Posted on 07/10/2013 5:15:07 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 10th, is DAY #22 (of 5th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday began with a boom as defense expert witness, world renowned Dr Vincent Di Maio took to the stand to validate the forensic evidence supporting George Zimmerman’s version of the encounter with Trayvon Martin. However, the day ended with an even bigger THUNDERCLAP in an epic 10pm showdown as Don West took on both the State prosecutors and trial Judge Nelson after the jury was released. Ending with Judge Nelson, turning her back and walking out of court. Unreal. A great analysis of the events from yesterday is available HERE.
The late night argument, not by the State, but by Judge Nelson herself, regarding phone evidence authentication, is so weak and insufferably devoid of legal analysis it is absurd on its face. Then again, this is the same judge who said a few days ago, flippantly in open court, that evidence should be “shredded” (Dr. Bao notes) after use. D’oh
Essentially Nelson argued that the phone records (texts and pics from Trayvon) cannot be authenticated to have originated by the specific personage of Trayvon Martin (despite two security codes) because anyone could have sent them. Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot !!
How can an email be used in a sex offender case? How can phone records be used in RICO cases? How can GPS evidence be used in Insurance Cases? How are photographs taken by perps used against them? Think about it.
You can’t argue that evidence cannot be admitted because someone else might have made the actual phone call; Someone else might have physically sent the email; Someone else actually accessed the website; Someone else might have been the driver of the car; Or, someone else could possibly have been behind the viewing lens of the camera etc.
No, that argument does not mean you can arbitrarily exclude evidence. And this was the basis for her argument (watch the video).
Sure, that’s an argument which can be presented to the jury by the other side, as a counter point to create doubt with the jury, but it can’t be a reasonable consideration for total evidence exclusion. Then again, this is Judge Nelson – who in multiple prior cases has a high historical propensity of being overruled by the 5th District Court of Appeals.
It should be noted the NAACP Annual National Convention starts in Orlando on Friday; Additionally, preparations are being made in/around Miami-Dade for a Wednesday defense wrapped up with a community/LEO preparation meeting yesterday.
I cannot imagine what his schedule is.
You know that O'Mara and West are pumped to the max on adrenalin tonight. Heck, most freepers on this thread can't let go of it long enough to go to sleep.;-)
He will take a week off when the trial is over to recharge his batteries...and then back to the front lines.
I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are charged with murder, the prosecution needs to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed the dead guy. However, if it is already agreed that you did kill the dead guy, it is the shooter's obligation to show it was justified. Affirmative defense.
Experts, please correct me if I am mistaken.
I try to be hopefully and, on some level, I am. But I have genuine fear for young Americans. I see where we’ve gone from say the early ‘60’s to now — I want very much to think we can restore some of what we had, but at the risk of sounding in despair I simply don’t see it happening.
I believe I know these people who are now in charge — radical leftists from the same mold as those I knew back in the day. I want to trust the black person walking next to me in the mall, but I don’t — The blacks I knew in the late ‘60’s were all nice, decent people — I met them at work and at parties — nicely dressed, going to college, attending church, etc. But I now know that almost all of them were embracing Wright’s Black Lib Theology.
So, while of course I’m going to be cautious around blacks who look like thugs, I’m also hyper aware that the nicely dressed black woman carrying a briefcase could very well be harboring hatred for me while smiling in my face. And, laughing at my (once, long ago) white guilt trip.
I was once the biggest champion of everything that would lift up blacks — I’ve got street creds to prove it — but those days are long gone. It’s very very sad.
I’m rambling — my apologies.
state must PROVE it was NOT self defense.
That's not illegal even if it were true. And it appears not to be true.
So, if she proved it to be true, she would have a guy getting beat up who wanted way too badly to be a cop. I suspect he's not lying there saying to himself over and over, "I wanna be a cop! I wanna be a cop!..." That wouldn't be illegal. If instead of "Help, Help" he were crying "I wanna be a cop!" does she think that means he should just lie there and let his brains get beat out?
Hispanic juror is from Chicago..Whew...
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/20/who-are-jurors-george-zimmerman
I’m no expert, but it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed Murder 2; which means that he did so out of malice, depraved mind, etc. (A bunch more words, and I’m not sure the term “malice” is correct in the phrasing of the law). The murder 2 has nothing to do with self defense. And self defense has nothing to do with murder. (Here in Washington state they call it Justifiable Homicide. And you don’t have to be in fear of your life or serious injury to use it.)
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/getting-to-murder-2-finding-george-zimmermans-depraved-mind/
Florida defines murder in the second degree as:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . .
Florida’s standard jury instruction for murder 2 notes that:
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Notice step 2. Under Florida law the mere fact that an armed man kills another who is unarmed does not prove a “depraved mind” (Poole v. State, Bellamy v. State, and Light v. State). Typically, the prosecution proves “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” through evidence of a long-standing grievance or some unusually wrongful or aggressive conduct on the part of the attacker.
In this case Zimmerman and Martin did not know each other, so there was no existing grievance. That’s why the prosecution’s narrative claims that Zimmerman “profiled, pursued, and killed” Martin, describing his conduct as that of a racist, “wannabe” cop who ruthlessly pursued the frightened Martin.
BTW - I REALLY hope that the defense will show photos of the area with the tall buildings, narrow overhangs and numerous obstacles near the buildings (bushes and fences) that it seems impossible to try to stay near the buildings to stay out of the rain - M’s girl friend’s excuse. (One of the things that raised Z’s suspicions).
“power hungry cop wannabe”
That is covered in one of the Serino interviews. Serino tries to push George on him being a cop “like on TV”.
George said no. It was because he had gotten letters from his nephew in prison, and how the nephew wished someone had straighten him out as a kid when he got caught breaking the law before it got so out of hand. And George said how he mentors kids, and they all hate the cops. And he thought if he was a cop he could show them a cop that cared about them, etc. I sure hope all of those interviews are in evidence. And I sure hope the defense uses that early interview in their closing statements.
If the NBP party comes into MY “whitey” neighborhood near the courthouse to riot and burn it will be open season.
Oh I know...I watched/listened all day.
It does seem miraculous, still, every time she does rule in favor!
Thank you! I plan to watch this after dinner.
Yes
At post 488
Yes per CNN.Also maybe Stand your Ground.
Sometimes there is a guess of how long a trial will be.If it goes over a few weeks people have to pull out for trips.Doctors,ETC.
Can’t they also say that Treyvon was retreating and GZ ‘didn’t have to shoot’? (Even though we all know that is not true)
Two things stuck out here to me:
1] We preserved the memory of Trayvon Martin
[I hope it wasn’t at the expense of his client. Nonetheless the saintly memory was only protected from these 6 jurors until their verdict — then they will know what everyone else and their dog knows. So what really was preserved??]
2] Manslaughter should be off the table because this was an intentional act. He intended to pull the trigger to save his life.
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.