The final day of the prosecution’s case remained true to form in every respect, and also provided another glimpse—actually, a substantial look—into the prosecution’s closing arguments.
Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s Mother: The first witness of the day was Sybrina Fulton, who testified that the screaming voice in the Lauer 911 recording is Trayvon Martin. The prosecution, not wanting to open the field to anything she might know about Trayvon, kept their questions limited to only that.
On cross O’Mara tried to make it clear that Sybrina might have reasons other than absolute truth to identify the voice as Trayvon. He may have had some success in that Sybrina seemed not only coached, but potentially rehearsed. She often tried to avoid directly answering O’Mara’s questions and parsed her answers so as not to concede even the most obvious points, even those not harmful to the prosecution. Her overall appearance was stoic, and the potential waterworks did not materialize.
It was clear that she was a prosecution witness through and through–a strangely rare occurance. It’s unfortunate that the jury will never hear that she has already won a seven-figure settlement, and has a continuing financial interest in the outcome of the case.
Jaharvis Fulton, Trayvon’s Brother: A soft-spoken and well-spoken young man, Jaharvis confirmed his mother’s testimony, and like his mother, testified to nothing else. On cross, however, his credibility suffered badly. O’Mara caused him to admit that when he first heard the recording in the office of the Sanford Mayor with a substantial number of other people, he told others he was not sure the voice was Trayvon’s, but later changed his mind. He said he didn’t want to believe it was Trayvon due to “shock,” “sadness” and “denial.”
As with his mother, I detected coaching, and his answer regarding why he didn’t identify the voice as Trayvon’s at his first exposure to the recording seemed rehearsed, however, his demeanor was substantially more effective than his mother’s, and I suspect many viewers not familiar with these matters might not have picked up on that. He did not, for example, give the appearance of trying to avoid cooperating with the defense.
Dr. Shipping Bao, Medical Examiner: Dr. Bao, unlike Dr. Rao, actually conducted the autopsy on Trayvon Martin, which gave the prosecution the opportunity to display a wide variety of graphic autopsy photographs so that Bao could, in a perfunctory manner, identify them. The primary purpose, of course, was to elicit revulsion and sympathy in the jury.
NOTE: I’ve seen many autopsies and hundreds of dead bodies. One factor they virtually all have in common is that in death, people appear smaller and far less vital than they do in life. This is in part due to the unnatural coloration of the skin death imparts, and to their lifeless muscle tone and posture. Another significant factor is that when people are lying flat on their back, exposed to the harsh, unnatural lighting of medical lighting, they also appear to be smaller than in life when we can see them standing and moving, and thereby make more accurate judgments about their height, size and general vitality. In addition, few upon seeing the dead, particularly when the dead are naked, can help but to feel not only a profound sense of sadness, but some sense of embarrassment, even indecency. The prosecution is surely using these factors in an attempt to influence the jury to think with its emotions.
At first, Dr. Bao, who speaks with a pronounced Asian accent that caused some difficulties for the court reporter, appeared to be professional, even endearing. His testimony was primarily unremarkable and essentially established nothing more than that Trayvon Martin was dead, had a single gunshot wound to the heart, some abrasions on his left hand, and spoke to the general distance of the muzzle of the gun from Martin’s clothing when it discharged, which he characterized as being of “intermediate” distance, no closer than one inch away and as far as four feet, which is an enormous range where gunpowder dispersion evidence is concerned.
Under cross by Don West, the trial became much more interesting. Like the ancient Chinese curse, the prosecution was suddenly and unexpectedly living in interesting times. Bao began to avoid answering questions directly, seeking, over and over, to qualify them, particularly trying to repeatedly lecture the court on the difference between opinion and fact. West displayed remarkable patience, and even Judge Nelson had to repeatedly, and with substantial frustration, tell Bao to listen to questions, answer them directly and then wait for the next question. It didn’t take long—and his testimony was long indeed—to get the impression he might be trying to help the prosecution rather than exclusively being an odd and unprofessional witness.
Bao had a number of surprises, including the admission that he remembered nothing at all about the autopsy (?!) or anything or anyone connected with it. It is not unusual for professional witnesses such as police officers and medical examiners not to remember every detail of a case—that’s why they write detailed reports—but to remember nothing at all? Bao also testified that he knew next to nothing about the protocols of autopsy, about what his assistants did, how they did it, why they did it, when they did it, often saying that a given bit of knowledge wasn’t his job, or he didn’t worry about that. Despite being the man responsible for the autopsy and all evidence related to it, he appeared to be disavowing all knowledge about it and responsibility for it. I nearly expected him to exclaim: “I don’ no nuthin’ ‘bout birthin’ no autopsies!”
Then the bombs dropped. Bao testified that he changed his mind about key conclusions in his report, specifically, the amount of time Martin might have remained alive after being shot, and the physical and mental effects of the THC (active ingredient in marijuana) in his bloodstream. The latter admission took place with the jury removed from the courtroom as Judge Nelson, pre-trial, ruled that no evidence of marijuana in Martin’s blood would be admissible. West pursued it nonetheless. I expect the defense to argue for its admission. After all, it is directly relevant to Martin’s motivation and behaviors. Keeping it out would arguably be yet another addition to a very long and continually growing list of reversible errors by Nelson.
Another amazing admission was that Bao had done independent research on these issues and written his own set of notes, notes not in any official records, which he brought to court and began to testify from, an extraordinary and dumbfounding thing by itself. West, of course, asked to see them, and Bao was very reluctant to allow that, or to allow the court, at Nelson’s order, to copy and disseminate them to the prosecution and defense. Nelson bizarrely ruled that after they were used in court, the copies would be destroyed. It’s hard to imagine what she was thinking. Any such notes brought into court and used in testimony are automatically fair game and must be provided to both sides. In addition, they must be entered into the trial record, particularly in case of appeal. She did eventually relent and they were entered into evidence.
Bao testified that he originally thought that Martin might have been alive from 1-3 minutes after being shot, and would have been entirely unable to move. Now he thought the time frame to be from 1-10 minutes and wasn’t sure if Martin could have moved or not.
NOTE: It’s generally accepted in police circles—and experience bears this out—that someone shot in the heart, so long as the injury is not so catastrophic as to immediately stop all heart function—that apparently wasn’t the case with Martin—can be expected to have up to three minutes of useful consciousness. I’ve actually seen this in action, and have knowledge of other cases where people suffering injuries to the heart, including gunshot wounds, have walked, talked, run, continued assaults, and done similarly surprising things until plummeting blood pressure brought about collapse. In this case, Zimmerman has testified that immediately after being shot, Martin sat up, spoke a few words, and fell to the ground, where Zimmerman, thinking he missed, got on top of Martin and briefly pinned his arms to prevent further assault. The police found Martin on his face with his hands under his body. It is not at all improbable that Martin could have done as Zimmerman said, and that he could have moved his hands to that position before being unable to move further.
Bao’s earlier conclusion was that the amount of THC in Martin’s blood would have had no physical or mental effects. His new conclusion was that there might have been mental effects, but he phrased it very oddly, something like: “there might be no mental effects, or there could be some mental effects.” West was amazed to learn that Bao did not tell the prosecution of these changes, and this led to a Richardson hearing to determine if the prosecution had withheld this information from the defense, as they have done with a great deal of evidence already. Nelson ruled that there was no Richardson violation, and was careful to remind West several times that there would be no mention of the marijuana in Martin’s system or of its possible effects. In this, it does appear that the prosecution was not aware of Bao’s changes of opinion.
It’s odd that the prosecution didn’t schedule Bao first and the testimony of the Fultons last. One would think they’d want their last witnesses to identify the screaming voice as Trayon and help to solidify that idea—regardless of all of the evidence supporting Zimmerman’s account—in the minds of potentially sympathetic female jurors. The Bao debacle—and it can’t be reasonably described otherwise—might very well wipe out any memory of the Fulton testimony.
On that note, the prosecution rested its case, leading to a motion by the defense, as expected, for a directed verdict. The arguments that followed stuck to well-established patterns. The defense argued the law, the evidence and precedents, correctly citing relevant higher court decisions. The prosecution, in a loud and hysterically emotional manner, argued The Narrative.
I’ve never seen such misrepresentation of evidence, testimonial and otherwise, and outright falsehoods. For example, prosecutor Rich Mantei claimed that four separate witnesses testified that Zimmerman pursued Martin. In fact, only one witness (Selene Bahadoor in Update 32) testified that she saw light or shadows moving from “left to right,” and that testimony appeared for the first time in court. Mantei also repeated, at every possible opportunity and like an endlessly looped recording, that Martin was shot in the heart, and every possible variation of that, including mentioning “hollowpoints” several times. He implied that Zimmerman took careful aim, intending to shoot Martin directly in the heart (there is, of course, no evidence of that whatever).
The prosecution’s case ended with nothing but conjecture and supposition to offer to disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. As to Zimmerman’s depraved mind, Mantei had nothing more to suggest than the idea that merely shooting someone else—in the heart, mind you—was prima facie evidence of ill will, hatred and a depraved mind. This is an outrageous misstatement of the law. If this were true, there could be no such thing as self-defense, for any shooting, regardless of the circumstances, must of necessity be murder. And this was offered up as proof of the elements of the crime.
Attorneys have a duty never to misstate facts or the law. One expects defense attorneys to take the occasional liberty with the truth and to spin facts to fit their theories, but I’ve never before seen a prosecutor engage in such blatant falsehoods, and so many in such a short time. It was a disgusting and demeaning performance.
Unlike in most criminal cases, a responsible jurist could have legitimately delivered a directed verdict. It will surprise no one to learn that Judge Nelson denied the motion. I’m sure O’Mara knew this outcome before he opened his mouth to make the motion.
Despite the fact that it was already 5PM on a Friday, Judge Nelson demanded that the defense begin its case immediately, and so they did.
UPDATE: I intended to note that Judge Nelson asked the jury if they wanted to continue–she’s done that before in this trial at a late hour–and also make the point that the two witnesses presented were on the stand very briefly. It would have made much more sense simply to adjourn for the weekend, but she seems determined to finish this case as quickly as possible for some reason. So she did essentially demand that the defense continue; she just used the jury for cover.
Gladys Zimmerman, George Zimmerman’s Mother: As expected, she identified the screaming voice as belonging to George. BDLR asked her a few obligatory questions, but didn’t aggressively pursue her.
I saw a number of TV attorney talking heads suggesting that the voice ID witnesses of the state would essentially cancel out the voice ID witnesses of the defense. Apparently they have been watching some other trial, a trial where there is not substantial direct and other evidence (such as the testimony of Lauer and Good—Update 32.2). to support Zimmerman’s contention that he was the only person screaming.
George Meza, George Zimmerman’s Uncle: Meza was an impressive and compelling witness. He retired from the Army as a Command Sergeant Major, a rank few ever reach, and became a deputy sheriff—a job he still holds—to continue to serve. His command presence hasn’t diminished in the least.
An extraordinary aspect of Meza’s testimony is how he first heard the Lauer 911 recording. He was aware of Zimmerman’s involvement in a shooting, but knew little else and to serve honorably as a deputy sheriff, was determined to stay completely out of it. One night he was working at his computer, his TV behind him. His wife was watching the news, and the Lauer recording was played. Upon hearing the screams for help, Meza immediately said “that’s George,” and asked his wife what was on TV. He learned that it was the Lauer recording. “I felt the screams in my heart,” he said, and I have no doubt the jury believed him.
With that, the trial ended for the week.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Two weeks of prosecution witnesses have ended without the prosecution proving, beyond any standard of doubt, the three elements of the offense. As they offered no probable cause to prove those elements in the affidavit for the charge (Update 2) this is hardly surprising. In the many months from Zimmerman’s arrest to the trial, the prosecution could find no new evidence to demonstrate that the decision of the Sanford Police and the local prosecutor was wrong. The prosecution was also unable to prove beyond any imaginable standard of doubt that Zimmerman’s self-defense account was unsupportable. In fact, most of their witnesses supported it, either fully or in part.
For readers unfamiliar with the workings of the law and the criminal justice system, it’s difficult to explain how utterly amazing and bizarre this is. As I’ve written, it’s as though the entire system suddenly turned backwards. For a prosecutor to complete his case and to be unable to disprove self-defense, offering nothing but theories unsupported by any credible evidence, and for a prosecutor to be unable to offer evidence to fulfill the elements of the offense is simply astonishing. It demonstrates what I, and others, have been saying for a very long time: this case should never have been filed; there is no evidence of a crime.
I expect a very aggressive, effective and devastating defense case. Consider how badly the prosecution did on offense, when they had every advantage in presenting and proving their case. Will they do better when they’re playing catch up?
I’ll let Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection sum up:
One aside before I fully wrap this up. To me, the biggest take home message of the day was not the scream identification of either the Martin or Zimmerman family, but rather the mid-trial motions and response by the State. Mantei’s web of half-truths and claims utterly unsupported by any evidence whatever showed the State was as hungry for George Zimmerman’s hide as they must have been when first handed the political prosecution of their careers. They would see George Zimmerman do life in prison, whether warranted by the evidence or not, or they would die in the effort. Given the almost complete lack of direct evidence, and the need to wildly interpret the available circumstantial evidence–and particularly following the utter debacle that was the Dr. Bao testimony–one could only imagine that their fervor would have diminished. Not so.
O’Mara’s response was that of a sheepdog to a wolf. If the State wanted Zimmerman’s hide, they’d have to fight for it, hard, and at high cost. Any thought that there might be a relatively brief defense was cast aside. I expect that not only will there be a vigorous defense, it will be a 10 gauge double-barreled coach-gun defense, to the head.
One cannot but draw the natural parallel–just as Trayvon Martin sought to punish George Zimmerman and discovered at the cost of his life that Zimmerman was not the easy target he’d perceived him to be, now it is the turn of Zimmerman’s defense team to similarly disabuse the State prosecutors. Their lives, of course, are secure. I would not, however, want my professional reputation to be at the wrong end of the defense’s considerable talent and righteous attention.
Quite so, Mr. Branca, quite so.
UPDATE: Just a quick note that might provide some insight into not only the prosecution, but Judge Nelson. When Mark O’Mara cross-examined Sybrina Fulton, he told her, sincerely, that he was sorry for her loss. BDLR immediately objected and Nelson sustained the objection. Technically, BDLR and Nelson were correct: attorneys should only ask questions of witnesses, however this sort of thing is done all of the time, and I’ve never seen–or heard of–anyone objecting. Of course, it was already said when BDLR objected and it can’t be taken back. What a classless, petty thing to do.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike, in your opinion is the judges ruling on the marijuana correct? Why is the defense not allowed to bring it up?
Seems like a no-brainer to me. The State has claimed that Zimmerman had a depraved mind, evinced in part by his “profiling” of Martin. Since that profiling included the statement, “he looks like he’s on drugs or something,” then it is entirely relevant and admissible that the autopsy tox report revealed not only that Martin was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the attack, but also that he exhibited liver disorder consistent with chronic drug use.
I thought so too. I’m sure most people would say that someone who looks like they are on drugs also looks suspicious.
Chip I am a total outsider and I agree. It should be a no brainer. The tox report is very relevant.
The only reason that the judge will not allow this report is malevolant.
The “liver damage” claim has no basis in reality. It was just made up out of thin air.
Where “thin air” = “autopsy report”:
Hepatobiliary System: The liver weighs 1110 grams and presents a brown, smooth, glistening surface. Focal, patchy yellow discoloration, due to mild fatty metamorphosis, is present. On sectioning, the hepatic parenchyma is yellow-brown, homogeneous, and congested.
“Fatty metamorphosis” = liver damage. It is normally associated with alcohol abuse, and absent some disorder (e.g. Reye’s Syndrome), is pretty rare in 17 year olds.
Something that also causes fatty liver? Abuse of DXM (aka Lean).
Dear Pugfrench:
No, it’s improper. On one hand, it’s not wrong to exclude testimony and other evidence that has no real bearing on the case which would have the primary effect of prejudicing the jury, but in this case, Martin’s blood contents have a very direct bearing on the case, particularly because of the tox- screen findings and Zimmerman’s observation that Martin appeared to be drugged. This evidence would directly tend to prove motivation for Martin’s behavior, thus it is absolutely related to Zimmerman’s defense.
Why did Judge Nelson exclude it? To allow this would also be to allow all of the other evidence of Martin’s drug use. If that’s in, the prosecution has no chance for a conviction.
Is that something that can be raised on appeal if he is convicted?
It can, but even if it is determined to be error, it’s unlikely to rise to reversible error.
I am extremely confident that this jury will indeed find Zimmerman not guilty, and should the unthinkable happen, 5DCA will set things aright.
What concerns me more, however, are the reactions of the justice-for-Trayvon-Martin crowd to this obvious miscarriage of justice. They are blatantly willing to subvert the constitution – and basic human rights – to see George Zimmerman convicted. In so doing, they are endorsing not justice, but lynching.
As for the jury: I’m sure that it was also not lost on them that while Sybrina Fulton has been preening behind the prosecution for the past two weeks, Gladys Zimmerman has been prevented – intentionally and maliciously – by the State from likewise being present in the courtroom in support of George Zimmerman.
It sickens me to know that woman has faced death threats for the past year and a half, and the very people who should be seeking justice for her are using her as a pawn in their petty gamesmanship. My heart broke watching her testify, and I do not believe the contrast between Gladys Zimmerman and Sybrina Fulton was lost on the jury.
I am hoping that the Scheme Team is going to end up taking a big hit.
They have lied to get this trial. They want money. Their greed is their motivation. Ultimately they need to fail.
I am so hoping that you are correct about the jury. Yet I must have my doubts about what they will decide, and then I must hope that the DCA will overturn any wrongful conviction.
Personally, I cannot agree with Nelson. There is no compelling evidence at all. This is a kangaroo court.
Seeing GZs family on the stand really slammed home one thing: He is not white! The first time that I heard about this case over a year ago there were no pictures in the story that I read. But I knew that TM was 17 and george was white, as per the article. When the story exploded in the media featuring the hollister shirt pic and GZs mugshot I was shocked. I thought, this boy looks about 12 and this man is clearly Hispanic. The media never refers to Hispanics as white. Ever. That caught my attention and I have been following it since. It was so dishonest that I wanted to know why.
Regarding the justice for Travon crowd: I live in Seminole County and we are bracing for trouble. Last year when the “racial” aspect was being ginned up to get the arrest, my FB feed was full of friends who were outraged on TM’s behalf. I have a screen shot, stored on my phone, of a friend’s comment, a woman that I went to church with for 20 years, discussing with someone their plans to go to a rally, and, chillingly, that while they needed to be Christians, some justice should be swift. They said that GZ should be freed so that he could be taken care of. I will show it to her someday.
Sybrina Fulton was not a “grieving mother” on the stand. Under cross-examination, she was defiant and evasive. She pretended to not understand the questions of a learned lawyer, and only MOMENTS after describing her college degree(s) in English and communications! Ironic. While I sympathize in her loss of a son, I abhor her willingness to play the charade of denial that I believe she KNOWS is forcing an innocent man to be subjected to this farce of a trial.
Gladys Zimmerman was a heartbroken mother. When I saw her listening to the 911 call, I could see OBVIOUS torment. She put her hand to her moth, and she seemed ready to cry. She is a loving mother who answered every question very willingly, despite the fact that, unlike Sybrina Fulton, HER first language is NOT English.
Zimmerman’s uncle’s testimony is UNIMPEACHABLE!!
I applaud O’Mara putting Mrs. Zimmerman on the stand so soon after Sybrina Fulton. This allowed the jury to go home for the evening and have BOTH testimonies on their minds, and not forced to embrace Sybrina’s and her son’s testimonies without also considering Gladys Zimmerman’s and her brother’s.
Score one for a cunning and clever defense attorney.
Mr. Mantei was eloquent but professionally dishonest and actually quite petty.
I STILL believe that John Guy is about as useless in this whole mess as a screen door on a submarine! I think he does the very light lifting, while Bernie and Mantei prepare to actually TRY the case.
I laughed when I read comments about his opening statement being brilliant. I thought it was like a scene out of a really bad “B” movie.
As always my car enjoy your metaphors like a sheepdog fending off a wolf -great stuff.
I’m not entirely sure what a 10 gauge coach shotgun is but it sure sounded impressive. This is what I truly believe O Mara and West are going to do. I wouldn’t miss watching the persecution Get absolutely mowed down with a no quarter mentality by the defense. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to watch something like this play out.
Highpoint of the day for me was Jorge Mesa what a splendid man. on another thread another commentator refer to him as a Latino grown day absolutely
I have the perils of trying to use a phone for my commenting.
That should read Michael not my car. also I was trying to say Latino Grandee was the perfect way to describe Jorge Mesa
I was wondering about your superintelligent car appreciating metaphors! I have the same problem with my phone! I always try to proofread before I send but it is such a hassle. I always debate turning autocorrect off, but I think I would probably make more mistakes without it.
The allusion is to a 10 gauge, double barreled shotgun, like the kind carried in the late 1800s by stagecoach guards. This is also the genesis of the term “riding shotgun,” to describe someone sitting next to the driver.
Get out your sunscreen and a lawn chair. The mowing will be a thing of beauty.
If the past is any indication of the future, there will be much more than a mowing,…more like a scorched earth with only burnt dead grass left.
“I’m not entirely sure what a 10 gauge coach shotgun is but it sure sounded impressive.”
“Gauge” is an antediluvian way of determining how big a gun is.
Suffice it to say that a 10 gauge shotgun is enormous and rare. So enormous that really the only people I know who carry and use them these days are up in Kodiak bear country. So rare that it’s tough to find ammunition for it.
I have seen a ten-gauge that back in the early 1960s was official police department issue. Not to use on criminals themselves, but to fire at criminals’ cars as the criminals tried to ram their way through police roadblocks.
The police stopped using the 10ga because having officers out on disability with broken shoulders was making it hard to maintain the roll call. I’m not kidding about that, by the way.
oh I know what one of those is, because my great grandfather had that role here in Australia. He was a soldier and one of his duties was to ride gold escort.
It is a duty that was required because of the highwaymen :)
Wells Fargo armored car guards still use the Ithaca 10 gauge shotguns, believing if it aint broke don’t fix it.
All over it.
I have watched 95% of this trial except for while I am at work and can’t have my phone. We all knew the judge would not grant direct verdict but I guess it is a must for appeal. This is such a miscarriage of justice and a waste of tax payers dollars as we will probably be in debt for a while over this. Didn’t the dca say they were watching this case so the judge should stay on point? If the dca is watching and they find something she can be reversed on can they just act on that or does the defense have to motion?
On a better not one of the defense witnesses is the top forensic pathologist in the nation or world I can’t remember which one yet. I’m sure he will debunk everything bao said. .4in to 4 feet is a pretty big range in my opinion. And what happened to that kid walking the dog that also said gz was getting his butt kicked?
Dear Tadroptopgirl:
Great handle, by the way. The court of appeals may well be keeping an eye on Judge Nelson, but they won’t intervene until the issue is “ripe,” which means unless and until Zimmerman is convicted and an appeal is filed. If Zimmerman is acquitted, any citizen can file complaints with the Florida bar, and demand a criminal investigation of the Governor and AG. In fact, any officer of the court is bound to report misconduct to the bar.
As to any other eyewitnesses, that’s what the Defense case is for. I suspect we’ll hear a great deal the prosecution didn’t want anyone to hear.
I am earnestly hoping that Angela Corey will end up the same as Mike Nifong. I am hoping that she will get the same form of justice.
Something I’ve been puzzled about given some of Judge Nelson’s rulings…does Florida criminal procedure not allow for interlocutory appeals to be taken? I know the legal bar for involving an appellate court in a case mid-stream is high, but I can’t imagine that bar couldn’t be met here. Or are interlocutory appeals only possible in civil cases?
Yes, and in fact 5DCA has entertained – and upheld – two such interlocutory appeals in this trial alone: the first was the writ of prohibition in which the original judge, Lester, was forced to recuse himself for bias; the second was the writ of certiorari in which the order of protection preventing the deposition of Benjamin Crump was overturned.
(And in an obviously-not-coincidental move, the appellate court issued the latter ruling on the same day that it issued another ruling that overturned Nelson in an entirely separate trial, ordering a new trial for someone convicted after Nelson failed to include self defense in the jury instructions.)
Of course, Nelson simply ignored 5DCA’s mandate that Crump was to be deposed before trial, and went full steam ahead on the Orange Blossom Special.
Thanks mike, my trans am isn’t a convertible but my ex bf had one. I have had this nickname for about 10 years.
As much as it SEEMED that the prosecution was bringing up a whole bevy of DEFENSE witnesses, there are some witnesses they did NOT bring that the defense will no doubt bring – and some the defense will re-call that the prosecution had.
Personally, I would bring Rachel back just to piss her off and get her to tell parts of her version again, rolling her eyes, being disrespectful, etc. That’s something I think the jury will not find helpful to the prosecution’s case.
But on a serious note, I would like the defense to recall Rachel to ask her again why she didn’t call the police. She said she didn’t call the police the night of the shooting because she figured it as just a fight. I would like to know why she concluded it was just a fight, when she says a creepy ass cracker (maybe a rapist, even) was following Trayon, and he was tired and scared, and she HEARD a physical encounter, after which she couldn’t contact Trayvon. I would also like her to explain why she NEVER called the police, especially when she learned Trayvon was shot and killed, and why she didn’t tell a living SOUL she had been talking to him, especially when she knew she was the last person to speak with him.
I would like to see Sybrina Fulton on the stand again to explain how she didn’t know what was going to happen int he mayor’s office with regard to the 911 call, especially when she herself told O’Mara that those present included her son, Benjamin Crump, Nathalie Jackson, the mayor, the city manager, yet NO POLICE and NONE of Zimmerman’s family or representatives. She actually THINKS people don’t know she’s lying when she claims she didn’t know what was going to happen, and that Tracy Martin never discussed with her of hearing the 911 call previously???
The defense is going to be BRUTAL for the prosecution next week. I cannot wait.
Interesting how Mary Cutcher, the attention whore, was never called by the prosecution…her waffling couldn’t have been any worse than Rachel.
I don’t think they will, for a simple reason. They want to go fast, fast, fast. They have a jury that is already leaning their way. They have a jury that is sequestered and away from their homes. They have a jury that has to be angry at the prosecutors for wasting their time. The worst thing the defense could do now is to step into that time-waster role. They want to go fast, get their case out there, and rest so they can get to closing arguments.
“It’s unfortunate that the jury will never hear that she has already won a seven-figure settlement, and has a continuing financial interest in the outcome of the case.”
I was frankly amazed that the HOA and their insurance firm settled in advance of the actual criminal trial.
Is it possible that they settled but with a clawback provision to recover the money if GZ is found to have acted within the rules of legally permissible self-defense?
On the other hand, I have seen extensive incompetence and malfeasance from HOAs before. A friend of mine, wise in the ways of real estate, opined to me once that it is wiser to rent in a sleazy trailer park than it is to own in an expensive condo community with an HOA. At least as a renter, you can walk away cleanly no matter what corrupt or dumb decisions someone else has made.
never heard of a clawback provision. that would be awesome if they had to forfeit the money.
Mr McDaniel-
I just want to say thank you for your dilligent writing and insight into this case. I had a passing interest in the case as a CCW holder myself when it first hit the news…that was until I stumbled upon the Stately Manor.
Since you are an educator, I thought you would appreciate knowing your writings encouraged me to learn more surrounding the case. Hopefully you are as successful in opening young minds in the classroom as you have been in facilitatiing me to stretch mine in middle age.
Keep up the great work!
And while giving credit where it is due, I just want to say MOM may be one of the finest tacticians I have seen. I thought it was interesting that once the prosecution rested, he went full on predator mode in his JOA argument. It appeared to me to be in stark contrast to his earlier demeanor when being accosted by the court.
I summed up his argument as follows:
1. If you dont enter a directed verdict, you will be overturned
2. Failing that if you dont instruct to a lesser charge, you will be overturned.
3. If you fail to do either 1 or 2 and chose to continue this charade, prepare for your inevitable annihilation.
Its game on now, and next week promises to be very, very interesting.
Dear Mack Bolan:
Welcome to SMM, and thanks for your kind comments. It’s an honor to have the Executioner as a reader.
“As to Zimmerman’s depraved mind, Mantei had nothing more to suggest than the idea that merely shooting someone else—in the heart, mind you—was prima facie evidence of ill will, hatred and a depraved mind.”
What’s worse is that this has been the state’s position all along… they have a body, a bullet, and a shooter.
They claim that’s all they’ll need for a conviction, as if justifiable homicide and self defense don’t exist.
And given the fact that Debra Nelson was recently overturned by the 5th DCA for failing to provide the jury with proper instructions concerning self defense, I’m concerned they may be right that this is all they will need in Nelson’s court.
When I saw the claims that Martin must have died instantaneously after being shot and so couldn’t have said the words about being shot that Zimmerman claimed he did, I remembered the famous dead man’s seven seconds that would have allowed it (search the linked page for “Wyatt Earp”).
Reblogged this on A world at war.
Reblogged this on Justice For All and commented:
Thanks Mike for another great rundown of the State’s last day before resting its case. I wanted to point out something that struck me as I was watching the proceeding yesterday. After O’Mara finished presenting its case for a JOA (Judment of Acquittal), you would expect the lead prosecutor to argue against it. Instead the prosecution picked it 3rd wheel to present the rebuttal. To me this is significant as it showed , in my mind at least, that the prosecution is not ready to own up to its case or lack of it to be precise. It is also instructive that as Mr. Mantei was doing his presentation the Lead Prosecutor was looking down at his notes, as if embarrassed as he should be.
In way I am glad that the Judge denied the motion, though after an hour and half of testimony it took her 11 seconds to denied it, this way the Defense will be able to put their case on and remove any doubts about the guilt or innocence of GZ.
What legal theory precludes the fact that Martin was under the influence and had THC not only in his urine but also blood? I still don’t see why this isn’t relevant. I know that if it was the other way around they would hammer Zim with it.
Mike, I hope you don’t mind me posting this. This isn’t usually the way that I talk, but this was my first, immediate reaction yesterday about 1 second after Bernie objected to O’Mara expressing condolences to Sybrina Fulton:
Dear ackbasays:
So tell us how you really feel!
He really should learn to sugar-coat his thoughts just a little less.
Nothing wrong with that. I have been attempting to give provocative titles to my YouTube postings on what would otherwise be uninteresting witness testimony to the casual YouTube browser.
E.g. I was getting tired of Bernie turning on his witnesses if they angered him with their testimony. So here’s the title of one video, that otherwise would not have received much attention:
Zimmerman Trial – Bernie (Biggest ASSHAT In The Universe) Viciously Turns Against Police Officer.
P.s. Someone has been trying to take down my videos by claiming a copyright violation. (This is a common practice by people who don’t like what the video portrays.) Is it someone from Angela Corey-Nifong’s office? Is it Bernie? I don’t know, but the copyright violation claims are only on videos that badmouth him or the office.
Of course, the tactic does not work because I have been with Google before anyone knew what Google was, and they file nonsense claims, such as a protected piece of music, when the video does not have any music and it is clearly a “home movie.”
Last night, I was watching the Robert Redford movie “3 Days of the Condor.” Redford delivered this line, and I immediately thought of the entire Scheme Team.
“His testimony was primarily unremarkable and essentially established nothing more than that Trayvon Martin was dead, had a single gunshot wound to the heart, some abrasions on his left hand, and spoke to the general distance of the muzzle of the gun from Martin’s clothing when it discharged, which he characterized as being of “intermediate” distance, no closer than one inch away and as far as four feet, which is an enormous range where gunpowder dispersion evidence is concerned.”
Incorrect. Bao testified the muzzle was in “loose contact” with Martin’s clothing, and in intermediate range with Martin’s skin.
The significance of direct contact between the muzzle and Martin’s clothing, but intermediate range between the muzzle and Martin’s skin, cannot be overlooked. It supports Zimmerman’s version of the struggle, with Martin on top.
Reblogged this on Cave of the Ice People.
Dear icepeoplecavern:
Thanks!
Mike, you are very welcome. You are a voice of reason and logic in today’s confusing world.
Mantei’s argument was infuriatingly dishonest. Can he be sanctioned for this and, if so, how (slap on the wrist, ect.)?
As you may have heard Crump or others say, attorneys filing papers or making statements to the court are “officers of the court.” That bestows on lawyers a number of privileges, status, and powers (e.g., in civil litigation on behalf of the court to issue subpoenas, a significant power).
But with power, status, and privilege comes duties, obligations, prohibitions, and restrictions. In regards to your question: An attorney is forbidden to misrepresent law, facts, or evidence. An attorney is forbidden to mislead the court. If the court is clearly making a mistake of fact or law, and the attorney knows it, he or she is required to point out the mistake to the court. He or she cannot remain silent about the court’s error.
That said, Manatee probably cannot be held accountable for most of what he said because his statements were simply argument, not evidence or presentation of facts.
He can also claim he simply got confused or was mistaken.
Assuming Manatee was clearly lying, there’s the full range of things that can happen to him, from the Court issuing sanctions, reporting him to the State Bar, the Bar taking action against him (including suspension or disbarment), the appeals court determining he is a liar, reporting him to the Bar, and the Bar going after him that way.
While all this sounds ominous, the odds of Judge Nelson doing anything to her friend’s subordinates (Angela Corey-Nifong and Judge Nelson are pals) that is never going to happen, as evidenced when it came time for Bernie de la Rionda to take the stand on the Sanctions motion, Judge Nelson shut the process down, to be continued after trial.
(This was evidence of Judge Nelson’s unlawful bias toward the State because Bernie had spent the entire day cross-examining witness’s (even attorney Don West), then when he was called to the stand by MOM, he refused to take the stand, followed by Judge Nelson shutting down the process.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzcKE6ZpixY
Note: There is a “bucket full of evidence” that Judge Nelson has violated her judicial oath, Florida statutes, and applicable judicial canons.
The only explanation I can figure out for Judge Nelson’s and prosecutors’ gross misconduct is that they are gambling if there is a not guilty verdict that Zimmerman, MOM West, and other lawyers chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action, will concentrate on other matters (Zimmerman’s NBC lawsuit, going after ABC, including Matt Gutman, Crump, et al. for civil RICO, etc.)
Like all lawyers who have not been getting paid for their services, MOM West (and Zimmerman) will concentrate their efforts on claims that make money. Getting prosecutors and Judge Nelson in trouble with the State Bar, etc. won’t make Zimmerman a dime. (Zimmerman could spend a day filing complaints with the State Bar and the judicial regulatory body, but other than that he and his family need to collect money damages from those with the ability to pay.)
Oh, I forgot to mention two other reasons for the prosecutors brazen misconduct, as I had mentioned before. Basically, they have the backing of politicians in power and media, and Angela Corey-Nifong suffered no consequences for her May 2012 gross misconduct.
– Who wouldn’t think they have a license to tell lies and fudge on the facts when:
The POTUS gave his “If I had a son…” speech;
The DOJ spent millions in an attempt to nail Zimmerman for a federal hate crime;
Congress held hearings;
A Congress member wore a hoodie while he had the floor (Rush);
A Congress member gave foaming-at-the-mouth hate speeches to the media (Wilson);
And major media slanted coverage against Zimmerman.
Prosecutors think that because they have Washington on their side, so to speak, there will not be any consequences for their actions. That’s probably accurate since so far nothing has officially been done to Angela Corey-Nifong for her gross misconduct.
In May 2012 she called Harvard Law School and spent 40 minutes on the phone threatening the School and Alan Dershowitz with lawsuits, criminal charges, Dershowitz’s disbarment, and his firing from Harvard because he appeared on major media and criticized her actions.
Angela Corey-Nifong’s actions violated Florida law, her oath, and Bar Rules. If she did that in other jurisdictions (where her pal Judge Nelson is not the Judge who would have to start the ball rolling, in some respects) she would have been sanctioned by the Judge, reported to the Bar, kicked out of office, and disbarred. And as a further sanction a Judge would have dismissed Zimmerman’s case with prejudice.
I have to think that Angela Corey-Nifong’s prosecutors felt emboldened to do anything they damn well pleased after seeing their boss suffered no consequences for her gross criminal misconduct.
It’s not “beyond all doubt”, it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Big difference. Other than that I agree with you.
Dear Michael O:
You’re quite right. What I intended to say was the case has not been proved beyond any standard of doubt. I’ve clarified that in the article.
All too often when we proofread, we see what we believe we wrote rather than what’s actually there. Thanks so much for the catch!
The Blogmaster said…
As to Zimmerman’s depraved mind, Mantei had nothing more to suggest than the idea that merely shooting someone else—in the heart, mind you—was prima facie evidence of ill will, hatred and a depraved mind.
Mantei, in effect, stated that every soldier, every police officer, every person who has ever shot someone in self defense or protecting our citizens has a depraved mind. That should not be a popular opinion.
Mike,
Have you seen any blogs at all that make a reasonable case for George’s guilt, or is it just “the narrative, the whole narrative, and nothing but the narrative” on the other side?
DavidD
Dear wpdavidd:
I’m afraid it is as you suggest. It could scarcely be otherwise, as the narrative never depends on actual evidence, and truth is always relative and flexible, bendable to the needs of the moment.
There are some who try to argue evidence, but invariably, they are reasoning from incorrect media reports, or the speeches and writings of narrative supporters. When their “facts” are examined and compared with actual evidence such as transcripts, they are always wrong.
In this case, a reasonable examination of the facts and evidence can produce only the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Some might be tempted to say “AHA! You didn’t say beyond all doubt, so Zimmerman still committed a crime.” They would be particularly unaware of the realities of law and common sense.
Only the narrative, in this case, racially driven, can somehow find guilt in this case.
Mike, you describe the ME’s testimony under direct as “primarily unremarkable”, but wouldn’t you say that it was pretty remarkable for an ME not merely to express an opinion on how long a person would survive after receiving such a wound BUT to go on to talk of the person experiencing “pain and suffering” during that time? I found that pretty staggering – and, of course, clear evidence of witness bias. Can’t help wondering if that phrase was written in big letters in his script – er, sorry, his notes.
I have to ask some legal thoughts on Sabrina Fulton’s using the/her “trademarked” name, Trayvon Martin, while on the witness stand. The trademark is for all audio, video and digital. I was hoping that by the mere mention of a name that is trademarked, as this name is would open quite a few doors…or wishful thinking…it could be a first…perhaps….yes/no??
at first I thought it meant something but I was told it is a semi-common thing for loved ones of high-profile death victims. prevents others from profiting by selling t-shirts, etc.
Partyof0, she trademarked the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon” (according to http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/trayvon-martin-trademarks-769123) but not the name “Trayvon Martin” b/c apparently names can’t be trademarked unless they have acquired “an additional meaning”. Mind you, in this case, you could argue that the two words “Trayvon Martin” have now come to mean, oh, prosecutorial misconduct, political influence corrupting the legal system, racism, lynch mob mentality…
I don’t think so. The courtroom privilege is pretty broad — you have the right to use any trademarked or copyrighted material as long as it is relevant to the case, along with protection against any accusations of slander. My understanding is it applies to the attorneys and testifying witnesses.
If you go out on the front steps for your press conference and continue slandering, though, it’s game on.
Mike, I believe you’ve made an error of fact in your otherwise admirable report above. You wrote, “Despite the fact that it was already 5PM on a Friday, Judge Nelson demanded that the defense begin its case immediately, and so they did.”
However, Branca writes (at http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-day-9-families-feud-over-scream-identification//#more) that “…Nelson rejected the motion for an acquitted verdict in a two sentence statement from the bench, which was disappointing but totally in keeping with her track record in this trial–nearly perfect reflexive support of the State prosecutors and disfavor of the defense.
What WAS surprising is when she immediately insisted–demanded, really–that the defense immediately call their first witness.”
As always, though, you provided us not just with a great summary of events but with an even better explanation of various legal/procedural points. Thanks!
what’s the difference? both versions sound identical.
Actually, I thought she asked the jurors if they wanted to continue and they said yes. So rather than demanding that the defense begin their case Judge Nelson left it up to the jury.
My apologies, Mike. I somehow got myself thoroughly muddled with my above post from last night (and I hadn’t even had an adult beverage! just too short on sleep, I guess). Rspung, you’re quite correct – as was Mike, of course.
As JOC56 says below, I was under the impression that Nelson asked the jurors whether they wanted to continue, and they said yes, which was rather surprising considering the time of day. I was trying to track down a quote that confirmed this and somehow I guess I confused the LI post by Carol Herman (http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/racialized-prosecutorial-indiscretion-in-the-zimmerman-case/comment-page-1/#comments) with what Branca had said.
If I find a citation that confirms it, I’ll come back and post again. Meanwhile, I’ll retire, blushing, with egg all over my face.
Making slight amends for embarrassing myself above, I submit in evidence Nelson’s words starting at 52:22 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_li7vuk7o. After denying the motion for JOA in a voice nicely balanced between boredom and irritation at having had to sit through the presentation, she asks MOM if he has a witness that’s ready. He replies, “Yeah, but it’s quarter to…” and she interrupts to tell him, “I wanna ask the jury what they would like to do. They’ve been sitting back there, and if they would like to start to hear, then we’ll go ahead and call your first witness, since you have one.”
And at 0:50 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzT8bqWD4xg, after the state formally rests, she says to the jury, “I know you’ve been sitting back there. We do have a witness that’s ready to go. I’m gonna leave it up to you. Do you wanna hear the witness or do you want to go home for the evening?” and the jurors tell her that they want to continue.
OK, I think I’ve got it right this time!
Dear LandauMurphyFan:
You’re quite right. I should have spent another sentence clarifying that properly, and will do so soon. Thanks for the catch!
The charging affidavit specifically claims that George Zimmerman incorrectly profiled, pursued and confronted Trayvon Martin, before murdering him; yet the state has introduced no incontrovertible evidence to support these claims, let alone prove them beyond reasonable doubt.
Neither has the state presented any evidence, whatsoever, or witness testimony that refutes George Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin initiated the violent exchange by giving him a surprise sucker-punch before proceeding to commit the prolonged assault, whose victim is heard screaming and pleading in the witnesses’ calls to the police.
Indeed the state has already admitted that the state does not know who threw the first punch, which was when the encounter became an unlawful assault.
Despite this, the state has presented its case as though merely casting possible doubt upon, rather than disproving beyond all reasonable doubt, George Zimmerman’s claim to self-defence, is sufficient, in law, to convict him of murder.
However, in law, it is essential for the state to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt that the first blow was struck by George Zimmerman, in order to prove the state’s assertion that George Zimmerman’s actions did not constitute lawful self-defense.
Even if the state had been able to prove this, however, that alone would not be proof of murder.
The state would also need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman did not fear death or injury, after his alleged initial attack failed and Trayvon Martin gained the advantage, in the ensuing struggle.
The state has claimed that the screams and pleading, heard throughout a very prolonged assault, were those of Trayvon Martin, rather than George Zimmerman, despite the fact that Trayvon Martin sustained no injuries, throughout this assault, other than cuts to a knuckle, whilst George Zimmerman, sustained a broken nose, black eyes, puffy lips, and numerous cuts and abrasions to his face and the back of his head.
The assault ended, when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin through the heart. Trayvon Martin’s only injuries were a cut on one of his fingers and the bullet wound.
The forensic evidence indicates that the muzzle of the gun was very close to Trayvon Martin’s hoodie and shirt, which were not aligned, but were at least two inches from Trayvon Martin’s skin, suggesting that Trayvon Martin was leaning over George Zimmerman, when the fatal shot was fired.
It is also necessary for the state to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that any fears which George Zimmerman may have had, of death or injury, were unreasonable in the circumstances.
Rather than trying to deny that Trayvon Martin must have, at some time during their encounter subjected George Zimmerman to such a severe beating that he sustained obvious separate injuries, the state has been reduced to attempting to claim that these injuries were not sufficiently severe as to justify self-defense.
The state ignores the fact that the recorded screams and pleading of the victim were disregarded to a degree which evinces a depraved mind, on the part of whoever was perpetrating the beating; that the victim had surrendered and that invariably, the victim of an assault is the one who sustains the injuries, rather than the perpetrator of an attack.
The state has also ignored the fact that no actual injury is required to justify self-defense; only the reasonable fear of imminent death or injury is required.
The state, also, must claim that George Zimmerman committed the murder of Trayvon Martin, whilst in the full knowledge that the police would arrive very soon afterwards, because he had summoned them, himself, to the scene of the crime.
The toxicology analysis conducted after Trayvon Martin’s autopsy confirms the presence of cannabis, in Trayvon martin’s bloodstream or urine.
However, despite the fact that this refutes part of the state’s allegation in its charging affidavit, the Judge has ruled that this evidence is inadmissible, as she has similarly ruled about material, recovered from Trayvon Martin’s phone, indicating a pattern of drug abuse, fighting and attempts to illegally obtain a hand-gun.
Trayvon Martin’s text messages indicate that in fighting, he was dissatisfied with victory, alone. He also liked to see his opponent bleed substantially. This corroborates the unusual ly depraved continuance of his attack, after his opponent had surrendered.
The NEN Operator could be recalled to testify that George Zimmerman stated that the suspicious person appeared to be on drugs, with the recording played?
He could then be asked if George Zimmerman had previously reported people whom he claimed appeared to be on drugs?
The Custodian of records could substantiate whether or not George Zimmerman had previously called to report people whom he suspected of being on drugs.
The Custodian of Records could also testify about any previous occasion, when a murderer had summoned police to the scene of the crime, before murdering their intended victim.
The ME can testify that there is evidence from the autopsy that Trayvon Martin had suffered damage to his liver and to his brain, which were both consistent with substance abuse.
Jurors are probably aware of the potential for prolonged drug abuse, sufficient to cause liver damage and brain damage, to cause impaired judgment, upon the part of the user.
If the state wished to refute George Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of the fatal confrontation, the state has the technical means to do so, yet has presented no evidence that George Zimmerman was incorrect in his assessment.
Without asking whether a toxicology analysis was actually performed, upon Trayvon Martin, could the ME be asked if, in general, would a toxicology analysis detect the presence or confirm the absence of cannabis and the active ingredients of lean, whichever variant was used, if the state had so wished?
Similarly, the phone service provider’s representative could be recalled to testify about the technical capability to confirm the movements of cell-phones and by implication, their owners.
Could a representative of the cell-phone service provider testify about the use of cell-tower ping logs, in other similar cases, where the movements of individuals, was of interest, during a criminal investigation?
It may be of interest to know whether the state was aware of this before the logs became unavailable and whether or not this was discussed with the phone company.
Jurors may reasonably believe that the state would introduce the toxicology report, if it was not potentially exculpatory, just as the state has not introduced cell tower ping-logs or GPS data for the phones, but would have if it had confirmed that George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin, as the state claims.
Even Raechel Jeantel’s testimony, if believable, at least in part, confirms George Zimmerman’s claim that it was Trayvon Martin who confronted him, rather than he, Trayvon Martin, as the state claims.
The state’s case is reliant upon cherry-picked facts of questionable relevance, questionable witness testimony and unsupported conjecture and would undoubtedly be further undermined if all relevant facts were revealed, such as Trayvon Martin’s past criminal behavior and involvement in MMA fighting.
Additionally, the probable influence of outside agencies upon the decisions of Judge Nelson, which deny George Zimmerman, a fair trial, may be obscured from the jury, while the trial is in progress, but should be disseminated to the general public, so that people come to the realization that this trial results from a politically motivated prosecution, pursued with no regard for the Constitutional rights of the accused and is based upon no genuine evidence of guilt.
By your points you can tell your bias against Trayvon Martin. While Zimmermans being arrested for beating his wife, and other crimes won’t be used against him. We know Zimmerman was depraved. And Zimmerman will never get past following against express orders not to, causing the alteration. Probably manslaughter, should be murder.
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Zimmerman has never been arrested for beating his wife.
Zimmerman has never been convicted of any crimes. He was arrested for coming to the aid of his friend, who was dragged out of a bar by plainclothes police officers who did not identify themselves. He did nothing other than put his hand on the shoulder of one such officer. All charges were eventually dropped.
Facts not in evidence. The State presented no such evidence. If you have some, I highly recommend you contact Angela Corey’s office and tell them.
First, there is no evidence that Zimmerman disregarded the suggestion from Sean Noffke (the NEN call operator).
Second, as Noffke testified on-stand, NEN/911 call operators expressly do not give orders or instructions to callers, but rather only suggestions. Not only are callers not legally bound to follow anything an operator says, operators avoid giving anything other than mere suggestions, in order to protect themselves from potential liability.
There is no evidence for anything other than justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense, per Fl. St. 776.012.
What I really think? I think Zimmerman followed him trying to be a big shot. He walked up to TM using rough language, causing TM to react in fear. What George didn’t count on was someone that stood his ground. They fought and coward George screamed in fear, this was not how it was suppose to work. Probably, TM would have gave him a few bruises but I will never believe he was going to kill him, that was all in Zimmermans mind. Zimmerman shot him because he was losing the fight. Afterwards, Zimmerman rearranged the body ( we know he did this by testimony). He thinks the stand my ground law will protect him.
Let me be blunt: nobody cares about what you think. What do you have evidence to prove?
Any evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin – i.e. pursued, rather than merely traversed the same path after he had lost sight of him?
Any evidence that Zimmerman was “trying to be a big shot”?
Contradicted by actual evidence. Per Rachel Jeantel, Martin was the one who verbally accosted Zimmerman, and not the other way around.
Under Fl. St. 776.012, “rough language” does not constitute reasonable fear of imminent use of unlawful force, and therefore does not justify the use of force in self-defense.
Under Fl. St. 776.013, “rough language” does not constitute the use of force, and therefore does not justify the use of force in response.
Where is the evidence of a fight, as opposed to a one-sided assault?
I would display similar cowardice, if someone sucker-punched me (breaking my nose, took me to the ground, mounted me, and continued to assault me – including knocking my head into the ground and preventing me from getting up to escape. I would, as Zimmerman did, scream for help.
The injuries actually sustained are already on record. Florida statute does not require a severity-of-injury threshold in order to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense.
One, Martin was committing a sustained, aggravated battery, which constitutes a forcible felony and therefore justified the use of deadly force in self-defense under Fl. St. 776.012.
Two, under that same statute, one must reasonably fear the imminent risk of great bodily harm or death. Having one’s head bashed into the ground (as evidenced by the sustained injuries) is certainly reasonable reason to fear great bodily harm or death. (Just ask the family of the soccer referee in Utah who was killed by a single punch to the head by a 17-year-old player. Or ask the family of Natasha Richardson.)
And what was in Zimmerman’s mind, in that specific situation at the exact moment he used deadly force in self defense, is all that matters. The statutory standard is what a reasonable and prudent person would perceive under those exact conditions.
Again: any evidence of a fight, rather than a one-sided assault perpetuated by Martin?
“Rearranged the body” is an inaccurate stretch from actual testimony, which is that Zimmerman moved Martin’s hands away from his body.
Zimmerman and his attorneys all along have stated that they are making a standard, 776.012 self-defense claim, and not a 776.013 “stand your ground” claim.
You make all these facts fit your ideas. This is what You think. Ask yourself why you are defending Zimmerman. If I came up you after following you, you would have stood your ground and confronted me. Now if I would have shot you, your saying that would have been my right. What sense does that make? With this logic anyone could shoot anyone.
Then present alternate facts in evidence, or an alternate interpretation of those facts.
The facts I see:
1) Per Rachel Jeantel, Martin ran, evaded Zimmerman’s visual contact, and reached Brandi Green’s home, some 380 feet south of the eventual location of the altercation. Per her further testimony, Martin continued to walk, while “talking low”, for another two minutes.
2) Per Zimmerman’s NEN call, he lost sight of Martin before he ever exited his vehicle, and did not regain sight of Martin for the duration of the NEN call.
3) There is a distinct lack of evidence that Zimmerman was ever anywhere on the dog walk, south of the sidewalk at the north end of the dog walk.
4) Per Rachel Jeantel testimony, Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman. She then heard indiscriminate noises, and something like “get off, get off” from a voice that she could not positively identify as Martin’s.
5) Per medical records, Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, contusions to the face and head, and lacerations to the back of the head. Per on-scene witnesses, Zimmerman’s head was bleeding profusely, and his back was wet and grass-covered
6) Per John Good, Martin was mounted on top of Zimmerman, raining down blows.
7) Per John Good, Zimmerman was screaming for help
8) Per the autopsy, Martin sustained no injuries other than scraped knuckles and the gun shot wound
Because I examined all evidence in discovery, and came to the conclusion that all such evidence points to Trayvon Martin initiating an unprovoked assault on George Zimmerman, who was fully justified in using deadly force in self-defense.
False premise. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed (pursued) Martin, or approached Martin. All circumstantial evidence is that Zimmerman had no idea where Martin went, and that Martin, having reached the safety of Brandi Green’s home, circled back to the sidewalk T, 380 feet north, to confront Zimmerman.
Are you intentionally conflating “stood your ground”? Do you mean the informal sense, or the statutory sense of meeting force with force?
Also, you have no idea what I would have done in that scenario.
Further, per Zimmerman’s testimony in evidence, when Martin approached him, Zimmerman looked down to retrieve his cell phone, whereupon Martin sucker-punched him.
False premises lead to false conclusions that are irrelevant to the instant case.
It’s damned inconvenient for your case when none of the facts support it, isn’t it?
Whenever I am working on a trial, it is invariable that the attorneys, in the days running up to the trial, will watch either My Cousin Vinny, Gladiator, or A Few Good Men. Tom Cruise put it best in A Few Good Men:
Dear Kaci:
Welcome to SMM. You’re quite right. With the “logic” you’ve presented here, anyone could shoot anyone. Fortunately, this is not the law, nor is this what happened in the Zimmerman case. As has been often said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. It’s the facts and the law that are presented here, and all analysis derives from them, not what one might hope happened, or any philosophy.
Lol…….since you can’t see both sides, I will agree to disagree. There are a lot of people that feels its their right to shoot one someone that is not behaving according to how they see life. You do realize you are taking all the facts off of Zimmermans talking points. No one else was there. You do not know that Zimmerman didn’t attack TM. There is absolutely no way to be sure of any of the facts.
So, if TM would have killed Zimmerman you would say this is his right, because he was afraid for his life? After all, we would have only heard his talking points. It’s like you have tunnel vision. You see only one side of the case.
This is one last chance at reason before I write you off in my own mind as either an idiot or a shill:
No, he is taking all the facts from the evidence presented in trial. That is how a trial works. They jury has no other information and will consider no other information. None of your conjecture has been offered as proof in the trial, mainly because the facts don’t support it. There has been no proof of the “Martin talking points.”
Every objective viewer who has actually paid attention has come to the same conclusion. Even the New York Times has said that all the state witnesses seemed more like defense witnesses. There is no There there in the state’s case.
While pundits are fun to listen you can’t say they are right in every case, (Casey Anthony) and ( O.J.Simpson) they had them guilty at every turn and both were found not guilty. The jury will decide and I will accept their decision, which probably will be manslaughter. But thanks for an entertaining dialogue.
That’s selective memory. Quite a few people were predicting acquittal on both those cases (including me on Casey Anthony.)
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 43: A Kink In The Narrative | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #55: The Prosecutors Are Incompetent Racists! | Stately McDaniel Manor