This was my suspicion, too, when Corey announced the charge of second degree murder (which shocked me.) My immediate reaction was “She’s got the goods on him and isn’t showing her hole cards yet.”
But public figures have made amazingly dumb mistakes before, and until we know what evidence she has, there’s really no way to know what they have on Zimmerman. The information that was filed was rather stunningly short on evidence beyond “This guy shot this other guy.”
First, this should usually get cured by directed verdict before the defense even puts on a case. A judge should do it sua sponte if he sees it–and it’s nearly automatic for an attorney to move for it even for the less than glaringly obvious missing element.
So even if it does, what you say could be true in some cases. But it would really depend on the testimony given on a case by case basis. If a defendant lies in such a manner as to constitute an admission, that can be considered by the jury.
In this case, Abel supplies what the prosecution was missing by placing himself in a position to know how the wallet got into the dumpster, we can still believe Abel knows about the wallet and the dumpster regardless of whether we believe his version of the wallet and the dumpster.
I suppose if you still disagree we should look at cases. Shall we? Most likely be tommorrow before I get around to it.
Doesn’t the probable cause affidavit have to have some meat on it’s bones and include evidence on both sides of the case? Beyond the testimony of Trayvon’s mom that she thinks it’s his voice that’s a pretty weak case.
At 4:20 I believe I saw a baker chasing a woman in a clown suit. The baker then had the snot kicked out him by an incoherent martial arts expert. I may be mistaken.
No, an appeal to authority fallacy is when one says “person x, who’s an authority says it, therefore you must accept my statement is true”. What I said is that “if authority x, whom I trust, says it, I will accept that it’s true. You can make up your own mind”. That’s not a logical fallacy. That’s a necessary part of life. That’s me accepting the word of someone I trust, on a subject that requires much more education on the subject in question than I have time to acquire.
I’m not “suspicious”, I merely have no idea if you are an acceptable source. I can ask Bricker, which I did, and trust what he says, because I’m already aware of his expertise. But any random poster who’s expertise I’m unaware of, is capable of blowing smoke up my ass and I wouldn’t know it unless I took the time to research a complicated subject that takes years of education to master. I don’t have the time to acquire a law degree. I have to decide who’s word to trust on the matter. Bricker and several others at this board, I do. If you are, indeed, an expert in the subject, and show yourself to be so, over time, you’ll get added to that list. If you don’t, then you won’t.
Take this example. I studied Chemistry. If I said something about Diehls-Alder reactions not working under certain circumstances, and Diehls and Alder were aware of that and mentioned it in their original paper, and you asked for cites, any cite I gave you, you would not even be able to understand until you’d obtained for yourself at least the equivalent of a year and a half of study toward a Chem degree. You could take my word for it, or you could take the word of whatever authority I cited, but you would be unable to verify the statement for yourself without that year and a half of study. You might not even be able to evaluate the qualifications of whatever authority I cited, without that. Same thing.
I’ve read shitloads of court decisions. And talked/messaged to acquaintances, friends, and relatives who are lawyers. What I learned from that lets me know who’s blowing smoke, and who is actually trustworthy. But I have neither the time, nor the inclination to research a complex subject that’s really not of much use to me after I do that. Much easier and quicker to ask a known (to me) expert. Especially when he’s willing to take the ten minutes to explain it well enough for my purposes. But any random schmoe on the internet doesn’t qualify as a trustable source for that purpose. I have to already know they are reliable.
This simplistic explaination was given to me decades ago by a Chicago trial attorney (I hope I remember it correctly). In order to have a criminal prosecution, you start with a prosecuting attorney who believes they have a case against a defendent. The case enters a completely EMPTY courtroom and a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury are added. Next, you add all evidence and testimony pertaining to the case. Only evidence presented in court and only the testimony given in court should be considered by the jury. All evidence and testimony is allowed to be cross-examined and rebutted, if that’s possible. The jury then retires to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendent.
The State is supposed to build it’s case, step by step, in the courtroom. Every step. The judge will make a statement as to the charge(s) and the prosecutor will even have to provide evidence that Martin is dead and Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Baby steps until all the evidence is produced and cross examined.
Dude for every brief in the appellate courts that worked there’s one that failed and they were all written by lawyers. Well, some by paralegals.
Bricker is wrong sometimes, believe it or not, though he should always be taken seriously.
**Bricker’s **say so is not an authority. Can you even prove he really is a lawyer? (Not that I wish to disturb any such reputation.) We’re all anonymous here and you’ve come to a board that isn’t based on bowing to Bricker’s authority to settle questions, even though some seek his advice.
We prove what we say here, not, Bricker says so, so it’s right!
it’s a community and some people could be insulted by implying Bricker is the only valid poster cause you darn well know he’s right!
I’m here to fight ignorance, and the idea that the right answer can only come from Bricker isn’t all that whippy, tell the truth. Don’t get me wrong, i agree with more of what he says than disagree by far. And probably half of what I disagree with is because we’re not looking at things from the same angle. But if you believe anybody here is always right, and therefore no-one else should undertake to convince you, well…
Trayvon Martin Prosecutor Rants and Whines About My Criticism
Posted by Alan M. Dershowitz
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/trayvon-martin-prosecutor-rants-and-whines-about-my-criticism/
I don’t know if O’Mara is a good lawyer or not. I don’t know what his win record is either.
Zimmerman was read his Miranda rights at the Sanford Police station and he declined the chance to get a lawyer. Anything he said after that point “can and will be used against him in a court of law”.
That isn’t what I said. I said there was a list of several I’ve come to trust, he just happened to be the one posting right then. This discussion is a hijack, so I’m dropping it.
Whatever. “I don’t believe it cause you’re not Bricker” is still pretty weak here.
Thx. After reading the link I agree this may be a serious issue. Serious enough perhaps for something to get reversed on appeal, if need be.
And it goes against the idea that she is holding some smoking gun that we do not know about, but rather she intends to win this case by manipulation.
Agreed. Which is why I said I simply disagreed with the formula you presented. In actual practice, we don’t – or shouldn’t – ever get to the defense case.
Disagree. (“Strongly!” in a nod to “A Few Good Men.”)
Merely because he knows how the wallet in the dumpster is not sufficient evidence to conclude he struck Baker and took the wallet. I suppose, if he were charged with obstruction of justice, the jury’s disbelief of the clown story might be enough to convict him of misleading the police. But the jury can’t point to a single piece of evidence they relied upon to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he struck Baker, took the wallet, and asported it.
By all means.
There’s an excellent discussion of the concept in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307 (1979).
In terms of cases actually dismissed under the standard enunciated in Jackson, let me offer up Ramsey v. Commonwealth, a 2008 Virginia case involving a stolen car.
The evidence proved that a silver 1995 Honda Accord was stolen during the night of Deecmber 7, 2005, from a home in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Several days later, Dennis Wayne Mahoney Ramsey was arrested by police in Williamsburg, Virginia (a city about 30 minutes away from Virginia Beach) while driving that car, which was hotwired and had a broken steering column so it could be driven without a key. At trial, Ramsey’s ex-girlfriend testified that in December she remember him getting into a gray four-door vehicle as a front seat passenger; when showed a picture of the stolen car, she said it looked like that one.On cross, asked if she were sure that was the car, she said “It looked like that one, yes,” but she then testified she was not sure it was the exact car.
Ramsey was tried in Virginia Beach for grand theft and receiving stolen property. He was convicted of the stolen property charge.
On appeal, he argued that no sufficient evidence showed him in Virginia Beach with the stolen car. The appellate court agreed.
The jury was not permitted to make the inferential leap that he knew the car was stolen as a passenger. As a driver, yes, but no evidence showed he drove the car in Virginia Beach – just in Williamsburg.
Quoting from Dershowitz’ column:
He’s right. But this is the difference between a Harvard professor’s view of the world and a practitioner’s view of the world. Wake up, Professor: in the real world, some prosecutors often do exactly that. It’s not even eyebrow raising. If there’s not a statute compelling them to disclose, some prosecutors won’t disclose. I’ve worked with prosecutors who wouldn’t tell you what time it was unless you could prove it was Brady ,material.
Sure, it would be great if all prosecutors took the position he urges, but that’s not reality.
His other point - that he has every right to criticize her – is of course correct.
And the judge who accepted the affidavit? He too is so incompetent that he let himself get steamrolled by Corey without so much as a peep in protest?
And then there’s Corey’s boss(es), who presumably also had to look at the thing before it went out. To give credence to your opinion, I guess we have to assume they, along with O’Mara and the judge, are too 'tarded to recognize a baseless case when they see it.
With so much incompetence clustered in one state, it’s a wonder they’re able to function at all.
Part of the criticism of the affidavit is that it fails to include exculpatory evidence. That’s not something the judge would know, since he has almost certainly not seen the evidence.
And as I mentioned before, it’s not a matter of an illegal tactic – as to that flaw, Dershowitz is simply arguing that prosecutors shouldn’t do it.
And he’s right – but they do. All over the nation.
Okay, but if this were a problem which made it a truly flawed affidavit, the judge should have rejected it. But he didn’t, so that tells me one of two things.
Either the affidavit is fine and all this jibber jabber about it being insufficient is just that…jibber jabber.
Or that the judge, and everyone else who has looked at and accepted it, is too incompetent to do their jobs correctly and should probably be disbarred.
Call me crazy, but I’m leaning towards the first.
I would take Dershowitz’s complaints more seriously if he didn’t seem to be fixated on Corey to the exclusion of everyone else. Attention whoring drama queen are words that come to mind.
Miranda rights are read at arrest? Zimmerman was not arrested.
The judge can only work with the document that is handed him.
The only person accountable for an incomplete affidavit is the Prosecutor. And given her behavior regarding Alan Dershowitz she is off to a remarkably bad start. It’s not the first time she’s threatened to sue someone who criticized her.