Will George Zimmerman Testify?

Many of you have asked questions regarding whether George Zimmerman must testify at the immunity hearing or at trial. Others, particularly Zimmerman supporters, have expressed an opinion that he can prevail without having to testify because he already said everything that needs to be said to the police.

The quick answer is he is not legally required to testify, but he cannot possibly win unless he does testify. How else does he get his self-defense claim into evidence?

Yet, at the same time, he probably cannot win because of his many conflicting statements.

First, every defendant in a criminal case has a 5th Amendment right to refuse to testify and, if they decide not to testify, the jury will be instructed that it cannot assume anything regarding why the defendant chose not to testify.

The reason for this rule is that a defendant may decide not to testify for any number of possible reasons and it would be unfair to allow the jury to speculate as to the “real” reason. In addition, a defendant cannot be punished for exercising a constitutional right.

Second, every defendant has a right to testify, if he decides to do so. The decision to testify or not to testify is his and his alone. The defendant’s lawyer can recommend for or against testifying, but it’s up to the defendant to make that decision.

Third, if the defendant testifies, he can be cross examined regarding everything he said and the Court will grant a prosecutor wide latitude to cross examine.

Therefore, George Zimmerman gets to decide whether he will testify at the immunity hearing and the trial.

Next, let’s take a look at all of his statements to date and group them into two categories: statements to police officials during custodial interrogations and statements to other people.

Statements to police officials during custodial interrogations are admissible at trial,

(1) if he was advised of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to contact an attorney and have him present during the interrogation; and

(2) he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently decided to waive or give up those rights and answer questions.

This is the foundational requirement that the prosecution must satisfy to introduce a defendant’s custodial statement into evidence. It is based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). I have reviewed the discovery and believe all of his custodial statements satisfy the Miranda Rule and are admissible subject to the hearsay rule.

Statements to others, including the Sean Hannity interview, have no foundational argument like Miranda and are admissible, subject to the hearsay rule.

Now we get down to the difficult part of the analysis, which is understanding the hearsay rule.

Let us begin with a definition. Evidence Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as follows:

“Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant (i.e., the person who made the statement) while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

For example, if Blue Shenanigans were to testify that George Zimmerman (i.e., the declarant) told her he knew Trayvon Martin was dead before the police arrived at the scene, and the prosecution offered it during its case in chief to prove that he knew Trayvon Martin was dead before the police arrived at the scene (i.e., the matter asserted in the statement), the statement would be hearsay.

Right?

Nope, because even though it meets the definition of hearsay, the rules of evidence carve out a huge exception to the rule that’s called an Admission by a Party Opponent. See Rule 801(d)(2). This rule specifically defines admissions by a party opponent as non-hearsay.

This is the way it works. George Zimmerman is a party to this case because he is the defendant. The party opponent is the State of Florida, which is represented by the Angela Corey and her team of prosecutors.

Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.

Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.

This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.

Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the immunity hearing and the jury will never get to hear them at the trial.

But that’s not fair, you say.

That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.

This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.

Can he refer to his exculpatory statements while he is testifying?

No, because they are hearsay.

What happens after he finishes telling his side of the story by answering his lawyer’s questions on direct examination?

The prosecutor who cross examines him will confront him with every statement he made to a police official or to any other witness it knows about that is inconsistent with or contradicts a statement he made while testifying on direct examination.

Given the number of times he has made improbable, inconsistent and contradictory statements, the cross examination could last several days.

I know this because I have done it to witnesses many times.

Cross examination by confronting witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements is one of the most effective and powerful tools a trial lawyer has to utterly destroy a witness.

The key to cross examining George Zimmerman will be not to beat him up so bad that the jury begins to feel sorry for him.

This is why it is so vitally important for suspects to keep their mouths shut when they are questioned by police. They cannot help themselves because their exculpatory statements will be inadmissible hearsay at trial. They can only hurt themselves by saying something that the prosecution uses to damage their case pursuant to the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule.

479 Responses to Will George Zimmerman Testify?

  1. Malisha says:

    Well I can think of many reasons to ask for his medical records other than just what took place that night — among them, but not limited to, the following:

    1 – When, if ever, did he get the diagnosis of ADD or ADHD and how long was he on meds for that?

    2 – Has he ever had a broken nose before 2012?

    3 – Has he ever been treated for mental illnesses other than ADHD and does he have any record of memory problems?

    4 – Does he have a record of anxiety disorders or panic attacks?

    5 – Ever hear voices?

    6 – Have conduct disorder as a child? Have oppositional defiant disorder as a child? Have any addictions? Separation anxiety disorder? Social anxiety disorder? blah blah blah?

    7. Itchy finger disorder?

    8. Voice Stress Deficit Disorder?

    9. Persistent Delusions of Adequacy?

  2. @TruthBTold

    George Zimmerman’s lawyer has scheduled a hearing Friday morning to try and quash a subpoena for Zimmerman’s medical records.

    Attorney Mark O’Mara is objecting to the subpoena on the grounds that those records are private and that Zimmerman is still entitled to some privacy

    His objection also states that the subpoena, signed by Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda, is overly broad. In it, O’Mara also suggests that if the court won’t quash the subpoena, that the records should be looked at in the judge’s chamber and not be subject to public release.

    • TruthBTold says:

      Thanks Sis. So I guess they mean his medical history as opposed to that night, because outside of his visit to his family’s private physician he doesn’t have any other medic information as it relates to that night.

  3. Sandra E. Graham says:

    Is something like that televised. I rather like seeing it for myself. The news media give you snippets and is usually skewed one way or another. If it is televised, what network would be the one to watch on the internet. I live in Canada and would hear nothing of it in Canadian news now.

  4. George Zimmerman hearing Friday in dispute over subpoena

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-subpoena-20120820,0,1111822.story

    George Zimmerman’s lawyer has scheduled a hearing Friday morning because of a disputed subpoena.

    It’s not yet clear what subpoena Mark O’Mara is challenging or his objection, but attorneys for both sides are scheduled to be in court in Sanford Friday at 8:30 a.m. before Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr.

    Zimmerman will not be in the courtroom, according to a state employee.

  5. Brown says:

    Its almost 11pm .
    I have got to get in that bed.
    The conversation has been great.
    Tomorrow is a new day
    Good Night Good People.

  6. TruthBTold says:

    Faux wrote,

    “i have kicked the crap out of cancer twice.”

    Bless you Faux, bless you. Keep kicking.:)

  7. ed nelson says:

    To Fredrick of the blogg, I ask this: Has there been any exhuastive exploration of any kind of relationships between GZ and … any others in the area, including the poor kid that got killed that night.

    There could be other things…

    Couldn’t there be some other reason that little Tray had to be kilt?, like maybe he saw something, and needed to be got rid of?

    In other words, the kid needed to be liquidated, because he KNEW SOMETHING !!.

  8. TruthBTold says:

    fauxmccoy wrote,

    “and anyone who has ever wrestled or taken a course in women’s self defense can affirm that the shorter, stockier, lower center of gravity individual has the advantage once down on the ground. tall and lanky with low muscle mass only helps in the reach department standing up and is useless on the ground. ok, i’ll say it, george is/was a pansy.”

    Good points faux.

  9. TruthBTold says:

    Excellent idea Patricia. Let’s be about it for sure.

  10. Is this for real? Dr. Phil looking to do a show on the Zimmerman case? Really?

    http://drphil.com/plugger/respond/?plugID=15669

  11. TruthBTold says:

    Rachel wrote,

    “lynp – no matter how big Trayvon may or may not have been, he was still a minor and GZ acknowledged that he was not an adult”

    Ugh, I really wish that certain people would just bypass this site and not even contribute and I am talking about GZ supporters. I don’t care, this is just my opinion. Exactly Rachel and all all who responded to that comment. That is what MOM tried to do during the second Bond Hearing; introduce the 7-11 photos to show TM’s “true size.” He was a skinny thing. They are trying to make it like he was Shaquille O’Neal or something. Silly.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      amen on the size thing! i read on the huffpost a gz apologist compare martin to mike tyson in his prime of all things! it is patently ridiculous!

      as i mentioned above in my own post about size, i am convinced that it is a more of a color issue than size. as a woman, i am roughly trayvon’s size (heavier now sadly as a disabled adult) and people do not cower in fear of ‘my true size’. maybe gz would cower at my size though and that gives me some small satisfaction. as a cowgirl, i can also guarantee that i am quicker on the draw as well when needed (not that it ever was in his case of course.)

    • Brown says:

      @TruthBTold
      No matter how many times you tell them he was a minor, it doesn’t compute to them. What matters to them is that if you are black tall young and have hands you are a thug, you are an expert in hand to hand combat you are a good runner and you speak ebonics. That is what they see. That is all they know. They can not comprehend that this was a young man still considered a child in the eyes of the law was only going home with some snacks. He just had to be up to no good because he was walking in the rain. He just had to be on worst drugs imaginable. He just had to have a gun in his waistband. ON and on and on. Don’t waste your keystrokes on it.
      O’mara thinks by putting the 711 picture up that is going to prove to everyone see see he had height advantage. What about the picture they will show of GZ @ 204 lbs. No matter how tall Trayvon was. GZ had a gun.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        and anyone who has ever wrestled or taken a course in women’s self defense can affirm that the shorter, stockier, lower center of gravity individual has the advantage once down on the ground. tall and lanky with low muscle mass only helps in the reach department standing up and is useless on the ground.

        ok, i’ll say it, george is/was a pansy.

      • Patricia says:

        Let’s plan to celebrate Trayvon Martin’s life and dreams on the day the verdict comes in, that puts GZ in the cooler for decades … by contributing toward an endowment fund that provides a competitive scholarship to a US student with a college application to study aeronautics.

        Student to be any gender, any race. Competition based solely on academic standards and desire to excel (submit essay).

        Applicant must have attained the age of 17 years, 3 weeks to apply.

        The “Trayvon Martin Future” Memorial Scholarship.

      • TruthBTold says:

        A++. You are right Sis, I am not going to waste my keystrokes and I typically don’t engage these individuals but sometimes it’s like come on, you can’t really believe what you are saying. Even Serino was like he was taller than you, but lighter than you and you are a grown ass man. Something like that, it’s on the audio interview. The one from that night I believe.

        • Brown says:

          Yes you are correct. IIRC he even wrote it in a report stating that comparing size and height etc, TM did not have an advantage. If I find the report I will post it for you.

        • Brown says:

          It reminds me of a word assoication with GZ supporters.
          Example
          A tenement building is where black people on welfare live.
          If you take that same building, call it a High Rise its where white people who work live.

          If two white teenagers are running together they are jogging, training.
          If two Black teenagers are running together they are escaping from police or just mugged someone.

          If you are black and have a good job its because of affirmative action, not qualification.

          I think you get the picture

          Everyone please do not take offense to what I have written.

          • TruthBTold says:

            No offense taken on my part. I know exactly what you mean. You broke it down.

          • Brown says:

            Thanks Sis

          • fauxmccoy says:

            i think you nailed it, no offense taken here. i have left the huffpost after 6 years of heavy participation and having friends who are regular bloggers there for this reason. i cannot bear to hear the horrible things said about martin’s family. i am not into censorship as a concept – but cannot abide untruths unchallenged and the conversation has degenerated into total madness there.

            i think the fact that sybrina has a very well paying job, in county management and earns more than the rednecks posting is galling to them. they must find ways to take her down, if they even bother to acknowledge her achievements. they further denigrate her for having received the very kind gift of vacation pay from other county employees and her recent travels, implying it’s wrong or sucking on the government teet or whatever. i am positive the woman would prefer to be doing anything else than that and still have her son.

            if i hear the words ‘purple drank’ or ‘lean’ one more time, i shall begin tearing out my own hair and screaming. that boy’s body showed no indication of opiate use or the lesser equivalent of dxm, but they claim it anyway because the read all about it at whatever ‘white makes right’ blog they most recently perused.

          • Brown says:

            Thanks. I think you also nailed it also. In regards to Sabrina and Tracey having good paying jobs. They are your typical middle class family. Even though they were not married anymore they still had a son together and were actively involved in his life. You can see the love from his Dad in those photos.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            You can see the love from his Dad in those photos.
            – – – – –
            yup, it is that photo, which is not very dated that still screams ‘KID!’ to me. martin had not yet developed the natural inclination to shy away from a parent’s embrace, much less that from dad planting a wet one on his cheek and still posing for the photo. my 14 year old daughter will barely tolerate a parental hug (unless in serious physical/emotional pain) whereas my 12 year old daughter still craves it. it is a natural part of the puberty/adolescent process to insist upon parent/child differentiation and martin was not yet there. (sorry, as an anthropologist by training, this is what i bring to the discussion.)

            most young men are loathe to accept an embrace from another man, even their father and sadly, do not come around to accepting such until almost too late in many situations. as one who recently lost my father (i am 47, my father turned 80 a year ago on his deathbed) i am grateful that i spent the last 20 years of his life accepting his embrace and although he tried to do so with my brothers, i could sense their discomfort.. i am sure they regret it now, for their own sake as well as our father’s.

            martin was blessed indeed to have loving parents. this is not to say that he was not a normal teen, he still needed serious guidance, but i think whatever teenage angst he was experiencing would have been fleeting.

          • Brown says:

            sorry for your lost.
            Totally agree with your post. Most teenagers don’t even want to be in the same room let alone have you kiss and hug them openly.

          • Brown says:

            I meant sorry for your loss
            Its getting late……

          • fauxmccoy says:

            no worries, i am coping as well as one would expect, but thank you kindly.

      • PYorck says:

        “and anyone who has ever wrestled or taken a course in women’s self defense can affirm that the shorter, stockier, lower center of gravity individual has the advantage once down on the ground. tall and lanky with low muscle mass only helps in the reach department standing up and is useless on the ground.”

        Fortunately Judge Lester happens to be a wrestling coach.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          is lester a wrestling coach? that’s great, he’ll know what i am asserting is fact. i was lucky growing up that my dad had been an amateur boxer before the korean war and then attaining his law/accounting degrees. he never lost touch with his ranching, raucous youth and taught all of his kids boxing/wrestling as part of our education along with bookkeeping and hay baling.

      • Justkiddin* says:

        fauxmccoy ripping out ones hair is not a good idea. Sometimes the stuff does not come back, EVER. Do not mean to scream but after 60+ years of marriage if I had pulled my hair every time my husband got on my nerves, I would be a woman Mrs. Clean. Honestly they are not worth losing your hair over. Consider the source.

        • Brown says:

          Ha! Very funny Mrs Clean…

        • fauxmccoy says:

          sweetie – i have kicked the crap out of cancer twice (although like a mule, it does kick back) – i know what it is like to walk this world as a 5’10” bald woman and be called ‘sir’ by the ignorant. i say ‘tear my hair out’ in jest – it is way too precious to me at this point 🙂

      • @Brown

        **click***—–>**Like button***

        Good comment!

      • @fauxmccoy

        i have kicked the crap out of cancer twice

        Big Up! Good for you!

    • lynp says:

      Well, the 7-11 video says it all with no words needed in the vain of “A picture is worth a thousand words” which means relaying a complex idea with a picture only and it does. Shaq ??????
      The good Professor to date has not written that this is not a discussion site for justice and debate or for Martin supporters only. So, until or if he does quess we are all going to need to tolerate each others opinions unless we skip and scroll. I am a supporter for Justice and and can take the heat in the kitchen whether folk agree with me or not. Actually, I find a unamious opinions BORRRRRRRING. It is a tragedy for everyone.

  12. TruthBTold says:

    Teatime wrote,

    “Most of the inconsistencies not too relevant anyway, others explainable, or otherwise understandable. A significant inconsistency would be if TM was shot in the back of the head or GZ had NO injuries. His story lines up pretty well with the evidence which is one of the reasons he wasn’t arrested. Then came Crump and well, here we are.”

    Unreal. You didn’t give any examples to support what you are saying or really make much sense. Same old nonsense spewed by GZ supporters. So, you stay in fantasy land blaming Attorney Crump and everyone else, and we will continue operating in reality. Thanks for playing.

  13. Justkiddin* says:

    Rachel I read your reply up thread to me. I am a very old white lady who loves children of any race. Every child’s life should count and no parent should live in fear. After watching the news and hearing about this from kids at the community center I visit, I could no longer not voice my opinion. A lot of the sites I went to scared me. In my small world hate is not something that is around me, it is sad you can be sitting at your desk reading at a website and feel the need to shower.
    A mother should not have to worry any more or any less for her child because of his race, I am sorry you have to still. Race was something we were taught does not matter, feelings do it is sad many families do not instill that into their children. jmo

  14. Vicky says:

    Cielo, I am responding to a comment unthread regarding ADD. The term ADD is no longer used in the diagnosis of ADHD. And was updated in the DSM4. The disorder has been divided into three types. Inattentive type, hyperactive-impulsive type and combination type. An individual who rates 6 or above in both the inattentive and hyperactive types are considered the combination type. Most of the time, children who demonstrate only symptoms of the first time are more easily treated and experience fewer psychosocial issues. Further information can be found here. I have no idea which type GZ falls under.

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/facts.html

    • Cielo says:

      Thanks! I didn’t know that! We poor teachers in the trenches aren’t updated to that so I’ve been using the old definitions. Thanks for letting me know.

  15. Digger says:

    Patricia, I think not, but is there any difference in the minimum-maximum sentence in the different jurisdictions, in the state of Florida and do you think it likely the jury will come in with a lighter sentence? I am recalling CA where the jury verdict was not for the death penalty but could have been a manslaughter verdict which might have at least given her something, other than an acquittal.

  16. Malisha says:

    According to many, many articles I read in March and April, the SPD had a long record of racist practices. Smith and Raimondo were two officers named in the one complaint that finally got dealt with, but there were dozens that never got dealt with. And by the way, although there was proof that Zimmerman had e-mailed around his neighborhood to get the residents to beware young Black men in the area, he never provided proof of any leaflets or e-mails in which he organized any help for Sherman Ware; he simply claimed to have done it (much like the claim to have mentored poor little Black kids who needed him), a claim that was refuted by the Black churches in town.

    All the protests Zimmerman made relating to the Sherman Ware incident seemed to relate to his offering Bill Lee his services in denouncing Lee’s predecessor, so Lee would get that job. Then he started to communicate with Lee by e-mail to tell him who on his staff was good and deserved extra credit, and so forth. Clearly he was trying to grease the skids so he could get a job with the police just as soon as he could graduate from the criminal justice program — or without a diploma, if indeed his academic probation got him kicked out in the end.

    He’s a simple a55-kisser, not a firebrand equality-minded community activist.

  17. Digger says:

    Professor Leatherman, do you understand that sometimes we (I) may not read every comment THOROUGHLY and as a result you may get a repeat of questions already answered. Even your posts often require re-reading and when we do, also many thoughts are already explained. Just to say thank you for your patience with all.

  18. Sandra E. Graham says:

    The officers whom Zimmerman targeted for accountability in the Sherman Ware incident were all cleared by the Seminole County Sheriff’s investigation, despite Zimmerman’s repeated accusations that police gave kid-glove treatment to a white officer’s son who beat a defenseless, homeless black man.

    One of those officers was Timothy Smith. According to a police incident report from the scene of the Feb. 26 shooting, Officer Smith handcuffed Zimmerman and transported him to the police station. Another was Sergeant Anthony Raimondo, who was on scene with Smith and other local officers.

    Will the conduct of these two at-the-scene officers in their initial assessment of the scene have a bearing on this case. Reading newspaper articles on the subject leads me to believe that the Sanford Police Department has had a racist attitude against African-American citizens.

    • lynp says:

      I find that hard to agree with as among other things, the Acting Chief of Police after Bill Lee left the force was black. I have no doubt that the Sanford PD reflects the demographics of the Town of Sanford.

  19. Patricia says:

    Question to the Professor: Is 25 years the MINIMUM penalty for Murder 2? What are the minimum-maximum penalties for Manslaughter?

    Automatically added years when it is a child that is killed?

    Parole possible for either sentence?

    Reason I ask is that GZ was 28 at the time of the crime and will be 29 to 30 when verdict is in.

    To a 30-year old, 55 is “the end of the line.” Quality of liife after that age is unseeable, unknowable, unfathomable and it’s definitely not vibrant or “young” or desirable to a 30-year old.

    So GZ’s personality would not risk his chances of escaping this fate (“What good does it do me to be released at 55???”) to somebody else’s talents.

    He thinks his talents are better. He will insist on testifying, ESPECIALLY if MOM shows him how much strong evidence is against him.

    GZ’s motto: “I shall overcome.”

    Pity …..

    • fauxmccoy says:

      patricia – as i understand it, manslaughter in florida is a mandatory minimum 20 year sentence with a 10 year additional penalty if the victim is a minor. this is a combined 30 year sentence of which 85% must be served before the convicted is eligible for consideration of any time off.

      while i think florida gun laws to be lax as all hell, they seem to try to make up for it with mandatory sentencing. i am not convinced this is an effective trade off.

    • Angelia says:

      There’s this as well. IF I am reading it correctly, FS 775.087 (10/20/life gun law), GZ will have this to centend with, also. I read it as the gun law sentence must be consecutive to the felony sentence. However, it may also read as consecutive to multiple felony sentences. “each qualifying felony” makes me think multiple felonies. But, “any other felony offense” leads me to believe it would be consecutive to any agg. manslaughter sentence. I’m not sure. Anyway, here it is.

      “775.087 Possession or use of weapon; aggravated battery; felony reclassification; minimum sentence.—

      3. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a “firearm” or “destructive device” as defined in s. 790.001 and, as the result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.”

      and:

      “(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that offenders who actually possess, carry, display, use, threaten to use, or attempt to use firearms or destructive devices be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the minimum terms of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this subsection shall be imposed for each qualifying felony count for which the person is convicted. The court shall impose any term of imprisonment provided for in this subsection consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.”

      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html

  20. Patricia says:

    Professor, when I entered my “one question” for GZ (I’ll paraphrase it as “Will the defendent please get down on the floor under this ‘Trayvon double’ and re-enact the nifty-shifty way you say you got that gun out from under your butt?”), please let me assure all that I offered it in the spirit of fantasy that TruthBeTold proposed, with (again, paraphrasing) ‘If we could all add our questions … ”

    ” …. roll camera” would be for video the jury to view, looped, (i.e., repeated continuously) of GZ going through his ludicrous attempt. Continuing the fantasy, I’d have this a split screen with GZ’s next-day upright reprise for the detectives at the scene, on the other side of the screen.

    So ya’ got me dead to rights, Professor, and I agree, no clowning in class. Sending my apologies to all.

    But a dead-serious wish that I hope could be accommodated (you be the judge of same) is the little nugget from the “good cop” (Chris Serino), “bad cop” (Doris Singleton) duo questioning GZ:

    Upon hearing a totally unrealistic response from GZ, Singleton says in obvious protest, ” … you’re pretending … um … telling us, that … ”

    Singleton came across in all the recordings as tough, realistic and non-manipulative, whereas Serino was the encouraging, empathetic buddy — which I considered great teamwork, teamwork that kept GZ blabbing his way to conviction.

    So I expect Singleton on the stand to strike the jury as impressively incorruptible. If that bit of tape can run over a related scene or document up on the screen, and the jury hears her Freudian slip of “you’re pretending” – but the prosecution addresses only the direct subject matter being discussed, would that comment be considered inflammatory, something the judge would hammer the prosecution for? (And so would NEVER be aired for the jury?)

    I know, Professor … you’re going to dash my hopes again.
    It’s the no un-ringing of the bell stuff, right?

    • No, Patricia.

      The prosecution can play the whole tape, if they decide to do so.

      Just put Singleton on the stand and have her identify, authenticate and explain what they were doing during the interview (i.e., the mutt and jeff routine and the use of ruses mentioning examples that come up during the video) and then roll it.

      Juries eat that stuff up.

  21. tchoupi says:

    When in his interview of 03/20 with FDLE, JohnW6 explained that he initially saw one person lying on the ground before noticing a 2nd person underneath, I realized that the reason W19 & W14 (Austin) saw just one person on the ground is because nobody was sitting on nobody.

    At the time JohnW6 & W19 were at their back porch, TM was lying on top of GZ who was lying on the ground on his back. This makes it a struggle and not a MMA fight. This is actually what JohnW6 explains in that interview; the two were very close so it could be like TM was pinning GZ down. W19 saw just one person simply because that person was lying on the other one in a body to body situation.

    At the time Austin (W14) saw the person on the ground, what he saw is that person lying on his side with his back turned to him. This is from his interview with BdlR on 3/27 which I haven’t heard the tape but which is summarized in the 2nd evidence dumped pg 33/284. [Does anyone have the recorded statement?] Therefore, again one person lying on the ground blocks the view on the 2nd person lying on the ground. This time they are not in a one on top one underneath situation meaning that TM was bumped off GZ.

    Therefore, what is left are two snapshots of the ground fight given by 3 witnesses. The two snapshots indicate a struggle/wrestle with change of positions rather than a MMA-style mounting and punching fair.

  22. whonoze says:

    Porky’s commented upthread about GZ knowing the police were on the way. This does not help his self-defense claim. In the re-enactment he says he felt Trayvon reaching for his gun. But Trayvon didn’t touvh the gun. (GZ must have known that TMs prints would not be on the gun.) So if TM didn’t touch the gun, but just had his hand on GZ’s side, how could GZ be sure TM was reaching for the gun? With an officer on the way, and with his adversary FAILING to get his weapon, how is GZ in imminent danger? He explains this in the re-enactment by saying he was about to pass out from the head banging. Had GZ lost consciousness, TM certainly could have done whatever he chose to him.

    This leaves GZ with 2 problems:

    1. The whole thing is self-contradictory. Only as he is about to lose consciousness is he able to free his arm and muster the co-ordination to get the gun out of the holster, gripped properly, and fire a round straight through martin’s ventricle??

    2. This blows the whole, ‘the severity of the injuries don’t matter because he was still afraid’ BS out of the water. A cop was on the way. GZs life would only have been in danger had an opponent had the means to kill him quickly. Thus he’s dependent on the head-bashing story as either being potentially the direct cause of death (or needing to be spoon fed by his brother, as if Robert Jr. would be doing that himself), or the indirect cause via unconsciousness rendering him helpless. But there is no concrete evidence of a head bashing, and considerable concrete evidence that there was NOT a head-bashing (small cuts, no concussion or even dizziness, etc.)

    I don’t know if anyone else has observed this obvious fact, but GZ’s story has him going from about to lose consciousness from repeated blows to the skull, to jumping up and frisking Trayon in a matter of seconds. If you’ve been hurt in the head bad enough that you’re really facing a shoot-or-die situation, you’re hurt bad enough that you can’t get up right away, and you’re probably still lying there in pain when the cops come instead of pacing, chatting up JonW13 on guns and ammo, getting your picture taken, staring down Selma Mora, etc. etc.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      There’s more powerful evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was lying about when and how he drew his pistol.

      If you believe Mr. Zimmerman that Mr. Martin was astride him; Mr. Martin could not possibly have see the gun because it would have been behind him. It is also improbable that Mr. Zimmerman could have drawn the gun with Mr. Martin on top, especially if Mr. Martin contested what Mr. Zimmerman was doing.

      • whonoze says:

        @boar
        to clear up a matter from the last thread where the comments now seem to be broken… you responded to my post about GZ not remembering the name of TTL as if that would support his “I went looking for an address”. It doesn’t. The NEN call established BRD that he left his truck to pursue Martin. It also establishes that he couldn’t remember the street name. But the two are only related in GZ’s after-the-fact fabrication. He’s not conspiring, manipulating George, even a little, until AFTER Sean says “We don’t need you to do that.” which puts him on his guard. Other than that he’s confused, inarticulate, dopey George during the call, except he seems to perk up a little bit at the end…

        And as for the prosecution trying to keep the case simple. I get the point, but I don’t think it will work. If the prosecution does NOT lay out a detailed theory of the crime, with (a) scenario(s) that accounts for the two minute gap between the end of the NEN call and the start of the confrontation, then the defense gets to introduce as “Aha, look what Ms. Corey is hiding,” and all GZ needs is one person on the jury to start asking “Why didn’t Trayvon just go home? He had time. How did he get back up by the T? The defense says he doubled back to confront Mr. Zimmerman, and that would account for the change of direction and the passage of time. The State didn’t explain it at all…”

        Those two minutes are the prosecution’s biggest problem. The only evidence we have about what happened in that time is DeeDee’s skimpy and vague account.

        boar and prof. Fred:
        Do you think at trial MOM’s strategy will be aimed not at getting an acquittal, but a mis-trial or hung jury, in hopes the State won’t seek a do-over? If Judge Lester tries the case, what kind of paramaters do you see him setting at voir doire? Could Corey challenge any NRA members for cause, or MOM anyone positively disposed toward Rev. Sharpton?

    • tchoupi says:

      This is a very valid point you’re making Whonoze.
      And you have to add to it that if he thought that he missed TM why would he go back to a corps-a-corps situation rather than keeping him at gun point from the distance.
      He also claims that he needed help to restrain TM on the ground and asked JonW13 to bring that help. Not only JonW13 never made such statement but Mora & Mary neither were asked for help.

    • On the repeated traumatic head-versus cement head bashing for more than a minute, combined with all the smothering and what was it, beating to the face repeatedly, just a thought. While the focus has been on the fact that the EMTs observed blood on Mr. Zimmerman’s head, the same EMTs do carry liability, and if they were reacting to this sort of head trauma, would they not place Mr. Zimmerman flat onto a stretcher in full spinal precautions with a C-collar or otherwise block-typed taped head immobilizing device, and explain to Mr. Zimmerman that they were sending him to the nearest trauma center where those spinal precautions would be cleared only by medical evaluation (likely including radiography) in the emergency unit?

      • PS EMTs are very good at explaining these precautions to a person, and most people involved in a life-threatening traumatic event will comply. (EMTs deal with all sorts of folks in all frames of mind, so they are good at it)

        In other words, Mr. Zimmerman was firm in declining even basic screening and spinal clearance in the emergency department, and he was firm again in the police interview. Given that, the question is, was he or had he ever been in realistic fear for his life?

        Arguing for sake of debate that he was. Why not shoot the person in the leg, or foot, or hand? Is Mr. Zimmerman to claim that in addition to fearing for his life, his hand holding the loaded gun was absolutely forced into a position of delivering a fatal, direct front-to-back shot through the heart? In other words, was he completely without choices on where to shoot?

        Not snarking here, asking what will be the explanation consistent with innocence, should these questions be raised at trial.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Crane_Station, I think Zimmerman’s statement that he took aim, being careful not to hit his own hand is sufficient proof that he did not consider any option other than to kill Martin!

        • No doubt, the “I aimed the gun” and the “No, I made sure” statements won’t do him any good at all.

          There need to be seminars: Don’t Run Your Mouth to Police, and (later when Mirandized) The Fifth Amendment Only Works When the Mouth is Shut, and Nobody Talks Everybody Walks…you know, educational seminars!

      • fauxmccoy says:

        crane station – the seminar you suggest already exists, i posted it up thread

        never talk to the police (a seminar prepared for the web by a defense lawyer/law professor and a virgina investigator of 30 years who is also a 3rd year law student)

        if you and the hubster have not seen, it’s a keeper.

        • Oh! Very cool, I will have to have a look. Yeah, I am not even kidding, people need to know that talking freely with police without a lawyer, even if there is no sort of Miranda (which is for the birds, BTW), particularly after an incident where someone has died, is just a terrible idea.

          There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking, for example, “Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?” If the cop says, “Well, you know, you’re not quite under arrest but you’re not free to go,” well, then that means the person is in custody for questioning. If that is the case, one can say, and this is regardless of having been read rights or not, “I will need to have a lawyer present before we begin.”

          Thank you, and will have a look.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            thanks crane station, i think you’ll appreciate it.

            am about half way through frog gravy, leaving the intermittent comment. it is excellent reading although of course completely horrifying simultaneously. i am glad for you that those days are behind you, yet am equally as sure that they never are completely.

          • Thank you so much fauxmccoy, and I am going to do a bit of essay editing and begin to place essays at this site, so that if readers are interested in a day-to-day inmate perspective, they can read about it. (ie, we may combine the sites at some point so readers don’t have to search around )

          • TruthBTold says:

            Please do Crane. That would be great.

          • I will go back and have a look around, and begin to do this soon.

          • I will go back and have a look around, and begin to do this soon.

            Sorry, back into my blog, haHA!

    • Rachael says:

      Whonoze – Excellent!!!

  23. SlingTrebuchet says:

    Zimmerman does not testify.

    Prosecution does not enter his statements and interviews.
    Prosecution plays his NEN call.
    “Real suspicious guy”
    “He’s got his hand in his waistband”
    “These a**holes. They always get away”
    “S**t he’s running”
    Zimmerman getting out. Sounds like he moving fast.
    “F**king ***s”
    “Are you following him?” – “Yeah” – “We don’t need you to do that” – “OK” (‘whatever’)
    “Meet a the mailboxes” – “Actually, could you get them to ring me?”
    Two minutes and thirty seconds later there a 911 call.
    Caller had been alerted by the sound of a loud argument.
    Call recording picks up sounds of screams. A shot.
    Caller’s neighbour reported seeing the pair wrestling on the ground before the shot.
    Zimmerman has very superficial injuries explainable by Martin trying to defend himself against a person who says in a NEN call that he is following Martin (into the dark).
    Martin is shot dead by Zimmerman’s gun.
    No weapon found in Martin’s waistband or indeed anywhere in the vicinity.

    Suicide?

    • Vicky says:

      Excellent summary of the prosecution’s case and the simplicity with which it should be presented.
      The biggest obstacle will be making certain that the jury fully comprehends that the opening and closing statements of O’Mara are not evidence.

      • julia says:

        Excellent summary…the only thing I would add is the prosecution plays George’s chilling statement that he’d do nothing differently…that this was all God’s plan.

      • Rachael says:

        Julia, I had been trying as hard as I could to have an open mind, but as soon as I heard his “God’s plan” words, my mind shut. It doesn’t get any colder than that.

        • Brown says:

          You and any one who was on the fence, fell off when he said that. Never bring in God, people don’t take well to that statement.

      • Digger says:

        ALSO an excellent comment by Patricia @ 2:46 pm.
        “MOST OF ALL, as a TYPICAL BULLY, he was totally insensitive of any other person …………..etc.”

        Is that why the jury failed in the Casey Anthony trial, they did not comprehend the opening and closing statements as not being evidence?

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Good thinking, but nope. Doesn’t work.

      There are a few things wrong.

      First and most important the prosecution should not gain a conviction by stealth or trickery. The theory of the case is completely in the open. Important evidence is not hidden in order to disadvantage the defendant. That doesn’t mean the prosecution has the responsibility to make the defendant’s case; but the prosecution should educe all of the important facts and deal with them fairly.

      It doesn’t always work that way, but there you go.

      Second, even in the hearing where the prosecution does not bear the burden of the proof the goal of the prosecution is not to slide by, but to destroy the defense’s theory of the case.

      Furthermore, at the hearing, you’re not going to fool the judge who has a very good idea of what the case is about. Get cute, and you’ll pay for it. Maybe by losing the motion.

      Third, while the defense is hampered by the hearsay rules, it’s not completely crippled and will almost certainly be able to use Mr. Zimmerman’s statements made at the police station on the night of the homicide, on the basis of “spontaneous utterance” 90.803(1).

      Because the written statement is so damaging to the defense case, the prosecution should bring it in on its own motion.

      Also crucial is evidence showing all of the foundational aspects (cause of death, time of death, location of death, etc.); Mr. Martin’s cell phone records; DeeDee’s testimony about the contents of the call; medical testimony explaining the nature and extent of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries, and an expert reconstruction explaining the disposition of the evidence at the crime scene.

      Taken together, the times and substance of Mr. Martin’s last two calls with DeeDee, the location of the fight and shooting, and Mr. Zimmerman’s admissions in the NEN call and written statement show that he caused the death acting as a vigilante.

      That said, one of the threshold goals of the prosecution strategy should and will be to force Mr. Zimmerman to the stand.

      Hulk smash.

      • You said,

        “Third, while the defense is hampered by the hearsay rules, it’s not completely crippled and will almost certainly be able to use Mr. Zimmerman’s statements made at the police station on the night of the homicide, on the basis of “spontaneous utterance” 90.803(1).”

        I do not agree.

        The present-sense exception to the hearsay rule applies to:

        “A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.”

        GZ’s first statement to Singleton was a custodial interrogation more than an hour after he was taken to the police station. A major purpose of the hearsay rule is to exclude self-serving statements by defendants during custodial interrogations.

        For the same reason, I do not believe the excited utterance exception in Rule 803(2) is applicable. This rule defines an excited utterance as:

        “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”

        He was as calm as calm could be when he answered her questions.

        He had every incentive to lie under the circumstances with the time and opportunity to do so.

        With all due respect, which is considerable, I disagree with your statement.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I’ve done California cases where “spontaneous utterance” and “present sense impression” were used to admit statements made more than 24 hours later. I’m willing to concede that California may be different from Florida but without one of us doing the research, I still think the defense can get it in.

        • During a custodial interrogation of a suspect in an active homicide investigation who has every incentive imaginable to provide a self-serving statement?

          I’m not saying there isn’t such a case, but I would be very surprised to discover that there is.

          I’ll bet you a rusted out and dented hubcap that you’re wrong.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I owe you a hubcap. You were right about “custodial.” Advisement defeats excitement. I’m pretty sure you owe me a shot of Dickel though.

  24. Angelia says:

    I believe GZ will testify at the hearing. He consistently makes decisions that are not in his best interest. He gave five statements to police without counsel. He tried to see A. Corey on his own. I believe the decision to go on SH was his and certainly the decision to go over O’Mara’s head and attempt to restructure the agreement with Barbara Walters was his. He has decided (and stated) that what happened that night was God’s Plan and that he wouldn’t change anything that happened.

    I also believe that O’mara has lost contol of his client. In fulfilling his duty to zealously represent by filing for a hearing, a failed Immunity Hearing gives GZ a reality check that O’Mara can then use to help GZ really understand that a plea may be in his best interest. I think that can only happen if GZ testifies. Otherwise GZ will believe (imo) that if only he had testified, it would have gone his way.

    The best way I can think of to describe it is a hard-headed kid. No matter how many times you tell him the stove is hot, he won’t believe/understand it until he touches it and burns the heck out of his fingers. No matter how many times O’Mara tells him that testifying is not in his best interest, GZ will not believe it until he gets ripped to shreds, by the prosecution. Some people are just hard-headed that way. JMHO

    • Rachael says:

      Angelia, I agree with everything you say. The sad thing is, even if he does get ripped to shreds by the prosecution, he will never see how it was him. It will always be “them.” It will always be someone else responsible for his deeds.

    • Malisha says:

      George Zimmerman acts like an overgrown baby who doesn’t consider real consequences of his real acts. Unfortunately, he has been allowed to stay in this extended state of non-adulthood by a society that lets a big baby skim by if he lies well enough, has enough family influence, and says “Yessir” and “Nossir” and “I believe in God” often enough. It’s a shame he got to the point where he killed somebody because he makes messes. He should have been taught long ago not to make a mess that is too big for him to clean up.

  25. Porky3100 says:

    Professor. As an ardent Travon supporter, I must say that there is one area of vulnerability that bothers me for the prosecution. How do you think they can counter the defense argument that goes like this? Why would Zimmerman murder Travon when he knew the police were on the way.

    • whonoze says:

      The defense could counter “Why would Zimmerman murder Travon when he knew the police were on the way” by suggesting he murdered Trayvon BECAUSE he knew the police were on the way. He knew he had already commited a crime by confronting Martin at gunpoint, and he wanted to silence the witness.

      But they could also counter it by saying, “This guy has a depraved mind, so who knows by what logic he does anything?” If it doesn’t make sense that GZ would murder TM as the cops were about to arrive, then that just adds one more entry on a long list of GZ behavior and statements that don’t make sense.

      • tchoupi says:

        Actually, GZ showed again and again that logic is to him what oil is to water; they don’t mix at all no matter how hard you try.

    • Vicky says:

      Porky, if we buy into the ADHD diagnosis as an excuse for his memory lapses and inconsistent stories, then we can also conclude that he lacks impulse control and the ability to control his anger.
      I have worked with individuals both children and adults with extreme ADHD symptoms, which can fall under a SED or SPMI designation. When the disorder follows the individual into adulthood coexisting disorders can be present or develop and make “normal” functioning even more difficult. The fact that Zimmerman might have completely lost control or failed to exercise impulse control that evening does not come as a surprise. The number of inmates diagnosed with ADHD is estimated to be between 25% and 40%. We do not know when GZ was diagnosed, specifically what his diagnosis are, what type of cognitive behavioral therapy he has had, if any, whether he was compliant with treatment, etc. So, it is difficult to assume that the knowledge that the police were on the way would have mattered to GZ once the events spiraled out of control.

      • Malisha says:

        Things “spiraled out of control” when George went hunting with a loaded gun and spotted his target, walking alone in a hoodie. That’s because GEORGE was out of control.

      • roderick2012 says:

        Vicky says: When the disorder follows the individual into adulthood coexisting disorders can be present or develop and make “normal” functioning even more difficult. The fact that Zimmerman might have completely lost control or failed to exercise impulse control that evening does not come as a surprise.

        Remember the person who worked with Zimemmerman at those illegal parties and stated that he witnessed Zimmerman assault a female patron.

        He described Zimmerman as having a Jeckyl and Hyde personality, but when Zimmerman snapped, he really snapped.

        Also what do you make of Zimmerman’s behavior after the accusations from his cousin were made public?

        First he goes on Hannity. Then he contacts Barbara Walters for an interview?

        And I don’t think it was about the money. It just seems like a natural reaction of a molester. He was exposed and he was desperately trying to get people on his side.

        I know I am grasping at terms but it seems as if Zimmerman is bi-polar and had a manic episode and his cousin’s statement that she is no longer afraid of him really set the entire chain of events off.

        Then he went to the internet and restarted his website to feed his narcissistic need for attention and admiration.

    • You said,

      “Why would Zimmerman murder Travon when he knew the police were on the way?”

      Why wouldn’t he? He claimed self-defense and almost got away with it.

      This is one reason why the prosecution can prove the depraved mind element of murder 2. The killing was unnecessary.

      • KA says:

        I think he killed him because Trayvon resisted and Zimmerman made an immediate decision between killing Trayvon and “loosing those A-holes again”….

        I am not sure he set out to kill Trayvon, I think he did set out to “stopping” him and killing was just one of the possible means.

    • Digger says:

      Oh boy Porky3100, you have a thought, do you think the defense will use this? If so the jury surely will have a tough one to decide.

      • Patricia says:

        Digger, and Porky –

        GZ murdered TM even KNOWING the cops would be here in a sec’, because he was FKKKK’N livid that this kid was fighting back, not bowing before his authority, might possibly get away and make him look like a complete loser to the cops (again!) but MOST OF ALL, as a typical bully he was totally insensitive to any other person, animal, etc. but EXQUISITELY sensitive to his own EXTREME pain from running into a bush, dinging his noggin, smacking his schnoz on the concrete, or whatever, and it was ALL that kid’s fault!

        Besides, the kid was Black – so he was expendable.
        Literally, beneath GZ’s ample contempt.

        Ya’ think that will get GZ any sympathy from the jury?
        GZ doesn’t get any Brownie points for being “of depraved mind.”

        That’s why the charge is Murder 2.

    • Malisha says:

      I believe Zimmerman was absolutely adrenaline-drunk determined to have Trayvon Martin UNDER HIS CONTROL and admitting to a slew of crimes by the time the cops arrived. HAD he been attacked, of course, he would have been able to wait for the cops because they were on their way. He was NOT attacked, however, and couldn’t wait because Trayvon Martin was not playing the role he intended Trayvon to play: the submissive “suspect” allowing the good cop-like citizen to bring him in. He was fighting back, presuming Zimmerman was a wrong-doer with evil intentions, not submitting to Zimmerman’s superior power and authority. Zimmerman asks the female cop, while awaiting the voice-stress guy to show up, “Have you ever had to shoot somebody?” When she says she has not, he says that is lucky and then observes, “I would never question your authority.” It is not danger, but the questioning of authority, that George associates with the idea that the suspect must be shot.

      George did not want the cops to show up and find any of the following:

      1. Trayvon having gotten away from George altogether, and possibly about to call in an encounter with a dangerous armed stranger;

      2. Trayvon in a superior position, having pinned George down rather than standing there with his arms in the air looking “apprehended” like on cop shows on TV;

      3. Trayvon alive and complaining that a stranger came up to him with a gun and unlawfully detained him;

      4. Trayvon screaming for help and trying to get away from George while still alive to tell the cops WHY he was screaming for help and WHY he was trying to get away from George and what George said to him while preventing him from continuing to mind his own business and go home.

      Had the cops found any of the four situations above, George would be horribly humiliated, and possibly charged with a crime, and the possibility always existed that Trayvon would be BELIEVED about what had taken place, and George had one charge against him that had been dropped before, so this time, he might really get the book thrown at him.

      George couldn’t afford for the cops to arrive and find Trayvon alive. Then there would be TWO stories to tell, not one.

      • Rachael says:

        I agree with you Malisha. I personally do not believe it was George’s initial intent to murder Trayvon. I believe it is obvious he went after him though but things did not go as he planned.

        I totally agree that when it didn’t go as planned, he had to make sure that only his story/stories would be heard.

      • aussie says:

        Well, yes, Rachel. Pulling a trigger when the muzzle is 2 to 6 inches from someone’s chest is a little bit “conduct that puts others at obvious risk of death or great bodily harm. ” Even if he didn’t want to kill and claims to have been actually surprised that he actually got the victim and the victim actually did die.

        He was entitled to do this, as self-defence, only if he had “reasonable” fear for his own life. That doesn’t mean he was terrified. That means it would be reasonable for any person under the same circumstances to feel their lives in danger.

        That is one reason why it’s important about his injuries being minor and undocumented. And would be better still if it could be shown to high % probability that the nose injury was actually an after-effect of the shooting (eg kickback, shell casing etc).

      • Rachael says:

        aussie, I agree and I thought I said as much in many posts, but maybe you are agreeing with me and not arguing? I don’t know.

      • princss6 says:

        Yes, Rachel, I think he probably did not intend to murder Trayvon. To Malisha’s wonderfully stated points – GZ admits he does not want to give out his address to the dispatcher because Trayvon might over hear it. You can look at it two ways – he thought it was a criminal that might retaliate OR he didn’t want some irate parent (in his “late teens”) showing up at his door to complain about him scaring their child. For what it is worth, he did not want his “suspect’ to be able to identify him. Damn!

    • Rachael says:

      Why would he murder Trayvon when he knew the police were on the way?

      I could be all wrong, because I know nothing, but I don’t see why that would matter. The fact is, when the police got there, Trayvon was dead.

      Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.04(2). Second degree murder.—

      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, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life[.]

      Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon while engaging in an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life?

      To my understanding, for Second degree murder, one does not need to show a premeditated plan, or a plan to kill that came into existence prior to the moment of the shooting. It just requires that the defendant deliberately, and with so little justification as to be reckless, engaged in conduct that puts others at obvious risk of death or great bodily harm.

      I’m not sure why matters if it can be proved that is what he did.

      But please correct me if I am wrong.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Porky3100 says:Professor. As an ardent Travon supporter, I must say that there is one area of vulnerability that bothers me for the prosecution. How do you think they can counter the defense argument that goes like this? Why would Zimmerman murder Travon when he knew the police were on the way.

      Why did Zimmerman leave his truck when he knew the police were on their way?

      Why would Zimmerman follow a ‘thug’ who was acting ‘suspiciously’ and one who he thought was armed on a dark rainy night?

      I believe that Zimmerman killed Trayvon because Trayvon wouldn’t admit to being ‘up to no good’ and also they were arguing and Zimmerman was afraid that people would hear their arguing.

      Basically Zimmerman lost control of Trayvon and he shot and killed him to put him in his place.

  26. bets says:

    I have a concern in that the ada is too aggressive and mad doggish, shouting when it’s not necessary. Anyone who shouts at me loses me. I tense up and no longer listen. As a juror, I would like MOM but not the ada. He also made a real botch of the interview of DeeDee.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      GZ appears to have a problem with women in authority. I think a female prosecutor questioning him bring out some anger in GZ very easily if pressed for answers. That would be part of my prosecution strategy.

      • lynp says:

        I dunno. George did very well with Bernie’s theatrics at the Bond Hearing. Bernie looked like an hysteric. I suspect George will also do well if he testifies. There are witnesses who say George was on the bottom of the “wrestling”, “fight”, “encounter” that cannot be discounted. How would any of us know whether or not George has a problem with women authority figures?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Listen to GZ when Singleton presses him, his voice becomes very curt. I wish it had video with it. Give it a listen. He doesn’t like to be challenged. By my observation, when he took the stand, he did very well. However, it was evident he does not like to be cornered. His treatment of Shelly during the jailhouse calls (he doesn’t trust her), the way he disrespects his mother. He didn’t insist that his friend at the scene accompany her home when she took the truck, knowing full well she would be in the house alone. No, he has a problem with women. A female prosecutor would unravel him pretty quick and his true colours will come through.

        • George Zimmerman lied during that hearing when he told Trayvon’s parents that he thought he was a couple of years younger than he is and he thought Trayvon might be armed.

          BDLR did not confront him with his prior inconsistent statements when GZ told the dispatcher several times that Trayvon was a teenager and he denied being afraid of him.

          Don’t expect that mistake to be repeated the next time GZ testifies.

          GZ’s testimony at the bond hearing is now a potential prior inconsistent statement under oath that makes matters even worse for GZ because he lied to Trayvon’s parents when he was supposedly apologizing.

          Jury won’t like that.

    • roderick2012 says:

      lynp says: I suspect George will also do well if he testifies.

      Only if he is as heavily sedated during cross-examination as he was during the Sean Hannity interview.

      BTW am I the only one to recall the rumor that Zimmerman told the EMT’s that he had taken two tranquilizers the night of the shooting?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        i do not know – i can tell you as someone who must take some dosage of benzodiazepams for disability that gz sounds sedated during his NEN call as well as in all of his interviews. not a scientific approach, but i know it when i hear it, even when it’s coming out of my own mouth.

        i would be interested in hearing if what you say can be verified.

  27. TruthBTold says:

    Professor,

    When jurors are polled at the end of a criminal case (I seem reference the O.J. Simpson case often and presume when done, depending on the verdict, can be done by either side), is that for verification purposes that each juror’s vote is correct or for some other purposes? Thanks in advance.

  28. Digger says:

    Today your Birthday Professor? Happy Birthday, I suspect you be a Leo!! Thank you for really opening the doors here and allowing all who have something to say without your showing favorites. It is a pleasure even if nothing more than read, finding intelligent thoughts and polite acceptance between so many.

    Crane-Station, your man is “D’man! Today anyway! 🙂

    • Actually, my birthday is June 24. I am a Cancer with Scorpio Rising and Moon in Virgo.

      • Digger says:

        Then how did I get off on a birthday trip today? lol
        I’d swear I saw someone up thread wishing you a happy birthday. I feel like an idiot.
        Two Cancer with Scorpio Rising, moon in Virgo in my fam.
        Nice people, most of the time, if they don’t bite me. lol

        Oh well, if it is anyone’s birthday today, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

      • My hubby was a gemini, the twins. I felt like a bigamist. Belated Happy Birthday, Professor!

      • Angelia says:

        Well, that makes perfect sense. A natural protector with a deep dislike of injustice, a natural instinct for investigation and an analytical thought process. It’s no wonder I enjoy reading this blog so much, being a Scorpio with a Cancer moon and Virgo rising. Happy belated birthday, Prof. Keep up the good work.

  29. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Everyone have a nice evening… Happy Birthday Justkiddin and Professor.. I better sign off before I start misquoting things…

  30. TruthBTold says:

    First, wishing Justkiddin* and Professor Leatherman very happy birthdays with many more to come in good health and spirit. It’s funny that a defendant has a constitutional right against self-incrimination however, really at any attempt of prevailing once an affirmative defense is asserted they need to testify. Nonetheless, as it relates to whether GZ will testify or not and based off of what I have seem of him and what the conclusions I have come to, I am half and half. A part of me thinks he will and a part of me thinks he will not. Of course, we all want him to testify.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Hell Yeah !!! I want to see GZ explain that 40+ foot stumble….and tell the jury how he was sure to “aim” so as to not hit his other hand, and fire, “one shot.”

      • TruthBTold says:

        LOL @ CN,

        I tell ya. If all of us were able to compile our list of questions and present it…..whew….I don’t even know what to say lol.

        • Patricia says:

          Here is my question, TBT:

          “Mr. Zimmerman, will you get down and lie on your back on this piece of wet artificial turf on the floor, with this 5′ 11”, 158 lb. student lying on top of you, pinning you down, and show the jury how you reached around in back and withdrew your weapon from its holster under your right back and brought it forward under his chest and fired perpendicularly into his torso from inches away, and please show us what you you did with your other hand during this. The student will be able to use his hands in any way that strikes him as being defensive unless you describe specific defensive efforts Mr. Martin took. Oh – and one last thing – before you lie on the wet grass, let the graphic artist apply wet blood to the back of your head before the action starts.

          “Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman … roll cameras. please”

      • Digger says:

        HELL YEAH!!!

      • verafish says:

        I’d like to add my own question for GZ: (it starts just like yours, Patricia…coincidence, pure coincidence…=) )

        “Mr. Zimmerman, will you get down and lie on your back on this piece of wet artificial turf on the floor, with this 5′ 11″, 158 lb. student lying on top of you, straddling your midsection/hips, and then demonstrate to us how, when you shimmied down, that the victim was able to “see” your weapon which was not only UNDER your back but also now BEHIND him. Did he have eyes in his butt?”

      • Elle Jay says:

        –he can TRY to explain away the 40+ foot “stumble”—but—-oops sorry george, bernieDLR already HAS your stmts where you claim you were sucker-punched and dropped AT the “T”——-no change-ups allowed now.

    • Without exception, I always advised my clients not to testify, unless it was absolutely necessary for them to do so.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Yes sir, it appears that most defendants do not take the stand. Although they don’t have to, I am sure that jurors would like to hear from them though. I know it would be an intense and perhaps challenging research project, but I wonder if it would make a difference in outcome, either way, if defendants testified at trial.

      • During administration of his Miranda rights, Z was told that anything that he said could be used against him in a court of law. So be it.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Would the defence, rather than concentrating on GZ, work on discrediting any witnesses, including and foremost – the actions of Law Enforcement. After all, he was not immediately arrested.
        The crime scene was not secured – we focused on the keys being moved. Could the defence argue – if the keys were moved, what else was moved. Shelly being allowed to move the vehicle GZ and Osterman spoke with witnesses and all of the rest. So, if LE really flubbed it at the scene, would the jury (knowing the SPD on up) trust a detective on the stand. It worked in the OJ trial. Keep the focus off the defendant because he is cooked. Many, many thought OJ was cooked, too.

  31. fauxmccoy says:

    thank you professor leatherman, this confirms my understanding of how the proceedings would take place. the prosecution has the upper hand here in what portions of george’s statements will be admitted at trial and the only possible way to rebut them is by gz taking the stand in his own defense. this puts him between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place’ as he is an easily impeachable witness. simply stated ‘so mr. zimmerman, were you lying then or are you lying now?’

    if i were gz’s attorney, i would advise him not to take the stand, yet i do not foresee gz following sound advice – he has already shown us that as a rule, he does not. (from dispatcher sean stating ‘we don’t need you to do that’ through voluntarily speaking with SPD sans counsel in spite of being mirandized, through the hannity interview.)

    george’s own words to dispatch as well as SPD, friends, coworkers clearly place him as the aggressor, the phone call between DeeDee and Martin and the location of the body only confirm that. hell, his ‘re-enactment’ video lay the groundwork of proving that gz assaulted martin (by following and then reaching for what to martin is an unknown object – i.e. a perceived threat). the only risk i see is as you suggest the prosecution overplaying it’s hand and causing one or more members of the jury to feel sorry for him.

    bottom line for me — i see gz taking the stand to his own detriment in spite of legal advice.

    i do have one question though which is can the prosecution introduce mere portions of gz’s statements to PD (or re-enactment video) while disregarding the statement in its entirety – a sliced and diced statement, if you will? it is my understanding that they can, but would like to see a legal confirmation.

    • bets says:

      I don’t see the prosecution introducing any of GZ’s statements except maybe the non-emergency call and his initial statement to Smith at the scene.

      If GZ testifies, if the cross examination isn’t sufficient to impeach his testimony, then I can see the introduction of any of his statements, including walk-thru video and the Hannity interview, being introduced, probably without cuts. Editing is not a good idea and likely wouldn’t be allowed.

      The voice stress video would not be allowed, imo.

      • “The voice stress video would not be allowed, imo.”

        The test result is not admissible, but the questions and answers he gave during the interview are admissible, just like any other statement.

      • jd says:

        The purpose of the voice stress test was not to test stress- that’s a joke and inadmissible in court. The purpose was to get George to tell his version one time straight thru with little interruption which he did. And in so doing he revealed more inconsistencies and contradictions and also grew bolder when he felt he’d “passed” the test, which made him continue to give statements. It’s a “good cop” trick and he fell for it.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        bets writes: “I don’t see the prosecution introducing any of GZ’s statements except maybe the non-emergency call and his initial statement to Smith at the scene.”
        – – – – –
        this strikes me as very bad strategy as “anything you say can and will be held against you” and the defense is unable to enter any of gz’s potentially exculpatory statements as evidence.

        why the hell not use whatever you’ve got, especially in the defendant’s own words, to prove your case?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          IMO, MOM will lose the self-defence claim and it will go to trial. MOM will focus on every one of the witnesses on the stand and hopes the jury will question the actions of LE – again, the CSI effect – The self-defence claim does not depend on a jury and it won’t send GZ to jail for life. So, IMHO (I am not a lawyer – just a person who thinks in realistic terms), just as in the Casey Anthony case – a liar does not a murderer make. The prosecution will not have to introduce much of the inconsistency in GZs statements. The jury will know after hearing a few of the doozies. The prosecution had better be looking at the actions of law enforcement. Alot of people these days do not trust police. GZ will testify at the hearing. What does he have to lose. He has only a remote chance of gaining his freedom. He will not testify at his trial, though. My prediction.

        • You said,

          “why the hell not use whatever you’ve got, especially in the defendant’s own words, to prove your case?”

          Think like a trial lawyer. Think strategically.

          Force Zimmerman to take the stand so that you can expose him as a liar with his prior false, inconsistent and contradictory statements.

      • bets says:

        fauxmccoy says:
        August 18, 2012 at 11:37 pm

        The prosecution wants GZ on the stand. If they use his statements, his story is in the record and without an opportunity to cross examine him, there is no need for GZ to take the stand.

        However, if they don’t use his statements in their initial presentation, the only way for GZ to tell his story of self-defense is to get on the stand and tell whichever story he is going with on that day and be cross examined.

        If they aren’t able to totally destroy his story through cross examination, they can still enter any and all of his videos and statements in rebuttal in order to impeach his sworn testimony.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          i get what you are saying – of course they want to force zimmerman to take the stand and will not offer any of his statements that could possibly be considered ‘exculpatory’. but as the professor states above, “the questions and answers he gave during the interview are admissible, just like any other statement”.

          look at it this way, put one of the detectives on the stand to enter any particular statement (not say the entire interview) to lay the proper foundation for entry into evidence for any statement which helps to prove their case. this evidence, as it is zimmerman’s own words is particularly damning.

          the prosecution would undoubtedly have to do precisely this should zimmerman take the stand to rebut any of his sworn testimony in order to impeach him.

          why would they not due so beforehand if the prosecution felt a particular statement helped prove their case? as far as it has been explained to me by the professor and others with legal degrees it is perfectly acceptable. if you know otherwise, please say so.

          • You said,

            “Why would they not due so beforehand if the prosecution felt a particular statement helped prove their case? as far as it has been explained to me by the professor and others with legal degrees it is perfectly acceptable. if you know otherwise, please say so.”

            The prosecution will want to put in just enough evidence to force Zimmerman to take the stand and then destroy him on cross and in their rebuttal case with his prior false, inconsistent and contradictory statements.

            Which statements they choose and when they choose to use them will be an embarrassment-of-riches problem for them to enjoy solving.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          if you have not seen this video before, take a look – it is an awesome presentation of precisely what the professor writes in this article, but goes further. the video explains the 5th amendment from both the perspective of a defense lawyer/law professor and the police.

          “Never Talk to the Police”

      • bets says:

        I’m suggesting that not using GZ’s statements and videos in the initial presentation is a matter of strategy. They can make the case that there was a death by gunfire and that GZ did it by the testimony of the officers who processed the crime scene and by the forensic evidence. GZ’s call to the non-emergency number shows that he was following TM and that he demonstrated malice by his comments. This makes the case of 2nd degree murder and there is NO indication of self-defense.

        It will be up to the defense to make the case that GZ fired in self-defense. The only person who can do that is GZ. If the prosecution doesn’t present any indication of self-defense, he has to take the stand to do that and then be subject to cross examination. If he chooses not to take the stand, then self-defense is not demonstrated.

        It is a much stronger case to show GZs’s imagination by having the words come out of his own mouth in person, rather than have the da ask rhetorical questions of a video, or having the jurors read his statements. After the prosecution’s presentation of the forensic evidence, GZ’s story has to match. What he says in the videos doesn’t match but the videos cannot be cross examined.

        Again, if all of the GZ statements and videos are presented by the prosecution, there is no reason for GZ to take the stand. The prosecution’s strength, and the defense’s weakness is GZ’s testimony under cross examination, but the defense has no defense without GZ on the stand unless the prosecution presents it for them.

        How much stronger the prosecution’s case if the da can reference GZ’s statement on the stand and then show a video where he says something else.

        Again, it’s a matter of strategy.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          bets says “Again, if all of the GZ statements and videos are presented by the prosecution, there is no reason for GZ to take the stand. The prosecution’s strength, and the defense’s weakness is GZ’s testimony under cross examination, but the defense has no defense without GZ on the stand unless the prosecution presents it for them”

          – – – –
          it is not better strategy if you watched just the first 10 minutes of the video i posted you would know why.

          prosecution to det. serino or singleton dressed quite sharply: did zimmerman tell you X, Y, or Z during your interview with him on (date)?

          serino/singleton: yes

          prosecution: did you notice anything unusual about mr zimmerman in your interview on (date)?

          serino/singleton: why yes, of course (insert whatever damning details here)

          and it goes on for however long the prosecution sees fit. this is direct testimony from the investigators, it generally holds high weight with juries. this is the only evidence the prosecution must submit – they will not submit (because they do not have to) any video or recording into evidence, their statement IS evidence. notice that nothing said helps gz in any way.

          next comes the cross examination, which is limited to the detective’s statements. if o’mara tries to insert a ‘well didn’t my client state that he was only doing XYZ because he was defending himself?’ the prosecution will object as hearsay and the judge will sustain it.

          absolutely nothing that helps gz in any way gets entered through this process, it only further compels him to take the stand to tell his side.

          remember when speaking to the cops, anything you say may be used against you and the corollary yet nothing you say can be used ‘for’ you. please, think about what i wrote, watch the first 15 minutes of that video. statements made to the cops by the defendant can only hurt him, never help and they can and should be used by the prosecution.

      • bets says:

        Maybe we’re talking past each other. When I say the prosecution witnesses include the officers who processed the crime scene, I’m including Smith who first arrived and to whom GZ said that he shot TM. That statement by GZ would be entered by Smith for the prosecution. GZ’s gun would be entered as the murder weapon with forensics showing that GZ’s DNA was on it.

        As for laying foundation for admission of further statements by GZ, I don’t believe it’s needed. GZ’s testimony would provide the foundation for admission of any of his statements if they need to impeach his testimony.

      • bets says:

        You suggest using a part of an interview, not all of it. I think that would open the door to the entire interview being subject to the cross examination. “Officer, you said, blah, blah, blah. Is that the extent of the conversation? What else was discussed? What else was asked of GZ? What else did GZ say in that interview?”

        Not just the statement, but the entire interview would have to be carefully selected.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        you are correct that no foundation is necessary.

        the re-enactment video need never be entered into evidence by the prosecution and cannot be entered by the defense – that’s the trick. a detective can testify to any observance of gz’s demeanor or statement and that is all the jury will know. cross examination is limited in scope due to the hearsay rule.

      • roderick2012 says:

        fauxmccoy: I think it’s best that Det Serino should be kept off the stand because his reputation is crap.

        According to the FBI report Serino stated that he was pressured to file charges against Zimmerman by the black members of the SPD.

        I was under the impression that Serino filed an affidavit in which he thought that Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter.

        I don’t think the prosecution should give O’Mara a target to discredit the police investigation and change the focus from his client to the a cop who continues to change his story.

        Also, the prosecution needs to go hard and present all of the evidence they have including the re-enactment video, all of the police interviews and the NEN call and point out the inconsistances and not worry about introducing evidence that may support Zimmerman’s self defense claim because his claims aren’t backed up by facts. It’s obvious that he exagerated his injuries and the re-enactment is very damning.

        Whether the prosecution presents the recorded statements or not I believe that Zimmerman will have to take the stand if he wants to convince the jury that he’s not guilty of Murder 2.

      • Malisha says:

        George Zimmerman (probably upon Mark Osterman’s advice) REQUESTED the voice-stress test. In the intro leading up to the VST, the VST-er says to him, “You requested a voice-stress test; well I’m here to grant that wish.” George agrees he asked for it.

        Then he told his story yet again. Many of the same phrases entered into it. “The guy” asked him if he had a problem, then punched him in the hose. He fell back and the guy got on top of him; he felt like his head was about to “explode.” He screamed for help. But one thing came into the conversation that had not appeared in George’s other narrations, before the VST: HE SAID THAT UNTIL HIS JACKET SLID UP — FROM HIS WRINGGLING — AND HE FELT TRAYVON MARTIN’S HAND REACH DOWN HIS SIDE — HE HAD FORGOTTEN HE WAS CARRYING HIS LOADED GUN.

        Each time George came up with some new inanity, I asked myself, “Now if I were a lying scumbag murderer racist bully, why would I suddenly say that?” And after I ask myself that question, I usually answer it. In this case, the answer is:

        “Because I would want to emphasize that only at the moment of my fear that I was going to be killed did I pull out — indeed even REMEMBER — my gun.”

        George breaks down his fairy-tale into two parts:

        Part I = stuff that happened when it just happened because it happened because I was doing nothing wrong and nothing I did was illegal (please note; all this stuff just HAPPENED); and

        Part II = stuff that I DID because a thug attacked me and tried to kill me and suddenly I was hurt and reasonably in fear for my life. (Please note: This stuff, I actually DID, it didn’t just HAPPEN, but I DID IT because I was attacked and in fear for my life.)

    • You said,

      “I do have one question though which is can the prosecution introduce mere portions of gz’s statements to PD (or re-enactment video) while disregarding the statement in its entirety – a sliced and diced statement, if you will? it is my understanding that they can, but would like to see a legal confirmation.”

      Yes, the prosecution can introduce, for example, any statement during a lengthy interrogation that it chooses.

      Pursuant to the rule of completeness, however, the defense can complete the picture, so to speak, to correct a misimpression.

      For example, let us say George Zimmerman said,

      “Yeah, I killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood just for the hell of it. Are you out of your freakin’ mind. I’d never do something like that.”

      If the prosecution introduced the first sentence of that statement as an admission by a party opponent, the defense would be permitted to complete the picture by introducing the second sentence.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        thanks prof, that was my understanding, that a competent prosecution could use any part of an ‘interview’ gz (or any defendant) not introducing the entire interview. of course, it stands to reason that it would be done so very carefully and strategically.

        considering serino’s demotion, he cannot take the stand as a detective currently so singleton might be a better choice should the prosecution use any of gz’s statement on direct examination.

  32. Patricia says:

    This wouldn’t surprise me: Narcissist George still believes he can ramp up the “resolve” he showed on Hannity (as contrasted to wilting under Singleton’s questions) and hopes to get ONE juror sympathetic to his case (and convinced of his righteousness), so there’s no unanimous verdict against him.

    Insists on testifying. Result? Yep, one hold-out juror.

    Hopes then that MOM can then negotiate a lesser plea bargain.
    (10 years?).

    The only way for MOM to convince George to not testify is for MOM to put GZ through a mock trial in advance, and have an attack-dog retired prosecuter shred bumbling George as he tries to testify.

    Video the mock trial, play it over & over for George.

    Will that disaster stop George? No, he’ll just consider it a screen test and now he’s ready for his star turn.

    So we just have to hope there’s decency and intelligence on the jury, and the State will stay strong in pursuit of a just verdict.

    No matter how many trials it takes.

    • Patricia,

      I love love reading your commentaries. I went back to the thread ” Was Trayvon Martin Attempting to get Away when George Zimmerman killed Him”? You had me captivated with every word. You rock…that.is.all.

  33. Digger says:

    How can anything he has uttered before trial be held against George Zimmerman during the trial. If he tells a thousand lied
    and then goes to testify on his behalf, doen’t the jury have to only
    take what he said on the stand and not go back into anything prior that he has said. Witnesses change or have changed their say, they may again when examined during the trial. I agree with CherokeeNative. I think he will take the stand and make his last stand be the one that counts. Certainly he has gained a lot of knowledge just in reading blogs, researching opinions in his mind and will set out to try and make us all feel foolish.

    • Case#1 says:

      Here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment#Inconsistent_statement

      The same rules would apply in the state of Florida too. If you don’t believe Wiki, then Google impeach witness testimony.

    • Teatime says:

      Yeah, but is he really doing that? I would be, but I believe him when he said he didn’t watch the neaws. That might have changed, hopefully, for his sake. But he needs to know the case and what to say- not so much to avoid conviction in a court of law. But to clear his name with the reasonable members of the public.

    • TruthBTold says:

      Digger wrote,

      “How can anything he has uttered before trial be held against George Zimmerman during the trial. If he tells a thousand lied
      and then goes to testify on his behalf, doen’t the jury have to only take what he said on the stand and not go back into anything prior that he has said”

      No, not at all from my understanding. The prosecution will introduce GZ’s prior inconsistent statements. I will let Professor Leatherman or Boar clean it up or expand legal expertise and proficiency.

    • Zimmerman better have been telling the truth in his interviews if he raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I can see him perjuring himself if he steps too far left or right.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      I can hear the jury members thinking – Yep – Somethings wrong with him. I don’t know what his deal is……

      • fauxmccoy says:

        all i can say that as a former San Franciscan, the phrases ‘hes got his hands in his waistband’ and ‘yup, hes coming to check me out’ have a completely different meaning, contextually speaking.

        i find gz’s speech mannerisms to be beyond peculiar. everything from what seems like coded phrases, to the um hums and question mark at the end of most sentences gives me the heebie-jeebies.

        i realize this most off topic so i’ll quit now.

    • You said,

      “How can anything he has uttered before trial be held against George Zimmerman during the trial. If he tells a thousand lied
      and then goes to testify on his behalf, doen’t the jury have to only
      take what he said on the stand and not go back into anything prior that he has said.”

      Nope, that’s not true. Witnesses can be confronted with prior inconsistent statements.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Digger,

      You’re as wrong as wrong can be.

      Sec 90.608 (1) provides that a party… may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony.”

      More, an out of court “admission” is not hearsay whether or not the declarant is available and may be brought into evidence by the prosecution. FL Sec 90.803(18).

      The meaning of “admission” is very broad and includes not only EVERYTHING Mr. Zimmerman said about the case, but things said by his Father, brother and previous attorneys if they were acting in a representative capacity.

    • Malisha says:

      ANYTHING GEORGE EVER SAID to anyone can come into evidence in a trial, or even a hearing, if he testifies in his own defense, because IF he testifies he is putting HIS OWN CREDIBILITY on the table to be challenged. Should he get up there and say, “I have been mentoring children,” the prosecution can ask him the names of the children he mentored. But if he fails to mention, on the stand, that he mentored children, the prosecution can go into a series of questions specifically related to his credibility, and do something like this:

      Mr. Zimmerman, did you mention on the Sean Hannity show that you mentored children?

      [If he says no, they hand him the transcript and ask if he wants to change his answer, and if he wants to change it, he can say he forgot that he mentioned it, or whatever]

      Did you in fact mentor any children in your home on Sunday February 26, 2012?

      [If not] When was the last time you mentored any children?

      Did you forget, while you were on the Sean Hannity show, that you had not mentored children for the past year and a half?

      etc……

      Whether he mentored children or not, in and of itself, is not evidence of whether he committed murder. But it IS evidence of his credibility or his lack of credibility. I think he has told so many inconsistent stories that anybody cross-examining him will be able to show him to be a smug, arrogant, relatively unintelligent, self-excusing, self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou, non-credible lying bully.

      And he makes you want to smack him, too. (Sorry) :mrgreen:

  34. Dave says:

    I don’t believe that GZ has a ghost of a chance of winning an acquital but a hung jury with one or two holdouts for acquital is certainly possible. So is a compromise verdict of guilty on a lesser included charge.

    Professor Leatherman, in the case of a jury deadlocked at 11-1 or 10-2 for a guilty verdict, is the prosecution likely to retry the case or just drop it?

  35. Teatime says:

    I’m not sure I really understand hearsay yet, so I won’t comment on any of it. I will say that his inconsistencies are not as big a deal as is made out of them, and there are always inconsistencies in these situations. Also in his favor is the fact that is a pretty calm person and De La Rocha is not. Chances are De La Rocha will engage in a lot of loud histrionics while Zimmerman demonstrates how calm he is. Even if he slips up O’Mara will help him clarify what he meant by certain statements and the judge (if it’s not Lester anyway) will keep him from browbeating the witness.

    On the negative is the fact that, like many with ADD, Zimmerman sometimes loses focus on what he is being asked… and he can give answers that are convoluted. He also has a tendency to be unnecessarily defensive about what he says. He can’t add details that aren’t related to the question.

    But I actually wouldn’t be terribly concerned except for one thing. I thought O’Mara would be sure that GZ was prepared for his interview with Hannity. He obviously did not prepare him in the slightest for it. I was very surprised by that. I like to think that O’Mara realizes that he needs to have Zimmerman READY before he puts him out to answer questions. He didn’t seem to understand that before the Hannity interview, and I’m a little nervous he may overlook it now.

    O’Mara has not been as thorough as I would like an attorney to be, and it has cost Zimmerman a great deal already with the stupid bond hearing crap. O’Mara could have completely avoided that whole mess in several ways, but I won’t get into it.

    In the end, Zimmerman has the temperament to deal with cross-examination. He just needs to have the right mentality. Whatever the case, as long as he stays consistent with the stuff he has stayed consistent with so far, he’ll be fine. There is no way he will be convicted of Murder 2 based on the evidence available to the public.

    Manslaughter is what he needs to watch out for. And the only way he’ll get manslaughter is if the jury dislikes him so much that they figure he should be found guilty of *some*thing.

    • bets says:

      MOM wasn’t the one putting GZ out there for the SH interview. That was a GZ deal. I would expect that MOM was not in favor of it at all. MOM has said on more than one occasion that various things are the decision of the client. I think that was one of GZ’s.

      I’m not so sure that GZ will do well in cross examination. He certainly didn’t do all that well with Hannity who fed him leading questions, some real soft ones.

      When he has been questioned by police about things where he hasn’t figured out what to say, the tough questions, GZ just didn’t respond at all. Watch the initial interview with Serino. He won’t get away with that on the stand. He will have to answer. Maybe he will say he doesn’t remember. He did that to the tough questions in the walk thru. But a good da will come back to the same questions again and again with slightly different words. I don’t think GZ will be able to keep up.

      • @rnsone says:

        Even a tool like Hannity looked taken back by some of GZ’s statements.When GZ stated”maybe I said he was running”(LOL as if he’s trying to cast doubt on the actual NEN recording!),Hannity didn’t let him get away with that and told him yes you did say he was running.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Teatime, I hope you were addressing that post to yourself because you would be the only one to believe that bs.

      First of all it doesn’t matter if Lester is removed or not. The next judge will be fully aware of the testimony Zimmerman and his family gave during the initial bond hearing along with the jailhouse calls and the money transfers. So I am actually hoping that Judge Lester gets removed so that when Zimmerman is convicted O’Mara won’t be able to file an appeal claiming that the judge was biased against his client.

      Next the childish name-calling ( changing the DA’s last name) is sadly indicative of the IQ of many Zimmerman supporters.

      As for Zimmerman’s ability to successfully handle cross-examination explain why during the second bond hearing O’Mara wanted his client to take the stand but only under the condition that he not be subjected to cross-examination.

      What does that tell you about O’Mara’s confidence in his client’s ability to handle cross-examination?

      As for explaining away Zimmerman’s inconsistancies with ADD or some other condition Zimmerman claims he has that cuts both ways but you’re so biased that you wouldn’t understand that.

      Zimmerman has already testified though the re-enactment videos, the police interviews and the NEN call and they all contradict each other at some critical areas and the only way for Zimmerman to clear up these inconsistancies is to take the stand and given his performance at the first bond hearing I don’t believe if O’Mara started preparing him for cross-examination today he would be ready by the time the trial starts in February or March of next year.

      • TruthBTold says:

        roderick wrote,

        “As for explaining away Zimmerman’s inconsistancies”

        Aren’t GZ supporters just silly? They try everything in their power to downplay, invalidate, or ‘splain away GZ’s inconsistencies. They are desperate.

      • Teatime says:

        roderick2012 says:
        August 18, 2012 at 10:19 pm
        “Teatime, I hope you were addressing that post to yourself because you would be the only one to believe that bs.”
        Yes, I had thought this was a private place I could just record my thoughts on things, like a journal.

        “Next the childish name-calling ( changing the DA’s last name) is sadly indicative of the IQ of many Zimmerman supporters.”
        I don’t see how Rocha is any better or worse than Rionda. If I were being childish I would call him De La Poopypants or something that rhymes with Rionda.

        “As for Zimmerman’s ability to successfully handle cross-examination explain why during the second bond hearing O’Mara wanted his client to take the stand but only under the condition that he not be subjected to cross-examination.”
        He didn’t need him to.
        “Zimmerman has already testified though the re-enactment videos, the police interviews and the NEN call and they all contradict each other at some critical areas..”
        Nothing too critical actually. Most of it is either irrelevant, or quite understandable.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          can you imagine five days of cross examination where the state has unlimited resources to find any inconsistency, however minor, or in your words “[n]othing too critical actually. Most of it is either irrelevant, or quite understandable” is going to look to a jury or feel to zimmeran? just food for thought.

          as to the name thing . .. rocha would be close enough to indicate ‘cocroach’ in spanish, i can see how someone would think you may have been doing that. i assumed you just had the wrong name, but the names of the primary players at this point is somewhat indicative of how well someone is familiar to the case.

          i shall let your previous statement regarding de la Rionda as

          “De La Rionda.. whatever.. not my fault he has a weird name”

          i shall let that statement stand alone, but it’s not pretty.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @Teatime,

      First, it’s De La Rionda not De La Rocha. Second, your comment that GZ has the temperament to deal with cross-examination is a stretch. Did you not listen to any of the audio recordings when Detectives Singleton and Serino challenged him or pushed back on some of his claims? That’s nothing compared to what will come his way. Why was his attorney trying to circumvent the cross-examination process during the second-bond hearing and eventually opting not to testify?

      “He just needs to have the right mentality.”

      Meaning?

      “Whatever the case, as long as he stays consistent with the stuff he has stayed consistent with so far, he’ll be fine.”

      Which is? You think whatever he stayed consistent with will be his winning ticket? How does he contend with the inconsistencies, location of TM’s body, and forensics?

      • Teatime says:

        Most of the inconsistencies not too relevant anyway, others explainable, or otherwise understandable. A significant inconsistency would be if TM was shot in the back of the head or GZ had NO injuries. His story lines up pretty well with the evidence which is one of the reasons he wasn’t arrested. Then came Crump and well, here we are.

      • teatime~ “significant” like GZ saying he spread out TM’s arms in a Y, when in fact the arms were found folded under the body?

    • Rachael says:

      I’m not so sure he is as calm as you think nor do I think he has the temperment to hold up under lengthy cross examination. Cross examination is not going to be anything like going on Hannity.

      • Teatime says:

        Yeah, but Zimmerman is a calm guy. That’s one of the ironies. You people love to make him out to be this hot-headed, violent guy when he is actually very much the opposite.

        De la RIONDA is the hot-head and I suspect many folks here will love his court room melodramatics. I’ll take a calm, logic Mark O’Mara any day. In fact, it is kind of like they are the perfect representatives of both sides of the issue.

        Those who are against Zimmerman are driven almost entirely by fervor, anger, outrage, hyper-emotionality, and other subjective factors.

        Those who defend Zimmerman tend to do so based on logic and reason. They tend to not be nearly as vocal or passionate.

        If a video were to come out tomorrow of GZ unmistakably murdering TM, I would be amazed, but it would not effect me emotionally. I would actually feel a sense of relief, because I would no longer feel like an innocent person was being wrongly persecuted. I would accept it, probably feel a sense of relief, knowing that the prosecution is the right thing after all. Then I’d lose interest in the case.

        But if a video were to come out tomorrow showing GZ unmistakably defending himself against TM, it would be very upsetting to the anti-Zimmerman camp. They would have a lot of trouble accepting it and they would do so reluctantly and with reservations, if at all.

        They wouldn’t feel relief, they would feel tremendous disappointment. And their attitudes towards Trayvon would not change,. They would continue to see him as a victim, as a martyr, a symbol, and someone deserving of attention and special recognition.

        It is true that the most fervent, vocal supporters of Zimmerman tend to have racist tendencies. This is an emotional thing for them, too. But they are the vocal exception.

        For the most part, GZ supporters tend to approach the subject from a a completely different psychological approach than the anti-Z camp, and are motivated by very different things. They aren’t invested in Zimmerman’s innocence so much as they are invested in justice not being perverted by emotionality.

        I don’t care about Zimmerman beyond the fact that I believe he is a flawed, but decent person that has been unfairly maligned. TM supporters are different. They *love* Trayvon. They identify with Trayvon. They have a personal emotional connection to him. For whatever reasons. It’s very personal for them. It’s not for me.

      • Rachael says:

        Teatime, I agreee that Zimmerman can appear to be calm, but underneath is a hot-headed violent guy, perhaps suffering from explosive personality disorder (?) though probably not because while people with this disorder believe their aggressive behaviors are justified, they feel genuinely upset, regretful, remorseful, bewildered and embarrassed by their impulsive and aggressive behavior, Zimmerman feels none, no regrets, which lend to his appearance of calm. It is probably more due to his sense of entitlement and wannabe cop/hero attitude. Whatever, I am not here to play armchair psychiatrist, I just know the guy has shown plenty of evidence that he is capable of explosive rage under that cool exterior, though the jury will probably never see the evidence.

        This isn’t something I “make him out to be,” it has been evidenced. Just ask Daniel Osmun, a victim of his road rage, someone Zimmerman chased down after calling police. Osum said Zimmerman then pulled alongside of him, an argument ensued and at one point he thought Zimmerman was going to attack him. Although no charges were filed against either or them, there are also other times when charges were filed, though dropped.

        The fact that he can appear so calm is part of his personality disorder or psychosis or whatever (yeah, there I go again) and how he has gotten to where he is. With his calm exterior and lies, he can sell ice to Eskimos. I know. I was married to a man like that. Everyone thought I was crazy because he was so calm. But underneath, he was not and he was a compulsive liar. He too was able to lie and charm his way around judges and psychiatrists all his life. But it all caught up with him eventually.

        I think it will catch up with Zimmerman too. Yes, he will sit there on the stand calm as can be, but all it will take is one crack in his exterior and hours of cross examination may find it and reveal him for who he is. But maybe not, these types of people are very good at what they do. They have had their whole lifetime of pulling the wool over people’s eyes to practice. His calm exterior apparently has done the same to you too. I’m not saying you are easily fooled, again, these people are very good at what they do and fool better people than you.

        The evidence of previous records of violence in form of his past crimial history or statements from residents who feared him may never make it into court, but that does not mean they do not exist, and I think if you really believe in justice, you are not doing him any by basing your opinion on his calm exterior – though that is what a jury will do for lack of evidence that can be presented in court, but knowing what you know of the existence of this yourself, are not doing him or his next victim (should he walk) any justice.

        Of course, this is just my opinion, but it IS my opinion. You are welcome to yours.

      • Rachael says:

        Oh, and one last thing Teatime, have you ever noticed how nothing ever seems to be Zimmerman’s fault?

        He says Trayvon “attacked” him. But where have we heard that before? He claimes HE was “attacked” by the police when he was charged with resisting officer with violence and battery of law enforcement officer – ironically saying that it was an undercover officer who did not identify himself (sound familiar). Yes, I know that both of these were dropped, but my point is, he says he was the one who was “attacked.” Domestic violence – but he was the one attacked. Attacked by a person where he was bouncer, though he threw her across the room.

        Everytime something happens with him, and a LOT has happened, it is because they attack him.

        And now it is Trayvon who supposedly attacked him. Dang, just how unlucky can one guy get, always being attacked. How can someone be such an attack magnet.

        You say those who support Trayvon will always see him as a victim, as a martyr, a symbol, and someone deserving of attention and special recognition. I find that very interesting because I see George as someone who thinks he is always the victim, a martyr and someone deserving of attention and special recognition. It is, IMO, his need for attention and special recognition that got him where he is today.

        Poor poor misunderstood George.

      • julia says:

        Teatime…I’ve got to agree with Rachael. George may appear calm, but his past tells us that he has it in him to react violently and with emotion. I also agree that he cannot possibly be the perrenial victim that he claims,(the girlfriend beat him up, the cop lied, he didn’t need to go to court, he carries the gun because the dog might attack his wife…). If just once he would own up to his actions I may be more inclined to believe him, but he hasn’t. He doesn’t even regret killing Trayon attributing it to God’s will. Those are not the actions of an emotionally healthy person.

    • Teatime says:

      lol at De La Rocha.. I’m thinking of the lead guy from Rage Against the Machine. De La Rionda.. whatever.. not my fault he has a weird name.

      • whonoze says:

        I would so pay money to have Zach de la Rocha get to cross George Zimmerman! Rally round the family with a pocket full of shells!

      • Vicky says:

        Teatime, you write as though you are personally acquainted with George Zimmerman. Is that the case or are you basing your assertions upon observations during self serving interviews?
        If you in fact know him personally, how has his ADHD affected him in his personal and work life? I find it quite interesting that with that diagnosis he always has such a calm demeanor. Most if not all of my experiences with individuals with ADHD have been that evenings, once the effects of medication have “worn off”, result in a return of many symptoms associated with the disorder. And I wouldnt describe their demeanor as calm. Some individuals with ADHD present symptoms even while on meds. Is George asymptomatic while on meds and when medication is wearing off? Apparently not since he couldn’t maintain a consistent story of the events as the occurred that night during the first 24 hours following the incident.

    • Vicky says:

      Teatime, the assertion that Zimmerman’s “ADD” is an excuse for the multiple stories he has told about what occurred that night is not necessarily doing him any favors. I am wondering several things about his diagnosis. Was he diagnosed as a child or as an adult? Which Type of ADHD has he been diagnosed with? And if you know, based on what medical report is this diagnosis reported?
      I am not trying to imply that GZ has not been diagnosed with ADHD, but I am inclined to believe that his diagnosis would fall under the combined type based upon his actions the night he shot Trayvon Martin.
      So, we can agree that his multiple stories might very well be the result of disorganized thinking and/or forgetfulness which are indeed symptoms of Adult ADHD.
      However, additional symptoms include, impulsiveness, difficulty controlling anger, poor social skills, low frustration tolerance, Anxiety, mood swings… So, shouldn’t it stand to reason that his ADHD could also explain why he incorrectly identified a 17 year old, black male, wearing a hoodie, walking home through the rain as a potential burglar, kept him under surveillance for a period of time, forgot or intentionally ignored the NHW guidelines, became frustrated when he lost sight of him, forgot where he was/street names, forgot his suspect was potentially dangerous, misunderstood the conversation he was having with the dispatcher, left the safety of his car to find an address, failed to notice house numbers directly in from of him, became distracted and forgot what he was supposed to be doing and to note and report an address, became frustrated, decided instead to hunt for his suspect, found his suspect, got into a fight, forgot to use common self defense measurers, lost control of his anger and impulsively shot and killed his suspect.

      My point is, using ADHD as an excuse for one behavior is cherry picking symptoms. The diagnostic criteria is clear and an individual must display or have a history of at least six symptoms in one type or in a combination of both types. I would say that based upon his conduct that evening and since that time, we can safely say George Zimmerman displays multiple symptoms of ADHD. Unfortunately, the diagnosis does not necessarily weigh in his favor.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Vicky, I might be wrong, but I would guess the diagnose of ADHD came about as a result to the court ordering him to undergo treatment for anger management, in the plea bargain that got him out of the prior felony attack on a law enforcement officer. JMO…

      • princss6 says:

        GZ tells Serino that he was diagnosed with ADD as a child.

    • crazy1946 says:

      Tea: >>>like many with ADD, Zimmerman sometimes loses focus on what he is being asked… and he can give answers that are convoluted. He also has a tendency to be unnecessarily defensive about what he says.<<<

      I keep hearing you folks that are die hard supporters of Zimmerman keep bringing up the ADD problem that Zimmerman allegedly suffers from, could that be because somehow in your mind that excuses his actions in the murder of TM? One of the other points that your side uses to explain away the non truths of Zimmerman is the passing of the "lie detection test", do you realize that one of the reasons that the tests are unreliable is that if a person truely (in their mind) believes that what they are saying is true, their body will not respond as if it is a lie, that does not mean they are truthful only that they actually, in their mind, believe their own story….

      • Vicky says:

        Crazy1946, I’m not even sure he believes his story is true. If he was medicated at the time of the analysis, the results would be considered unreliable. Not to mention certain personality disorders can also render that type of analysis unreliable.

      • Cielo says:

        My 2 cents FWIW… There is a big difference between ADD and ADHD. The former is mostly a concentration problem. The latter includes poor impulse control and usually anger/mood issues as well and is usually treated with medication. I have mild ADHD to where I don’t medicate but I also work on being self aware to avoid impulsive acts or discussions. I suspect that IF GZ has one it’s probably ADHD.

    • You said,

      “I will say that his inconsistencies are not as big a deal as is made out of them, and there are always inconsistencies in these situations.”

      I do not agree.

      For 30 years, I made a decent living and won a lot of trials in state and federal court by destroying the credibility of prosecution witnesses with considerably less ammunition than the prosecution has against George Zimmerman.

      I’ve said it before and I will say it again. George Zimmerman is a cross examiner’s wet dream.

      Those who say his inconsistencies “are not a big deal” because people “are always inconsistent in situations like this,” do not know what they are talking about.

      That statement is an astonishing misconception and unjustifiable minimization of the risk to George Zimmerman, if he testifies.

      His lawyers would be providing ineffective assistance of counsel, if they do not tell him that.

      Cross examining him effectively will be about as difficult as shooting fish in a barrel and he’s looking at a possible life sentence, if he insists on risking everything by going to trial.

      • EdgySF says:

        I recently had to have my old dog put down in the middle of the night.

        The events took place in slow motion, and I clearly remember my thought process as well as my actions.

        Adrenaline does that. It makes people hyper aware.

        I could recite the events of that night without wavering. Details may be added, but not changed.

        The same is true of when I used to skydive. I had a mishap once, years ago, and to this day I can recall exactly what happened.

        GZ was interviewed immediately…when the details would have been recalled with the most accuracy. And he made a lot of obvious mistakes.

        Maybe SYG is the reason his family moved to FL from VA only a few years ago.

        Prof, what are your thought about cold cases in GZs former home town being re-opened? Maybe he did things there we don’t know about.

        How many families relocate together at that stage in life?

        Was GZ running from something? Did he get chased out of town?

    • “Even if he slips up O’Mara will help him clarify what he meant by certain statements and the judge (if it’s not Lester anyway) will keep him from browbeating the witness.”

      When you’re right, you’re right. Mr. Zimmerman has absolutely nothing at all to be concerned with. He has no need to prepare for any sort of cross, why should he waste his time with preparing a defense? A jury will totally buy his story and forgive all the others- no worries at all. The very worst possible scenario will be that the jury, out of tremendous burden of guilt themselves in not convicting of something, just anything, will wrongly convict on manslaughter, but this little misdeed from the awful, mean jury will be quickly repaired on appeal. Forensics? feh! No need. Total waste of time. It’s all quite simple, just like Mr. Zimmerman told us./endsnark

      • Snark aside, I disagree with you, TeaTime. Mr. Zimmerman can do whatever he wants to do, but it seems to me that he needs to get a very clear understanding of what he is facing, and sit down and prepare a very serious defense for himself. I do not advocate this man walk into any courtroom and simply tell his story on the stand, and then sit back and tell himself an acquittal is a given.

      • Cielo says:

        LOL! Awesome snark! Seriously though, Raul Rodriguez in the SYG in Houston TX was convinced he was going to be set free. Instead he provided all the evidence ( video and phone call) to convict him to 25 years. Lots of similarities to this case. I hope the outcome is the same.

        • Saw that. Yup. And from what I can gather, the drunk guys actually did verbally state that they would go inside and “come out equal,” ie come out armed.

          It is impossible to get a crystal ball and predict what a jury will do, you’d be surprised. In the RR case, probably the jury decided that the shooter could have left on any number of occasions, hell, when I watched, I was saying, “Leave. Just leave.”

      • aussie says:

        The only reason he videoed it was in “in case” things got out of hand. So they rightly figured he knew there would be trouble and he’d the cause of it. He was definitely the aggressor.

    • KA says:

      I think the issue of his own inconsistencies are one thing, but his inconsistencies to forensic and physical evidence is another.

      How does he explain that it was him screaming, yet Trayvon was holding his mouth and nose shut smothering him yet it had no audible effect on his scream volume or tone and Trayvon had no foreign blood nor DNA on his hands/sleeves? He will have to abandon one story or the other to make something remotely believable. When he abandons that one part of the story to make the other part believable, he will look unbelievable.

      How did Trayvon knock him down at the T where his keychain is found and stay on the ground pounding him in one swoop, yet witnesses report arguing and someone running pat their window going in a N to S direction? How did the body end up 50 ft away?
      Again, he will have to abandon one story to make the other believable because they conflict.

      When we are speaking of inconsistencies, we are not just speaking of his latest version, but his story to conflicting evidence that also makes another part of the story impossible and/or improbable.

      I believe he he will have an impossible time normalizing the various stories to evidence to logic and reason. That is more than ADD or forgetfulness…that is advantageous story making. Being calm but backed in a corner by an impossibility makes him look like he is not only lying…but uncaring.

  36. CherokeeNative says:

    I’ll offer up my two cents. GZ does not think of himself as stupid, and in fact, sees himself as quite sly – he’s lied all of his life about anything and everything that will support his self-portrait of an upstanding guy who is “going places.” He’s a little disillusioned and pissed that LE and the judicial system are holding him accountable for the death of Trayvon, but he sees that as merely a misunderstanding because of the media hype by Sharpton, et al. and certain elected officials. He believes that what he did that night was the right thing to do and no amount of public outrage can convince him otherwise. He needs, in his mind, only to be able to explain what happened and everyone will see things clearly and realize that all he was doing that night was trying to protect his community and Trayvon caused his own death, not GZ.

    As we type away, at this very moment, GZ is most likely be coached and trained about what and how to testify – how to be cross-examined and not lose his train of thought or stumble his words or contradict himself….even down to not so much as what he says, but how he says it so that it touches the hearts and minds of the jurors. Going over and over the story line that has been developed to explain away his earlier inconsistencies. GZ may have been a horrible student in college, but this is going to be the test of his life – and yeah, I think GZ believes that he is smart enough to learn how to be an effective witness and he will want to testify. He’s got about a year of training to be ready – and I think he will take the stand. JMHO

    • Brown says:

      Agree totally with your post. Just one thing, The state also has a year and they are well seasoned. GZ problem is he thinks too much of himself and he feels like he can explain everything away. You don’t need a good memory if you tell the truth.

      • Teatime says:

        Heh, that’s not true. His estimations of time and distances are inaccurate in many ways (which is not at all surprising given ADD, but far more importantly his mental state during the attack). This won’t stop the prosecution from trying to make hay of them.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        LOL – I never said I thought he would be successful – and in fact, I still believe the prosecution will be able to tear him to shreds. I just find it humorous that they are already working on his visual stature – growing out the skin head hairstyle and omitting the goat-tee. They will probably try to have him lose weight so as to appear smaller than Trayvon in not only height, but weight.

        • Brown says:

          Lol.
          I got that CN. I just wanted to point out all the training and prepping in the world will not do him any good. I believe as you do that he will be rip to shreds on the stand. I think I fudged the saying, If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory to remember all the lies.

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            Remember CN & Brown – The jury will be shown the most-recent images of Trayvon (the 7-11 Video). So, the smaller GZ is, the more GZ can be perceived as justified in being afraid. Poor GZ. Give him the boyish look. Every bit helps playing to the jury and the public at large. MOM is tall and GZ looks tiny at the hearing.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        @Sandra – you said, “So, the smaller GZ is, the more GZ can be perceived as justified in being afraid.”

        Exactly my point in saying they would probably have GZ on a diet to lose weight. Notice during hearings, GZ’s suit swims on him? And they have already had him grow out what could have been perceived as a “skinhead” haircut that GZ was toting at the time of the killing. They will want GZ to appear meak and weak to the jury.

      • princss6 says:

        CN – He is even several shades darker…uh huh…look at pictures on night of murder and then look at pictures of him on Hannity. IMO, he has been using self-tanning lotion haha.

        • Brown says:

          You are so bad!!! LOL

          • princss6 says:

            Haha…yeah I’m bad lol but I’m not lying…check lol

          • Brown says:

            I will do that. On a side note in the first pictures taken at the station you could see he dyed his mustache.

          • princss6 says:

            LOL – No way – I thought that orange-ish tint was strange haha. Prolly Gracie’s idea while she was waxing him lol.

          • Brown says:

            You are VERY Bad!! Lol

          • princss6 says:

            Have you had a chance to listen to the jailhouse calls…he also has issues with his short stature…he goes on and on abt how MOM is tall, etc. #Issues but the dyed red goatee…haha…nice catch!

          • Brown says:

            Yes. He mentions that a couple of times. I have a question about call 108. He and his sister are talking, at one part of the call she says and I am paraphrasing here. She says she is worried about what the neighbors are saying. She says that one or more person SAW what he was doing. She keeps sayin I don’t know I don’t know. He responds by saying oh really. long pause silence She says the word *Party*in lieu of the shooting. She says she has been monitoring their conversations. He says don’t listen to stories. This conversation is in spanish. Have you listened to this call I think its dated 4/20/12.

          • I believe the dyed red goatee may be due to blood in it from the two cuts in his scalp.

          • Brown says:

            I beg to differ
            Look at this picture mustache is different color then beard hair
            http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/trayvon-zimmerman-case-photos/?album=1&gallery=4
            Picture 8 of 14

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            Many people have dark hair with red facial hair. Some aboriginals have blue eyes. What does this mean. He may have a red beard and dyed it black or vice-versa.

          • Brown says:

            We were discussing GZ attire weight etc. I made the comment of him dying his mustache. In some pictures its light dark, then the orangy red in his 2/2612 photos. Leatherman believes it was the blood. I think it’s a dye job. JMO.

          • Patricia says:

            Zimmerman does look tough and mean in those photos taken the night of the crime.

            If GZ doesn’t testify, how is anybody on the jury going to know that Mr. Meek sitting with his attorney is really “that guy?”

            If he does testify, I hope De la Rionda asks, “Mr. Zimmerman, can you identify the gentleman in the photo for us?”

            And, “It states in the SPD records that you weighed 207 lbs. that night. Is that correct?”

            “Could you please tell the court what your weight is now?”

    • Teatime says:

      I actually agree with most of what you said.

    • Rachael says:

      Concur CherokeeNative. Wish I had written it so eloquently.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Please refer to the interview with his middle-eastern co-worker. He says GZ is so convincing that he almost believed GZ and doubted himself.

    • You said,

      “He’s got about a year of training to be ready – and I think he will take the stand. JMHO.”

      The problem is there is no reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies, contradictions and lapses of memory,

      ADHD causes hyperactivity and an inability to focus attention. It does not cause inconsistencies, contradictions and lapses of memory.

      In addition, he was taking Adderall, which reduces hyperactivity and improves focus.

      Bottom Line: He cannot make stuff up without getting called on it. He cooked his own goose.

      • Malisha says:

        I agree with you, Professor. He did cook his own goose. The only reason his cooked goose wasn’t served up on 2/26/2012 when he was first in the police station lying about the events of that evening was that the police had already heard they were not to invite the public to dinner at George’s expense, so they embarked upon their month-long campaign to prevent any anti-George witness statements from finding their way into the file.

        Also, I think George is a terrible “bet” for a witness in his own defense. He was prepared very thoroughly for the Sean Hannity interview, and Hannity asked ONLY leading questions, and gently, and helpfully, and gave George every opportunity to do a pro-defense sermon on the mount, and yet George screwed up horribly in several significant ways:

        1. He smirked when he answered that he did NOT have any prior knowledge of the SYG laws, and he emitted a disdainful little chuckle every time, in the interview, he was showing that “the media” had misunderstood him, and how his version was right and the media’s version was wrong. This will play out very poorly with any jury. He’s contemptuous, disdainful, sneering, smirking, and acts superior in spite of his “yessir nossir” affectations. He will not be able to hide that and it will damage his ability to get the jury on his side. It will always be as if he is saying, “You are ALL STUPID if you think anybody except the great Godly Righteous Perfect Kingly George can tell you anything; I AM THE AUTHORITY.”

        2. He claimed to know what was in Trayvon Martin’s mind! He claimed to KNOW that Trayvon Martin was not afraid of him! He characterized Trayvon Martin as some kind of combination FOOL and THUG who not only did not become alarmed and afraid when he was being followed by a guy in a vehicle who then pursues him on foot, but who decided for some unknown reason that instead of successfully hiding from the weird stranger, he would leap out at him and threaten to kill him. That won’t play.

        3. He acted like the media who disapproved of him and appeared to hate him should apologize to him. This was the most bizarre of all moments in the interview, in my opinion. He actually said, “If I did anything wrong I would apologize.” Really? Yet when the police showed up, you did not hear him say, “I shot him; I’m sorry.” You have NEVER heard him say, “I’m sorry I shot Trayvon Martin,” even in the context of, “I’m sorry I shot Trayvon Martin because it turned out that he was unarmed” or “I’m sorry I shot Trayvon Martin because it looks like he wouldn’t have been able to kill me after all.”

        No, I think he is such a risk when he opens his mouth that no competent lawyer would want to put him on the stand.

      • Rachael says:

        We do no know he was taking Adderall – he was prescribed Adderall. No toxicologic evidence.

        It certainly does not change what you are saying one bit, just pointing it out.

      • princss6 says:

        @ Rachel

        He was some other drug for ADHD and the side effect was aggression. In the medical report, it is appears his meds were just switched to Adderall in the beginning of Feb. Will definitely need confirmation on that but it appears as though it happened in early Feb. This is easy enough to check and I hope the prosecution does. But if he was changing meds, it does not bode well for his mental state and could actually point to his paranoia and aggression.

        Just food for thought.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          GZ, knowing the side effects of his new medication, he still carried his gun — totally irresponsible. Not an excuse for that.

  37. ed nelson says:

    Hi Proffesor Fred,

    I wonder if this is correct or not? When you state: (zm), [… cannot possibly win… ] in the below,

    I am thinking: No, he can possibly win. He can most possibly, if not probably win, but not in the way of any sensible version of reality, no he will probably escape his penance by some usual escape mechanism such as seems to be very common as in: that is… what is! /some version of a varient of the… ” deffinition of what IS means… ” /Thanks there ole billy!!.

    maybe not in the way that would please those who are devotees to such ideas, as that: “justice will prevail”… WELL: (dream on there… Buckwheat… ” ) the whole thing is real easy to adduce, but as is the deal with these type of things… (If you get my drift.) The perpetrator of this crime will walk, and it won’t be unusual either, it happens. It happens more than a lot….

    The SOB will walk is my bet.

    • hinkster4ever says:

      This was a gated community, meaning if you had no business being inside the gates…don’t be there. Right? Gz had a home within the confines. BUT, did Gz have a right to be on that back walkway between those buildings? Trayvon had that right.

      As a member of a jury I would want Gz to tell me exactly what right he had to be on that walkway, or standing at the T. Was he a pizza delivery person? Was he going to a friends house? Why was he there….

      As a community watchman….hmmm…then why did he have his gun on? Did being a community watchman give him the right to meander around and about the back pathways of other’s homes?

      Will Gz testify…I doubt it seriously. I think Gz will drag this play out as long as the Anthony trial took to come to trial. And when it comes time to crap or get off the pot….he will leave it up to the big bad lawyers to call in his big bad friends to tell his story….how he was covered in blood and screaming for help….and no one helped him so his “forgotten” gun became THE gun and he had to get to it before that small teenaged boy got his hands on it….you know the kid with the candy and drink who was just walking home from the store talking to his girl on the phone.

      You want to know why I am almost positive Gz and Shellie are reading blogs? 1st of all remember in their jail calls…Gz asks Shellie a question and she said she had not googled that day?

      AND, during Hannity Gz made a point of saying his orange jacket was water proof…….(and I guess the rain just washed all that blood from his head wounds off…)….this was after we all pointed out the police photo’s show no blood on Gz’s orange jacket….

      I read somewhere in some report…that the inner lining of a jacket was waterproof, but the outer was not….I’ll have to find that when I get time….

  38. Justkiddin* says:

    Professor as I have stated in the past my 89th birthday is coming up. I would love to live to see this trial, what can we do to get the ball rolling? You have a very smart group of people here so there is no doubt you all can help an old lady out. In my own ignorance I truly believed race was no longer a issue but I see I have lived with rose colored glasses on. This case is sad for Trayvon, Z not so much. He did not contribute to society like many men do, instead he profiled a kid walking home. This man has had many run ins with the law. IMO most good men do not break the law they work and take care of their family.
    Am I so old that I no longer understand the values of our Country? It seems that the Z supporters only want to throw out the crimes of black men and this is their excuse but what I do not get and cannot fathom is how they defend a man with a record against a child who has no criminal record. Had programs not been in place Z would have been a felon and that bothers me. We are comparing a kid with no criminal record with a man who has been lucky not to have a charge stick yet the kid is the bad one. Am I senile because I do not get it?

    • For real, 89??

      You might like this (these are short):

      https://froggravy.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/the-lavender-ribbon/

      or this:

      http://froggravy.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-blue-taffeta-dress/

      There are others, and yes, times have changed very much.

      • Justkiddin* says:

        I bookmarked those stories. The 1 room school house brings back memories. I grew up on a farm and lived on a farm until my husband died 7 years ago on the tractor. My children then made me move to the city so I would be close. My Grandson now runs the farm and his family love it, just glad to see my Great-grandchildren appreciate the land.
        Hopefully my mind does not completely leave me because when it does the kids will be packing me to live with them. I remember them as teens and honestly do not ever want to live with them again. 🙂 Maybe I am just set in my ways and do not want to be a burden.
        Thank you for the links and I will add to them if you do not mind, but not tonight. I am tired.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @ justkiddin* – you lady are a kick in the pants! i recently lost my 80 year old father (very bright guy, a CPA) who could appreciate the internet, but never really wanted to learn to navigate it. he was able to tend the cattle ranch he raised me on until the very last few weeks of his life. i am inspired by you and your words and wish you the very best!

        you cracked me up when you stated you remembered your children as teens and have no desire to live with them again. i am currently raising a couple of them myself and it’s funny how time does not change some things 🙂

    • “Am I senile because I do not get it?”

      Definitely not.

      I just had my 65th birthday and I feel like I don’t know this country.

      GZ supporters who don’t know me or my wife are trying to out do each other with vile made-up stories to entertain themselves with.

      Sick stuff.

      And we have it easy.

      And they absolutely hate Trayvon’s parents and all Black people. No lie is to vile for them to pass along as the truth.

      The God I know is not pleased.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Professor in a previous post I asked if you felt GZ parents were somewhat responsible for what their son have become. I don’t believe you responded.

        But your statement, “The God I know is not pleased.” I must say “AMEN.” I don’t know if you have children but as parents we try to teach our children to go in a positive direction. I continue asking myself where did this vigilante/bully/racial hate attitude come from in GZ. It started from somewhere.

      • Justkiddin* says:

        Yes the attacking of his parents is bizarre. They both imo have middle class jobs. That alone is better than Z and iirc T’s grandfather is a retired police officer. I am betting T’s parents did raise him to be respectful. Of course that is jmo but I do feel my years on this earth make me somewhat wise.
        Oh gosh I remember 65 to be young again. 🙂

      • TruthBTold says:

        Professor wrote,

        “The God I know is not pleased.”

        Amen from the church choir.

      • whonoze says:

        The God I know is laughing his ass of.

        “”I burn down your cities–how blind you must be
        I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
        You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
        That’s why i love mankind”
        — Randy Newman

    • Teatime says:

      wtf? You are NOT 89 years old.

    • Rachael says:

      My 56th birthday is coming up and I don’t understand it either. I had written a really long post, but I deleted it. It all upsets me too much.

      Suffice it to say, I don’t understand it so I must be senile too.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Sometimes, I really don’t understand. Even if Trayvon were an orphan, a thug, he still had a right to be doing what he was doing. Even a thug doing nothing wrong at the time does not deserve to be shot by GZ acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Would people be saying the same thing about this case if Trayvon were a thug. or would they be saying, as Serino said – two thumbs up. Now matter the upbringing, or the character of Trayvon, GZ didn’t care. Justice for Trayvon. Yes. But, justice for ANTONE who is gunned down without cause. Or, will we just investigate murders for the good kids.

      • Malisha says:

        This cannot be about two people who meet one evening, and

        * one of them is Hispanic and has been “mentoring” kids and has never been convicted of a crime after reaching the age of majority and considers himself quite good and right and has a wife who worships him and is a friend of the Chief of Police so he gets a score of 93 out of 100 and

        * the OTHER is Black and had a baggie in school that somebody allegedly found traces of marijuana in and was suspended from school for ten days and was reported to have said some bad words one time and wore a hoodie and was found with costume jewelry in his backpack and therefore is considered a thug and only gets a score of 47 out of 100

        So the 93 gets to kill the 47 because he was better.

        IF IT IS ABOUT THAT, then we are not a society of laws, and we are some sort of bizarre “social-science fiction” society where if you kill somebody you think you’re better than, you walk. Wanna live there? Wanna live THERE?

        On the other hand, if you DO NOT want to live there, but prefer to live in a society where there are laws and they are enforced, then it doesn’t matter how old you are, or what religion you profess or disavow: you will not understand this case.

        This case is not about our law; it is about our society. Our state and even federal agencies are corrupt. The racism that actually started this country and gave it the bulk of its enduring wealth has not gone away; the lying, cheating and stealing that naturally accompany any form of officially sanctioned abuse have not only not gone away; they have become more and more sophisticated as we have had to pretend that we have this idealized society in which George only killed Trayvon because he really [was justified in doing so][should have][had the right to].

      • princss6 says:

        Word, Malisha…Amen. I think ignoring this will only lead to repeats. It is bigger than GZ’s parents or friends…it is systemic. This is America – some life is more valued than other life and we see it not in who pulls the trigger BUT in who is ultimately the victim at the other end of the trigger. And this is codified by laws and by policies. If you think for a second that as many white children would be lost as black children by gun violence without some type of corrective policy, then well you might actually believe it is a culture of poverty that causes it instead of institutionalized apathy.

      • Rachael says:

        This whole thing has been such an eye opener for me. I participate on another site where I have seen a side of society that I did not even know existed. Such hatred toward a child and his parents. It is terrifying to thinkthese people hiding behind their computers posting such hatred could be my neighbors who smile and say hi as I go to my mailbox.

        My son is biracial and I used to live in fear of this very sort of thing when he was a teen. He has children of his own now, so now I worry for them too.

        The internet has made my world much smaller.

        I want to say this Trayvon incident was not a racial incident because as a parent I would never be able to live with the fact that someone could admittedly shoot my unarmed teen, say it was self defense and because there were no witnesses, just walk away. But as the mother of a young biracial male, I can’t ignore that it is deeper, much deeper than that.

        I wanted a different – better – society for my child and my grandchildren. I don’t know how to change it.

        Anyway, that is how I got involved in this case.

      • aussie says:

        @ Malisha….

        it’s not just children.

        It’s homeless people. It’s people with mental health issues. Who there’s no insurance for to get treatment. It’s people they don’t think anyone will make a fuss about.

        Shot 28 times. Shot 42 times. Shot 132 times. By the COPS, the people who are supposed to be upholding the law. Shot unarmed. Shot walking away. 500 people a year killed by cops just from TAZERS, and none ever get convicted; heaven knows how many get shot dead with guns.

        Is it any surprise some of the private-citizen shootings get swept under the rug the same way?

      • princss6 says:

        @aussie

        Good points – If the conversation is widened to include all of those who are Otherized, we begin to see the landscape for what it is. And yes, Law Enforcement unfortunately can kill at will and face little consequences. I, too, am sickened at the number of shootings of people with mental issues. And looking at how the LGBQT community of all races intersects with LE and CJS…I think if people knew and were willing to look under the bandages, we possibly could move forward. Sigh.

    • @rnsone says:

      Wow,after reading that,I really hope you get to see the trial.

    • julia says:

      You aren’t senile Justkiddin, and you’ve got a lot of like minded people that feel just as you do. I hope we all live long enough to see George convicted of this crime.

    • EdgySF says:

      Hugs to you, JK. 🙂

      Happy birthday (coming up).

      You are not senile; in fact, you’re sharp as a tack. I agree with your post entirely.

      I’m hoping GZ will eventually plea to manslaughter and save our nation from more fighting and division.

      He almost got away scot-free. But good people all over the world stood up and protested. Even just ten years ago, that might not have been possible.

      Who knew social media would be such a great equalizer. The online petition supporting TM immediately got 1M signatures.

      This might be the last “hoorah” of good ol boy shenanigans. The world has changed….and they’re slowly realizing how & what it means to them.

    • princss6 says:

      Bless you, justkidding. I have a great-Aunt that is also 89. She is sound of mind just like you. During the heat wave this summer, we grew concerned about her because she wasn’t answering her phone. Lo and behold, she decided to go to Atlantic City in the morning to the casinos! Hah! We got a kick out of that but her memory is stellar and I appreciate her for it!

      Take care! 🙂

  39. Malisha says:

    If you take out George’s description of the improbable scene (Trayvon attacking him, talking weird outdated jive to him, and pulverizing him while all he can do is wriggle and kill), all there is is this:

    1. His voice on tape saying “these a55holes always get away,” and “f*cking punks [or something]” and “he’s running” and “he ran”;

    2. His voice on tape saying he is following Trayvon Martin;

    3. 911 calls within hearing of an altercation and a shot;

    4. A dead unarmed child 40-50 feet away from where George claims to have been attacked by him; and

    5. Several witnesses saying they saw and heard several things, none of whom has claimed to have seen or heard Trayvon Martin beating George Zimmerman within an inch of his life.

    Um, that doesn’t look like self-defense to me.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Curtains for George…LOL!!

      • Justkiddin* says:

        Malisha Z did wriggle he shimmied and don’t forget it! Wriggle is not manly to shimmy well that is what NW men do. LOL

      • Malisha says:

        Look, wriggle and shimmy are both OK for men in my opinion, especially if someone else is on top. One of the best belly dancers I have ever seen, Ibrahim Farrah (of blessed memory) could do both simultaneously, and HE never killed anybody.

    • bets says:

      I was looking at it from a defense pov. Once you remove GZ’s account from the equation, the defense doesn’t have much.

      I think MOM is probably convinced that he doesn’t have a winning hand but will play as best he can given that GZ is unlikely to go for a plea and will insist on testifying. It’s a severe test of MOM’s abilities to persuade.

      The self-defense hearing is proforma considering GZ’s contention that it was self-defense. If that fails, MOM has more ammunition to try to convince GZ that accepting a plea is the best deal he’s going to get. If that doesn’t do it, there will be a trial.

      Question: It’s been suggested up-thread that GZ might testify at the hearing but wouldn’t have to at the trial. True enough. If this is how it plays out, would GZ’s testimony at the hearing, in full or in part, be usable by either the prosecution or the defense at the trial?

      Gotta give MOM credit for doing all he can. At least a couple of chapters in his book of memoirs if he handle the rerun in his mind.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        On the last posting, someone said he is scheduled to appear on Dr. Phil. Then someone said it was Mark Osterman. Are either a fact or was it a joke. If GZ goes on that show to be interviewed by Dr, Phil, we can bet your bottom dollar, his story will be more captivating and will be fodder for the media and followers of this case to dissect. The result changes nothing. Everyone is used to his lies. Being outrageous keeps him in the news – keep those donations coming in. I think Dr. Phil will focus on GZs upbringing and maladies. GZ is trying to garner sympathy. In the beginning, he appealed to the gun law folk, then, the Hispanic-speaking folk, then his family put up their site, discussing GZ and his human side, he tried to appeal to the religious folk, now it will be the mental health folk. Gauge the reactions by testifying in the public arena.

      • crazy1946 says:

        This going on and talking on Dr. Phil’s show, either by him or by proxy, Osterman, is simply a money thing, I am sure that he will receive a quite large donation from the show to use in his defense fund. Hmmm, that money unlike the donations should be subject to IRS payment, wouldn’t it be a kick in the shins if the IRS were to place a hold on his account while they do an audit of the received funds?

      • You said,

        “Question: It’s been suggested up-thread that GZ might testify at the hearing but wouldn’t have to at the trial. True enough. If this is how it plays out, would GZ’s testimony at the hearing, in full or in part, be usable by either the prosecution or the defense at the trial?”

        Answer: Yes

      • boar_d_laze says:

        Florida Sec. 90.803(22) provides that “former testimony” may be introduced into evidence, independent of the availability of the declarant, as long as it’s relevant and not prejudicial.

      • princss6 says:

        Do you think DeeDee’s testimony will be given more latitude since Trayvon is no longer with us to testify? Dying declaration?

  40. bets says:

    At the hearing to determine if the case can be dismissed or charges dropped or whatever based on self-defense, is it the defense that presents its case first? What would that include? Probably it would include pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries and the NPs writeup, the witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

    Apart from Zimmerman himself, what else is there?

    Cross examination on the injuries would show that they were superficial. Cross examination of the witnesses of Martin on top would show no blows being struck, just two guys on the ground wrestling, don’t know what they were doing.

    Oh, yes, the voice stress test. Not admissible.

    Could the defense call the officers to recount Zimmerman’s tales of the self defense? Could the defense use the walk-thru videos? I would think not but I don’t know the rules of evidence.

    hmmm, once you take out Zimmerman’s description, there is not much left.

    • masonblue says:

      You said,

      “hmmm, once you take out Zimmerman’s description, there is not much left.”

      Yep, and you know what happens when the Zimmerman Principle is applied.

    • Dave says:

      All that Zimmerman’s little booboos prove is that his face and scalp came into sudden contact with something hard.

      Trayvon’s fists?
      The sidewalk?
      A tree?
      The dog poop station?
      A sprinkler head?
      Shellie’s frying pan?
      Zimmerman’s tactical flashlight? (wielded by whom?)
      Something else?

      Without witness testimony they prove nothing important.

      • You said,

        “Without witness testimony they prove nothing important.”

        That is not correct.

        The prosecution can and almost certainly will call one or more nationally recognized trauma surgeons to testify regarding the probable cause of the two minor lacerations pursuant to Rule 702 of the rules of evidence.

        I believe they will rule out GZ’s claim about repeated head slammings into a cement sidewalk to a reasonable medical certainty and they will list other probable causes of the injury.

        Expect Trayvon Martin’s fists to be excluded as a cause.

    • EdgySF says:

      To me, the voice stress test results harm him more than help.

      Remember – GZ claims it was he desperately begging for his life for 45 seconds. As soon as the gun fired, “GZ” immediately stopped crying.

      Shortly thereafter, he breezes the stress test.

  41. princss6 says:

    GZ barely testifed in the first bond hearing, tries to non-testify testify in the do-over bond hearing, has control issues…nah, I think you’ve seen his testimony and it was on Hannity. He will not submit to Bernie the Bulldog.

  42. Digger says:

    Great reading Professor. I really would like to see George
    ON THE HOT SEAT, testifying on his own behalf! Would be a great scene.

  43. Malisha says:

    Residents in the neighborhood knew that George was obsessed with “finding a suspect” in their neighborhood and enforcing “the law” against someone. If George does testify, you can be sure that the prosecution will be putting on witnesses who have plenty to say ABOUT his taking on this role of the big law enforcement authority for the neighborhood. Various residents had this to say to journalists who interviewed them:

    =====================
    “He would circle the block and circle it; it was weird,” said Teontae Amie, 17. “If he had spotted me, he’d probably ask me if I lived here. He was known for being really strict.”

    Also this, from an African American man who lives in that neighborhood and who lived in fear:

    Zimmerman seemed friendly, helpful, and a “pretty cool dude,” Ibrahim Rashada said. [Rashada is 25 years old, African American, married]

    “He came by here and talked about carrying guns and getting my wife more involved with guns,” he said. “He said I should have a weapon and that his wife took classes to learn how to use one.

    “I do have a weapon, but I don’t walk around the neighborhood with mine!”

    Actually, he does not walk around the neighborhood at all.

    “I fit the stereotype he emailed around,” [Rashada] said. “Listen, you even hear me say it: ‘A black guy did this. A black guy did that.’ So I thought, ‘Let me sit in the house. I don’t want anyone chasing me.’ ”

    For walks, he goes downtown. A pregnant Quianna [Rashada’s wife] listened to her husband’s rationale, dropped her head, and cried.

    “That’s so sad,” she said. “I hope our child doesn’t have to go through that.”

    Travis Williams, a black 16-year-old who wears dreadlocks, said last year a man came to his house and accused him of stealing a bicycle. The police even came and checked the serial numbers on the bike in his garage. [They cleared him of theft]

    Problems in the 6-year-old community started during the recession, when foreclosures forced owners to rent out to “low-lifes and gangsters,” said Frank Taaffe, a friend and advocate of George Zimmerman.

    “Just two weeks before this shooting, George called me at my girlfriend’s house to say he saw some black guy doing surveillance at my house, because I had a left a window open,” Taaffe said. “He thwarted a potential burglary of my house.”

    Taaffe sounded chagrined when he noted that the complex is now majority-minority. Census figures show Retreat at Twin Lakes is 49 percent white, non-Hispanic, 23 percent Hispanic, 20 percent African-American and 5 percent Asian.

    He suspects Zimmerman got tired of thugs “and reached his breaking point,” Taaffe said.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy
    ====================

    So, here’s George’s dilemma: If he testifies about how he was attacked by Trayvon Martin, although he was doing nothing to provoke such behavior and he had not tried to restrain his victim, these other witnesses, and probably many more, will be painting a picture of something quite different: an inflamed, out-of-control paranoid vigilante who wanted to get leg up on somebody to show his superhero qualities and confirm his exaggerated sense of AUTHORITY. It would be a very poor strategy, in my opinion.

  44. ajamazin says:

    Crane Station,

    It certainly would be!

    I believe it is a Florida Sandhill Crane due to its ochre coloring.

    I am restoring a little cracker shack in a secluded neighborhood.

  45. Sandra E. Graham says:

    I believe he will testify and is practising his defence as we speak. IMO, he did very well when cross-examined at the first bond hearing. MOM may only have started going through what is in evidence because this is not his only case. But, George has a computer, he knows how to read and he has family and friends in the biz. Plus, he was there Before, during and after the shooting. GZ is light years ahead of MOM and probably the prosecution. GZs case is not their only case either.
    He will testify at the hearing but not at trial, IMHO

  46. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    A few months ago our youth pastor/elementary school teacher was walking home from his night time job studying to be a full time minister of divinity. He lived with his sister and someone drove up shot him in the head at point blank range directly in front of his home. Would you believe his own sister never even walked out to inquire what was going on. The police failed to even inquire who he was and it only took a 15 yard walk to reach the front door of his home.

    For the life of me I had to ask her “why didn’t you inquire? don’t you come out when something is going on directly in front of your house?” Just upset with the laziness of people. If enough people walked out I believe Trayvon would still be alive after his screams.

    I am beginning to wonder what is wrong with our society. No one cares enough to inquire or to help anyone. People are so fearful. If enough people came out this criminal GZ would not have gotten away. It gave his buddies time to cover as much as they could. GZ problem is he talks to much..

    Back to the story we later learned the one who shot the youth minister was a male who was from a very affluent family with police connections. His connections got him off. So when I see what GZ is doing it burns me up because this criminal activities’ go on especially when you have buddies within law enforcement. So sad… Clearly the SPD was bias towards Trayvon.. GZ should have been tested for drugs, alcohol and sociopath tendencies knowing he had a criminal record of attacking a DEA agent (I believe.).

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      George will testify he is so full of himself its totally sickening… He makes me ill…

    • Malisha says:

      Everyone, what was the motive for the shooter to kill your pastor?

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        It was a mistaken identity the man claimed; but why weren’t you arrested right away by the police? You can’t walk around shooting people. The criminal arrogantly turned himself in with his expensive lawyers holding a gun and concealed weapons permit. I thank God the media exposed what they did because GZ could have easily walked away; slandering a this child Trayvon. GZ never thought it would blow up the way it did.

        What GZ did I’ve seen it before and how being influential can help you tremendously. That was why I asked the professor did he think GZ could be tried for stalking, harassment and murder. We grieve and really I’ve lost faith in the legal system. It frightens me GZ is going to walk and with money backers (NRA & ALEC) if it is true.

        At the funeral the officers who attended the funeral told the family members the suspect family had connections and his juvenile record is sealed. Just sickening… To this day we get the same line “we are investigating still.” I’ve seen some strange things when it comes to the legal system; my faith is gone…. Hope GZ gets what’s coming to him?

        GZ had past problems and walked around with a concealed weapon and so much more… Our church to this day is sick and in great confusion. November will be our 1st year anniversary without him.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        His back pack was full of bibles.. This just made everyone sick.

      • Rachael says:

        OMG EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion, what a horrendous story. I just do not understand how these things happen. Connections or no connections, $$ for lawyers – I mean I know they DO happen, but I just do not understand how – or why.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Many are fearful if only because of guns and violence. But, those witnesses did call 9-1-1. I don’t blame them for not getting involved in something that could very well jeopardize their Safety or that of their loved ones in the house. The younger generation use their cell phones for just about everything. So, I am hoping someone went one step further than 9-1-1 by videotaping or recording. Not everything has been released.

    • @rnsone says:

      Do you have a link you can provide for this story?

  47. jd says:

    Thanks for the great blog prof. George Zimmerman has no credibility to present at trial but it only takes one holdout to hang a jury. He’ll weasel his way through a trail and hope for the best. I doubt he’ll get lucky, given the nature of his lies.

    • lynp says:

      I would expect the jury to reflect the Demographics of the town of Sanford which is 45% white, 20% hispanic, 30% black and 5% of assorted others according to the 2010 Census. This is really going to be a Democracy in Action trial.

      • princss6 says:

        Hahahaha! If you think one black person or one parent with a teenager makes it on that jury…well….I look for him to try and skew the jury heavily towards young lighter men and older lighter men. I don’t think Grannies will make it either.

  48. princss6 says:

    His practically moving out of his home the night of the shooting, says a lot IMO. I wonder if the prosecution brings that in to the case.

    • masonblue says:

      Probably not relevant.

    • Dave says:

      It does support the idea that GZ is deathly afraid of Black people.

      • Teatime says:

        Yeah, that’s why he went into business with one, among many other things.

      • EdgySF says:

        His cousin said his family was ok with blacks who “acted white.”

        This tells me that they fear the black community as a whole, based on negative stereotypes. It’s none of their business how someone “acts;” they are per-judging, which they don’t do with whites.

      • princss6 says:

        Oh lawsy – now he has went into business with a black person….is anyone else besides me waiting for the revelation of his secret black baby…..

        Sigh. Racism is situational. If it is indeed true he went into business with a black person, he actually looks worse for having stalked Trayvon and murdered him. It does not mitigate his culpability. It points to something else. When no one is watching, GZ thought a kid in his late teens was a criminal. I don’t give a darn if he was the President of the NAACP during the day. In that instance, he profiled that black kid as a criminal and then murdered him. That’s racist.

      • lynp says:

        I don’t think so. George lived in the Retreat that was then 51% minority residents with 49% white residents in the town of Sanford. The 2010 Census puts Sanford at 45% white, 20% hispanic, 30% black and 5% assorted others. Can’t see anyone with a fear of black people living in a minority orientated community or town. George himself is Mestizo and clearly hispanic looking with his brown skin, flat nose, slight eye fold and straight black hair.

      • princss6 says:

        Haha! Lynp…you are very naive. Some people can’t afford much “lighter” spaces. They grow resentful and bitter and police their black neighbors to compensate for their inability to be upwardly mobile and afford white spaces.

        Goodness – did we not leave phenotype as a sufficient marker as to genotype ions ago. Whether he is Mestizo or not is irrelevant. On the night in question, he saw a black kid doing nothing and thought he was a criminal. His ensuing actions support that he was not going to let this punk criminal get away. He then murdered Trayvon. I will say it again, he could be from Mother Africa and his actions and thought process were racist.

        I know it is much too much for you to deal with that race and racism is made up of complex factors other than let’s pretend it isn’t relevant and deny deny deny.

  49. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    What about his voluntary call to Angela Cory’s office? Would that come up too? In what way would it be significant or not significant?

  50. bets says:

    So the prosecution presents the who, what, where info, and the forensics. This shows that Trayvon was shot, that George was there, that George told the officer that he did it, that it was George’s gun that did the deed. Information from the autopsy; information from the forensics about the gun, the clothing, and Trayvon; information about the gun and its characteristics; the empty jacket location and its significance. Witnesses would be the officers, the emt’s, the folks that did the forensics.

    I would also expect the non-emergency call which would show Zimmerman’s animous and following of Martin. This could be presented with an expert who would provide some narration of the significance, or the da could point out pertinent parts.

    Would this be sufficient for the charge?

    If so, then the defense needs to show self-defense. Some of the witnesses at the scene can testify to a struggle but none can testify to how the altercation started, nor what actually happened at the time of the shot, except that the cries for helped stopped immediately at the sound of the shot.

    Is there anything but Zimmerman testifying that can make the case for self-defense?

    • KA says:

      That was my thought. The supporters think the minor injuries will speak for themselves.

    • Nope. You’ve got it figured out.

    • Malisha says:

      Serino claimed a woman called and said she witnessed George trying to restrain Trayvon Martin. Serino hoped she would call back and offer her name. I believe she has probably already been contacted by Corey’s office but that her statement has not been made public because Lester allowed some of the statements to be withheld.

      • PYorck says:

        Do you think that was real? I interpreted that as an attempt to mislead GZ and see if he adjusts his story.

        • Brown says:

          It would be nice to have a witness who saw it all, or just the beginning.
          It is also interesting to note that O’mara did bring up this “witness” at the bond hearing. IIRC, his words were, I have heard that the state has a witness stating that they saw my client *challenging him. He went on to say that if that is true its not in the discovery. At that time O’mara couldn’t keep the right witness number with the right statements. Maybe after going further into the evidence, he did find it and changed from SYG to the traditional self-defense. JMO.
          I’ll check to see if I have the video and post the time in which he said it.

        • Brown says:

          regarding statement made by O’mara about witness saw GZ challenging TM. Funny, he chose the word challenging didn’t use the word confront
          Listen Forward from 50:17

      • Xena says:

        Could be witness 31???? The audio was listed in the last batch of released discovery documents but I’ve not been able to locate if it’s been uploaded on the internet. Then we also have this:

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Isn’t the new witness in the Anderson Cooper interview the teacher.

      • whonoze says:

        Yes, the Cooper piece is an interview with JayneW18 from quite some time ago. Alas, story dates on these video clips can be hard to find…

    • boar_d_laze says:

      “Is there anything but Zimmerman testifying that can make the case for self-defense?”

      No.

      You’ve got most but not all of the State’s prima facie case at trial.

      Let me put it in “common law” terms. First year law students learn: “Murder is the unlawful death of a human being with malice aforethought.”

      You wrote about evidence to show that there was a homicide, and who caused it, but not that the death was “unlawful” or that there was “malice.”

      The State (thank God) may not bring in an “expert” to testify as to Mr. Zimmerman’s state of mind during the call. It can and will argue his state of mind in the summation but lawyer blather is not evidence.

      There is a lot of evidence in this case and — at trial — the prosecution will go through far more of it than you’ve considered so far in order to prove those two elements.

      But, to argue self defense, Mr. Zimmerman begins by admitting the homicide, and argues it was lawful (aka “justified) because he acted in self defense; i.e., without malice. He must show that he was in REASONABLE FEAR of IMMINENT death or great bodily harm.

      It’s obvious that if Mr. Zimmerman doesn’t testify that he was the victim of an unprovoked attack by Mr. Martin (and there’s no other evidence of that than his word), he’s asking for far more from the jurors than an honest, fair-minded person would give.

      If the prosecution can show that Mr. Zimmerman provoked Mr. Martin’s use of force against Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Zimmerman must show that Mr. Martin’s (actual) use of force was SO GREAT, that it caused Mr. Zimmerman’s reasonable fear.

      That Mr. Zimmerman provoked the use of force is the crux of the State’s case; because the nature and extent of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries are not sufficient to clear the SO GREAT threshold. So the prosecution should and probably will bring all of the evidence they can to prove that single point.

      The hearing on the Motion for Immunity will be somewhat different in that the defense bears the burden of proof.

      I’m not sure who goes first at the Motion’s hearing, but if it’s the defense, they REALLY can’t rely on the prosecution for anything. In an earlier discussion Professor Leatherman said that if the defense has to go first, it had an extra handicap because defense attorneys without prosecutorial experience don’t know how to “set the table.” Makes a lot of sense.

      • Teatime says:

        “That Mr. Zimmerman provoked the use of force is the crux of the State’s case; because the nature and extent of Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries are not sufficient to clear the SO GREAT threshold. So the prosecution should and probably will bring all of the evidence they can to prove that single point.”
        I don’t see how Zimmerman provoking the encounter, which they’ll be unable to prove BOARD, is at the crux of their case. What do you mean by SO GREAT thrreshhold?

      • boar_d_laze says:

        The State shows provocation by showing “pursuit with attitude” as in the case of State (of Florida) v. Mixon. The elevated “so great” standards is from 776.041(2)(a). 776.041 is the “use of deadly force by aggressor” statute.

        The charging documents make very clear that the prosecution’s strategy is to bring this case into 776.041.

        Whether or not you believe me or my evaluation of the evidence is of little consequence. State v. Johnson clearly shows that the prosecution will be able to get a 776.041 jury instruction.

      • Case#1 says:

        I think you are making the same mistake you made in the last thread: You assume that the jury will look at this without their assumptions.

        Take the example you give of Zimmerman’s wounds. Its true that any one reasonable would not think that killing another person was justified in terms of reasonable force, but when you stick race into the picture, will they see it that way?

        I will put it this way: I understand the standards you are raising. I think they are valid. I think that the prosecution will have to prove more than what you are describing not because those standard aren’t the law. They will have to prove more because the jury is likely to expect more given the race of the victim and the putative race of the defendant.

        I have seen people who classify themselves as Liberals online see those same small cuts,and they argue those cuts, despite the fact they don’t indicate there was a chance of serious bodily harm or death, are proof that Zimmerman’s actions were justified.

        These are Liberals. These are not the average jury, who will not even be predisposed to even question their assumptions.

        I am hoping that prosecution is going to do more than believe that the must prove the standard in the same way they must prove them in a non-race based case with the jury.

        • Unfortunately, I think you’re right.

          I see this case as a giant racism-awareness mirror held up to the people of this country and the world watching us and how we handle the case.

          Many well educated self-described liberals and progressives who believe and would vehemently deny being racists, including some people I know, are willfully ignoring what should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

          This case probably will be won or lost in jury selection.

      • Case#1 says:

        Take the pursuit, the jury can believe that he was justified because he was neighborhood watch, and this kid was someone “unknown” to the neighborhood, so although “tragic” the incident was not provocation enough because kid just had to respond properly to the neighborhood watch guy, who was only protecting his neighborhood.

        Will this be in any instructions? I doubt it. But it will be a part of the case whether the prosecution mentions it or not for some of the jurors.

      • Rachael says:

        Case#1

        “because kid just had to respond properly to the neighborhood watch guy, who was only protecting his neighborhood.”

        I’m not sure I understand. By GZ own admission, he did not identify himself or his title of neighborhood watch guy, so how do you think was the proper way for him to respond?

        I know that if I saw some guy watching me from his car and talking on his phone, I’d run off too. And if he continued to follow me and still not identify himself, all 4’9″ of me would kick him in the nuts and try to run. Of course if he continued to pursue me and shot me, I’d be dead too, but I’m not clear what you mean by responding properly to the neighborhood watch guy who wore no identification as such and did not identify himself as such.

        And then we have GZ phone call about the azzles that always get away…the effn ****ns.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I’ll stick to the evidence and the law, and leave prospective jury reading to you.

      • Case#1 says:

        The public already reacted like this in the case. So did the press.

        In fact, looking at the history of SYG cases (when this was still thought of as such) in Florida where there’s a black victim, and a white defendant, “the law” and the facts resulted in a 70 percent acquittal rate according to one report by a major news paper after the Zimmerman case gained fame.

        Its does not take a crystal ball, not me, to see that it will be an issue despite the law and the facts.

        So the attempt to reduce this to me under the circumstances seems to be putting one’s head in the sand.

        I hope the prosecution is not doing the same.

      • Malisha says:

        Malice is not that difficult to prove, when you have George Zimmerman on tape saying:

        “These a55holes, they always get away,” and

        “F*cking punks” [according to his admission and Angela Corey’s charging documents] and

        calling Martin “the suspect” when he wrote up his statement that night for the police.

        For malice, I’m sure the prosecution can also point out that the folks in the neighborhood have these same kinds of observations to make about George, including: (a) he has been sending around e-mails telling them that young Black males have been preying on their neighborhood; and that (b) they need to get guns; and that (c) they need to report any sitings of young Black males whom they do not know in the neighborhood. Also, of course, there is a young Black male who lived right in that neighborhood (Ibrahim Rashada) who already explained to the media that he would not even go for a walk in his own neighborhood because he was afraid of being chased by George Zimmerman.

        Malice is not that difficult to show, under these circumstances.

      • princss6 says:

        Case#1 – as usual you hit a really good point and that has had me concerned as well. I will keep repeating…criminalizing archetypes are very powerful, almost blinding. Many use the Casey Anthony case as an example of what could happen as far as an acquittal. I see the similarities but also want to point out that Casey was the flip-side of the prima facie criminal archetype. She already walked in with the burden of innocence and it was an uphill battle not because of what she did but because of who she was…white, female who had lost her child. Wasn’t THAT punishment enought???? They couldn’t pass her off as crazy – which happens when guilt is undeniable for some – so they let her go. She was never going to pay with her life because that is just how it goes in our CJS.

        Having said that…yes, I do agree the Prosecution can’t just rely on the bare minimum. I hope they realize it but Corey is pretty tough. I get the since she may never take the minimum needed in any cases she tries.

      • princss6 says:

        @Rachel

        I think black bodies in white spaces are not presumed to have the same type of respect as white bodies in those spaces. They are assumed guilty until otherwise deemed innocent. They are to be policed so it may never occur to some people that yes, Trayvon had a right to go unmolested and did not ever have to answer to anyone. Dred Scott lives on.

      • princss6 says:

        @Case #1 – looking at age in these SYG cases, I believe produces an even more lopsided result. So it boils down to – if you are white and older than your victim who is black and young…you have a good chance of getting off on SYG. It should be called The Boomer Generations Revenge in all honesty, instead of SYG.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I’m not saying that I think the prosecution should present a case limited to legalistic arguments. Nor am I saying this will be an easy case to win. However, the prosecution must stick to the facts as they relate to the law.

        Part of the real burden (as opposed to the legal burden) in a case like this is telling the true story in such a compelling way that you get jurors to go beyond their biases and judge the case on its merits.

        My strategy as a trial lawyer representing the State or or plaintiff was to open with a simple and compelling narrative, move on to hammering the important facts, hammering them again, and then hammering them harder. In summation, I’d hammer the inferences, hammer them again, hammer them harder and re-tell the narrative. Then I’d move on to the law, hammer it, hammer it again, hammer it harder and repeat the narrative.

      • princss6 says:

        I hear you, boar…I just think the jury may need some hand holding to humanize Trayvon. If there is no attempt to humanize him and to get the jury to identify with HIM outside of the facts of the case, GZ may walk. I’m not going to presume that those who walk in will automatically identify with Trayvon as the kid next door. In order, for GZ to be convicted, I think this is needed. And I’m pretty sure most attorneys do a little massaging of their clients so I don’t see how this is apart from legal strategy at all. GZ getting rid of the goatee and growing his hair out is a conscious effort to present a better visual.

        • The prosecution will have plenty of photographs from the night of the shooting to counter the change of appearance tactic.

          Then they will attempt to use his change of appearance against him as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

      • Case#1 says:

        princss6,

        You are making the points that I wanted to make about strategy.

        That when they go into the narrative, one of the thing they must be aware of hammering home to the jury, is that this TM had a right to be in this space. That a black kid had a right to be in this white space.

        If that’s not deal with to knock through the background assumptions, it will show up in the jury deliberation. I think one of the problems is that while the criminal justice system is aware of these disparities of treatment, it has done little about it in terms of approach.

        I think getting a good jury is important, but I think hammering home at the assumptions of the jury, not just the legal factual and narrative arguments, are critical to a win, especially in this case. So the biggest one is racialized space. TM had no right to be there. GZ did. If that’s not dealt with, it becomes a powerful blinder about the evidence and arguments being made.

        this is why I consistently say that the jury given the evidence may find manslaughter as a compromise position.

        • Brown says:

          You make a great point in regards to space. IANAL. What about all the other calls about black males being in the complex he didn’t recognize, or believed that did not belong there? Won’t this play into his bias against blacks that he says have no business in the complex. Just because GZ says he knows all his neighbors, is not true, some of the witness had no idea who he was.

          • TruthBTold says:

            @Brown,

            Exactly, some of the witnesses said they did nor know him. That looks to be a pretty big complex. He didn’t know every darn body. He is such a liar.

  51. ajamazin says:

    George will testify only if it’s part of God’s plan.

  52. Justkiddin* says:

    Oh the fool absolutely testifies. He has yet to figure out the meaning of you have the right to remain silent. If he does not talk how will the jury know what a big bad thug Trayvon was? Do you know how dangerous a kid is that is armed with Arizona juice and skittles can be? Z will enlighten you.

  53. Xena says:

    Professor, thank you for a well-informed article. @Malisha, it is my impression that the SPD failed in many areas to secure evidence because GZ admitted to killing Trayvon. How were they suppose to know that he would later claim a few scratches justified him using deadly force to claim self-defense?

    But, this might not work to GZ’s benefit. He has no blood evidence from the concrete to support how he acquired his head injuries. He has no x-ray to support that his nose was freshly broken. He has no ER hospital report to support that he believed his injuries were life-threatening.

    O’Mara has a difficult chore ahead of him.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      What is mind-blowing the Zbots actual try to justify defending him. MIND-BLOWING!!

      • lynp says:

        Well, it is America where folks have a right to their own opinion and to express it. Just as George Zimmerman has a right to face charges in an Open Court to be tried by a jury of his peers. Its America and how we do it here.

      • ks says:

        Well, thanks for the silly lecture but I’m sure the poster knows that. After all, we are expressing our opinions and GZ is facing charges in an open court to be tried by a jury of his peers in America.

    • Malisha says:

      Xena, I am admittedly very cynical and suspicious about the SPD but properly so, I believe. You ask how the SPD were supposed to know that Zimmerman would “later claim a few scratches justified him using deadly force to claim self-defense,” but i believe that was already known by George, and already assured to him by the officers AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, before he arrived at the police station.

      George gave them his fairy tale and, to back it up, they avoided doing a real investigation, and both for the same reason: They had already agreed that they were going to let him walk on the “self-defense SYG” ground and they were all — until Serino met with Tracy Martin — on the same page: let him go, don’t charge him. I think they were on that page thanks to Lee and Wolfinger. Lee has been fired for it; Wolfinger may escape detection and/or punishment.

      Believe me, if George thought for a minute that they were not going to let him go that very night, he would have asked for a lawyer. Serino and Singleton started to get concerned about the issue but they were unable to do a proper investigation because they had word from “above” that they were not charging George.

      The SPD, meanwhile, told anyone who had a different story (different from George’s story) either that they got it wrong or that their story was “inconsistent.”

      • princss6 says:

        I envision the officers on the scene asking him leading questions, and he did have a convo with Osterman, although “not significant.” I wouldn’t be surprised if SPD was feeding him a story. Off Smith overheard nothing…he saw no grass, IMO. He was just moving this along, helping GZ because, he, too, thought Trayvon was a thug…had to be…black with a hoodie….come on!!!

      • Rachael says:

        Yes, princss6, I’m horribly afraid you are right.

      • @rnsone says:

        As to your last paragraph concerning SPD,what do u think of Det.Chris Serino? I’m kind of on the fence with him.

      • crazy1946 says:

        I you folks would think for a moment, if Zimmerman is convicted, which I think will be, a series of civil cases will begin. In those cases a lot of the questions of who and what caused the initial non arrest will be answered. The civil cases will actually answer more of the questionable portions of this case than the criminal trial will, remember the rules of civil trials are actually much different than criminal, and many questions that can not be asked in the criminal trial will be brought out in the civil trial’s… Must my simple opinion…..

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Didn’t he claim self-defence at the scene.

      • Xena says:

        @Malisha, thanks for sharing that. As the blind man said as he crossed the street against the red light, “I see.” LOL. Yes, I can now see that it was planned all along for GZ to walk. Is anyone familiar with the Orr case in Florida? Orr killed another man in October 2011 and claimed SYG. GZ’s claims mirror those of Orr. Orr’s immunity petition was denied in March.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      He stated at the scene that he was acting in self-defence.

      • princss6 says:

        If by self defense you mean – I was getting beat up so I shot him. Why yes. I’m not sure that is what self-defense means. That also came from W13 who took pictures and rendered no assistance to Trayvon. I’m waiting until these clowns get on the stand to believe with any certainty anything they say.

  54. edgySF says:

    Great post.

    GZ is so full of himself that he might think he can take on Corey’s cross.

    He’s demonstrated overconfidence before. He’s not bright, but he is shrewd.

    MOM would probably prefer GZ not testify….but GZ will not listen.

  55. Digger says:

    Guess my question skipped a beat. Onward!

  56. princss6 says:

    Posts like these really hit me hard. I see no way for GZ to prevail. Thus, I see his trial as a waste of time and an attempt to distract and create a circus-atmosphere. If he was as decent as he wants everyone to believe he is (I don’t and I think he has some serious underlying sociopathy), he would just do the right thing and come clean and be honest. The court might actually give him a reduced sentence for not prolonging the pain of the victims family. Of course, I think he is incapable of feeling remorseful but I would like to see him face this like an adult man. Tell the truth. Everyone, except for the lunatic fringe knows that you are lying man. The media is making this a horse race of sorts ONLY because the prosecution has abided by its self-imposed gag-order which is the right thing to do.

    I don’t see him testifying. If he does, he has a fool for a lawyer and clearly as a client is a fool.

    • Rachael says:

      I do see him not testifying. He just does not know when to shut up, even on the advice of his attorney. It is part of his “control” issues. I think short of tying him into his chair and giving him some extra Restoril, he will not be able to sit still and listen to his defense.

      I think he is still under the delusional pretense that if he has a chance to talk, he can make it okay. I wonder if he learned anything from his interview with Hannity at all.

      If he were a “normal” criminal, I wouldn’t be able to see him testifying either, but he hasn’t shut up from day one.

      • princss6 says:

        Agree with you about the control issues. I think someone with his level of issues about control would submit to BdlR and that is exactly what he will have to do. Make no mistake, he will not be in control on that stand. In fact, he will be the MOST vulnerable to date in this case, if he chooses to do so.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Rachael: “I wonder if he learned anything from his interview with Hannity at all”.

        Very much doubt it because I saw a follow up of Hannity with a Legal Expert and he was all over himself, helped by the “expert”, that the interview had been wonderful and had helped GZ’s cause ! What can GZ learn with that?

      • Rachael says:

        Ughhhh – I mean I see him testifying – absolutely.

        Sorry –

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      What murderer wants to stand up and declare his guilt. Very few. If you can kill a kid And not be charged for the crime, he believes he is innocent. Now, how many want to go to jail for life after being tried and found guilty. Not many want to spend the rest of their lives in jail and claim innocence, I am sure.

      • princss6 says:

        Unlike on TV, people plead all the time with less media scrutiny. If he came clean, I don’t think he would go to jail for life. He would probably get 10-20.

  57. Case#1 says:

    Great post.

    The typical argument that I hear, however, from the GZ supporter is that he need not testify because the case that the prosecution will put on will include some evidence that can be used to minimally show self-defense.

    They don’t argue about the defendant’s statements being admissible.

    They argue that the prosecution’s case alone will provide the necessary evidence.

    In Florida, they state that a self defense instruction can be offered either because of evidence from (1) the prosecution’s case or (2) the defendant’s case.

    I am not always sure what they mean by prosecution’s case, but I have made the point about the defendant’s statements, and they say they do not mean that. The few examples given are (a) his head wounds and (b) how the prosecution will explain the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. They argue from there a jury could logically infer self defense.

    Do you agree? Do you disagree? If so, why?

    Thank you because I have said what you have said- that the narratives makes no sense without Zimmerman testifying to it since he is the only one who can fill in critical holes in his case.

    • KA says:

      Why would the prosecution provide the evidence? Isn’t the burden of proof on the defense in the immunity hearing? I know in trial that reverts back, but isn’t the premise of the immunity hearing for an affirmative defense?

      Also, to rely on the prosecution to provide the evidence would be foolish I imagine. In that scenario the prosecution has the upper hand to introduce only what it wants to and the defense has to deal with the hand it is granted by always getting the most unfavorable cards.

      • Case#1 says:

        Everything you say is what I would assume as well. But, I thought would play devil’s advocate by asking.

      • KA~~The prosecution passes evidence over to the defense all the time. It is known as discovery. I am sure that the defense can use some of this evidence to prove or disprove a certain chain of events in defending their client. The Prof will correct me if I am wrong.

      • KA says:

        Mainsteamfair,

        The evidence used for trial is shown in Discovery, it does not mean the defense can introduce it. My comments were in regards to GZ supporters’ view that GZ does not have to testify because the prosecutors will provide the introduced statements and therefore GZ does not need to testify to assume self defense.

        My point was that depending on that to happen is foolish as it puts all the cards in the State’s hand on what to introduce for their initial case, what is introduced in rebuttal, and what is introduced in the course of the hearing. The Defense will never get a favorable hand.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Question: Would it be a good move for prosecution to present discovery evidence at the hearing – evidence where they had gaps or wanted to have the defence show their cards before the trial.

    • masonblue says:

      Thanks.

      Yes, I agree absolutely.

      • Prof~~I don’t think your reponse was meant for me ( judging by the time shown) but thank you anyway. lol I had to do away with my Reply button as my readers were missing so many comments. When I post this, I am unsure where it will land but I am hitting the Reply button under your comment.

      • heartofhearts says:

        Professor, I’m going to ask you for something that I don’t know you can supply and that is confidence in the prosecution. I will tell you straight up I am not a legal buff but I watched the first bond hearing and I have to say the prosecution team made me worry. The investigator who took the stand got beat up from MOM from my perspective and the prosecution side appeared sort of like milktoast. Please tell me I’m wrong and nothing to fear! 🙂

        • “The investigator who took the stand got beat up from MOM from my perspective and the prosecution side appeared sort of like milktoast. Please tell me I’m wrong and nothing to fear!”

          I don’t have any basis to answer your question because I do not know them, however, they may have been taken by surprise by not expecting MOM would put on a mini trial at a bond hearing.

          They are not likely to be unprepared for an immunity hearing or the trial.

      • heartofhearts says:

        Thank you professor for your response. I know they have a strong case and I am certainly in their corner.

      • KA says:

        I agree, I thought the first bond hearing was weak for the prosecution, but I chalked that up to not being prepared.

        Galbraith appeared very unprepared as I imagine he never thought he would be on the stand in that bail hearing.

        I had the same feeling about O’Mara in the hearing where Judge Lester revoked bond. I though MOM looked like a truck was coming at him. I thought his face at the order of revoking bond showed was far more that a momentary disappointment. I think he never expected it, and honestly, I think it was his fault.

        At the end of the previous hearing (5 weeks prior), Lester asked to get him information about the account from O’Mara. That obviously was not done. He know had to scramble on the defensive. I imagine he knew that moment that he should have done something different than ignoring or putting off the judge’s request.

        With that said, I do not think preparation will be an issue for either side. They both have taken their “licks” on this one.

  58. KA says:

    Interesting that he wears a bullet proof vest around for safety, but not a nose guard or helmet?

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      The bullet-proof vest, the weight loss, the growing of the hair, the shaving of the facial hair is GZ attempting to have the public truly believe his life is in danger. It is also met to leave a choir boy impression. By wearing the vest in the court room, he had to wear an oversize shirt and suit giving the impression of being small ( the neck of the shirt too large). I have said this before – GZ is not as crazy or stupid as some would believe. He is absolutely playing to the audience. Yes sir, yes ma’am ad nauseum. Like he is a child answering an adult. He knows the jailhouse calls were taped. He knows he was being taped at the police station when interviewed numerous times. Believe me, he knows exactly what he is doing – playing to the audience.

      • Sandra~ but was all of that actually Z’s ideas or MOM’s? I’m still not convinced that Z is sharp enough to get into costume like that. He seems to have used his charm as his chief manipulation weapon.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Cielo – GZ has many advisors. I think the bullet-proof vest was his. He wanted one each for Shelly AND MOM according to the jailhouse calls. I have seen how well he takes advice. But, being a law student of sorts, he would know how to play the audience.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        He has a theatrical tattoo – comedy and tragedy faces. All the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players! He is a chameleon. Some say he is meek and mild and others say he aggressive and mean-spirited.

  59. KA says:

    It is why he called Trayvon the “suspect” never realizing that he, himself was…

  60. CommonSenseForChange says:

    George Zimmerman is *special*. What’s your problem in not understanding that?

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Yea a special “nutcase.”

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        Ha!

        Is George Zimmerman’s specialness a threat to our (U.S. citizen’s) security? I think it is.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I also believe he would have been a danger to society had he not been charged. I also think he is a danger to society if he is acquitted as well because the case may indicate to Zimmerman supporters that killing an unarmed child is A-Okay. I know for a fact that many parents are worried about their children and teenagers themselves are following this case.

    • Rachael says:

      He is so special he will get his own little room and be served 3 meals a day.

  61. KA says:

    I actually believe that one of the reasons GZ did not want to go to the hospital is that he was now “one of the guys”…on equal footing with the police. I see that in his questions to the investigator about ever shooting anyone and his relax way of speaking to him. He had no reason for watching what he said or concern about an attorney, he was not guilty in his own mind and the police believed him.

    I think in his own delusional way, it was like his ticket to manhood or something. He had finally “caught the bad guy”.

    I think this is his annoyance with being charged and in jail. He can’t envision himself on the other “side” of this scenario.

    • princss6 says:

      I think he didn’t go to the hospital because he knew his blood would be tested. Most people I know when injuring themselves while doing illicit drugs will suffer rather than go to the ER. I don’t think he could get out of getting his blood tested there.

      • Rachael says:

        Do you think he was doing illicit drugs?

        • princss6 says:

          IMO, he was impaired and I also thing there could have been a series of factors:

          1) I think there is strong evidence that he may have just changed his meds
          2) I do think he may have been taking non-prescribed meds.
          3) He may not have been taking his prescribed meds as prescribed.

          Lacking the certainty of a blood test, I think all of these are possible. When I see people avoid the emergency room, I immediately think it is because they do not want their blood tested. And why wouldn’t he want his blood tested – tox profile.

      • bets says:

        Another reason people don’t go to the emergency room is the expense.

      • lynp says:

        A Hospital has no Authority to force a blood test without consent of the patient.

        • You said,

          “A Hospital has no Authority to force a blood test without consent of the patient.”

          That’s true, but what has been overlooked in the discussion about a blood test is that the police could have asked him for permission to obtain a blood draw for toxicological analysis, but they never did.

          If they had asked, he probably would have consented because he was so eager to please.

          Recall that he voluntarily gave them a buccal swab for DNA testing.

          Now, we’ll never know the answer because they never bothered to ask.

        • princss6 says:

          Yes and they thought he murdered Trayvon in self-defense that night so….

          But he sounded impaired to me on the phone. Listen to his previous few calls prior to 2/26.

      • lynp says:

        None of the Professional EMTs, Police Officers noted that George appeared impaired in any way and that includes his 5 hours of voluntary interrogation by the Coppers.

      • Rachael says:

        Oh, I do agree that he was possibly impaired – he sounds like he had a few too many temazepam. It has always made me angry that a tox screen was not done. I was told that because he was not arrested/charged, they didn’t have to – but I can’t understand it when there was so much question surrounding the incident – yet the let him go. Seems like basic police 101 to me.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Bets and princss6: RE: GZ not going to hospital because of the expense. He says that in the Singleton interview. Question: Would GZ be responsible for any cost. If the police had sent him there, the tests, etc. would be at the expense of the city, wouldn’t it. He is asked at the interview if he needs to go to hospital and he says, I don’t know. It appears, he either believes he can not afford it or the police didn’t need the reports because they believed his story before the interviews and any investigation. So, back to my question anyone : Would GZ be responsible for any medical expenses because he was arrested and not charged in the beginning. TYIA

        • princss6 says:

          He also tells Singleton that he sent an email to the Chief regarding her performance that was supposed to go in her file. We’ve not seen that email yet. Does it exist?

          Bottom line – an emergency room does not compel you to pay and they have to treat you. I’m sure he knows that because everyone does. He has stiffed credit card companies, stiffed attorneys, etc. The cost were the least of his concerns and only offered to Singleton as yet another lie from GZ.

      • crazy1946 says:

        princss6, When I first listened to the tapes, I also though Zimmerman was impaired. However after reviewing his speech then, and during the prior calls, plus the other tapes that he speeks in, I actually don’t think he was. I do think he was distracted in his thought process somehow, I would wonder what happened in Zimmerman’s life in the hours leading up to the hunting expedition that night? Maybe what I am trying to say is perhaps he had a major dispute with Shelly or something similar that caused him to be distracted in his thoughts and action? Anger that he could not act upon directly, that he could take out on a person who he did not directly relate to could explain some, if not all of his bizarre actions that night…

        • princss6 says:

          Really? I had the opposite experience. After listening to his previous 911 calls where he sounded more alive and animated, non-slurry, I came to the opposite conclusion.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Grrrr, I don’t know which is worse, my poor spelling, or my computers bad spelling? Must be the computer, couldn’t be my needing a brain transplant that causes me to not be able to spell? This site needs a spell check? 🙂

      • Rachael says:

        I hope going to the hospital ends up being a problem for him. It seems to me that if he had such reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm along with injuries, he would not have turned away the ambulance that was called for him. Maybe it is just me, but when I see his fear of a hospital bill as worse than his fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, credibility kinda gets lost.

        I think he wanted to stay and continue to play cop.

      • Rachael says:

        Grrrr – I mean I hope NOT going to the hospital.

  62. Malisha says:

    He WAS read his Miranda rights. It was in the police reports, too. You can be sure he had a chance to make his phone call, too. He WANTED to talk; he couldn’t wait to talk, to give his version, especially since I believe he already KNEW they were going to “see it his way” and give him a get-out-of-jail-free card and his $200. I believe it was fixed before he arrived in the station. Did you notice that he was not searched as other suspects are searched? He got out of the car, said something to the single cop who remained near him, and that cop, without gloves on, took something from his pocket, wrapped it up in a jacket the cop had, and put it into the trunk of the patrol car. Very interesting little maneuver, can be seen on the “immaculate injury” video in the garage of the station house on 2/26/2012 where no blood is seen on George’s head.

  63. Yes, he was Mirandized and signed the form acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights and agreed to waive them.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Professor, I believe Geroge Zimmerman is so full of himself he really thinks he can fool a jury… I just hope the jury isn’t fixed and it happens a lot…I believe…

      • lynp says:

        Everyday, ordinary, garden variety Schmoos with an average donation of $30 sent Zimmerman well in excess of $200,000 dollars in answer to a web site set up by this nobody from Florida. He seems to have persuaded lots of folk to believe him as demonstrated by donations. He may well be found Not Quilty by a jury of his peers.

      • Rachael says:

        lynp, he may be found not guilty, but that does not mean he is innocent. And even if he does not go to prison, he will never be free.

      • princss6 says:

        At the time that those donations came in, GZ persuaded no one. But the an assist from the media and his attorneys, Dad, Uncle Friend Joe, that money rolled in. Not GZ, but his family, friends and lawyers who were only told his story. Since Hannity, the only time we have seen him plead his case, donations have not met the same level as they did at the very beginning. GZ has a Witness 9 problem.

      • ks says:

        Sorry lynp,

        It seems more like you are trying to justify your donation to GZ. The donations themselves, particularly the early ones, don’t prove how “persuasive” GZ was or is. IMO, it was more of a reaction to the early media coverage and events.

        If GZ is so persuasive, why have the donations slowed to a trickle? Sorry, I’m not buying it.

    • CommonSenseForChange says:

      Hello Professor Leatherman.

      One of my points of contention is whether or not Zimmerman was arrested by a legal definition of arrested? With or without being mirandized, if Zimmerman detained Trayvon Martin, what duties were required by Zimmerman to “legally” restrain Trayvon Marton? I would think that at a minimum, an identification would be required.

      According to Zimmerman, he asked for help in detaining/restraining of Trayvon Martin. Is Zimmerman attempting to use “citizen’s arrest” or is he using a terrorists’ tactic to detain and interrogate Trayvon Martin? I think he did both and is subject to both international and U.S. crimes.

      Killing children is considered an international crime isn’t it? Princss6 posted a video of Zimmerman interrogating Trayvon Martin in another thread and Trayvon Martin’s responses were caught on the 9-1-1 call. Please take a look at that video and listen.

      I think if Zimmerman was interrogating Trayvon, this opens the door to an international crime against U.S. citizens’ children.

      • princss6 says:

        Here is the video:

        Hearing it also gives me confidence GZ will not prevail.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        Thank you princss6 for the repost. Hopefully, this time people will review it and ponder.

        The “I don’t know” heard in the 9-1-1 call of W11 said it all for me. If that’s what was said, it’s gonna be a problem for the defense and for the U.S. internationally.

      • Rachael says:

        Wow! Powerful excellent question.

      • princss6 says:

        You’re welcome, CSFC. I hear the “I Don’t Know” twice. It just goes back to paining me again that he won’t tell the truth. Now we have new dialogue that he never mentions…wonder why. Goodness, if I could have seen the look on his face with that 911 call was played. I would pay for it!

      • The quick and easy answer to your question is GZ had no legal authority whatsoever to even touch TM, let alone detain or attempt to restrain him for any purpose.

        Citizen’s arrest will not work because TM was not only not committing a crime, he was not even acting suspiciously.

        TM had a legal right to use force to defend himself and his use of non-deadly force force cannot be transformed into a justification for GZ to use deadly force.

        This is why I keep saying this is an easy case. GZ is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree..

      • The quick and easy answer to your question is GZ had no legal authority whatsoever to even touch TM, let alone detain or attempt to restrain him for any purpose.

        Citizen’s arrest will not work because TM was not only not committing a crime, he was not even acting suspiciously.

        TM had a legal right to use force to defend himself and his use of non-deadly force force cannot be transformed into a justification for GZ to use deadly force.

        This is why I keep saying this is an easy case. GZ is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree..

        @Professor,

        Do you think we’ll see an upgrade in the charges to murder 1?

      • crazy1946 says:

        SG2: >>>Do you think we’ll see an upgrade in the charges to murder 1?<<<

        Professor, correct me if I am wrong, does it not require a grand jury to indict to charge with murder 1? I looked at that issure early in the case, and as best as my memory serves, Mz Cory decided on murder 2 rather than entrusting this case to a grand jury….

      • lynp says:

        George’s donations may well not be at the same level but appears donation money is still rolling into his fund. While those TV Pundits and Lib stations were talking, short, puggy, hispanic George Zimmerman, a nobody from Central Florida, puts up a Web site and finds folks donating to him to the tune of well over $200,000 dollars. George admitts he shot Martin. Says it was “Self Defense” and has some wounds and witnesses to back up his claim. Still is going to have to to some Time in my opinion.
        I doubt the World’s attention is going to be caught by this tragedy particularly as we have millions of children dying from malnutrition and wars.

      • lynp says:

        I don’t need to justify sending George a donation particularly as I willingly admitted I did. I think the donations have slowed down cause while wanting to see anyone get their day in Court, none of the donors agreed to support George for forever and a day.
        Child is usually between age and Pre puberty. I seriously doubt that the 5’11” Martin with the 7-11 video of he and a GZ replicia is going to stand up in court. Martin was way beyond post puberty. it is a horrible tragedy. We all wish it had not happened.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Lynp:>>>Child is usually between age and Pre puberty. I seriously doubt that the 5’11″ Martin with the 7-11 video of he and a GZ replicia is going to stand up in court. Martin was way beyond post puberty. it is a horrible tragedy. We all wish it had not happened.<<<<

        While that is perhaps what you think, unfortunatly you are incorrect. TM was in the eyes of the law still a minor child. One of the problems that Zimmerman has is that he was still a child, and if I am not mistaken it will add time to his sentence if/when he is convicted of the murder of Martin. Many of his supporters use the same logic and untrue statement that you do about Martin not being a child. I curious if he had been your son, would you have considered him an adult and afforded him the rights and responsibility of adulthood?

        • fauxmccoy says:

          crazy – i always ask this very specific question —

          would YOU sign a contract with him?

          that pretty much gets the answer necessary. as to your question, the law most certainly regards this particular victim to be a minor child and enhanced penalties would apply if convicted of manslaughter, i am not sure if that is the case with M2.

      • Rachael says:

        lynp – no matter how big Trayvon may or may not have been, he was still a minor and GZ acknowledged that he was not an adult.

        Tell me, do you have kids?

        Legalities aside, my son will be my child until the day I die, and the pain if I lose my child before I die will be great, even if he is 50. He will still be my child.

        However, legally, Trayvon was a minor. And GZ knew it. He said so. But then, maybe he was lying then too. Who knows.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          rachael – i cannot tell you how much i agree. martin was nowhere near full physical maturity even at 5’11”. you can tell from pictures provided by his family that facial hair was a relatively recent development, as such, he was not fully through puberty.

          i come from a family of tall, broad scottish folks and did not reach my full height of 5’10” until i was 19 – yes, that last 1-1/2″ was slow, but there. my brothers likewise did not stop putting on height until they were 21 (now 6’2″ and 6’3″). this does not even take into account the skeletal/muscular development in their shoulders in particular – but they were not grown until they were 21. i see the same development with martin – that boy had a lot of growing to do.

          this case has caused my brothers and i to really talk about our size compared to the general public. are we to be feared just because of that alone? does the fact that we are fair with red hair mitigate that? my brothers will both tell anyone that while i may be somewhat smaller in stature than they are, that i am certainly the most aggressive.

          i hear so much fear expressed by some regarding martin’s size, yet by my family standards, he’s still quite small. i can say without doubt that prior to becoming disabled that at 5’10”, working out and performing manual labor i had far more muscle mass than (yes) that kid and as a farm girl, likely was more accomplished at fisticuffs. (just try to neuter an unwilling bull calf with mamma glaring at you!)

          questions, questions, questions

          • Brown says:

            Speaking of fisticuffs, I am the only girl in the family. My brothers called me when there was trouble, when we were young.
            : ^ )

          • fauxmccoy says:

            i was the eldest and the bros were monsters, i am telling you! i had to keep them in line somehow 🙂 thank heavens we had 30 acres to run around on or escape each other when necessary!

            truthfully, i feel sad for inner city youth that did not have what i did. between home, ranch and school, i was truly worn out at the end of the day. most kids (who are we kidding, adults even!) cannot say that any more. it was a good way to grow up and it felt just as good when i ran off to the city at 19. i sure knew where i wanted to return to raise my own babies though and did in my 30s.

          • Brown says:

            Grew up in the inner city, but our parents always made sure we did something interesting every weekend. A broadway play, Bear Mountain, Camp Bethelem. Music. I played the violin. They made sure we were busy. Work ethic also. Today’s kids have no work ethic. IMO

      • KA says:

        Lynx,

        There is no 11th grade teacher that calls the kids in her class “adults” or anything close to it. They are still “kids” or “children” in a class. No parent calls their 11th grader an “adult”, but a “child” (ie “my 11th grade oldest child…”)

        I think most of America views that age the same way. An 11th grader is any stretch of the word is still a “kid” or “child” to anyone I have ever come in contact with.

      • KA says:

        Trayvon did not even have a driver’s license.

    • Professor~~thank you for the response. After some of the shoddy police work by Sanford PD, it surprises me that Z was read his rights. Z was allowed to use the washroom back at headquarters and to my knowledge his hands were not dusted for gunpowder residue. His vehicle was not secured at Retreat Circle and taken in to the compound. Officer Timothy Smith wrote up a report a** backwards, and did not list the happenings in chronological order. This created confusion to some as to when the firearm and holster was taken possession of by Smith.

      Okay, while Z was cuffed he was considered to be under arrest. They took the cuffs off him at the PDept. Did they tell him at that time he was not free to leave and then read him his rights.

      In my country, the one to your north, you cannot detain a person for more than 24 hrs at police headquarters unless you have enough evidence to charge and book them. Is it the same in the US?

      • lynp says:

        In the State of Florida only a Grand Jury can indict for Murder 1.

        • You said,

          “In the State of Florida only a Grand Jury can indict for Murder 1.”

          Yes, that’s true, but I cannot think of any reason why Angela Corey could not convene a grand jury at any time and seek a murder 1 indictment, if she decides to do so.

          As a practical matter, I doubt she will because she’s got the cards to prove murder 2 and the maximum sentence is life. There is no need to up the charge unless she wants to go for the death penalty and this is not a death penalty case.

      • Since GZ admitted to shooting TM< maybe teh dusting wasn't necessary. I agree the rest was bad police work.

      • Pooh says:

        A gun shot residue kit taken from Zimmerman at the Sanford PD is listed in the discovery.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      If GZ was your client would you allow it knowing what you know now about his many lies. MOM can’t stop him correct? If you don’t want to answer its ok. Putting on your defense hat and/or the professor hat would you follow the same opionion of yes or no GZ testifies? Love this post…

      • I think he has to testify, but it will be like watching a slow motion train wreck.

        No matter what he says, there will be a prior inconsistent statement that he will be confronted with, and possibly a string of several inconsistent answers, followed up with this question:

        “Mr. Zimmerman, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Were you lying then or are you lying now?”

        The cross will be the hotest ticket in town.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          The prosecution will be able to tear GZ to shreds. But, I think the defense will be able to tear many of the witness statements to shreds – did LE tell you that the guy who walked away was the one that was screaming, did LE ask you for a statement that you later had to revise. Which one is the truth. Did either GZ or MO speak with you that night. If so, was your statement to LE influenced by that conversation. Did you discuss what you saw that night with other witnesses etc,, etc. I think prosecution has a problem, too. The defense questioning LE that night will be a problem too. I donèt think this is a slam-dunk by any means. After all, even LE let him go, didn’t they.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @ prof leatherman who says

        “Mr. Zimmerman, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Were you lying then or are you lying now?”
        – – – – – –
        funny, i put that precise line in my own response to your post before you ever replied to this comment. 🙂

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Well, Casey Anthony was a proven liar with outrageous stories and managed to escape life in prison,in fact not guilty on every count but one- scot-free, so to speak. As has been said many a time – a liar does not a murderer make.

      • crazy1946 says:

        >>>“Mr. Zimmerman, please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Were you lying then or are you lying now?”<<<<

        errrrr, both, this is how it "really" happened, a little green man made me do it, no wait he was blue, no wait…………….

  64. Professor~~wow, great post! I am going to have to read it over a couple more times so I can ask an intelligent question. I do have one question though… Was Zimmerman read his Miranda Rights when he was take to Sanford PDept on the nite of Feb 26th? I do not recall reading anything re the MR’s given in any of the documents we rec’d. I may have overlooked it.

    This would make a huge difference in his statements being admissable under cross if he were to take the stand ….if we was not read his rights?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: