Trayvon Martin Case

All part of the dance, saden1.

All part of the dance, saden1.

I see it different, I see it as laying out the facts of the case intuitively and soundly.

As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules requiring the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: Peterson v. State Decision result | Leagle.com (http://www.leagle.com/decision-result/?xmldoc/20081010983So2d27_1998.xml/docbase/CSLWAR3-2007-CURR)

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012 (http://www.joffelaw.com/state-rules/criminalprocedure.html). I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority requiring the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion post-trial is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that requiring the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the Peterson decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.



The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:
•Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
•Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
•Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we think we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- Was he engaged in an unlawful activity: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The only way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z was in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't.

Awesome! Thank you for continually providing the well thought out and thorough professional point of view. Unfortunately most people dont seem to have the ability to provide objective thoughts or comments regarding this case; i think nearly everyone here appreciates your willingness to offer the opposite.

By the way ... Who's paying my retainer?

Ill make a $49 donation to the site in your name if you can predict the verdict correctly. I guess you just have to make your prediction before the jury gets back after closing statements.

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

1. Reviewed EMT testimony - She never said that. The only testimony I saw to that effect was Dr. Rao who viewed the photos after the incident. As I said earlier, I think cross exposed her testimony for the speculation it was.

2. Maybe. I get the whole "Zimmerman is a liar" attack to discredit his account of the events. Since they don't get to ask him directly during a cross exam (at least I expecting Zimmerman not to testify), not sure putting the professors and others on to demonstrate what, to me, is essentially a tangential lie. I expect, the only lie the jury cares about is whether he thought he was in fear of his life. To me, the professors were a lot of work for not much gain and, possibly, very harmful to the prosecution.

I hear the "reckless disregard" and understand where you and Chico are coming from. I also understand that Zimmerman is to "truth challenged" (to say the least). I just don't think the prosecution has brought enough to the table to show (again, beyond a reasonable doubt) that Z 's actions were "reckless" or even negligent that night, because, even assuming all the defense has is a questionable "I was in fear of my life" claim from Z, I am just not seeing enough non-speculative evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to say, without any reasonable doubts, that Z didn't act in that fashion.

Ill make a $49 donation to the site in your name if you can predict the verdict correctly. I guess you just have to make your prediction before the jury gets back after closing statements.

That's just tough - so many variables. If it's a jury of Chico's or OTM's, he is likley to be found guilty of manslaughter. If it's a jury of G84C's, 2nd degree. If it's a jury of me's, likely to be innocent.

I am going to say not guilty on the 2nd degree and manslaughter. A jury of women will be sympathetic to the death of a child, but not so much so as to outweigh their need for solid proof before condemning another man to prison.

My degree of confidence in this prediction is pretty low. Zimmerman is no saint and we have a dead kid. It's just a tragedy that could have been avoided by both.

My degree of confidence in this prediction is pretty low. Zimmerman is no saint and we have a dead kid. It's just a tragedy that could have been avoided by both.

Over zealous curtain-twitcher meets mouthy teenager.

I stick with my original assertion.

Horrible set of circumstances.

Looking at the testimony today, it highlights the central issue in this matter.

- On Friday, Trayvon's Mom and Brother were certain that the screams heard on the tape were Trayvon's. The Brother less so, but the Mother testified that it was Trayvon "without a doubt".

- So far today, several people who knew Z well testified "without a doubt" the screaming on the tapes was that of Zimmerman.

I don't think any were lying - I thik all firmly believed that they were telling the truth and were convinced of their correctness. Nonetheless, and despite their certainty, someone is wrong and there is simply no way to prove who it is.

The jury has to go with 'Not guilty', anything else would be a travesty.

It doesn't change the fact that the 'Stand your ground' law needs to be revised.

Shiping Bao: Intellectual titan or burbling idiot?

I can't believe someone with his credentials is so inarticulate.

Read the Bao testimony the other day. The bit with his notes was another classic "WTF??" moment by the prosecution. While, ultimately, they ended up, IMO, being non-critical, I was thinking to myself "What? How could the prosecution let him on the stand with anything in his hands, on his person or within his reach that hadn't been preapproved by the prosecutor." Serious nuts and bolts trial work.

My standard instruction is, bring nothing with you to Court I haven't seen and reviewed with you. Don't take anything to the stand unless I have put it in your hands. No notes, no documents, no business cards, etc. Don't have your briefcase in your car. Nothing, nothing, nothing. If you think you need something, give it to me. I have had folks dump out their wallets to make sure they didn't have something they shouldn't.

I just laughed when the guy said "I would prefer not to show you my notes." Tough sh** bozo - I get to see them; Hope you gave a copy of your handwritten notes to your attorney before I look at these, b/c, after you have referred to them during my questioning, I get them first.