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

[Deleted member 39678]

From the link above

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...n-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story




Question: How can he claim this defense when HE was the one to pursue and confront Trayvon?

If he was in fear of Trayvon all he had to do was stay in his vehicle and let the LE, who he himself had called, do their job.

If you are in fear of someone you don't chase them, start an argument which leads to a fight which you know you can win because you have a gun, and FINALLY can stop those ******** from getting away....

Oh, wait.....

IMO

Apparently GZ is claiming that he lost sight of TM and was returning to his truck when he was then attacked by TM.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in thisinvestigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you followinghim”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The calltaker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck tomeet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Zimmerman-Martin-Shooting

 

[Adrienne37]

Can someone confirm for me whether this statement is true?

"He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police"

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me with this.

He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

 

[rbrnmw2]

on Piers. Caveat: I only heard Piers say they said that as I missed the actual lawyers! But there was some discussion about it and that's when one of the lawyers said how he didn't need to meet with him and how the police had done a voice stress test. That's about all I got from it.

My not very nice, but quite possible thought is that the lawyers have deliberately stayed away so they will not be restricting themselves regarding testimony and evidence they may want to introduce like, for example, about GZ's horrible injuries. In general, ethical rules prohibit certain things that may come into play here. A lawyer can't make a false statement of fact to a court, a lawyer can't make a false statement of material fact to a third person and a lawyer can't engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. So, the less you know the more you can allow to be introduced. That's also why most attorneys don't want to know if you're guilty because that really ties their hands! Who ever said a trial was a search for truth was probably never in a courtroom, especially not in FL! (not fair, I know, but the Pinellas 12 will never be forgotten!)

It is my personal feeling that the main reason GZ is secluded is because his nose and head were not very injured and folks would be looking for evidence of said injuries IMO :moo:

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

 

[ecs5298]

EMS can't make him but can't the police drive him to the hospital themselves if they determined they were going to detain him and he had injuries that would warrant examination by a physician? Every hospital I've worked for in the state of Florida, we've always had many persons escorted in by LE to be assessed and cleared prior to being taken to the jail, questioning or otherwise. Why would LE assume responsibility for a person with a possible head injury if they weren't checked and cleared by a physician and then had a seizure or lost consciousness once they were at the jail? They could have the potential to open themselves up to a major lawsuit if the person that was detained wasn't cleared by a physician and ended up being paralyzed or perhaps even died.


~jmo~

Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

 

[Adrienne37]

Quote:
If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in thisinvestigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you followinghim”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The calltaker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck tomeet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Z...artin-Shooting

Just more garbage the city of Sanford is trying to shove down our throats and make us believe.


~jmo~

 

[m00c0w]

He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

BBM

Do you have a source to show that polygraphs are never admissible in court?

 

[jjenny]

Can't speak for Sanford PD but in general if the patient refuses medical that's good enough for PD. If they take him into custody and take him to the hospital, then the PD is responsible for the bill. That is why they usually call for evaluation before a person is arrested. In the eyes of PD, GZ had a medical evaluation and refused transport. That was documented on the EMS refusal form. If his condition changed, I'm sure PD would have called EMS back to the scene or to the lockup/station.

Did he refuse medical help? I find it very bizarre because it's in his best interests to document his injuries.

 

[Garland]

From the link above

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...n-lawyer-sonner-20120403,0,2775283,full.story

Question: How can he claim this defense when HE was the one to pursue and confront Trayvon?

If he was in fear of Trayvon all he had to do was stay in his vehicle and let the LE, who he himself had called, do their job.

If you are in fear of someone you don't chase them, start an argument which leads to a fight which you know you can win because you have a gun, and FINALLY can stop those ******** from getting away....

Oh, wait....

IMO

I agree. Plus I think that this is also a case of racism because Trayvon was African-American.

 

[uvamerica]

He did tell someone that during an interview so I'm guessing it must have been WOFL. However, I put very little faith in anything the Sanford police are saying that they done the night Trayvon was murdered. I, personally, find them to have 0 credibility at this point.

Additionally, like a polygraph, I would imagine that a voice-stress test wouldn't be admissible in court once charges are filed.


~jmo~

I've only seen/heard that statement made by Zimmerman"s lawyer, has LE backed it up ?

 

[Reader]

Apparently GZ is claiming that he lost sight of TM and was returning to his truck when he was then attacked by TM.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/86330859/Zimmerman-Martin-Shooting

Thanks for the response...I just don't believe it happened that way...IMO

 

[jjenny]

It is my personal feeling that main reason GZ is secluded is because his nose and head were not very injured and folks would be looking for evidence of said injuries know IMO :moo:

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

 

[crocus]

So what was Trayvon doing that made Zimmerman call LE?

 

[Adrienne37]

BBM

Do you have a source to show that polygraphs are never admissible in court?

What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?
Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.

Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html


The short answer is no. In the Florida case of Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 the Supreme Court of Florida said that lie detector evidence “would not have been admissible directly and it was not admissible by inference.” The reasoning according to the court is that it is not sufficiently reliable to pass the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence under Florida law. "The results of a polygraph test remain inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases because of unreliability." Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1983); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952))
This does not mean that the police or other investigating authorities may not use it for the purpose of investigating a crime or discovering new evidence. The police also claim it is a tool for ruling out suspects. This is probably the least probable justification of its use by the police and is more than likely a less portentious approach to getting persons of interest to voluntarily take one. Although you may pass a polygraph it does not mean the police will rule you out as a suspect in a crime.
If you are charged with a crime or questioned by the police about your potential involvement in a crime, the best rule to follow is to keep your mouth shut until you have spoken with an attorney. You have an absolute right to remain silent and your election to do so cannot be used against your in a court of law. Although the polygraph test itself may not be used in court, your statements made during a polygraph may be used against you if they are inconsistent or shed some light on your guilt. The prosecution must simply refrain from discussing the fact that the statements were made during a polygraph test.


http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html


Admissibility

Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/frequently-asked-questions


Shall I keep going?????

~jmo~

 

[Adrienne37]

I've only seen/heard that statement made by Zimmerman"s lawyer, has LE backed it up ?

Not that I'm aware of, only the statement by the lawyer.


~jmo~

 

[ecs5298]

Did he refuse medical help? I find it very bizarre because it's in his best interests to document his injuries.

From what I've read, he was evaluated on the scene by EMS and not transported. It would be safe to assume that he refused transport otherwise heads would roll on the EMS side. I haven't seen his refusal paperwork so I can't say exactly what was documented but I'm sure we will in due time due to Florida's Sunshine laws. I could also summize that he felt that PD actually seeing his injuries was documentation enough and that a trip to the hospital was unnecessary but that would be pure conjecture on my part.

 

[Adrienne37]

Continuation of the post regarding the admissibility of polygraphic examinations in the court of law in the United States of America.....

United States
In 2007, polygraph testimony was admitted by stipulation in 19 states, and was subject to the discretion of the trial judge in federal court. The use of polygraph in court testimony remains controversial, although it is used extensively in post-conviction supervision, particularly of sex offenders. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993),[49] the old Frye standard was lifted and all forensic evidence, including polygraph, had to meet the new Daubert standard in which "underlying reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid and properly can be applied to the facts at issue." While polygraph tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998),[50] the U.S. Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases. Nevertheless, it is used extensively by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement agencies. In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions.[51]
In the United States, the State of New Mexico admits polygraph testing in front of juries under certain circumstances. In many other states, polygraph examiners are permitted to testify in front of judges in various types of hearings (Motion to Revoke Probation, Motion to Adjudicate Guilt).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph"]Polygraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Adrienne37]

After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

As I seem to recall, he was in hiding long before the Black Panthers put a bounty on his head.


~jmo~

 

[Helplessly Hoping]

Can someone confirm for me whether this statement is accurate?

"He is confident of their client's self-defense claim, Uhrig told WOFL, in part because Zimmerman has already passed a voice-stress test, something similar to a lie-detector test, administered by Sanford police"


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._defense-team-lawrence-o-donnell-wofl-channel

Thanks in advance to anyone that help me with this.

Found this FWIW

In more Zimmerman news, Uhrig told WOFL that his client had passed a voice-stress analysis test when questioned by Sanford police.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...zimmerman-hires-casey-anthony-tv-analyst.html

 

[m00c0w]

What are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?
Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy.

Florida is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html


The short answer is no. In the Florida case of Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 the Supreme Court of Florida said that lie detector evidence “would not have been admissible directly and it was not admissible by inference.” The reasoning according to the court is that it is not sufficiently reliable to pass the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence under Florida law. "The results of a polygraph test remain inadmissible in both civil and criminal cases because of unreliability." Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1983); Kaminski v. State, 63 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1952))
This does not mean that the police or other investigating authorities may not use it for the purpose of investigating a crime or discovering new evidence. The police also claim it is a tool for ruling out suspects. This is probably the least probable justification of its use by the police and is more than likely a less portentious approach to getting persons of interest to voluntarily take one. Although you may pass a polygraph it does not mean the police will rule you out as a suspect in a crime.
If you are charged with a crime or questioned by the police about your potential involvement in a crime, the best rule to follow is to keep your mouth shut until you have spoken with an attorney. You have an absolute right to remain silent and your election to do so cannot be used against your in a court of law. Although the polygraph test itself may not be used in court, your statements made during a polygraph may be used against you if they are inconsistent or shed some light on your guilt. The prosecution must simply refrain from discussing the fact that the statements were made during a polygraph test.


http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenseattorneyblog.com/2011/06/are_lie_detector_test_results.html


Admissibility

Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/resources/frequently-asked-questions


Shall I keep going?????

~jmo~

Your sources conflict themselves. And it appears that they are allowed in court under certain circumstances. So it would appear that polygraph evidence isn't never allowed in court.

JMO

 

[highflyer]

After all this time? He is hiding, IMO, because new black panthers are after him.

Did they just up and threaten and then disappear because I haven't seen anymore about the New Black Panthers? Strange.