Following opening statements, the prosecution normally produces a succession of fact witnesses, people who can testify to the facts–the evidence–necessary to establish the elements of the offense and to prove that the defendant committed it. Their ultimate job is to leave no room for reasonable doubt.
Rachel Jeantel
AKA “DeeDee”
But this is the George Zimmerman prosecution: the backwards case.
Normally, prosecutors are careful to fully question each prosecution witness, to obtain all of the evidence their testimony can produce, and also to avoid allowing the defense to reveal evidence left unmentioned, making it look like the prosecution was trying to conceal something. But during the first week of this case, the prosecution has established a pattern of asking only the bare minimum of their witnesses. In virtually every case, defense cross-examination reveals a great deal the prosecutors avoided bringing to light, and in virtually every case, that information either fully supports George’s Zimmerman’s account–which has not changed–casts doubt on The Narrative–which is actually the prosecution’s case–or both.
This bizarre turn of events has required the prosecutors, particularly Bernie de la Rionda (hereinafter BDLR) to treat his own witnesses as though they are hostile witnesses. The prosecution has actually engaged in the extraordinary spectacle of aggressively questioning its own witnesses, trying to get them to ignore, disown or soft-pedal their testimony.
Another interesting–and disturbing–pattern established by prosecution witnesses is changing their testimony in significant and ethically questionable ways. A number of prosecution witnesses have testified to important changes in their accounts that they have never said before, not in multiple law enforcement interviews or depositions. This directly suggests that they’ve not only been coached, but perhaps the subornation of perjury is involved.
Consider also this richly ironic comment, via Fox News:
It’s not about racial profiling,’ Daryl Parks told reporters. ‘He was profiled (criminally). George Zimmerman profiled him.’
Parks made the comments after prosecutors spent several days arguing that Zimmerman profiled the 17-year-old specifically because he was black. Asked why he changed his take on the matter, Parks replied: ‘We never claimed this was about race.
Of course not. In saying “we,” Parks is referring to himself, Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump, the Scheme Team representing Martin’s estranged parents. Consider that they have inflamed the black grievance industry, invoked Erik Holder’s Department of Justice, the most racially biased DOJ in American history, and also consider that Crump said:
It shouldn’t be about race. But race is the elephant in the room. Nobody believes that if you make Trayvon Martin white [and the Neighborhood Watch volunteer black], there’s no way he would not be arrested, and that’s the unfortunate and tragic truth of the matter. There is a double standard. That’s why race is involved in this case.
There is, of course, the small matter of the New Black Panthers and their cash bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and Mr. Obama’s comment:
If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,’ Obama said. ‘When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.
No doubt Mr. Obama spoke up because he considers himself and his children to be white, or more appropriately to this case, “white-Hispanic.”
Former DOJ attorney J.Christian Adams also notes that there is:
Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin.
But in any case, this isn’t about race, and the Scheme Team would never think of so much as suggesting such a thing.
Rachel Jeantel (AKA DeeDee):
DeeDee speaks poorly and may present herself poorly in court. Rightly or wrongly, people who are not well spoken are accorded less credibility, not only in court, but in life in general. DeeDee, who is black, speaks in a heavy “black” dialect. In Update 11, I wrote about Jeantel’s unsuitability to be a witness. She actually surprised me:
In reading this transcript, you’ll notice that Dee Dee speaks in patterns common to some black people (and those of other races as well, including some of the white bread persuasion), particularly dropping portions—or all—of suffixes and prefixes. She also entirely drops some prepositions, some verbs, and like a great many teenagers, speaks with lazy diction and often mumbles. Many of her sentences are fragmentary, and she will often apparently change thoughts in the middle of a sentence. All of this—and more—made preparing this transcript unusually difficult. As a teacher of high school English, I am perhaps better prepared than most to understand this kind of ‘relaxed’ speech, but I was often forced to listen to a given sentence many times before I understood—mostly–what Dee Dee was saying.
DeeDee often dramatically drops the volume at the end of sentences and even phrases. I don’t mean to be unkind, but DeeDee, to at least some people, might not sound very intelligent. These kinds of problems of intellect, enunciation and diction do not establish or support credibility.
I expected that she would not help the State’s case, but she went far beyond that and badly damaged it. During her first day of testimony, she was actively hostile to the defense. Her rudeness and glaring lack of respect for the dignity of the court left me slack jawed. That kind of behavior would cause anyone to spend time in jail for contempt in virtually any court in the land, and rightfully so, yet not only did Judge Nelson ignore her conduct, she actually protected her from the defense on several occasions.
At the end of the day drew near, she arrogantly told Donald West that she was not returning to testify on Friday, and when he told the judge he would likely need two more hours with her, she shouted “what?!” During her second day of testimony, she was more restrained, referring to Donald West as “sir” and toning down her misbehavior, but her eye rolling, odd head motions, expressions of anger, exasperation and disgust could not be contained. Her speech deficits and apparent lack of familiarity with the English language also could not be concealed. Even so, it was apparent that someone got to her and convinced her to behave somewhat more appropriately.
It’s likely that someone was Rod Vereen, Jeantel’s lawyer. Vereen has long-standing and deep connections with the Scheme Team. The Conservative Treehouse has been particularly excellent on exposing connections of that kind in this case, and their recent article on Vereen is worth your time.
He must be a busy man. Jeantel, before her appearance, posted substantial information on social media about it as though it were a social occasion, including a photo of her nails, done up for the occasion. In addition, her twitter account has been scrubbed of “embarrassing” posts. The Smoking Gun has a number of them captured before the scrubbing.
Jeantel’s testimony was supposed to prove that Zimmerman confronted and murdered Martin without provocation. As I noted in Update 11–a complete transcript of Jeantel’s interview with BDLR–her testimony does not, in any way, damage Zimmerman’s account, in fact, it directly supports it. Despite several deceptive and obviously coached attempts to improve on that sorry record, the end result was the same after her testimony.
We did learn that the entire Scheme Team was present at Jeantel’s BDLR interview and that Sybrina Fulton, Martin’s mother, actually sat next to Jeantel (I previously exposed this in Update 18), who admitted that Fulton’s presence substantially changed her answers to BDLR’s questions, and that her testimony in that interview–and her interview with Crump–was coached, as I suspected and noted in Update 11. The interview, amazingly, was held in the living room of Fulton’s home!
It would be hard, probably impossible, to imagine a more obviously coercive, improper atmosphere for conducting an interview. The presence and obviously active involvement of the Scheme Team, which precedes the involvement of the special prosecutor, is about as ethically challenged as one could imagine. Prosecutors are, of necessity, careful about aligning themselves with private attorneys with a financial or political interest in the outcome of any criminal case. Just as the roles of the defense and prosecution are reversed in this case, so too is this ethical rule.
Jeantel also admitted lying about her age and about being hospitalized rather than attending Martin’s funeral. However, West wisely allowed her an out, essentially blaming BDLR and others for putting her in that situation. BDLR surely deserves some of the blame.
Jeantel testified that after spotting Zimmerman, Martin described him as a “Creepy-Ass Cracker,” and shortly thereafter described Zimmerman, several times, as a “nigga.” I recommend a visit to Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left, where a brief video clip of Jeantel and BDLR’s struggle with the court reporter who, like most human beings, had a hard time understanding what Jeantel was saying, is available. Jeantel also claimed that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist.
This caused many commentators to suggest that perhaps Martin thought Zimmerman to be homosexual–as in “creepy ass-cracker”–which they ironically suggest might tend to give Martin justification for attacking Zimmerman. This is simply absurd, as Jeantel’s meaning is clear. As to the suggestion Zimmerman was a rapist, this is of a piece with Jeantel’s interview with BDLR, where, at the last minute, she suddenly, out of thin air, suggested that Zimmerman was “crazy”–not a “creepy-ass cracker”–which gave even BDLR pause.
West established–it was like pulling teeth to get Jeantel to answer–that she never said any such thing in her interviews with Crump and BDLR, and in her deposition. This was far from the only time she was impeached by her own words, or lack thereof.
She also claimed that when Martin confronted Zimmerman–another example of her testimony fully supporting Zimmerman’s account–Martin asked “What you followin’ me for?” to which Zimmerman replied “what you doin‘ ‘round here?” West proved that during her statement with Crump, she claimed Zimmerman replied “What are you talking about?” Jeantel did say “what you doin’ ‘round here” in her BDLR interview.
Jeantel also directly implicated Crump in possible perjury and subornation of perjury, admitting that she changed her testimony during her interview with him at Crump’s urging, a matter he specifically denied in an affidavit filed with Judge Nelson. This should make Crump’s upcoming deposition interesting indeed.
When West confronted Jeantel with the letter she supposedly wrote (I outlined my concerns about that document in Update 26) to Sybrina Fulton, the trial descended into farce. Jeantel was forced to admit that she could not read the letter because it was written in cursive! Obviously considering her obvious cognitive deficits, West handled the situation kindly, but didn’t push much farther. It was more than clear she didn’t–couldn’t–have written the letter.
She also admitted that she and Martin never dated. She suggested otherwise in her BDLR interview, and Crump suggested otherwise as well.
As in the BDLR interview, she heard “grass” over the cell phone(?!), and was never able to explain that, other than to add that the grass she heard was wet. She was consistent in one matter: she didn’t hear fighting words or a fight.
There were many other instances of mangled testimony, self-contradiction, bad behavior, and absolute absurdity, such as Jeantel’s assertion that “creepy-ass cracker” is not an inherently racial statement. I recommend a visit to Merrit’s account, as well as that of Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection for additional information.
Some narrative supporters have actually suggested that Jeantel’s testimony helped the prosecution. I can’t imagine what planet they’re from, however, there is an inherent danger: sympathy. An all-female jury might feel sorry for Jeantel. She’s such an obvious physical mismatch with the good-looking and athletic Martin, they might be inclined to look kindly on her. Combine that factor with her obvious lack of intelligence, and even her admitted perjuries, bad behavior and other eccentricities might be rationalized away. West was careful to avoid allowing her to be a sympathetic figure, and for rational people willing to follow the law, he was entirely successful, but such things are never a certainty.
Jeantel’s testimony–as well as Judge Nelson’s enabling and protection of Jeantel, remain among the most amazing and inexplicable things I’ve ever seen in a courtroom.
Jenna Lauer:
Lauer was an extraordinary witness. Attractive, highly intelligent, telegenic, and self-assured, she wouldn’t allow BDLR to manipulate her testimony. O’Mara never tried. A real-estate agent, Lauer lived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes on Feb. 26, 2012 (though no longer) and was a member of the Home Owner’s Association board. Though a prosecution witness, she too affirmed Zimmerman’s account.
Jenna Lauer
Lauer testified there had been a steady rain all day (BDLR has consistently tried to get witnesses to minimize the rain) and at about 1900, it was still raining. Her patio door was open, but because of drawn blinds, she could not see past them at night. She heard unintelligible voices and thought it might be a three-party exchange. She described the tone of the voices as “flustered” rather than conversational. She immediately muted her TV and heard scuffling she described like sneakers on pavement or grass, “like playing basketball right there.”
The “X” is the approximate local of the confrontation
Lauer said the scuffling sound gradually changed to a “grunting noise.” She said it sounded like they were standing at first, but soon, like they were rolling or wrestling on the ground. She didn’t see any of this, saying that she was testifying “only on what I heard.” She said the scuffling gradually turned to “yelping.”
Lauer called 911, and said that from her first hearing noise until 911 picked up her call about 30 second elapsed. By then, she thought someone was in danger or needed help and her husband tried to find a knife, intending to go out the front door and approach from that direction. He never found a knife or left the home. While on the line with the dispatcher–it was Lauer’s call that produced the primary recording of the yells for help and the gunshot–she heard a shot. The dispatcher asked her if someone was yelling for help, and she told them they were. All of this is fully supportive of Zimmerman’s account.
Lauer said there was only one person calling for help: “It was the same voice all the time.” She said she could not identify the voice, and that cries for help stopped after the gunshot. Lauer and her husband immediately went upstairs for safety; she didn’t go outside or look out the windows.
Lauer said that before the gunshot her next door neighbor–John Good–opened his door and she heard his voice saying something like “what the hell are you doing?” She said: “the yelling for help continued.”
BDLR played the 911 tape and the cries for help were clearly audible, as was the single shot. BDLR asked her if she heard anyone say “You’re going to die tonight motherfucker,” and she replied “no.” She said she eventually heard someone say “I have a gun; take my gun,” but didn’t know who it was. BDLR had her identify various photos of her home and the area around it, obviously taken shortly after the shooting. Coincidently, several had many obvious raindrops on the camera lens and the entire area was plainly soaked with water with rain still falling.
BDLR kept trying to suggest that Lauer’s house number on the west side of her home–the opposite side from where the shooting occurred–must have been clearly visible. Lauer, with some exasperation had to repeatedly tell him that there was a large tree on that side and therefore her house number was only visible from some angles. BDLR would not abandon that meme, and kept repeating it, obviously hoping she’d give up and agree with him. She did not.
Additional photos from the following morning revealed that the grass and sidewalks were still soaked.
In one comical moment at the expense of BDLR–who walked himself off the plank–BDLE found that Lauer knew Zimmerman slightly, having seen him at several board meetings. BDLR asked if she could identify the screaming voice as his and she replied: “I couldn’t; I didn’t hear him yell like that in the meetings, so…”
On cross-examination, O’Mara elicited that whoever was yelling for help: “sounded like they were desperate…they really needed help.” She said apart from Good, she heard no other voices. Neatly dispatching BDLR’s suggestion that because she didn’t hear Martin’s threat to Zimmerman, he didn’t make one, Lauer testified that Good wasn’t audible on the 911 tape either. She said that Zimmerman’s comments about his gun were “matter of fact,” which she took as normal conversation with the police considering the circumstances.
We learned that the iconic photo of Zimmerman with his flattened nose and blood streaming down his face taken at the scene was the result of Officer Wagner asking if she knew Zimmerman. She didn’t want to expose herself to possible danger, so he took the photo on his cellphone and brought it to her. She testified that because of his injuries she couldn’t identify him as George Zimmerman that night.
Lauer testified that the Home Owner’s Association put up fences in the NW corner of the development to keep unwanted people out, and that there was no street sign anywhere near her home, which also supports Zimmerman’s account that he was searching for street addresses (that’s what BDLR was trying to get at). Lauer also testified that she considered the screams she heard to be made by someone in a life-threatening situation. She said that she had no concerns about Zimmerman’s Neighborhood Watch role and considered it a benefit to the community.
On redirect, a grinning BDLR began by getting Lauer to agree that children play on the same sidewalk, obviously trying to imply that the sidewalk against which Zimmerman’s head was repeatedly bashed was thereby somehow harmless. This was among the oddest arguments I’ve ever seen in court.
A sidebar occurred, and when it was over, BDLR tried to get Lauer to comment on an accusation that Zimmerman once had a restraining order, and was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer. Lauer wasn’t going for any of that, and it amounted to nothing more than BDLR testifying, which Judge Nelson, of course, allowed. O’Mara quickly inserted that the restraining orders were mutual and mutually dismissed, and that the other charge was also dismissed.
BDLR then stepped in it up to the knee when he suggested that Lauer had either twittered or followed Zimmerman’s brother on facebook. Lauer replied “I don’t believe so,” which resulted in another sidebar.
Thereafter, BDLR approached her with a laptop computer. O’Mara stood behind him, broadly grinning, and for good reason. BDLR triumphantly showed her what must have been Zimmerman’s brother’s page and asked her about following him. Lauer was momentarily confused, but quickly pointed out that she had never followed him; instead, the button was giving her the option of following him. Embarrassed, BDLR quickly removed the computer. O’Mara asked her how many tweets she had ever done, and she replied that she had never done a single tweet.
Throughout this mini-debacle that in many ways, typified the prosecution’s case so far, Lauer remained entirely unflappable and in control. She was very impressive and highly credible, and all of her testimony not only did nothing at all to help the prosecution, it absolutely supported Zimmerman’s account. BDLR left the jury with the final impression of making a fool of himself in a blundering attempt to trip up one of the most impressive witnesses they had seen–a pathetic performance.
Selma Mora:
Another impressive witness, Mora is a native Colombian who is now a US citizen, having lived in the US for 12 years. She also lives in the neighborhood, four homes south of the north end of the row on the east side. She had a Spanish interpreter, an issue at which some might take offense, but she explained that while she does speak English, for something this important, she wanted to be precise and make no mistakes. I found that endearing and honorable.
Selma Mora
Mora said she was in her kitchen when she heard “like a crying,” followed by what she now knows was the gunshot. However, it sounded differently to her that night: “a dry sound, like the thump of a child falling.” She didn’t recognize it as a gunshot at the time. Again, notice in this photo taken the following morning, how wet everything is.
She went to her patio door and realized the sounds were coming from the right (north), placing the confrontation exactly where Zimmerman said it was. She went outside and saw two people. She said one was on the ground and the other on top of him in a position “like a rider.” She said she couldn’t really tell clothing colors, but the person on top has some sort of pattern “between black and red,” which accurately described Zimmerman’s black and red jacket.
Mora said “what’s going on?” (in English), and said no one answered. She said the person on top turned to look at her, but didn’t respond. She asked again and got no response. She asked again and he said “just to call the police.” She saw the one on the top get up, and begin pacing back and forth. She said he put his right hand on his head and his left on his waist. She didn’t see him stumble or stagger, and he didn’t say anything.
She testified that the person on the bottom was face down. She saw someone with a flashlight. About then, her female roommate–Mary Kutcher–was behind her, screaming that it was a gunshot. She said another woman began to come outside and she yelled at her to go home. Mora then ran back into her home where Mary was on the phone with 911. Mora had never met Martin or Zimmerman.
On cross-examination, Mora told O’Mara that she heard only two “cries.” She said she had since heard Lauer’s 911 call and the screams on that call could be the cries she heard. She also said that her yell to her neighbor couldn’t be heard on Lauer’s 911 call either. O’Mara had her demonstrate her actions and she said it was so dark she could only see silhouettes. Once again, a witness for the prosecution completely and accurately supported Zimmerman’s account and the evidence in the case. Go here for a copy of Zimmerman’s first written statement to the Sanford Police.
There were three additional witnesses on the third day of the prosecution’s case.
Jane Sudyka:
I’ll let Andrew Branca describe her testimony for you:
Sudyka lived in the row of townhouses at just above the upper part of the ‘T’ [from the point of view of the previous pictures] formed by the dog walk. Her testimony was largely centered on the 16 minute long 911 call she made that night, which can only be described is histrionic. Had I heard that 911 recording in a non-court context I would have assumed it to be part of a scene from a low-quality comedy movie in which the actress had been told to ‘overact ridiculously, the more exaggerated the better.
Sudyka insisted that three shots were fired. There is no doubt only one was, and no one else has identified more than one. She also testified that Martin was face down on the ground with Zimmerman standing over him at the moment the “shots” were fired, so that Zimmerman shot Martin in the back. Again, an impossibility.
She also testified that she heard two voices, attributing a loud, dominating voice to Zimmerman and a quiet, meek voice to Martin, but on cross-examination, she agreed with West that she had never heard their voices and was just guessing how they would sound based on her assumptions.
The rain came to plague BDLR yet again when Sudyka testified that it was raining “buckets,” so hard she had to close a window to keep her home from being soaked. BDLR tried, without success, to rehabilitate himself on this issue later.
The final destruction of Sudyka’s credibility came–once again–at the hands of West. Again, Branca writes:
Near the end of cross West asked he if she had appeared on national television to discuss the case, and Sudyka denied this. Really? he asked
Sudyka: Well, just the one time on Anderson Cooper, but only on condition that I not be named or identified.
West: Weren’t you also on television another time?
Sudyka: Well, yes, I was videotaped by another journalist.
West: And that was played on TV several times.
Sudyka: I only saw it once.
West: So you were taped, and you saw yourself on TV, that second time?
Sudyka: Yes.
Jeannee Manalo:
Another resident, Manalo placed Zimmerman on top of Martin, which he was–briefly–at the very end of the confrontation after the shot, but that was not her implication. She based this, like Sudyka, not on actual knowledge or observation, but on her assumption–apparently from media accounts–that Martin must have been much smaller than Zimmerman, and she thought the person on top was bigger, hence it must have been Zimmerman. She later was shown several photos of Martin and admitted she was basing her estimate of the relative size of the people on a photo of Martin in his football uniform, the photo of Martin in a red Holllister shirt–both of which depict a much younger and smaller Martin–and Martin–a head shot only–in a hoodie, from which no real estimate of his actual proportions can be made.
Actually, Martin was substantially taller than Zimmerman and was wearing large, baggy clothing, which would have made him appear even larger. Human beings judge height by their personal frames of reference and their surroundings. A woman seeing a man standing near her husband knows her husband’s height, so she can judge the other man’s height pretty accurately. However, it is virtually impossible to accurately judge the height and size of people flat on the ground, distance also interferes, and darkness removes visual references as well.
On Cross-examination, she testified for O’Mara that she never left her home and all she could actually see were shadows. O’Mara also revealed that in her prior police statements and depositions, she had never identified the person on top as Zimmerman. As with several other witnesses, Manolo, on this day, suddenly, somehow gained insight detrimental to Zimmerman.
This brought up another interesting coincidence. With every other witness caught in potentially invented testimony, BDLR has relied on asking them why they never gave that testimony before despite multiple opportunities–all under oath. Like the others, Manolo replied “No one ever asked.” It’s rather hard to ask about specific information one has no idea a witness has. She eventually admitted she had no real idea who was where during the confrontation.
BDLR lost it, attacking his own witness: Branca well describes it:
Bernie de la Rionda launched into re-direct like a bull, quickly triggering a stream of defense objections as he improperly led the witness in an attempt to get her to say what he wanted her to say. Indeed, it finally got to the point where he was brandishing a transcript of her earlier statements at her as if she were an uncooperative defense witness, saying sternly: You’ve already testified that Zimmerman was the bigger of the two people, didn’t you?
Manaloo replied: Compared to the picture, yes.
Isn’t it true, de la Rionda demanded, that on March 26 I took a sworn statement and I asked you if you could identify either person, and you said Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size? Isn’t also true that in your deposition by West that you said you could identify Zimmerman because you had seen his photo on TV and that based on his size it was Zimmerman on top?
Manaloo equivocated. At that time, she said, I don’t know who they are, I know one is down and one is up.
But Martin never got up after he was shot? asked de la Rionda. No, she answered.
What happened is obvious: BDLR is so caught up in The Narrative, he didn’t do his job properly–actually he should not have interviewed anyone; that’s what trained investigators are for–and he didn’t get the proper, accurate statement from Manolo. O’Mara did. Rather than deal with it, he had to try to maintain The Narrative. O’Mara didn’t let him:
Then it was O’Mara’s turn to hold out a transcript on re-cross. Indeed, he held out de la Rionda’s transcript.
He noted that in response to de la Rionda’s question, OK, so the guy on top to you appeared bigger, Manaloo had responded in the affirmative.
There was, however, some additional context that would be helpful. He read more of the transcript. He had Manaloo read the two or three sentences immediately prior to the just quoted portion.
Manaloo: How would you describe the physical of the guy on top or the guy on the bottom.
O’Mara: OK, and what was your answer?
Manaloo: I know after seeing the TV of what’s happening. Then Mr. de la Rionda said OK, and I said comparing the pictures, I think Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size.
O’Mara: But again, not because you have that independent thought, but only because you compared the picutres we just talked about, right?
Manaloo: Yes.
O’Mara: Your only basis for this is not because you thought he was on top because he was on top, but only because of the comparison with the picutre of a 12 year old child.
Manaloo: Yes.
Manolo’s testimony that might possibly help the prosecution was, at best, unsure and obviously based on assumptions rather than reliable observations.
Ramona Rumph:
Rumph is a records custodian for the Sanford PD. Her testimony related to the 911 calls and was very brief and procedural. She’ll almost certainly be recalled as a defense witness.
Friday’s testimony was interesting indeed.
John Good:
Good was, like Lauer, a calm and collected witness who didn’t allow anyone to manipulate his testimony. In fact, he ended up correcting BDLR’s mistakes and manipulations. It’s difficult to imagine how BDLR imagines Good could possibly help his case in any way. There is no way he could avoid Good’s testimony; if he didn’t put him on the stand, O’Mara surely would, but Good not only supported Zimmerman’s account perfectly, he absolutely destroyed the prosecution’s narrative. Like Lauer, Good is an entirely credible, unbiased witness.
John Good
Keep in mind that Good was the witness in the perfect position to see what was happening. The confrontation took place on the sidewalk very near his home, and Martin ended up on the grass just to the west of the sidewalk, again, near his home. Light from his home would have helped to illuminate the scene to at least some degree.
Good testified that he saw a black guy wearing a black hoodie (which perfectly describes Martin) on top of a white or Hispanic guy wearing a red sweatshirt (which perfectly describes Zimmerman) who was yelling for help. The guy on top was “just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Good testified that he yelled at the men to stop and said he was calling 911. After O’Mara brought up his original statement to then SPD Detective Serino, Good said the guy on top was hitting the guy on the bottom in a “Ground-and-Pound” manner, which is a mixed martial arts tactic where one fighter straddles another, potentially pinning their arms, pinning them to the ground, and repeatedly beating them about the head and face.
BDLR was able to get Good to say that he didn’t actually see fists hitting flesh, but see arms flying downward in that manner.
This was a very small concession. Good solidly placed Martin atop Zimmerman, beating him just as Zimmerman has always maintained, and surely producing the kinds of injuries depicted in evidence photographs. With the testimony of all of the other witnesses thus far, there can be no doubt about what happened.
Andrew Branca again has a solid account of this testimony.
Jonathan Manolo:
Manolo is the husband of Jeanee Manolo. He was the man with the flashlight, the first person to actually speak with Zimmerman after the shooting. Manolo actually photographed Martin’s body and the blood rolling off the back of Zimmerman’s head.
His testimony was mostly unremarkable and again supported Zimmerman’s account. He did testify that when the police approached, Zimmerman tossed his cell phone to the ground, which is indeed a wise thing to do.
For some reason, BDLR tried to get Manolo to characterize Zimmerman’s injuries as trifles. This is odd as Manolo is not medically trained. This was a tack he would take with a later witness, with the same degree of success: essentially none.
Ricardo Ayala and Tim Smith:
Ayala and Smith were the first patrol officers on the scene, responding to what was first a suspicious person call, and later, a shooting. Ayala attended to Martin and Smith handcuffed and dealt with Zimmerman.
Their testimony was unremarkable and supported Zimmerman’s account of what happened when they were there. Again, BDLR tried to use them to minimize Zimmerman’s injuries, particularly focusing on Zimmerman’s walking or standing, but they were professional and didn’t play along. He also tried to get them to say that Zimmerman was unconcerned about killing Martin.
O’Mara was skillful on cross-examination. He was able to get the officers, and particularly Smith, to say that Zimmerman was completely cooperative and was behaving appropriately for the circumstances. Smith confirmed Zimmerman’s account that on the way to the SPD in Smith’s car, he told Smith that he was dizzy and had a headache.
Both officers were professionals, doing as they were trained: keep answers short and to the point and volunteer nothing. They gave the prosecution nothing that would support The Narrative.
Stacy Livingston:
Livingston is an EMT that attended Zimmerman at the scene that night. Like the officers, she was professional and did little more than confirm Zimmerman’s injuries. She resisted BDLR’s attempts to twist her testimony.
Lindzee Folgate:
Folgate was the day’s final witness, a physician’s assistant. She is a bright, intelligent woman who was very much in control of herself and didn’t allow the prosecution to mischaracterize her testimony. As usual, O’Mara made no attempts to do that.
Almost immediately, BDLR tried to get her to go into Zimmerman’s complete medical history, which led to a very long sidebar where there was much redacting of medical records. It was clear BDLR intended to use anything he could get to sling innuendo at Zimmerman, but was mostly thwarted.
His primary interest was an August, 19, 2011 visit to Folgate where Zimmerman complained of sleeping difficulties and told her he “started to exercise intensely with MMA, but this has not helped.” BDLR intends to paint Zimmerman as an experienced fighter, but O’Mara was later able to get Folgate to testify that he was merely seeking aerobic exercise.
BDLR then spent considerable time getting Folgate to testify to her notes about Zimmerman’s visit the day after the incident. Her notes fully supported his injuries, but did not memorialize each and every small abrasion and bruise. O’Mara made up for this by having Folgate view multiple photos, particularly of Zimmerman’s head, and point out abrasions and bruises visible that night, but not terribly obvious. She was quite firm in that while she couldn’t say with absolute certainty that Zimmerman’s nose was broken because she didn’t take X-rays, a broken nose was her diagnosis. O’Mara also elicited testimony to the effect that whenever there are head injuries, there is always the possibility of brain damage.
BDLR’s final redirect was a lame attempt to get Folgate to minimize Zimmerman’s injuries, but Folgate was not buying it. Folgate ended up describing injuries that fully supported Zimmerman’s account and matched the photographs. She did the prosecution no good.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
The prosecution’s reliance on The Narrative is already paying dividends for the defense, and so it must. The Narrative is based entirely on racial and social justice assumptions rather than the evidence of the case. Every witness thus far has done little or nothing for the prosecution, and in many cases, such as Jeantel and to a lesser extent Sudyka and Jeanee Manaloo, done real and lasting damage.
It must be remembered that multiple witnesses, Bahadoor, Jeantel and Jeanee Manolo, have produced “evidence” never before heard, giving at the very least the impression they have been coached or otherwise encouraged to do that, or perhaps the impression they’re hopeless biased, even calling into question the possibility that testimony is false. In addition, O’Mara was able to absolutely obliterate Bahadoor’s claim to being unbiased by exposing her “liking” of Martin’s Facebook page, her signing of a Change’org petition for Zimmerman’s arrest, and her making of a video with ABC’s Matt Guttman. This was likely the reason for BDLR’s abortive and foolish attempt to trip up Lauer.
Unless the jury really is a stealth jury, they have to be wondering: where’s the prosecution’s case? Thus far, it hasn’t put in an appearance. No one should expect acquittal, however. In criminal trials, there are no guarantees and guesses are often wrong.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike,
Do you sleep at all? Great review of the trial.
Dear Joel:
I write very quickly and always get enough sleep.
re: writing quickly, two things
* You mentioned “subordination of perjury” twice. I think you meant “subornation.” I’d easily give you a pass if you claimed it was autocorrect fail.
* Selma Mora is Colombian, not Columbian.
I wasn’t even going to say anything, but then I saw your writing quickly comment and couldn’t help myself.
Other than that, fantastic writeup. Although I only recently found your blog, I’ve recommended it to several friends who are very interested, but aren’t interested in the heavier legal writing from Branca at Legal Insurrection. Thanks!
Dear floridagatorfan:
Quite so. Thanks for the catch; it’s so hard to be perfect!
Oh, I forgot one more thing. Not a correction per se, but a clarification. I was watching the testimony live when BDLR pulled the Twitter stunt on Jenna Lauer. I immediately went looking for her Twitter profile, and I did find one with her name and photo. That profile had “Followed” 112 accounts, and Robert Zimmerman, Jr. was among them. Somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes later, that profile was removed from Twitter, but it did exist, and I saw it with my own eyes, on my own computer screen. There are several screenshots now floating around the ‘net of her “Followed” list.
Of course, I do not know what was actually displayed on BDLR’s laptop, but there is a simple explanation for the “Follow” light being lit up (seeming to indicate that RZ was not being Followed). The explanation is that they were not logged into Jenna Lauer’s Twitter account, but they were viewing her “Followed” list from another account. Thus, Twitter was extending the offer to follow RZ to whoever’s Twitter account was logged in at that time. The amusing thing about the whole process is that it basically confirms her lack of Twitter familiarity. BDLR tried to catch her in a “gotcha,” but he tried to prove it using the wrong evidence (he wasn’t logged into her account). Ms. Lauer denied doing it, and she tried to prove her denial by referring to the same, wrong, evidence (and obviously didn’t know what she was even looking at). In any case, if I was on the jury and saw that (which they didn’t, this all happened out of their presence), it would not have hurt her credibility with me whatsoever. The rest of her testimony was just too solid.
As for where the account and the Follow came from, there are several potential explanations that are mostly all equally valid. First, I have seen the theory proffered that the profile that was there (that I saw) was not actually hers, but was a fake account to discredit her. I somewhat doubt this to be true. Another possibility is that it was her Twitter account, and perhaps she Followed RZ at some point in the last 16 months accidentally via misclick while viewing profiles (it does not prompt for confirmation, so you could click it and not even really notice it). Yet another possibility is that when RZ Followed her (he does not currently do so, but I read a couple stories that said he had Followed her, along with several other potential witnesses, several months ago) she got the email informing her of that fact. That email contains a link to Follow that person back, and she may have clicked it either accidentally or on purpose out of courtesy (sort of a “you scratch my back” thing).
In any case, the jury didn’t hear any of it, so it’s moot, though it was pretty damn funny to watch.
Dear floridagatorfan:
Thanks for the clarification. Of course, none of us have any idea what de la Rionda was showing her at that moment, but I’m sure her point that any association on her part with Twitter or Facebook was accidental and inadvertent registered with anyone watching it, as did de la Rionda’s clumsy attempt to harm a very believable and attractive–in every way–witness.
Hi Mike,
I can independently confirm that Jenna Lauer was following RZjr.
I also believe that it is entirely irrelevant. I would follow certain members of the Scheme Team, their enablers, and their useful idiots (just to keep track of what they’re saying), but they have the habit of blocking anyone who tries to do so.
“…a very believable and attractive–in every way–witness.”
Oh, you noticed that too, did you? Ms. Lauer was a shining example of how intelligence can turn a 6-7 into an 8-9. I’d seen pictures of her before, and my lack of any real recollection of them tells me that I found her basically unremarkable at the time; attractive enough, I suppose, but no particular “wow” factor. Actually watching her testimony, her wit and smarts were impossible to not recognize, and turned her into an “I want to know this person” person. Intelligence is attractive.
Floridagatorfan it pained me to write that as i am a nole
u are correct she was following jr, but as a default when someone follows you u follow them and if u look at their profile you automatically start following them. the wftv blog was humming with this info. She tripped up bdlr because he was not logged on to her account so it will give a list of people and then ask to follow them without being logged on.
but bill sheafer the legal analyst for wftv said that mora supported the testimony of rachel, how is that even possible? since when selma saw them it was after the gun shot. and rachel didnt hear that.
“…as a default when someone follows you u follow them and if u look at their profile you automatically start following them.”
I was unfamiliar with that, as I don’t use Twitter often, and all my followers are the automated/spam type. Thanks for the clarification.
As for what Bill Sheaffer said, I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. I’ve seen/heard him say a few different things where it appeared he drew a different conclusion that literally everyone else I read.
Reblogged this on A world at war.
Dear Aussie:
Thank you for the reblog. I appreciate it very much. I often marvel at the reach of the Internet.
Mike I am doing this because I believe in justice. I believe that justice needs to be done in this case. :)
At least on my own blog I can bring some of my own Australian perspectives :)
Mike, thank you for an excellent summary. As always I have reblogged your post so that others can read your summary.
I appreciate what you and Mr. Branco do in watching the trial and preparing the summaries. I’m preparing the arguments I will use with my largely black co-workers to explain why this case is not an act of racial injustice.
In response to OmegaPaladin:
Man, I wish you the best of luck with that. Speaking for myself, I don’t know if I would have the perspicacity or cultural courage to even go there, unless I perceived some willingness on the other side to openly listen to my opinion.
I would want to be able to speak freely and respond respectfully, and would hope that those espousing a counter-argument would do the same, without having to worry about hurt feelings and such. “Firm but fair.” has always seemed to me to be the gold standard and could probably be applied here..
While the O J Simpson trial was unfolding, I was still a college professor (engineering) and remember being stunned by the disparity involved in the Logic vs. Emotion argument after a student brought up the subject. I was glad to get out of the situation without anyone holding a grudge, dropping the class or going to the dean with a complaint.
Would you be able to report back as to how it goes? I would be most appreciative. Thanks.
Reblogged this on Justice For All and commented:
Another great post by Mike McDaniel summarizing and adding analysis of the Zimmerman Trial. He also adds links with further analysis and commentary from Jeralynn Merritt a renown attorney from Colorado and her site Talkleft.com, and Andrew Branca a self-defense lawyer and advocate writing for the Legal blog Legal Insurrection at http://legalinsurrection.com/.
Thanks Mike, for saving me the trouble.
BF
Dear boricuafudd:
Thanks for the reblog. It’s most appreciated!
“[Jeantel admitted] that her testimony in that interview–and her interview with Crump–was coached”
That right there, coupled to the fact that the defense has been denied the opportunity to depose Crump in a timely way regarding the matter, would in any normal trial in any normal court be grounds for an immediate and unquestioned mistrial.
This, however, is not a normal trial in a a normal court. As Mike so clearly notes, when he observes that Jeantel’s rude and uncooperative demeanor would have earned her a contempt charge in such a normal court, and yet here did not.
Instead, what has been on display here is a shameless political trial in a kangaroo court. Wherein the defendant’s legitimate rights are being quite brazenly trampled, and where a long string of abuses by the prosecution have been gently let pass by the bench.
It’s fortunate for the defendant that the prosecution’s case is so comically weak and self-contradictory as to give him a possible shot at acquittal. The satirical “Chewbacca defense” concept has become part of popular culture, and surely many instances of it have been seen, but this has to be a first for the Chewbacca offense.
After this whole sorry fiasco is done, a serious investigation should be empaneled, and questions should be asked regarding the possible disbarment of Crump, Corey, and de la Rionda. They collectively make the disgraced Mike Nifong look like a model officer of the court.
As for Judge Nelson, it would be a disservice to the public interest to have her continue on the bench even to hear traffic misdemeanors.
A mistrial is also a gamble. It in no way discharges the charges, and just sets Martin up to have to come into court again. A mistrial is always a strategic call for the party asking for it. They ask for it when they want a do-over.
Honestly, thing are going so well for the defense, they would be derelict if they asked for a mistrial. The prosecution, on the other hand, may be looking hard at the jury trying to find some way to get a mistrial to drag them out of this hole.
Zimmerman, not Martin.
Absolutely correct. Not that Judge Nelson would grant a defense-requested mistrial, even if Trayvon Martin appeared in court to say he is not dead, things are going so well for the defense no way would Zimmerman want a redo.
People can get a taste of the detriment of a retrial by comparing day one and two of Rachel “DeeDee Diamond Eugene” Jeantel’s trial testimony. Having deposed and cross-examined perhaps 3,000 witnesses, I can confidently opine that Day Two DeeDee, against Judge Nelson’s Order to STFU overnight, was coached on what she needed to say and do on day two.
No one, and I do mean NO ONE, who presents like she did on Day One, improves so dramatically for Day Two.
While I did not expect the Court to do anything about DeeDee’s Miracle, it was obvious to everyone in that courtroom that she had been coached, at least four to five hours.
Bonus Comment: I have a completely different take on Judge Nelson’s motive, that may have appeared to some a “state-sponsored, state-biased” plan to protect her.
IMO Judge Nelson was trying to avoid a mistrial. Any Judge witnessing DeeDee on the stand would know she was a powder key ready to blow. If she lost it, for example, she ran over to Don West and beat the sheet out of him (one time I tried to put a black woman about DeeDee’s girth in handcuffs, it was like trying to rope a rhino with a plastic tie. I assure you, all the deputies in that courtroom would have had a hell of a time restraining a pissed-off DeeDee).
Anyway, if DeeDee attacked Bernie would have looked at that event to call for a mistrial. (Angela Corey-Nifong desperately wants a do-over on this debacle). If the State asked for a mistrial, Judge Nelson would give it. Of course, if she thinks Zimmerman wants it, she would deny the motion.
In any event, I saw Judge Nelson trying really hard to keep DeeDee under control. For example, when at the conclusion of her first day on the stand West said he needed her for another two hours. DeeDee yelled “WHAT!” And then said words to the effect “No way I comin back to talk to dis crazy ass cracker.”
Don “Walter White” West, in his typical “oblivious to anything that’s going on around him other than what HE is dealing with” fashion immediately challenged Ms. Diamond Eugene. “Are you saying you are not coming back tomorrow?” Don accused, but feigned to wonder.
Judge Nelson, (accurately) sensing all her hard work at keeping things under control was about to vanish, told TV viewers she did not intend to referee the “let’s get ready to rumble” main event of the trial, Ms. Rachel “DeeDee Diamond” Jeantel vs. Don “Walter White” West.
Instead of requiring Ms. DeeDee to answer Walter White’s pointed inquiry, Judge Nelson IMMEDIATELY had the jury quickly ushered out the courtroom, then told Ms. DeeDee “see you tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.,” did NOT wait for her response, quickly adjourned court, told everyone “see you tomorrow,” then she “fled” the stand.
And that’s why IMO Judge Nelson was doing what she was doing, appearing to coddle a State’s witness; her intent was anything but.
Note: I also believe that the reason Judge Nelson came down so hard on Don West the next day was that he appeared oblivious that DeeDee was ready to blow. Don was pushing her hard, really hard. (His actions were proper considering this was a star witness.) I could figuratively see steam coming out of DeeDee’s ears. She was staring down Don with hatred, and I do mean hate.
Bonus Comment: Whoever coached DeeDee the night before did an excellent job. He or she (probably her attorney, Crump, and Jackson) had to lecture her on the greater good and call Don all kinds of names to convince her that if she loses it that would be a victory for Don West, and that she would be doing exactly what that cracker wanted her to do, lose her temper. And they said that if she attacked Don she would immediately be jailed. The thought of that probably frightened her, as well at the thought they planted in her head, Don West would stand outside the jail in an interview and laugh at he, pointing to her jail cell and saying “that is what happens to liars.”
Don West was ready to blow up at the Judge. Still, it would have been something to watch. A huge explosion with DD running after Don West. Hehehehe.
That was a fun read, MnM. I absolutely agree that she was coached. In fact, I said elsewhere that “no rational person could look at her behavior from one day to the next and argue that she was not talked to.” But I really didn’t think there was anything to be done about it, and further, I’m not sure it mattered a whole lot.
But I’ll go even further. I think someone spoke to her over lunch on the second day. The reason I say that is that all morning, every single answer had been followed by a sullen, “, sir.” Sometimes she’d drop two or three in a single answer, one at the end of each clause of the sentence. (“What I told you, sir, when I talked to him, sir, was that he said he was almost home, sir.”) It was kind of comical. But after lunch, she changed it up for a short time. Her “sir” got replaced by “Mr. West,” but still with the same sullen, angry tone. (“Yes, Mr. West,” and “That’s not what I said, Mr. West..”) That lasted for 6-7 questions, and then she returned to the original “sirs.” I think someone talked to her over lunch and told her to change it up a little bit, because it was becoming obvious. In her slow little mind, she exchanged “sir” for “Mr. West” but in reality it made no net difference.
But again, what could really be done about it without getting dragged (even further) into a morass of confused and confusing testimony?
Having been one to press this point often here at the manor, please allow me another moment to savor Ms. Folgate’s testimony:
Exactly. In fact, she said that she could not state definitively where the fracture was located without an X-ray, but that she clinically diagnosed Zimmerman with a broken nose, based on the location/type of black eyes (and other symptoms).
Zimmerman was diagnosed, by a medical professional, with a broken nose.
Sigh – so glad that was cleared up, unambiguously and beyond a reasonable doubt.
The ironic thing is: BDLR’s tactic over the past couple of days has clearly been to get witnesses to assert that his injuries were not life-threatening, when the self-defense statutes do not include a severity-of-injury threshold. And once again, the State’s own witnesses have undone the State’s case, since multiple people – all of whom we can safely assume are themselves reasonable – testified that the screams they heard were of someone who believed himself to be in mortal danger.
The State has done a masterful job of proving, with a preponderance of evidence, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
I wonder if the Defense will file not one but two motions when the State rests: the inevitable motion for Judgement of Acquittal, along with a motion for granting of 776.032 self-defense immunity? (I know the latter won’t happen; but in any sane court, it would be a no-brainer.)
“The State has done a masterful job of proving, with a preponderance of evidence, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.”
There was a great comment over at Legal Insurrection, probably the comment of the week, that said, “Does George Zimmerman have to pay for both defense teams?”
With regard to your 776.032 point, could GZ still be subject to a civil suit when he’s acquitted, like OJ was? I’m guessing yes, and if so, this nightmare is far from over.
Yes, as it currently stands, Zimmerman is still not immune from civil action. I believe not moving for a 776.032 self-defense immunity determination by Nelson – a determination that any logical person would conclude based on Nelson’s prior and current rulings would have gone against Zimmerman – was a strategic decision in two parts. First, the defense did not want to play its defense-strategy hand in a hearing that would have had a foregone conclusion from a malicious Judge; second, the defense wanted to preserve the immunity protection for any civil suits.
If Nelson had ruled against 776.032 self-defense immunity, I believe that decision would have precluded the judge in any later civil suit from making an opposing decision – even though the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports a determination of self-defense immunity. Waiting to move for an immunity determination also forces the Scheme Team lawyers to make a financial gamble in any civil action. Under 776.032, if Zimmerman is determined to be immune from civil action due to self-defense, then the can force the Scheme Team to pay for his expenses in that civil suit.
So (feeling a little dense this morning) I have to ask, because I’m not sure I understand. You’re referring to “not moving for a 776.032” already was strategic, like at the start of the case? So the door is still open for that, either at the conclusion of the State’s case, or (assuming that’s the outcome) at acquittal?
Do you have any guesses as to the likelihood of that motion being granted, at whatever point it’s offered?
If it’s denied, what recourse would GZ have at that point? Is that something that can be appealed to a higher court?
I appreciate your input on this, because it’s something I’ve wondered about since this all got started, since the statute seems to only address people who are found immune prior to being charged.
Current case law seems to indicate that the courts have determined that a 776.032 self-defense immunity determination is intended to be made in a pre-trial hearing.
It is likely that Nelson would simply rule that a motion during trial would be untimely, and the most plausible speculation is that such a ruling would be upheld on appeal.
I would assume that the 776.032 determination could be appealed, but I don’t know the specifics or likelihood of reversal. I am fairly certain that, barring overturn on appeal, a civil judge would be bound by the prior trial court judge’s denial of 776.032 immunity.
The current interpretation of legislative intent – i.e. by conducting a pre-trial hearing to determine 776.032 self-defense immunity – doesn’t make sense to me, as a non-lawyer. I think the legislative intent was for someone acting in self-defense to be able to avoid prosecution, period. Being subjected to arrest, and having to pay for what amounts to a pre-trial trial goes against my reading of the intent of the immunity clause.
I think that the immunity clause is intended to force the prosecution to prove a preponderance of evidence before being able to bring charges at all. But that’s not where things are currently.
Dear Chip Bennet:
Exactly right. One has to wonder about the competence of a prosecutor who so much as tries to suggest Zimmerman’s nose wasn’t broken when one of his own exhibits is the iconic photo of Zimmerman’s bleeding, abraded nose flattened all over his face.
As I keep saying, this is a backwards case in every way.
“the self-defense statutes do not include a severity-of-injury threshold” If I understood the SD law correctly, NO injuries are required to proved SD. Is that correct?
Dear jordan2222:
In Florida law–and the law of most other states–there is no minimum injury threshold to trigger self-defense. How could there be? If you’re being beaten, how can you possibly tell what damage the next blow will cause? Will it be that blow that renders you unconscious and helpless, that leaves you brain-damaged or crippled, that kills you? Are you really physically and mentally able to make such observations and distinctions before deciding on a course of action?
The standard for the use of deadly force is universal: One must have a reasonable belief that they–or another–faces the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. If that’s the case, it doesn’t matter whether one is seriously wounded, suffers a minor cut, or suffers no injury at all. The issue is the imminent threat as perceived by a reasonable person in the same circumstances.
Thanks for the confirmation, Mike. I wish he had not been injured at all.
People who say his injuries were not serious enough to justify deadly force are finally sickening me, showing their total ignorance of the law. If we did not know who Curmp really is, we would probably all conclude that he is the dumbest attorney on earth when he continues with that same old BS about the injuries.
It means nothing to the informed because we have long since figured out his scheme, but what he is doing is making the gullible sound just plain stupid. Then, too, there is also the possibility that someone who has believed that crap, later becomes a crime victim in great fear of his/her life, and dies because he/she does not know how much he/she has to endure before legally defending him or her self.
When does spreading such lies about our laws repeatedly for over a year now, become a crime? IMO, this is not a free speech issue. He is a lawyer and knows this law is NOT subject to his interpretation so he has no legal defense for doing it.
The Florida Self-Defense Jury Instruction is, or has been, revised in part due to case law. See: Talley v. State, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D426a (Fla. 2nd DCA Feb. 22, 2013); Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
Instruction as I would write and propose to court (note that the State will want to insert “defendant” where I put George Zimmerman’s name. If I could get away with simply inserting “George,” that’s what I’d do :)
____________________
An issue in this case is whether the defendant George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which George Zimmerman is charged if the death to Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
George Zimmerman would be justified in using deadly force against Trayvon Martin if the admitted evidence proves the following two facts:
1. George Zimmerman must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself against Trayvon Martin’s imminent use of unlawful force against George Zimmerman.
2. The use of unlawful force by Trayvon Martin must have appeared to George Zimmerman to be ready to take place.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he has a right to be.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.
The danger facing the George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.
Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
Is it possible in the context that Rachel and Trayvon were talking about George Zimmerman and the reference to “Creep-Ass Cracker” that they could have been saying he was a creepy ass-cracker. Rachel asked Trayvon if GZ could be a rapist and Trayvon told her not to play with him. Could this thought have fuelled Trayvon’s anger with George Zimmerman and hence the attack?
Don West thought Cracker was a racist term some blacks used to describes whites. Rachel didn’t think it was a racial term. If indeed she was describing a rapist “ass-cracker”, she must have told Don West to be very dumb saying that was racial.
Realistically, why Martin would attack George? I have always wondered. You might have found the answer, Nettles.
Funny how blacks can profile people as white and homosexuals.
“creepy azz cracker” is no more racist than me calling Rachel Jeantel an “ignorant azz ni66er”
This trial is a total embarrassment for the state of Florida. It amounts to nothing more than an attempted modern day lynching. When the jury comes back in 15 minutes with a not guilty and the slums all over the state are in flames, will the race baiters be happy? I hope Zimmerman becomes very wealthy from the lawsuits he will win in the future. This is a textbook malicious prosecution case if there ever was one.
Sir, I really appreciate your diligent and professional analysis of this case. It has been eye opening from the very beginning. Thank you for your hard work.
Dear blackshepherd:
You’re very kind. I’m glad my scribblings have been helpful.
Great article yet again Mike. I’m so glad that you provided some of Selma Mora’s testimony. It is probably the first time most males even know what she was saying. I know there was a cheering section going on with wanting O’Mara to ask her to keep demonstrating what she saw. LOL
Dear minpin06:
What a male thing to say! Gentle readers, minpino6 is referring to the fact that Ms. Mora has obviously large breasts. There. I said it. What is important, however–always–is her character, honesty, and integrity are far, far larger and more prominent.
That’s funny Mike as I am a female. I just thought it was funny to see the red blooded males as being much more interested in Selma’s attributes/assets rather than focusing on what she was saying. Yes of course Selma’s testimony is larger than her breasts but, the red blooded males seemed to be a little distracted there for a minute or two.
The second DD theory validated.
I submit to you that this trial is an embarrassment. LEO knew from the start that there was no case. Racialist hucksters stirred the social justice pot and are now being served a bowl of it themselves. They demanded it and they got it. Humble pie is set for dessert. Zimmerman will be acquitted and then he will file a litany of lawsuits. And he will win them one right after another.
Martins had better hold on to that homeowners association settlement because they are gonna need it. Have you noticed how quiet the original shouters have become? Bobby rush isn’t exactly wearing his hoodie on the house floor these days. Geraldo has jumped ship officially already, declaring the outcome of acquittal forthcoming.
The question is this IMHO. Is this a Nifong situation or something else? I suppose a crump deposition will go a long way toward answering that one.
One MASSIVE angle though. I submit that Zimmerman HAS to take the stand. He MUST exercise his RIGHT to defend himself in court just as the facts are showing he did with a firearm. If he chooses not to take the stand, he risks the jury turning against his very defense – which is the right to defend himself.
Make no mistake that his life is obviously in jeopardy right now with “general population” amounting to a death sentence….
Here’s a very, very good video explaining why everyone should always exercise the right to remain silent:
It’s a long video, 48 minutes, so to summarize… the main takeaway is that the very Miranda phrasing itself ‘anything you say can and will be used against you’ should be taken literally… anything you say / will / be used against you.
They don’t call it the Miranda ‘warning’ for no reason ;)
I disagree that George Zimmerman has to take to the witness stand. The evidence alone has proved that GZ properly acted in self defense. Why should GZ take to the witness stand so that the prosecution can drill him on why he said to the police that Trayvon ran, and then explained that TM was skipping away. Can one skip really fast? Why yes they can. From the first bond hearing where a state investigator admitted that they had no proof of anything, but hey, his inconsistent statements will hang him. It is not the job of GZ or the defense to prove that GZ acted properly in defending his own life, it is the prosecutions responsibility to prove that GZ was a murderer. So far the state hasn’t even proven manslaughter.
Thanks again, Mike, for a great summary of Friday’s session. This is fabulous for those who missed part of the trial or the whole thing. Of course, your place, along with TalkLeft and Legal Insurrection have much more detailed analysis for those who are familiar with plan.
In addition to the confusion surrounding whether Lauer was actually following RZJr on Twitter or not, Witness 1 (Bahadoor) may have been telling the truth that she did not sign the Change.org petition…
I seem to recall that there was a big stink quite some time back that people who merely visited the page to read the petition were falsely being recorded as having signed the “prosecute the killer of our son” petition.
Honest impression, Bahadoor seemed genuinely puzzled and simply asking her “Is this your account?” is a far cry from actually proving or authenticating that she was responsible or even aware of the activity being attributed to her.
O’Mara made an interesting point in one of his pressers that ‘social media’ evidence is still relatively new territory for the courts and attorneys… and judging by how unreliable and questionable it is proving to be in just this one case, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this type of evidence to one day become inadmissible except for very limited purposes.
Mike McDaniel, as a former police officer, I have a question. How much information does the police department give to a family member, on either side, when the investigation is still ongoing? Do they keep them informed of every detail that they have found? What is the proper protocal? I can certainly understand if there is a missing person/child investigation that they would want the parents to be kept up with the searches etc. In the Martin/Zimmerman investigation what information would have been appropriate for the SPD to give to Tracy and Sybrina? Would it have been proper to give them all of the statemnts by GZ that night? Would it have been proper to give them info. about the witness statements? Would it have been proper to give the Martin family information about GZ or his past? ETC.
Dear minpin06:
Interesting questions. All police agencies have policies about the release of information. Generally, whichever detective(s) is assigned the case will be the point of contact with relatives of victims and suspects. Generally, suspect’s relatives don’t have much–if any–contact with the police, seeing them as the enemy. As you suggest, the type of case and the character of the relatives will, in large part, determine what the police tell them and when.
Generally, the police will not give away any investigative details, particularly if the case is still being investigated or has not yet gone to trial. They don’t want to do anything to help the defense or other criminals, so they keep specific information close to the vest. It would not have been proper to give suspect statements or witness statements to relatives who might take it upon themselves to call and harangue those people. The same is true of records searches about the past of a suspect.
Again generally, the police don’t like giving out information to people they don’t know they can trust. They have no idea of all of the ramifications of that evidence, or of all of the connections and relationships people might have, so they tend to err on the side of caution.
Of course, once a trial is over or a case is otherwise settled, unless there is some intelligence value in keeping things secret, virtually all police records become public records, theoretically available to one and all.
I hope this is helpful.
Thank you very much Mike. Your explanation was more than helpful. I was particularly interested to hear you say that investigation information is passed on judiciously to those that the police feel will be responsible with that information. I’m remembering one of your early articles talking about what appeared to be leaks coming from the SPD.
This is another example of how a small thing gets into a minor website then gets picked up by a major news site. It still gets at least one particular wrong.
(Original Site)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0629/Trayvon-Martin-case-How-Rachel-Jeantel-went-from-star-witness-to-train-wreck-video/(page)/2
(Site where I found it.)
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-case-rachel-jeantel-went-star-witness-143356744.html
“The killing became a national story after Sanford police refused to charge Zimmerman with any crime, saying they had no evidence to counter his self-defense claim. Forty-four days later a Seminole County grand jury indicted Zimmerman on second degree murder charges. If convicted, Zimmerman, an aspiring police officer who served as a neighborhood watch captain, could spend the rest of his life in Florida state prison.”
If I remember correctly, Angela Corey decided to NOT send it to a grand jury. Angela Corey indicted George herself. I remember at the time, the BIG question was, “Will she or won’t she send it to the grand jury.”: It means that already there are people who are starting to do their best to cover up should the jury acquit George.
This might just mean the journalist got it wrong, but I think this article has all the makings of a press release to help rehabilitate Angela Corey.
I sent the author an email via the CSM website. We’ll see if it makes any difference.
I know it won’t do any good. If you take the quiz about the Trayvon Trial, you will find that the questions and answers just support the meme and out right lies.. Like Skittles and tea was an answer when the real answer is Skittles and Arizona Watermelon. One question is, “What did a police dispatcher warn Zimmerman not to do.when he called to report a suspicious person?” Follow was the correct answer. The real answer is the police dispatcher didn’t warn Zimmerman of anything.
So did I, again this pains me to write your name floridagatorfan
Mike,
A comment is awaiting moderation that I think you might like to know about.
In line with the State’s presentation of its case-in-chief last week, I have quickly drafted some preliminary thoughts for MOM’s closing argument. (Since West gave opening, I assume MOM will give the closing).
As I commented last week, the State, like Crump with this fraudulent narrative, is attempting to mislead the jury. It is trying to instill in the jurors’ minds that to prevail on self-defense Zimmerman has to prove actual and severity of injury.
While it may seem that MOM West are not objecting to this tactic, they actually are. I assume they intend to argue some of these points.
These are my first thoughts, focused on the State’s case-in-chief last week.
“The Judge will instruct you that about self-defense and that to prevail on his use of deadly force Mr. Zimmerman does not have to show any injury. This concept is best understood by example and reference to the evidence:
– If Trayvon Martin was threatening Mr. Zimmerman with his fists and violent words, to defend himself Mr. Zimmerman does not have to wait for Trayvon Martin to punch him in the face and knock him to the ground.
– Mr. Zimmerman was not required to wait for Trayvon Martin to repeatedly slam George’s head on the cement.
– George was not required to scream for help and protect himself only on seeing that no one would get involved and help him.
– Mr. Zimmerman was not required to wait to see if the police would arrive to save him from Trayvon Martin’s assault, the police who he was screaming to so they could locate him.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the state is fully aware that under Florida law George Zimmerman does not have to wait to be injured to prevail on self-defense.
This is perhaps best proven by the testimony of SPD officer Timothy Smith. Remember his testimony, where he said when he arrived on scene he drew his weapon on George Zimmerman, as a matter of personal safety and for those around him. To defend himself or others Officer Smith did not have to wait for George Zimmerman to shoot at the officer, he would have been justified shooting if he perceived serious injury may occur.
The prosecutors, who are fine lawyers and worthy opponents, also are aware that they had absolutely no case to present to you. Since we have become involved in this case we knew that the State would try this case on innuendo, emotion, and red herrings. The State did not prove us wrong in our April 2012 prediction.
What is a “red herring,” I am sure you are wondering. A “red herring” is a term lawyers use to describe an opponent’s attempt to mislead by making an issue out of what the law, facts, or evidence shows is a non-issue. You can think of a “red herring” as a kind of “so what.”
Let’s talk about the prosecutors’ misguided, desperate “red herrings” presented to you over the past two weeks of their case presentation. Let’s talk about the State’s “non-case.” Better yet, instead of Florida v. Zimmerman, let’s accurately name what will surely be an upcoming movie… “The Red Herring Case.”
– Injuries: Assuming red herrings were some kind of deep sea fish, holy mackerel, the prosecutors’ talk evidence presentation about physical injuries could have been used as a prop in the movie JAWS! This is because the actual injuries to George Zimmerman don’t matter. The State’s presentation in this regard was red herring talk, a JAWS-sized red herring.
How many hours did the State use in an attempt to trivialize George Zimmerman’s injuries? Well, let’s see… there was _______ who said _____; followed by ________, who said _______. Then we heard from ______, about _______.
Hmm… that reminds me, my care backfired this morning, I may need to take it in for a tune-up or stop using the cheap gas at the corner. Yes, backfired is the only way to describe the State’s feeble, desperate, disingenuous attempt to make you think that George Zimmerman needs to prove actual injury to justify defending himself. The bottom line, even if George Zimmerman had to prove actual injury (he absolutely does not), all the STATE’S witnesses told you just how dire the situation was for him. (Show series of lumps, nose, cuts, while simultaneously playing 911 screaming audio, recap witness testimony characterizing GZ screams, while holding pics of injured GZ in front of jury.)
– Racial Profiling: Even though the injury red herring has filled the fishing boat, there’s another red herring in the net, that has to do with profiling. You know, I have witnessed the government broadening its powers, but since when is it legal for the government to prosecute us for our thoughts? That’s precisely what the state is doing when accusing George Zimmerman of profiling.
Did you notice that the State did NOT mention in its opening statement that it would prove unlawful profiling, racist or otherwise. That’s because, as we lawyers often say, that issue was a loser, or to stay in character, a whopper of a red herring. To the extent that the State during its case alluded racial profiling, well… I don’t know what to say except shame on it.
Also, notice that we never put on evidence to defend against such a serious charge. Why? Because the State did not even allege this is a “race case,” so to speak. There was absolutely no evidence that race was a factor in what happened on February 26, 2012.
– Profiling: Let me give “hoodie profiling” the attention it deserves, which would be little. Simply put, I guess the State seeks to establish precedent with George Zimmerman, an Orwellian 1984ish concept, if someone takes offense to you sizing him or her up, your coming up with an offensive profile, then yeah, in Florida you can be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Of course this begs the question, how do we know which generic profiling is deemed so offensive you can end up in prison for doing it? And isn’t it fair to give notice to tourists notice of the profiling prohibition. Perhaps that border signs saying Welcome to Florida should have a warning at the bottom “NO PROFILING!”
– The Serial 911 Caller: The State spent a lot of time on this red herring, didn’t it. Although we are at a loss to figure out why the State spent so much time talking about George Zimmerman doing exactly what the police (on the side of cars), billboards, public service announcements, and neighborhood watch told him to do (see something suspicious, call 911)
Alas, notice that the state did not present any evidence that George Zimmerman was flagged as a 911 call abuser, despite my asking Ms. Rumph if the system indicated any warning when George Zimmerman called. The State could have had Ms. Rumph obtain that information (which she testified was available). It could have done so. Of course we know why the State did not have Ms. Rumph obtain those records, because they did not exist.
Shame on the State that in these times of terrorism, most recent the Boston Marathon bombing, and the occurrence of serious crime in his neighborhood, that the State would send out the message to citizens “don’t get involved, don’t call 911, don’t report suspicious activity, mind your own business, if you don’t you can be sued by lawyers like Benjamin Crump and prosecuted. And if you do call 911, you better be right, or you can be prosecuted and sued for that too.”
– Community Watch:
Etc.
You get the idea
I have a question on something I’m not completely sure of. Comments on many other forums are saying if GZ is found not guilty of 2nd degree murder he can still be found guilty of at least man slaughter. However, as I understand it there is only the one count (charge) of 2nd degree murder with no secondary charges or other charges of any kind.
So my question is, if he is found not guilty is there somehow he can be guilty of a lesser charge when no lesser charge has been presented?
Thanks to Mike for his great analyses and to the rest for their thoughtful posts.
Pingback: Trayvon In Black And White | Reality Bats Last
Mike, et al,
“Ass cracker” is, according to the urban dictionary, “One who engages in anal sex.”
Why did DeeDee feel guilty? Maybe because she suggested that the “creepy ass cracker” was a rapist. This may have been the motivation for Trayvon to go after Zim. We all assumed it was “creepy-ass cracker”. Turns out it may have been “creepy ass-cracker”.
This would explain why she said “cracker” was not racist. She also said something about “pervert”. “Creepy” works well with “ass cracker” when used like this.
So, this was a hate crime. Trayvon attacked someone who he described as a creepy ass cracker! Mike, what do you think?
Pingback: Does the Prosecution Rest? Changing the Narrative to Let Justice Be Done | unprison
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #50: Anniversary | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 51: Anniversary | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #53, Resting In Power, Episode 2 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #55: The Prosecutors Are Incompetent Racists! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 58: Fraud? | Stately McDaniel Manor