Posted on 04/25/2012 2:49:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
SANFORD, Fla. -- The lawyer for the man accused of killing Trayvon Martin said it's too soon to know it they'll claim self-defense under the Stand Your Ground law.
In Florida, if a person is charged with murder and is able to prove Stand Your Ground, then the case will never see trial, and experts said that is what they feel Zimmerman and his team will try and to prove.
Zimmerman will have a special immunity hearing before the case ever goes to trial.
At Zimmerman's bond hearing on Friday, one of the lead investigators said they did not know who started the fight between Zimmerman and Martin and that he did not have any evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story that Martin attacked him.
Veteran defense attorney and prosecutor Jeff Deen said Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, moved closer to proving self-defense under Stand Your Ground in the hearing.
"The state is at a terrible disadvantage. They never had the evidence, apparently, and they don't have any now. To have charged second-degree murder is very problematic at this point," said Deen.
Martin's family attorney said they trust special prosecutor Angela Corey.
"All of the experts, they haven't seen any evidence," said Martin family attorney Natalie Jackson. "So I would take what they say with a grain of salt."
From 2001 to 2004, Florida Department Law Enforcement statistics show the average number of justifiable homicides per year was around 12. After Stand Your Ground was passed and implemented, that average jumped to 40 or more annually in 2007 to 2010.
O'Mara said he feels Zimmerman's murder charge will be wiped away if Stand Your Ground applies.
"It's much too early. I'm not even certain [the] Stand Your Ground statue applies yet. It seems like it will have some application, but it's too premature," said O'Mara.
Sounds good
Any idea as to when this might happen? I seem to remember that the next court date was 5/6, or 5/9.
Zimmerman will move for immunity, arguing that his use of deadly force is justified under the law. A judge will rule on that. If the judge grants immunity, the case is over. The immunity motion will be filed on May 8th or before.
Yes, if she reviewed the SPD investigation file. The police took pictures.
The alternative is that she did not review the materials in the SPD investigation file.
“who to pit against whom, while we put the finishing touches on the next campaign for expanded revenues: black against white, or white against black?”
Democratic consultant: Both! Life is a war of each against all, until the government steps in and makies it all better.
“I guess they got their assets handed to them”
No, it’s more like at this point, why not? Everyone remembers the headlines; no one reads corrections. This way when we complain they can point to article X, Y, and Z, resting assured Joe Internet never clicked beyond B.
“Let the record show that the POSOTUS removed the defendants due process rights by commenting on the case publicly”
Whensoever there are federal charges, that might apply. Actually, it wouldn’t, but let’s pretend. Since the state is prosecuting him, whatever the president says has no direct bearing.
I think you’re in the ballpark.
Trayvon was bashing his head against the concrete. Really, if someone is on top of you - attempting to murder you - you have the right to defend yourself. That’s waaaaay beyond ‘stand your ground’....
Trayvon was bashing Zimmerman’s head against the concrete. Really, if someone is on top of you - attempting to murder you - you have the right to defend yourself. That’s waaaaay beyond ‘stand your ground’....
Since the state is prosecuting him, whatever the president says has no direct bearing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an evidentiary issue it does indeed. For example, when challenging candidates for the jury, the questions of media exposure to the presidents speech and the follow up propaganda could most certainly be asked.
I agree with you on the issue of moving for dismissal as a procedural matter on those grounds. But it would be most interesting if no jurors could be found who were not prejudiced by the presidents propaganda initiative on the case and its skewing prejudgement of fact, the duty of the jury is to decide them.This also violates the whole issue of the presumption of innocence. It is the greatest weakness created by HOW fascism works.
We do have many preliminary procedures which can indeed
lead any reasonable person to conclude that this is a political show trial, such as the voir dire process on pre-examining witnesses. This would lay the ground for victory on appeal , which might be necessary in this case.
Too bad F. Lee Baily was not alive and in his hey day.Alan Dershowitz would be great as co-counsel with Moran.He has already published several arguments about the preliminary filings of the “special” ( political) prosecutor.
This case reminds me of the Dreyfus case and its role in the history of French fascism, and its subsequent Vichy government.I believe that Florida’s government is essentially very much like that Vichy government in its conduct concerning this case.They have been so easily cowed by the Obama fascist movement, displaying the underwhelming discipline of a collection of syphlitic bashi-bazouks, bent on nothing more than self interested political plunder.It places the administration of justice into disrepute, not having a grand jury hear issue of indictment, for example.
They themselves have acted like little fascists.
Good Read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
It would be funnier if no jurors could be found that had heard 0blabbermouth’s demagoguery. That it turns out that more people than ever are turning him off or tuning him out.
Agreed! Then we would have a political trial turned into a possible fair trial.
It’s hard not to be cynical about juries but I do have some hope that there are some fair people that could end up on this one. My big hope is that this judge is fair and can’t be intimidated by political pressure or threats of civil unrest. He can probably make the biggest difference in this trial.
My big hope is that this judge is fair and can’t be intimidated by political pressure or threats of civil unrest.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It depends on when appointed and who appointed the judge. Maybe there is one who has no political agenda and knows how to follow the law.
If it's "yes" then she lied about the evidence and should be fired. If it's "no" then she should be fired for not doing her job. Either way, she needs to be disciplined by the bar.
If George is successful at the immunity hearing (highly doubtful, I know), do you think he would have a cause of action against Corey, et. al. for his arrest, etc.?
No. The immunity provision only give a money claim against anybody who brings a civil suit. One always has the option of filing formal ethics complaints and suing for wrongful prosecution, or a civil rights action for deprivation of rights under color of law, but getting money damages from the state is near impossible. Prosecutors are the second most immune species on the planet, judges being first, cops being third. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a case. I think it is a slam dunk to find Corey in an ethics violation.
FWIW, I think Zimmerman is going to get immunity, easily. The facts make this an easy case, not a hard one. I think Judge Lester is unimpressed with the politics, and even if he was, he knows that public sentiment has been created by a gross misrepresentation of the facts (adn law), by the press. I don't think he wants to jump in the pool with Corey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.