Well first because he is a personal injury attorney. Basically that makes him a SPOH by default.
Also because he seems to be more interested in trying his cases in the media than the courts. Media hound attorneys also tend to be SPOH in my book.
He also seems to be a lot more interested in getting a big civil settlement than a conviction of George Zimmerman. If convicting Zimmerman was his primary concern, then he would have immediately took DeeDee to the special prosecutor, not to a press conference. I think he is a lot more interested in a civil suit against Retreat at Twin Lakes than putting Zimmerman in Prison.
Of course, this is my opinion. If you think Crump is a knight in shining honor defending the downtrodden. Go right ahead.
No I’m not. Actually asking somebody to lie would be stupid, unnecessary and unreliable. You just nudge their memories in the desired direction. You slant your questions to get the desired response. You paraphrase their response in a slightly different manner or reorder events a little. Pretty soon the witness is remembering your version of events and will think they are telling the 100% truth.
But is the state gets past the self defense hearing, then isn’t it pretty much in a Ante-SYG condition? The Judge’s decision in the Garcia case seems pretty bizarre, but we don’t even know if that will survive appeal.
No, no. A dispute about what happened is a factual dispute.
A man goes into a bank, pulls out his dentures, and says, “Gimme the money, or I’ll reach over the counter and bite ya with these! You know how dangerous a human bite is?”
Factual disputes: was the accused that man?
Legal disputes: does the act of threatening with dentures constitute armed robbery?
It’s not about what I prefer, though. It’s what I believe. Do I think the State would be able prove my theory to a jury? It would be hard. Especially without witnesses who saw enough of the conflict to say that Martin wasn’t attacking Zimmerman.
But I think it’s quite possible they could. Specifically because of that yelling. It’s a blood-curding scream of desperation. To shoot someone who was in such a helpless state of fear points to a depraved mind. So the State’s challenge would be to convince a jury that it wasn’t Zimmerman who was screaming, it was Martin.
And this is not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Proving something beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt doesn’t mean the State has to have mountains of perfect, unimpeachable, 100% definitive evidence. It just means having to strongly convince a jury that their explanation for the event is true. How easy that will be largely depends on the jury.
Zimmerman has no assets. Trying to a get civil verdict against him is hardly worth it. Remember his parents had come up the 15,000 for the bond. What point is there in getting an award against an indigent defendant? Getting an award against Retreat at Twin Lakes could be worth millions.
I was wondering if Zimmerman wins the self-defense hearing if any his immunity would transfer to Twin Lakes?
How much of a nudge do you think is needed, and in what direction?
It seems to me that DeeDee’s statement is significant to the degree that it contradicts Zimmerman’s account, and the most significant variance is that in Zimmerman’s account, he was walking away from Martin, when Martin (as the agressor) came towards him and began an assault. This would have had to have happened within a two minute window between the end of Zimmerman’s call with the police dispatcher and the beginning of the confrontation.
One of Zimmerman’s problems is that DeeDee’s account is much more plausible when considered in the context of a fact which Zimmerman had no way of knowing: That Martin had an open call on his Bluetooth headset when the confrontation began. It’s one thing to assert that someone with no history of violence launched a brutal attack with such little provocation - there has to be first time for everything, right? But I think most people who are actively looking to administer a beat-down to someone are going to end their call and secure their valuable electronics first.
There are two hurdles. Even if you convince a jury, your trial record has to be solid enough to convince an appeals court. They won’t disturb a jury’s factual finding as long as there’s evidence in the record to support the finding, but if the jury just decides something happened even without something to point to, the appeals court will kick it back.
In other words, you might get a jury that votes to convict on general feelings, or on a dislike of Zimmerman, or because they’re anti-gun. But without a solid grounding in the record, the appeals court (or the trial judge) may not let it stand.
I’ve speculated before that Zimmerman might actually do better with a bench trial.
My guess – and I can’t stress the word ‘guess’ enough – is no. The legislature makes him immune from prosecution and a civil suit. It doesn’t declare that he has acted without negligence. To the extent that there’s some kind of supervisory negligence (and I’m not saying there is) it seems to me that there’s no automatic immunity there.
But this is not my area of law, and it’s not my state, so I welcome comments from someone who knows.
But doesn’t the prosecution see the defense playbook also? Also the defense has to show a preponderance of evidence, so they can’t hold anything back for trial? Since the Prosecution has a lower standard, then they have the option of not showing all their cards.
Thank you… I did learn that, but had forgotten it. Especially in the heat of total annoyance. (In fact it was the topic of one of my early law threads, I was trying to wrap my head around the ideas of “ultimate facts” vs. “Legal conclusions” - I knew it sounded familiar…)
Not necessarily, no. There are plenty of ways that someone could kill someone else without it being either murder or self defence. Criminal ways, such as manslaughter and negligent homicide, plus unfortunate but legal accidents.
What will it take for you to accept that there is much more to proving a murder than simply proving that someone killed someone? The plain text of the laws, caselaw, and the opinions of the people on this board who are actually qualified in law don’t seem to have any effect on your views, so I’m frankly at a loss to know what will.
I’m going to ask you two simple questions, and I hope you’ll answer honestly.
Is it your belief that all the prosecution has to do in this case is to show that Zimmerman killed Martin, and that it was not in self defence?
Not at all. I think it would be a stunning feat to convince anyone that the voice IS Zimmerman. Nothing about it suggests that in the slightest way. And nothing about it suggests a big football player overpowering a poor defenseless (except for that loaded gun, of course) ex-bouncer with a rage problem and a history of violence.
I don’t think I was making it out to be anything. I am just saying why even go there? Why risk putting up a point that is hardly a slam dunk if you don’t have to?
Why try to make a half court shot when all you need is an easy lay up?
Because they have nothing to lose by charging him with 2nd degree. If they fail to convince the jury it was murder, the jury can still convict him of manslaughter.