The Zimmerman Trial

I have been also trying to find how this all applies to this situation.

I suppose we will find out positively when the jury goes to deliberation.

Edit:

I posted something days back that seemed to support other charges in play. We'll know at some point.

reply to post by MrWendal


I did answer it and had answered it again just before your last reply.

I'm not going through it all again but my most recent thought is why would martin continue beating zimmerman and yelling for help when he received an answer from Mr. Good. There are other pieces of evidence that make it pretty undeniable.

Another thought, to all the people who insanely believe Zimmerman staged his wounds and was so ingenious. Why would he claim he was yelling (not knowing it was recorded) if it wasn't him, fake his injuries as some claim, BUT do all that and NOT simply put Martins hand on his gun? He could have easily put Trayvons prints and DNA on it.

Nothing was staged, it's absurd. It's Zimmerman screaming, he shot the teen in self defense after being bashed.

reply to post by Libertygal


It appears that we both agree.
As for manslaughter as a lesser charge I would also agree it is an option NOT on the table, but the way this case is moving with this judge, it could be on the table and the judges jury instructions could be totally different before delibrations.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


What you are refering to is Good Samaritan laws.

For what it is worth...

Why charge murder 2 on such little evidence of a “depraved mind”? Perhaps the prosecution believed more damning evidence would be found, or they hoped that the murder charge would lead to a plea bargain or compromise jury verdict on manslaughter.

In Florida manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder 2, and the jury will certainly have the manslaughter instruction to consider in their deliberations. .

Indeed, unless new and revelatory evidence emerges of Zimmerman’s “depraved mind”, I anticipate the prosecution’s narrative to re-center on manslaughter as their most likely “win” in this case. We’ll discuss how manslaughter differs from murder 2, and how such a shift might play out in this trial, in a future post.

legalinsurrection.com...

Anyone who trys to paint a picture of what really happened, is basing their opinion on speculation and conjectur.
The defense has not presented anything to dispute the charges or the witnesses, except questioning the proscutions own witnesses.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I did answer it and had answered it again just before your last reply.

I'm not going through it all again but my most recent thought is why would martin continue beating zimmerman and yelling for help when he received an answer from Mr. Good. There are other pieces of evidence that make it pretty undeniable.

With all due respect, I asked you nothing about who was beating whom, why, how long or anything else that has to do with a physical confrontation between the two parties involved.

I asked you about witness credibility. What makes one witness more credible than the other. That's it. No where in anything you have posted have you bothered to address that very pointed question. I will post it once again....

Question #1 You have two Mothers both saying it is their son screaming for help on the 911 call. So what makes one any more credible than the other?

Question #2 You have a brother saying it is Trayvon screaming on the 911 call. What makes him not credible that you can outright dismiss his testimony?

Those are my two questions that I have asked 3 or 4 times now for you to answer. These questions have nothing to do with Mr Good, George Zimmerman, or even Trayvon Martin. It has to do with trial witnesses and credibility.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


No, the screaming was without a doubt Zimmerman. My understanding was that it was continuous throughout the beating. I doubt Martin said anything before he was shot. As soon as people walked up Zimmerman said "I was screaming for help" and at the time he said that he had no idea tha his screams were recorded on a 911 call. I have heard both Zimmerman and Martins voice and personally I think it's Zimmerman's. Evidence suggests it, but aside from that it just sounds more like zimmerman.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Libertygal

 

It appears that we both agree.
As for manslaughter as a lesser charge I would also agree it is an option NOT on the table, but the way this case is moving with this judge, it could be on the table and the judges jury instructions could be totally different before delibrations.

I agree.

Technically speaking, what Angela Corey filed was an information. For the sake of clarity, we will continue to call it an indictment.

About the manslaughter thing, though...

Okay, I found the best way to describe it. Simply, so everyone can understand.

statutes.laws.com...

We all know this is what George was indicted for:

(b) As to second degree murder:

Unlawfully by an act imminently dangerous to another, and evincing a depraved
mind, regardless of human life; that is to say, by firing her or his shotgun into the
store of (or by striking with an adz, as the case may be) but without a premeditated
design to effect the death of any particular person, did kill in said county.

Now, an indictment, by law, and per the Constitution, MUST, on it's face, list all accusations and charges applicable to the defendant. This includes, in Florida, lesser-included charges. Hence, if they had ANY intent to move towards a lesser-included charge of manslaughter, that terminology applicable to the charge MUST appear on the face of the indictment OR through a hearing during presentment.

Nothing of the like took place in the presentment hearing, there is no agreement to lesser-included charges.

A defendant may NOT be surprised by a conviction of other charges made via a jury instruction byvthe judge if he was not indicted on said charges.

(d) As to manslaughter:

Unlawfully and by culpable negligence, in driving an automobile (or firing a boiler or
by performing a surgical operation) or (in the heat of passion omitting in this latter
case the allegation of culpable negligence), but without intent to murder, did kill

said county, by running over her or him with said automobile (or by causing said
boiler to explode or by infecting her or him with a deadly infection or by striking her
or him with a hammer).

Now, it is evident that, on it's face, the indictment in no way included culpable negligence, hence, manslaughter is ruled out.

www.justice.gov...

2. Function and purpose of an indictment or information

The indictment or information, hereafter referred to as indictment,
serves as the initial pleading filed by the Government in criminal
litigation. It should set forth the facts evidencing the elements of
the offense sought to be charged. Each indictment will require a
varying amount of factual detail. In general, it should tell the story
of who the defendants are, what their roles were, what they did,
when and where they did it, the scheme they used to commit the
offense and a description of the offense with which they are
charged.

(snip)

The indictment must adequately apprise the defendant of what
theories he must be prepared to meet at trial. Further, the
indictment serves as a basis for determining a defendant's 5th
Amendment right against double jeopardy. The 5th and 6th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution require that the indictment
must describe the crime allegedly committed, every essential
element of that crime, and the acts of the defendant alleged to
constitute the crime. The description must be in sufficient detail to
permit the defendant to understand the nature of the charges
against him, to prepare a defense, and to invoke the double-
jeopardy provision of the 5th Amendment, if appropriate.

The 6th Amendment provides in pertinent part: In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation . . . . Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)

This explains it both crminally and Constitutionally.

As to the judge...


www.joffelaw.com...

Except in capital cases, the judge shall not instruct the jury on the sentence
that may be imposed for the offense for which the accused is on trial.

He is not on trial for manslaughter, culpable negligence, culpable negligence of a child, were never charged on the indictment, hence, the judge cannot instruct the jury on anything but murder 2, guilty or not guilty, or aquit.

reply to post by MrWendal


I answered that. I said that it really was between Zimmerman's mother and Trayvons father. The INITIAL answers. Zimmerman's mother and uncle have always said it was Zimmerman. Martins father heard the tape first and said it wasn't his son. Then the mother did and said it was.

What makes one more credible than the other? Well Zimmerman's mother had nothing to gain at the time. Her son had no charges yet (not til a month or so after) however Martins parents (one of whom had changed his answer) had plans to sue the HOA for money AND they were trying to raise the awareness of the case (both to bring charges and to raise money). They turned Trayvon into a brand, if the voice is Zimmermans the brand is tarnished.

Also Zimmermans mother appears more credible as evidence seems to suggest it is Zimmerman screaming and therefore Trayvon's mom is lying.

reply to post by roadgravel


And I posit that lawfully and Constitutionally, legalinsurrection made a legal error, and why.

If the judge instructs on manslaughter, it will be immediately overturned on apeal. I posted the Supreme Court decision supporting that.

See Griffis v. State, 848 So. 2d 422, 427 (Fla. 1
DCA 2003)

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Anyone who trys to paint a picture of what really happened, is basing their opinion on speculation and conjectur.
The defense has not presented anything to dispute the charges or the witnesses, except questioning the proscutions own witnesses.

And nearly every prosecution witness' testimony supported George Zimmerman's story.

A friend of mine and I were discussing this a moment ago and she contended that while she has come to 'accept' that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and swinging all the punches, he was in the RIGHT. Her reasoning? Because George shouldn't have 'upset' him by following or questioning him.

I explained to her that while Trayvon may not have 'liked' being followed or questioned, he NEVER had the legal right to assualt Zimmerman, which is why Zimmerman had the legal right to defend himself.

The prosecution has proven that it was actually Trayvon who confronted Zimmerman.

Why is there a group of people that continue to support Trayvon's violent behavior?

reply to post by Libertygal


again I agree
But so far the judge appears to be either taking orders or making bad choices, so we'll have to wait and see.
And as for appeals there are several reasons for it.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Libertygal

 

again I agree
But so far the judge appears to be either taking orders or making bad choices, so we'll have to wait and see.

She has! Thank you for that.

She was already known as a prosecutors' judge, so that was to be expected.

However, I think aside from that, she is keeping the trial on schedule for the CRS Stealth Federal Response Team I posted about a couple of pages ago. That is July 9th.

The prosecution witness, Dr. Shiping Bao, presented enough evidence Friday to once again open the door to bring in the toxicology report from the M.E. if the judge once again denies, they still have the opportunity to appeal to the DCA, as they did with the Writ of Certiori about Benjamin Crump. They also have, I believe, 2 other appeals with the DCA at the moment.

If the bias were go continue past the 9th, and past more overturning of her decisions by the DCA, then we can rest assured that not only the trial, but the outcome, is scripted.

If she instructs on manslaughter, the trial is most definitely, inarguably, a show trial, as she has already committed 2 large judicial errors. The final one, if she commits no more, instructing the jury on manslaughter, would indeed seal a certain overturn on appeal, as well as a HUGE Civil Rights case by Zimmerman. He will likely leave the country a very rich man and go live peacefully, while the rest of the country roils in the mesz our politicians and civic leaders havs created.

He already has enough for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and imprisonment, and any more will see this judge in retirement next to Angela Corey.

The D.A. was wise to keep his distance. He will keep his job and reputation, as well.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Why is there a group of people that continue to support Trayvon's violent
behavior?

Because, this is how they were raised to behave and act. It's been a decades long problem. You and I havs had zome open and very honest discussions, and I respect you a lot for that!

Go back and read the last 3 pages or so. I posted some information you may find useful to help you to understand.

Violence has, unfortunately, become one of the ways some people think they have that is is a viable way to communicate. It is going to take decades more to change that, but recognizing and admitting it goes a long way in the first steps.

And itsn't a color, it's a behaviour, and it is across all races.

reply to post by Libertygal


I ask you this...... What does this case do to people? For me it makes me less likely to call the cleanup crew cops.... Better off throwing the dead body into the swamp, or woods or whatever. In my case give free lobster bait to the boats. Why bother going through the bother of doing the right thing when you will just be treated like a scumbag criminal? Might as well act like a scumbag criminal and cover your ass than end up bankrupt doing the right thing and needing a lawyer lol.........

Sorry libertygal, meant to hit general reply and hit reply to you by accident.

If the jury buys into self-defense none of these charges matter. It is going to come down to those six people.

reply to post by Libertygal


Several of the prosecution witnesses were not called to prove the prosecutions case , but to prove the prosecution
DID NOT exclude or withhold evidense. Which did more harm than good.