Trayvon Martin Case

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

I would hope so. They don't have a lot to work with given the lack of evidence on the key fact (who started it). Certainly, I would like to think I would have done more to manage the "bad" evidence. Also, they should have known and be prepped for the EMT's testimony and done what they could to discredit/pre-empt it.

thanks for your thoughts joe, rat and everyone. I am going to attempt to do actual work while at work today. unlike yesterday where this trial consumed a large portion of my day.

i do encourage everyone to watch the full 14 mins of zimmerman's video re-enactment.

edit -
"Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda began by asking the judge to strike from the record a statement Detective Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found credible Zimmerman's account of how he got into a fight with Trayvon Martin. De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn't allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued it was proper because Serino was vetting Zimmerman's veracity in his probe." Judge strikes detective statements on Zimmerman (http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-detective-statements-zimmerman-133901090.html)

are you effing serious. this is a major and well-known no-no. No officer shoudl ever say they believe a person's statements, versions of events or talk about veracity. they are there to only testify as to what they saw and heard from the named parties to the case or in-court testimonial witnesses.

this detective (who i am sure testifies a lot) had to have done so intentionally. this is such a effing no-no and he knows better. id be outraged if i was the DA. just a down right dirty tactic to slip inadmissible evidence in. and what is the cure? a curative instruction from the judge for the jury to disregard the fact that they heard a detective (a position of honor and trust) with years of training and experience say he believes zimmerman!!!

id ask for a mistrial. at least the DA has an appellate issue now.

a defense atty did this to me 2 months ago. i was outraged. he claimed "opps i didnt know judge . . " .. the judge said well, what you said is material blah blah blah but i dont find it intentional so mistrial denied . . . defense attrneys like that and detectives like that are scum . . .

they know exactly what they are doing and know the judge will only give a curative instruction . .

read the dispatch transcript then watch zimmerman's re-enactment video.

zimmerman makes so many false or misleading statements in the re-enactment video

he says the dispathcer told zimmerman to get to somewhere where he could see where martin went = false

he sd he told the dispatcher martin was circling his car = false

he sd he had to get out of his truck to look for a street sign = really? thats the reason why you got out of your truck in you gated community? because you didnt know where you were in a neighborhood you citizen patrol? so you didnt get out of your truck to perhaps ... i dont know ... follow or confront this suspicious character?

George Zimmerman Re-enactment (Full Video) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakGZgJxTi4)

i had to stop watching the reenactmetn video but ive seen it before ... imo he is guilty and is either out-right lying or at least severely minimizing his actions.


Ill try and check this out.

With regards to your first post, im just trying to figure out what would it take for you to not think Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. In your opinion once Zimmerman started following Martin, does that in your opinion place responsibility on Zimmerman regardless if he stopped and turned around?

So as im starting to think ole Z might get off in the criminal trial I start wondering about the likelihood Zimmerman has in winning a civil suite (prob not great). And I do one of those internet searches and I read this:

Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense)

If you guys remember Zimmerman waived his right to a "pre-trial" "stand your ground" review/request in which he could seek immunity towards criminal AND civil liability from a judge. However, based of off the linked article, now I cant help but to think that theres a chance that this thing wont even go to jury decision.

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

To me it sounds like Z's defense team is thinking we got 2 trials in 1 going on right now; 1) to throw the whole thing out based off of the stand your ground rights, and 2) if that doesn't work then let the jury decide. Am I correct in the thinking that nothing was really waived by Z's defense team, rather the stand your ground review was just postponed?

Also, any ideas as to what type of civil liability Z is at risk of? I suspect Martin's family could be awarded a huge payout from a jury but wouldn't the big bucks be from punitive damages? And arnt punitive damages dispensable through bankruptcy? Whats the compensatory damages for killing someone when little to no medical bills were incurred?

Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

/end thread

Ill try and check this out.

With regards to your first post, im just trying to figure out what would it take for you to not think Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. In your opinion once Zimmerman started following Martin, does that in your opinion place responsibility on Zimmerman regardless if he stopped and turned around?

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.

But it does alter perception, right?

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.