Plan B Forum

This topic was discussed a lot in this and other threads when it first hit the news.

This trial is going to be big news. There is a chance Zimmerman might walk or get off easy, which would cause outrage, mostly among the black population. If he doesn't walk, there will be outrage from others. Zimmerman has been described as Hispanic but his surname certainly isn't.

I've been following this story since the beginning and just recently it has returned to front page news on HLN (formerly Court TV). Zimmerman's story has been told many times and it sounds plausible but a lot of people refuse to accept it.

The problem for the prosecution is they have no eye witness. They only have people who heard one of them screaming for help but nobody can confirm who that was.

Guilt or innocence will very likely be decided based on who the jury believes was screaming for help.

Jury selection begins June 10th 2013.

If Zimmerman isn't handed a long prison sentence or even a death sentence, the blacks will riot.

You can count on it.

If Zimmerman isn't handed a long prison sentence or even a death sentence, the blacks will riot.

You can count on it.

I'm not so sure about that Dale, (though if this were Oakland that would certainly be case)

The reason I think that may not happen is because, (as you may recall) when this first started to get publicity, there was an enormous amount of outrage in the African American community in the local Florida town where this happened because it took so long for Zimmerman to even be charged; and while there were a lot of protest marches and rallies about it, there was no violence. (Again if this had been Oakland, every night that went by without him being arrested would have been used as an excuse to break windows, loot stores and torch cars.)

They only have people who heard one of them screaming for help but nobody can confirm who that was.

I think the prosecution is going to have a huge logical problem with that for this reason:

All of the physical evidence, (both on Zimmerman and Martin) and all of the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's version of how the physical confrontation portion of this went down; ie, that Zimmerman was getting his head slammed into the pavement and getting his ass kicked, and while he was on the ground getting his ass kicked, he was able to pull out his gun and fire it into Martin, who was on top of him.

How much logical sense does it make that the guy who was administering the ass kicking would be the one yelling for help? (" Help! I'm not kicking this guy's ass hard enough, could somebody please come over here and give me a hand?") Wouldn't it make a helluvalot more sense for the guy who was on the receiving end of the ass kicking to be yelling for help?

It seems to me the only way it makes logical sense for Martin to be the one yelling for help is if the yells occurred after the shots, and the audio tape makes clear that isn't what happened.

Another thing that Zimmerman has going for him is that he has a very very good lawyer. I've been extremely impressed with the way Mark O'Mara has managed this, both from the court room side and from the PR side from the very beginning. (The best thing that happened to Zimmerman was when the two bozos he had as counsel originally quit and O'Mara took the case)

I happened to catch some of the pre-trial motion hearing that was held earlier this week, (when the trial starts I won't have it on all the time in the background because if I did I wouldn't get any work done. )

While all of O'Mara's motions were denied, (mostly about evidence pertaining to Martin's character) he accomplished two important things:

First he, got the information pertaining to Martin's character, (drug use and a proclivity for violence) into the public record, (that seems fair to me, given the way Zimmerman's character was publicly dragged through the mud from the outset of this) and he also got it established that while this evidence couldn't be brought in during opening statements that it could possibly come in later depending on witness testimony.

This was a brilliant strategic move on O'Mara's part because it really puts the prosecution in a bind. If the prosecution decides to focus on just what transpired during the 40 seconds of the altercation then the negative character evidence about Martin doesn't come in. But if they do that, they are playing to the Defense's strength, because as I pointed out earlier, all of the physical and forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account of what happened during that time frame. (O'Mara would no doubt be delighted if they did this.)

If on the other hand, they try to strengthen their case and gain sympathy from the jury by calling witnesses to portray Martin as some sort of goody two shoes, they will have opened the door for all the negative character evidence. (Which frankly looks pretty bad.)

I think that given the state of the evidence that the prosecution engaged in a huge politically pressured over reach by charging Zimmerman with premeditated murder. Unless the jury consists entirely of close relatives of Trayvon Martin, I don't see how they can possibly get a conviction for that. I think that Zimmerman will either be convicted of a lesser charge, (like manslaughter) or he will walk, or the jury will hang. (I think a hung jury is a very strong possibility in this case, and I think that could be how it turns out no matter how many time they go back to try it.)

I hope Zimmerman walks, I don't see that happening.

I hope Zimmerman walks, I don't see that happening.

Well Dale, if the jury hangs, then they'll probably re-try the case. (Ordinarily the prosecution would first look at the break down on the jury vote and then decide whether or not it made sense to go for a retrial, but given the politically charged nature of this case, I suspect the prosecution would go for a re-trial, even if the vote was 11-1 for acquittal on all charges.)

If the jury hangs a second time, then at some point the prosecutor has to weigh the costs of futile trial attempts against the political pressure.

I also have a correction to make:

My recollection that Zimmerman had been charged with premeditated 1st degree murder was incorrect; he has in fact been charged with 2nd Degree Murder. The Florida standard for that is:

Murder in the second degree, under Florida law, is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.”

It's punishable by life imprisonment, and it's still going to be high bar for the prosecution to meet given the evidence, but maybe not the completely insurmountable one that trying to prove premeditation would have been.

I think they have a much better shot at manslaughter, if the judge will also give the jury that option:

The other possible charge, manslaughter, is defined as a killing done without premeditation, and is often handed down when the killer is judged to have been caught in the “heat of the moment.”

Under Florida law, manslaughter is described as “the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification... and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder.”

An argument of negligence in this case could be made if prosecutors proved Zimmerman followed Martin, even after a police dispatcher told him not to.

A conviction of manslaughter is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... von-martin

The article says:

An argument of negligence in this case could be made if prosecutors proved Zimmerman followed Martin, even after a police dispatcher told him not to.

But the dispatcher didn't tell him not to follow Martin. He said, "..we don't need you to do that."

I interpret that to mean that the dispatcher didn't want to encourage Zimmerman to follow Martin because the police were coming, but that doesn't mean that he was ordered not to do it. For potential liability reasons the police are not going to ask a civilian to follow a suspect.

Could you imagine what would have happened if the dispatcher were to say, "Follow him and keep us up to date" before this shooting happened?

The entire police department would have been accused of being responsible for the killing and very likely would lose in court.

As I mentioned earlier I'm not following the trial gavel to gavel, but I watched some extended portions of the first week, and have been following the coverage and analysis...

I have to say that as impressed as I have been with Mark O'Mara since the very beginning of this, I am now equally unimpressed with the lawyer he has helping him with the defense, Don West.

I understand that the guy is considered a top tier defense lawyer, so presumably he's a bright guy, but man he sure was deficient in the judgement category when it came to presenting the defense's opening statement...

What could possibly have been going on in the mans mind for him to think, "Well, let's see, I'm giving the opening statement for my client who is on trial for murder in a racially charged media focused case...how should I begin..I know! I'll start with a knock-knock joke, and not just any knock-knock joke but one that insults the jury to boot. Yes, that's the ticket!"



I didn't watch his entire opening, (he droned on for over 3 hours) but what I saw after that bizarre beginning was rambling, unfocused, and way overly detailed for an opening statement...

I know there are a number strategies one can employ in an opening statement, but I have to believe, "First tell an inappropriate joke that insults the jury and then put them to sleep" doesn't rank near the top of the list of good choices...

By contrast, the opening statement of the Prosecutor was masterful...

In a powerfully effective way, he painted a portrait of a sinister racist vigilante who was out on the prowl for the purpose of hunting someone down, and then carried out the hunt of this defenseless Skittle carrying child....

The tale he wove and the way he delivered it was riveting...and it was was crisply structured and completed in a little over an hour...

Pity that the evidence doesn't support this compelling narrative....

But ever since the opening statements, and actual evidence and testimony started coming in, it looks to me like the defense is way ahead on points...Which isn't good news for the prosecution, given the fact that we're in their Case In Chief, and these are their witnesses....

So far one racial slur uttered the night of the shooting has come into evidence... It was uttered by Martin, and the evidence was provided by Martin's friend who he was on the phone with right before the altercation began...

Yesterday they had some very credible eyewitness testimony that places Martin on top of Zimmerman administering a beat down...(which of course also matches up with all the forensic evidence...I've felt all along that even if you had conflicting eye witness, those photos of all the cuts and abrasions on the Zimmerman's head made crystal clear that he was the one getting his ass kicked prior to the shooting...unless you believe that while he was waiting for the police he laid down and slammed his own head into the pavement. )

We're only five days into this, and the case for second degree murder already seems to be out the window...

The majority of legal analysts that I've seen all seem to be in agreement that just based on the evidence so far that Zimmerman will get a self defense instruction from the judge for the jury, making it extremely unlikely that Zimmerman will take the stand.

Here's the instruction the jury will get:

An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which George Zimmerman is charged if the death
of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

"Deadly force" means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent (1) imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or (2) the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

Aggravated battery is intentionally touching or striking another against his or her will, and in committing the battery, intentionally or knowingly causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to the other person.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?topic=2480.0

I'm beginning to think more and more that Zimmerman may indeed be acquitted (especially since it's only a six person jury; there's less chance for a hold out)

Strong evidence for self-defense and reasonable doubt is already piling up, and we haven't even gotten to the defense case yet....

What is telling is that the defense's case has been strengthened by the prosecution's own witnesses.

When I saw the 'knock knock' joke at the beginning I thought the entire defense would be a joke. At this point I think I could have stood there and pretended to be a defense attorney and the defense would still be far ahead of the prosecution.

On the other hand, when I watch HLN's multiple shows in the evening in which attorneys and non-attorneys discuss the case, there are plenty of people who believe Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It seems that many people make up their minds before hearing all of the evidence so then they only look for and consider any evidence that supports their opinion rather than trying to weigh evidence.

Dear god, is this a spectator sport, or a mockumentary?

Can't be a spectator sport, No need to buy tickets and there is no beer and no place to park the RV.

Well, it was another day in the trial...

Which means another bad day for the prosecution...being undermined yet again, by their own witnessess..

This time it was the forensic expert who testified that the powder burns showed conclusively that the gun shot was made right against Martin's sweater...

Completely undermining the idea the idea that Zimmerman was looking for an excuse to provoke and shoot somebody...

What kind of an idiot, looking to go out and hunt someone down and shoot them, would wait until their target was on top of them to do it?

If that was your intent, as soon as you had provoked the person to turn and come at you, you'd pull out your gun and shoot, right then...

You wouldn't take the risk of letting them get on top of you and start beating your head into the pavement and think:

"Right, now I've got him just where I want him... he's on top of me, beating my head into the pavement and kicking my ass...

Perfect time to pull out my gun, shoot him, and pretend I was defending myself..."

I just can't see how anyone expecting a 2nd Degree Murder conviction in this case will wind up being anything other than disappointed...

Lord Jim wrote: You wouldn't take the risk of letting them get on top of you and start beating your head into the pavement and think:

"Right, now I've got him just where I want him... he's on top of me, beating my head into the pavement and kicking my ass...

Perfect time to pull out my gun, shoot him, and pretend I was defending myself..."

Every night I watch HLN TV and listen to lawyers & humans talk about this case. I would think that most people would agree that the defense is way ahead in the case, but watching the show, it seems that the majority of the public believes George Zimmerman is guilty. Not only that, but they believe Zimmerman was out to get Trayvon Martin and intended to shoot him from the minute he saw him.

The program I've been watching has a lawyer as a host and always 6 or more lawyers as guests and a "jury" of twelve people off the streets. The jury is made up of different people every night and I've never heard how these jurors are chosen.

The lawyers discuss every detail of the case. They have a model of the area where the killing occurred and they've recreated a life size "death scene" complete with examples of the evidence left at the scene.

Clips of the trial are shown and lawyers argue their own version of prosecution and defense. Every night they have one issue that they give to the jury to give a yes or no vote. For example, last night they asked (paraphrased) "Do you believe George Zimmerman's story about the night of the killing?"

Last night the jury decided unanimously that they did not accept his story.

Every time that I've watched the show the jury's vote is overwhelmingly pro-prosecution. They talk to some of the jurors after they've decided their vote. They all seem like intelligent people but their reasoning for Zimmerman's guilt seems flawed. They can't be listening to the testimony and evidence that I've seen.

But that's just me being blinded by my own unbiased opinion, tremendous insight and excellent knowledge of human behavior, I guess.

To be fair, obviously, this killing could have been avoided. For example, it's likely that if Zimmerman had identified himself as a member of the Neighborhood Watch, it could have ended at that point. Trayvon would then have known why he was being watched and might have told Zimmerman where he was headed and that could have been the end of it. But we'll never know.

Finally, there has been one coincidence on this program I've been watching throughout this trial. Every Afro-American (non-lawyer) has argued that they believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Every Afro-American lawyer that has been on the show to express an opinion has decided that Zimmerman is guilty.

I don't know if HLN TV has set it up that way but that's the way it is.

Joe Guy wrote:
The program I've been watching has a lawyer as a host and always 6 or more lawyers as guests and a "jury" of twelve people off the streets. The jury is made up of different people every night and I've never heard how these jurors are chosen.

The lawyers discuss every detail of the case. They have a model of the area where the killing occurred and they've recreated a life size "death scene" complete with examples of the evidence left at the scene.

Clips of the trial are shown and lawyers argue their own version of prosecution and defense. Every night they have one issue that they give to the jury to give a yes or no vote. For example, last night they asked (paraphrased) "Do you believe George Zimmerman's story about the night of the killing?"

How long before this sort of thing takes over from regular trials?

Gob wrote:How long before this sort of thing takes over from regular trials?

In a way, this sort of thing has taken over since the OJ trial. There is now the Court of Public Opinion that quite often finds guilt or innocence from the beginning of a trial that is ultimately not the same verdict determined in the trial courts.

This sort of thing is what starts arguments, riots and distrust of our legal system.

There are plenty of Steve-like people that believe there is a conspiracy involved in our legal system and they seriously believe that every prosecutor in the legal establishment is anti-minority and so blacks and other minorities will never get a fair trial.

If you take the time to listen to various talk shows from conservative to liberal radio stations on the subject of the Zimmerman trial you will hear people say things and come up with ideas you won't believe. People have opinions that will never change regardless of the evidence put in front of them.

It's just plain nuts and it's scary to think how oddly so many people's minds work but it's all very interesting at the same time.

There are plenty of Steve-like people that believe there is a conspiracy....

"Do you believe George Zimmerman's story about the night of the killing?"

That's a pretty pointless question; the actual jury only has to decide if the prosecution has proven it's case. If they don't fully believe Zimmerman's or the prosecution's story, they must acquit. If they have reasonable doubt as to both stories, they must acquit. Sure, their belief/disbelief of his story might have some effect on the verdict, but it's a lot more complicated than a simple straw poll.

It's interesting you bring up OJ; I followed that trial a lot more than this one and didn't buy either story set forth. I thought he probably was guilty of something, but that wouldn't be the question the jury would decide, or the standard of proof they should apply. In this case, the few times I have seen Zimmerman interviewed I think he comes across like an idiot, but I would hope the ultimate case is decided on more substantial grounds than that.

Zimmerman was guilty of bad judgment. Martin acted like a fucking gangbanger out to prove something.

With six women on the jury...

GUILTY!

dgs49 wrote:Martin acted like a fucking gangbanger out to prove something.

That's what George wants us to believe.

dgs49 wrote:With six women on the jury...

GUILTY!

In my experience, it's impossible to get 6 women to agree on anything...

In my experience, it's impossible to get 6 women to agree on anything...