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

[csziggy]

With no attorney present?

I didn't know it went down that way, so I'm guessing the police were there to place him under arrest? How did I miss that?

I wonder if he was mirandized and then allowed to tell his side and he waived his attorney privlege? That's shaky ground...

I'm not sure how his apprehension went but remember, he'd tried to talk to AC without attorneys before he was arrested:

The attorneys said that Zimmerman repeatedly ignored their legal advice.

"We learned that he had called Sean Hannity of Fox News directly -- not through us," Uhrig said. "We believe that he spoke directly with Sean off the record and [Hannity's] not even willing to tell us what our client told him."

Uhrig said the "final straw" was Zimmerman's attempt to set up a meeting with the special prosecutor on the case, Angela Corey. But Uhrig said that Zimmerman had contacted the special prosecutor directly to come in to speak with them, as well. "We were a bit astonished and had some conversation back and forth with the prosecutor's office," Uhrig said. "They told us what we expected, '[that they] were not going to talk to a criminal or [defendant] without counsel.'"

Uhrig said that Zimmerman told officials at the prosecutor's office that Uhrig and Sonner were not his lawyers, but "his legal advisers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...orge-zimmermans-attorneys-quit_n_1416031.html

I think GZ is a loose cannon and does not want to follow anyone's directions!

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[Nova]

George Zimmerman can be impeached with any statements that contradict a statement he says in trial. Which is why any person he has told the story to could be deposed. If they reveal that they were told contradictory or incriminating statements by GZ, they could be called by the State as impeachment witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Hornsby. It's very kind of you to explain.

 

[csziggy]

Can someone provide me with a link to this new Trayvon standing when shot permutation of the story? I seem to have missed it. Thanks.

It's a Daily Beast story but we've been reminded that is not an MSM site so I am reluctant to provide the link.

 

[Nova]

Thanks Nova - the post can be found on thread #25, post #661 if I'm not mistaken.


~jmo~

Yes, you cited it above and I actually went and looked it up. I mention this just so you know some people actually do appreciate and use your (and Mr. Hornsby's) hard work.

 

[jaded cat]

O'Mara said a reasonable bond based on Zimmerman's finances would be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range.


"He's entitled to conditions of release and I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 would be reasonable and up to $200,000," said Eaton.



Read more: http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30924042/detail.html#ixzz1sWSjZCYl

Wow, who knew bond was related to what a defendant can pay? I've never heard of such a thing!

 

[Nova]

You're thinking of statements against interest (not really covered by the hearsay rule). This is the party-opponent exemption.

I'm not totally delusion, LOL:

http://www.legalgist.com/hearsay-exceptions

Hearsay exception:

...Statement against interest: a statement against declarant’s own pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest; in criminal cases, a statement against penal interest must be corroborated if offered to exculpate A....

(Emphasis added.)

But I do understand what Mr. Hornsby is saying: the second-hand statements of Taaefe and the Zimmermans are more likely to be used because their inconsistencies impeach GZ's testimony.

 

[csziggy]

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.

Apparently not - I got a chance to look it up:

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

BBM

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

BBM

That would seem to indicate that anyone who got immunity on the basis of an unconstitutional law could have their case reviewed.

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[Nova]

Wow, who knew bond was related to what a defendant can pay? I've never heard of such a thing!

Bond is supposed to serve as an incentive for the defendant to appear at trial. The poorer the defendant, the less incentive required.

But that's just one factor and is weighed against others, including the severity of the alleged crime. I think. IANAL.

 

[Karmady]

I'm not totally delusion, LOL:

http://www.legalgist.com/hearsay-exceptions

Hearsay exception:



(Emphasis added.)

But I do understand what Mr. Hornsby is saying: the second-hand statements of Taaefe and the Zimmermans are more likely to be used because their inconsistencies impeach GZ's testimony.

The attorney I talked to would say "if their inconsistencies impeach," not "because." And he would also say that the inconsistency must be very, very material - direct contradiction of a material fact. Otherwise the trial testimony is better.

 

[Nova]

Apparently not - I got a chance to look it up....

But other factors, such as the attachment of double jeopardy, might also apply.

I think we need a constitutional expert for this one.

 

[rhornsby]

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.

IF, and it's a big IF, people came forward that would testify Trayvon had a "reputation for violence"; then such testimony would be admissible. Simon v. State, 38 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2010)

Otherwise, testimony of specific violent acts is inadmissible unless it could be proven the defendant (GZ) knew about them. See Smith v. State, 410 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

 

[Nova]

The attorney I talked to would say "if their inconsistencies impeach," not "because." And he would also say that the inconsistency must be very, very material - direct contradiction of a material fact. Otherwise the trial testimony is better.

I thought the "if" was implied by the way i constructed the sentence. If not, I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Karmady]

Apparently not - I got a chance to look it up:

BBM


BBM

That would seem to indicate that anyone who got immunity on the basis of an unconstitutional law could have their case reviewed.

IMO, JMO, etc.

ex post facto laws are constitutionally prohibited in criminal cases. Whether or not the repeal of a law operates as an ex post facto law is the question here and I think, if you asked 100 lawyers, you'd get a 75-25 split in favor of it being an ex post fact law. jmojmojmo (more so than usual)

 

[rhornsby]

Wow, who knew bond was related to what a defendant can pay? I've never heard of such a thing!

Florida Constitution, Article 1 (Declaration of Rights), Section 14: "every person charged with a crime... shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions."

 

[Karmady]

I thought the "if" was implied by the way i constructed the sentence. If not, I appreciate the clarification.

I'm sorry. I did not mean that in a serious way at all. He would say it that way, but who cares? lol I'm in Vegas....woot!

 

[RANCH]

I'm not totally delusion, LOL:

http://www.legalgist.com/hearsay-exceptions

Hearsay exception:



(Emphasis added.)

But I do understand what Mr. Hornsby is saying: the second-hand statements of Taaefe and the Zimmermans are more likely to be used because their inconsistencies impeach GZ's testimony.

What if friends and family get on the stand and say that they never heard GZ say those exact things but when they were on those TV shows they thought that what they said would help him? No impeachment. Maybe?

 

[m00c0w]

I'm not totally delusion, LOL:

http://www.legalgist.com/hearsay-exceptions

Hearsay exception:



(Emphasis added.)

But I do understand what Mr. Hornsby is saying: the second-hand statements of Taaefe and the Zimmermans are more likely to be used because their inconsistencies impeach GZ's testimony.

My apologies. I had it backwards. Party admissions are considered non-hearsay while statements against interest are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I believe the declarant must also be unavailable for statements against interest to apply, though. Can someone confirm?

 

[lauriej]

--mr. hornsby-----this "ability to pay" makes no sense to me.

--if so, how did the state of florida ever think kc had the ability to come up w/ her portion of $500,000.00??

--what bond do YOU think is appropriate for 2nd degree murder?

--and shouldn't george ( allegedly suffering from PTSD, insomnia, depression ETC ) have to undergo a psych eval ?? before being ever released?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Orlando attorney Sherri Dewitt said prosecutors will have to reveal some of their case at the hearing.

“The prosecution will have to show, to some extent, their evidence if they are going to argue that he shouldn't make bond,” she said.

“I think he will probably make bond,” she said. “In Florida, the amount of bond is related to his ability to post, so it could be anywhere from $1,000 or more.”

 

[Adrienne37]

Florida Constitution, Article 1 (Declaration of Rights), Section 14: "every person charged with a crime... shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions."

Mr. Hornsby - what do you believe Zimmerman's chances will be at the bond hearing in the morning? Thanks!!

 

[daisy7]

Gov. Rick Scott has tapped Okaloosa County Sheriff Larry Ashley to serve on a task force to review the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law.

Ashley is the only law enforcement representative on the 17-member panel, which was formed to examine the law in light of the Trayvon Martin case.

(snip)

Ashley said he doesn’t know if the state’s use-of-force laws need any changes.

“I think that will be part of the review,” he said. “Does it need any clarification or is it good as it stands?”

He said he could not think of an example in which a resident in Okaloosa County stood their ground under that law. However, he said law officers encounter other use-of-force laws regularly.

Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/law-49056-force-ground.html#ixzz1sXXUBuk9