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.

[...]

[Uncle Chip]

The question of why the little angel would throw the first blow will come up in trial

An answer to that question is right there. If he was casing the joint, and had a burglary in mind, but was spotted by Zimmerman and had his plan disrupted, then he might have been angry at that person and wanted to take him down.

I wonder if they ever asked DeeDee in deposition if the little jewel thief ever gave her jewelry.

[Cboldt]

I agree that defendant thinks the judge is biased against finding the use of force was justified. But, the upside of arguing before a judge is that more evidence comes in, than a jury is allowed to see.

Assume that the judge rejects the motion for immunity. That fact is forbidden to the jury, as best the court can do so. It is expressly NOT a consideration for the jury, and they will at least be instructed thusly. Further, the standard of proof for the immunity motion is "more likely than not." But, for a jury, they have to find that the self defense scenario stated by the defendant is "impossible" in order to reject it - the reverse of beyond a reasonable doubt. Said another way, the actual legal standard, at trial the state has to negate or disprove self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pretrial moving for an immunity finding is very low risk to defendant. I think not moving for immunity is legal malpractice. Notice how O'Mara makes it clear this isn't his decision?

[Pining_4_TX]

The Trayvon Martin Foundation for Frequent Law Enforcement Consumers.

[Uncle Chip]

Notice how O'Mara makes it clear this isn't his decision?

And yet when answering the question in the hearing Zimmerman clearly says "Upon the advice of counsel ...".

So his decision was based upon O'Mara's advice to forego a pretrial immunity hearing.

A little O'Mara cya there.

[RightFighter]

Not on your best day. Try three and a half hours.

[XenaLee]

The police apparently put the jewelry on a shelf and forgot about it. Nice. I’m betting the folks the jewelry belongs to really appreciated such “topnotch police work” there.

[little jeremiah]

PFL