I think the recording is Zimmermans biggest enemy.
If its trayvons voice, he's done.

If its Zimmermans voice, it calls into question his story of a struggle before Martin tried to grab the gun and shoot him.

It'll be interesting to see what facts, if any, come out of the case.

6/24/2013 8:30:19 PM

No expert analysis is going to be allowed on that recording.

6/24/2013 8:34:10 PM

^ true. The recording can still be played in the court room, however.

6/24/2013 9:01:25 PM

Latest update on Trayvon:

Still dead.

6/24/2013 9:31:05 PM

Quote :

"There's no way they're going to be able to prove without a doubt that this is not a case of self defense."

Let's enlighten everyone, AGAIN, about this: the prosecution DOES NOT have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense in order to convict Zimmerman. They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin which, given the confession, is a slam dunk. Because Zimmerman is admitting that he killed Martin, the burden is now on HIM to prove that it was self-defense. Please, google the words "affirmative defense". Thanks! Hell, if all you had to do was claim self-defense and then it was up to the prosecution to prove it wasn't, people would be doing that left and right in murder cases.

6/24/2013 11:11:24 PM

Quote :

"the prosecution DOES NOT have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense in order to convict Zimmerman. "

Yes they fucking do, you dolt.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/

Quote :

"Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense."

Zimmerman has offered evidence of self-defense (marks on head, witness testimony). The ball is in the prosecution's court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-usa-florida-shooting-jury-idUSBRE95J12620130620

Judge's orders to the jury:

Quote :

"Judge Nelson drove home the same point in her instruction on "justifiable use of deadly force" during the final phase of jury selection. She also made a pointed reference to Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, under which the use of lethal force is deemed lawful if an individual fears grievous bodily injury or death in a confrontation with an assailant. "The danger facing the defendant need not to have been actual," Nelson told potential jurors. "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. "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," the judge added."

Understand what you're spouting off before you start saying it. The ball is in the prosecution's court. They need to introduce reasonable doubt to the jury that makes them doubt the defendant's claim. If the prosecution can't do that, then they should rule not guilty. The defendant does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was justified in killing Trayvon. In some states this may be the case. But not according to Florida law.

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2013 1:52:15 AM

Umm, sort of. The prosecution needs to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not justified in his actions of self defense. If reasonable doubt still exists in the jury's mind on the question of whether or not he was justified in self-defense, then they should find him not guilty.

It's exactly what the judge stated pretty clearly. I know you know that, but it's not exactly what you wrote.

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2013 8:21:22 AM

Quote :

"They are not arguing for 1st degree murder. The prosecution is arguing for 2nd degree murder. What they are doing in the excerpt quoted above is trying to set the stage for one requirement of 2nd degree murder which is murder while acting with a depraved mind without regard for human life. To point out that Zimmerman said "....fucking punks. These assholes always get away" is reinforcement of the idea that he acted with a depraved mind....that WANTED Trayvon to be committing a crime so that he could catch him. The defense, in my opinion, is going to stick with the murder being justified, because Zimmerman was getting his brains bashed in and was about to die..... So he had to pull the trigger and kill Trayvon."

Thanks! I knew he was charged with second degree so I was wondering what the angle was. Thanks for clearing that up.

6/25/2013 8:29:44 AM

Quote :

""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," the judge added."

This is a stronger statement than what I anticipated. I didn't know stand your ground laws had this level of burden for the prosecution. But judge's wording is pretty clear... given the case details it should be next to impossible for the jury to convict.

6/25/2013 9:06:00 AM

Knock, knock...

6/25/2013 9:27:19 AM

What law school teaches murder trial defense attorneys to open with a joke? Seriously?

6/25/2013 10:16:08 AM

^^^how so? It's just like any other criminal trial by jury. The defendant presents their defense and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense presented is wrong/unjustifiable/unlawful, and therefore the defendant should be convicted.

And I agree on paper it seems that a conviction is unlikely. But remember, most of our peers are pretty dumb. You don't need to look any further back than the Cary runner trial to see evidence of that.


[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2013 10:16:45 AM

Quote :

"given the case details it should be next to impossible for the jury to convict"

Lol

6/25/2013 10:18:26 AM

Quote :

"Well Zimmerman is fucked with any civil trial without a doubt but he'll get plenty of donations and whatnot to survive."

Actually, this isn't true. One of the dangers of going for such a high charge against Zimmerman is that if the prosecution loses, the Stand Your Ground law provides civil immunity in a successful self defense claim. IIRC, if the prosecution doesn't win, Florida is on the hook for Zimmerman's legal costs and gives him civil immunity. I'll see if I can track down the source I had for that later.

Quote :

"So far no one has specifically argued the position that Zimmerman should be convicted even if he didn't throw the first punch. Any takers? "

Of second degree murder? No. But in the original thread, I argued that the state would have likely had a much easier time (and a reasonable case) prosecuting for involuntary manslaughter / negligent homicide. The problem is this blew up to the national scale and no one would be satisfied if the DA went for a misdemeanor (or even lesser felony) conviction. The only way the public was going to be satisfied is if the charge was murder.

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM. Reason : syg]

6/25/2013 1:07:38 PM

Was it worth taking that chance just to appease the foaming masses?

6/25/2013 1:10:22 PM

Source for SYG statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Statute is 776.032, civil immunity is P 1 and costs are p 3 (but only apply to civil defense costs)

6/25/2013 1:37:52 PM

Quote :

"^^^how so? It's just like any other criminal trial by jury. The defendant presents their defense and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense presented is wrong/unjustifiable/unlawful, and therefore the defendant should be convicted."

Well the deconstructionist parts I have talked about are:

- if the burden for stand your ground is 'preponderance of evidence' / 'beyond reasonable doubt'
- whether Zimmerman had to be the first aggressor for conviction

The resolution isn't entirely clear still. At least it seems that the prosecution has the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a somewhat different way. My current picture is that:

- he's innocent if the jury believes he reasonably feared for his life

So the statement that must be true to convict Zimmerman is "there is no possibility that he feared for his life". The evidence doesn't seem to support that. A reasonable possibility exists, particularly if Trayvon reached for the gun, for which there seems to be little evidence either way. You would think that there would be some credit given to a manufactured violent situation. For instance, Trayvon might not have presented a deadly threat if Zimmerman wasn't already carrying a loaded gun! But that doesn't seem admissible.

6/25/2013 1:59:48 PM

Quote :

"So the statement that must be true to convict Zimmerman is "there is no possibility that he feared for his life"."

So, if this is the case, then Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch, but as long as he feared for his life at some time after that, he's good, right?

6/25/2013 8:28:30 PM

Quote :

" For instance, Trayvon might not have presented a deadly threat if Zimmerman wasn't already carrying a loaded gun! But that doesn't seem admissible."

Admissible: sure, crap:definitely. The threat of Trayvon is not affected by Zimmerman's possessions.

Quote :

"So, if this is the case, then Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch, but as long as he feared for his life at some time after that, he's good, right?"

No, you can't be the aggressor. Words and following do not meet this criteria/

6/25/2013 8:46:32 PM

The liability of entering any fistfight is the possibility of having your head curbstomped. The presence of absence of a weapon is irrelevant to the danger of the encounter. (except in unusual cases of predeclared protocol like encounters with police, who will likely use less lethal means to subdue you if you are unarmed)

6/25/2013 8:54:43 PM

You can be the aggressor and still claim self-defense:

Quote :

"Typically, the initial aggressor in a fight is not allowed to claim self defense. By beginning the fight, the defendant essentially forfeits his right to use that defense. However, there are two situations in which the initial aggressor will regain the right to use self defense. The first exception is where the defendant has initiated the aggression but has used non deadly force and the victim responds to that non deadly force with deadly force. In this case, even though the defendant was the initial aggressor, he may use whatever force is necessary, including deadly force, to protect himself. The second exception is where the aggressor withdraws from the fight. If the aggressor either physically removes himself from the fight or tells the other person that he no longer wants to fight and the other person continues fighting, the defendant may use whatever force is necessary to defend himself even though he was the initial aggressor."

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/SelfDefense.asp

6/25/2013 9:03:10 PM

Quote :

"The second exception is where the aggressor withdraws from the fight."

Ahhh, withdraws from the fight... Kind of like, i dunno, running away from a stranger, right? naaah, it was a dumb thug, carry on!

6/25/2013 9:08:57 PM

How can you withdrawal from something that didn't exist?

6/25/2013 9:11:15 PM

ahhhh, so running away doesn't do you any good if the other guy catches up to you. got it! that's logic here, folks!

6/25/2013 9:46:19 PM

So, is your entire goal in this thread to be as obtuse as possible? What I posted is only relevant in the context of Zimmerman being the aggressor and when claiming self-defense, which you and a few other people maintain that he was, which the few of you are then using that assertion to dispute his claim of self-defense. Of course, if Zimmerman was the aggressor, then that automatically concedes that Martin was defending himself, however in doing so he put Zimmerman's life in what he felt was in danger. At which point who was the aggressor becomes moot and the entire incident turns into a tragic situation in which there would be no winners...

This would mean that Trayvon's initial "fleeing," or whatever you want to call it, is also rendered moot. Because a conflict did occur in which nobody did any fleeing, at least not with Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. Of course, all the prosecution needs to do is show that the force Trayvon was using was not deadly force and that Zimmerman was the aggressor beyond a reasonable doubt, and Zimmerman should go behind bars. Of course the bruises and injuries sustained on Zimmerman's head would go to Zimmerman's favor that Trayvon went beyond non-deadly force in defending himself against Zimmerman, regardless of who the aggressor was.

[Edited on June 25, 2013 at 10:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2013 10:41:30 PM

Trainwreck on the stand.

Zimmerman is going to go free based on this dumb bitch's testimony alone.

6/26/2013 2:38:51 PM

Going to take forever since she has to repeat herself 3 times.

6/26/2013 3:26:45 PM

Everyone speechless ey?

Sweet weepin' Jesus on the cross.

6/26/2013 5:22:48 PM

Jane Velez-Mitchell should be allowed in the courtroom to tag-team with the Stenographer since she apparently speaks Walmart (like the prosecution's star witness).

I mean its only fair since apparently Ms. Mitchell thinks this girl's testimony was amazingly good.

6/26/2013 7:26:14 PM

Quote :

"The threat of Trayvon is not affected by Zimmerman's possessions."

Uh, unless one of those possessions makes him fear for his life, perhaps by being brandished or pointed at him, thus justifying whatever force is necessary for self-defense.

Err wait, forgot, Trayvon was the dumb thug, not Zimmerman, so there'd be no reason for him to fear for his life! Or is it that dumb thugs are incapable of fear, only burning malice against the noble white race?

Seriously, can someone explain why the gun only becomes a life-threatening instrument once Trayvon (allegedly) reaches for it?

Quote :

"Of course the bruises and injuries sustained on Zimmerman's head would go to Zimmerman's favor that Trayvon went beyond non-deadly force in defending himself against Zimmerman, regardless of who the aggressor was."

Is there evidence that Trayvon caused those bruises and injuries, besides Zimmerman's testimony? I was under the impression that none of Zimmerman's DNA was present on Trayvon's hands or fingernails.

[Edited on June 27, 2013 at 10:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2013 10:30:40 AM

I was under the impression that no one was there to see how the fight started nor can anyone say who feared for whose life and everything else is supposition.

6/27/2013 12:15:49 PM

SIR

6/27/2013 12:21:32 PM

How could they expect her to be able to read cursive? That's straight foolish.

6/27/2013 12:37:49 PM

how could they expect her to describe the sound of grass. i LOL'd on that!!

6/27/2013 1:22:14 PM

i just read some of the GOLO comments on this story. Holy shit. They're convinced that since Trayvon said "crazy-ass cracker following me", then he's the racist, and that's enough to prove Zimmerman's innocence.

6/27/2013 1:35:54 PM

as opposed to if someone said "there's this crazy-ass n***er following me"?

You can't tell me the two would get the same reaction.

6/27/2013 1:47:13 PM

^^ Don't have to prove his innocence. The prosecutor does have to prove his guilt, which is impossible in this case.

6/27/2013 1:52:28 PM

Quote :

"Witness Rachel Jeantel is questioned by defense attorney Don West. When he suggested Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, she replied, “That’s retarded, sir.” Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-trial-prosecution-star-witness-grilled-article-1.1384074#ixzz2XRMSRS1d"

LOL

6/27/2013 1:53:07 PM

this witness is a piece of work.

6/27/2013 1:56:10 PM

^^ i heard that live. when she said that the judge says "excuse me what did you say?" She looked at the judge and said "I sayed dats rutarded". I busted out!!

6/27/2013 2:05:27 PM

Quote :

"as opposed to if someone said "there's this crazy-ass n***er following me"? You can't tell me the two would get the same reaction."

as they shouldn't, seeing as how they don't carry the same weight

jesus

6/27/2013 2:06:06 PM

6/27/2013 2:07:55 PM

a pervert.

6/27/2013 2:13:21 PM

Quote :

"i just read some of the GOLO comments on this story. Holy shit. They're convinced that since Trayvon said "crazy-ass cracker following me", then he's the racist, and that's enough to prove Zimmerman's innocence. "

Half of those people just took off their white hood to chime in. It shouldn't be surprising unfortunately.

6/27/2013 2:17:13 PM

This woman has done so much to help Zimmerman you'd thing she was a witness for the defense.

6/27/2013 2:21:00 PM

Them perverts and their grass noises.

6/27/2013 2:21:21 PM

well now everyone knows her phone number.

6/27/2013 3:18:10 PM

Wow, the prosecuter doesn't know shit about twitter. he'll be corrected post haste.

6/27/2013 4:18:16 PM

haha twitter

6/27/2013 4:18:30 PM

Actually, it is interesting... @jenna_lauer IS following Robert Zimmerman, Jr. But then again, she was called by the prosecution, and hasn't really said anything to either promote Zimmerman's innocence or guilt.

6/27/2013 4:29:51 PM