I haven’t, but I’ve seen the charging affidavit. It seems unlikely to me that there is some important piece of inculpatory evidence which is completely omitted.
I’m not an expert on prosecutorial ethics, but I would guess that the prosecutors have an ethical obligation and a professional duty to lay their best cards on the table when drafting such an affidavit.
I’m not 100% convinced that Zimmerman is innocent but it’s looking pretty bad for the prosecution.
You think the prosecution is duty bound to present its entire case in the initial affidavit? Haha. What’s the trial for then? Why not just have them hand out copies of the affidavit to the jury and call it a day.
Did you see the list of evidence the prosecution handed over to the defense? There is a whole lot there, definitely way more than we are aware of in this thread so far. 67 CDs worth. And a lot of witnesses:
"The document lists 50 possible law enforcement witnesses, including 28 officers from the 140-member Sanford Police Department. It also lists 28 civilian witnesses, including Martin’s brother, mother and father, two of Zimmerman’s friends – Joe Oliver and Frank Taffe – and his father, Robert Zimmerman.
Prosecutors did not give names for 22 other potential civilian witnesses."
No, you’re wrong here. The prosecution merely has to lay out enough evidence to support probable cause.
Now, they do have a duty to disclose their evidence during the discovery phase… but that’s the evidece you haven’t seen.
The latest leaks are not favorable to the prosecution, true.
BUT, again, again, again… what was Zimmerman’s initial statement to the police?
And how does it compare to eyewitness statements and the physical evidence?
Do you know?
According to this article, police didn’t believe Zimmermans injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed to receive. Zimmerman also attributed statements to Martin - for instance, “you are going to die tonight” - that seemed far-fetched and self-serving.
BTW, Bricker, your assumption was correct. Martin owned a t-mobile comet smartphone, so getting past the password would have been extremely difficult.
And so what? Consider the possibility that the prosecution’s case has little to do with Zimmerman’s broken nose. Even though the defense probably wants to make it all about his precious nose, this doesn’t mean his precious nose is the crux of the issue.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the State has identified a witness who saw the fight start and fingers Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the State has identified a witness(es) who saw the shooting take place and is able to contradict Zimmerman’s claim of being beseiged by a fighting prodigy.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the State has identified a witness(es) who saw Martin screaming for help.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the State has identified a witness(es) who saw Zimmerman escalating the conflict by chasing after Martin even after the altercation started.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the State has identified a witness(es) who heard Zimmerman say something incriminating. Like, admitting to pulling out his gun.
Remember how it was only a few weeks ago when the photo of Zimmerman’s bloody head appeared on the scene? If that pic is legit, then we should be wondering what other evidence might be lurking out there that we don’t know about it. The defense regularly shows us its cards because it has an incentive to do so (e.g. to raise money for the Z-ster). The State has no real reason to tell the public what it has until it has too.
Some of yall are acting as if his medical records represent some kind of Perry Mason breakthrough, but it’s old news to the prosection. They’ve had access to his medical records for weeks now. And yet no one has made any moves to drop any charges.
We will know this within a few days - maybe a couple of weeks. The prosecution has to give all the evidence it has to defense. Then it becomes public. O’Mara keeps threatening to file a motion to black out witness names etc. when it becomes public but he hasn’t yet.
Florida laws say it “has too” now.
Discovery has already taken place.
Since it was the defense who requested that the State’s evidence be kept secret from the public and O’Mara hasn’t actually gotten around to filing the motion to block out witness names (like he said he would), then you really should be wondering what his deal is.
Looks like there’s a bunch of new evidence just being released. The media is still combing through it. Should be interesting to see what the State has (or doesn’t have).
Among other things:
Source: Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News
It’s incredible how overwhelmingly in favor of GZ the subsequent evidence has been. Very similar to other politically driven prosecutions of this sort.
ETA: I don’t know the marijuana is significant in terms of making it more likely that TM attacked GZ. But it does seem to justify GZ’s initial assessment that TM looked like he might be on drugs, and makes his identification of TM as suspicious more justified.
…a photocopy of a picture taken of George Zimmerman at the scene of the shooting. In it, he has a bloody nose.
Sanford Officer Michael Wagner pulled out his personal iPhone, he wrote in his report, and shot a photo of Zimmerman’s bloody nose. It appeared to him, Mead wrote in his report, that Zimmerman’s nose was broken.
…
One resident told the investigator that he heard a commotion and when he investigated, "he witnessed a black male, wearing a dark colored “hoodie” on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He elaborated by stating that black male was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches “MMA (mixed martial arts) style.” He stated he yelled out to the two individuals that he was going to call the police. He then heard a “pop.” He stated that after hearing the “pop,” he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the black male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.
…
Called it.
What’s incredible is how amazed folks seem to be that Zimmerman actually can furnish evidence of his injuries. It’s like if I didn’t know any better, I’d think some of his supporters doubted that he could.
Zimmerman all along has maintained he had his nose broken and that there’s records to back that up. So…someone help me understand what exactly the big reveal is.
There is a serious question as to whether the affidavit meets the probable cause threshhold. Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution is confident that Zimmerman is guilty and wants him to go to jail, they would have been derelict in their duties to omit important inculpatory evidence from the affidavit.
Perhaps, but is there any reason to omit significant inculpatory evidence from the affdiavit?
No, but if there was a glaring contradiction, why omit it from the affidavit?
By “supporter” do you mean anyone who is not confident that Zimmerman is a murderer?
One can only laugh at this.
By “supporter”, I mean anyone who has insisted from the start that Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose.
This sounds like “Jon”. None of this is new testimony, in other words.
George Zimmerman also got it right in his phone call.
Ok, and who are these “supporters” who seem “amazed” that Zimmerman can document his injuries?
Seems to me the bigger problem is the emotional impact, since it undermines the efforts to portray Martin as a sweet innocent little kid.
It will also undermine the prosecution efforts to portray Zimmerman as a vigilante looking for trouble. Since he will be able to credibly testify that Martin seemed to be doped out.
Agreed. It’s a huge problem for the prosecution.