Zimmerman Trial: How Not To Prosecute A Defendant

[Madfunkymonkey]

Write up of today's testimony with videos here: http://legalinsurrec...heory-of-guilt/

One of the comments in this article raises a very good question. Does the fact that Zimmerman only fired one shot prove that he was a crazed vigilante or does it prove the opposite?

[sologdin]

is there an insanity defense on the table?

[jarl the climber]

One of the comments in this article raises a very good question. Does the fact that Zimmerman only fired one shot prove that he was a crazed vigilante or does it prove the opposite?

Heres the thing I do not understand and I have not followed this case closely so bear that in mind. Zimmerman was neighborhood watch, now as far I know someone is supposed to observe and call the police if they see a crime being commited, there really not supposed to confront people carrying concealed weapons. I just do not understand how the whole thing got to the point it did. So I can kind of understand how people see Zimmerman as having created the situation by being overzealous. Yet Martin seemed to overeact as well and seemed to give this guy some reason to think his health was in jeoprady. Still it seems like that by carrying a gun into this Zimmerman greatly increased the chances of a fatality or serious injury. I do not recall but I do not think he has any law enforcement or military training. How do we know that Martin saw he had a gun and Zimmerman was reaching for it and he thought he had to KO the guy or he going to get shot?

[Phaing]

One of the comments in this article raises a very good question. Does the fact that Zimmerman only fired one shot prove that he was a crazed vigilante or does it prove the opposite?

Well, it proves he isn't a Cop...

[Sturn]

Well, it proves he isn't a Cop...

There's already a thread for that. Cops are actually taught to shoot twice at center mass in many drills for a reason. Does it really matter if a person gets killed by one bullet or two bullets?

Ok back to the actual topic and away from the unrelated, un-needed snide comment.

[Tempra]

Day 6 of Florida v Zimmerman is upon us. Live coverage can be found here: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/01/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-6 and http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-live-video-day-6-states-witnesses/

How many more State's witnesses will testify that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head into the cement? Will the State call either of Martin's parents?

Rumor has it the State will rest today.

ETA: so the State has called the defense's audio expert. Yeah...WTF. To be fair, the State's experts couldn't testify because their conclusions were not based on practices accepted in the scientific community

And it appears the defense will call Rachel Jeantel (the state's "star" witness) to probably testify about MArtin's previous fights after the State opened the door to who had MMA-style fighting skills.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Apparently the recorded interviews that are being played for the jury show Zimmerman in a very sympathetic light. Certainly from watching the police-walkthrough video with Zimmerman the day after the shooting, I think Zimmerman will come across as very credible, particularly when describing the physical attack that led to his shooting of Martin.

[Tempra]

And the officer who first interviewed Zimmerman at the police station said Zimmerman seemed genuinely affected when she told him Martin was dead. Doesn't look like he knew previously.

Nestor,

Do you think the defense will put Zimmerman on the stand? I would think generally for a defendant in a self-defense case that it would be necessary. Here, witness after witness supports Zimmermam's self-defense theory, and the jury has heard his explanation from the tape-recorded interview with police. It seems like there is little to gain and a lot to lose by making him subject to cross-examination.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

And the officer who first interviewed Zimmerman at the police station said Zimmerman seemed genuinely affected when she told him Martin was dead. Doesn't look like he knew previously.

Nestor,

Do you think the defense will put Zimmerman on the stand? I would think generally for a defendant in a self-defense case that it would be necessary. Here, witness after witness supports Zimmermam's self-defense theory, and the jury has heard his explanation from the tape-recorded interview with police. It seems like there is little to gain and a lot to lose by making him subject to cross-examination.

I have no idea. It's times like these I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney! I would hate to have to make a call like this and advise a client like Zimmerman as to whether or not he should testify in his own defense. On the one hand, I really DO feel like a jury in this kind of a case EXPECTS a defendant to testify, and that notwithstanding whatever jury instructions a judge might give, a jury will hold it against him for not testifying. If you're going to claim self defense, I want to hear it from you, on the stand, why you felt lethal force was necessary to defend yourself. On the other hand, the jury has gotten basically all of the story from the audio and video recordings of Zimmerman by the police, and I doubt he's going to sound any more sincere than he sounds in those videos. And he has made a number of contradictory statements that he is going to be called on the carpet for and grilled over, and while I am personally not convinced that any of those contradictory statements really matter, I do wonder what effect it might have on his credibility in front of the jury. I'm just glad to be a spectator on this one.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Does Florida law permit a directed verdict for acquittal?

[Glaurung]

So Martin would have had no problem running away from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was incapable of running away from Martin? And who said anything about imminent death? You're missing a key part of the law: great bodily harm. If someone is interested enough in you that they slowly creep behind you in their car and then get out of the car to follow you on foot when you leave the road, you have every single reason to believe they intend you harm.

It's easier to run away from somebody when you're being followed than it is once a physical confrontation has already occurred. And it's very difficult to run away when you're on the ground being straddled by somebody. If somebody follows you then yes you have reason to believe they may mean you harm, but that doesn't mean you automatically confront them physically(if that is what happened). It's a last resort. You would do everything in your means to avoid that. You can't just attack somebody who is following you.

Zimmerman had more than 20 pounds on the kid. Since you're fond of anecdotes, here's one for you: my older brother and I loved to wrestle when we young. He was four years older and outweighed me by 25 pounds despite being two inches shorter but I was the better grappler and would often have him at a disadvantage... until he used those 25 pounds and the strength it brought to easily push me off him. At the time of the murder, Zimmerman wasn't as chubby as he is now, he actually looked kind of fit and he had 20-25 pounds on Martin. He should have had no problem bucking him off unless he's just a huge baby. And if he was that much of a weakling, here's an idea: don't get out of your car at night to follow someone who you suspect is a criminal. And I will say, if you're being hit in the face and the back of your head is banging on the pavement, here's some advice: don't get out of your car at night to follow someone who you suspect is a criminal.

And I weigh 10 lbs more than I did 10 years ago, but the me from 10 years ago could easily handle the present me. You lose strength & agility with age. I have no doubt that a teenager could handle Zimmerman. He doesn't exactly look like an athlete, and I'm talking about the pre-incident Zimmerman. Also, whether he SHOULD be able to buck off Martin is irrelevant. IF he was being straddled on the ground then obviously he did not.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that getting out of the car and following Martin was a DUMB move. The dumbness of the move has nothing to do with the level of danger present when you have somebody pounding the back of your head into the pavement(again, IF this was the case).

That was Zimmerman's reasoning for shooting Martin, unless I'm misremembering the link I posted the other day with transcript of his police interview. He feared for his life because Martin was smothering him. The cop even brought it up at one point; if Martin was smothering him to the point where he feared for his life - not an attempted smothering or former smothering but can't-breathe-oh-god-I'm-dying smothering, how was he screaming continuously for help on the neighbor's 911 call?

As I said, he likely wasn't being smothered the whole time. If Zimmerman shot Martin in response to being smothered, then it's obvious that the smothering would have taken place at the end of the confrontation, meaning the yells for help would have occurred before the smothering occurred. The two do not contradict each other.

Except, according to Florida law, if Martin felt Zimmerman meant him great bodily harm by getting out of his car to follow him on foot, it completely does. It's a dumb law, but that is the law.

I don't believe so. Great bodily harm or iminent death implies that there is not another option. It's kill or be killed. The simple act of following somebody is not strong enough to imply that death or great bodily harm are iminent. When you are in the middle of an act of physical violence with no escape and the agressor is not relenting then yes I do believe this can be argued(if evidence supports). However being followed is not strong enough of a cause. People can follow for many different reasons and even if you BELIEVE their intentions are bad, the first option is to run away and I find it hard to believe that Martin didn't believe he could run away from the situation.

If we believe that the act of following is reason to turn around on the person and apprehend them with violence then that kind of opens up a pandora's box doesn't it? Another one of my "anecdotes", I have a crazy ex gf who used to follow me all the time(still calls sometimes even though I've changed my #). I somehow doubt people would be supporting me if I had turned around and beat the crap out of her.

If you want my personal feelings on the case, I believe Zimmerman made a dumb decision to follow Martin to begin with. Martin then made a dumb decision to apprehend Zimmerman(assuming this is what happened). Zimmerman then made another dumb decision and hit the panic button. I personally would like to see Zimmerman serve some time for his dumb decisions, as they resulted in the loss of a life. However a cold blooded killer he is not(my opinion only) and rather than going after a more reasonable charge such as manslaughter, they aimed too high(largely due to media sensationalism) and as a result there's a good chance Zimmerman will walk.

[Tempra]

If you want my personal feelings on the case, I believe Zimmerman made a dumb decision to follow Martin to begin with. Martin then made a dumb decision to apprehend Zimmerman(assuming this is what happened). Zimmerman then made another dumb decision and hit the panic button. I personally would like to see Zimmerman serve some time for his dumb decisions, as they resulted in the loss of a life. However a cold blooded killer he is not(my opinion only) and rather than going after a more reasonable charge such as manslaughter, they aimed too high(largely due to media sensationalism) and as a result there's a good chance Zimmerman will walk.

What is "some time" in prison? Manslaughter carries a 25 year mandatory minimum because a gun was used. That sentence would seem entirely disproportionate for Zimmerman's supposed "dumb" decision of getting out of his car after the police operator asked where Martin ran to.

(I don't think a possible sentence should be part of a juror's calculus in determining guilt. Zimmerman is innocent or guilty based upon the state establishing the pertinent elements and the jury not believing his self-defense claim.)

Also, what is Zimmerman's second dumb decision of hitting the "panic button?" Using a gun to stop Martin from pounding his head into the cement?

[CloudFlare]

How do we know that Martin saw he had a gun and Zimmerman was reaching for it and he thought he had to KO the guy or he going to get shot?

Zimmerman has stated that when Martin was on top of him his jacket rode up, exposing his pistol, which Martin went for and they struggled over. Zimmerman then shot Martin.

[Galactus]

Zimmerman has stated that when Martin was on top of him his jacket rode up, exposing his pistol, which Martin went for and they struggled over. Martin then shot him.

...

[Madfunkymonkey]

I find it interesting that Martin had purchased skittles and a fruit drink which if I'm incorrect are 2/3rds of the ingredients for "Purple Drank".

[CloudFlare]

I find it interesting that Martin had purchased skittles and a fruit drink which if I'm incorrect are 2/3rds of the ingredients for "Purple Drank".

No, purple drank is usually Jolly Ranchers, Sprite and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon's autopsy didn't mention codeine, just MJ.

[Tempra]

Does Florida law permit a directed verdict for acquittal?

Probably. There's certainly no slaughter rule, though. Defense's latest zinger during cross examination of the lead investigator (paraphrased): "Do you know of ANY inconsistencies with Zimmerman's story based on the facts?" "No." Ouch.

Anyways, a directed verdict /judgment as a matter of law is very, very unlikely. Judges don't like to interfere with the jury's fact-finding process, especially in criminal cases Besides, you think she wants death threats?

I have no idea. It's times like these I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney! I would hate to have to make a call like this and advise a client like Zimmerman as to whether or not he should testify in his own defense. On the one hand, I really DO feel like a jury in this kind of a case EXPECTS a defendant to testify, and that notwithstanding whatever jury instructions a judge might give, a jury will hold it against him for not testifying. If you're going to claim self defense, I want to hear it from you, on the stand, why you felt lethal force was necessary to defend yourself. On the other hand, the jury has gotten basically all of the story from the audio and video recordings of Zimmerman by the police, and I doubt he's going to sound any more sincere than he sounds in those videos. And he has made a number of contradictory statements that he is going to be called on the carpet for and grilled over, and while I am personally not convinced that any of those contradictory statements really matter, I do wonder what effect it might have on his credibility in front of the jury. I'm just glad to be a spectator on this one.

Ditto.

O'Mara's decision will be brilliant or profoundly stupid, regardless of how he counsels Zimmerman on taking the stand.

ETA: And the day is over with this sweet exchange on cross examination between defense counsel and the lead investigator:

5:56 p.m. ET: Serino had told Zimmerman he believed Martin may have videotaped the incident.

"I believe his words were, 'Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it,'" said Serino. "Either he was telling the truth or he was a complete pathological liar. One of the two."

Serino says nothing indicated to him that Zimmerman was a pathological liar.

"You think he was telling the truth?" asked O'Mara.

"Yes," said Serino.

Boom.

[Madfunkymonkey]

No, purple drank is usually Jolly Ranchers, Sprite and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon's autopsy didn't mention codeine, just MJ.

Purple Drank can also be made with a fruit drink and skittles instead of sprite and jolly rangers.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I find it interesting that Martin had purchased skittles and a fruit drink which if I'm incorrect are 2/3rds of the ingredients for "Purple Drank".

Why is that interesting or pertinent?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Purple Drank can also be made with a fruit drink and skittles instead of sprite and jolly rangers.

I don't think they sell jolly rangers in Florida.

Why is that interesting or pertinent?

Only to the court of public opinion. It's about as pertinent as all those pictures of Martin as a 12 year old, that initially circulated in the media. Doesn't have a thing to do with the trial.

ETA: added missing word, "think", for clarity.