17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #27

[Phoenixfla]

Everything is hearsay until it is testified to in court.

A police report would not be hearsay.

 

[uvamerica]

Got my lawyers mixed up. LOL

:seeya:

 

[Dr.Fessel]

A police report would not be hearsay.

I think anything someone hears someone say is hearsay until it is submitted to the court.

 

[Phoenixfla]

Not when his minions are out there saying specifically that Zimmerman is telling them this and Zimmerman is telling them that. Just wait until they are subpoenaed as witnesses and have to get on the stand and be subjected to Angela Corey's questioning. That'd be worth watching on pay-per-view.

If you have any doubt about this whatsoever, I'll refer you back to thread #25, post #661. It's all laid out there in black and white.



~jmo~

Why in the world would they have to testify? They were not there. That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Adrienne37]

What would you have Mr. O'Mara do? His client is clearly losing the PR war. Would you have a defense attorney let the entire world decide his client is guilty without adding a contrary view to the media gestalt?

The kind of defense attorney you seem to want him to be is like Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. Great book, but very different era.

(None of this is to suggest I believe any of the defenses offered for GZ, just that I recognize that Mr. O'Mara is doing his job on a high-profile case.)

What would I have Mr. O'Mara do? Stay off of every TV program out there. He worries about his client getting a fair trial yet he's contributing to that as well. You don't see the prosecutors out there at every opportunity. I can understand damage control to a certain point but whatever happened to trying a case in the courtroom where it belongs? How you can claim that you want all the records sealed yet go on national TV repeatedly? It doesn't make any sense to me. Don't get wrong, I happen to like Mr. O'Mara a lot and I'm very glad that Zimmerman has him because Lord knows I want him to have a fair trial but it's just very contradictory to ask for records to be sealed when you won't stay off the TV.


~jmo~

 

[gitana1]

<modsnip>Sanford Chief of Police and the city of Sanford; an official explanation is front and center on their web site specifically addressing why he was NOT arrested here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html.
It clearly states:


It doesn't say that he wasn't charged, it says that he wasn't ARRESTED. According to this sources, and countless others, he was NOT arrested, and I would presume that Sanford PD has more accurate information on that than just an assumption that handcuffs equal an arrest.

Let me try to be even clearer, because it is very confusing! Here's some case law on what constitutes an arrest. It is an interesting subject:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case04.htm

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-The Miranda case is a very important case to law enforcement. The United States Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the "Miranda Warnings" given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, "custody" is an arrest or when freedom is significantly deprived to be equivalent to an arrest. "Interrogation" is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.

Thompson v. Keohane, (94-6615), 516 U.S. 99 (1996)-There are two inquiries that are essential in determining if a person is “in custody” in regards to the Miranda ruling. If either of these indicate the person is “in custody”, the officer must read the Miranda rights-

• The court must determine the circumstances surrounding the interrogation (i.e. in custody type treatment, handcuffing, locking in a cell, and etc.).
• The court must determine if a reasonable person would have felt not at liberty to end the interrogation and leave.

Yarborough v. Alvarado, (02-1684) 541 U.S. 652 (2004)-Alvarado, a 17yr old, was brought to the station by his parents to be questioned about a robbery and murder. His parents remained in the waiting room while Alvarado was questioned for 2 hours without the Miranda warning. He confessed to being involved in the incident. He was allowed to leave. The US Supreme Court ruled that the trial court properly applied the Thompson v. Keohane standard in determining that Alvarado was not in custody.

http://www.caselaw4cops.net/questioning/miranda.htm

ARREST To stop; to seize; to deprive one of his liberty by virtue of legal authority.
Whether a detention was an investigatory stop or a full-blown arrest is a question of law subject to de novo review. See U.S. v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F.2d 1216, 20-22 (11th Cir.'93). Courts have stated that 'n determining 'when' a person is arrested, we ask at what point, 'in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed he [she] was not free to leave.' ' U.S. v. Hastamorir, 881 F.2d 1551, 1556 (11th Cir.'89) (quoting U.S. v. Hammock, 860 F.2d 390, 93 (11th Cir.'88)).



It appears that some Court's unfortunate articulation of the 'reasonable person/free to leave' test for judging arrests resulted from collapsing the Royer-Mendenhall standard for judging when a 'seizure' occurs into the test governing when such a seizure qualifies as an arrest. See United States v. Hammock, 860 F.3d at 393 (stating that an arrest occurs when ' 'a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave.'') (U.S., 446 U.S. at 554 (Stewart & Rehnquist, JJ., concurring)).



An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person 'would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree ... [ordinarily] associate[d] with [a] formal arrest.' U.S. v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir.'88) (quoting U.S. v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 924 ('88)); see George E. Dix, Nonarrest Investigatory Detention in Search and Seizure Law, 1985 Duke L.J. 849, 927 ('Dix'); accord Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, ('84) (a person is 'in custody' for Miranda purposes when he is 'subjected to the restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest').



The inquiry is simply whether a reasonable person would have believed that he was 'under arrest' (as that term is commonly understood) at the time of his seizure. U.S. v. Patterson, 648 F.2d 625, 632 (9th Cir.'81); see generally Williamson, 43 Ohio St.L.J. at 815-16.



Thus, if the circumstances surrounding a seizure would be viewed by a reasonable person as indicating that he would not be free to leave for an indefinite, or for an extended period of time, then that person has been placed under arrest. See 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure Section(s) 3.8 at 297 (1984) ('[A] stopping differs from an arrest not in the incompleteness of the seizure but in the brevity of it.'); cf. U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 684-86, ('85) (noting that an investigative stop implies a 'temporary' detention, typically of short duration).



It is not the actual length of time of the detention that is the key here, but, rather, whether a reasonable person would perceive, while detained, on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (including, very importantly, the actions and representations of the seizing officers, see U.S. v. Brunson, 549 F.2d 348, 58 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 842 ('77)), that he is 'under arrest' as commonly understood, in that he is likely to be detained for an indefinite or extended period of time.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a100.htm
(Much more at link).

 

[LynnM]

Ive seen afew comments on Trayvon's parents (Mom) refusing to meet with George. I do think it would be unwise and so easily misconstrued on so many levels,,Its Wise to defer for now. Martins want to get answers to things in a court trial at this point...

Having said that tho..Once the trial is over and decisions are made on accountability of this shooter of their son..i would not put it past them to meet george. They are walking talking examples of spiritual human beings and I could see them meet with their sons killer :heartluv: These people hold no malice in their hearts and I so admire their grace and dignity :bow:

I think these kinds of meetings can be beneficial for both parties but only if there has been a conviction, some time has passed, and there has been careful preparation for the meeting by a victim-offender reconciliation program counselor.

 

[Nova]

So he hasn't gotten a bachelor's degree, he hasn't gotten an associate degree and he had a party to celebrate a graduation that had not taken place? In what way did he think he had graduated from Seminole State College? If he told the party goers he graduated he lied. If he was honest about needing more credits and held a graduation party anyway, then that is just plain weird. Much like the high school graduation party that was held when Casey Anthony hadn't graduated.

It's not that weird. We attended our son's graduation from college and threw him a party. A year later he casually mentioned that he hadn't actually graduated because he still owed one professor a 5-page paper.

(You can imagine our response! I was in grad school at the time and accustomed to spitting out 5-page papers in less than an hour.)

I don't think he meant to lie. I think he planned to do the paper in a couple of days, so walking at graduation was no big deal. (And he did do the paper, just a year later and with me standing over him!)

When I was teaching I had a lot of students who celebrated graduation on schedule, but then finished their degrees over the summer.

 

[m00c0w]

I think anything someone hears someone say is hearsay until it is submitted to the court.

Yep. But there are certain exemptions that allow certain types of hearsay to be admitted as evidence.

 

[m00c0w]

It's not that weird. We attended our son's graduation from college and threw him a party. A year later he casually mentioned that he hadn't actually graduated because he still owed one professor a 5-page paper.

(You can imagine our response! I was in grad school at the time and accustomed to spitting out 5-page papers in less than an hour.)

I don't think he meant to lie. I think he planned to do the paper in a couple of days, so walking at graduation was no big deal. (And he did do the paper, just a year later and with me standing over him!)

When I was teaching I had a lot of students who celebrated graduation on schedule, but then finished their degrees over the summer.

This. Generally, you can make arrangements to walk if you're only missing a couple of credits (especially if it was because of a failure the semester of graduation and you've already paid for and arranged everything). The student will walk, but will finish up what they owe the next term.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Why in the world would they have to testify? They were not there. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's say George is in jail and he tells an inmate he planned days in advance to kill Trayvon. The snitch goes and makes a deal with the SA to testify against George.

Now if George's family or friends get on TV and say well George told me this or that then just like the snitch the SA can call them to the stand and ask them about the things they said George told them.

 

[belle3]

does anyone have a quick link to gz domestic violence reports. tia

 

[Karmady]

No I wasn't saying that they were accessible to the public. I was referring to the Department of Juvenile Justice's statement that Martin had no arrest record. In my state, juvenile records are not accessible to the public. However, that is not the case in Flordia. From the pamphlet I linked to:

"As a general rule, public access to juvenile records is limited, but there are exceptions. All traffic violations by youth are public record and are treated the same as adult traffic violations. Until 1994, law enforcement agencies could only release the name of juveniles ages 16 and older who had been charged with one of a few specific crimes. In 1994, a change in laws governing the confidentiality of juvenile records eliminated the age restriction and expanded what juvenile records could be disclosed. The law now allows law enforcement agencies to disclose to the public the name, photograph, address, and the arrest report of any child arrested for a felony. This same information may be disclosed if a child has been found by a court to have
committed three or more misdemeanors. This information may also be disclosed for youth who are transferred to the adult system. Criminal justice agencies may have access to all FDLE juvenile criminal records for criminal justice purposes. The general public may be provided access to criminal justice histories by FDLE for a fee, which can include any juvenile
arrests that FDLE is authorized under statute to provide."

Agreed, sort of. I was just coming with a similar link lol. So unless a juvenile has been "taken into custody" (which is how it is stated in the 2012 Sunshine Manual) for a felony, in which case the arrest report can be disclosed (I'm honestly not sure whether it's still disclosable if the felony charge is subsequently diverted and/or pled down, but I think there's a good chance it would not be), or convicted of three or more misdemeanors, the juvenile's records are not subject to disclosure, including pursuant to a FOIA request.

I assume you are in some way involved in the juvenile justice system, so you will know whether juveniles are often taken into custody for a felony in their first, or even second or third rodeo, if they have not committed aggravated assualt, killed someone, or something of similar magnitude. The first step, ime, is a misdemeanor charge followed by "teen court" or juvenile court and some kind of community service. Here, it is common for a juvenile offender to go to teen court and be sentenced to write letters of apology and do some type of community service, including themselves serving on the teen court. Next is possibly another "teen court" or juvenile court and a diversion. Followed by another, and another. In each teen court or diversion, upon completion, the juvenile criminal charges are dismissed as though they had never happened. So no disclosure. Imo, for a juvenile to actually be "convicted" of three misdemeanors would require at least 6 consecutive misdemeanor charges of a relatively serious nature. In other words, no juvenile will be convicted of three misdemeanors until they have committed at least 6, and probably more.

I think those who are not involved in the system have no idea how easy the courts are on juveniles.

More to the point, though, I think it is very doubtful that unless Trayvon (or any other juvenile) had previously committed multiple, relatively significant crimes, at least some of which involved significant physical harm to others (MUCH more than a punch in the nose to a peer), he would not have a disclosable juvenile record--FOIA request or no. Not saying he did have one. Just saying that the absence of a disclosable record isn't saying much in the world of juvenile justice, imo.

And that's assuming that a DOJ disclosure of the "absence" of a criminal record is permissible. I have my doubts about that, as well. jmoo

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Yep. But there are certain exemptions that allow certain types of hearsay to be admitted as evidence.

Right, the hearsay that is usually not allowed is where the person who said something or the person who heard something can not be called to the stand because they are dead or out of the country or something.

As long as the person who said it and the person who heard it are both in court and can take the stand they let it in.

 

[Phoenixfla]

What Trayvon was suspended for was never relevent in this case unless he assaulted a teacher/principle/resource officer or any adult working in the school.

I disagree. A jury should be able to get a mental picture of both GZ and TM to be able to help reconstruct what may have been said to each other, and what actions they may have taken. A jury should be able to know if EITHER of them had aggressive tendencies.

 

[Nova]

IIRC.. Atticus Finch defended an innocent man....A man of color who just so happened to be falsely accused of raping a white woman..JMHO

Yes, I've read the book. I think it's one of the greatest books every written by an American, and ranks with the best of Fitzgerald and Faulkner.

HOWEVER, my point was that Finch represents a type of defense attorney from another era, one before 24/7 news cycles and Nancy Grace and internet blogs and twitter and email "updates" of breaking news.

If you remember the story, Finch is a man of few words who doesn't say much about his defense until the middle of the trial. I don't think he could afford to hold his cards so close to his vest nowadays. Not if he wanted any hope of a jury who hadn't already made up their minds.

 

[Nova]

I agree that he's got to do something, but sadly I am afraid that with the help of Taefe, and Oliver and GZ's family out there he really doesn't have anything substantial to work with at this point, and maybe not at all.

True. But for every 12 minute segment in which Mr. O'Mara appears, he keeps Taaefe off the TV for that period of time.

 

[mercuriod]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Tr...ring/-/1637132/11211116/-/idjec2/-/index.html

The family of Trayvon Martin will sit in the same courtroom on Friday as George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed their son, for the first time.

Benjamin Crump said the Martin family is attending the hearing at the request of special prosecutor Angela Corey. Crump said the family is bracing themselves to be the same room with Zimmerman and will be hoping he doesn't get bond.

 

[Nova]

I don't believe that's true.

I believe if the law is on the books when the incident occurred, it stands for the incident if it applies.

That's a good question for one of our legal experts. gitana? Somebody?

I assume that if a law were overturned, the prosecution would be bound by the new ruling.

But what about the defense? Can a defendant claim he was acting legally under the law as written at the time of the incident, even if that law is later overturned?

If so, there must be exceptions. Wasn't Michael Skakel charged and convicted as an adult, even though the law at the time of the Moxley murder would have treated him as a juvenile?

 

[Karmady]

Let's say George is in jail and he tells an inmate he planned days in advance to kill Trayvon. The snitch goes and makes a deal with the SA to testify against George.

Now if George's family or friends get on TV and say well George told me this or that then just like the snitch the SA can call them to the stand and ask them about the things they said George told them.

I had a long conversation about this precise issue with a certified trial attorney (who now knows that I am completely insane lol). His take is that, of course, the witnesses can be called and questioned about conversations they had with GZ. If nothing else, the conversations are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as party admissions or statements against interest. And, importantly, now that they've gone on national television stating that they have had such conversations, they cannot deny them and, if they did, the interviews can be used to impeach them. So they will have to testify about the conversations.

However, he also believes that the witnesses' in-court testimony is what will be admissible about the conversations, and that the interviews themselves can only come in to impeach and, even then, only if there is a direct contradiction of a material fact in the trial version v. the television version. Even in that case, he said, he's seen judges go both ways. In his view, the in-court testimony is the best evidence and the court will either not consider the tv appearances at all or, if they do, it would have to be an absolutely blatant contradiction of a precise material fact that would allow it to be used for impeachment. In other words, the judge isn't going to say that just because his version of the conversation in court added or omitted details, the television interview comes in. It would have to be much more critical than that. jm"his"tc