3.67 / 3) (#42)
    by Jack203 on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    Your sides continuous denial of reality is a better example of how absolutely nothing will convince you that Trayvon assaulted GZ.

    This is a second degree murder charge - (4.67 / 3) (#58)
    by MikeB on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    Under Florida law, this is defined as a killing carried out without premeditation but with "a depraved mind regardless of human life". So far, almost all of what GZ said has been true. GZ began interviews immediately after the shooting. Conversely, W8 waited 2 weeks - and with a lawyer. She lied. Now it's clear there were other lies as well. Finally, almost every talking point in Martin's defense has been proven false. Zimmerman was on his back getting punched out. There are witnesses. Zimmerman has injuries to show he was getting punched out. Yet the state has charged Zimmerman with a "a depraved mind regardless of human life". And you want to play devil's advocate? Would you claim your same seat in the cheap seats if it were a family member in GZ's place?

    Zimmerman's Statements (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    So far, almost all of what GZ said has been true.

    I disagree. Intentionally or not, Zimmerman has said a number of things that are demonstrably false, or mutually contradictory. This has been documented in discussion on the forum.


    please do not cite the forums as support for (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    your conclusion that GZ has been contradictory or made false statements. Those are your opinions and you should refer to them as such, not imply they are the views of the forum. I disagree as I outlined here. The views posted by people on the forum do not speak for the forum and are not the views of the forum -- they are the merely the opinions of individual commenters and may or may not be accurate.

    Dissent (none / 0) (#78)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    I did not do any of those things. I said 'on the forum', which means what it says.

    It would be a big, time-consuming job to bring together all of Zimmerman's inaccuracies and contradictions in one place for easy reference. I'm planning to work on it. I don't know if I will complete it by the beginning, or the end, of the trial.

    You did not object to the unqualified, unsupported assertion that 'So far, almost all of what GZ said has been true.' May such a thing be stated as a fact, while my disagreement must be given a contrasting, denigrating label?

    I appreciate your dignifying my view as a 'conclusion'. Last time we went around on this, you called it 'speculation'.    


    Variations (none / 0) (#80)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    I disagree as I outlined here.

    My, that was a long time ago.

    At the time I was just beginning to study the recordings of Zimmerman's interviews. I wasn't ready to discuss them. I didn't comment on that post, but I did read it.


    Sentiment (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cylinder on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:36:54 PM EST
    Honest question: A client comes to you and claims that he was trying to report suspicious activity, was attacked in a secluded place where his nose was targeted, the attacker didn't stop and you client killed him. In doing an investigation, you find in another recent incident the deceased felt like he was reported, fought that person in a secluded location, targeted his nose but didn't think that was enough punishment.

    Is that legitimate evidence from the perspective of your client?


    It depends (none / 0) (#41)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:51:40 PM EST
    If your client knows the prior incident, it comes in.  If your client did not know the prior incident, it does not come in.

    This exclusionary rule is intended to keep evidence of past individual incidents out, because a person might be convicted for something he didn't do, based on something he did do, but earlier and separately.  In a word, the prior incident, standing alone, is prejudicial.

    It's a good rule.  The reason it feels icky in this case is that the prosecution has upended the normal justice process by fictionalizing Martin, and substituting conjecture, unreliable witnesses, and emotion for credible evidence in order to mount a political prosecution and placate the mob.  If there was credible evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punches, etc., and faked being in an inferior physical position in order to fabricate evidence that justified deadly force, you'd have a different sense about tarring Martin with single incident evidence.


    Evidence of Motive (none / 0) (#44)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 23, 2013 at 11:33:52 PM EST
    If Martin were on trial for assault, would his boasting of challenging someone to a fight because he 'snitchd' be admissible as evidence of motive?

    In self defense cases, is evidence of the victim's motive lumped in with 'character', or treated differently?


    Same rationale (none / 0) (#46)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 11:40:41 PM EST
    The exclusion of past incidents, except when known to the victim, is usually thought of as applying to a defendant.  In your example, to a defendant in an assault case.  I have a hard time separating "motive" from "character" in the example you give. Plus, boasting of challenge is a step or two removed from a propensity to USE violence.

    Legitimate inquiry (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 24, 2013 at 06:10:34 AM EST
    I was asking more about legitimate inquiry (i.e. legitimate evidence) more than admissible inquiry (i.e. admissible evidence).

    Would it not be malpractice in that hypothetical for an attorney to assert to his client that the evidence is immaterial and that no inquiry should be made?

    "Listen, it would be unfair to the victim here to pry into his personal matters. It's better to just ignore his past."

    Should I keep that lawyer or run away as fast as my little feet will take me?

    O'Mara is not smearing Martin here. It is his duty to Zimmerman, his oath and to the constitution to make inquiries that challenges the assertions made (or might be made) by the state.

    Some of this information is unfortunate. Some of it can raise an ugly specter. In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen.

    That fact is totally irrelevant - and I'll tell you why. The state had the opportunity on discovering this information to bring it to the attention of the court and asked that it be protected from public disclosure. They had an opportunity to bring it to Zimmerman's attention and ask for a gentleman's agreement. Instead, they played hide the ball and lost.

    In my opinion, O'Mara is above reproach in this matter. He decided as a strategy to make a portal to disseminate information. He has even done it in a neutral manner - his site contained information that could cast his own client in an unfortunate light long before this material found light (jail calls, statements by W9, assertions by the state, etc...)

    As an aside, I'm not attacking your opinion here since you've never asserted O'Mara was playing dirty here. Just consider this a vent.


    Certainly discoverable (none / 0) (#51)
    by cboldt on Fri May 24, 2013 at 06:24:14 AM EST
    Evidence of incidents, conduct and reputation are all legitimate avenues for discovery.  I agree with your statement that O'Mara has been playing fair against the prosecution, more than fair, I would say.  I've opined here that I thought O'Mara didn't make enough of an issue of Lester's incarceration order, which I believe was an unlawful order - and that maybe he did so as a concession to the sate, or as a practical matter of it taking more time to resolve through an appeal than through a motion to reconsider and waiting for the next scheduled hearing.  I don't find Bernardo's arguments that O'Mara hasn't been playing by the rules to be based in fact or law.

    Man (3.29 / 7) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    And that rape victim was promiscuous so you know...

    This trial is partly about (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:25:19 PM EST
    WHO is the victim here.
    Is it George Zimmerman who, for whatever dumb or good reasons was assaulted and reasonably feared for his life, and who, since then has had to deal with death threats, loss of employment and the attentions of untruthful and uncaring media hungry only for a circus?
    Or was it Trayvon who ended up dead from a single gunshot, but otherwise has no evidence of injury at all?
    Heck, if it really was a tragic misunderstanding (scared Trayvon, scared Zimmerman) maybe we've got ourselves two victims.
    Certainly I think Zimmerman is a victim of an unethical prosecution, in that even if he was reckless I think the most he could reasonably be charged with was manslaughter.

    Anyway, this kind of reaction is totally unhelpful and even hypocritical if you are one of those who fell for ... "future astronaut(implying no trouble in and great grades at school), walking straight home with only that bottle of tea and a pack of skittles, until the mean, racist profiling white man (or white hispanic take your pick!)decided he didn't like the cut of his jib...."


    Exactly Slayerezo (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jack203 on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:36:22 PM EST
    I think both parties made mistakes that night.  Including George for pulling that trigger.  

    I do not think Trayvon had any redeeming qualities at 17 years old.  But I think a lot of 17 year olds of every race are similar.  Trayvon would have had his whole life to turn into a productive member of society, and he probably would have.

    Tragic accidents happen.  Sometimes bad things happen when two men fight, especially when one of them has a gun.  The unethical and disgusting prosecution of George Zimmerman is one of the worst miscarriages of justice I've ever witnessed.


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#29)
    by morphic on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:47:17 PM EST
       If Trayvon Martin was scared, why didn't he leave the area, since he obviously had a head start?'

    But you said it was the photo ... (3.25 / 4) (#61)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    Plenty of 17 year olds use drugs, but I wouldn't use the term "common" for constantly suspended from school and getting kicked out of the house.   Maybe 2-3% of the boys in my highschool were ever suspended.

    The gun picture takes it to a different level.
    I'm in suburban NJ, the father-son hunting culture is not too big around here.  I'm guessing Trayvon wasn't holding the gun because he was about to go hunting with Pop.

    ... that "takes it to a different level".  Now it's "not JUST the photo", but all of the evidence.  Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence that TM owned a gun, let alone who was holding the gun.

    Finally, yes, bring in all evidence you can about who exactly George Zimmerman was.  That would be great.  I completely welcome it.

    Well, it's not really up to me.  It's up to the judge who will (IMO) undoubtedly exclude this evidence because it is irrelevant and likely to provoke prejudicial judgments from certain people, which was the point of my response.   think a judge would rightly decide that such evidence against Zimmerman (i.e. allegations of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, domestic violence, sexual abuse - perhaps a photo of him holding his gun) are irrelevant and prejudicial, and should therefore be excluded.  But these decisions are not (as you claim) based on "desperation ... to hide all details" about who the defendant is.  They're based upon fundamental evidentiary standards (relevancy/prejudicial value) and the concept of protecting the accused from being convicted through the use of irrelevant (and unproven) attacks on his character, rather than the evidence relevant to the charges at hand.

    YMan, you are baiting and (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:20:13 PM EST
    starting fights and veering off on tangents. You have previously been limited to four comments a thread on George Zimmerman. Stop blog-clogging. I've deleted the spat between you and Jack203. Insults are not allowed here and you just keep repeating your anti-GZ views.

    Fine - I'll stick to 4 comments (3.43 / 7) (#76)
    by Yman on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:30:37 PM EST
    My views are not "anti-GZ".  I just have a serious issue with the character assassination of TM and anyone associated with him.  As far as "insults", that would be Jack203.

    Lost Text Messages (none / 0) (#1)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    O'Mara mentioned that W8 said some texts that she sent do not appear on the papers that O'Mara showed as (I assume) received on Martin's phone.

    She also said the phone went dead, and it could be that the phone went dead - unable to receive text messages sent after 7:15 or whenever she (claims to have) heard the last sound.  I think we need to combine the voice times with the text times to reach the conclusion that W8 was not in voice communication after the last / unread text was received on Martin's phone.  Or, find independent evidence on the phone memory that it died before 7:14.

    Just saying, the phone could have been alive for part of the nine minutes you flag as troublesome, and could have been in voice contact with W8.

    The last unread text... (none / 0) (#2)
    by redwolf on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:42:24 PM EST
    could have come in once the phone was powered back on.  I believe the date stamp is the time the text was sent, not the time it was received locally.

    That's another possibility (none / 0) (#3)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    I agree that the phone may be showing all the texts received, and that even the text marked as 7:08 could have gone undelivered until the phone being powered on later.  But we still need more information in order to draw the conclusion that the phone was dead after 7:08.

    I forgot about the phone call (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 23, 2013 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    being from 7:12 to 7:16 per Tracy's phone bill. I'm going to delete the part of my post about the text at 7:08 because it doesn't mean anything given the phone call. Thanks.

    But Is That Call Correct? (none / 0) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    I asked on the forum but no answer yet.  I can't recall those Tracy phone records being part of official discovery.  Don't we only have something Crump has released?

    Nothing in discovery that we know of (none / 0) (#8)
    by cboldt on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    A this point, there is nothing in discovery to authenticate the phone bill that Crump showed.  Just the same, it is possible for the phone to be in voice communication after the last unread text comes in, so the conclusion that W8 is outright fabricating her voice communication can't be asserted based solely on the fact the last message on Martin's phone is 7:08, unread.

    Some Cellphone Questions (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    I don't own one and I am not afraid to embarrass myself so here goes:

    1. Is it possible to send a text to another phone and have its delivery delayed until after a later call between the same phones is completed?

    2. On a phone almost out of charge, which is more likely to be received, a 4 minute call or a 10 word text message?

    I have a personal iPhone and a corporate (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cashmere on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:42:51 PM EST
    Android.  Both alert me to text messages when I am on the phone and alert me to phone calls while I am texting.  Same with email.  I am alerted almost immediately of all message types, regardless of what application I am using.  There are sometimes delays in receiving the call/email/text message, but the time stamp still shows when the message was sent (or should have been received...  a time close to the "sent" time).  Just last night (around 10pm) I received a text from a co-worker about an earlier text I had sent in the afternoon (around 1pm).  He was letting me know that he just received the text, but the time stamp for the text being sent to him was 1:04pm.    Perhaps others have had different experiences, but this is what I have observed.  Hope it helps.

    RickyJim (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    We should all strive to be like Jeralyn in that regard when these kinds of cases are brought forward. Respectful, yet reasonably suspicious at least until all the facts come in.

    "Slut shaming" isn't always present at rape trials and like any of the feminist memes it's sometimes shouted and screamed more for effect than for illumination, but occasionally you do find people who do so.

    Yman my man... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri May 24, 2013 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    you are a glutton for punishment on these Zimmerman threads, I salute you.

    Last I checked, "weed guns and fights" would qualify you as a god damn apple pie all-american teenager in this country in 2013.  Though I liked it much better back in the day before the world was so insane, when it was "weed whites and wine".

    I say again, these charges should be dropped, reasonable doubt exists...before Trayvon Martin gets turned into Tookie Williams pre-redemption.  We will always have the gun-toting troublemaker conviction in the court of public opinion.  But the prosecutors have their careers to worry about I guess...so it'll never happen.  I understand the defense has a job to do, but it doesn't make it any easier to stomach where this is headed.

    Listen To O'Mara's Reasoning (none / 0) (#62)
    by RickyJim on Fri May 24, 2013 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    Start around 6:50 here.  He makes it clear that he doesn't intend to use the text messages and pictures except to rebut a prosecution attempt to whitewash Martin's character.  He says that he had to release them to the public as well as giving them as discovery to the prosecution because of Florida's Sunshine Laws.  Of course plenty was redacted.  Could he have redacted everything so as to avoid the criticism that he was trying to pollute the jury pool?

    Fighting (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sat May 25, 2013 at 08:30:14 AM EST
    Even if the state doesn't introduce evidence that Martin didn't fight, didn't know how to fight, was a peaceful person, wouldn't evidence of Martin's fighting be relevant to the defense?

    1. Zimmerman says he was on the losing side of the fight.  The fact that Martin participated in one or more fights tends to show this was likely.

    2. A person who fights (even if planned) is somewhat more likely to start a fight then those who don't.

    -Mark Martinson