Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 9969
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Suranis » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:11 pm

I think the prosecutors were able to prove the victim had just turned 17.

Well, I for one am impressed.

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Emma » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:33 am

Richard Mantei, the prosecutor (one of them) has argued against the motion for acquittal and has done, in my view, an excellent job. (I didn't hear him examine any witnesses, so I don't know how involved he is in the train wreck.)

Obviously, I know nothing about the practice of law but I'm glad to see you agree with me :)I guess it's too much to hope for that he'll be the one to close?

bogus info
Posts: 5592
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby bogus info » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:50 am

As far as I can tell, there is no "firearm" enhancement under Florida law. There is a significant increase in penalty for manslaughter when the victim is under age 18 -- it raises the maximum penalty from 15 years (regular manslaughter) to 30 years (aggravate manslaughter).

Can the prosecution do this? :-?

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby esseff44 » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:30 pm

This is interesting. Or at least it’s interesting to some of us criminal law geeks. Here is a link to Florida’s [/break1]floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/index.shtml]standard jury instruction on the [/break1]floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf]Justifiable Use of Deadly Force. According to the Florida Supreme Court’s web site, this instruction, and the instruction on the Justifiable Use of Non-Deadly Force, are “currently under review by the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions because of recent legislation or case law.” Specifically with respect to these instructions, the alert cites to two Florida cases, Bassallo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010) and Talley v. State, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D426a, (Fla. 2nd DCA Feb. 22, 2013).





I’ve read Bassallo and I don’t think it adds much to the Zimmerman discussion (it involves the use of deadly/non-deadly force in an aggravated assault case where the victim was not actually injured; the fight on appeal was over whether the jury should have been instructed that self defense applies where the victim is injured, but says nothing about where the victim was merely assaulted.)





Talley is another story, though. In Talley the question was whether the instruction should have included an extra comma. The standard jury instruction reads, in relevant part,





If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force[highlight=#ffff00],[/highlight] including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida said,





This additional comma is erroneous because under the rules of grammatical construction it makes the phrase “including deadly force” a nonessential part of the sentence and thus changes the meaning by indicating that a defendant has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force only if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It will be interesting to see whether the instructions in the Zimmerman case will include the comma or not.

I think the district court got it wrong about the grammar. This is meant to be read to a jury. Commas are inserted for the purpose of a pause as opposed to a full stop or period which signals the thought has been completed. Setting the phrase off by commas does not make it 'non-essential.' In fact, it does the opposite. It emphasizes the point. That opinion sounds like the Mario Apuzzo School of Grammar to me.

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby p0rtia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:39 pm

Oh, there will be riots after this, if he's acquitted. You can almost count on it.

I'll cordially take the other side of that prediction. Voices of protest, yes, demonstrations, maybe, but no riots.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Maybenaut » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:49 pm

I think the district court got it wrong about the grammar. This is meant to be read to a jury. Commas are inserted for the purpose of a pause as opposed to a full stop or period which signals the thought has been completed. Setting the phrase off by commas does not make it 'non-essential.' In fact, it does the opposite. It emphasizes the point. That opinion sounds like the Mario Apuzzo School of Grammar to me.

Oh, I completely agree. Most jurisdictions provide a written copy of the instructions for the jurors to take back to the deliberation room, so I think the Court is right to consider how the grammatical construction of the sentences in the instructions might be interpreted by the jury. But the idea that the jury would ignore the words as if they were never spoken merely because they were offset by commas seem unlikely to me.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:02 pm

I sure hope the State is in a position to request a manslaughter instruction and verdict. While I think Zimmerman executed (murdered) Taryvon Martin, I believe that a manslaughter conviction with a firearm enhancement will still put away Zimmerman for a long time. And I think the State is going to have a difficult time proving Murder 2.

This. It may be the only chance at any conviction at all, and would be justice enough to stop otherwise well-deserved riots.

User avatar
BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby BFB » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:33 pm

Oh, there will be riots after this, if he's acquitted. You can almost count on it.

I'll cordially take the other side of that prediction. Voices of protest, yes, demonstrations, maybe, but no riots.

I'd happily be wrong.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Maybenaut » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:34 pm

As far as I can tell, there is no "firearm" enhancement under Florida law. There is a significant increase in penalty for manslaughter when the victim is under age 18 -- it raises the maximum penalty from 15 years (regular manslaughter) to 30 years (aggravate manslaughter).

It’s not entirely clear to me that Zimmerman, if convicted, would qualify for the enhancement. Section 782.07 defines manslaughter in Florida. Specifically, section 782.07(3) defines “aggravated manslaughter of a child” as “a person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b). Section 827.03(2)(b) describes as an offense, “A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child . . .” “Neglect of a child” is defined under section 827.03(1)(e) as (1) a caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or


(2) A caregiver’s failure to make reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.





I don’t practice in Florida, and I’m always mindful of potential for the secret hidden rule -- the one that people who regularly practice in a particular jurisdiction are usually aware of but may not be readily apparent to outsiders. But it appears to me that to get the enhancement, you have to be a caregiver.


[edit]It was looking at the model jury instruction on manslaughter that made me curious about this. The model instruction talked about caregivers under the section on enhancements.[/edit]

Jocelyn9596
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Jocelyn9596 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:14 am

For me this is really an easy case:An armed gunman stalks an innocent teenager carrying Skittles and a soft drink. Somehow the stalking leads to a tussle and when the armed man feels he is getting whupped (and his claims about the degree of his whupping and the severity of his injuries are shown to be b.s.) he kills the teenager with the gun with which he is armed.The armed gunman shouldn't have initiated the events that led to the death of the unarmed, innocent teenager. Nothing less than manslaughter with a firearm enhancement. Probably second degree murder where I come from.Sadly in this case, juries don't see things the way I do. (And whether the jury gets a manslaughter instruction is up in the air.)

I agree Stern. Can they still convict him of manslaughter now?

Yes, according to Florida law, manslaughter and other lesser offenses are automatically included. [/break1]jlellis.net/blog/zimmerman-and-lesser-included-offenses/]http://www.jlellis.net/blog/zimmerman-a ... -offenses/

Jocelyn9596
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Jocelyn9596 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:55 am

For me this is really an easy case:An armed gunman stalks an innocent teenager carrying Skittles and a soft drink. Somehow the stalking leads to a tussle and when the armed man feels he is getting whupped (and his claims about the degree of his whupping and the severity of his injuries are shown to be b.s.) he kills the teenager with the gun with which he is armed.The armed gunman shouldn't have initiated the events that led to the death of the unarmed, innocent teenager. Nothing less than manslaughter with a firearm enhancement. Probably second degree murder where I come from.Sadly in this case, juries don't see things the way I do. (And whether the jury gets a manslaughter instruction is up in the air.)

I agree Stern. Can they still convict him of manslaughter now?

According to Florida law, manslaughter and other lesser offenses are automatically included. Manslaughter would carry a 25 yr. min. mandatory penalty due to Trayvon Martin being a minor and the use of a firearm. It's not life in prison, but it's far better than him walking. [/break1]jlellis.net/blog/zimmerman-and-lesser-included-offenses/]http://www.jlellis.net/blog/zimmerman-a ... -offenses/I'd be the first one to agree with all of the attorneys and other posters that the prosecution is not doing a great job, missing many possible objections and allowing the defense to get away with a lot of crap. There was one TH, however, that actually was defending them from her position of having been a former prosecutor for the state. She said that the caseload they are carrying now is ridiculous and that the prosecution had prepped their witnesses thoroughly from what she learned in talking to a member of the team. Most of their prep work was done almost a month prior to their witnesses taking the stand. As IANAL, I have no idea if this timing is out of the ordinary or not. The M.E. said he changed his mind a couple weeks ago due to information he learned while working on another autopsy. So what could they do about that if he didn't inform them of any changes he planned to share with them? As far as the SPD goes, it looks like they are all out to save their jobs. For Serino and Singleton to get on the stand and call GZ's inconsistencies, MINOR, is in direct opposition to what they said when interviewing him. If anyone listens to the interviews, it's obvious in the one where they interviewed him together on 2/29/12, that they didn't believe him and called him out on his sudden lack of memory :roll: and other inconsistencies. If Serino was wanting initially to file M2 and then dropped it to Manslaughter, he obviously believed he had the info necessary to do it. Officer Smith blatantly lied during his initial statement, saying he wasn't involved in the case except for the first couple of minutes, yet he drove GZ to the station and later assisted his wife, who works as a Crime Scene Technician, inadvertently outed him when she spoke about how helpful he was in assisting her with the evidence. There was someone from the SPD at the scene of the shooting on 2/26 who told GZ's best friend, Mark Osterman, that it was a clean shoot :shock: and that was less than 30 minutes after the shots were fired and before GZ had given a formal statement. Considering that one of the SPD investigators who informed Trayvon's father that GZ had a squeaky clean past two days after his son was killed, I'd say that they didn't expect any type of formal investigation to be done or charges to be filed since this was an obvous lie. :^o


User avatar
mimi
Posts: 27921
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby mimi » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:50 pm

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why








[lots snipped. just get to the bottom line.]








So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.





If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman "reasonably" feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty.





To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.





Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.



[/break1]go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422]http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=19598422








I would bet that if it was Martin who shot Zimmerman, he woulda been convicted a long time ago.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:42 pm

Abrams may be right about the probable outcome, but he is entirely incorrect on his analysis of a self-defense defense. He appears to think self-defense is available to the initial aggressor, but pretty much anyone who did an outline for 1L criminal law and still remembers it knows it's something like this (grabbed from a [/break1]wcl.american.edu/sba/outline_databank/outlines/CriminalLaw_Robbins_2.pdf]random 1L crim law outline):

Rules for self-defense: 1. The D must have been resisting the present/imminent use of unlawful force. 2. The D must have used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against thethreatened harm. 3. The force used by the D may NOT be deadly, unless the danger being resisted was alsodeadly force. (are exceptions in some J for kidnapping, sexual crime) 4. D must NOT have been the initial aggressor, unless he was a non-deadly aggressor confronted with the unexpected use of deadly force OR he withdrew after his initialaggression and the other party continued to attack. 5. The D must NOT have been in position from which he could retreat with complete safety, unless he was at home or (in many Js) at his place of work

Outline quote cited not as an authority (anyone who knows the self-defense law already knows this anyway), but simply to demonstrate what common knowledge it is.The essential difference between "Stand Your Ground" and self-defense as defined in most jurisdictions is that it eliminates the requirement to retreat under all circumstances in which the defendant was engaged in lawful activity somewhere the defendant was legally entitled to be. It also entitles the defendant to a pretrial dispositive motion instead of an affirmative defense.To the extent SYG laws in some jurisdiction merely codify preexisting common law (or statutory law about self-defense), it may be that self-defense in those jurisdictions still only requires 1-4 of the self-defense definition used in this particular outline. However, not having been the initial aggressor applies not only in an SYG dispositive motion, but when using the affirmative self-defense defense. "Self-defense" is not a broader concept than "Stand Your Ground." In fact, if anything is true, the contrary is.Now, the jury may be unlikely to convict simply because they are unconvinced of the prosecution's case, or even because they misunderstand the law. But Abrams (IMO) misstated the law. Florida retains in its statutes a set of different requirements for the use of force by an aggressor, in which the duty to retreat is retained.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[/break1]leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html]F.S.A. § 766.041 (2012).

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Upper Mirkwood

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Estiveo » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:40 pm

But, but, but...Didn't Trayvon have the right to stand HIS ground? Oh, wait, Trayvon was bleck...different rules, never mind.
Image Image Image x2

Curious Blue
Posts: 2462
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:42 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Curious Blue » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:58 am

Abrams may be right about the probable outcome, but he is entirely incorrect on his analysis of a self-defense defense.

I agree -- here's a likely excerpt of what the jury will be instructed (based on Florida pattern jury instructions:

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless:a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm [highlight]and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Martin.[/highlight]b. In good faith, [highlight]the defendant withdrew from physical contact with Martin and clearly indicated to Martin that he wanted to withdraw[/highlight] and stop the use of deadly force, but Martin continued or resumed the use of force.

Reasonably good overview of Florida pattern instructions here:[/break1]lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/self-defense-jury-instruction-in-florida/]http://www.lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/sel ... n-florida/

Jocelyn9596
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:50 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Jocelyn9596 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:42 am

Abrams may be right about the probable outcome, but he is entirely incorrect on his analysis of a self-defense defense.

I agree -- here's a likely excerpt of what the jury will be instructed (based on Florida pattern jury instructions:

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself, unless:a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm [highlight]and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on Martin.[/highlight]b. In good faith, [highlight]the defendant withdrew from physical contact with Martin and clearly indicated to Martin that he wanted to withdraw[/highlight] and stop the use of deadly force, but Martin continued or resumed the use of force.

Reasonably good overview of Florida pattern instructions here:[/break1]lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/self-defense-jury-instruction-in-florida/]http://www.lyonssnyder.com/law-blog/sel ... n-florida/

GZ never raised a hand to try to punch TM or fight back with his hands, evidenced not only by his words but by the fact that his hands were pristine, not a scratch on them. Depending on which version of his story you're listening to, GZ had control of both of TM's hands and still had time to aim carefully so as not to hit his own left hand that had wrist control of TM's right hand. :^o GZ never warned TM at any time during their altercation that he had a gun and he'd shoot, if TM didn't stop the alleged beating. After shooting TM, GZ told the first witness he spoke to that he had to shoot TM because he was beating him up, not mentioning a word about the alleged death threat. :o I don't believe that GZ mentioned anything about TM's alleged death threat until he got to the police station, which would have given him close to an hour to come up with his story. [-X Would anything I mentioned in the above paragraph indicate that GZ didn't have to use deadly force? IMO, although IANAL, these are questions I'd have if I was on the jury.

User avatar
optimusprime
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:06 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby optimusprime » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:53 am

I TRULY think that Trayvon ran from z and when he reached the dog walk, thought he had escaped z and stopped running. We know this is what happened based on Rachel Jeantel's testimony. At that point he was tired and stopped running. We KNOW z ran after him. z hung up his phone... we know that from the non-emergency dispatch call. I suspect that z hung up because he saw Trayvon and closed on him. We know that z closed on him from Rachel Jeantel's testimony. z approached him. We know that z pushed Trayvon based on Rachels testimony. There were 2 witnesses who saw them in a standing tussling and two more who heard what sounded like two men wrestling. Then they hit the ground.I feel that EARLY on in the fight z started the altercation by confronting Trayvon, but as it progressed Trayvon was able get on top of him, but could not control him for long. Once they hit the ground, the fight was of short duration. We know this because there were NO bruises on Trayvon and no evidence on his body of a fight other than some minor abrasions to two of his knuckles and a finger. Trayvon probably hit z and stunned him long enough to knock him down. THAT was when z got those two VERY MINOR lacerations on his head and the punctate scratching on his temple. Remember; there were NO contusions on z's head ANYWHERE, meaning NO trauma strong enough to cause bruising.When z hit the ground he BUMPED his head on the sidewalk causing the injury... that is when I believe he pulled the pistol. Trayvon SAW him... THAT WAS WHEN HE STARTED SCREAMING FOR HIS LIFE. Unfortunately, because z was substantially bigger and stronger than Trayvon, he was able to overpower the younger combatant and take a point-blank shot DIRECTLY into his heart from close range while z was nearly parallel to the ground and Trayvon nearly perpendicular above him.We know Trayvon was legally DEAD within 2 minutes AFTER the shot was fired when SPD Ofc. Smith arrived on site.The projectile penetrated his right ventricle, the chamber of the heart that pumps blood coming from the body into the lungs to get rid of waste gases and bring in oxygen. It shattered with the fragments ripping through two lobes of his lungs.Instead of pumping blood through his body, his heart was literally pumping blood through the hole in his ventricle into his chest cavity. What little bit of blood there was that actually reached his lungs wound up spilling into his chest cavity as well.With a damaged lung, it would have been impossible for someone to speak because he would NOT have been able to breath... so z lied when he claimed Trayvon said "you got me or you got it". Additionally, there was ZERO blood going to his brain and ZERO blood going to the major muscle groups needed to move the upper body up off of z AND no blood going to his arms and shoulders so he would NOT have raised his arms or continued to struggle after being shot... again, putting to lie z's claim that he had to hold him down and spread his arms.It was physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for Trayvon to do the things that z said he did... z LIED.And if he lied about that, then he lied about everything else.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30734
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby realist » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:42 am

I can't remember if this has been posted.[link]FLORIDA STATUTESTitle XLVICRIMES CHAPTER 776JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE,http://www.scribd.com/doc/150757942/FLORIDA-Statute-Justifiable-Use-of-Force-Title-47-Chap-776[/link]

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 4485
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Sugar Magnolia » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:45 am

If Travon was on top when Z shot him, wouldn't Z be covered in his blood?

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby p0rtia » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:10 am

If Travon was on top when Z shot him, wouldn't Z be covered in his blood?

Just repeating what I've read about the case: No, because the heart was busy pumping blood into the chest cavity instead of into his body (see Optimus' post above). If you google for the picture of Marti's hoodie, you can see that there's very little blood on it.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Emma » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:15 am

(snipped)





It was physiologically IMPOSSIBLE for Trayvon to do the things that z said he did... z LIED.





And if he lied about that, then he lied about everything else.

Great post =D>





Also we have GZ claiming that Trayvon was sitting on his chest ... so how was it that Trayvon could look down and see the exposed (allegedly) holstered gun?

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Emma » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:22 am

I'm a bit fuzzy after this long, brutal weekend so forgive me if this has already been addressed. Regarding the ME bringing a 'script' to testify ... the talking heads were making a big deal of the prosecutor being sworn at the bench (raising his right hand to the judge). The attorney giving color-commentary opined that the prosecutor was being asked under oath if he was aware that the ME was going to have this script. Talking-head attorney said that in his career he'd never seen anything like that. Was this done in front of the jury? I was in and out that day and never heard the jury excused before this incident.

User avatar
Emma
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:25 am

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Emma » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:39 am

Friend called by defense to ID GZ's voice on the 911 tape is lying through her teeth.

User avatar
TexasFilly
Posts: 14580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby TexasFilly » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 am

Friend called by defense to ID GZ's voice on the 911 tape is lying through her teeth.

There is some obnoxious neighbor/friend of the Defendant's who appears frequently on HLN. He is your stereotypical RWNJ on steroids. He regularly insults the other talking heads who are lawyers and shrinks. I wish the defense would put him on the stand.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Trayvon Martin's MURDER in Sanford, FL

Postby Maybenaut » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:28 am

I'm a bit fuzzy after this long, brutal weekend so forgive me if this has already been addressed. Regarding the ME bringing a 'script' to testify ... the talking heads were making a big deal of the prosecutor being sworn at the bench (raising his right hand to the judge). The attorney giving color-commentary opined that the prosecutor was being asked under oath if he was aware that the ME was going to have this script. Talking-head attorney said that in his career he'd never seen anything like that. Was this done in front of the jury? I was in and out that day and never heard the jury excused before this incident.

Don't know for sure because I didnt see it, but I doubt this happened in front of the jury. And if it did, that would be reversible error, in my opinion; the prosecutor cannot bolster the government's case by swearing to anything in front of the jury.





I think it's more likely that the judge was trying to decide whether to admonish the prosecutor for allowing the witness to testify with the aid of the script and wanted to hear him say under oath that he didn't know the witness was going to do that. It is odd that she'd make him say it under oath, though. I think an, "I'm sorry, your honor, I didn't know he was going to do that," would be sufficient in most jurisdictions.


Return to “American Culture & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests