17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #29

[Isabelle]

OT but significant: I had a coworker/friend whose 6 yo son drowned in a swimming pool and can remember she hated it when people commented that they were sorry for the 'loss' of her son. She would say, what do they think? Do people think I just misplaced him? Most are afraid to use the words death/dead/deceased, although it is the reality. I learned to understand what she meant when my son was killed in an mva.

GZ's apology would have had a greater chance of being accepted had he said, 'I am sorry I caused the death of your son'. That was all he would have had to say, but to be more to the point and no beating around the bush. Grieving parents, especially mothers do not like that at all, not one bit!

 

[LolaMoon08]

Just getting here today and haven't had a chance to catch up. My apologies if this has already been posted. Interesting article...

Experts say Zimmerman attorney made smart move
By MIKE SCHNEIDER, AP
8 hours ago

SANFORD, Fla. — By questioning a state investigator on the witness stand during a routine bail hearing, George Zimmerman's defense attorney showed some of the weaknesses in prosecutors' claims that the neighborhood watch volunteer committed second-degree murder, legal experts say.

A judge ruled Friday that Zimmerman can be released on $150,000 bail while he awaits trial on murdering 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a Feb. 26 confrontation in a Sanford, Fla. gated community. Zimmerman apologized to Martin's parents, who were in the courtroom for the bail hearing, in a surprise appearance on the witness stand. Zimmerman is pleading not guilty and claims self-defense...

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20120420/US.Neighborhood.Watch/

They act like they had a trial yesterday? This was a bond hearing! I am sure the investigation continues. The State was still investigating a month before the Casey trial. They had enough to bring 2nd degree murder charges -- and they can continue their investigation.

 

[m00c0w]

Re: medical documents that GZ had broken nose.

Mr. O'Mara waived a piece of paper. That's it.

I was pretty sure he turned over a packet to the SA because of discovery rules. It would be out of line to present it to the witness on the stand before the other side had an ability to look at it.

 

[impatientredhead]

About GZ's record. The judge minimized what GZ did, which leads me to believe he won't allow the jury to hear it.

There is no way the jury will be told about priors before the penalty phase. They let him suit up for a bond hearing, they are going out of their way not taint the jury pool.

I don't believe this will ever see a jury personally. Defense is going to present a self defense case and ask for the judge grant immunity provided by the SYG statute.

The SYG is really expensive for the state. If they charge someone who is later found to be within his/her right to use deadly force the State gets to write MOM a full retail defense fund paycheck, GZ will be reimbursed for any expense he incurred due to the wrongful charge, and he will be immune from civil liabilities.

In theory this protects citizens from a bankrupting trial, but in practice really just gives people who couldn't afford the luxury of a hand picked attorney.

I posted links earlier to recent Florida SYG cases, one similar to GZ in that shooter pursued the victim (victims crime was speeding thru the neighborhood) and another that was a stabbing the defendant denied, destroyed evidence and was caught on camera after a city block long pursuit of the victim.

With the bond allowing him to leave the state I would not be suprised if this is his last court appearance. moo

 

[Donjeta]

I don't know if I'd risk my life to err on the side of caution.

Would you risk your life to go out and chase a possibly armed man who just circled your truck three times and looks vaguely dangerous?

 

[rotterdam]

That I don't know, we would have to ask a lawyer that. I would assume since he's working with the other investigator on the same case that he would know if they (as an investigative unit) had certain evidence or not.

To me, it was a huge risk by MOM asking those questions. Discovery hasn't even happened yet and the Det. could of easily said 'we have some evidence that we will provide in discovery'. That would of left egg on face.

Smart lawyers only ask witnesses the questions they know the answers to. And MOM is of much better caliber than JB for example. MOM wanted that to come out JMO.

 

[LolaMoon08]

George's own words in that call are what is going to get him convicted. If he lied during his interview with LE that night and said he never followed Trayvon (Like Daddy Zimmerman stated early on in this case) and the call totally contradicts this -- yeah -- he lied. A reasonably Judge, imo, is not going to throw this out based on the fact that it is impossible that Trayvon jumped George as he was walking back to his car... as Police Chief Bill Lee shouted from the rooftops before he stepped down.

I believe George Zimmerman's own words during his interviews with Law Enforcement are going to be what takes this case to a jury. If he will lie about little things -- he will lie about big things.

 

[m00c0w]

You would be completely correct in the above scenario if it wasn't for one little detail, and that's Gilbreath's truthful answer to the question I have highlighted above:

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

I don't see how the State will ever need more than Zimmerman's own words to impeach his story.

If there's any evidence that Zimmerman asked for medical treatment during the interview, and was declined (as has been claimed), I can see anything taken that night being thrown out. He clearly had a head injury (no matter how minor it appears), and to interview him after such an injury would cause there to be doubt about the validity of his statements. I could actually see most of what happened that night thrown out, because it could be argued that he may not have been fully capable of understanding his right to remain silent at the time.

JMO

 

[TonyGatto]

I was pretty sure he turned over a packet to the SA because of discovery rules. It would be out of line to present it to the witness on the stand before the other side had an ability to look at it.

Did he show it to a witness on the stand? I thought he just waved it, which is my point.

 

[Adrienne37]

That paper that O'Mara waved could have been his grocery list for all we know.


ETA - he also stated to the witness that he would not ask any questions on it since he had not supplied a copy to the prosecutors.

ETA - O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.

Nothing further, thank you, your honor.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html



~jmo~

 

[MsCharlieChan]

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

Whaaa?! This was one of the most convoluted legalese questions I've ever heard! Do they teach them in law school how to construct a good head-banger like this? :banghead:

Gilbreath had to pause and really untangle MOM's questions before answering... (Wonder if he could have answered "Circumstantially, yes, there seems to be conflicting evidence.")

AC and team better get extra ready for MOM. He's super slick. I can see it now... By posing back-to-back conundrums like this, MOM will wear all the witnesses down, into confused submission.

MOM seems to be one cool ninja. This is going to be a heck of a fight.

Does anyone know if AC participates in the courtroom these days, or has she been promoted too high to be involved at the in-court level?

 

[Aedrys]

They act like they had a trial yesterday? This was a bond hearing! I am sure the investigation continues. The State was still investigating a month before the Casey trial. They had enough to bring 2nd degree murder charges -- and they can continue their investigation.

ITA. I bet they are still working on getting evidence, like a computerized reconstruction of what happened that night and forensic testing. Of course, not all of that is going to be done by the dang bond hearing. What the officer said can not impeach him later if all that they have right now is GZ's word. Good Lord. It's not like the SA just stopped investigating because the bond hearing was yesterday. It's just silly that this could hurt the investigator later on. Yesterday wasn't the trial, it was a BOND HEARING.

 

[m00c0w]

Did he show it to a witness on the stand? I thought he just waved it, which is my point.

He handed it over to the state attorney. He said he was handing it over to the state attorney. Do you think he'd hand his grocery list over to the state attorney?

 

[m00c0w]

That paper that O'Mara waved could have been his grocery list for all we know.


ETA - he also stated to the witness that he would not ask any questions on it since he had not supplied a copy to the prosecutors.

ETA - O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.

Nothing further, thank you, your honor.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html



~jmo~

Yeah, and then he handed them across the aisle to the prosecutors. It's not like he was just bluffing, unless you honestly think he'd lie in front of the judge and hand off papers that amount to nothing.

 

[magnolia]

Exactly. Great post. The TH's have leaped on this to prove that the SA has no case. It was BOND hearing. The SA doesn't have to lay out their case at all at least until the preliminary hearing, if there is one (I think it would come after the SYG determination?). Yesterday was to determine bond only, not for either side to prove their case. That is not necessary to determine bond. The TH's are making wild conclusions with this one officer's testimony. We don't know what or how much evidence the SA has yet. How ridiculous for the TH's to sensationalize it as if it could stop the trial from ever happening. Good Lord.

Well, you know there will be an immunity hearing. The case may not make it to trial. Sorry, but, this is the reality of the situation. IMO

 

[Aedrys]

Whaaa?! This was one of the most convoluted legalese questions I've ever heard! Do they teach them in law school how to construct a good head-banger like this? :banghead:

Gilbreath had to pause and really untangle MOM's questions before answering... (Wonder if he could have answered "Circumstantailly, yes, there seems to be conflicting evidence.")

AC and team better get extra ready for MOM. He's super slick. I can see it now... By posing back-to-back conundrums like this, MOM will wear all the witnesses down, into confused submission.

MOM seems to be one cool ninja. This is going to be a heck of a fight.

Does anyone know if AC participates in the courtroom these days, or has she been promoted too high to be involved at the in-court level?

Yes, and now the state knows how slick he is. They will be fully prepared for him. And thanks to Baez's example, they'll be fully prepared for anything O'Mara may try.

I don't think AC is going to be actually prosecuting the case, or is she?

 

[Adrienne37]

ITA. I bet they are still working on getting evidence, like a computerized reconstruction of what happened that night and forensic testing. Of course, not all of that is going to be done by the dang bond hearing. What the officer said can not impeach him later if all that they have right now is GZ's word. Good Lord. It's not like the SA just stopped investigating because the bond hearing was yesterday. It's just silly that this could hurt the investigator later on. Yesterday wasn't the trial, it was a BOND HEARING.

Not only that, but they have to attempt to track down evidence I'm sure since it appears that SPD did no investigation.


~jmo~

 

[impatientredhead]

He handed it over to the state attorney. He said he was handing it over to the state attorney. Do you think he'd hand his grocery list over to the state attorney?

MOM is an officer of the court who could lose his license for knowingly submitting false testimony to the judge. It wasn't a prop for effect.

 

[Aedrys]

Well, you know there will be an immunity hearing. The case may not make it to trial. Sorry, but, this is the reality of the situation. IMO

Thank you. I didn't know the name of that hearing. However, on the rest, I disagree. I am not assuming this is all going to be thrown out and GZ will just walk away. In any event, I'm not calling it before the immunity hearing. I need to hear the words said in court. I'm getting tired of everyone jumping the gun and just assuming this case is over before it even gets a chance to start. Why even arrest GZ if there was absolutely no chance of getting this to trial? Sheesh.

 

[Donjeta]

Whaaa?! This was one of the most convoluted legalese questions I've ever heard! Do they teach them in law school how to construct a good head-banger like this? :banghead:

Gilbreath had to pause and really untangle MOM's questions before answering... (Wonder if he could have answered "Circumstantailly, yes, there seems to be conflicting evidence.")

AC and team better get extra ready for MOM. He's super slick. I can see it now... By posing back-to-back conundrums like this, MOM will wear all the witnesses down, into confused submission.

MOM seems to be one cool ninja. This is going to be a heck of a fight.

Does anyone know if AC participates in the courtroom these days, or has she been promoted too high to be involved at the in-court level?

Questions like that might get the wrong answer sometimes because the witness loses track of the twists of the question. They're a no-no in my field because we want the interviewee to understand the questions and give us useful information, not trip them up with their own feet.

At least Corey was photographed in the court room during the bond hearing:
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Angela+Corey+Bond+Hearing+Held+Trayvon+Martin+2wGz4k3gLEvl.jpg