Posted on 05/24/2013 1:10:09 PM PDT by drewh
In an immunity hearing, defense goes first, has the burden of production, and the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not the use of force was justified. Nelson has all sorts of hooks she can deny that on. Not reasonably in fear of serious injury being a big one. Or she'd pull a Serino and say Zimmerman could have waited another 30 seconds (using her immense powers of hindsight). I wouldn't trust her with my dog.
In a trial, the state goes first, and has to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Worst case is hung jury. I give that about a 15% chance as a racist is allowed into the jury. 85% chance of acquittal.
I really find it puzzling that the defense lawyers would release this material. Why not save it for the trial instead of letting it percolate in the media for a while. Seems to me saving it for the trial keeps the impact stronger, whereas releasing it lets it weaken somewhat. But, then, I really do not much about legal matters....
One of the fundamental things the jury will have to determine is whether it is more plausible that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman without provocation, or that George Zimmerman acted in an unreasonable fashion so as to provoke the attack. The prosecutor is objecting to evidence of Trayvon Martin's character not because it is irrelevant to such determination, but because they know full well that it is very relevant to such determination. For the right to a trial by jury to mean anything, the jury has to be allowed to make the important factual decisions. If Judge Nelson keeps out such evidence, and the state scores a conviction as a result, it will be Judge Nelson, rather than the jury, who really found Zimmerman guilty.
You are absolutely right. If prosecution opens doors, then defense may debate it.
But I do not think you can voir dire the jury by saying if you hear that Treyvon was a Boy Scout would that impress you? But if you then learned he was a stoner and a violent little mf would that dis-impress you? It would not hurt to “try” but a Judge could say that is going too far. The Judges in this case have been awefully harsh on Jorge and his wife (both accused of perjury already! She was charged!). What the H is wrong with Florida anyway?
P.S. Jorge better lose some weight for trial
If he gets a sane jury. A juror whose mind is clouded by Liberal Mind Fog might have a hard time imagining that someone (TM) could attack another person (GZ) so violently without provocation, and thus regard the severity of the attack as proof that GZ must have done something to provoke TM. That's why some aspects of the TM character evidence are so important. To show that even if it's hard to imagine someone who would attack another person so savagely for no reason, Trayvon Martin was, in fact, just such a person.
I agree with that. Judges screw accuseds all the time.
A “search for the truth”? Ha
Hopefully Jorge’s attorney will be willing to go to jail for his client
These judges are nasty down there. I’ve never seen a case so crying out for self-defense.
Thanks for the authorities. It is a question of state law, rather than clearly USSCt, but these cases are getting some age on them.
If the prosecution is dumb enough to portray Treyvon as a choir boy, then the judge may well allow all the bad stuff to come in.
I am definitely worring about the level of competence of the trial judges down there.
I do have faith in Jorge’s attorney
As a further follow-up, if someone claims self-defense, bad propensities by the decedent which were known to the defendant may be less exculpatory than those which were not. A prosecutor could legitimately argue that if the defendant knew the decedent had a reputation for violence, such knowledge could have elevated his fear of the defendant to an unreasonable extent, and caused him to be over-eager to shoot. Indeed, a really nasty prosecutor might allege that the defendant believed that the decedent's reputation would mean he could be killed with impunity. Such an argument would make no sense if the defendant didn't know of the decent's reputation prior to the attack.
“What the H is wrong with Florida anyway?”
Floriduh is just another state in an ever-lengthening list of $H!T hole states in this country in which to hang your hat.
It just pisses me off that the Marxists have taken hold of all the really nice real estate in they country to work their “magic!” Just like California, Floriduh has two worthless Senators and a governor who can’t even find the toilet in his own office!
Today I passed a rather large 0bama in the john. It was kinda squishy, and it took a few extra wipes to get rid of the bitter clingers . . .
I've been thinking about this case some more. The only scenario I can imagine which would be consistent with the undisputed facts of the case and might justify a Second Degree Murder charge would be if Zimmerman had antagonized Trayvon Martin to such an unreasonable extent that Martin's actions would be considered excusable. To be sure, it's hard to imagine that in the time between the 911 call and the attack Zimmerman could have possibly antagonized anyone sufficiently to merit the savage beating he received, but that's the only scenario I can see the prosecutor painting which would merit the charge, even if all contested facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
If the prosecution does take such a stand, then given the lack of any other evidence that Zimmerman unreasonably antagonized Martin, the only argument I can see the prosecution trying to make would be that Trayvon Martin would not have attacked Zimmerman had Zimmerman not unreasonably antagonized and provoked him. If the prosecutor were allowed to put forth such an argument, the extent of Zimmerman's injuries would actually work against him since some jurors may find it easier to imagine that someone who was severely antagonized and stifled his anger for awhile might release his rage in a savage fury, than to imagine that a person could behave so savagely without provocation. If the prosecution does attempt such a tack, that would make Trayvon's past behavior even more indisputably relevant: a claim that Trayvon Martin would not have exhibited such savage behavior without extreme provocation would be rebutted by evidence which showed he had, in fact, done precisely that.
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.