The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 01MAY13 | Sundance

[DoctorBulldog]

[...] It was that M-DSPD internal affairs investigation which revealed in October 2011 Trayvon Martin was searched by School Resource Officer, Darryl Dunn. The search of Trayvon Martin’s backpack turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, and a man’s watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as “a burglary tool”.

When Trayvon was questioned about who owned the jewelry and where it came from, he claimed he was just holding it for a “friend”. A “friend” he would not name.

Later, after the police report was outlined in the Robles article, and despite Trayvon being suspended for the second time in a new school year, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Trayvon’s dad, Tracy Martin, and Trayvon’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, did not know anything about the jewelry case.

[...]

However, there was ONE big issue. SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.

[...]

[MrB]

The riots are coming anyway.
This nation and society have been living in fear of racial uprising/riots for so long that it is afraid to even speak truth anymore.

[Cboldt]

Judge Nelson has a stilted view of “relevance,” and I believe you are correct, she won’t allow the jury to hear any character evidence relating to Martin.

[Cboldt]

The stolen jewelry is in Miami, an hour and half drive from Sanford.

[Cboldt]

-- Going to a stand your ground hearing implies that you had the option of leaving. --

Not in fact, but obviously plenty of people misapprehend the phrase. The press has chronically abused the phrase "stand your ground," whether it applies to the law, or to a hearing, etc. The law is about justified use of force in self defense, and the hearing would be one for immunity because the use of force was justified.

In some states, in order for the use of force to be justified, the person using it has a duty to retreat (if he can). In those jurisdictions, the duty to retreat is just another factor in deciding whether or not the use of force was justified.

That factor is inapplicable, as you note, when the option to retreat isn't available. That factor isn't applicable AT ALL in Florida, because there is no duty to retreat under Florida law pertaining to the use of force in self defense.

[sportutegrl]

Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”

But if he was white and had drawn a picture of a gun . . . .

[Uncle Chip]

she won’t allow the jury to hear any character evidence relating to Martin.

It would seem to me that this goes beyond just character evidence. It would corroborate the validity of GZ's suspicions that night of a person who appeared to be casing apartments and thus the NEN call.

[rktman]

Is it just me or does st trayvon the patron saint of dead hoodie wearin’ punks look a lot like king hussein? Besides, all this is background noise. We all “know” GZ is a racist thug who just wanted to shoot some black kid. If it hadn’t been st trayvon it would have been some other random black kid just walkin’ around minding their own business. So, once GZ is acquitted (and the riots are quelled) will the st trayvon plaque come down? Or just line through his name.

[Cboldt]

-- It would corroborate the validity of GZ's suspicions that night of a person who appeared to be casing apartments and thus the NEN call. --

I think the evidence should come in, for various reasons. However, there is a counterargument that it's not relevant relative to the attack, and the issue is about the attack, not about a burglary. Nelson is a reasonably skilled "spinner" of her own right, and is capable of misreading law to suit the outcome she wants to obtain. I think all judges have that quality.

[littleharbour]

If Martin was the one who was on trial, then I could see the exclusion of character evidence. In a trial, the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of bad character unless the defence first introduces evidence of alleged good character. But Martin is not on trial. What the court needs to determine is if Zimmerman is telling the truth. Was Martin a bad ass who had no lawful purpose being in that neighbourhood or an innocent person just strolling along minding his own business? Was he an angel or someone who had previously engaged in unlawful behaviour? This evidence would help bolster the authenticity of Zimmerman’s recollection. It should be introduced and the refusal of the judge to permit it could result in any conviction being overturned on appeal.

[Cboldt]

-- Was Martin a bad ass who had no lawful purpose being in that neighbourhood or an innocent person just strolling along minding his own business? --

I agree with your remarks and conclusion. Evidence that Miami authorities suspected Martin of burglary is relevant to the claim that Zimmerman wrongly profiled Martin.

On your blockquote, and I'm sure you know this, but there are other possibilities. Martin could have both lawful purpose (going to a home where he is a guest) and unlawful purpose (case or burglarize) at the same time.

I'm merely speculating that Nelson will exclude the evidence, and she'll misinterpret the law to obtain that outcome. She's protecting the state.

[Uncle Chip]

the issue is about the attack

which explains why Dershowitz is recommending that the defense move to have the NEN call barred.

[Cboldt]

-- which explains why Dershowitz is recommending that the defense move to have the NEN call barred. --

Is that a recent Dershowitz remark?

I think it's a good defense strategy, to limit the jury inquiry to the time after Zimmerman hung up with NEN. Everything he did up to then was legal and not provocative in a legal sense, meaning, nothing he did would justify taking a blow.

I don't see Nelson limiting the case thusly, because it cuts the state off from presenting its case. I also imagine Nelson will allow all fashion of bogus legal theories to be presented as though they have validity. For example, the "Zimmerman could have prevented this by staying in his truck," and "asking a person what they are doing is sufficient justification for them to punch you."

There will be a flurry of pretrial motions on admissibility of evidence, and she'll rule on them before the jury is seated to hear opening arguments.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

The SYG hearing is also a risk for the defense. Zimmerman would have to answer all of the judge’s questions, baring his whole case ahead of time. If the judge was a stickler for the law exactly as written, the hearing might be a good idea. This judge doesn’t seem like the type to trust for that. I wouldn’t do it either.

Was reported that he can still have a SYG hearing during or after the trial.

[lacrew]

I understand he was found with the jewelry in Miami.

But, isn’t it at least a possibility that he stole on the weekend while with his dad in Sanford, and pawned it in Miami during the week.

I’m just wondering out loud if the jewelry was even kept by the school police...and, if so, if any of it could be traced to Sanford.

[lacrew]

As I understand it, Florida has a special preliminary hearing, in which you can claim ‘stand your ground’.

And, if you are successful in this hearing, the prosecution stops.

If you are unsuccessful in this hearing (or choose not to make an attempt at this defense), then you take the regular court route and the matter of whether or not the use of force was justified is decided upon.

However, adding another wrinkle to this case, the charge is not at all what it should be (manslaughter), but is 2nd degree murder. Using my Cracker Jack box law degree, I’ve read their law. For starters, the state has to prove 2nd degree murder, and the jury cannot opt to convict on a lesser charge. Next, the state has to prove either criminal stalking led to the murder or gross negligence, in which an average person would certainly know was potentially deadly. The media of course thinks Zimmerman was stalking, but by definition (Florida law) the stalking has to involve at least two seperate instances of Zimmerman following Martin. That didn’t happen. So, they are left with proving negligence. Their angle is going to be that a neighborhood watchman, who has already called the police, and decides to follow a suspicious person, and is legally carrying a gun, is somehow being negligent to a deadly degree. I don’t know if they will be successful or not...but because the charge was improper, the justification of force doesn’t even enter the conversation. In alot of ways, the prosecution has already conceded that the force was justified...but they are trying to say that Zimmerman’s negligence set up the situation which made this use of force necessary.

Its very weird - and because politics trumped common sense. This case went straight from ‘no charge’ to murder 2...and nobody in the media even questioned how realistic that was. The looters wanted a murder charge, so they got one (remember the Miami High School students who ‘protested’ by doing a flash mob/slight looting of a store).

[Uncle Chip]

Is that a recent Dershowitz remark?

That was several months back.

[Cboldt]

IMO, having a immunity hearing before trial is low risk, but that's in large part because I believe the rules allow defendant to make his case without being subjected to cross examination. If the judge rejects the motion, defendant can appeal. In a sense, it give defendant two bites at the apple. This is the norm, FWIW, in Florida. Many defendants assert self defense, and get an opinion from the judge.

If we believe what O'Mara said in his press availability yesterday, he has no intention to ask the judge to decide the case. I do agree that defendant's right to an immunity hearing isn't extinguished for failure to move for this before criminal trial, and therefore he can have an immunity hearing "during" (after presentation of state's case, after presentation of defense case), or after the trial (jury returns hung, or an acquittal, or guilty). But O'Mara said that his client has decided to "take the decision away from the judge" (my words, not O'Mara's), because his client believes the public will be more accepting of a jury's result.

[Cboldt]

I think the jewelry is in Miami police (not M-D School Police Department) custody. I don't know of any police effort to return the jewelry to its rightful owners.

IIRC, I've read conflicting accounts of how often and how long Martin was in his father's girlfriend's neighborhood. I suppose that Martin would steal as the opportunity presented itself, and that he would be more likely to steal "away from home," just because distance has a way of reducing the odds of being caught.

[Cboldt]

There is another angle to charging murder instead of manslaughter. The Florida manslaughter statute includes an element that refers to the justified use of force statute; so if Corey had charged manslaughter, she would have also had to recite, in the charging document and affidavit of probable cause, facts that negate the justified use of force in self defense. She avoids that formality by charging murder.

O'Mara really has played nice with the state, adopting the state's desire for a long interval between the charge and resolution. He was not aggressive at all, early on, in many ways. You've touched on one - what are the facts that the state claims produce depraved indifference? He moved for a statement of particulars a year ago, the state hasn't produced one, and he's never made an issue of it. Lester's incarceration of Zimmerman was outside of legal bounds, but O'Mara didn't appeal it, or even make a stink over it.

The state is a legal cesspool. I wouldn't go there unless I was being paid to be there.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I get the impression that the defense thinks this judge wouldn’t be a good bet to get a positive SYG ruling. The prosecution could also use it against him in a trial if the judge didn’t rule for SYG immunity. In this case it looks like the risk is higher than normal not to get a favorable result.