|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
Zimmerman Stuns Court, Waives Right to 'Stand Your Ground' Hearing in Trayvon Martin Case
George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers Tuesday when they waived their client's right to a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin a year ago.
However, the defense lawyers didn't say whether they would waive the immunity hearing outright. They left open the possibility for that hearing to be rolled into Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain in his Florida subdivision, shot and killed the teen, who was visiting a house in the area.
The move allows the defense more time to prepare for the trial this summer, but also raises the stakes.
Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law entitles a person to use deadly force if he believes his life is threatened, and absolves them of an obligation to retreat from a confrontation, even if retreat is possible.
In recent weeks, the Zimmerman defense has suffered several legal setbacks. Judge Debra Nelson has ruled in favor of the state that Zimmerman's bail conditions should not be loosened, and that Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump was not required to sit for a deposition about his interactions with the state's most important witness, a young woman who was the last known person to speak with Trayvon Martin before his death on February 26 2012.
It was the defense's legal maneuvering which put Judge Nelson on the bench in this murder trial. Last summer Zimmerman's team successfully argued that the previous judge, Kenneth Lester, was unfit to preside over the trial after a caustic bail ruling where he blasted Zimmerman for misleading the court about his financial situation.
Zimmerman contends that he shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin after the teen confronted him as he walked to his father's girlfriend's house. Were Judge Nelson to have accepted his account under Stand Your Ground, all criminal proceedings would have immediately stopped, and Zimmerman would have walked free.
But another unfavorable ruling by Nelson could have been interpreted by jurors as a sign of guilt. Waiving the hearing could also prevent the prosecution from picking apart Zimmerman's testimony.
Before the April hearing was waived, Zimmerman's defense set out to attack the credibility of witness 8, arguably the key witness in the upcoming trial.
Defense attorney Donald West asked the court for more information about the allegedly false account she gave attorneys. According to records obtained by ABC News she was on the phone with Martin as his confrontation with Zimmerman began. She claims he told her that he was scared of a strange man following him.
The state admitted that witness 8 lied when she stated that she did not attend Martin's funeral because of a medical issue and that there are no medical records to support that claim. The defense wanted Nelson to question prosecutors about how they first learned that this claim was not true, but Nelson refused.
The defense also asked for law enforecement biographies of both Zimmerman and Martin, in particular Martin's social media history. "It's time and money to get some of the information here and we are running out of both," said West.
In an earlier hearing the judge ruled that Zimmerman's defense could subpoena Martin's social media history but the undertaking is timely and expensive. Authorities agreed to hand over the documents to the judge so that she could review them and determine if the defense should have them.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-stuns-court-waives-stand-ground-hearing-trayvon-162305101--abc-news-topstories.html
|
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense.
|
I knew I could count on a Trayvon thread update once I saw that the defense waived Zimmerman's right to a "stand your ground" hearing. 
|
I would think Zimmerman would of had a better chance at the Stand Your Ground hearing where a judge who (theoretically) would rule without bias. From the facts we know, Zimmerman should be let go.
But then again, maybe they think the new judge would just be playing politics and would get shit on for dismissing the case and not letting it "see its day in court" since for some reason people think a drawn out sham of a trial is justice, even when there is not enough evidence that it wasn't self defense.
|
On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense.
I don't see why it would matter if the prosecution could see their case before trial. Both sides have access to all the same information and witnesses. And his story should remain the same during both the conference and trial, so I don't see why that would matter.
Am I misunderstanding something? I only have a basic understanding of the justice system from a couple of law courses I took.
|
On March 06 2013 05:13 farvacola wrote:I knew I could count on a Trayvon thread update once I saw that the defense waived Zimmerman's right to a "stand your ground" hearing.
sorry i was a little slow. just got back from court. ;-)
|
On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense.
This is basically right. If the Defense doesn't think that winning the stand your ground hearing is a slam dunk, then skipping it is probably a good idea. First, the hearing will basically be like a mini-trial and be very expensive in its own right. Second, and as you point out, every time that Zimmerman opens his mouth, potential impeachment material flies out. The less he talks, the better. Third, the Defense likely is factoring in burdens of proof. I haven't read the SYG law, but I'd be shocked if the burden to prove it wasn't on the Defense (just a matter of whether it is by a preponderance or some higher standard). Depending upon Florida's statutory scheme and what the prosecution has to prove, it may be that the easier way to victory is through the prosecution failing to prove its case as opposed to the defense proving SYG. If this is the case, then it definitely makes sense to roll the SYG hearing into the trial in chief.
|
On March 06 2013 05:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense. I don't see why it would matter if the prosecution could see their case before trial. Both sides have access to all the same information and witnesses. And his story should remain the same during both the conference and trial, so I don't see why that would matter. Am I misunderstanding something? I only have a basic understanding of the justice system from a couple of law courses I took.
There is a huge difference between the evidence/witnesses and the presentation of that evidence or those witnesses. In other words, the pre-trial hearing would have given the prosecution a fair number of cues in regards to the angle at which the defense would like to approach the case, and it would seem reasonable to think that the defense likely has some "tricks up their sleeve" in regards to how they are going to argue the evidence.
Edit: Also, like phreak and xDaunt have said, avoiding possible self-impeachment on the part of Zimmerman is probably a good move; he hasn't exactly shown himself to be the greatest with presentation.
|
On March 06 2013 05:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense. I don't see why it would matter if the prosecution could see their case before trial. Both sides have access to all the same information and witnesses. And his story should remain the same during both the conference and trial, so I don't see why that would matter. Am I misunderstanding something? I only have a basic understanding of the justice system from a couple of law courses I took.
prosecution is required to give pretty much everything to the defense, but, except for limited things, the same is not true for the defense. the biggest thing though is access to zimmerman. he has a 5th amendment right not to answer any questions by the prosecution. if he testified at the pre-trial hearing, he would waive that right and they could cross-examine him. there would have been a lot of benefit to the prosecution of having the defense lay out their case before trial.
of course, zimmerman is dumb and spoke to the police and media about the case, so they already have a lot of impeachment evidence. =P
|
On March 06 2013 05:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 05:16 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense. I don't see why it would matter if the prosecution could see their case before trial. Both sides have access to all the same information and witnesses. And his story should remain the same during both the conference and trial, so I don't see why that would matter. Am I misunderstanding something? I only have a basic understanding of the justice system from a couple of law courses I took. There is a huge difference between the evidence/witnesses and the presentation of that evidence or those witnesses. In other words, the pre-trial hearing would have given the prosecution a fair number of cues in regards to the angle at which the defense would like to approach the case, and it would seem reasonable to think that the defense likely has some "tricks up their sleeve" in regards to how they are going to argue the evidence.
More importantly, there is a real risk of inconsistency every time someone testifies. Try telling the same story 3 times over the course of a year. It is incredibly difficult to tell it the same way every time -- particularly when under examination. Criminal law typically boils down to issues of witness credibility, and pointing out inconsistent statements is the bread and butter of criminal attorneys.
|
On December 10 2012 13:23 Foblos wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in past discussion (I left when people were going nuts and didn't come back until the necro photo on December 4th), but from reading the parts of the conversation I've read it seems as though what is being conveyed is "Treyvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching the shit out of him, and Zimmerman, fearing for his life shot and killed Martin." Is this a correct synopsis?
If so, my question is "If this is the case, shouldn't a chest wound cause sufficient bleeding to soak Zimmerman who was under the victim?" I also wonder about the logistics of reaching for the gun in that situation, but I'll presume it was possible and optimal. The photo shown does not seem to indicate the blood I would expect from a chest wound roughly over the shooter, nor does the photo shown later where Zimmerman "clearly didn't have a broken nose."
Actually, no. In my experience (army medic, civilian paramedic) there is very little external bleeding from small diameter penetrating thoracic trauma (such as most bullets), or at least far less than most people expect. There may well be massive internal bleeding, but the body's reflexes to seal a hole in the chest wall works remarkably well especially with entrance wounds (which are generally smaller than exit wounds from a gunshot). Additionally, I imagine Zimmerman didn't remain under Martin for very long after shooting him to allow additional blood to fall onto him, but that's just speculation on my part.
|
United States3726 Posts
Huh... wow. I've been off this for a while, I'm shocked about the evidence tampering. Zimmerman is going to walk, and honestly, it looks like this is clearcut self-defense and overzealous prosecution.
|
|
|
What's the percentage that the defendant will prevail regardless of race?
|
On March 06 2013 10:32 Ettick wrote:What's the percentage that the defendant will prevail regardless of race?
"Nearly 70% of defendants using a stand-your-ground defense have gone free since the law passed in 2005, according to a Tampa Bay Times investigation. The same analysis found that the odds of proving a successful self-defense claim go up to 73% if the victim is black."
Very last paragraph on the second article. So 3% difference? So none really.
|
Yea but that's not sensationalist journalism Infernal_dream.... keep logic out of this
|
|
|
United States24757 Posts
I don't know any particulars about the area, nor the laws there, but it is possible that there are differences in the socioeconomic status of people of different races, and therefore, the likelihood that people of different races will commit certain crimes, and therefore, the likelihood that they will get hurt by someone 'standing their ground' legitimately.
In a perfect world (but one not perfect enough for there to be no need to stand your ground) the validity of someone trying to stand their ground will be completely independent of the race of the person who ended up getting shot. However, this may not be the case. Just because there was a higher percentage of successful defenses when the person who got shot was black does not necessarily mean that there is a racial prejudice in the legal or enforcement system. As always, we must be careful when trying to draw conclusions based off correlations.
|
On March 06 2013 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
this a ballsy move by the defense. they could have won the case outright if they had prevailed at this hearing. now the trial is basically an all or nothing proposition for zimmerman. however, they have not waived the immunity, which means they can file a similar motion after the prosecution rests, or after all evidence has been heard.
pros -- now the prosecution doesnt get to see their case before trial, or hear evidence from zimmerman that they can use to impeach him at trial.
cons -- now he has to go through trial, which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he remains on bail.
interesting move by the defense. This is basically right. If the Defense doesn't think that winning the stand your ground hearing is a slam dunk, then skipping it is probably a good idea. First, the hearing will basically be like a mini-trial and be very expensive in its own right. Second, and as you point out, every time that Zimmerman opens his mouth, potential impeachment material flies out. The less he talks, the better. Third, the Defense likely is factoring in burdens of proof. I haven't read the SYG law, but I'd be shocked if the burden to prove it wasn't on the Defense (just a matter of whether it is by a preponderance or some higher standard). Depending upon Florida's statutory scheme and what the prosecution has to prove, it may be that the easier way to victory is through the prosecution failing to prove its case as opposed to the defense proving SYG. If this is the case, then it definitely makes sense to roll the SYG hearing into the trial in chief.
Zimmerman's case would have to be based around self defense where the burden of proof is on the defense, not the prosecution. He has to prove it is more likely than not that he acted in self defense (51%). So it would be him who would have to prove his case and the prosecution needs to just show that is not true. My point is just that in either the hearing or the trial the burden of proof is on the defense since SYG would be an affirmative defense regardless.
A couple of questions for those more knowledgeable about SYG. Is there a different burden of proof compared to the hearing vs the trial? Second question, can SYG be used as a defense in the trial assuming there is either A. No pretrial hearing, or B. SYG was ruled not applicable in the pretrial hearing.
|
On March 06 2013 11:21 micronesia wrote:
I don't know any particulars about the area, nor the laws there, but it is possible that there are differences in the socioeconomic status of people of different races, and therefore, the likelihood that people of different races will commit certain crimes, and therefore, the likelihood that they will get hurt by someone 'standing their ground' legitimately.
In a perfect world (but one not perfect enough for there to be no need to stand your ground) the validity of someone trying to stand their ground will be completely independent of the race of the person who ended up getting shot. However, this may not be the case. Just because there was a higher percentage of successful defenses when the person who got shot was black does not necessarily mean that there is a racial prejudice in the legal or enforcement system. As always, we must be careful when trying to draw conclusions based off correlations.
I was about try to think of a nice way to say that black people might just be more prone to commit crimes where they would be victim to a stand your ground hearing. This did it pretty well though.
Although the second statistic where there is only a 3% difference makes it easier to assume that's its about as racially unbiased as you could have hoped it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
