Yes, yesit does. It looks like someone who got a broken nose that bled profusely (according to the on-scene description) and someone whose head was bashed into cement.
The witnesses and physical evidence shows one person was on top of another beating him and that would be Martin beating Zimmerman. There is no other evidence that contradicts it.
There’s nothing particularly interesting at all about it. We know how the conversation started and what was said in return. Martin’s actions are on the aggressive side from the very act of returning to Zimmerman (for the 2nd time) and confronting him. The response he got from Zimmerman challenging his reason for being in the neighborhood was the tipping point for Martin’s behavior.
:rolleyes: there is so much wrong with this statement it’s scary. Your logic requires that a broken nose blocks the breathing or speaking process. It does not.
The same applies to pain. I’m in pain every day because of a broken neck and the resulting arthritis it caused and yet I manage to carry on a conversation. Call the Pope, it’s a miracle.
Yes, actually they do. That you have to ignore evidence because it interferes with your belief system is pure bias on your part. The wounds are consistent with Zimmerman’s account as well as eye witnesses. It’s reasonable to conclude that getting one’s head slammed into the ground is an act of aggression that immediately elevates the level of fear for one’s life which is compounded by any struggle for a gun.
He has a lawyer to speak on his behalf. He doesn’t plead the 5th, he never takes the stand. You have GOT to stop using TV crime shows as your legal tutorial.
Juries can be very biased, too. They can be ignorant of the law and chock full of prejudices. Grand juries aren’t even sequestered, and the rules that they are subject to are a lot more lax than a trial jury. So I don’t understand this idea that just because it’s a jury, we’re suddenly dealing with objective, impartial, or even intelligent entities. A common criticism of grand juries is that they are nothing but a rubber stamp for the prosecution anyway. According to this cite, it is uncommon for grand juries not to indict.
And yet more than a year after his arrest, GZ’s supporters still can’t stop talking about this nothingness.
See, this is what I’m talking about. You insist there is no evidence against Zimmerman and I point out that his own lawyers’ conduct suggests otherwise. Instead of considering this point, you quickly rationalize it away with innuendo about O’Mara’s competence. But what about West? Did he too call in sick the day they covered insufficient evidence to make an arrest at law school? You gonna just write him up as slow too?
To maintain your opinion, you have to believe that:
Corey so biased that she’s falsely accused a guy of murder
Judge Lester and any other official who looked at her affivadit and blessed it also is biased and unethical (as is Serino who also tried to get GZ arrested)
O’Mara and West are so incompetent they can’t recognize whether the state has a case adequate enough to take to trial.
The whole world has set him up.
But you have no evidence to support these claims. Just because you disagree that Zimmerman should’ve been arrested, doesn’t mean Corey is biased. To assert that, you need to show that she’s the type of person who would risk her reputation and job by falsely arresting someone.
And? If Zimmerman is innocent as you’re making him out to be–and if the State has nothing to put up–then an immunity hearing should be a cake walk. This is why the law includs this perk in it. In an immunity hearing, he wouldn’t have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be enough for him to just take the stand, tell his story, and survive a cross-examination without contradicting himself too horribly.
The fact that he can’t even manage this says a lot.
Both of them. hmarvin, bless his lil heart, is only parroting back what O’Mara and friends wants GZ’s fanbase to hear. Attacking the credibiltiy of Martin’s girlfriend is the only card in their hand, which is so embarrassing when you think about.
I can’t wait until this trial starts. No, seriously. Because when O’Mara starts “speaking for Zimmerman” at the trial like Magiver claims he can, it is going to be awesome to see what that looks like on cross examination.
I only mentioned it when you used the existence of criminal charges in this case as evidence of the existence of evidence, and I won’t mention it again unless you repeat that.
I didn’t say no evidence, insufficient evidence to support a conviction. Obviously, evidence is subjective; you’ve chosen to view Zimmerman’s statement that he restrained Martin after the shooting as evidence of guilt when it plainly isn’t, for instance.
Here are the grounds for a motion to dismiss in Florida criminal court:
1-3 are not applicable; 4 requires the lack of even a primae facie case of guilt, which is a very low standard. Dismissing a case for lack of such case isn’t as easy as you make it out to be. In this case, the charge is second degree murder. Per this, the three elements of which are:
The victim is dead;
The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
1 and 2 are not disputed facts. Thus, all the judge needs to deny the motion is primae facie evidence for #3. Again, a very low standard. It’s not as though O’Mara can argue self defense in the motion to dismiss.
Not maliciously, mind you. That’s the nature of bias.
Or just mistaken, or applying a low standard of probable cause.
See above. They might not being doing the best job they could, or they may be aware of the difficulty of a motion to dismiss in this case.
No; the whole world didn’t have the power to charge him, and I don’t think he’s being set up. Prosecutors prosecute, which explains many of the false convictions I’ve referenced. Fatty Arbuckle wasn’t set up either, he was just very unlucky.
She can just be wrong, and based on the evidence we have, she is.
And that burden of proof makes it more difficult to win.
In a trial, he doesn’t have to prove anything, the state has to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the highest standard of evidence, and going that route means the prosecution doesn’t get a preview of the defense strategy. I don’t think that short of gamesmanship is needed in a this case, as Zimmerman is unambiguously not guilty of second-degree murder (barring any evidence that hasn’t yet come to light), but this is what lawyers are paid for.
If he needs the civil immunity later, that option is still available.
The biggest problem Omara has is the prosecutors, for whatever reason, haven’t been turning over evidence in a timely fashion. Obviously, you can’t bring evidence that isn’t turned over in discovery to trial, and you have to wonder why the prosecutors are so disinterested in what, if they’re correct, is inculpatory evidence. All they’re going to have, at this point, is some minoir variations in Zimmerman’s story of what happened that evening, and is that enough?
A defense lawyer speaks for the defendant in court. The defendant can testify on their own behalf, if they so chose.
GZ has made a statement(s) to the police. Other “witnesses”, such as they are, have given statements to the police. The local PD, State PD, and FBI have conducted investigations into what happened that night. All, most, or some of these statements can be presented by the prosecution to establish that Florida law was violated. Hard evidence will be admitted to the court. The firearm, clothing, Skittles, watermelon drink, video recordings, photographs, medical reports, etc. The question is, will the evidence prove that FLA law was violated?
The defense has the option of asking the judge to toss this case after the prosecution completes it’s presentation. The judge may or may not toss this case at that time (if it’s even requested?) depending on whether she believes that the prosecution has produced enough/any evidence to prove that Florida law has been violated. A FLA resident is allowed to use lethal force when they believe they were in imminent danger at the time they resorted to the use of lethal force.
FYI - GZ has stated that he will not request a SYG hearing DURING the pre-trial, and only during the pre-trial. He has not given up his right to ask for a SYG hearing during the actual trial or afterward. What’s unclear to me is if the judge MUST grant the SYG hearing during the actual trial?
I suppose I’m bored with the case, and nit picked at something else.
The first part of it is just over dramatic, like so many things American. I just laughed at the stupidity of all the attention over something that doesn’t deserve it.
The last bit though is absurd. No matter your race, creed, religion, nationality or gender… WHOM would invite or be associated with the likes of Sharpton or Jackson?
I’ll tell you who, idiots and schemers. I’m implying exactly what you think I am.
God, the ridiculous intentionally-obtuse trolling about presumption of innocence again…I’m not sure if that or the “he hit him with the deadly iced tea can!!” stuff is more ludicrous.
Presumption of innocence means you need to get a TRIAL (which he is GETTING), at which you must be convicted by a jury according to the rules of due process, before you can be put in prison.
It doesn’t mean a prosecutor is violating your rights by charging you with a crime and putting you on trial in the first place (obviously you know this, but you are pretending not to for rhetorical flourish).
It doesn’t mean people on the Internet are not allowed to think you are, and/or will be found, guilty (do you know this? it seems impossible for someone not to, but some of these posts are either managing to miss this point or very convincing trolls).
It doesn’t mean we are obligated to believe the truth of everything the defendant says up until the moment he is convicted (clearly you do NOT understand this point).
The judged ruled defense has a right to Trayvon’s criminal record, so we may know the eight counts that Trayvon was charged with. One of them appears to be having a weapon at school. If so, the system failed Trayvon. He should have been placed into the regular criminal system, instead of that diversion program, which would have saved his life, and they could conceivably have gotten better help by counseling, or whatever. But since the parents appear to be in denial, who knows?
It’s virtually ALWAYS requested, even if the evidence is strong. Failure to request it means you cannot argue, on appeal, that the evidence was insufficient. Requesting it costs you nothing.
Can this be filed at any point before the trial begins, or has a deadline passed? I’m assuming it hasn’t, since motions about the prosecution turning over evidence were heard as recently as Tuesday.
While a defense lawyer’s job is indeed to speak for the accused, that doesn’t translate into providing testimony. Despite the snark, ywtf has it correct here: it will be difficult for the defense to introduce Zimmerman’s statements to the police into evidence: they’re hearsay. Here’s where the prosecution has an advantage: when THEY introduce whatever portion of Zimmerman’s statements they want to, it’s also hearsay, but falls under one of the recognized hearsay exceptions. But that exception is “statement against interest,” and it’s not available for statements that HELP Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman wants his side told, he will need to take the stand. I don’t see a reasonable chance of an acquittal without that happening.
(Note that an acquittal is not the same as a dismissal. If the prosecutors finish putting up their case and the defense successfully moves to strike, Zimmerman’s free but not acquitted.)
Are we talking about the same thing? I was replying to:
In other words, this is a defense motion that follows the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief. In Virginia, we call this a motion “to strike the evidence.” Other states have different names, but the intent is the same: a claim that the prosecution’s entire case failed to establish guilt as a matter of law, that no reasonable jury who heard the evidence could convict.
So there’s no “deadline,” in play. The motion is made during trial, after the prosecution announces that they rest (but before the defense begins presenting evidence). If the judge agrees, the case is dismissed.
