Lawyers Reacting to Zimmerman Verdict

Lawyers are hitting the airwaves en masse to opine on the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. I gave up TV commenting in 2008 (12 years was enough), but having spent so much of the last 16 months analyzing every detail of the George Zimmerman case here and at our forums, I made an exception yesterday for a quick appearance on CNN. Since I've received requests from a few readers, I'm posting a short clip of the last thing I said.[More...]

There's certainly no shortage of legal opinions on this case. USA today has an article, Zimmerman Verdict No Surprise to Lawyers. From Randy Reep, a defense lawyer in Florida:

"In watching the case, it is clear to me the jury got it right," Reep said. "The prosecution team did the very best with what they had, they just did not have the facts on their side. At least enough facts."

....Reep said the nation deserves a conversation about race. "However, our criminal justice system, where one man is taken on by an entire state, is not the forum for that — at least it should not be."

Jules Epstein, a law professor in Delaware, aptly notes:

...the prosecutor may have erred by charging second-degree murder. The charge requires proof of an evil state of mind, but the evidence "seemed to show bad judgment and then an event that spiraled out of control," Epstein said.

Epstein echoed Reep's comment that a courtroom is not the place for a forum on race. The jury's job is not to rule on racial profiling, racial animosity or the merits of a stand-your-ground law, he said. "The jurors' function was to answer one question — whether the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.

Alan Dershowitz is harsher. He thinks Angela Corey should be disbarred. Law Professor William Jacobson thinks a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate this "special prosecution."

[Added: More legal views in this New York Times article, "Why Self-Defense Was Hard to Topple."]

The affidavit for the arrest on second degree murder charges was shocking to most criminal lawyers. In re-reading my early posts on the woefully inadequate affidavit, I am struck by how "modulated" I was in tone.

Affidavit = FAIL. That a judge signed off on this as establishing second degree murder which according to Florida jury instructions and case law requires the killing be done with "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" is perplexing, to say the least.

That's changed over the course of this case, as one injustice after another was revealed. Had this jury not realized the emperor had no clothes, a man would be spending the rest of his life in prison, probably in solitary the first several years, due to the notoriety of the case.

A prosecutor's job is to bring charges when the facts show a conviction can be obtained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not to kow-tow to public pressure or satisfy the demands of a private party or even the public for bringing criminal charges. Politics has no place in the criminal justice system.

As I've said a hundred times on this site, the criminal justice system was not designed to cure every conceivable social ill. If we're going to address racial injustice in the criminal justice system, the focus should be on actions of police and prosecutors, and laws that unfairly target minorities and are arbitrarily enforced in a discriminatory manner. Last week I wrote:

The problems of racial disparity and arbitrary enforcement of our criminal laws are real, systemic and need to be addressed. Criminal defense lawyers see it and fight to correct it every day. From charging decisions to plea offers to sentences, the system is not fair and everybody knows it.

But this case has never been representative of those problems. And perhaps most unfortunate of all, as a result of the false narrative created by the lawyers for grieving parents who tragically lost their son -- a narrative perpetuated by a complicit and ratings-hungry media -- any attempt at meaningful reform is likely to fall on deaf ears for years to come.

I do not believe the elephant in the room was race, as asserted by these lawyers. If anything, in my view, it was neighborhood watch groups that encourage citizens to spy and report on their neighbors. From the Government's Operation Tips to "If you see it, report it," the Government and law enforcement encourage the reporting of immensely subjective personal perceptions and suspicions. This country expends an extraordinary amount of resources on law enforcement. They have unlimited surveillance tools at their disposal, from cameras that record us at public events to obtaining the location data on our cell phones. They don't need to involve untrained citizens.The multiple unfortunate events in this case did not begin with George Zimmerman getting out his car. They began with the creation of a Neighborhood Watch which sent out newsletters like this one.

The affidavit was the tipping point for some lawyers. It was a story, not a presentation of facts. For me, as a lawyer, the tipping point was the conduct of the media and the Martin family lawyers. On March 20, 2013, before any charging decision was made, they stepped over any line I could view as reasonable when they held their national press conference to announce they found a witness who would blow the defense out of the water, and played a mostly unintelligible recording of her conversation, misrepresenting her to be a minor who was so desolate at the loss of her boyfriend she missed his wake because she had to go to the hospital.

Instead of encouraging the witness to tell her story to the police, or call law enforcement themselves to alert them to her existence, they called ABC News and invited a reporter to hear her statement. The reporter recorded her statement (without her permission, according to her trial testimony) and then aired segments of it over and over on national news.

As we all now know, the young woman has admitted lying under oath to prosecutors, lying to the lawyers and Martin's parents and she was not a bereaved girlfriend, or even a classmate. She was someone who wasn't involved in his life until two weeks before his death, when they reconnected and engaged in a marathon of phone calls and texts. Did the family lawyers know this? Probably not. Was their failure to verify any information she told them, or even ask her for her last name, before going public with her statements, responsible? You decide.

Those of us who toil in the trenches of the criminal courts every day, fighting to get a fair shake for defendants, many of whom are minorities, know that minorities, more so than others, don't get fair or equal justice, from traffic stops initiated by racial profiling to charging decisions, plea offers and sentencing decisions. Everybody knows it. We move to suppress evidence, we file motions to dismiss, we bring willful discovery violations to the court's attention, we argue for fairness to judges -- we even lobby Congress to change unfair and discriminatory laws. We know the system needs to be fixed and we do our part as advocates for our clients to make it better.

What we don't do is inject ourselves into an ongoing investigation, publicly misrepresent disputed facts as undisputed truths, claim our client's case is one of monumental national and social importance to engage civil rights leaders and foster attendance at rallies across the country, publicly shout over and over that the person we believe to be responsible for our client's misfortune is "a cold blooded murderer" and blast the investigation as a conspiracy of lies before the investigation has even been completed.

It is unfortunate when any 17 year old loses his life, whether to illness, accident, suicide or murder. It is indeed a tragedy for the family he or she leaves behind. But when a 17 year old physically attacks another person, breaking his nose and banging his head against a cement surface, the other person is allowed to defend himself. Once charged, it became the job of the jury to decide whether a reasonable person in his situation would have believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm from that attack.

The jury in this case heard testimony of witnesses and experts. It examined physical evidence, from pictures of the scene to injuries of the defendant to autopsy photos of the deceased. It found no ill-will, hatred or spite. Through its rejection of manslaughter, it found it was reasonable for a person in Zimmerman's circumstances, as he believed them to be, to believe that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

This case has been miscast as a civil rights issue since the day the Martin family's lawyers came on the scene. If the public wants to be believe them, that's their right. If they want to bring civil lawsuits against George Zimmerman or law enforcement or public entities, that's their choice. But when it comes to those lawyers and their public relations team using their bully pulpit to inflame passions and exert undue influence on the actions of law enforcement and public officials, including elected prosecutors, who have a duty not to bring charges without a good faith belief they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all the while having a financial stake in the outcome of related civil litigation, I object.

After 16 months of watching this case take on a life of its own, perpetuated by misstatements of the media and the interests of private lawyers pursuing a personal and divisive agenda on behalf of their clients, my tone, like that of other lawyers who objected to this prosecution, rose. Now that the jury has reached a just verdict, I'm going to tone it down again.

I do not intend to further their agenda by reporting on protests or calls for change related to the actions of George Zimmerman. My interest is in protecting the rights of those accused of crime. In this case, that means George Zimmerman, and now that his right to avoid an unjust conviction is secure, my reasons for participating in the discourse are largely over.

To paraphrase Don West, one of Zimmerman's tireless, fearless and dedicated defenders, it may have been tragic that Trayvon Martin lost his life. But it would have been a travesty if George Zimmerman had been convicted and had to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Not just for him, but for the integrity of our criminal justice system.

< The Legacy of the George Zimmerman Trial | HLN Angela Corey Interview: Calls Zimmerman a "Murderer" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you! (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Nemi on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:23:42 AM EST
    Great summary, Jeralyn.

    From the very start, and still, it seems that the media has done their outmost - and unfortunately have succeeded - in not only getting to decide what's important but also in dividing 'us' yet again: "Either you're with A or you're with B." As if matters are never more complicated than that. Or as if it's impossible to see things from different perspectives and not solely from just one point.

    So anger, yelling at each other, hate, protests, conflict ensue, instead of a needed and much more constructive conversation. Even a national conversation. And a broader view of - or rather a focus on - what's really wrong and needs to be debated and taken care of.

    The media et al must be so proud of themselves.

    Meserau (if that's how you spell his name) (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:12:42 AM EST
    Said that Zimmerman got out of his car when he was ordered not to by the dispatcher.

    The reporting on this case has been a disgrace.


    He was not ordered to (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:14:27 AM EST
    What could someone on the phone possiboy ORDER him to do with any force?  Zero. But the dispatcher made it clear that was not what they wanted him to do. Or does "We don't need you to do that" somehow an affirmation. This argument is on the level of a six year-old claiming that because dad said don't eating mom's cookies "Wouldn't be a very good idea" meant he didn't really say not to.

    The dispatcher testified WHY he couldn't give actual directions to Martin -- because the department might be held liable for giving bad advice. So everything is a suggestion. And the CLEAR suggestion, the de facto order that isn't an order, was to stay put.

    This criminal case is over, it was what it was, and that particular "it" will be debated forever. Justifiably.


    when are you going to get it right? (2.33 / 3) (#106)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    he wasn't in his car.  It was not suggested to him that he not get out of his car because he was not in it.  When it was suggested to him that he not follow TM, he stopped.  And it is not justified to continue to obsess over this one point because it doesn't matter.  What matters is that when physical confrontation took place one person attacked the other and the other was left feeling he had no choice but to defend himself with the only means he had.

    When are you going to learn (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    to read before writing? Dadler said nothing about a car.

    This kind of shoddy reporting (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    goes on all the time - it's the norm, not the exception.

    Two things: how much of what you hear on other issues in the media do you question, and how much do you take at face value?

    Second, you can dwell all you like on the detail that George wasn't "ordered" to stay in his car, but the fact remains that he rejected the recommendations he knew about from his watch participation, he ignored basic common sense, and made a decision that would end up being critical to these two people being close enough for a physical confrontation that ended with someone dead.  Did Trayvon also make decisions that put him in reach of George Zimmerman?  Maybe - it's not like we can ask him, and it's not like there were witnesses who saw his every move, but I'm willing to accept that he could have.

    I have no problem with George making the call to the NEN; that's what he was told to do if he saw something he was concerned about.  But he took it further than someone should have who wasn't trained to handle the consequences; he did this once before - following the car he believed to be stolen - and that may have given him the idea that he could handle some punk on foot, I don't know.

    Yes, the media is dreadful and have been for quite some time, but their errors and misstatements can't be allowed to obscure what we all know to be common sense: you don't go looking for trouble unless you want to find it and unless you're prepared to handle whatever the consequences are.  


    Your last paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    My husband says that that is exactly why the defense would never choose to have a man on the jury, because men know this.  They have to deal with testosterone all their lives and part of learning to deal with that is exactly what you wrote, they have all gone looking for a bit of trouble and found it :)  They each have physical territory.  I suppose that is why they are so forgiving of each other too after the fight and buy each other beers.  Well, unless you kill your opponent.  Then this joint healing with swollen knuckles and blackened eyes cannot take place.

    No men though


    Not due to O'Mara, though, MT (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    In that long interview with CNN, which was taped prior to the verdict, he said if he could change the jury, we would have wanted men on it.

    I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote, that's just O'Mara's opinion based on his experience.


    After the fight buy each other beers? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:23:29 PM EST
    Most men I know haven't gotten in any fights since highschool.  

    There are 700 fistfight deaths a year in the US.  Grown adults fighting can be very dangerous.


    Anne's Facts (3.50 / 2) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    Not real facts.. but what else is new.

    but the fact remains that he rejected the recommendations he knew about from his watch participation, he ignored basic common sense, and made a decision that would end up being critical to these two people being close enough for a physical confrontation that ended with someone dead.

    My understanding is that in the (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    training/education/advice provided by the police department liaison - and in every watch program of which I am aware - watch volunteers and the residents were encouraged to call if they saw something suspicious or had concerns, but not take matters into their own hands.

    Are you saying that isn't the case here?

    Maybe your idea of what common sense is differs from mine.  Mine says that if I'm concerned enough to call in my suspicions - which, in George's case included that TM was acting crazy, like he's on drugs or something, and he was moving his hands near his waistband - common sense says I should not take any action that could put me in harm's way.

    Then again, if I had said the sun rises in the east, you'd likely have deemed that "Anne's Facts" as well.


    Your Facts (2.33 / 3) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    Matters into their own hands? Well that is a revisionist fact tailored to the fact that someone got shot and killed.  

    We do not know what happened, exactly. There is evidence that Zimmerman was heading back to his car, to meet the police, and Martin attacked him. Your supposition that Zimmerman took matters into his own hands, is not a fact, by any stretch of the imagination.

    And actin crazy? where did you get that from. Zimmerman said that Martin seemed like he was on drugs. Why hype it up to crazy? You are implying that Zimmerman did something that was not safe, and basing it on what? Conflicting reports at best.

    And common sense being a fact? Please, your common sense, based on your history, and scant details. You are stating an opinion not a fact.

    And, typical of you to discredit my criticism of your made up facts with this BS:

    Then again, if I had said the sun rises in the east, you'd likely have deemed that "Anne's Facts" as well.



    The "acting crazy" did not come from the (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    NE call - my bad (someone posting here framed it that way, I believe - jbindc?).  

    What Zimmerman said was that TM looked like "a real suspicious guy" who "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something."

    The only evidence I am aware of for what took place while GZ was on the phone, and after, up to the point where John Good saw "something" that wasn't as definitive as some want it to be, came almost entirely from his own statements, not from independent, eyewitness testimony.

    If the recommendation is to do nothing more than call, how is GZ getting out of his car not taking matters into his own hands?  

    Now, here's the part I don't think you want to acknowledge: if TM was the aggressor, was someone GZ should have been afraid of, if GZ's suspicions were right on the money, then he did, in fact, do something that wasn't safe, didn't he?  He got out of his car and went "in the same direction" as a male he believed to be up to no good and possibly on drugs.

    Was it illegal to do that?  Of course not.  But it wasn't smart, either, was it?  If GZ were your son or brother, would you have advised him to do more than call and report his suspicions?  If not, why?  Would it be because you would be concerned for his safety?


    Duty? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    If the recommendation is to do nothing more than call, how is GZ getting out of his car not taking matters into his own hands?

    I believe that the general recommendation and the actual expectation are somewhat at variance. GZ had been doing the neighborhood watch for some time, and had made lots of calls to the NEN. Suggesting that Zimmerman took matters into his own hands, seen in the context that he chased down Martin, and was looking for a confrontation so he could shoot him, or something short of that, is what is implied here.

    Zimmerman's actions, based on the NEN call, and evidence presented, could also be seen as him staying back, waiting for the police, while hoping to be able to keep track, up to a point, of Martin's whereabouts.

    From what I know, I think Zimmerman is a creep, I do not like Neighborhood watch people, but I do not believe that Zimmerman was acting in any unusual way based on the normal. And that does not mean that I believe he is a racist. From what I can tell from following this, I believe that Zimmerman would have done exactly the same thing, if all events were the same, were Martin white. He was a crime stopper.

    Maybe you would believe that getting out of your car was not safe, but that does not mean any reasonable person, taking into account Zimmerman's experience, and calling, would think what Zimmerman did was foolish. There is a far cry from chasing down Martin and what Zimmerman appears to have done. If he were playing cop, and not working with the guidelines he believed a Neighborhood Watcher should follow, he would not have bothered with the Police, imo.


    I don't know why you would need to (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    make up a context I didn't provide, unless it was to have the argument you wanted, instead of responding to the one I made.

    I did not imply anything close to what you inferred, but again - this is about having the argument you want.  Not for one minute have I ever suggested GZ wanted a confrontation or that he wanted to shoot anyone; I think he wanted to be able to be as useful as possible to the police so that this fking punk didn't get away, and he allowed that to cloud his judgment.

    As for whether a reasonable person would think what GZ did was foolish, there are plenty of people who think it was exactly that.  Not foolish to make the call - lord knows he must have had that number on speed dial - but foolish to risk his own safety in light of what he told the NE dispatcher.  

    Finally, it is possible to have the opinion that the state failed to prove its case, the jury was correct in reaching the verdict it did as a result, and also think George made some foolish decisions.  


    Context (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    He got out of his car and went "in the same direction" as a male he believed to be up to no good and possibly on drugs.

    The context suggested by your comment is that Zimmerman put himself in danger by following Martin.

    There is no evidence that this is the case, but it is the only narrative that I can imagine that backs up your assertion (fact as you put it) that Zimmerman was acting foolishly.

    Going by your vague statement, one could also surmise that Zimmerman briefly went in the same direction after Martin ran and was out of sight and then turned back towards his car.

    Common sense? Seems like your context has moveable goalposts.


    foolish or not (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by woodchuck64 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    I think he wanted to be able to be as useful as possible to the police so that this fking punk didn't get away, and he allowed that to cloud his judgment.

    That could be.  But I always come back to TM running and then doubling back.  The act of running put GZ's fears to rest temporarily--he thinks: "this guy is definitely up to no good but at least he's afraid of me"-- and that got him out of the truck to see where he'd gone.  

    Effectively, TM's running turned out to be a ploy, whether it was intended as such or not.  It lured GZ out of his vehicle and put him in a position for easy ambush.  

    Was it foolish of George not to foresee this kind of (intentional or otherwise) trap? I find it hard to say for sure since I feel like I would have done the same.


    Have you considered the (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    possibility that TM doubled back because he decided he might be running away from the direction he needed to go in to get home?

    I haven't looked at the map to try to figure it out, myself, but it has been something I've wondered about, given that between being distracted by his phone conversation, the dark and the lookalike townhomes, he might not have been as oriented as he thought he was.

    And I'm sorry, but I just can't buy your theory that TM was acting with intent to lure GZ out of his truck so he could attack him - I can see him wanting to put distance between himself and this stranger who was following him, but if he wanted to be confrontational, why wait so long?  Why not just go at him right from the get-go?

    I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else: would you have advised your family member to make the same decisions George did?  If you wouldn't be comfortable doing that, I think you need to ask yourself how reasonable his actions were once he had reported to the dispatcher.


    two misunderstandings (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by woodchuck64 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    First, I never disagreed with your idea that that TM could have been lost.

    Second, I did not say TM acted with intent, I left that as a unknown.  That's why I said "intentional or not".

    So I am not saying that TM was acting with intent to lure GZ out of his truck so he could attack him.  

    But I am saying that the events played out exactly that way.  TM's running likely made GZ think it was not only safe to get out of his truck but made it urgent to see where TM was going.  TM's getting lost then resulted in him appearing unexpectedly, catching GZ off guard.  This is a trap that I don't think I would see coming before I knew about this whole tragic affair.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else: would you have advised your family member to make the same decisions George did?  If you wouldn't be comfortable doing that, I think you need to ask yourself how reasonable his actions were once he had reported to the dispatcher.

    Before the shooting, yes.  After the shooting, no.  The events have made me rethink NW and gun laws.  


    One thing I just don't get... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    is how so many seem to disregard the "fact" that Sean, the NEN operator, asked several times such questions as, what direction is he running, and let us know if he does anything else.  I am perplexed by this as why wouldn't the caller (Zimmerman) in this instance, do what he could to provide such answers?  There is so much emphasis placed on Zimmerman getting out of his truck, but it seems a likely thing to do, based upon the questions he was being asked.

    Look, (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    I'm a man.  If a guy follows me and then gets out of his car, I'm considering that a threat and I'm going to attack him, plain and simple.

    Would Zimmerman have done that without at gun?

    Not in a million years.

    And that's the real problem.  Allowing idiots like that to patrol the streets armed.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Romberry on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    If a guy follows me and then gets out of his car, I'm considering that a threat and I'm going to attack him, plain and simple.

    Sorry, but that's just dumb.

    Also stupid (none / 0) (#153)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    To let someone follow you and get the first shot.

    Following is the the cops.  Everyone else is taking a chance.


    Would it take you four minutes to decide? (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:02:21 PM EST

    Maybe (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    If I was hiding from the stranger following me and was discovered or thought I was discovered.

    Would it take you four minutes to find a street sign, .... er, ... house number?


    If you... (none / 0) (#186)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:28:43 PM EST
    had such fears and a pretty good head start why wouldn't you just go inside and call your parent.  I understand the mistrust of police but would you talk to your friend instead?

    so you have learned (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:39:24 AM EST
    absolutely nothing from this whole event. And you still have no understanding of the law.  You would be breaking the law.  That person would be with in the law defending himself and there we go the Dainla case.  
    I have to say your testosterone overload is not nearly as impressive to women as you might think.

    Evidence of the Fight's Start (none / 0) (#59)
    by rcade on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    George Zimmerman told Det. Doris Singleton that the fight began at the T and he went down right when he was punched and Trayvon Martin got on top of him. He said twice he went down immediately.

    Martin's body was 35-40 feet south of the T near John Good's back porch. Martin's phone and Zimmerman's keys were both on the ground within five feet of him.

    The claim that the fight began at the T is not supported by evidence or Zimmerman's Singleton interview.

    It's much more likely to have begun near where it ended, given that people don't drop their keys or phone on the wet ground in the rain intentionally.


    The flashlight that was on and (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    attached to his keys were found at the T. Unless I totally misunderstood evidence from police and the pictures presented over and over.

    He Had Two Flashlights (none / 0) (#111)
    by rcade on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    One was on his keys and the other was found near the T. It's the only evidence near the T.

    No, here's the evidence photo (none / 0) (#121)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    You have it backwards. The keys/little flashlight is a few feet inside the sidewalk by the dog trash receptacle


    Talkleft discussion of evidence photos. Click "find" keys or flashlight



    The debris path (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    is quite telling where the fight began

    If (none / 0) (#144)
    by morphic on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    multiple witnesses were accurate, and the confrontation begin at the T, than moved south, George Z would have been mere seconds from his motor vehicle (if he parked it near the path to the T) George Z claimed he was heading back to vehicle. After four minutes on the phone, and two minutes obscured, it's highly dubious that's where he would have been if he was chasing after Trayvon. Considering his obesity this evidence, and the fact it's impossible to corner someone in an open area,  there's no way to prove George was chasing after Trayvon.

    and in usual form the host would not allow (none / 0) (#12)
    by melamineinNY on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    Jeralyn to respond to that fundamental error of fact driving the disinformation narrative, claiming he wanted her response to another point instead, as if it would have taken any more time. Another host yesterday allowed the Mayor of Chicago to make the same unchallenged claim that GZ had "disobey(ed)" a "command" from "law enforcement"... and so it spreads.

    Jeralyn.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MikeB on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:51:13 AM EST
    .....I was flipping channels yesterday and caught your interview. It was very disappointing in the sense that the interviewer (Don Lemon maybe?) allowed plenty of time for a bullcrap narrative while allowing you no time to set the record straight.

    Having said that, you looked really good on TV despite the damage to your tongue from biting it. You showed far more class and respect than anybody I've seen so far. Very well done.

    bullcrap narrative (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:36:21 AM EST

    ...plenty of time for a bullcrap narrative while allowing you no time to set the record straight

    This is CNN.



    Stand Your Ground and the Trial (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gaf on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:03:48 AM EST
    This is from Dan Gelber's blog - http://www.dangelber.com/blog/view_blog.php?ID=268

    Jeralyn - what are your views on Dan's post?

    Over the course of the trial... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:11:09 AM EST
    I began blaming the law more than GZ. I hope everyone clicks the link to read the jury instructions that would have been read prior to the SYG law's enactment.

    To those, like me, who ask how an unarmed teen coming home from 7-11 can be killed without legal consequence, a big part of the answer is in this link.


    What are you missing about (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman?  That s what led to his own death.

    Very simplistic (none / 0) (#136)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    He was just stalked and was fearful.

    To break it down to "he attacked him" is ridiculous.

    In truth, we don't know that.  We don't know what Zimmerman did at the beginning of that confrontation.

    Personally, I don't think a man who would pursue someone he considered to be a punk would just get out of his car, without hand on weapon or otherwise talking an aggressive stance.

    But, that's just me.  A guy who has spent a life living in LA, having experienced many, many confrontations on the street.


    poppycock by a person (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    who can't get over what the law is from what the law was, and wishes Florida still had the old law

    While in the Florida legislature I strongly opposed the Stand Your Ground law because I...



    I guess I'm a poppycocker. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    The old law rocks!

    The old law (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:13:12 PM EST

    The old law would have made no difference.  With Martin atop Zimmerman, retreat was not possible anyway.



    And O'Mara argued through (none / 0) (#132)
    by DennisD on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    Root, that Zimmerman had no other options.

    It was also disingenuous (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by William JD on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    Look what he wrote:

    "In this case, did Zimmerman use 'every reasonable means within his power...to avoid the danger' or did he follow Trayvon despite admonitions that he did not need to?"

    Surely, Gelber knows that there's no requirement that people avoid dangerous people and situations.  Whether Zimmerman followed Martin is irrelevant.

    The requirement that a person avoid the danger comes into play only after the person has become a victim of a violent crime.  The crime triggers the need for a fight-or-flight response, and the old law said you had to take flight if possible.  But Gelber's insinuation that Martin was "the danger" that Zimmerman had to avoid is ludicrous.


    HLN will air an interview of the ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    prosecution team tonight.  They are discussing the interview on HLN.  Apparently the interviewer asked Corey for a one word description of George Zimmerman.  She thought for a while and then answered...  "murderer"!

    I hope this does not get edited out of the interview.  I have no respect for Angela Corey.

    I am astoundeIraq their unprofessional ism (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    I just caught snippets of the interview where she outright lied, claiming facts that were not accepted by the jury. Worse than them being sore losers they are continuing to incite people with false information. Is there no professional code of conduct to which they can be held to?

    As a side note Cory does admit trayvon 'did something' to Zimmerman. She also said that Zimmerman took a concealed weapon to encourage and incite  a fistfight.  There is not one ounce of evidence to proove this?  Can Zimmerman file a civil suit against Cory?


    I am completely disgusted by Corey.. (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    Yesterday I watched the full post verdict presser that the prosecution gave, and I could not believe Corey's behavior.  I suppose it is a gut reaction I have of watching her (not based upon her physical appearance at all, not what I am referring to), but her demeanor in taking questions from the press and what she said in general.  So much of what se states is just not in evidence, she states it as if it is, and comes across very "fake" to me. Ugh!

    I also heard her state in a snippet from the interview to air tonight that there is so much DNA evidence proving Zimmerman is a liar.  She referenced no Zimmerman blood on Martin's hands, but she completely disregards the fact that Trayvon's hands were not bagged (while it was raining, and I believe it was some time before the technician who arrived to attempt to collect DNA arrived..so it is not surprising that any blood may have washed off).  Not to mention the poor forensic protocol that was followed pertaining to the amount of swabs used and fingernail clippings, lack of checking beneath the knuckles for bruising, x-rays of hands for fractures, and placing wet clothes in a plastic bag...  just ripe for mold to grow and destroy any DNA evidence that might have existed.  I remember a witness in the trial stating that lack of DNA evidence is not proof that it did not exist.  Only DNA evidence that is found should play a role in determining what happened.  I am very troubled by this trial and realizing (as I am apparently naive about such things), that a prosecutor is not necessarily out to find the truth and determine whether someone should truly be convicted of a crime, rather, they seem to be playing a game to win at all costs, regardless of whether the defendent is truly not guilty.  I find this absolutely disgusting.


    I thought the state's dramatic demo of no blood (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    On trayvons hands was thought provoking. However the issues you mentioned coupled with a few other facts negate that argument. The blood on trayvons chest was inadvertently washed off as shown by conflicting photos during theautopsy.

    Additionally medical experts testified that while lying down the blood from his bloody nose could likely have gone back into his sinus due to gravity


    I watched the whole trial (none / 0) (#119)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    and I did not know who she was.  I just kept thinking "who is that miserable angry looking woman sitting in front of TM's parents?"  If I had known who she was I would have watched her closer for reaction.

    The NYT editorial (July 15) seems (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    to confuse Florida laws applicable for the jury's consideration--"..The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman's actions in light of Florida's now-notorious Stand Your Ground state."  

    The editorial board and well as its readers may receive a better analysis by turning to the same edition's front page reporting by Lisa Alvarez, entitled: "Self-Defense Hard to Topple."  In a really fair and balanced account, in my view, Ms. Alvarez notes with regard to SYG: "...Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of the  (SYG).  Ultimately, it was not part of Mr. O'Mara's courtroom strategy, though it did play a pivotal role immediately after the shooting."  

    If only... (none / 0) (#158)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    ...anyone commenting on this case could receive a very painful electrical shock everytime they mention SYG in connection with it.

    It has no more to do with this case than Maritime Law could be involved just because it was raining that night.


    You will have to shock the juror who spoke on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:23:37 AM EST
    then. She said it about 4 times in the brief part of the interview I watched.

    Please read the article at mediamatters.org (none / 0) (#173)
    by Palli on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:24:00 AM EST
    Feelings. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    "I do not believe the elephant in the room was race, as asserted by these lawyers. If anything, in my view, it was neighborhood watch groups that encourage citizens to spy and report on their neighbors."

    That expresses my feelings about this case.

    It is creepy to me, and a representation of the failure of government, that citizens are being encouraged not only to spy and report on their neighbors, but to carry a weapon, patrol a neighborhood, and follow someone who appears suspicious to them.

    If Martin did indeed provoke the physical confrontation that resulted in his death, I am nevertheless stuck with the feeling that if Zimmerman had called the police and left it at that, Martin, who, as I understand it, was essentially minding his own business until he became aware of Zimmerman following him, would be alive.

    Forgetting this case for a moment, it seems to me that letting a civilian patrol with a loaded gun presents an almost irresistible temptation for the bearer of the weapon to think him or herself as the Lone Ranger or Batman.

    I just (none / 0) (#52)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    read morphic's comment below (#24) stating that, "... you can prove he (Zimmerman) was just standing there after the dispatcher suggested he not follow."

    I had been under the impression that Z had followed M even after the dispatcher had told him that they "did not need him to do that".

    I guess it is a situation that, as others have said, is best described as tragic.


    no there is no evidence GZ (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    followed TM after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that. GZ said "okay." He states he walked to end of RVC to get a house number (he knew the street name since it was the street he lived on, a circle) and then started walking back to his car. He got just passed the T when TM came out the dark demanding to know why he was being followed. Rachel Jeantel says she heard TM say that to GZ, after which GZ responded either (she has said both at various times) "What are you talking about?" or "What are you doing around here." She says her phone then went dead. Within 30 seconds, Jenna Lauer, whose house is at the T connected with 911. The teacher who lives at the top of the T heard voices. The Manalos who live across from Jenna Lauer heard noises they thought might have been dogs.  John Good who lives next to Lauer came out of his house and saw two people struuggling, TM was on top and GZ was trying to get up. One of them cried out for help. he turned to go inside after telling the to stop, which was about 8 to 10 seconds. 45 seconds into Jenna Lauer's call, the shot rang out.

    No one saw the beginning of the physical encounter but it clearly started at the T. Trayvon had more than enough time, according to Rachel's timing, to get home. The evidence suggets he chose not to or he went home and came back.


    More food for thought courtesy of TP..... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    Cases not similar (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    None of those cases are like the Zimmerman case.

    Zimmerman was flat on his back with a broken nose and bleeding from his head being forced into the ground/sidewalk when the shot was fired.  In the three cases you link to the shooter was standing up when the shot was fired.  Apples and oranges.


    If you're as outraged by the woman... (none / 0) (#114)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    who got 20 years firing a gun INTO THE AIR to ward off a domestic violence attack, and who was denied a SYG defense in Florida, with no one killed, then I'm happy.

    I totally feel your outrage at that (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    magster. I saw that and did a little research on it. It seems defense attorneys AND prosecutors are outraged at that law from state legislatures allowing this to happen.

    It takes judgment out of the hands of judges and requires them to hand out these sentences. Florida badly needs to revisit some of these laws. This is one of the things I hope will be good that comes out of this tragedy.

    If she had KILLED her abusive husband, she could have actually gotten out on time served if the judge chose to do so. Isn't that the most ridiculous thing you've ever read about? Instead she gets 20 years for a warning shot that didn't, and wasn't intended to, hit anyone.


    She apparently (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    fired AT him and IN THE DIRECTION of children

    So, it's not as cut and dry as a warning shot.


    She should have killed him so that he ... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    ... couldn't have disputed her story.  

    Even still, there's plenty of the same type of reasonable doubt there shortly after he gave her the ol' "if I can't have you, no one will" right before the incident.


    Tidbit: Angela Corey was her prosecutor. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    Well, not happy.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    just somewhat mollified.

    Wait, are you now saying that SYG (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by me only on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    laws are good?  In the McNeil case he has a great SYG case.

    Marissa Alexander is a terrible SYG case.  She left the area of the "incident" only to return with a gun and discharge it.  That is not SYG, that is Hunt you down.  She was at his residence, not hers.


    The Media (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    Amazing...It's as if the trial never happened. The media narrative, the majority of their commentators, and the politicos continue right on with their same narrative and agenda, not letting any of the facts that came out in the trial get in their way.

    I realize now, that none of them are actually interested in letting the truth come out whatever the truth might be.

    We need more Jeralyn (x a million)!

    I think it is time for those of us (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    who are not in thrall to the emotional pull of imaginary civil rights issues in this case to speak up and put pressure on the justice department, the white house, NAACP (I used to be a member), our elected representatives etc... to look at this more rationally and stop the nonsense before it gets any worse.  

    Here is a Challenge for you, Teresa (none / 0) (#86)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    Watch this program with Jesse Jackson and some college professors, in its entirety.  I am not sure, but this may exactly be what most African Americans think about the case and the verdict.

    I saw Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#124)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    in 2004 at a political action conference.  He was the keynote speaker and he was great, inspiring even.  I think if I had to listen to him in regards to this issue I would lose any respect I have left for him since then.  

      I have heard nothing BUT how most African Americans feel about this case. I was happy a few minutes ago that there was a panel on CNN that included an African American, a guilty white liberal(same opinion)and a Hispanic.  At least there was one person willing to speak for a slightly different point of view.

    I have plenty of people of color in my life, including African Americans.  I don't need a special tutorial on how Black people think. I just happen to disagree in this particular case.


    hypothetically, to the rooting for acquittal peeps (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    If TM saw the gun during their fight and saw GZ reaching for it, would you have been OK with TM being acquitted had he reacted by bashing GZ to death on the sidewalk? It would seem you would have to, to be consistent in your arguments.

    If so then, doesn't it make you pause that FL law would allow a literal "strongest shall survive" Hunger Games type of showdown whenever 2 people get into a fight?

    Strongest (none / 0) (#88)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    It has always been the "strongest shall survive" when two people get into a fight.  Florida law doesn't change that.  Do you really think a person is going to let someone else kill him because he is afraid of breaking the law by defending himself?

    If the law requires a duty of retreat.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    if an opportunity to retreat arises before the conflict starts, yes.

    Check the macho BS at the door of the courthouse.


    Duty to retreat (none / 0) (#109)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    The "duty to retreat" doesn't change people's behavior, just the ease of prosecuting them after they defended themselves.  That is why we have SYG laws.

    "after they defended themselves...." (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    after they acted like macho turds stirring up a conflict in the first place.

    I have no problem with a law that requires someone to say no to the age old question "you wanna take this outside?".


    Yes, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Palli on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    or afraid of killing another human being.

    Individual actions can be based on individual morality.


    Thanks, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    I wasn't a huge follower of this case.

    But your thoughtful coverage allowed me to keep up to date without having to dip into the cable news cesspool.

    But I also want to thank you for seeing through all the hoopla, and taking the traditional leftist view of this case and the justice system.  Which is to champion the rights of defendants especially against overreaches of the state.

    As our government gains more and more power, they become cleverer in the ways they get the public to side with them.  This was a classic example.

    Because, if you really believe the legal system has systemic racism, as most of us do, what precedent would a conviction of Zimmerman set?  Not a decrease in racism.  Hardly.  It would have made it easier for prosecutions to be brought with little evidence but lots of public pressure.  And such prosecutions would likely fall more heavily on minorities.  As prosecutions generally do.  In fact, one could go so far as to say, it could have offered a precedent for mob justice.

    This case did offer a clear example of how people can lose their principles, when certain images and trigger words are flashed in front of them.

    Thanks, Jeralyn, for seeing through that.

    Don't You Know What the Standard of Proof Is? (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    As an experienced lawyer you should know that the prosecution must show that all scenarios in which the defendant is innocent are unreasonable.  I think you take too much stock in the prosecution coming up with a single, reasonable, guilty scenario.  I heard BDLR and Corey tonight try to spit out some nonsense about Zimmerman somehow following and catching Martin in the pitch darkness and Trayvon was the one screaming for 40 seconds at Zimmerman's gun.  So Zimmerman was so cheap he didn't want to waste a single bullet until he got a perfect shot to the heart in and preferred instead to take a beating?

    The questions that Serino and Singleton asked were not so softball. They should have probably given him a much harder time on why he got out of the car and wanted the cops to find where his car was parked. Nobody knows, even now.  I don't think he thought Martin was close by and  he would find and detain him at gunpoint.  

    Why aren't you furious at the fact that no serious investigator got to Rachel Jeantel early and found out what she really heard that night?  BDLR's interview of her was the ultimate in softball drivel.  The whole business of her "discovery" by Tracy Martin and outside lawyer Ben Crump, over three weeks after the event, certainly makes one suspicious.  In how many cases that you have been in has the prosecution been driven by lawyers for the victim's family, aided buy a publicity specialist?

    ok, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:08:48 AM EST
    Additionally, the detectives had ample evidence that Zimmerman, when and only when armed, was looking to take somebody down, with little regard to whether the person had a right to be in the neighborhood.

    I assume you have a cite for this critical information.

    You announce this sequence of events as if it were a received truth, but how on earth do you know? What convinces you that it wasn't Zimmerman who was first to attack, by pointing his gun at, or otherwise threatening Martin before Martin ever fought back?

    Because Zimmerman had injuries, witnesses that placed Martin atop him just prior to the gunshot, and his DNA was on Martin's Sweatshirt?

    Can you tell me how it is that roughly 4 minutes after the "Oh,**, he running" a continuing conversation with Dispatch for 2 of those minutes, RJ telling SAO that he was out of breath and near his dad's house, Martin ended up in virtually the same spot that he disappeared from?

    guess you missed Angela Corey (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    last night saying the state has never denied Martin punched Zimmerman. Or that de la Rionda admitted as much a year ago. Did you notice Corey said no prosecutor would have charged Zimmerman before all the facts are in and that would be at least four to six weeks? Have you read all the discovery and reports, pleadings, briefs and court orders, and watched all the pretrial hearings and all of the trial? How much Florida case law did you read? Or are you basing your views of how law enforcement should conduct interviews on Law and Order?

    Their was a "challenge" interview by Serino, including his intentionally lying to Zimmerman suggesting Martin may have videotaped the encounter. Zimmerman didn't break, his answer was "I hope to G-d someone did."

    First interviews can intentionally be softballs so the suspect thinks the cop is his friend, intending to clear him. Sometimes they do good cop bad cop. By not challenging Zimmerman during the early interviews, they allowed him to lock himself into a position. There was plenty of time to confront him if the physical evidence turned out not to support his version.

    Your statement there was evidence Zimmerman was only armed when he wanted to take someone down is a flatout falsehood. Zimmerman never took anyone down with a weapon. He was going to target and had every right to have his gun on him.

    The state acknowledged Zimmerman was not breaking any law by following Martin.

    Future comments with false statements of the facts and evidence will be deleted.

    Like most, a false narrative - (4.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MikeB on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:46:57 AM EST
    ...you left out the part that after the punch, Martin got on top of Zimmerman and kept slamming his head into the ground for at least 38 seconds - a lifetime when you're on the wrong end of these actions.

    Try some intellectual honesty for a change - you might like it.

    And you left out the evidence that (4.43 / 7) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    That ever really happened.

    evidence? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:22:25 AM EST
    The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head.

    My granddaughter fell down on my (4.20 / 5) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:30:26 AM EST
    concrete porch last month, four years old, and she did more injury to her head by her little ole self than Zimmerman had on his head. And it bled profusely more than Zimmermans.  Christ almighty, it isn't like I don't have two children and three grandchildren (all very physical creatures), and I don't know how a scalp wound or a gash in the forehead gapes if it has any size to it at all.  Bleeds like crazy too.  Not bitty little trickles, but whatever.  I should have never said a word here, it isn't like I don't know what sort of lunacy runs rampant around here about Zimmerman.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    If you were sitting on top of your granddaughter throwing punches and hitting her head into concrete, we'd probably arrest you.

    And since you very well know that NO injury has to be shown to GZ, let alone whatever incidental injury you think Zimmerman suffered, then your comment makes no sense.

    I dare anyone here to have someone mount them, throw punches, and have their head slammed into concrete, and then see if you are actually afraid or cognizant that your head injuries may be no big deal.  

    You couldn't.


    And if my granddaughter had a gun (3.67 / 3) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    Oh, that's right, minors don't get to buy guns so they can keep themselves safe from the Zimmerman's of this world when they hunt them down.  The law is supposed to do that, and sometimes it fails.

    Apparently the law also fails sometimes (2.33 / 6) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:50:51 AM EST
    in protecting young children from their grandparent's negligence in providing a safe environment for them.

    Who's "negligence" would THAT ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    ... be, and how so, exactly?

    Sooooo ridiculous.


    I'm raising feminists around here (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    And all that entails.  Not a bunch of women who know their place, hide indoors, never challenge themselves and are physically out of touch with themselves and all that entails too.

    Living life to its fullest means that sometimes you fall down and NeNe and Podge help you up.  Podge is very good at butterfly bandages too, which are practically named after girls :)


    "Hunt them down"? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:44:39 AM EST

    Ask Liam Neeson (2.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Char Char Binks on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    how insignificant head injuries are.

    this is not about your grandchilren (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    or you. On the topic of sounding loony, you might want to look in the mirror.  The court system worked the way it is supposed to but you can't accept it.  What's that all about?

    I have accepted the verdict (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    I'm not going to take the law into my own hands as George's brother seems to fear that others will do.

    A verdict of not guilty does not mean that George Zimmerman had the crap beaten out of him though.  I just means he was scared.


    Sorry, wrong about that (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:05:57 AM EST
    It just means that for the jury it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not scared, and that's it.

    You are missing the point.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by MikeB on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    ....Martin was still on top of Zimmerman in a dominant position when the shot was fired. You have no way of knowing what the NEXT strike to the sidewalk would have caused. People have died from head injuries with only one knot on their noggin showing. Zimmerman had several - some of which broke skin.

    The law says you can defend yourself with a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm. There is no way to know what the next strike to the sidewalk would have caused. That may have been the one to kill him or cause brain damage. Zimmerman may have saved his life from the next strike - nobody has a way to know if that would have happened, but based on where Martin and Zimmerman was at the time of the shot, it was a reasonable threat.


    I'm not missing any point, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    I am well aware of what head injuries can do. It's why I wear a helmet when I go cycling. And I know someone who plays pro football and is always at risk of getting a concussion.

    Char CHar Binks' comment was deliberately provocative and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Zimmerman case. Nothing.


    You mean like a witness? (3.67 / 3) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:05:45 AM EST
    Like John Good - who saw (and testified to the fact) that Martin was on top of GZ, punching him?

    Evidence like that?  :)


    Even assuming Good was seeing punches landing (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    as opposed to arms moving, where in that do you get 'slamming his head for 38 seconds'?

    Or how about the witnesses (4.20 / 5) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:23:57 AM EST
    Who said Zimmerman was on top and the aggressor, you mean like that?

    The burden of proof was on the state to prove that Zimmerman did not believe that his life was immediately in danger.  They obviously did not meet that burden.  But lets not get all crazy here and begin to convince ourselves that the defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon Martin beat the ever lovin hell out of George Zimmerman so badly that the only thing left for Zimmerman to do was shoot a minor point blank in the heart dead.  The defense didn't even have that burden.  Funny how I'm not even a lawyer but I at least understand that.


    Which witness? (4.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    The one who said the larger person was on top and assumed it was Zimmerman because she had only seen the 12 year old photos of m?  

    Did you watch the trial? (3.50 / 2) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    Because the only reliable witness was John Good.  The one who said Zimmerman was on top made several mistakes and may have been speaking of after the gun shot when Zimmerman got up and spread TM's arms out.  
    The evidence has been gone over here over and over and over.  There was evidence and testimony and even the prosecution accepted it and tailored their prosecution to fit the Zimmerman on the bottom getting beaten factual scenario.  That is when they switched to a manslaughter prosecution for all intents and purposes. You really are not going to try and dispute it now are you?  

    This trial will never end, TeresaInPa. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    It became an American Rashomon, as if we watched different trials.  Confirmation bias battled cognitive dissonance, the only winner being whoever sold us the hip boots necessary to wade through all the b/s.

    Or like John Good (4.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    It looked more of a tussle and that's when I thought it got serious when it moved up to the sidewalk. He was more in a straddle position and arm movements were going downward. But I couldn't 100 percent say those were strikes or they were arm movements going downward.

    ... who did not testify that he saw Martin punching GZ (or smashing his head on the concrete), but actually testified that he saw downward arm movement, which could have been punches?

    Actual evidence like that?  :)


    Circumstantial Evidence (3.50 / 2) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    What do you think Martin was doing?

    Wait - please don't tell me that (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    you're considering invoking a common sense explanation for what may have happened, or what someone thought they saw.  If it's not good enough for me to use in connection with the decisions George made leading up to the confrontation, it isn't good enough for you to fill in the blanks on the physical confrontation.

    I know you want to have it both ways - if only you hadn't let your antipathy toward me let you fall into that trap...

    Now, there's something I'd call "weak."


    Huh? (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    What does this have to do with your manufactured facts and my calling you out on it?

    I am pointing out the fact that there is a thing called circumstantial evidence, and asking Yman, what conclusion s/he
    would come to based on Good's testimony.

    Call it common sense if you will, but it has nothing to do with you deciding that in your opinion, it is a fact that Zimmerman was not using common sense.

    Good's testimony is a fact, circumstantial evidence is something that is view as evidence in a trial, that is also a fact. Common sense is an opinion. I was asking Yman his or her opinion as to the fact of Good's testimony.


    Hey, I'm trying to compose a (none / 0) (#93)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    reply to you about another issue. I haven't forgotton or ignored. It's hard :(

    Not sure (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    Grappling with Zimmerman, trying to restrain him and/or get out of the "wrist-lock" that Zimmerman said he had on him, etc.

    My point, however, was that John Good did not testify that he saw Martin punching Zimmerman as was claimed.  It's funny how so many of these pieces of evidence get exaggerated.


    Just as Martin just HAD (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    to be "the aggressor"..

    See, carrying a loaded gun, or even ventilating someone with it STILL doesn't ever make you an aggressor..

    A 2nd Amendment champion maybe, but never an aggressor..


    You're right (2.33 / 3) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    Maybe Martin was trying out a new dance move on GZ.

    Yeah - try to put words in someone ... (4.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    ... else's mouth every time you're caught exaggerating and misstating the evidence.

    Not very persuasive, but ya work with what ya got, right?


    Actually, John Good did not say he saw TM (3.67 / 6) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    punching GZ.  He said he saw arm movements, not any actual connection.  Just trying to be factual as you clearly misstated the evidence.  

    Thank you (4.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:40:05 AM EST
    And thank you for watching the trial closely.  I wish George Zimmerman all the warm fuzzy loving people and quality of life that Casey Anthony enjoys.  There, I said, I feel better, I'll probably be in time out now :)  All my life, fond of the penalty box :)

    Not going to happen (none / 0) (#138)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    She wasn't a hero to many.

    Zimmerman will be able to tour the country, giving speeches and making money from his act to gun right's advocates.


    And actually (3.67 / 3) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    the witness who saw GZ on top of TM saw him only after the shooting, which was entirely consistent with what GZ said, and again, proving his point.

    So, again - what evidence are you looking at to prove otherwise?


    MilitaryTracy (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    And you left out the evidence that
    That ever really happened.

    What kind of evidence would satisfy you that TM gave GZ a beating?

    1. Multiple neighbors heard a fight

    2. John Good witnessed TM giving GZ the ground and pound

    3. TM's pants had grass stains on the knees (but no grass stains on his back)

    4. GZ's jacket was wet and had grass on the back (but no grass stains on his knees)

    5. Bloody back of head

    6. Broken nose

    7. GZ had more than one cut, bruising to his head - even the State's DR. Rao using only a photo said at least 4 blows were visible

    Wait, (none / 0) (#137)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    Didn't the state prosecution witness say that did not occur?

    Can't just take one witness word  and dismiss another.


    Do they really? (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    "If anything, in my view, it was neighborhood watch groups that encourage citizens to spy and report on their neighbors."

    I was under the impression that they keep an eye out for people in the neighborhood who do not live there in case they're there for unsavory reasons.

    You're not old Frank... (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:17:59 AM EST
    that's still the way it works amongst the unarmed and civilized...even better when you can skip the fistfight all together!  But guns are just a no-no.

    And to Jeralyn's point about the rise of Informant Nation, there's no reason to involve the authorities either, most of the time.  

    A little situation happened just next door over the weekend...my neighbor's dog got loose and got into it with another dog on a walk.  The dog walker goes crazy and screams "I'm calling the police!!!" I ran outside because between the growling and screaming I thought somebody was getting mauled by a Pit Bull or something.
    Neither dog was any worse for the wear & tear, luckily my neighbor and I were able to calm her down and everybody got on with their lives...no cops, no fights, and no guns.  Just reason.  Imagine that...how quaint! ;)    

    So, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    You acted just like a ....Neigborhood Watch person. Getting involved in your neighborhood to make sure no harm comes to them.



    I don't know about that... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    "Neighborhood Watch" has such a negative tied to law-enforcement informant connotation...I was just looking out for my neighbors.  The way that crazy lady was shrieking I really thought a human being was being attacked by a dog, otherwise I woulda minded my own business. I wasn't being nosy, I couldn't help but hear.

    Then when she started the "call the cops!" & "I'm gonna sue!" drama, I helped the block by keeping the cops off the block and off my neighbor's neck...hardly "neighborhood watch" sanctioned;)  


    Neighborhood Watch (3.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    Is just that -  watching out for your neighbors.

    It started in the late 1960s after the Kitty Geonvese case - if you remember learning about that.  She was raped and murdered, and although there were at least a dozen witnesses, no one did anything to stop the attack or try to save her (or apprehend the killer) because they didn't "want to get involved".

    So you did exactly what they were designed for - watching out for your neighbors, especially since when you went out there, you had no idea if a crime was being committed, if someone was hurt or being hurt, etc.

    And cops don't always have to be involved.  It sounds like you handled it perfectly.


    Maybe it used to be like that... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    but GZ was trained by the sheriff to call the police and not engage at all.

    I completely agree with Jeralyn on that issue.


    And isn't that what he did? (3.50 / 2) (#83)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    Maybe it used to be like that... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:15:52 PM EST

    but GZ was trained by the sheriff to call the police and not engage at all

    Is there any real evidence to prove the contrary?

    (Answer:  no)


    So.. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    Martin dragged Zimmerman from his car and planted the loaded gun on him?

    That'd be just like one 'a them..


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    And I am familar with the Genovese case...hard for me to imagine ignoring a cry for help.  Running in a closet to call 911 isn't much better imo, I consider it a form of outsourcing your responsibility to your fellow human beings.

    I just think some (most?) neighborhood watch is out looking to find trouble, instead of trouble finding you.


    My parents (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Were part of Neighborhood Watch for a bit when I was growing up.  Basically, it meant they took walks around the neighborhood after dinner and they only thing that came of it was that they got to know some neighbors they wouldn't have ordinarily had the chance to meet.  So, all in all, that's probably a good thing.

    Kitty Genovese case (none / 0) (#79)
    by JG27 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    The Kitty Genocese case has morphed into an urban myth.  Read the brief description on Wikipedia to get the more accurate picture.  It was NOT a case of people ignoring a screaming woman outside their doors.

    Did it work that way... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Romberry on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    ...for this guy in Georgia?

    Mableton teens linked to gang are accused in beating death

    Four south Cobb teenagers are in custody in connection with the beating death of a 36-year-old Mableton man on Mableton Parkway early Sunday morning.

    The incident initially was reported by police as a hit-and-run death over the weekend, but the narrative changed drastically Tuesday after the arrests of four teenagers on murder charges.


    They have been accused in the beating death of Joshua Heath Chellew, 36, of Mableton and all but Bonds were arrested Monday afternoon by Cobb County investigators.

    According to the warrant, the four teenagers are accused of starting a fight with Chellew at a Chevron gas station in the 6200 block of Mableton Parkway near Community Drive at about 1:20 a.m. Sunday. They repeatedly punched and kicked him, according to police.

    While attempting to escape, Chellew backed into the center five-lane highway and was pushed to the ground and knocked unconscious, the warrant states.

    They then walked away from Chellew, "leaving him helpless," and he was eventually hit by a car, the warrant states.

    Good thing that Joshua Heath Chellew didn't have a firearm. Things might have gotten uncivilized.

    Too bad your example is irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    to the details of the Zimmerman/Martin case, or we might have an interesting side discussion. But probably not.

    No shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:17:22 AM EST
    it is not irrelevant at all.  If the guy had been carrying a gun he might still be alive.  One of the little jerks might have been shot and you could be agonizing over that young life being lost, never realizing what might have happened otherwise.
    But the story perfectly illustrates what happens when when people with immature thinking (they aren't all young and illustrated by some comments on this thread) think it is okay to beat someone.
    Guns are not the only weapon used to kill someone.  In fact in terms of dangers, peoples hands are number one.

    What did he say? (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:18:06 AM EST
    The host of the program followed Jeralyn's concise statement and analysis by saying,
    "You have a point about the social ills, but I'm sure that there are many in the State's Attorneys Office and especially many in the media that would disagree that, um, they were not being influenced by anyone..."

    Thanks. He's sure.

    We really needed that convoluted defense of hopelessly corrupt media from a hopelessly corrupt media outlet.

    Actually, to be somewhat Freudian about it, the host's syntax - saying that many in the media would "disagree that they were not being influenced" - amounts to an unwitting confirmation of what Jeralyn said.

    So somewhere in his psyche, he must know the truth, but he feels obliged to dribble out a pathetic pro-forma defense of his feckless associates.

    So much for CNN.

    sheep-like talking head says (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    in response to Jeralyn:  "baaa baaaa baaaa".

    Actually that is probably not fair.  This guy has been better than most.  But they do truly sing from the same song book.
    It would be refreshing to see Jeralyn on more often.


    WOw (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    Great post Jeralyn..  you rock!!  This post should be an op-ed in every newspaper that has been covering the case.

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#24)
    by morphic on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    wasn't following Trayvon if he was west of the T, according to multiple witnesses, when the altercation started, and than it moved south. This after the four minutes of the phone call, and you can prove he was just standing there after the dispatcher suggested he not follow. The wind noise stopped, his breathing slowed, jusgt a casual talking to the dispatcher which wouldn't be possible if he was chasing after Trayvon. Add another two minutes for the start of the altercation, and the prosecutors claim becomes implausible. The most likely explanation, if he was west of the T, as witnesses claimed, was that he was returning to his gtruck, as George claimed. Angela Corey's version of events is delusional, IMO.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    Martin could have been hiding and Zimmerman came upon him.

    Millions of different scenarios could have happened.

    Do you know a lot of guys like Zimmerman?  The want to be a cop, security guard type of guy?  Think they are casually walking back to their car in that circumstance?


    Actually (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    I thought it sounded like the prosecution's closing arguments.

    Incoherent and all over the place.


    Here's the URL in non-embedded form (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    Thank you ! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Darby on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    So What Should be Done About It? (none / 0) (#36)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    Does anybody really think a civil rights investigation of Angela Corey will fix the problems brought up by Jeralyn Merritt, Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers?  Corey said at her post verdict press conference that she brought charges because she relied on evidence like the screaming stopping as the shot was fired and Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to draw his gun from its holster with Martin on top of Zimmerman, straddling him at the waist.  One can fault her premises and logic but making it into a civil rights violation is problematic.

    Dershowitz's rant ended with the claim that charges wouldn't have been brought in any other country but the US which is the only country that elects prosecutors and judges.  To be a bit more balanced Professor D should have mentioned that in most other countries and many states, George Zimmerman wouldn't ahve been able to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

    My conclusion is that only drastic changes to legal procedures in the US, and not some investigation to see if a civil rights law was violated, will cure the ills shown by this case.

    Read up on Angela Corey other cases. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by redwolf on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    In one case she sent an old man to jail for 20 years for firing a warning shot to scare off 3 robbers.  She's a walking travesty of justice.  

    Prosecutors, judges, and everyone in the justice system needs to be brought up in charges when they commit malicious acts.  Our system of business is falling apart because we refuse to lock up criminals on wall street and our justice system is experiencing the same break down because we refused to prosecute bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges.

    For example when someone gets out of jail after being falsely convicted then whoever hid the evidence in that case needs to be locked up.  

    There must be retribution for evil acts.  People must fear that if they fail to keep the law that they will pay a price for it.  Right now almost no on in the justice system has any fear of going to jail for their crimes.  No one on wall street has any fear of going to jail for their crimes.  Either enforce the laws or all you'll get is the law of the jungle.


    Jeralyn Merritt vs.Tom Meserau (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    On this CNN clip, California lawyer Tom Meserau states
    In numerous states across America, if you bring a gun into a fist fight, you are convicted of manslaughter.  Granted the law is written very heavily in favor of the defense, I understand that, but this jury, if they wanted to, could have convicted him because of what he did, what he set in motion, the type of force he brought to the situation.  They could have concluded that was all unreasonable, including shooting him throrugh the heart.
     Jeralyn was not allowed to respond, because of time considerations, so I hope she will give a point by point rebuttal here.

    Let Me Guess (none / 0) (#54)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    The fatal flaw in Mererau's argument is that he doesn't acknowledge that the central point is whether Zimmerman has a valid self defense claim under Florida law (I would be interested also in California or Ohio law but I'm not going press my luck.)

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    his point as being that anyone in the U.S. should be able to beat anyone else continuously, even to death, if they so desire.  He is effect saying the attacker should be able to decide when to stop beating someone, not the person being beaten.

    Or (3.00 / 2) (#140)
    by dainla on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    Isn't he just saying if someone starts a fight through their actions, then shoots the other guy, who is unarmed, that that is manslaughter?

    I had (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    no luck searching for a link to the complete interview on CNN excerpted above.

    If anyone finds one, and posts it, I would be most grateful.

    J, prosecutors on TV tonight (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    I don't know if you're interested in watching anymore, but they're doing a full hour with Vinnie P on HLN at 10:00.

    I assume it's already done. Wolf Blitzer just said that they said GZ is a liar and murderer.

    More fuel for the fire. They could do some good in this situation, but (assuming Wolf is right), it looks like they aren't going to.

    Angela Corey (none / 0) (#66)
    by PM on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Welp. Angela Corey just said on CNN that GZ was a "murderer" and that TM was "prey".

    Juror Is Already Seeking Book Deal (none / 0) (#76)
    by bmaz on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    Juror B37 in the George Zimmerman trial has signed (along with her attorney husband) with literary agent and  Martin Literary Management president Sharlene Martin.

    Along with the other jurors, Juror B37 found Zimmerman not guilty in the controversial trial.  Literary agent Martin had this statement:

    My hope is that people will read Juror B37's book, written with her attorney husband, and understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial and how important, despite one's personal viewpoints, it is to follow the letter of the law.  It could open a whole new dialogue about laws that may need to be revised and revamped to suit a 21st century way of life. The reader will also learn why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman Not Guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions.

    The American Way! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    Maybe we will get a six book series..

    How much would GZs gun get ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by magster on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    at auction?

    Probably A lot (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:09:10 PM EST
    Considering so many have used this case for their own agenda.

    IOW lots of competition to get his gun and use it for self-promotion.


    bmaz, are the notes a juror takes (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:01:48 PM EST
    considered his or her property, or are they collected at the end of the trial by court officials?

    I was first struck by the possibility that while this juror was listening to and watching the trial, and in deliberations, she was thinking about writing a book.

    Then I started wondering about her notes.

    Just curious.


    No, they stay... (none / 0) (#129)
    by bmaz on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    ...with the court as far as I know (do where I practice at least).

    Destroyed (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    The court has already told the jurors that their notes will be destroyed after the trial during the initial` instruction on notes.

    Might this juror have discussed with her spouse (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    in violation of the jury admonition?  

    Maybe before sequestration. (none / 0) (#165)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:14:41 AM EST
    The would have cell records and hotels keep itemized list of calls, both incoming and outgoing.  My thought is that she was thinking about it during the time she was holed up in the hotel.

    She seems blissfully ignorant of threats being made over the 'net.


    I bow to you (none / 0) (#81)
    by Char Char Binks on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    and your manliness.  

    Funny guy! (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    Just following my version of the hippocratic oath.  "First, do no harm."  That's why I didn't run to the phone to call 911 without checking things out...don't wanna jam anybody up, unlike some people.

    Your choice in attire (none / 0) (#125)
    by ZucchiTadre on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    Black with a bright pink. Would that be your normal choice of colors or was there a decision crisis before appearing on this show?  I thought the combination was interesting and worked pretty well.

    What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Bl (none / 0) (#180)
    by lily on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    March 24, 2012
    What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?  By Michael Filozof

    What would happen if a black man armed with a handgun confronted "suspicious persons" in his neighborhood? What would happen if the "suspicious persons" were unarmed white teens, one of them was shot dead, and the shooter claimed self-defense?

    This is not an exercise in mere speculation. We know what would happen in such a case. There would be no white mobs in the street chanting "No justice, no peace!" There would be no whites holding a "million hoodie march" in New York City. There would be no white equivalent of Al Sharpton, the professional race-baiter behind the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax, leading marches in the streets of the shooter's hometown. There would be no Federal civil rights investigation by the Justice Department. There would be no comments from a president who seems congenitally unable to keep his mouth shut on matters involving left-wing political correctness. And there would be no national media attention from biased, left-wing "reporters."

    We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun.

    There are many similarities between the Scott-Cervini case and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case in Florida. In both cases, there had been a spate of criminal activity in the neighborhood. In both cases, the shooters called 911 to report suspicious activity, yet chose to confront the unarmed suspects outside their residence and off their own property prior to the arrival of the police. In both cases, the shooters claimed that they felt threatened, and fired in self-defense. In both cases, local law enforcement applied relevant state law.

    Unlike Florida, New York does not have a "stand your ground" law. New York law allows a person to use deadly force to defend his residence from home invasion only as a last resort. It does not allow the use of deadly force to prevent a property crime, and requires retreat if possible. Thus, while Zimmerman was not arrested under Florida law, Scott was tried for manslaughter.


    What do you think (none / 0) (#183)
    by labrat on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:13:58 AM EST
    about the new DOJ tipline seeking dirt on George Zimmerman? It's one thing to have an unsolved crime and to ask for help in solving it. In my view, it's a whole 'nother ballgame if you are seeking information fishing for a crime.

    Your thoughts?