Because I don’t care enough to do so. I’ve indulged your ego enough as it is.
Susan Simpson @ viewfromll2.com. She was one of Stoid’s cites back when evidence first started being released.
Kimmy Gibbler has argued on these boards that Zimmerman had not established justification for use of deadly force but that was way back when.
If there are any lawyers on justicequest.com, they definitely believe the state has a strong case. Haven’t lurked long enough to see if there are.
But it was emeraldia who claimed a consensus first. Just sayin. Bricker asked about lawyers who disagreed with him. ywtf provided the leatherman cite. And emeraldia claimed a consensus that lawyers thought the case was weak in his post calling leatherman a crackpot. 4 lawyers is not a consensus.
You get partial credit for ferreting out the crazy old coot.
That’s 3 strikes by my count…
4 keen legal minds who, after a prudent, unemotional analysis, articulated that the case against Zimmerman is not strong vs.
a delirious old codger… is consensus.
And you just helped add 2 more to the former. So now it’s 6. And I’ll add another 5:
Arnold S. Trebach
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/14/the-zimmerman-judge-must-withd
William A. Jacobson
“I still don’t see any evidence yet of the elements of second-degree murder,” said Miami defense attorney John Priovolos, a former prosecutor.
The new information “tends to support what Zimmerman is saying, that he was being assaulted,” said former Miami-Dade prosecutor David Waksman.
“This case was never a second-degree murder case,” said longtime Miami defense lawyer Jeffrey Weiner. “If anything, it was an over-reaction in a self-defense situation.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html
There, 11 great legal minds vs. a madcap fruitbasket. Consensus.
What in the world are you talking about? The defense hasn’t even started reciprocal discovery.
I’m actually looking forward to it. There are some things the prosecution hasn’t addressed at all and I wonder if O’Mara has some answers.
I already stated (4807) that Jeralyn Merritt says the state has a weak case. She does think the SYG hearing is a long shot, since the judge will want to avoid taking the heat for freeing Zimmerman and rather let a jury make the call.
We have his statement and his medical record. What else do you think is out there that we haven’t heard about already? You better hope it’s not testimony from a character witness.
I’m not a lawyer, but the first thing I would look for is interviews with people that talked to Dede back in March, before Crump talked to her. I would also like to see if they can find the guys at the 7-11. They also need rebuttal witnesses for the expert witnesses like Primeau and the medical examiner. They also need to interview all the witnesses the prosecution interviewed.
There might be a lot of people they might interview but we might not see at trial depending on what evidence the prosecution presents. If the prosecution claims that Martin was a choir boy and never would have assaulted Zimmerman, then all sorts of stuff might come out. They may want rebuttal witnesses for Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin and Witness #9 and Witness #18. In some cases, it might just be a warning about what doors the prosecution might not want to open at trial.
As I said, I am not lawyer, but these are the things the occur to me off the top of my head.
Judges generally take a dim view when attorneys attempt to put the victim on trial.
Sounds like there is a awful lot of rebutting they need to do, by your own acknowledgement. But that is not how you go about proving innocence.
I was wondering along these lines myself, and perhaps someone who has actual knowledge and experience with such matters migfht comment (e.g. Bricker).
I understand that legally there will be no presumption of guilt at the trial. But the question is whether the fact that the judge will have effectively ruled that GZ is not credible and that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his SYG claim will carry over to the trial itself.
This is particularly relevant because the judge might rule against GZ based on his hostility to him over the bail hearing issue and/or because he doesn’t want to take the heat as the guy who let Zimmerman walk. If there is risk of carryover effect, then it might be a bad move to go for the SYG hearing.
So you know of other lawyers, but don’t want to say their names, because you don’t wish to indulge my ego?
I see.
Well, at trial, the jury will be the finder of fact. I suppose an irked judge might make evidentiary or procedural rulings that hurt Z’s case, but I would be upraised to see anything like that, and shocked to see anything blatant.
The defense doesn’t actually need to prove innocence at trial. They don’t even have to show it at the SYG hearing, but they need to show that the preponderance of evidence is in their favor.
I don’t why you think this is a lot of rebutting. I’m sure actual lawyers would bring up a lot points I’ve overlooked.
So you are saying that the prosecution can’t say anything nasty about Zimmerman?
You really don’t understand.
At trial, the prosecution actually needs to prove that Martin was the victim. It the prosecution wants to introduce testimony about Martin’s character, then the defense is free to rebut it.
That is one of the neat things about trials. It is more like chess than poker. You can see all of the other guys pieces, so you have a pretty good idea about what moves you don’t want to make and a lot of the pieces you got are just there for defense.
Let me put it another way: Judges generally take a dim view when attorneys attempt to put the victim on trial.
The victim is on trial. 
Guess he regrets stalking the scary Negro and shooting him now.
There is no indication that he stalked him or was afraid of him and your statement was nothing but a racist rant.
Well I guess since there is no evidence he was in fear of him it kind of throws that whole SYG thing out the window