The Supreme Court disagrees with you
No. Witnesses heard the shooting take place behind their houses. Shortly after the shot was heard, witnesses saw the boy on the ground with Zimmerman standing over here.
I would really like to know Zimmerman’s explanation for how the boy ended up dead so far from where he supposedly jumped him on the street. I would think this a critical detail in determining whether SYG even applied to him, and yet it’s getting overlooked in this thread.
Yes, in Florida the DA cannot bring Capital charges on his own, he needs a GJ indictment.
I was talking in general, in general, if the DA doesn’t have enough evidence to convince the GJ to bring a indictment, even when the Defense isn’t allowed a say, then the evidence is very weak.
Yes, that could make a CONVICTION difficult as the Defense will likely raise that defense. But the fact that a CONVICTION might be difficult does not have much to do whether or not there’s enough evidence to indict.
My conclusions from this logic would be: if it is impossible to arrive at the truth of a matter without compelling people to testify without constitutional and procedural protections, then why shouldn’t we compel people to testify in a courtoom?
It wouldn’t be the first time!
Because the purpose of the two proceedings is completely different. The purpose of the grand jury proceeding is merely to determine whether there is prima facie evidence to proceed with a prosecution, not to “arrive at the truth of the matter.”
Grand juries do not find truth.
And the purpose of a trial is to “arrive at the truth of the matter” but within the bounds of constitutional protections.
Yes, but in those cases the GJ proceedings are “open” thus witnesses can NOT be compelled. Witnesses may or may not come forward. Witnesses may be more concerned with protecting their life or covering their own ass than giving “full and frank testimony”. Etc. See my post #1221
I am not even sure if this is a legal option in TX or Fl. It is in CA, but it is very rarely used, due to those limitations.
The “evidence would be weak” would mean “the evidence would be weak to show that the defendant broke the law”.
To take a silly example (from the Far Side, IIRC) : a man is running around in a chicken suit hitting people with a boxing glove. Suppose there is a law saying “it is legal to run around in a chicken suit hitting people with a boxing glove”. It doesnt matter if testimony shows that the accused did, in fact, run around in a chicken suit hitting people with a boxing glove. The evidence for that could be very strong, it still doesn’t mean that the Grand Jury would support an indictment, since the behavior is legal. Saying “the evidence is weak” wouldn’t mean that the man wasn’t hitting people in a chicken suit.
Of an example more related to this case:
Scenario 1) State law says that you are supposed to avoid confrontations with people, and use all possible means of retreat without killing the other person if you thought there is any chance of danger to your life.
Scenario 2) State law says that if someone attacks you, you don’t need to retreat; you have the right to shoot them if you fear they will do you great bodily harm.
Evidence that could be weak for an indictment in scenario 2 could be strong for an indictment in scenario 1.
Ok, and the legal system has determined that you cannot decide on a prosecution or not without compelling testimony from witnesses? But you can decide whether or not a crime really occured without compelling testimony from witnesses? I don’t understand this distinction.
In any case, I still have the belief that, if a defendant is not to be charged in a case, it would benefit the legal system, and society at large, if the grand jury proceedings would include a summary of the reasons why charges are not going to be filed. Especially in the controversial cases like that of Joe Horn, or this one. Not doing that reduces trust in our legal system, something that people don’t seem to trust very much in the first place.
Arnold, you’re a great guy, quite smart and I see what you’re getting at. But can you trust the experts here that that is generally not how a GJ works? I am not saying that the GJ may not have that defense at the back of their mind while making their decision, but it’s a defense, and not part of the GJ indictment proceedings.
I am sure it will be a major part of the defense at the actual trial.
No, we have decided that, so long as people are protected from prosecution or from the release of information to the public, that it is useful to allow the grand jury to compel testimony without the protections of the constitution.
And we have decided that when it comes to an actual trial that the government may n ot bypass the protections of the constitution.
It’s really up to Joe Horn or other witnesses to decide if they voluntarily want to reveal what they have said to the public. It’s not fair for the government to go ahead and release that information when they promised not to.
As far as controversy goes, it behooves the public to have the maturity to understand that they can’t force people to disclose information that they don’t want to, just because they really want to know and that this is not unjust.
Maybe it’s me but does it appear that everyone – when invoking “Stand Your Ground” – they presupposition that the spirit of that law applies to Zimmerman? I.e. that Zimmerman was the one who stood his ground while the facts show that he was the attacker and the spirit of the law would only apply if the outcome was different – i.e. if the attacker was the one who ended up dead.
What am I missing?
No, because the issue isn’t Carl’s credibility. It’s Edna’s.
But in limited cases, we assume we can trust Edna. If Edna is near death and knows she’s near death, we permit her testimony to be heard, under the idea that a person near death wouldn’t imperil their mortal soul by lying.
It seems to me that a lot of people don’t realize how small Retreat at Twin Lakes is. Here is the aerial view in Google.
It looks like there are about 250 town homes and about 50 of them belong to Black people and 50 of them to Hispanic people.
I still find it rather unlikely that someone who is on the neighborhood watch would not know what street they are on.
Seems to be that would be extremely relevant. If Martin knows Zimmerman has a gun, he’s not likely to assault him, therefore Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is less credible.
Is the peril of our mortal souls really the reason? Would that mean they wouldn’t take the dying words of us godless heathens? That would be asinine if true.
That is really and truly the origin of the practice. Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri - no one at the point of death is presumed to lie. It’s been a principle of the English common law since the thirteenth century, IIRC.
There is no effort to ascertain the heathen quotient of the declarant; I imagine that faced with imminent death, all you heathens will recant in your heart and want to face your Maker with no lies on your lips.
Or so goes the theory.
Despite resting on such grounds, there really isn’t any agitation in progressive legal commentary circles to upend the exception. It’s obviously a medieval relic, but there you have it.
That’s not a bad point.
It would also be evidence that Zimmerman committed aggravated assault.
Bricker, can you weigh in on the incongruity between where the shooting took place and where Zimmerman says Martin jumped him?
To accept that Zimmerman is telling the truth about why he got of the car and how Martin confronted him, we have to swallow two improbabilities. Namely, 1) that a kid who initially showed signs of flight would suddenly do a 180 and chase after the man who was pursuing him earlier, and 2) that Zimmerman would need to get out of his car to find out what street he was on. These are fishy all by themselves, mainly because they very conveniently either place blame on Martin’s conduct or clear Zimmerman of impropriety that could potentially hurt his claim of self defense. But okay.
But now we have to accept a 3rd improbability that’s even bigger than the other two: Martin was killed no where near the street where Zimmerman was parked. Not only was he killed behind some houses, but oddly, he was found not far from his own home. Isnt it amazing how well the placement of the shooting matches up with just what we’d expect if Martin had continued on his original trajectory and had been confronted by Zimmerman?
I wish I could, but I don’t know where Zimmerman says Martin jumped him.
I am sure this will all be explained to the GJ by the DA, just like it should be. Look, in Florida the DA has to go to the GJ for a Murder charge. No choice. You do want a Murder Charge, right, not just Assault?
Next- if you arrest someone and don’t charge him you have to release him after a very short period. If you do charge him before all the facts are known, you can jeopardize your case.
So, “Why hasn’t the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?” has been answered- the DA needs the GJ to bring a Indictment. This does not happen overnight.
Yes, there are quite a few holes in Zimmermans story, but the fact remains- we know very few facts.