Trayvon Martin Case

i dunno, why do you walk around with a gun chasing down unarmed teenagers and then shooting them in your neighborhood?

i mean honestly, hasnt he proven to be a well thought out individual?

That was my point. It seems like we should expect stupidity from him.

Anyone know how much credit card debt they had?

JoeRedskins - i would suspect in a case like this Zimmerman's wife would be one his better witnesses. She doesnt have to testify against him, she can only testify for him. So now if she gets called up, the first thing the prosecutor would ask her is "have you ever been charged with a crime involving lying, deceit or perjury?", and let it all go downhill from there.

This had been a pretty open and shut not guilty case to me (by FL law), does this change anything in your opinion? Big deal or not so big? Can she be forced to testify at all? If not do you think she will?

As a defense lawyer I don't know how you can have a perjurer on the stand...seems to me that is a huge liability rather than an asset.

Unethical people do stupid unethical things....lady karma strikes again.

i dunno, why do you walk around with a gun chasing down unarmed teenagers and then shooting them in your neighborhood?

i mean honestly, hasnt he proven to be a well thought out individual?


LOL...they make quite a pair. I still don't understand how people can assert his innocence without a shadow of a doubt in light of the couples complete dishonesty.

My opinion had been that this is a manslaughter case at best b/c nobody knows - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation (negating the self-defense claim) or acted with "reckless disregard" (standard for gross negligence & 2nd degree murder) for Martin's safety. known actions constituted an initation of the physical confrontation or constituted the requisite "reckless disregard" - based on my understanding of those to legal principles, I disagree but am not going to argue the isssue at this point.]

Do I think this changes things - yup. The wife gets up on the stand and she is pretty much doomed. Zimmerman almost has to testify to assert his "self-defense" defense. Once he does, he will (and should be) crossed mercilessly on his assertion of self defense. I don't know what status of the spousal immunity laws are in FL. Could the prosecution call her? Probably. Would they? Maybe. I probably would but it would also depend on a lot of other factors that go into case presentation that I haven't really looked at. Bottom line - Zimm's "poor little ol' me" defense has just taken a serious blow.

In a case where his affirmative defense places considerable reliance [EDIT: relies almost exclusively] on his credibility, he just torpedeod it. It still is the State's burden to show gross negligence (for 2nd degree) but Zimmerman will be taking a big risk if he gets on the stand to dispute the evidence presented.

I think this went from a likely not guilty with a possibility of manslaughter to a likelihood of manslaughter with a possibility of 2nd degree murder. Again, just my opinion - I am sure others here see it differently.

To sum up - Zimmerman has pretty much given the State carte blanche to present evidence against him which he won't then be able to dispute.

Interesting Zimmerman himself wasnt charged with perjury. Maybe they cant until his case is over or it could be cause for a mistrial or something? I mean if they charge him too it would give additional reason for the defense to not call him.

Maybe the prosecution desperately wants him to be called? Take away his wife to force him on the stand.

My opinion had been that this is a manslaughter case at best b/c nobody knows - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation (negating the self-defense claim) or acted with "reckless disregard" (standard for gross negligence & 2nd degree murder) for Martin's safety. known actions constituted an initation of the physical confrontation or constituted the requisite "reckless disregard" - based on my understanding of those to legal principles, I disagree but am not going to argue the isssue at this point.]

Do I think this changes things - yup. The wife gets up on the stand and she is pretty much doomed. Zimmerman almost has to testify to assert his "self-defense" defense. Once he does, he will (and should be) crossed mercilessly on his assertion of self defense. I don't know what status of the spousal immunity laws are in FL. Could the prosecution call her? Probably. Would they? Maybe. I probably would but it would also depend on a lot of other factors that go into case presentation that I haven't really looked at. Bottom line - Zimm's "poor little ol' me" defense has just taken a serious blow.

In a case where his affirmative defense places considerable reliance [EDIT: relies almost exclusively] on his credibility, he just torpedeod it. It still is the State's burden to show gross negligence (for 2nd degree) but Zimmerman will be taking a big risk if he gets on the stand to dispute the evidence presented.

I think this went from a likely not guilty with a possibility of manslaughter to a likelihood of manslaughter with a possibility of 2nd degree murder. Again, just my opinion - I am sure others here see it differently.

Man you really need to become a lawyer.

Texas Man Found Guilty for Killing Neighbor in Dispute - Yahoo! (http://gma.yahoo.com/texas-man-found-guilty-killing-neighbor-dispute-053934284--abc-news-topstories.html)

very interesting. in both cases neither of these people show the competency to own a firearm

Hopefully Zim's fate is similar.

There are a couple of significant factual distinctions from the Martin case:
1. Rodriguez [the neighbor] was apparently on his neighbor's property; and
2. He was brandishing his gun as he entered the property.

From the article: "[Rodriguez] walked up to Danaher's driveway with a flashlight and gun."

Stand your ground is inapplicable b/c he had no right to trespass upon his neighbor's property.
Self-defense is inapplicable b/c he brandished his weapon as he trespassed (i.e. Rodriguez threatened deadly force initially. The law does not permit you to threaten others with the highest level of force then, when they reasonably respond with the same level of force, claim you were exercising self-defense].

(1) Both Martin & Zimmerman had a right to be on the public throughway (Martin was invited into the gated community);

(2) There is no evidence that Zimmerman brandished his weapon upon confronting Martin or otherwise threatened any level of force. Verbal confrontation without physical threat does not permit a violent response.

I do agree with this statement and, in relation to the perjury issues, think it is the reason Zimmerman will be found guilty of either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder:

"The defense did not present much of a case as it called no witnesses and Rodriguez didn't testify. Legal experts say if defendants are going to successfully argue self-defense, the jury wants to hear from them."