# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 184
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3662 "2012-07-14T16:32:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahaha. Are you suggesting that judges recuse themselves because they DON’T want off of a case? > > Lester doesn’t have to recuse himself just because O’Mara asked him to. It’s Lester’s choice. Does he want to or doesn’t he want to? What will Lester chose? In my view, nothing Lester wrote can be fairly interpreted to show bias. When a defendant deceives the court, as Zimmerman did on bail, the judge is permitted – indeed, REQUIRED, in his role as fact-finder – to document those facts that he relied upon to support his vision. For Zimmerman to claim he’s now prejudiced as a result is akin to the defendant that murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he’s an orphan. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3663 "2012-07-14T16:37:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The basis of our court system is that a person is innocent until “proven” guilty in a court of law. > > A criminal case is supposed to be built, step-by-step, in court, before a jury (assuming there is a jury). The judge is supposed to see that the case is being handled in a lawful manner. A judge that actually participates in helping the prosecutions case by suggesting the addition of more charges is not impartial. > > A judge that suggests the defendent is a lying weasel is not impartial. The judge is not letting the evidence pursuade the jury. The appeal(s) will be based on whether the defendent recieved a fair trial. Was evidence excluded that should have been included or included when it should have been excluded? Was the judge attempting to help the prosecution win a conviction? > > If this judge is truely impartial, he won’t care one way or the other if the case is heard by another judge. He should have no personal interest except to see that every defendent recieves A FAIR TRIAL. You are confusing the judge’s role at trial with his role pre-trial. Certainly Z’s deceit is not a proper subject for his murder trial. Certainly the judge should never advise the jury about it. And of course, he hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3664 "2012-07-14T17:03:21Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Like hell it does. Do you even know any cops? Several. But that doesn’t inform my opinion, personal experience and common sense does. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3665 "2012-07-14T17:17:34Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > This is often stated, but I don’t believe it to be true. > > 1. There are screams for help on the 911 tape. > 2. There is at least one witness that, at least originally, described Trayvon on top of him throwing punches down on Zimmerman MMA style. > 3. Zimmerman has well-documented injuries. > Add those three things together and that looks an awful lot like self-defense- without Zimmerman even having to say a word. Imho, GZ’s sd claim rests on TM declaring his intent to end GZ’ life while reaching for the gun. ymmv ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3666 "2012-07-14T17:23:32Z")
But Ostermam should’ve known that Zimmerman isn’t the sharpest package of cheddar in the dairy case, and therefore liable to slip up and say something incriminating. If he didnt advise him to lawyer up before being interrogated, I have to think he too is an idiot. Which may explain why he was fired from the Sanford PD (he was duped by a con man and lost a lot of money). And it could also explain why he’s friends with Zimmerman. Still irks me that it’s just now coming out that this guy was at the scene shortly after the shooting. I mean, I’ve heard of friends so close they help each other bury bodies and stuff, but it’s weird to me that he was there soon enough to chat with Zimmerman before he was taken away. I wanna know more about this. It sounds hinkey to me. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3667 "2012-07-14T17:25:35Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Even if ignore Zimmerman’s statement and just go by the physical evidence and what Witness 6 said, you still have reasonable doubt and must acquit him. You could ignore Witness 6 and still have reasonable doubt. You could throw in Dede and still have reasonable doubt. All the defense needs is a _plausible_ case that Martin initiated the confrontation and you have reasonable doubt. The defense doesn’t need to prove anything. I am not familiar with what W6 said. At least in the context of being W6. You bring up who “initiated the confrontation,” do we have any evidence of that outside of GZ report? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3668 "2012-07-14T17:30:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, you’ll be told that the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disbelieve every word out of GZ’s mouth, that isn’t enough to reject self-defense. The state must show you evidence from which you can conclude that self-defense did not exist here, AND that evidence must also eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis. Interesting. “evidence must also eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis”–other than the hypothesis that self defense did not exist here, or other than the state’s narrative? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3669 "2012-07-14T17:34:05Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Interesting. > > “evidence must also eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis”–other than the hypothesis that self defense did not exist here, or other than the state’s narrative? Other than those which allow innocence. The evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3670 "2012-07-14T17:36:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > But Ostermam should’ve known that Zimmerman isn’t the sharpest package of cheddar in the dairy case, and therefore liable to slip up and say something incriminating. If he didnt advise him to lawyer up before being interrogated, I have to think he too is an idiot. Which may explain why he was fired from the Sanford PD (he was duped by a con man and lost a lot of money). And it could also explain why he’s friends with Zimmerman. > > Still irks me that it’s just now coming out that this guy was at the scene shortly after the shooting. I mean, I’ve heard of friends so close they help each other bury bodies and stuff, but it’s weird to me that he was there soon enough to chat with Zimmerman before he was taken away. I wanna know more about this. It sounds hinkey to me. What possible hinkiness could result? In other words, what could this person have possibly done that would be inappropriately detrimental to the situation? ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3671 "2012-07-14T17:37:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > At the SYG hearing, yes, and it will - at that hearing, the burden of proof (to the standard of preponderance of evidence, if I remember correctly) is on Zimmerman. > > If it goes to trial, Zimmerman simply has to assert that he defended himself, and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not, and that he murdered Martin. > > I’m not sure how Zimmerman could prove that he didn’t start the fight (if that’s even true), which he would need to for SYG to apply. That won’t matter at trial, though. Zimmerman doesn’t actually have to prove that he didn’t start the fight even at a SYG hearing. He just needs to be more plausible than the prosecution. The physical evidence says the fight started at the top of the T. The prosecution needs a more plausible story than Zimmerman’s story about why Martin was there and how Zimmerman started the fight without leaving a mark on Martin. Dede statement is actually damaging to the prosecution, since she said that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman. That makes it implausible that he was waiting to talk to Zimmerman. At trial Zimmerman doesn’t need to be more plausible than the prosecution. He just needs a plausible story. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3672 "2012-07-14T17:52:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What possible hinkiness could result? You dont find it questionable that his presence was unacknowledged in the police reports and all of Zimmerman’s narratives? I do. If there was nothing wrong about him being there, there is no reason it shouldn’t have been reported. The hinkiness is in this ommission. It suggests there was concerted effort on both the PD and Zimmerman to keep this guy’s name out of this mess. The question is why. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3673 "2012-07-14T17:54:36Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > I am not familiar with what W6 said. At least in the context of being W6. > You bring up who “initiated the confrontation,” do we have any evidence of that outside of GZ report? The physical evidence says the fight started at the top of T. The prosecution has to **prove** that Martin wasn’t there to start a fight. Not a plausible explanation, but proof. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3674 "2012-07-14T17:55:38Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > … The bulk of GZ self-defense claim is based solely on his own testimony. If I find that he is not a trust worthy witness, what am I to do? … Not an interested attorney, or an interested one for that matter, but I have seen and heard the jury instruction about that question given many times. > [@](#): > > FALSE IN ONE - FALSE IN ALL > > (A TRIAL JUDGE, IN (HIS/HER) DISCRETION, MAY GIVE THIS CHARGE IN ANY SITUATION IN WHICH (HE/SHE) REASONABLY BELIEVES A JURY MAY FIND A BASIS FOR ITS APPLICATION - SEE STATE V. ERNST, 32 N.J. 567 (1960)). > > If you believe that any witness or party willfully or knowingly testified falsely to any material facts in the case, with intent to deceive you, you may give such weight to his or her testimony as you may deem it is entitled. You may believe some of it, or you may, in your discretion, disregard all of it. > > The same charge applies to the civil side. The civil side, > [@](#): > > CHARGE 1.12M > > 1.12 GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STANDARD CHARGE (Approved 11/98) > M. False in One - False in All > > [A trial judge has the discretion to give this charge in any situation in which the judge reasonably believes a jury may find a basis for its application. … When given, this charge usually will follow the section on credibility.] > > (Sample l) > If you believe that any witness deliberately lied to you, on any fact significant to your decision in this case, you have the right to reject all of that witness’s testimony. However in your discretion you may believe some of the testimony and not believe other parts of the testimony. > > (Sample 2) > If you believe that any witness or party willfully or knowingly testified falsely to any facts significant to your decision in the case, with intent to deceive you, you may give such weight to his or her testimony as you may deem it is entitled. You may believe some of it, or you may, in your discretion, disregard all of it. > > Note: Do not use the words “false in one, false in all.” From; [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/juryindx.pdf](http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/juryindx.pdf) [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/non2c008.pdf](http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/non2c008.pdf) [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/1.12M.pdf](http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/charges/1.12M.pdf) Now, I’m having trouble finding that in Florida’s [_Standard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases_](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/index.shtml) (prolly not the right place to be looking but I did find a SCoF [case](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/99/99-53/99-53AnswerBrief.pdf#xml=http://199.242.69.43/texis/search/pdfhi.txt?query=%22false+in+one%22&pr=Florida+Supreme+Court&prox=page&rorder=1000&rprox=1000&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=1000&rdepth=0&sufs=2&order=r&cq=&id=4d3723a5ab) that mentions it, “This is a typical “false in one, false in all” argument and is eminently proper.”, but I’m really, really, sure something that reads pretty much like the NJ instructions is in there because it’s one of the fundamental issues the trier of fact in any jurisdiction has to deal with. > [@Steophan](#): > > … If it goes to trial, Zimmerman simply has to assert that he defended himself, and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not, and that he murdered Martin. … And if the physical evidence contradicts Z’s assertion that he defended himself? CMC fnord! > [@doorhinge](#): > > The basis of our court system … While I’'m not a formally educated lawyer I am a graduate of the _Vincent LaGuardia Gambini School of Law_. That is, I’ve watched thousands of hours of proceedings in hundreds of criminal trials. I’ve learned almost enough to be able to act for myself in a criminal trial, and more than enough to know how bad an idea that is. So, you’ll have to forgive me if I give your lesson in American criminal law the attention it, for me, deserves. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3675 "2012-07-14T18:43:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, nothing Lester wrote can be fairly interpreted to show bias. When a defendant deceives the court, as Zimmerman did on bail, the judge is permitted – indeed, REQUIRED, in his role as fact-finder – to document those facts that he relied upon to support his vision. > > For Zimmerman to claim he’s now prejudiced as a result is akin to the defendant that murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he’s an orphan. Have you actually read O’Mara Motion? He cited several errors that Judge Lester made and some rather non judicial language he used. Even If we assume that Zimmerman’s action caused Judge Lester’s anger, it looks like he over reacted. Judges need to keep their anger in check. It was just yesterday that you pooh-poohed my speculation that O’Mara would file a motion to disqualify Judge Lester. According to the time stamps, O’Mara had actually already filed the motion when we discussed it. IIRC, you are a former prosecutor. It looks to me that Jeralyn has a more accurate ideas about how to play defense. Her post last night points up several tactical advantages in O’Mara’s motion. He is putting Judge Lester in a situation where even if doesn’t recuse himself, he could end up being reversed on appeal if Zimmerman is convicted. If he doesn’t recuse himself, then O’Mara can file an appeal that will freeze the trail until the appeals court can rule on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3676 "2012-07-14T19:00:03Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You dont find it questionable that his presence was unacknowledged in the police reports and all of Zimmerman’s narratives? I do. If there was nothing wrong about him being there, there is no reason it shouldn’t have been reported. The hinkiness is in this ommission. It suggests there was concerted effort on both the PD and Zimmerman to keep this guy’s name out of this mess. The question is why. My question is: what possible prejudice does the course of justice suffer, no matter what the answer to your question is? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3677 "2012-07-14T19:06:12Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Have you actually read O’Mara Motion? He cited several errors that Judge Lester made and some rather non judicial language he used. Even If we assume that Zimmerman’s action caused Judge Lester’s anger, it looks like he over reacted. Judges need to keep their anger in check. > > It was just yesterday that you pooh-poohed my speculation that O’Mara would file a motion to disqualify Judge Lester. According to the time stamps, O’Mara had actually already filed the motion when we discussed it. > > IIRC, you are a former prosecutor. It looks to me that Jeralyn has a more accurate ideas about how to play defense. Her post last night points up several tactical advantages in O’Mara’s motion. He is putting Judge Lester in a situation where even if doesn’t recuse himself, he could end up being reversed on appeal if Zimmerman is convicted. If he doesn’t recuse himself, then O’Mara can file an appeal that will freeze the trail until the appeals court can rule on it. Bricker was a defense attorney I believe. Way more credible source of information on these sorts of details and tactics than you are I would suspect. I’ll go ahead and take his word for it. Why are you so surprised that O’Mara is doing what he can to defend his client? Of course he wants a new judge because he and Zimmerman already blew it with this one with their actions and stories regarding his deception of the court at the bond hearing. Why does he deserve a do over for his own actions? “Can we get a new judge? We promise not to lie to this one, cross our hearts?” Is that how it works? You don’t get a mulligan because you pissed off the court. How about just stop pissing off the court? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3678 "2012-07-14T19:13:50Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > And if the physical evidence contradicts Z’s assertion that he defended himself? Then the state will have an easier time proving he murdered him. Showing his statement is false does not, by itself, prove beyond reasonable doubt that he’s guilty, but it will certainly help them. That said, I’ll be interested to know what evidence they would use to do that, and why they’ve held it back for so long… ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3679 "2012-07-14T19:27:56Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Bricker was a defense attorney I believe. Way more credible source of information on these sorts of details and tactics than you are I would suspect. I’ll go ahead and take his word for it. Why are you so surprised that O’Mara is doing what he can to defend his client? Of course he wants a new judge because he and Zimmerman already blew it with this one with their actions and stories regarding his deception of the court at the bond hearing. Why does he deserve a do over for his own actions? “Can we get a new judge? We promise not to lie to this one, cross our hearts?” Is that how it works? You don’t get a mulligan because you pissed off the court. How about just stop pissing off the court? I actually basing my statement on what another attorney said, not my personal opinion. Why do you think I am surprised at O’Mara’s action when I **predicted** them. I was only surprised that my prediction came true so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3680 "2012-07-14T19:44:42Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > While I’'m not a formally educated lawyer I am a graduate of the _Vincent LaGuardia Gambini School of Law_. That is, I’ve watched thousands of hours of proceedings in hundreds of criminal trials. I’ve learned almost enough to be able to act for myself in a criminal trial, and more than enough to know how bad an idea that is. > So, you’ll have to forgive me if I give your lesson in American criminal law the attention it, for me, deserves. As a juror, you would be entitled to draw your own conclusion. The basis of our court system is “still” that **a person is innocent until “proven” guilty in a court of law**. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3681 "2012-07-14T19:50:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The basis of our court system is “still” that **a person is innocent until “proven” guilty in a court of law**. [Not in Florida](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/13/2894049/florida-supreme-court-upholds.html): > [@](#): > > A Florida law that requires people caught with illegal drugs in their possession to prove their innocence has been upheld by the state Supreme Court. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=183) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=185)