The judge did not rule on the sufficiency of the complaint. He allowed bail. I guess the prelim will be where the argument will continue.
I see why the state did not go the grand jury process. In such a situation they would have been required to present info prejudicial to their case i.e. he had sustained wounds consistent with his position he was attacked by Martin. Using the complaint route, they loaded it up with every prejudical comment they could, like “he profiled” and “he confronted” when it seems as if there is no supporting evidence to their suppositions.
My sense is the prosecutor overcharged with the hope the matter goes to trial and the jury looks for some lesser offense to convict upon because there is someone dead. I would almost bet they will try to negotiate such a plea from the defense. Not being able to keep him in jail though means they lose a bit of leverage and a pro bono attorney is not going to be happy with a negotiated plea so, game on.
[[My sense is the prosecutor overcharged with the hope the matter goes to trial and the jury looks for some lesser offense to convict upon because there is someone dead.]]
I agree that that is what happend, and IO know this happens all the itme, but my goodness- it SHOULD BE agaisnt hte law to overcharge someoen when there is no evidence that hte person is guilty of the crimes i nthe charges- We are suppsoed to be protected i nthis countrty from false charges and fase imprisonment-
IF someoen suspects someoen of robbery, they can’t just arbitrarily bring any old chatges they like suchj as first degree or secodn degree murder charges IF there is no evidence that hte person cimmittec those crimes- they are not suppsoed to brign a levy of charges hopign that somethign will come out later that supports the charge- they are SUPPOSED TO ASLREADY HAVE EVIDENCE (cps just for emphasis- not yelling) that shows guilt- The lawyers for the martins admitted that htey don’t have any evidence to support the claims- and as such the judge hsould have thrown out hte case becasue the state could NOT even prove that bond was needed because htey could NOT prove that htre man in custody waqs guilty of the crimes cited in the affidavit- It seems to me george’s lawyer should have asked the judge why bail was even needed since the state could not prove george was guilty since htey had no evidence, as per their own testimnoy, that showed him guilty- It seems a bit backwards to me- IF someoen is not guilty, aqnd hte state doesn’t have the required evidence to show guilt, or even to suggest guilt, then the INNOCENT until proven guilty person, should not be penalized fuirther by havign to coem up with bail money- it seems htere should be a ‘pre-pretrial’ in order to determine if there is enough evidence to show guilt, or even to suggest guilt, and if not, then the innocent person who has been falsely imprisoned, shoudl NOT be penalized further
I undferstand that this isn’t how it works, but it just seems to me that none of his rights are being concidered while the state continues to railroad him- It seems to me that a judge should first determine IF the defendant has been falsely charged and falely imprisoned first before determing if bail shoudl be set or even required- IF he fuinds that false imprisonment has been perpetrated, then no bail should be necessary, and hte caswe shoudl be thrown out immediately, and htose that brought hte false charges shoudl then be charged with prosecutorial muiscionduct