17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #24

[gitana1]

jjenny, I had to remove the blog link but please read my 2nd post above.

You are missing a very, very important part here. The evidentiary hearing is everything to GZ. If the judge finds during the evidentiary hearing that GZ met the burden of proof in that hearing, there will be no trial. Game over.

All I know to tell you for sure is that it is an affirmative defense. The rules are different.

I'm done trying to explain it. Maybe gitana or AZ can help clarify better than I have been able to.

I hope they see this and respond. I think jjenny is saying that if the case gets past the prelim. the statute itself shifts the burden to the prosecutor of what would otherwise be the defendant's burden of showing self-defense. gitana/az?????

Beach explained it perfectly. The prosecution has the burden to prove the elements of the crime. If they have or can do so, the defense can still be found not guilty based on an an affirmative defense. Like, let's say the prosecution can prove and does prove every element of murder. Then, the defense still has the option of asserting an affirmative defense. If they do assert such a defense, the defendant has the burden to prove the elements of that affirmative defense.

 

[songline]

Songline, how do you know for sure that the young girl did not try to call someone to help?

The way I read it is the first person who mad contact with her war Mr. Martin
When he recieved the phone record of Trayvons Calles he wanted to see .
who Trayvon was talking to.

Yes she said she tried to call the police and they did not respond.

After going to his funeral she collapsed.

AFTER 3 weeks she was on TV after giving her account of things to the police.


Am I going to believe everything she sais NO.
Here is why she did nt freak out and keeplooking to what happend to her boyfriend.
Everyone cryes at a funeral, she took it hard.
I think that when they got off the phone she had no caue to worry so she did not worry.

 

[frenchvixen]

No. Or if GZ hadn't gone to Target, or if Trayvon had gone to the store later or earlier.

If frogs had pockets they'd carry watches.

So basically what you're saying is that TM was in the wrong for going to the store and getting some snacks. Something that we do everyday without thinking twice about it means that if we end up dead it's our fault. I don't understand this line of thinking.. blaming the victim.

 

[LynnM]

True it will show the time she talked to him but with all her trauma, she may not remember it correctly.Also isn't her retelling what TM said hearsay?

One of the legal commentators on HLN said that Trayvon's excited utterances (ie, "He's behind me again!") could be admitted plus she can testify to what she heard Trayvon and Zimmerman say to each other.

Here's an article about the call where ABC reports that they have seen the phone records and show that Trayvon received a call from her at 7:12. They show a picture with her number whited out. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T4j9n9Xq4Vh

 

[katydid23]

I do too katy. The poor little girl's boyfriend was shot to death and she was hospitalized. It is supposed to be a victim friendly forum.

Well, in this case the victim is also a material witness. And if her testimony is
allowed then the entire case may rest upon her description of the events that night. And upon her memory and her veracity and her credibility. So I see no problem with sussing out the timeline surrounding the phone call.

 

[Velouria]

Well, if you accuse someone of digging a grave for a 15 yr old, then that does feel like an unnecessary remark, imo. I think it is okay to question the timeline of past events, especially if that 15 yr old is going to become a material witness, and one that the entire case might rest upon.

If I am going to think as a defense attorney might, then I am going to have those same questions. How reliable are those memories of the phone conversation? How exact is the wording? Especially if it conflicts with GZ.

I see no problem with someone having questions about her upcoming testimony. She is going to come under intense scrutiny soon enough if her story is admitted into evidence.

It's one thing to question her recall, but I think it's quite another to repeatedly insinuate that a 15 year-old is somehow at fault for not contacting SPD immediately, as though she could have saved Trayvon's life. That just isn't fair, IMO.

 

[Karmady]

Beach explained it perfectly. The prosecution has the burden to prove the elements of the crime. If they have or can do so, the defense can still be found not guilty based on an an affirmative defense. Like, let's say the prosecution can prove and does prove every element of murder. Then, the defense still has the option of asserting an affirmative defense. If they do assert such a defense, the defendant has the burden to prove the elements of that affirmative defense.

Thanks gitana. So speaking specifically of SYG, can the statute still be asserted at trial if the defense fails to meet its preponderance burden at the prelim? And, if so, does the fact that it is an immunity statute and not an affirmative defense shift the burden to the prosecution to prove, at trial, that immunity does not attach beyond a reasonable doubt? TIA!

 

[shadowraiths]

Isn't the girlfriend story hearsay as well?She is retelling what TM told her, unless it is taped it will be her version.

I'm not sure that would be the case in this instance. If she is called to testify, I suspect, she would be questioned about what she heard. Imo, the best she can testify to, is that she heard Trayvon ask "some guy" why he was following him, and that she heard "some guy's" response. However, I don't think she could explicitly state that "some guy" was GZ. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether that "some guy" was, indeed GZ. In other words, she would be testifying to what she "heard" not what she was "told."

Otoh, arguably, since she was the last person Trayvon spoke with before he was shot, the hearsay rule wrt what Trayvon described to her (i.e., "some guy" is following me), could conceivably be put forth as a "dying declaration" as opposed to hearsay.

The above, of course, is nothing more than a guess, as IANAL. Though, hopefully the attys among us would be willing to correct and/or clarify.



.

 

[gitana1]

I would think that the tapes/ phone records would be brought into court and she would be questioned about them, as was Amber Frey in Scott Peterson's trial. In that case, her testimony is not hearsay. But maybe Gitana or AZLawyer will clarify for us.

What she heard Zimmerman say will come in as it is an admission by the defendant and thus, not hearsay. The statements of Trayvon should come in as a hearsay exception under Florida rules of evidence rule 90.804, declarant unavailable.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Well, if you accuse someone of digging a grave for a 15 yr old, then that does feel like an unnecessary remark, imo. I think it is okay to question the timeline of past events, especially if that 15 yr old is going to become a material witness, and one that the entire case might rest upon.

If I am going to think as a defense attorney might, then I am going to have those same questions. How reliable are those memories of the phone conversation? How exact is the wording? Especially if it conflicts with GZ.

I see no problem with someone having questions about her upcoming testimony. She is going to come under intense scrutiny soon enough if her story is admitted into evidence.

I respect your thoughts and feelings, but at the same time, we are all expressing our thoughts and feelings. What that poster said is no where near as bad as what I have seen posted and I still respected that posters thoughts and feelings.

I've seen posts where someone has gotten snippy with me and I laugh it off. When you deal with an emotional case... you are going to have emotional statements. What that poster said was not a personal attack though.

You can question this 15-year-old victim all you want? I don't have to agree with it... nor do you have to agree with my opposition with it? That is what is great about this forum.

MOO

 

[gitana1]

Isn't the girlfriend story hearsay as well?She is retelling what TM told her, unless it is taped it will be her version.

Her statement is hearsay but if she testifies in court, what she says is not hearsay as it will not be an out of court statement. What she tells about what she heard Zimmerman and Trayvon say are either not hearsay or a hearsay exception. It comes in.

 

[highflyer]

Well, in this case the victim is also a material witness. And if her testimony is
allowed then the entire case may rest upon her description of the events that night. And upon her memory and her veracity and her credibility. So I see no problem with sussing out the timeline surrounding the phone call.

This is a child, a minor. She may well testify, but since when did berating minors become all right to do here?

 

[gitana1]

I'm not sure that would be the case in this instance. If she is called to testify, I suspect, she would be questioned about what she heard. Imo, the best she can testify to, is that she heard Trayvon ask "some guy" why he was following him, and that she heard "some guy's" response. However, I don't think she could explicitly state that "some guy" was GZ. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether that "some guy" was, indeed GZ. In other words, she would be testifying to what she "heard" not what she was "told."

Otoh, arguably, since she was the last person Trayvon spoke with before he was shot, the hearsay rule wrt what Trayvon described to her (i.e., "some guy" is following me), could conceivably be put forth as a "dying declaration" as opposed to hearsay.

The above, of course, is nothing more than a guess, as IANAL. Though, hopefully the attys among us would be willing to correct and/or clarify.

.

What she heard Trayvon say would be unlikely to be considered a dying declaration because he was not dying when he spoke. But that's okay, it still comes in.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Thank goodness I was talking to my grandson and missed FT. What new and interesting things did he have to say?

I am curious as to why FT has vehemently defended GZ from the very beginning. There has to be more to this than friendship, in my opinion. He uses words like "our" and "we" etc, as if he is connected at the hip to GZ and his defense. I don't get it, but I think he protests too much and may think he is protecting himself from something. Some have pondered whether he might have alerted GZ about Trayvon. Could he have seen him in the complex that day and wanted GZ to check him out?

 

[songline]

Like the original decision not to charge GZ? I don't think the girl made stuff up. Attorneys know the phone records will show who called who and when and how long the call lasted. That's one thing that can't be swept under the rug!

As far as her being 'not that worried', maybe she hasn't had the life experiences that would give her insight and make her worried. After all, she is only 15.

Isabelle I am not trying to be unkind but MIAMI is no longer the Riviera.
It is a drug center and the kids are really aware of what i going on.
she is not under a rock, or in Hicksville.
She know a man is following me and the phone goes off ----- is not good...
but she also knows a man is following me, he is gone now
talk to you later is -------nothing to worry about.

ARE YOU ASKING why do I think someone got to her before the police???
Because Trayvon did not have a voice, she does.

 

[legalmania]

I know what hearsay is in general. But, the hearsay exceptions when someone dies is or can be different, right?

Yes, IMO I would think the judge might require written or verbal evidence. Unless there are several witnesses that were able to collaborate the story. It's can be very confusing without a death, needless to say with a death.

 

[Karmady]

What she heard Zimmerman say will come in as it is an admission by the defendant and thus, not hearsay. The statements of Trayvon should come in as a hearsay exception under Florida rules of evidence rule 90.804, declarant unavailable.

Thanks for this, too. Which subsection of the exceptions do you think it gets in under? I think they are a little different than the federal rules.

 

[RANCH]

One of the legal commentators on HLN said that Trayvon's excited utterances (ie, "He's behind me again!") could be admitted plus she can testify to what she heard Trayvon and Zimmerman say to each other.

Here's an article about the call where ABC reports that they have seen the phone records and show that Trayvon received a call from her at 7:12. They show a picture with her number whited out. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T4j9n9Xq4Vh

BBM
So Trayvons girlfriend heard him say "He's behind me again". I've never heard that quote before, and it's not in the link provided.

 

[highflyer]

I am curious as to why FT has vehemently defended GZ from the very beginning. There has to be more to this than friendship, in my opinion. He uses words like "our" and "we" etc, as if he is connected at the hip to GZ and his defense. I don't get it, but I think he protests too much and may think he is protecting himself from something. Some have pondered whether he might have alerted GZ about Trayvon. Could he have seen him in the complex that day and wanted GZ to check him out?

I have wondered about his choice of words too. He makes himself a part of what transpired with the way he phrases things. It's odd.

 

[gitana1]

Thanks gitana. So speaking specifically of SYG, can the statute still be asserted at trial if the defense fails to meet its preponderance burden at the prelim? And, if so, does the fact that it is an immunity statute and not an affirmative defense shift the burden to the prosecution to prove, at trial, that immunity does not attach beyond a reasonable doubt? TIA!

It is an affirmative defense. It's part of the affirmative defense called "self defense". It is an expansion of that affirmative defense.

And yes, from what I understand, if Zimmerman does not prevail at the prelim with that defense, he can still assert it during trial and allow the jury to decide.

Usually, it's hard to win at prelim. It's easier to win with such a defense at trial.

Here's a link: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html