BOYS IN THE HOODIES: PROSECUTION UNRAVELING IN ZIMMERMAN CASE

WND ^ | March 7, 2013 | Jack Cashill

[hosepipe]

You dumbass............

---

Since George is a confessed democrat and no doubt Travon was too..
If George died from his wounds from the fight now THAT would be the best outcome..

Two less democrats is a positive outcome..
BUT he didn’t die.. jail would at least keep George out of the voting booth..

We may be on the same page here..

[Delta Dawn]

‘I think he was “lean”ing towards being a Pharmacist...’

If I knew what a pun was, I would probably say that that was one of the best puns I ever did hear.

Seriously though, what’s a pun???

[Feckless]

I’m just a poor ol’ country boy with a really old Mossberg pump..... if the Game Warden knew how many dove it has killed I’d be doing life without parole.

[Bshaw]

“I’m just a poor ol’ country boy with a really old Mossberg pump..... “

I haven’t fired mine yet, but I will in 2 weeks! That and I have been trying for months to get my hands on some .22LR ammo, but can’t find ANYTHING in NE Ohio!

Anyone out there want to trade some .22 Hornet or WinMag for some .22LR, let me know!

[BlackElk]

If Trayvon Martin was under the age of majority, many states would allow limited damages against the parents. In Connecticut, when I practiced there years ago, the limit was $3,000 per incident and homeowner's insurance would generally cover it.

To some extent the question of proximate cause will be determined in the criminal prosecution. If Zimmerman were found guilty of any degree of homicide and the conviction stood, he would be in a situation where it would be nearly impossible to collect from Martin's parents. If Zimmerman is acquitted (as I think he should be), then he has been found to be (not innocent as such) not guilty in the contemplation of our law. This COULD mean that the jury found him to be factually and legally innocent or it could merely mean that any guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which happened in OJ's murder case).

In a civil action, different jurisdictions have different rules. If Florida is a state where comparative liability is imposed, and a jury decided that the liability for Zimmerman's damages were 75% that of Trayvon (and his parents) and 25% that of Zimmerman, subtract 25% from 75% and Trayvon or his parents pay 50% of the damages. That may be further cut if Florida limits the parental liability for act of the minor to a set dollar figure.

If the Florida standard were one recognizing contributory liability by the victim, then the award of damages might be prohibited altogether.

There might also be counterclaims and setoffs in which Zimmerman might be found liable for Trayvon's death.

Your question had been "could Zimmerman have a case against Martin's parents...?" Most lawyers would say yes, that almost anyone can sue almost anyone. The more important question is as to whether the person suing is likely to prove his/her/their case, and for how much? Another is whether there is a statute of limitations requiring that any action be filed within a limited time period and whether that time has expired.

God bless you and yours!

P.S. I am retired and no longer practice. The foregoing is the opinion of one who is now just a man in the street, one who never practiced law in Florida and one who will gladly defer to any experienced Florida lawyer on the question asked. The foregoing is an intellectual exercise and NOT legal advice.

[Cboldt]

There are verdicts in both civil and criminal cases. What attaches to a losing defendant in a civil case is “liability.”

[trebb]

I want the prosecution to lose, and lose big. Then the prosecutor needs to be fired and disbarred. Meanwhile George Zimmerman needs to win BIG in lawsuits against the prosecutor’s office and the media outlets that railroaded him. Then George Zimmerman should get some lucrative contracts making commercials for gun companies, and for his own story made into a movie.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason the prosecution is still pushing the case is because it has committed so many torts/crimes that it is fighting for its life and it no longer has anything to do with George. I hope he and his family become wealthy enough to live in protected luxury.

[Uncle Chip]

I’d be interested in your opinion here: Is there anything in the newly released ABC tape that could give cause for the defense to revisit the judge’s ruling that protects Crump from being deposed???

[Uncle Chip]

“What are you talking about” becomes “What you doin around here” after Crump intervenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S6WPE8BK8DU

Was [s]he afraid that George was going to beat him or did she just say that Trayvon was going to go back and beat him. How would anyone know another person’s intent — but he would know his own intent. And her immediate response is “No — Trayvon — go home”. He was already going home — so then what was the “No” for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiCC_mnl6VI

Trayvon put on his jacket not hoodie? No mention of vehicle.
And note that Crump wants her to start over again at the altercation, leaving off the part where he lost him and where he goin beat him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=em9Zcou4ay4

[Cboldt]

Yeah, but she won't force Crump to dig his hole deeper in the context of the Zimmerman trial.

Purely from the point of view of obtaining reliable evidence for the state's case, it seems to me the best evidence is or will be the complete recording, assuming ABC has one. Crump's memory and honesty make his testimony pale in comparison (in a search for truth about the state's case).

In a separate case that charges Crump with false testimony, he'd be defendant, so is protected from testifying.

I don't think Crump's dishonesty is as big a deal as DeeDee's. She's the direct witness. You can bet that de la Rionda will see to it that Crump is either present, or obtains a transcript of the DeeDee deposition.

My hunch is that DeeDee knows that Martin was looking to administer a beating, that's why she didn't come forward. Now she's been coached that as long as she sticks to her story, she can't be caught in a lie - it'll be her word against Zimmerman. If I'm West and O'Mara, I'd rather she lose her bearings during trial, rather than during deposition.

[verga]

Thank you. My severely limited understanding had me thinking aloing similar lines.

[Uncle Chip]

<>My hunch is that DeeDee knows that Martin was looking to administer a beating, that’s why she didn’t come forward.<>

Yep — She seems to say that in the ABC tape:

“Trayvon say about the man he about to BEAT him — but I say Trayvon go home”.

That statement right there with the “but” seems to indicate that Trayvon, who was headed home and right by his home, was intending to do something other than get home — thus the response from her: “but I say Trayvon go home”.

Then Crump wants her to repeat what she said from the point of the altercation — leaving that part out. Why leave that part out if she heard Trayvon say that the man was going to beat him??? You would want that in there.

Is it taken out because what she actually said and meant is what Crump actually heard and understood — that Trayvon said that he intended to turn around and administer a beating. And rather than clarify that part Crump wanted it deleted from what he wanted to emphasize.

Then when BDLR at the 4/2 deposition tries to get his DeeDee to say that Trayvon was afraid that the other guy was going to BEAT him, she doesn’t. Why not??? Did she suddenly develop a conscience??? or was she well prepped with Crump’s interview tape. If she said so earlier in the Crump interview, then just say “yeh” and be done with it.

But that is probably not what was said and meant by DeeDee in the Crump interview and she either knows or suspects it or was warned about it by Crump or one of his associates. That’s why the hesitation and diversion of the question to something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=em9Zcou4ay4

Too bad her upcoming deposition won’t be on Pay Per View. They could make millions.

[bigheadfred]

Seriously though, what’s a pun???

I wouldn't know. I'm just a dumb white guy...an occimoron...

[supercat]

I have no idea if if this is your area of expertise or not, but could Zimmerman have a case against Martins parents since their son was the proximate cause of his arrest and trial?

I don't think the Martin parents are, nor do I think they should be, legally responsible for legal and other costs Mr. Zimmerman has incurred as a result of their son's actions against him. On the other hand, I doubt that Mr. Zimmerman would have been prosecuted were it not for actions taken by the parents themselves. I don't know to what extent Mr. Crump is acting at the parents' behest, and to what extent he's acting on his own, but if the parents' actions have been unreasonable, that might be a basis for a cause of action against them.

On the other hand, whether or not the parents' behavior would be actionable, Mr. Crump's actions certainly should be. Mr. Crump has made numerous statements which were not only false, but they were made with the purpose of causing harm to Mr. Zimmerman, and Mr. Crump could not have reasonably believed them to be true. Once all is said and done, Mr. Zimmerman should own Mr. Crump.

I think Mr. Zimmerman should probably also be able to recover damages from any of the prosecutors, but that would likely be much harder. Prosecutors generally have immunity for any sort of judgment calls they make regarding whether or not a case should be prosecuted. On the other hand, subornation of perjury is a criminal offense, and its definition extends to situations where attorneys deliberately misrepresent the facts of a case. Some of the prosecutors' actions seem less than 100% truthful, and may have crossed over that line far enough to be actionable.