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

[rhornsby]

--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.”

I agree with Eaton, $20K would be appropriate. Should he be required to sit for a psyche eval? Nope. He hasn't been convicted of anything.

 

[rhornsby]

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

100% will get a bond. Probably GPS or some other ticky tack additional condition of bond.

 

[Emma Peel]

Mark is the man.

We'll be holding you to that one.

 

[Karmady]

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?

I THINK a witness taking the 5th is "unavailable." But, as I mentioned, I'm in Vegas :jail:

 

[rhornsby]

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~

While it may be true you do not see the prosecutors out there giving press conferences (although the press conference to announce the charges looked like a Republican keynote address), you do see Crump, Natalie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. out there non-stop calling for "justice for Trayvon."

So given that chorus of quasi-prosecutors, I do not blame Mark O'Mara one iota.

 

[csziggy]

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

I think we need a constitutional expert for this one.

That's why I thought it would mostly apply to people who got immunity from prosecution because of a law like SYG. Since they had NOT been tried, there would be no double jeopardy.

But you're right, we need a constitutional expert - and they might have some questions about this one!

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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?

Then they would say why did you feel you had to get on TV and lie about your friend or family member?

They would play the video and say well that is real funny since abc fits right in with the evidence we have and now you are saying it was not true?

 

[Phoenixfla]

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

Thanks for the summary. I was wrong then.

 

[csziggy]

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)

A repeal is different than being declared unconstitutional, though. Yes, if the Florida legislature repeals the SYG law, the change in status does not apply to events that happened while in effect.

But if a case covered goes through the courts and the courts declare it unconstitutional, then as I read the references I gave above, it is as though the law never existed. Since this law's effect is mostly to immunize people against prosecution, then I would expect that cases in which people have availed themselves of that immunity their cases can be reviewed and they could be prosecuted if thought worthwhile. Since they were never previously prosecuted, there is no double jeopardy to worry about.

IANAL, so I could be reading this incorrectly. IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[LolaMoon08]

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.

That is why I said that it would be only relevent IF Trayvon had attacked or gotten violent with a teacher/principle/resource officer or any adult at the school. What he WAS suspended for is completely irrelevent.

 

[Karmady]

Thanks for the summary. I was wrong then.

It can be an incredibly complicated issue. I don't think you were wrong. It's not like they can just roll tape on the interviews. Even the best and most experienced lawyers I know argue about the hearsay rule. As I mentioned, the guy I asked gave me a hedgy response AND he's seen judges go both ways. He pointed that out to me right away when we were talking about this. Hearsay is one of THE most ephemeral concepts in the law. Second, perhaps only to the rules against perpetuities (don't ask! lol). 40-year practitioners don't agree, and neither can the judges. jmo

 

[LolaMoon08]

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

Because people who commit crimes usually like to talk and what happens is usually that person tells more than one person something completely different and it does not match up to what he told police and what they have found in their investigation.

Loose lips sink ships! It's been that way since the beginning of time.

 

[Emma Peel]

For rhornsby -


1) As defense attny, how important will a record of George's injuries sustained in the altercation to his SYG or self-defense assertions? Does it matter how serious the injuries are? What documentation of his injuries would you be hoping for?

2) Re: The girlfriend witness on the phone - how significant will her recollection of what she heard from Trayvon be? Will the fact that she was not an eyewitness make her testimony less powerful than one of the neighbors who witnessed the scuffle in person?

3) Because GZ was armed, would there be any additional responsibility or standard (being armed) to avoid confronting and/or provoking Trayvon?

Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts. I'd asked these questions after you'd left one evening, threads and threads ago...

 

[LynnM]

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

For years, I consulted with nonprofits and the government in my state as well as with a couple of other states to evaluate juvenile and adult prison programs. It involved access to criminal history databases. As I said, in my state, juvenile records are not typically expunged and juvenile and adult arrests and dispositions are in the same database. Even with charges that were dropped the arrest and the disposition remain in the database. (People can go to court and get certain records expunged but they don't typically do that and most people don't even know that their juvenile record is still in the computer unless they apply for some kind of clearance).

My goodness! My state is nowhere near that lenient on juveniles. They are charged according to what the police think they've done based on the law. So if they steal something over $1000 in value, they will be arrested for felony theft, just as an adult would, not a misdemeanor because of their age. There are various levels of probation and also secure incarceration, structured just like in the adult system. There are diversion programs for juveniles and adults, but these are one bite of the apple things and the information is retained so that they aren't offered diversion if they offend again.

Every juvenile goes through Family Court. There is a drug court for first time drug offenders but that's in Family Court and involves Family Court judges. If the offense is serious enough, especially if the juvenile has a history of offenses, the prosecutor may ask for an amenability hearing to see if the juvenile would be amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system if guilty or whether he should be tried as an adult. That hearing is held in Family Court and if the juvenile is is deemed not amenable, the case is transferred to an adult court. The Family Court judge has jurisdiction for a few years past 18 for juveniles for the purposes of sentencing. (I forget how many but I think it might be until age 21) This is so that a 17 year old doesn't get a shorter sentence than warranted just because he is near 18.

We do have laws governing confidentiality of criminal records. I cannot disclose the results of what I find about individuals (except to whatever criminal justice agency hired me) and my reports present aggregate data. If I were to mention to anyone else that a particular person had been arrested or convicted, based on knowledge I had gained through my work it would be a misdemeanor. I can't use my clearance to sit down at a state computer and check out my neighbors, I am limited to the people in the program or the control group in my study.

Even though people have privacy rights, they can waive them and this is done all the time. I did. To get my security clearance I was fingerprinted at a police station and the state and the FBI databases were searched and the result reported to the State Bureau of Investigation. (no arrests!) Employers such as banks and jewelry stores often require employees to consent to a criminal history search if they want to work there. There are certain professional licenses you can't get with a past felony conviction. Also, you cannot volunteer through an organization to work with children without a criminal history clearance. So it's possible that Trayvon's mother and father waived his right to privacy so that his lack of criminal history could be publicly disclosed.

I just can't see the DOJ saying that Trayvon had no arrest history if that wasn't true. They would have to say that he had no disclosable arrests which would be a different thing, as you point out.

 

[Isabelle]

Would anything Trayvon said to his girlfriend via phone the night of the incident be allowed in court or is that hearsay?

 

[LolaMoon08]

While it may be true you do not see the prosecutors out there giving press conferences (although the press conference to announce the charges looked like a Republican keynote address), you do see Crump, Natalie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. out there non-stop calling for "justice for Trayvon."

So given that chorus of quasi-prosecutors, I do not blame Mark O'Mara one iota.

I like Mark O'Mara so far. I think that he has at least tried to make his client a little more sympathetic by asking for a meeting with Trayvon's parents -- too bad George had already messed that one up by creating that website?

Anywho, we can't hate all defense attorney's. There have plenty who have worked very hard to get innocent people (like really innocent) people out of prison sentences for a crime they didn't do!

MOO

 

[LolaMoon08]

Would anything Trayvon said to his girlfriend via phone the night of the incident be allowed in court or is that hearsay?

That's a good question? I would think that it might fall under the lines of the whole "dying declaration" thing they have into law... don't ask me to tell you what that means, it's just something I think I read about somewhere?

ETA: Like the woman who talked to that young mother who was just killed after that woman snatched her infant. I believe that woman would be able to testify to the victims last words --- which was to call her mother -- :cry:

 

[m00c0w]

A repeal is different than being declared unconstitutional, though. Yes, if the Florida legislature repeals the SYG law, the change in status does not apply to events that happened while in effect.

But if a case covered goes through the courts and the courts declare it unconstitutional, then as I read the references I gave above, it is as though the law never existed. Since this law's effect is mostly to immunize people against prosecution, then I would expect that cases in which people have availed themselves of that immunity their cases can be reviewed and they could be prosecuted if thought worthwhile. Since they were never previously prosecuted, there is no double jeopardy to worry about.

IANAL, so I could be reading this incorrectly. IMO, JMO, etc.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the law would be ruled unconstitutional? I think it's been discussed that it might be repealed, but I'm not sure constitutionality is even in the question so far.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the law would be ruled unconstitutional? I think it's been discussed that it might be repealed, but I'm not sure constitutionality is even in the question so far.

I just think it needs to be ammended and to be defined a lot more than it is now. It's way too loose in it's definition, IMO.

 

[Karmady]

That's a good question? I would think that it might fall under the lines of the whole "dying declaration" thing they have into law... don't ask me to tell you what that means, it's just something I think I read about somewhere?ETA: Like the woman who talked to that young mother who was just killed after that woman snatched her infant. I believe that woman would be able to testify to the victims last words --- which was to call her mother -- :cry:

One of the ways to think about the hearsay rule is that is designed to extract only the reliable testimony. A dying declaration is reliable because typically, at their death, people have no filters and/or no reason to lie. Same with admissions against interest. Since a person likely has no motivation to lie when they tell you that they committed a crime (quite the opposite), such a statement is inherently reliable.

The same can be said about each and every hearsay exception there is. There's also "catch-all" provision that creates an exception when the proferred testimony has other indicia of trustworthiness not specifically set forth in the exceptions to the exclusion. In other words, if the court finds that there is no "better evidence," hearsay can come in even if it does not fall within a specific exception, so long as it is otherwise trustworthy.

jmtc