Zimmerman: Understanding the Miranda Rule

To eliminate widespread abusive and coercive practices by police to secure confessions from suspects during custodial interrogations, the United States Supreme Court announced a new rule in the famous case called Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Under the Miranda rule, a suspect’s statement during a custodial interrogation is not admissible unless the prosecution presents evidence that the statement was voluntarily given after the suspect was advised of his rights and agreed to waive them.

Y’all should know them by heart, but here they are in case you may have forgotten them:

You have the right to remain silent;

Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law;

You have the right to an attorney;

If you cannot afford an attorney, the Court will appoint one to represent you at public expense.

The Right to Remain Silent

The right to remain silent comes from the Fifth Amendment, which states:

No person shall be compelled to testify against himself.

Notice that the so-called Compulsion Clause prohibits the use of any threats, physical acts, or punishment to force a suspect to give a statement. The right to remain silent may be asserted at any time, including at trial. Defendants who elect not to testify at trial, are entitled to have the trial court instruct the jury that it cannot consider silence for any purpose, including guilt. This instruction recognizes that silence is insoluble because there may be any number of reasons why a defendant may decide not to testify.

The Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment is the source for the right to counsel. For example, in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court held via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that the states must appoint and pay for counsel representing indigent defendants.


A “waiver” in the legal system is a formal way of stating that a person has acknowledged that he has an important right or privilege and has decided to give it up. Waivers of constitutional rights are invalid absent a showing that the decision was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

The Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary Rule is the remedy for a violation of the Miranda Rule. Pursuant to this rule, statements obtained by police from suspects during custodial interrogations are not admissible during the prosecution’s case in chief at trial, unless the police have complied with the Miranda Rule.

However, if the defendant testifies during the defense case and his testimony conflicts with his custodial statement, the statement may be admitted into evidence so long as it was voluntarily given.

Zimmerman Case

One of the biggest problems facing the defense is the number of lengthy and detailed statements that George Zimmerman gave to the police. The statements are internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with each other. Some of the statements appear to contain provable lies. Unless the defense can persuade the Court to exclude his statements, George Zimmerman may not have much of a chance to win his case.

To evaluate the likelihood that his statements will be admitted, follow this guideline with respect to each statement:

Was the statement obtained during a custodial interrogation?

There are two parts to this question. The first part distinguishes custodial statements from non-custodial statements. Custodial statements require Miranda warnings because they are inherently coercive. Non-custodial statements are not as coercive because the suspect is free to terminate the contact with the police at any time and walk away. The courts apply an objective test to determine whether a suspect is in custody. That is, given the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable person in the same situation have believed he was free to leave?

If the answer is “yes,” the police are not required to Mirandize a suspect and the statement is admissible, so long as it was voluntarily given.

If the answer is “yes,” the statement is not admissible unless the police advised him of his rights, he acknowledged that he was advised, and he agreed to waive those rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

I believe the prosecution may argue that Zimmerman was free to leave and therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, all of the statements were non-custodial, voluntary, and admissible.

Prosecutors generally advise police to delay placing a suspect under arrest so that they can question him in the field under non-coercive circumstances without having to first Mirandize him.

Obviously, the more coercive the circumstances, the more likely the Court will require advice and waiver of Miranda rights before admitting a statement into evidence.

Mirandizing suspects is the safest way to go and I believe the police probably complied with the requirements of Miranda, even though he may been free to leave. We will have to wait and see if the defense moves to exclude his statements.

I do not see any evidence that Zimmerman’s statements were involuntary. He appears to have been eager to talk to the police. For example, he called the prosecutor’s office and tried to speak to Angela Corey about his case, but she was not available. His call was transferred to Bernie de la Rionda, who insisted on talking only to his lawyer. Zimmerman said he did not have a lawyer at that time, but de la Rionda still refused to talk to him and terminated the call.

Bernie de la Rionda’s insistence on talking only to Zimmerman’s lawyer was in compliance with ethical rules.

252 Responses to Zimmerman: Understanding the Miranda Rule

  1. Malisha says:

    Ravenwolf, I think the reason George was yak-yak-yaking to the cops was that he had been assured that it was a fix, that he would not be held responsible, so he had no fear that he might say the wrong thing. Whatever he said, he had been told in advance that it would work. So he didn’t try to be careful to make his statements come out matching physical evidence, logic, or anything else.

    That’s just another way of saying, “Whatever I say is cool because it’s all God’s plan.”

    From whom did he have the word that nothing could come back to bite him? I believe it was Bill Lee and that Lee had fixed it already with Wolfinger.

    WHen the thing began to come undone, both Wolfinger and Lee had lost their control over the situation so neither of them could do George any good any more. Then there was a problem…

  2. Vicky says:

    @Dave, I didn’t mean you were questioning anyone’s intelligence. When I mentioned the intelligence level of individuals with ADHD, I was putting forth one of the criteria that is often used in diagnosing a child with ADHD, since children with that disorder (only) often perform poorly in school, so it is important to eleminate low normal IQ as the cause. I apologize if my point wasn’t clear. If a known co-occurring disorder or disability is in place, then IQ as diagnostic criteria isn’t used.

    Adults with ADHD might tend to be impulsive and find it difficlutl to focus, but when you’ve lived with those challenges for many years, you learn ways to overcome the symptoms that might cause problems. I am assuming that since GZ was a “student” of criminal justice and had played policeman in his mind for many years, he was more than aware of his Miranda Rights. I can guarantee you, I would never waive mine under any circumstances.

    I think GZ honestly believed he had the right to shoot Trayvon when he failed to sucome to his power and had the nerve to fight back; and once he exercised lethal force to subdue him, GZ believed that everyone else would agree that he had no other choice. I believe that is the reason he waived Miranda. To me, that falls more in line with Antisocial Personality Disorder than ADHD.
    On a more personal note, I find it offensive that as an adult with a diagnosis of ADHD, GZ or anyone else would use it as an excuse for anything he did or did not do, before during or after the incident. It might explain his behavior, but it does not excuse it. He knew his rights, and IMO, it wasn’t an impulse that moved him to waive them. It was GZ overestimating his power of persuasion.

    • Rachael says:

      Excellent post!

    • Dave says:

      Vicky, I believe that you are right. I was just suggesting that O’Mara might argue that ADHD-connected impulsivity made GZ incompetent to make an informed choice in waiving his Miranda rights, not endorsing that theory. I’m sure that he’s considered it.

      • rachael says:

        I think it would be a big mistake for him to even consider it – if he is too impulsive and too incompetent to make an informed choice in waiving his Miranda rights, it would bring up the thought that he is too incompetent and impulsive to carry a gun and/or know when to appropriately use it. I seriously doubt he would want to even think about going down that road.

    • angela_nw says:

      yes more like a very extreme form of narcissism
      (reply to Vicky at 5 pm)

  3. TM says:

    Does anyone know anything at all of the calls GZ received that day and hours before he called 911 that he was following a suspect.
    I would like to know who he had conversation with prior to his leaving to grocery shop.

    • Xena says:

      @TM. The prosecution has entered GZ’s phone logs into discovery, but those docs have not been released to the public.

      • aussie says:

        And nor are they likely to be. Both prosecution and defence feel they would impinge on the privacy of uninvolved persons he may have contacted. So they will not be available to the public, barring an “oops how did that get there?” slip-up like with the school records.

  4. bettykath says:


    My mistake. The link is on Xena’s web page for which there is a link up thread at Xena says: September 3, 2012 at 3:00 am.

    I’ve twice tried to post the link and it just disappears.

    There is a comment that talks about the spread sheet. I went to the second link and did a copy/paste into my own spread sheet. Don’t know if I’ll have enough time to do much looking at it though.

  5. Digger says:

    I believe that George Zimmerman understood the Miranda Rule.
    He understood it to be that he was now going to be famous and has been playing his role in his own movie ever since. That is what it is to him, that Trayvon is not dead, he was just the little a– h—character needed to support his superior role. People do that to people every day is how he sees it, they just don’t ever become
    acknowledged by God in His plan.

  6. Malisha says:

    @ Bettykath — do you know where I can find that timeline?
    Thanks. 🙂

    • aussie says:

      bcclist.com contributor Screamin’ Jay has transcribed all the witness 911 calls,, second by second. They are on a spreadsheet with the times lined up, to give a visual idea of how their evidence unfolded. The connect times were used as the basis, and the elapsed tape times translated to clock time.

      The Windows Excel link is:

      And for Macintosh:

      Some of the times are estimated, based on how long it would take to give an address, as those sections have been blanked out of the tapes. In some tapes they’re erased, in some the tape has been actually cut/shortened at those spots. Various available versions are a word or three different in redacted content. There would only be a few seconds’ discrepancy in the timelines between the calls. .

      GZ’s NEN call is not included in the spreadsheet. There are lots of transcripts of that around, including with the voice behind the text, on some Youtubes. There was a “timeline” put together (sloppily) by Chris Serino which gave a start time of 7.11or so, but this is the time the notes were typed up; the connection time was 7.9 something.

      • bettykath says:

        Thanks, Aussie. My bad. I thought the first call was the NEN call. I was in a hurry for an appointment and didn’t read carefully.

  7. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    I believe that Zimmerman took a shortcut through those two buildings and cut Trayvon off at the path. However, everyone is going by what Zimmerman claims to have been the trail he took. Zimmerman’s word is not that good as we’ve all seen time and time again. Remember that Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon jumped out from nowhere, but I truly believe it was the other way around. Just as I believe that the words he attributed to Trayvon were his own.

  8. rachael says:

    George was supposed to have a court date on October 3. Will that be changed now that there is a new judge, as that date was set by Judge Lester?

  9. bettykath says:

    Someone posted a link up thread to a spread sheet of times/content of calls. (Can’t find that entry.) I don’t have time to do the research right now but there is at least one problem with it. If the same methodology was used for all the calls, the times for all of them are incorrect.

    One problem: it shows the NEN call lasting about 2.5 minutes but it lasted about 4 minutes. I think the creator of this used the start of the dispatcher’s comments as the start time, not the connect time of the call. The dispatcher’s comments would necessarily be somewhat delayed.

    There is a connect time at the top of the log, upper left corner. Each entry by the dispatcher has a time which lags the caller’s comments by a bit.

    A correct methodology would be to use the connect time of the call from the dispatch log and then use the elapsed times from the recordings for the comments and other sounds.

    The spread sheet was a lot of work and a good idea. I hope what I found was a single error and easily corrected. If not, I hope a corrected methodology can be used to create a more accurate spread sheet.

  10. ada4750 says:

    I believe GZ had a view on RVC as soon than 19:12:12 when he said “he ran”. It is very possible that he started walking south at this moment while still talking to the dispatcher and, why not, trying to make his flashlight work. According the W11 fiancé the confrontation may have start around 19:15:45 so it can be more something like 3.5 mins instead of 2 mins.

    • Zhickel says:

      Why do you believe that?

      The NEN call does not seem to support it. Do you think Zimmerman left his vehicle earlier than is indicated by noises on the NEN call?

      • ada4750 says:

        Many believe GZ started running at 19:11:54. He said “he ran” when he crossed the back alley or when he had a view on RVC. My feeling goes for RVC (anyway it wouldn’t makes a big difference)

        The “wind” in the phone finished 2-3 seconds after he said “he ran”. That makes a run of 18 (or 20-21) secs. It is very possible to cover this distance in 18-20 secs.

    • whonoze says:

      A agree with ada4750. I think GZ was watching from his truck when he saw Trayvon start running South down the sidewalk. He got out and ran after him, but when he got to the T, he could not see the “asshole”. Thus, based on the assumption he told Operator Sean that the ‘suspect’ was headed for the back entrance, he ran over to RVC and then South on RVC just a bit so he would have a view of the East gate. Once obtaining that view, he stopped running. This distance is consistent with the range he could have covered in that time (it’s only a few seconds farther than the T itself…)

      This scenario has the advantage of explaining why he continued running after Sean told him “we don’t need you to do that” and why he continued for a specific length of time. (He’s not THAT winded when he stops. He recovers his breath quick enough that he certainly could have run farther at the same pace had he desired.) From a vantage point on RVC he could see that Trayvon had NOT left The Retreat, allowing him to walk South with his eyes peeled during the remainder of the call.

      If Trayvon was winded at all, as DeeDee reports, he did not just hide behind one of those little fences behind the units at the North end of the sidewalk. For one thing, i can’t believe he’d be that stupid. Those fences are poor cover, would leave him trapped against the building if discovered by GZ, and are right up against the residents living rooms, yielding the possibility that they would see him and be disturbed. So he has to have run further down the sidewalk.

      From the first time I looked at the clock and the map, i concluded that the only plausible way Trayvon could have would up near the T at the time of the confrontation (yes, the 2 minutes + matter a lot) is if he was moving away from George Zimmerman. This is what DeeDee reports: GZ picking up TM’s trail again, being behind him again, and then catching up. This must IMHO have followed some South-to-North path, which means that somehow GZ must have worked his way to position South of TM, far enough from the T that this walking pursuit as described by DeeDee covered a non-trivial distance.

      • bettykath says:

        whonoze, This description is what I think happened. But where is the evidence, apart from enough time? There is a witness who saw one or two figures running toward the T. Is there anything else?

      • whonoze says:

        There is no ‘hard’ evidence. The hypothesis is supported by:

        * W2 who reported vaguely seeing someone running North toward the T.

        * DeeDee’s report that ‘the man was following Trayvon again’ for a number of seconds before Trayvon turned to ask him ‘Why you followin me for?’, and her report that both men seemed winded during their brief verbal confrontation. Both indicate they covered some distance, and if they wound up on the North end it’s logical they started at a more Southerly position.

        * When GZ changes his mind about meeting the arriving officer at the mailboxes, and instead asks the officer to call him, I believe he has realized that he has moved far enough away from his truck (by walking South down RVC) that he might not get back to the mailboxes before the police arrive.

        I have the feeling, per many of the comments on this blog, that the prosecution does not feel the need to explain exactly what happened. AFAIK, the SPD has never done a thorough canvas of the neighborhood to see if anyone saw GZ walking between the time he left his truck and the time of the confrontation. Establishing where exactly he was during that time could be of crucial importance. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the prosecutors to ask, given that this is a major case costing the State a lot of money, and likely a make or break moment in the careers of everyone involved.

        • You said,

          “I have the feeling, per many of the comments on this blog, that the prosecution does not feel the need to explain exactly what happened. AFAIK, the SPD has never done a thorough canvas of the neighborhood to see if anyone saw GZ walking between the time he left his truck and the time of the confrontation. Establishing where exactly he was during that time could be of crucial importance. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the prosecutors to ask, given that this is a major case costing the State a lot of money, and likely a make or break moment in the careers of everyone involved.”

          I don’t know what the prosecutors are thinking, but I do know that experienced prosecutors generally try to Keep It Simple when they put on their case. They do that by focusing on proving the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and ignoring everything else.

          The elements of Murder 2 are:

          1. That on or about February 26, 2012 in Seminole County, Florida;

          2. The defendant unlawfully killed another person;

          3. By committing an act that was imminently dangerous to another person;

          4. Evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life;

          5. Although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,

          As you can see, they are not necessarily required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether Zimmerman approached Martin from the south or from the north or their exact location when physical contact first occurred, or what were their exact positions relative to each other when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.

          Nevertheless, to the extent that the jury might expect or require the prosecution to answer one or more of those questions before it would find the defendant guilty, erring on the side of attempting to answer those questions may be the wiser course of action.

          This is an example of why I loved trying cases. No matter how long you do it and no matter how good you get, you never stop learning new stuff.

  11. Dennis says:

    Frederick, I have just been made aware that an Osterman book about Zimmerman and the shooting is coming out soon. They already have several factual errors in the first chapter alone from what I am reading. The moment that book is published the prosecution is going to enter that into evidence and I think that will effectively destroy Osterman’s credibility as well. The prosecution will question Osterman on the stand and ask him about certain things in the book. Wouldn’t Zimmerman have to confirm on the stand that Osterman is lying, otherwise he might be subject to perjury?

    • Zhickel says:

      Dennis, I’ve read what’s purported to be a transcript of a recollection of a condensation of the first chapter of that book.

      Firstly, we need to wait until the book is published to read first-hand what the author says.

      Secondly, in any re-telling of Zimmerman’s story, this book is no more reliable than the accounts of his father or other family members; they are only repeating, through their own prisms of credulity, belief, prejudice and possibly shonky recollection, the story that George told them.

      One thing that gave me a giggle in the (possibly bogus) first chapter was the authors rather pompous and officious declaration that Zim’s head was cleaned up because police have to return a clean car. A totally tragic fail at identifying with the LE brotherhood.

    • Rachael says:

      Did you see any pf the discussion about the book above?

    • SearchingMind says:

      @ Dennis

      “Frederick, I have just been made aware that an Osterman book about Zimmerman and the shooting is coming out soon. They already have several factual errors in the first chapter alone from what I am reading (…).”

      Factual errors? Which factual error? Which version is factual? Which version is erroneous?

    • SearchingMind says:

      “Wouldn’t Zimmerman have to confirm on the stand that Osterman is lying, otherwise he might be subject to perjury?”

      No, because, among others, we do not know which of the two is telling the truth. It is possible Zimmerman told different stories to different people regarding ‘what happened’. It is possible that Osterman is embellishing what Zimmerman told him (for whatever reason). It is also possible that Osterman is making things up in his book, etc.

      But the information attributed to Zimmerman by Osterman in quotation marks would be admitted as impeachment evidence against Zimmerman.

      • bettykath says:

        SearchingMind says
        “But the information attributed to Zimmerman by Osterman in quotation marks would be admitted as impeachment evidence against Zimmerman.”

        I don’t see this. imo, The person who wrote the book is the only one who can be held accountable for what’s in the book, even if it’s quoting someone else.

        If the book can be admitted as evidence (and I’m not sure that it can be) I see it’s use as only to impeach the testimony of Osterman.

        • I disagree. The prosecution can introduce any statement that GZ made to anyone about this case, whether or not that person is a police official. That necessarily includes any statement he made to Mark Osterman.

          That doesn’t mean they will introduce it. For example, they aren’t likely to offer any exculpatory statement like “I shot him in self-defense.”

          I don’t know if Osterman’s book is out yet. Since he’s a friend of Zimmerman, I am expecting a book heavily slanted in Zimmerman’s favor. I doubt there will be any statements in it that conflict with Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.

          There may be some statements, however, that conflict with previous statements Zimmerman made, but there is no shortage of those statements. They have an embarrassment of riches. Their problem will be deciding which ones not to use.

          I also doubt that they will want to do anything to promote Osterman’s book.

      • Dennis says:

        The prosecution can subpoena Osterman and question him regarding statements that Zimmerman made to him. If Osterman testifies that Zimmerman said A, but Zimmerman on record said B instead, Zimmerman’s credibility goes down. It can work the other way around too. Osterman’s book will only create more headaches for the defense. It will ultimately damage both Osterman’s and Zimmerman’s credibility. All that matters to the prosecution, is what Zimmerman told Osterman regarding what happened. That is why Osterman will end up being subpoenaed.

      • bettykath says:

        I think there is a difference between what Zimmerman told Osterman and what Osterman wrote in his book, as in, “what did George say to you?” The answer cannot be “it’s in the book”.

        What Z said to O is admissible, but O’s writing of it is not. Unless the prosecution (or the defense?) can use the book to impeach O’s testimony.

    • “Wouldn’t Zimmerman have to confirm on the stand that Osterman is lying, otherwise he might be subject to perjury?”

      No, GZ has a right to remain silent and not testify and cannot be punished for exercising that right..

  12. rachael says:

    I have tried again to post a link several times and it won’t take my post – but google insanity plea add/adhd and look at about the 4th one down called Attention Deficit Hyper Activity Disorder: Legal Implications –

    Anyway, it says that ADHD is not sufficient for an insanity defense because there are no cognitive deficits associated with it but there are aspects that could explain or mitigate a crime.

    Very interesting article!

    • Dave says:

      Very interesting indeed! There are a couple of things that I take away from this.

      First of all, ADHD could affect the person’s competence to make decisions such as waiving his Miranda rights. O’Mara might use this argument to suppress Zimmerman’s various statements to the police.

      Also ADHD is associated with impulsive, sometimes violent behavior. It could very well have been an element in Zimmerman’s ill-conceived decision to chase and apprehend Trayvon. That would not justify his actions but it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing if this was a case of assault and battery and/or false imprisonment/illegal detention or whatever.

      Zimmerman was supposedly diagnosed with ADHD as a child. Apparently he was still being treated for the condition as an adult. Therefor I think it is safe to assume that the implications of the condition have been explained to him repeatedly and that he should have been aware of this tendency toward dangerous, impulsive behavior.

      Nevertheless, he bought a pistol, learned to shoot it, obtained a permit to carry it concealed in public, and routinely went about armed. These are not impulsive acts. They were the conscious actions over an extended period of time of a man who should have realized that he lacked the good judgement to know when to use and when not to use his weapon and they are key elements in the series of acts that led to the senseless death of Trayvon Martin. Therefor I do not believe that ADHD should be a mitigating factor

      • Vicky says:

        Dave, I complete
        Y agree with you. Keep in mind that ADHD would not be a factor in whether or not GZ understood his rights. Individuals with ADHD are usually within the normal to above average range of intelligence.
        Only about 2% of the adult population live with ADHD. I happen to be one of them. Although there are times when I have the attention span of a fruit fly, I fully understand my Miranda Rights. I also understand the disorder, and am a fairly successful adult working in the behavioral health field. IMO, there are very few mental illnesses that fall under what I would consider a diminished capacity/insanity defense, and ADHD isn’t one of them.
        If you ask me, his “diagnosed” ADHD should be an aggravating factor since GZ openly admits his illness effects his thinking process. He should have self regulated his fitness to carry a concealed weapon. I call that depraved indifference.

      • Dave says:

        Vicky, I didn’t mean to suggest that people with ADHD lack intelligence and I’m sure that you–and GZ–understand your Miranda rights. However the article cited by Rachael specifically mentions that a person with ADHD might impulsively waive those rights without considering the implications. I would expect O’mara to consider this as an argument in favor of suppressing GZ’s Mirandized statements.

      • bettykath says:


        I might consider it an impulsive act to waive Miranda rights at the get-go, but Zimmerman waived them repeatedly, even after he discussed events with his father, a former magistrate, and his buddy Mark, a former LEO.

        Did his father and Mark give him any advice? Did they tell him he should shut up and get a lawyer? Maybe they did and he thought he knew better than they. Or maybe they believed that George could talk his way out of it.

      • Dave says:

        bettykath, you raise a very important point. It would be much easier to challenge GZ’s initial Miranda waivers by arguing for ADHD-related impulsivity than to use the same argument to challenge those waivers that preceded his later “corrected” statements. Still, eliminating the earliest statements from evidence would make it easier for O’Mara to “harmonize” GZ’s later statements with each other and with other evidence.

        I don’t doubt that Osterman and (maybe) Rob Zimmerman advised him to keep quiet and retain a lawyer and failing to convince him, helped him to “refine” his story.

      • rayvenwolf says:

        @Betty & Dave: From what I have read not once in the early stages did AMMO suggest to GZ that he zip his lips and get a lawyer. Which considering MO’s prior line of employment is odd. And even without a background in LE or the law in general any sane person would have said after the first night – get a lawyer, especially after getting a second request for questioning. Even GZ should have known this. I think his arrogance got the better of him in regards to have representation early on and limiting what was said to the cops.

      • rachael says:

        @Dave – ” a person with ADHD might impulsively waive those rights without considering the implications. I would expect O’mara to consider this as an argument in favor of suppressing GZ’s Mirandized statements.”

        I sure don’t because one could come back and say he could impulsively shoot a gun and kill someone without considering the implications – not somewhere that he would likely want to go.

  13. rachael says:

    Hmmm, it doesn’t seem to be letting me post links again – let me try this one more time.

    This is a REALLY interesting article:


    Finally, although the diagnosis of ADHD is not sufficient for an insanity defense (because there are no cognitive deficits associated with ADHD that would meet the “knowing” prong typically required for insanity), there are some aspects to ADHD that may explain or mitigate a crime.

  14. Malisha says:

    I would guess that it’s too late for O’Mara to try to use any form of the insanity defense. I don’t know Florida law on this issue, of course. But ADD/ADHD won’t do it, IMHO.

  15. TM says:

    If O’Mara presents the actions of GZ the night of shooting Trayvon
    as those actions being normal and reasonable..CONSIDERING..
    that he has mental condition, enough to cause his reaction to the situation to be what it was, then I think he can at least get sent to a
    mental hospital instead of a criminal facility. ADD/ADHD patients usually are “in the moment”, tunnel vision, forgetful. without the sensitive emotions to express caring as the recognized average.

    • GZ would have to have a full blown, textbook ADHD to be THAT uncaring and non-chalant! I have mild ADHD; true on the impulsiveness and some forgetfulnes but EMOTIONALLY ADHD people feel tons of remorse AFTER an explosion or meltdown. Maybe you are thinking Asperger’s or some form of autism?

  16. Vicky says:

    I agree. GZ is pretty much stuck with his statements. So O’Mara is left with convincing a jury his actions were reasonable and what would be expected of anyone else under the same circumstances. So the last thing he needs is any form of mental illness entering the equation. The most devastating information that could be present in his records would be an involuntary commitment to a mental health institution in his past or a voluntary commitment turned involuntary. Which I sincerely doubt, since O’Mara would be begging for a plea were that the case.
    However, if GZ was under the care of a mental health professional for depression or bipolar disorder (or any other serious disorder) or had recently experienced suicidal ideation, etc., it will be more difficult for O’Mara to sell a jury that his actions/reactions or perceptions that night were normal and reasonable. Especially given his completely inappropriate affect following such a dramatic event, and the fact that the general public has a pretty strong bias against individuals with mental illness possessing a firearm.

  17. Malisha says:

    I think George has told the “He punched me in the nose and got on top of me and was punching and slamming my head and I was yelling help help and he reached for my gun and I shot him” story too often for there to be much use in a recant now. ADD, ADHD, GOD or anything else — he told the story to the Singleton/Serino team twice, told it again in the re-enactment, again at the voice-stress test, again on Hannity, again and again. I don’t think he can recant it enough to unborn it or unring all the bells. His injuries were so minor that he can’t prove a reasonable fear.

    That’s the same two cents’ worth I had before I saw most of the paperwork and watched the video re-enactment, but it’s still worth two cents to me. O’Mara will do his best and my prediction is a plea deal if George can’t escape.

    • Speaking of plea deals, a poster on Huff Post commented ” Let me show you how Angie’s plea deals work. Angie went after a man who raped and killed a little girl and molested another. Angie went for the death penalty. The defense begged Angie for a plea. Now remember this man killed ONE. Angie exchanged death for SIX LIFE SENTENCES and got it. This is how Angie likes to play the plea deal game :-)” .

  18. Vicky says:

    I don’t think the ADHD defense will fly. And were I O’Mara, I would hesitate to introduce it. To do so opens the door to his diagnostic records. Depending on the type of ADHD GZ is diagnosed with (if a formal diagnosis has been made) bringing it up could be a double edged sword. If O’Mara claims a behavior disorder, he will need to back it up with documentation. Additionally, there are times when an individual can have a coexisting disorder. If such is the case, would it be in GZ’s best interest to have it disclosed? I would venture to guess not. Statistically, about 1/3 of children diagnosed with ADHD have a coexisting disorder. The most common are: Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Anxiety and Depression, and BiPolar Disorder. It these issues are not addressed effectively during childhood, they can lead to serious problems in adulthood. For example: Conduct Disorder can lead to Antisocial Personality Disorder in adults. If GZ was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder as a child, his actions that night could well be viewed as symptomatic of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Since it appears he continued to experience symptoms of some level of mental illness into adulthood (medications prescribed) and claim of being under the care of a psychologist to the PA, it would appear he was experiencing more than issues with ADHD. A family doctor can easily prescribe for ADHD, and often to if no other significant mental health issues are present.

    As for the missing two minutes. Just as GZ may not have been pursing Trayvon during that time (I believe logic would lead one to that conclusion based upon his actions immediatey preceding the confrontation), Trayvon could have believed he lost the creepy man when he ran, and felt no need to hurry on back – out of sight, out of mind.
    Trayvon was a teenager, and to view his actions through the eyes of an adult is flawed thinking.
    I was with my teenage grandson at a lake over the weekend. I texted him at 9:30 last night that he needed to head back to our dock “before too long”. One half hour later, he was still on his buddy’s dock. I texted him again that he needed to head back “now”. I watched him walking back, while talking on the phone (with his girl friend it turned out). It took him another 15 minutes to make a three minute walk, many short stops along the way. I teased him about how long it took him. He was shocked when I proved to him that it took him 15 minutes to walk back, and that my original text had been sent 45 minutes earlier.

    • Vicky~ Also, along with opening his records, would any previous broken noses show up? Indeed, MOM seemed very adamant that the medical records remain sealed so something is there that MOM wants to remain secret. I agree with you that the ADHD possibility will not be brought up officially intrial.

      • Malisha says:

        Apparently if the nose was broken in the past, it shows up in a certain way on X-rays and a good radiologist can tell.

        It would appear to me that George does not WANT an X-ray.

    • didy8369 says:

      @ Vicky: Question: Since I’ve recently listened to the interviews Z did with Serino.. I’m referring to the 2-29 interview… On that he tells Serino he has ADHD and the meds/dosage he’s on…Won’t the jury get those transcripts or hear the audio, then in turn know about Z and his medication? What is the purpose of him making those statements.. to both Singleton and Serino etc if they won’t be entered and used? I’m just wondering what your insight is regarding this because I know next to nothing about how the proceedings will be … But I just thought of this while reading what you were saying about whether the ADHD will be brought up… Thanks in advance if you have any thoughts, I’d like to hear them!

    • whonoze says:

      @ Vicky
      “Trayvon was a teenager, and to view his actions through the eyes of an adult is flawed thinking.”

      Well, yeah, but do you expect unassailable logic from the defense, do you expect the jury to be immune to flaws? If you want evidence of the power of flawed thinking, just look at the polls showing the Romney/Ryan ticket actually has a chance in November.

      I’m trying to encourage folks here to start thinking like Mark O’Mara has to think, to better prepare for what could actually happen at trial. Persuading a jury is not just a matter of having a more logical position. And remember, O’Mara doesn’t need to convince the whole jury there’s reasonable doubt. A hung-jury mistrial would be a victory for the defense in O’Mara’s long war of attrition.

  19. Brown says:

    Correction witness 19

  20. CherokeeNative says:

    The only thing that bothers me about Citizen’s statement is he mentions that he asked for an attorney – and I believe once you have requested the presence of counsel – LE are no longer allowed to question you until you are afforded an attorney. But if Citizen continued to talk even after requesting an attorney, they could rely upon it as a waiver of the earlier request. I’m pretty sure that is how it works, but someone will correct me if I am wrong. The important part is to shut up until you have been given counsel.

  21. whonoze says:

    The fact that commenters on this site don’t think the missing two minutes matter doesn’t mean squat. None of us are going to be on the jury. bettykath wrote, “If the defense gives a credible story about the 2 minutes it will be the first time. None of the stories GZ has told so far does it.” GZ is not the defense. O’Mara has said nothing about the missing two minutes, and if you think he won’t at trial, you’re fooling yourself.

    “I don ‘t want to give the whole thing out because I don’t know where this kid is at.”

    At the end of the call, there is no PROOF he has any idea where Trayvon is, and therefore no PROOF that he was following anyone at that point or thereafter. Neighborhood Watch rules are not legally binding. (I assume MOM will object to having them entered as evidence, and IANAJ but I suspect he might win that one.)

    The ONLY way self-defense can be established AFAICT is if there is some support for GZ’s claim that Trayvon approached him and initiated the encounter. The missing two minutes allow for that possibility. O’Mara is not going to lay down and die because people here are sure he has no case. He’s going to present the most zealous defense of his client he can mount, because that’s his job within the structure of our judicial system.

    O’Mara will establish that Trayvon had time to go home, but didn’t. He will have GZ recant many details of his prior statements (he’s got ADHD, you know…) and admit that yes, he had the upper hand during the fight, and that yes Trayvon was howling, but from the moment hoodie-kid confronted him he was in fear for his life, and when none of the neighbors responded to his calls for help — which did sound just like the exemplar, and which aren’t heard on W11’s call — he did eventually “lose wrist control” of the crazed howling teenager and felt Trayvon reaching for the gun, or at least that’s what he really really really thought Trayvon was doing, so he had NO CHOICE but to defend himself. Yeah, he told some whoppers but he was scared people wouldn’t believe the truth and besides, did I forget to mention he has ADHD and forgets things all the time… like the name of the street he’s on, and why he left his truck, and which way he was walking. But hey he got whacked on the head, and besides that, he’s got ADHD. And why was this kid up at the T when he should have been at home anyway?

    You might think such a defense would be a desperation tactic, but that’s what the prosecutors thought about the defenses of O.J. Simpson, Stacy Koons, and Casey Anthony. Don’t count your jailbirds before they’re actually convicted.

    • cielo62 says:

      Humph! Your superb rebuttal is like ice water on a BBQ. I had wondered what the defense could do and your plausible KISS scenario matches enough of the story to get GZ at least a sympathetic hearing especially in those neck of the woods. Still I think the initial incidence of who is the aggressor MUST start much earlier. GZ’s stories after his actions to pursue would seem irrelevant to me.

    • whonoze~~what you just described is exactly the way I thought things may have gone down. Then I read all the different theories and slowly changed my mind. Oh at ADHD will play a part in this and Mark O’Mara is no one’s fool. I predicted that he would get Lester off the bench. Not sure that was the best move but his writ influenced the appeals court. Thank for your great input.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Whonoze ~ I missed where the two missing minutes are being discussed up thread but what about the witness (who didn’t have her contacts in) who saw two people (or one) running? Can this compensate for part of those two minutes? And the arguing, at least one of the witnesses heard verbal arguing before the altercation – that has to eat up some of the time as well.

      Even with the missing minutes, I do not see how GZ or MOM are going to get around the fact that W18 saw GZ on top when the shot was fired, that none of GZ’s blood or DNA was on Trayvon’s hands, under his nails, or on the sleeves of his hoodie, that the bullet trajectory is impossible with GZ on the bottom, and I am sure I am missing something.

      I fail to see how the two missing minutes really matter and whether or not Trayvon hit GZ – he was scared out of his friggin whits and had no way of knowing that GZ had decided to return to his vehicle. For all Trayvon knew, this dude was still seeking him out and he finally decided to confront his pursuer and ask “why are you following me?” If that is truly what happened but I doubt.

      I just don’t see a jury of reasonable minds falling for any story the defense tries to put forth given the facts.

    • Xena says:

      “I don ‘t want to give the whole thing out because I don’t know where this kid is at.”

      Which means, he ran but I don’t think he ran out of the complex and is still around, which is why I need my tactical flashlight to work just after I stopped running behind the kid so I can see all the way to the end of the street to get an address that I’m parked at, although I’m not parked there. And, I’ll call that address in, although I won’t call it in now, which means I could forget it because I have ADHD. And oh — where did I put my cell phone? In a pocket on my right side where I carry my gun, or in a pocket on my left-side?

    • ada4750 says:

      @whonoze You are right. This is the only possible line of defense. And as i wrote you, it is very surprising that De la Rionda didn’t ask DeeDee any question about the conservation she had with Trayvon Martin when he was near his house. I hope to be wrong, but it is like he was scared of the answer.

      Of course GZ was not following at the end of his call but that doesn’t mean he did not search. Also because the timeline, he obviously lied on what he did right after the call. That’s one more. But plenty of small lies don’t prove the big one. I wouldn’t like to be a juror with this evidence.

      @malisha I am not someone who fears easily but if i have been in GZ position for sure after having my head bumped a couple of times on the hedge of the sidewalk and being under a “bum” (!!in my mind!!) i would certainly be scared enough to justifies SD. But this would be enough only if i didn’t start the confrontation. Which brings us back to whonoze point.

      • whonoze says:

        @ ada
        Yes, it’s shocking De La Rionda didn’t ask DeeDee to unpack that comment “a couple minutes later.” However, if you read my analysis of her statement, you’ll see I highly doubt she means that literally. She says “a couple minutes later” a few times in her interviews, and its seems in her inarticulate usage to be an idiom for “some amount of time passed” — not neccesarily 120 seconds, but maybe anywhere from 10 seconds to fifteen minutes.

    • Dennis says:

      ADHD is not Alzheimer’s disease. It surely does not cause one to give multiple ridiculous versions with huge variations regarding the murder of an innocent teenager. Zimmerman got out of the vehicle to pursue and find Martin, eventually confronting him. This is confirmed by the statements of Martin’s girlfriend. She actually has something they call “credibility” which is something Zimmerman and Osterman do not have. Her testimony in front a jury will be very heartbreaking for them to hear.

      Zimmerman was “whacked on the head”? His vitals were fine. He was coherent. No signs of a concussion. He denied EMT. Two tiny scrapes which do not require stitches does not even come close to the claim of his head being bashed into the concrete, not even a single time. Where are the wounds on Martin’s hands from him punching Zimmerman repeatedly? One tiny scrape under his ring. No cuts or bruises to his knuckles.

      • whonoze says:

        You understand I’m playing “sociopath’s advocate” here, right?

        You’re not seeing the ways in which GZ can “walk back” his previous statements (i.e. replace old lies with new ones), and you’re not seeing how O’Mara can impeach the credibiiity of prosecution witnesses, especially DeeDee (and no, he won’t be aggressive with her, he’ll be sweet and kind and rip her TESTIMONY to shreds).

        “I guess he wasn’t really punching me, and maybe he wasn’t even trying to bash my head. Maybe he was just pushing back at me because I had his other hand in a wrist lock. And maybe my head hit that utility cover when we went to the ground, but it sure rang my bell for a while. I can see how i could have been mistaken about what was happening, being so scared and all and then getting my head whacked and all…”

      • ada4750 says:

        @whonoze “O’Mara can rip DeeDee’S testimony” Oh yes! I am puzzled (among others) with the part just before GZ reached Trayvon. She said that Trayvon was too out of breath to run. How come? He did rest for 2-3 minutes and before that he ran no more then 70 yards. Maybe the stress? Anyhow, it is very annoying that De la Rionda didn’t ask her more information.

        Well, i am “out” for a while. Good bye all.

      • nemerinys says:

        whonoze – I very much appreciate your insistence on laying out the “big picture” of the tools O’Mara has to portray a sufficient self-defense position to stymy the BRD requirement.

        I believe one of the biggest problems for Zimmerman (aside from the aggressor issue and the debris field) is that he appears to have had physical control of Trayvon prior to shooting him. Also, his ability to “shimmy” his body also reflects an ability to physically block any effort by Trayvon to reach his holstered gun located at the five o’clock position at right back hip (making it unlikely, particularly in the dark, that Trayvon either saw or felt the gun in the first place). The “grave and imminent danger” component is belied by Zimmerman’s apparent control of his relative physical freedom of movement and his control of Trayvon’s.

        Remember, Zimmerman never stated that he shot Trayvon in response to the “head banging” or “face punching,” but, rather, in response to his allegation that Trayvon was going for his gun. His statement that he had forgotten that he had a gun until that time is unreasonable, given both his continual wearing of it and that he had allegedly been lying on the ground with the gun digging into his back. And it was precisely at that time, when he chose to unholster his gun, that he was in control of the situation.

        As for DeeDee, she is as much an “earwitness” as all the others, with two exceptions: (1) she specifically witnesses Trayvon’s state of mind whilst being followed by Zimmerman, and (2) she has no idea of the locations and distances involved. I don’t believe O’Mara will have all that easy a time to destroy her testimony given those two exceptions, which the prosecution would be sure to address.

  22. Malisha~~ If factual, this would be hard to prove because it would be the citizens word against the couple police officers. This is why these interrogations must be video and audio taped. The Miranda should also be on audio and the Miranda form signed. PDept’s have to do everything legal. If the police unplugged the phone in the interrogation room, it would be on video. It is apparent that the citizen was aware of the said ‘incident’ otherwise how could be shed himself in an innocent light when he made out the statement? What’s up with drawing explicit sexual pics or whatever of the police officers on one of the statement? This is almost begging the cops to box the citizens ears.

  23. Citizen says:

    When the citizen was handed the first copy of the statement form, the citizen drew a diagonal line through the ‘statement’ part of the form and said “That is my statement.” Why then did the police officers tear up what should be a legal and official document? Why did the police insist that the citizen edit or add to his statement?

  24. CherokeeNative says:

    Let me correct my statement above… Only when you are being detained and not free to leave (not necessarily arrested) are they required to give you your Miranda rights.

    • Dave says:

      Is there a legal distiction between being arrested and being detained?

      • rachael says:

        Yes – when you are detained, you are being held without a charge, arrest is when you are charged.

        You can be detained for questioning but there are no charges. If you are taken into custody on charges, you are arrested.

      • Dave says:

        Thanks, Rachael!

      • rachael says:

        @Cielo – I don’t know. Someone “official” here will have to answer that, because I’ve heard various things. I’ve heard:

        24 hours
        48 hours
        Long enough to decide if there is probable cause

        And my son was once detained for 72 hours, but that was because they picked him up on a Friday and could hold him over the weekend and the weekend hours did not count so I guess it was not “really” 72 hours even though it was.

        Sorry, don’t know for sure.

  25. CherokeeNative says:

    From what I am reading, Citizen followed the LE to the station instead of asking if he was under arrest and if they replied “no”, then he was under no obligation to follow. Once he followed them voluntarily to the police station, his next mistake was failing to ask whether he was free to leave, and if so, leave. If he didn’t ask those questions, he was acting voluntarily and everything he did during his time there would be admissible. Only when you are under arrest are LE required to give you your Miranda rights if they want to be able to use what they have illicited from you. They can verbally read you your Miranda rights, or have you sign a statement giving your Miranda rights. Appears to me that LE was bluffing Citizen into voluntarily admitting information under his own wrongful assumption that he was required to follow and then provide information. Lots of people make that mistake.

    • Citizen says:

      Yet the citizens rights exist even if the citizen does not know to ask for them or insist on them. It is an unfortunate condition of our society that the police rely upon the citizen to be ignorant of their rights.

  26. Malisha says:

    Unless those police officers had “probable cause” it appears they were unlawfully restraining someone. Weren’t they?

    • Dave says:

      It’s not clear from what Citizen has written whether the citizen was actually restrained and if so at what point in time, how, and for how long. We also have to know how the law has changed in the 30 years since this incident occurred.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Malisha – As I read Citizen’s story, he followed LE to the station voluntarily, and never asked whether he was free to leave once there. In actuality, he may have been free to leave at will, but never asked or attempted to do so. So, technically, LE was not restraining him against his will. They kept tearing up his worthless statements until he gave one they were happy with, when he could have refused and tried to leave the building, thereby forcing their hand to either detain or arrest him.

  27. Citizen~~you are just giving us a ‘skeleton’ of a story. How about putting some meat on the bones and giving us the real scoop? It seems that you want to hear from us that the police did everything wrong. If you do, fatten up that bag of bones. lol

  28. Citizen~~did this incident take place in the state of Florida? During all interrogations now, it is all video and audio taped. I believe that applies to all states in the US. How serious was the ‘other incident’ that the PD wanted a statement for? What was the other incident??

    • Citizen says:

      It took place in Illinois in 1981 or 82. The ‘incident’ that the police wanted a statement about never occurred either. The entire incident was the police on a so-called fishing expedition.

      • Xena says:

        AHHA!!! Illinois circa 1980’s. Let me take a guess. The citizen lived in a suburb or city other than the city or suburb where the unrelated matter purportedly happened??

  29. Citizen says:

    There was no subpoena. The citizen was not trying to avoid being served. The citizen had done nothing to be served or subpoenaed for. The police did not read the citizen his rights. The police did not tell the citizen that he did not have to follow them to the station.

    • Rachael says:

      Was the citizen ever finally charged with anything? I agree, something seems to be missing. There was anothet matter the police wanted to questiom him about? Wa he some kind of person of interest in some kind of crime?

  30. Citizen~~sorry I just reread your comment and noticed the following..the citizen is commanded by the police to make a statement regarding the citizen’s involvement in a matter unrelated to being in the grocery store parking lot.

    My question now is, did the police issue a subpeona for the citizen to appear at the PDept to be questioned prior to them surrounding his car in the parking lot? This would be the proper way to do things. Maybe the citizen has been avoiding being served said subpoena by the PD so they decided to see if he would go down to the PDept to give a statement. Did he get read his Miranda rights or were they just on the form they asked the citizen to fill out? What would happen if the citizen couldn’t read the M rights? His reading glasses were at home.

  31. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    SPD is use to operating like this…they could care less just keep my retirement coming…To try to make the crime scene fit GZ story is amazing. They need to be prosecuted.

    Just my opinion…

  32. Fred or anyone~~when you give a written statement at the PDept, are you read your Miranda rights prior to the written statement?

  33. Citizen~~I would like to know why the manager did not want the citizen parking in his parking lot. We need more information to try and solve this one. It is really a bizarre story.

    • Citizen says:

      The highest probability is that grocery store/manager was not aware that anything took place. It is most highly probable that the police officer was telling lies to intimidate the citizen.

  34. Citizen says:

    It was not Sanford PDept.

  35. The Citizen had the right to park in the grocery store parking lot if he was a customer of the store. The Citizen did not have to follow the police car. There has to be an offense committed before you can have a suspect. The police had no right to ask the Citizen if he wanted to follow him to the station. The police did everything wrong. Was this Sanford PDept? lol

    • Dave says:

      I agree that the cops did a great deal that was “wrong” in the sense that they treated the citizen badly and in ways that will probably render his written statement inadmissable as evidence against the citizen.

      The citizen also did a great deal that was wrong. First, he should have asked whether he was under arrest. If told that he was not , he should have immediately left the scene. If at any point he was ordered not to leave or prevented from leaving he should have considered himself under arrest and invoked his right to remain silent and requested a lawyer.

      And insulting the cops is flatout stupid.

  36. The police had to read ‘out loud’ the Citizen’s Miranda rights.

  37. Citizen says:

    Professor, what would you think of this situation? A citizen who has no wants or warrants is sitting in his car in a grocery store parking lot. A police car with 4 police officers inside pulls up next to the citizen’s car. One police officer says to the citizen “the manager of the store does not want you parking here; we can get the manager out here to file charges against you right now.” (The statement by the officer was most probably false). Then the police officer says to the citizen “You want to follow us to the station? (The police officer did not tell the citizen that the citizen did not have to follow the police to the station and the citizen believed that he was required to follow). At the station the citizen is lead into an interior, windowless room and directed to sit in a chair. An official form for making a statement, , with the Miranda pre-printed on it, is placed on the desk in front of the citizen and the citizen is commanded by the police to make a statement regarding the citizen’s involvement in a matter unrelated to being in the grocery store parking lot. The citizen refuses to make a statement and draws a diagonal line through the paper. The police officer’s take the form away from the citizen and tear it up and place another blank form in front of the citizen. The citizen states that he wishes to call a lawyer. The police unplug the telephone and take it away. The citizen writes derogatory statements about the police on the form and the citizen insists that that is his statement. The police take the form away tear it up and place a new blank form in front of the citizen, telling the citizen that he is required to make a statement. One of the police officers asks the ranking officer if he should beat up the citizen. The citizen makes sexually explicit drawings of police officers on the form and insists that that is his statement. The police take the form away, tear it up and place a new blank form in front of the citizen and insist on a statement. So, after being locked in the room for some time, denied communication with an attorney, threatened with a beating and have been told that the citizen is required to make a statement, the citizen writes a statement regarding the incident while also placing the citizen in the most innocent light as possible. Only then is the citizen allowed to leave. So, professor, how many laws did the police officers break? This is a true story.

    • Dave says:

      Did the citizen attempt to leave or state that he wished to leave? If not , it would appear that he went to and remained in the station voluntarily. Unless he was prevented from leaving or ordered not to leave he was not in custody. The implied threat of a beating was probably illegal (good luck getting it prosecuted though!) but otherwise I don’t think that the cops violated any laws. If he is charged with a crime, however. any statement that he made might be inadmissable as evidence.

  38. Malisha says:

    Hinkster, even if the phone battery was dead, the police could have: (a) charged it up with a $20 phone charger; (b) contacted the carrier and immediately had them turn over the information from the callers to the police; and/or (c) sent it to the forensics lab FOR COMPLETE FORENSIC INVESTIGATION, none of which was done. Tracy Martin had to find out about Dee Dee’s call on his own. AND where are the earphones?

    This all points in the same direction that, it seems, everything else points in: police cover-up.

    It is my firm belief that if George did NOT have an agreement with the police that they were going to let him go no matter what happened, two sets of things would have gone differently.

    I. Things that the Police would have done differently
    a. Totally investigate the entire scene;
    b. Hold George for the maximum amount of time they could hold him until they had a clear picture of what had happened (this would mean a MINIMUM of 24 hours);
    c. Canvass the neighborhood very thoroughly IMMEDIATELY;
    d. Preserve every gram and drop of evidence; and
    e. Initially, take George to the E.R. because they saw injury on him and they should have wanted the injuries catalogued, professionally assessed, and written down, to protect THEM from charges of police brutality later on down the line.

    II. Things that George would have done differently
    a. He would have lawyered up immediately;
    b. He would have (i) insisted on a trip to the E.R. if there is even the slightest bit of truth in his story about being beaten by Trayvon Martin; or (ii) acted a lot more woozy and faint than he did, if there was no truth at all in his story about being beaten but he needed to pretend he had been hurt.

    See, only if the cops and George have an initial agreement that they will all forget about this little problem do we have the scenario play out as it did; absent both sides knowing the other has agreed to the outcome before the investigation starts do we possibly have it playing out as it did.

  39. My question today has been something I thought of at the beginning while reading the transcripts of the people on sight that night. The law officer who took control of the scene stated he saw (Trayvon’s) phone lying in the grass and told one of the officers to retrieve it and see if he could get some info from it.

    I, immediately thought….hopefully they will preserve it for fingerprints or dna…but, so far it seems I am wrong.

    They do state the phone battery was dead.

    DeeDee tells us that she heard the conversation continue after the altercation began….she heard get off, get off……then nothing.

    The phone was photographed lying in the grass with front side down wasn’t it? Was this a flip/or side slide phone….meaning did you flip/or slide it open to talk? If so when did it get photographed……when did it go dead…and when did it get closed?

  40. Malisha says:

    Good CATCH, Pooh.

    Corey is quiet, having said only, “The Defendant’s statements were inconsistent with the physical evidence.”

    There must be a dozen of these “it cannot have happened that way” in this case, and they only WON’T COME OUT if there is no trial.

  41. Pooh says:

    Off-topic but here’s an interesting point from commenter Merritt over at JusticeQuest:

    “I need to clarify, that the lack of GSR (gun shot residue) on Zimm proves that Zimm was NOT on his back on the ground, when shooting took place…Zimm would have had GSR dotted all over the front of his jacket as the indisputable force of “gravity” wins, not to mention a larger amount of blood splatters missing.”


    • Great information. Thanks for the link. I did not know of this site, and enjoyed reading comments. From the moment I saw the photo’s of Gz at the station I’ve spoken of the gravity of blood. So, the gunshot residue not being there would make sense to me.

      I did a close up of an area on Gz’s face and it’s on my pc, but I do not know how to upload it. I watched LLPapa’s great video’s and he has one up of the blood flow, but it does not depict fully the compelling blood evidence. I just don’t know how to post my photo.

  42. Xena says:

    HAPPY LABOR DAY EVERYONE. And Professor, your labor here is greatly appreciated.

  43. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Malisha —- right on! spot on!

  44. Malisha says:

    Zimmerman got his Mirandas and he signed his waivers.

    Those two bozos who appeared to be his lawyers at first were “hired” with the specific purpose of carrying on about George’s “broken nose” without having to release any photographs of his poor injured pinnochio proboscis — when George got ready to flee, they realized they shouldn’t be standing there looking like they had assisted in that project and all of a sudden, presto chango, they’re gone, George is trying to speak with the prosecutor, and O’Mara shows up straightening his tie and giving interviews with a romping canine.

    • Malisha~~I needed a good laugh. I enjoyed your commentary. I do love O’Mara in spite of his romping canine. lol

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Right on! Spot on!

    • I thought his 1st 2 lawyers were hired by papa Zim? I suppose Georgie is smarter than his old man and went out and got his own lawyer. I never did understand why GZ was talking to these 2 lawyers and then suddenly he fell off the face of the earth. For a while I honestly thought he was going to commit suicide!

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        GZ is too full of himself…

      • crazy1946 says:

        Professor Leatherman, While I think that I already know the answer to this question, I’ll ask it any way, because Zimmerman has claimed he did not hire the two lawyers that his father arranged for, and instead hired MOM, does that mean the first two are bound to the client/attorney relationship and they are not allowed to talk about any conversation they had with him?

        • I don’t believe they can disclose anything George Zimmerman said to them.

          The attorney-client privilege does not require the existence of a formal agreement or payment of money to the lawyer. Basically, it covers anything he said about his case to those lawyers in the context of seeking advice about his legal predicament.

  45. jun says:

    Hi Freddy

    From my understanding, Zimmerman excitedly uttered statements, & there may be some obtained before Miranda on scene. Would these be admissible? Zimmerman was caught red handed, & without any explanation, he would have been arrested on spot, hence his self defense allegations were given. He had made some claims on scene to witnesses and police, however, I have noted that that Zimmerman signed a Miranda waiver and his statements look voluntary.

    • Pursuant to Rule 803(2) excited utterances are admissible, if the statement relates to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. However, the purpose of this exception to the hearsay rule is to allow it to be admitted because it’s a statement made under the influence of the event rather than after an opportunity to figure out what to say about it.

      With the exception of his statements during the struggle, which should be admissible, I think the rest of his statements are not admissible under this exception to the hearsay rule because he had some time to collect his thoughts and consider what he was going to say.

      Statements to non-police witnesses never require Miranda admonishments. Statements to police do not require Miranda admonishments unless the person is being questioned in custody.

      • JUN says:

        Thanks Freddy

        So the statements and stories that Zimmerman made on the scene can be used against him (to prove he was lying and deceiving law enforcement).

        Is Miranda generally read before a person is handcuffed and put inside the back of the car?

        • “So the statements and stories that Zimmerman made on the scene can be used against him (to prove he was lying and deceiving law enforcement.”

          Answer: Yes

          “Is Miranda generally read before a person is handcuffed and put inside the back of the car?”

          Answer: They usually wait to Mirandize a suspect until they are ready to interview him.

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ JUN

        “Is Miranda generally read before a person is handcuffed and put inside the back of the car?”

        It depends on the reason a person is handcuffed and put inside the back of the police car. Rights and obligations under the Miranda-rule apply from the moment an individual is considered a suspect.

      • JUN says:

        Thanks Yall.

  46. The defense would be wise to file a motion to get a gag order in place so that no attorney or potential witness could discuss the case before the media.

    • Rachael says:

      I agree, yet it was the defense itself that went on Hannity. I just don’t understand a lawyer that would allow that except if he was to withdraw from the case, that would really put GZ in a spot, but why would he put himself in a spot? I just don’t understand. Anyway, I’ll have to look at the link I posted on the last entry because I think thete was a question of if a gag order now would cover a show (Dr. Phil) that has already been taped.

      • Rachael~~ IMO, O’Mara allowed Zimmeman to go on the Hannity show because they wanted to get a few more coppers in the cookie jar ( fund account.) O’Mara was very disappointed that Hannity neglected to give the Donation Fund a few plugs during the show. As a result of Z saying he had no regrets and bringing “God’s plan” into the equation, going on the Hannity show was a dire mistake. Let’s just say it backfired on Z. We have to remember that O’Mara is working for Z, even if it is pro bono or at least looks that way. Z gets to call the shots even if O’Mara advises against some of them. Z probably figures he is smarter than his counsel but I wont delve into that.

      • If the judge ruled on a gag order that no potential witness could discuss the case before the media, then Dr Phil would not be allowed to air the show with Osterman as a guest regardless of when it was taped. The taped show does not become news until it is aired.

      • bettykath says:

        “Dr Phil would not be allowed to air the show with Osterman as a guest regardless of when it was taped”

        I’d like to be the fly on the wall when Dr. Phil gets the word should that happen.

      • bettykath~ BZZZZ BZZZZZ BZZZZ! Right there with you!

  47. The attorney/client privilege remains in force even after you no longer represent that client. However the client can sign a waiver releasing you from the a/c privilege.

    Correct, Fred?

    I am not sure that Uhrig and the other attorney were ever officially representing Zimmerman. If so, I would have fired them both on the spot after the presser they gave.

    • “The attorney/client privilege remains in force even after you no longer represent that client. However the client can sign a waiver releasing you from the a/c privilege.

      Correct, Fred?”

      Answer: Yes.

      • rachael says:

        But my question was, according to GZ, they were not his attorneys and never were, he just asked them some stuff or something to that effect, even though the attorneys said they were not aware of that. So is it safe to assume that since the attorneys thought they were representing him, they were or would one say since there was no “meeting of the minds,” they weren’t?

        What kind of games was GZ playing?

  48. Fred~~when Zimmerman was arrested ( cuffs put on) and taken to Sanford PD, was he read his Miranda rights immediately? Let’s assume he was. Zimmerman gives his statement plus the voice stress test. He is allowed to leave.

    The next day Z is summoned to go to the PD and give another statement. My question, do they Mirandize him again or does the first one remain in force?

    • SearchingMind says:

      Yet, a suspect must be mirandized at the beginning of each interrogation – even after a coffee-break!

    • The answer is “not necessarily.” For example, there have been cases where a suspect in custody waived his Miranda rights,and gave a statement, and was returned to his cell. Later that day, police returned, forgot to re-Mirandize him, and asked him some additional questions.

      The Court held that the second statement was admissible because the circumstances in the case had not changed in any material way during the interim period between the two interrogations and the previous waiver was still fresh in the defendant’s mind.

      Nevertheless, it’s risky to conduct a subsequent interrogation without first securing a new Miranda waiver. Since it only takes a few moments to do so, re-Mirandizing a suspect is the preferred practice.

      • I think I understand how the Osterman book can be a part of the prosecution’s questioning. Since Osterman can be questioned about what GZ told him, couldn’t the prosecution ask him about what GZ told him concerning the events of that evening? Then, if Osterman says something other than the further inconsistencies of the book, the prosecutor can ask, “Were you fabricating in the book when you wrote…, or are you lying now?”

  49. rachael says:

    This is sort of on the fly so I’m not sure how accurate it is or that it has a whole lot to do with Miranda, but I wanted to get this written down before I forget. Please correct my inaccuracies – and I can’t remember names – I know I should have researched this better before I posted, but I also know I would forget otherwise.

    I have 3 questions:

    1). I was reading evidence and statements a while back and there was something about the police said GZ said his original lawyers were not really his lawyers and one of the lawyers said he wished GZ had told him that because they spent a lot of time with him – but even if they were not actually his lawyers, they would still be bound by lawyer/client confidentiality, is that correct?

    2). Anyway, I guess it doesn’t matter because they later said that they still believed he was innocent, they just had to withdraw because they lost contact with him. Will that have any effect on a jury do you think?

    3). Mark Osterman has supposedly written that book I mentioned in a previous post and the rumor is, he is going to be hawking it on Dr. Phil – but I’m not so sure about that. But anyway, the book itself can’t be used as testimony because that would be hearsay, right? But Mark Osterman himself is listed as a witness for the state and if GZ told him these things, that can be used, is that correct? I’m just interested because there are a few things that were written (from the first chapter that I read on line) that were inconsistent with any of the other statements GZ made and I am just wondering if that can be used to impeach GZ.

    Anyway, if my questions are out of line with this topic, please feel free to delete my post or answer at another time.


    • Very important point. Glad you raised it.

      Any statement Zimmerman made to Osterman regarding the subject matter of this case is admissible, if relevant and offered by the prosecution pursuant to the Admission by a Party Opponent Rule 801(d)(2)..

      Note that every statement by Zimmerman that appears in the book would be inadmissible hearsay, if offered at trial by the defense to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The reason is Zimmerman is not the party opponent

      But for Rule 801(d)(2), which exempts hearsay statements from the hearsay rule, if offered by the party opponent, the State would not be able to introduce these statements.

      • bettykath says:

        I’m confused.

        I understand that what Zimmerman told Osterman is admissible.

        The statements in the book are not admissible by the defense. Because Zimmerman is NOT the party opponent? I thought that Zimmerman was the party opponent.

        Are the statements in the book admissible by the prosecution? Perhaps to refute Osterman’s testimony?

        I don’t understand the last statement. Sorry to be so obtuse.

      • Rachael says:

        I think Osterman was on the witness list before there was any talk of a book so my guess is the book, while an interesting factor is really just a distraction at this point?

      • Rachael says:

        I mean has the bonus possibility of being another gift to the prosecution, but isn’t really necessary.

    • bettykath says:

      Rachel, I agree that book is probably of no consequence except for putting more confusion in the jury pool, but I’m interested in its admissibility. Is it in any way admissible? If so, under what circumstances.

  50. Malisha says:

    Ezz-Th, a friend of mine is a journalist, and although he is an American (naturalized), he writes primarily in Arabic and is Yemeni by birth. Yet he is a true independent, and reports news, and does his analyses without a preconceived conclusion for or against any particular POV. The reason I gave this so much intro is that he did a graduate course in journalistic ethics, here, in English, and I was his secretary/editor on his coursework. Apparently, the confidentiality of sources for journalists relates to a news source telling the journalist a piece of news “in confidence” which the journalist agrees to keep [not the content, but the source] “in confidence.” Journalists cannot be forced to divulge the source of their information, in that circumstance.

    Frankly, I don’t think that is the same AT ALL as a person in the public eye such as Zimmerman giving information to a journalist such as Hannity and Hannity then trying to claim some kind of privilege applied to the content of the conversations. This applies to individuals talking to their doctors or medical/psychologial providers (medical privilege protected by privacy considerations) and individuals talking to their lawyers (legal privilege based upon the Sixth Amendment I believe), to priests or clergy (some kind of religious application of the privacy thing) or to spouses (spousal privilege based on the right to have a protected confidential relationship with a spouse). I do not think this same kind of thing applies to a journalist, and obviously, George would not be able to rely upon any “expectation of confidentiality” if he told Hannity something that is pertinent to the criminal case.

    Just a guess.

  51. Ezz-Thetic says:

    Professor, I have another question regarding Sean Hannity. Shortly before GZ was arrested he was in contact with Hannity. Can Sean be compelled to testify or is there something similar to attorney client privilege that would apply due to Sean being a news personality?

    • fauxmccoy says:

      i’ll go out on a limb here – but hannity has no legal privilege when in communication with the defendant. an attorney definitely has attorney/client privilege, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse (but they may, if they choose), and if i understand correctly, a priest could assert privilege if information was gained during confession. any other forms of communication between the accused and friends, family, etc. has no such privilege.

      • Good answer. You sound like a lawyer!

        Legal privileges are created by statutes enacted by state and federal legislatures.

        FYI: a contentious area today is whether Congress should create a journalist’s privilege. Although most state legislatures have passed laws that protect journalists from being compelled to identify their sources of information in state proceedings, there is no similar protection in federal proceedings.

        Legal privileges can be sourced back to common law.

  52. whonoze says:

    In the video of W11’s 911 call SG2 posted in the previous thread, LLMPapa asks whether Jeremy could have opened the patio door causing the screaming to get louder on the recording. I can say fairly definitively that the answer to that question is ‘no.’ The screams would not be as loud, or more importantly as clean and crisp as they are to begin with, if anything like a door was in between them and the microphone.

    LLMPapa also asks of W11 and W20, “Is there more to the story of these two?” While I doubt Jeremy was outside, IMHO the answer to that question is still ‘yes.’ The tonal quality the screams have to begin with is almost impossible to obtain without a line of sight mic position. W11 and W20 have a screened in patio. I suspect they went out on the patio when they heard the ruckus, and were there when the shot went off. At that point, I suspect W11 retreated into the townhome and headed up the stairs, pleading for W20 to follow. i suspect her emphatic “Jeremy get in here now!” is spoken while she is on the stairs, where she can still see the first floor, as is it followed directly, in a less urgent tone, by “Jeremy, get up here!” However, I think the referent of ‘here’ is different in each sentence. “Get in here” really only makes sense as “come into the apartment from the porch.” I think Jeremy does that at that point, but perhaps turns back to look out the window, so “get up here” means “come upstairs,”

    However, had these two been on the porch they most likely would have seen SOMETHING. (Depending on how much light was behind them from their living room, or a porch light, they may have had difficulty seeing through the screening.) Not only do their statements say they only heard things, and saw nothing, but both claim they were never on the porch. Jeremy says he was in the kitchen fetching a knife when he heard the shot go off and from there headed upstairs. But unlike the middle units at The Retreat which have the kitchen in back (e.g. John W6’s), the end units have the kitchen in front. So Jeremy places himself nowhere near the action at the time we hear W11 yelling, “Jeremy get down!”

    So, yeah, I suspect they’re hiding something. How much and why, I don’t know.

    FYI, LLMPapa edited out 28 seconds of the call between “Jeremy, get in here now,” and Jeremy’s comment that sounds like “have to warn the interior.” That phrase doesn’t make much sense so he probably actually said something else. The syllable “warn” is pretty clear, but it’s definitely NOT, ““He warned me to stay away.” (Clean out the earwax, folks…)

    • M Onan Batterload says:

      Jeremy is a real estate guy. His fiance had just told the 911 operator, “I’m hiding upstairs; there was a gunshot right outside our house.” So Jeremy jokes, “It’s a warm interior.” Just a little black realtor-humor, imo.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Although I don’t get that particular humor/joke, I mentioned as well hearing him say something about the interior.

      • M Onan Batterload says:

        “I don’t get that particular humor/joke…” – TruthBTold

        Realtors are infamous for euphemistcally describing undesirable features of properties they’re trying to unload. A cramped apartment might be spun as a cozy living-space with an efficient design. A windowless room in a house by a freeway might be described as a “warm interior.”

        When Jeremy utters that phrase,” he’s referring the fact that he & his fiance are huddling in the interior of their home, away from the windows, to avoid stray bullets. He’s sarcastically selling it as a feature. Not funny?

        It’s probably not an accurate description of what was happening there. Jeremy’s fiance definitely wanted him to hide from the windows, but Jeremy didn’t seem to be listening half the time.

  53. TM says:

    ? Is there a point in time when a criminally charged individual abuses the court by lying, by extending a haughty unapologizing behavior, that this behavior can bring about extended time as an addition to the original sought after Murder #2 and its resulting mandatory years of incarceration, as has been exampled in the behavior of George Zimmerman. If it was so, that judge Lester would have added time, does that go away with him, then back to beginnings with judge Nelson.

    • bettykath says:

      Lying can be dealt with by charges of perjury. A separate case with separate penalties.

      The new judge will have all the paperwork of the court dealing with this case.

      I doubt that time would be added but it might influence the judge during sentencing, e.g. a truly remorseful person might be given the minimum sentence but an arrogant non-remorseful person might get the maximum.

      I’m not a lawyer so it’s just my opinion.

  54. TruthBTold says:

    Professor, please check your e-mail when you get a chance. Thank you.

  55. Xena says:

    Professor, what about Hannity’s interview? Would the tape and/or transcript be admissible?

    • hinkster4ever says:

      Xena, Wouldn’t the Hannity interview definitely be allowed? Gz voluntarily gave the interview and recounted the events with his attorney sitting there. I do not know beans about law, but, I am trying to straighten out in my head how the prosecution will present the case….especially presuming Gz does not testify.

      They would use the tapes they have questioning Gz…demonstrating the inconsistencies, then the Hannity interview with even more changes right?

      From the guys teaching us gals about the “take down methods” and the gun pattern/projection…I can foresee experts testifying to that stuff, then all the analysts of the voice evidence on tapes,ect.

      I’m going to put my number one thing of importance to me as a juror and others can put their’s as number 2 and onward. I would like to see others input on exactly what we have learned to bring us to the point of knowing without a doubt as Gz was the aggressor.

      1. My number one point of Gz’s guilt is the definite flow of blood from the original cuts from the back of his head. He states he was on the bottom,…. but, the initial flow of blood is seen as the flow going around his ears…down his face and pooling in his outside edges of his beard. Later on you see a few streams on the back of his head going a short way down. This happens when the clotted ends of blood vessels are cleaned (ie: Emt’s cleaning them or even Gz rubbing them).


      • bettykath says:

        I don’t have a number 1. It’s the accumulation of things that just don’t support any of GZ’s stories. The only part of his stories that I accept without reservation is that GZ fired the shot that killed TM.

        What I find damning for manslaughter: the whole scenario in the dark of TM seeing a gun and going for it w/ GZ getting it; the trajectory of the bullet combined with GZ’s description of the shot in the voice stress test; the lack of injuries on TM and the superficiality of the injuries on GZ.

        What nails it for M2: the scream of pain and terror on the 911 call; “suspect” and “f… punks” and “they always get away”; “are you following?” “yeah” “we don’t need you to do that” but the sounds of following continue; the missing 2 minutes.

        Points of interest: “I didn’t know I hit him” with contact shot directly to the heart; “thug” dialog alleged of TM by GZ;

        For the missing 2 minutes, I don’t give a f… what he says he was doing. He stayed in the area or walked down RVC or he walked down the path or he stuck his thumb up his behind. He did NOT go back to his truck to wait for LEO. He was looking for TM, with his gun in his hand or his holster.

      • Xena says:

        @bettykath. What GZ’s fans argue is a false hypothesis. There are no missing 2 minutes. What GZ fans will have people believe is that Trayvon is unaccounted for from around 7:13:39 until 7:16 p.m. That is not true.

        Trayvon’s phone log provides that he was on the phone from 7:12 until it disconnected at 7:16. GZ was running at 7:12, stopped, sounded distracted, and asked that the dispatcher have the cop call him for his location. He ended his NEN call at 7:13.39. It is my strong opinion that GZ either heard Trayvon’s phone ring, or heard Trayvon talking on the phone, or both. He frantically worked to get his tactical flashlight to work even after he stopped running.

        So we can answer what GZ was doing. He was trying to get his tactical flashlight to work as he walked passed the T onto the dog path following Trayvon’s voice. We have confirmation of this from DeeDee’s statement that Trayvon said the guy was getting closer to him.

        80 seconds after GZ ended his NEN call, the first call is received by 911 reporting the altercation. Consider that people heard or saw something, made a decision to call, went for the phone and dialed. It may have taken 10. 20, 30 seconds for them to do that. The altercation was well underway when they decided to call 911.

        During that same time, DeeDee hears the verbal exchange between Trayvon and GZ and scuffling. Trayvon’s phone disconnects at 7:16, and the shot is fired at 7:16:57.

      • Xena says:

        @hinkster4ever. If GZ goes for an immunity hearing, there is no jury. That’s the hearing that can make or break him. The defense is the first to present its case. GZ must testify, as no one else can testify of what he felt and believed that gave him justification to use deadly force.

        If you haven’t already, read up on John Orr’s immunity hearing. There, the prosecution was able to prevail by showing the inconsistencies between Orr’s testimony and his statement to the police. Next, the prosecution presented forensic evidence. The judge denied Orr immunity.

        At trial with the prosecution presenting first, there’s a good chance that the prosecution will begin by presenting the jury with why GZ was denied immunity. If I were a juror, I would first want to hear GZ’s NEN call; watch his re-enactment, and then the Hannity interview. There are so many inconsistencies that by the time the defense is ready to present, nothing they do present will be credible.

      • bettykath says:


        I think you misunderstand what I’m referring to with the missing 2 minutes. I’m talking about what GZ was doing for 2 minutes, not TM. GZ ended the call with NEN at 7:13:39 and he says he was on his way back to his truck. Trayvon’s call ends at 7:16 at the beginning of the altercation. That’s 2 minutes 21 seconds (+/-). What was GZ doing from the time the NEN call ended and the altercation began? It doesn’t matter! He had more than enough time to get to his truck. He didn’t go there. It doesn’t matter what GZ says he did. It doesn’t matter what GZ supporters say he did. He didn’t leave the area and he had 2 minutes to do so.

      • bettykath says:

        Xena, My comments were in the context of what would be important to me as a juror as posed by hinkster4ever. Am I curious as to what happened during that time? Yes. I’ve indulged in speculation along with many others, including the possibility of him going down the center pathway or going down RVC, with or without his gun in his hand. But in the long run in determining GZ guilt or innocence, it doesn’t matter. He was in the vicinity determined to get his “suspect”, one of the “[punks] who always get away.”

      • Xena says:

        @bettykath. “I think you misunderstand what I’m referring to with the missing 2 minutes. I’m talking about what GZ was doing for 2 minutes, not TM.”

        Sorry for the misunderstanding. I’ve only heard GZ fans argue about missing minutes. I think the answer is in your comment; i.e.,

        “GZ ended the call with NEN at 7:13:39 and he says he was on his way back to his truck. ”

        GZ did not say he was going back to his truck. What he said was if the dispatcher could have the cop call him for his location. In his statements and re-enactment, GZ does not say he was going back to his truck until AFTER he purportedly went all the way through the dog path looking for an address or a street sign — depending on what version of his story you listen to.

        “Trayvon’s call ends at 7:16 at the beginning of the altercation.”

        Not at all. Trayvon’s phone disconnects at 7:16 BECAUSE the altercation was underway — not just beginning.

        I had to go back and check the time for when the first 911 call was received from a resident. The time was 7:16:11.

        ” That’s 2 minutes 21 seconds (+/-). What was GZ doing from the time the NEN call ended and the altercation began? It doesn’t matter! He had more than enough time to get to his truck. He didn’t go there. It doesn’t matter what GZ says he did. It doesn’t matter what GZ supporters say he did. He didn’t leave the area and he had 2 minutes to do so.”

        I agree that it was more than enough time for GZ to have returned to his truck. From the time that he ended his NEN call, to the time the altercation started, GZ was desperately trying to get his tactical flashlight to work so he could go into the cut-through and pass the T on foot to follow Trayvon’s voice.

      • bettykath says:

        “From the time that he ended his NEN call, to the time the altercation started, GZ was desperately trying to get his tactical flashlight to work so he could go into the cut-through and pass the T on foot to follow Trayvon’s voice.”

        This is speculation and I seriously doubt that he spent 2 minutes trying to get a flashlight to work. It is less likely than he spent the 2 minutes going down RVC toward the back entrance and then back up the path, or that he just went down the path.

        Once it is accepted that GZ lies, and I accept this, all we know for sure is that he has about 2 minutes unaccounted for.

        His abrupt change about the meeting place, “have them call me”, suggests that he was going hunting. But we don’t know where he went or what he did. But my point is, it doesn’t matter. He had plenty of time to remove himself from the scene and he didn’t do it. He went hunting for TM.

      • aussie says:

        This is where the defence side disagrees. He was under no obligation to return directly to his truck, any more than TM was under obligation to go directly home by the fastest shortest route.

        GZ had every right to spend 2 minutes banging a flashlight, or taking a leak behind a bush, or staring up that the pretty clouds, or whatever. He was merely availing himself of this right when TM sneaked up and surprise attacked him after calling out a warning .


        Where GZ went in the missing time is THE CRUX of the case. Because that is the answer to the central question — who sought out and attacked who??

      • Xena says:

        @aussie . I’m quoting the first and last part of your comment.
        “This is where the defence side disagrees. He was under no obligation to return directly to his truck, any more than TM was under obligation to go directly home by the fastest shortest route.”
        “Because that is the answer to the central question — who sought out and attacked who??”

        Aussie, the “no obligation” regarding GZ would only apply had he not called NEN to report that there had been break-ins, there was a suspicious person who he believed was on drugs or something, with his hand in his waistband. What’s more is that GZ had an obligation to neighborhood watch to adhere to its rules. Leaving for the store or on duty, he was still NW Captain.

        The 2 minutes are accounted for if you believe GZ. According to GZ, he did not know where he would be when the cop arrived and wanted to be called for his location. According to GZ, he was walking down the length of the dog walk to find an address to call back NEN with it. According to GZ, after getting an address, he did not call NEN with it. According to GZ, he did not even know what pocket he put his cell phone in neither had he looked for it until he and Trayvon met face to face.

        Let the defense try the who sought out and attacked whom first, but it’s GZ’s own words that will put him in the microwave and press the button, bursting his story wide open from the inside out. Splat, splat, splat.

      • Bettykath, your points are all great & point the finger of guilt right straight to George Zimmerman…..as sure as that gun he pulled the trigger on shot straight into a kid’s heart….:(

      • bettykath says:


        If the defense gives a credible story about the 2 minutes it will be the first time. None of the stories GZ has told so far does it. In all of his stories he says he was on his way back to his truck when suddenly attacked by TM about 30 seconds after he hung up with NEN. GZ has no story for the 2 minutes. To GZ those 2 minutes never happened. As a juror, I’d go along with that.

        As a juror, unless the judge instructs otherwise, I consider that the attack began with GZ profiling and following a “suspicious” person. If GZ had stayed in his truck that would have been the end of it. Black guys have to deal with weird white guys all the time (many of them wearing cop’s uniform). When GZ left the truck, the attack continued.

        It doesn’t matter who threw the first punch. The only evidence of a life and death struggle is that TM was killed. GZ’s injuries and story do not support his contention that he was in danger of death or serious harm.

        Again, where GZ was during those 2 minutes really isn’t significant.

      • Pooh says:

        Aussie — “Where GZ went in the missing time is THE CRUX of the case. Because that is the answer to the central question — who sought out and attacked who??”

        The GZ defence side (bowing to your Aussie spelling) bases its position, of course, on the idea that GZ following TM was not illegal and by implication that TM had no right to feel afraid or threatened by the cumulative actions of GZ. The idea that TM had no right to feel threatened or afraid can only flow from 1. a denial of TM’s humanity (i.e. other people might be allowed to feel threatened or afraid in similar dark rainy night circumstances but not African-American children) and/or 2. the unsubstantiated belief that TM was in the act of planning or committing a crime, and/or 3. GZ had some special supercitizen privilege that allowed him to behave like a predator without suffering the consequences.

        But once that GZ defence position collapses with the weight of common sense as well as, apparently, the law, I don’t think it matters where GZ went in the missing two minutes or how many stars he counted. Because GZ had already established that he was seeking out TM; he had set in motion the sequence of events that caused TM to fear for his safety and there was no way that GZ could undo that short of leaving the scene entirely or allaying TM’s fears by explaining that he was only a member of Neighborhood Watch who wondered politely if TM was staying in the neighborhood or just passing through.

        We know that he did neither.

        However, it was probably already too late even for the latter option of explanation/identification, as GZ had already refused to identify himself earlier when TM approached his truck, and therefore any subsequent attempt to explain himself would have been more difficult and suspicious. I know I would have seen it that way.

        In any case, the central question comes down to whether GZ had a reasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger when he drew his gun, twirled it, and shot TM in the heart. And if GZ was the aggressor (he was), whether he communicated his desire to withdraw, had other options, etc.

      • Xena says:

        @bettykath. You quoted what I wrote:

        “From the time that he ended his NEN call, to the time the altercation started, GZ was desperately trying to get his tactical flashlight to work so he could go into the cut-through and pass the T on foot to follow Trayvon’s voice.”

        You replied: “This is speculation and I seriously doubt that he spent 2 minutes trying to get a flashlight to work.”

        GZ is heard beating on his flashlight in the NEN recordings. In his interview with Serino, he also said that his flashlight was not working. GZ also stated in an interview that he tried to get his flashlight to work so he could walk back from the end of the street after getting the address — that his car lights were on when he started walking in that direction, but had gone off, giving him no light on his walk back.

        While it may be speculation that GZ was following the sound of Trayvon’s voice, it is not speculation that he was desperately trying to get his tactical flashlight to work. Also, while it might be speculation that GZ was following Trayvon’s voice, there is no speculation that Trayvon was indeed on the phone with DeeDee from 7:12 until his phone disconnected at 7:16.

      • bettykath says:


        I agree that GZ was trying to get his flashlight to work while he was on the NEN call. The sounds go on for approximately a minute. It is speculation that he had another 2 minute focus on continuing to try to get it to work.

        I don’t dispute the DeeDee-Trayvon call except the times are rounded by the carrier so we don’t know to the second when they started or stopped. (Is it a surprise that a carrier would log a minute several seconds before the call actually began or a several seconds after the call actually ended?)

    • Xena said: Let the defense try the who sought out and attacked whom first, but it’s GZ’s own words that will put him in the microwave and press the button, bursting his story wide open from the inside out. Splat, splat, splat.

      Ty, Xena for explaining a lot to me on this case. If I remember, you are a paralegal am I right? Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the John Orr case. And thanks to Google..my bbf on the internet (lol). Your words above are priceless!

      Happy Labor day back atcha and all our great posters.

      • Xena says:

        @hinkster4ever. Happy Labor Day to you too. Sorry for getting a slow start on the blogs today. It’s been a day of having company, grilling burgers, that sort of thing. 🙂

        Yes, I worked as a paralegal, then for the circuit court starting-up and managing the legal self-help center, and am now doing independent legal research for attorneys on an as-need basis.

        The John Orr case compared to GZ’s claims is very interesting, isn’t it? It helped me to see how the State prepares for the argues an immunity hearing. It was interesting that the State argued inconsistencies in Orr’s stories. I’m still waiting for Judge Lester’s decision on the Smithey immunity hearing because there, the defendant also had inconsistent stories.

  56. Brown says:

    In the interview with the administer of the VST before the actual test, where Zimmerman is describing the events, will that portion of the interview be admissible?

    • Yes, any part or all of the statement may be admitted, if it was obtained in compliance with Miranda. The results of the VSA test analysis are not admissible because the test is not considered reliable.

      • Brown says:

        Thanks for the reply.

      • ed nelson says:

        Thanks for: from some… lessor lay among your readers, like myseff, for tying the “Miranda rights” with the 5th ammendment, (a factoid I forgot to know, or remember…. !)

        My question is: (at this point in time), (and I am prompted by the above fresh post/comments: [ Was GZ given the Miranda by the arresting officers?]. I was assuming that end of it was not in question.

        My other question which I have wondered about, is, the photos of abrasions that have been shown widespread of little nicks and cuts on the back or GZ’s head, my viewing of that says they weren’t there in the arrest shots.

        But that don’t mean the guy couldn’t a gone home, as he was allowed to do, ( and done some… ” self flagalation” ) and come back with them picts… ?

        There was a time just after the arrest, as it seemed to me where there was a little too much window of opportunity for the production of some bogus evidentiary stuff: Like post facto photographics of head wounds not seen in the cc police video.

      • hinkster4ever says:

        Hi Ed, Gz was cleaned up some at the scene….remember in today’s age because of HIV and hepatitis people are very protective when coming into contact with blood. I was shocked to read Sgt Smith wasn’t it…put him in the back seat of his car, even if they had him clean his face and hands….as they had no way of knowing blood was not on the jacket or pants or shoes.

        But, I would suppose they have to clean the back seats after transporting a person with blood on them or their clothes.

        They did allow Gz to go to the bathroom to clean up some. I will send you a link…..look how clean his hands are….and then look at the blood on his face and head and caked in his beard. Also notice how clean his pants and jacket are….


        These were taken at the police station after Gz arrived. I am pretty sure of that.

      • Xena says:

        @ Ed Nelson. “But that don’t mean the guy couldn’t a gone home, as he was allowed to do, ( and done some… ” self flagalation” ) and come back with them picts… ?”

        If I were the prosecution, the only pics of GZ’s injuries I would object to are the ones taken by a resident with a cell phone. My basis would be that there is no chain of command. Those are the pics that are said to be photoshopped. The other pics taken at the police station would be questioned as to when the bleeding started. The basis for that would be that an officer entered a report saying he checked on GZ every 10 to 15 minutes and did not observe anything conveying that GZ required medical attention.

      • aussie says:

        The big series of coloured photos of GZ were taken at the police station at 11.45 p.m. <<<buried in photographer officer's statement in 2nd or 3rd evidence dump.

        More than 4 hours after the shooting. Plenty of time for clothes to dry off. And he was allowed in the bathroom at least once by himself.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      blushbrown – i firmly believe that the reason for this lengthy interview (knowing that the results were inadmissible) was to get GZ to yak for as long as possible. it looks obvious that at the beginning, he signed a miranda waiver, so although the good professor does not need me to concur with his learned opinion, i do.

      • Brown says:

        I concur with you and the professor.
        : ^ )))

      • longtimegeek says:

        I also like that it was video taped. Even though it was a “voice stress test,” I think he gave away visual clues. For example, from his seated position for his “voice stress test,” he voluntarily showed the tester his shooting motion. He used his right hand to pull his gun from his right hip, aim and shoot. I think it would be interesting to compare the “voice stress test” video and other videos with the reenactment video and to try to glean duplicate truths from them.

      • hinkster4ever says:

        Hi faux, I am confused. I thought the interview could be used as he made it freely knowing he could leave at anytime….back to reread again…I do not want a failing grade to mess up my 2.0 gpa I’ve worked hard to get in Lawyering101!!! 🙂

      • bettykath says:

        I think the interview can be used but test itself cannot. My guess is the video up to the point where the test is conducted would be admissible but the test portion itself would be out.The test results would not be allowed, and I doubt that test itself would allowed b/c it would leave the big question of how did he do? I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I have anything wrong.

        • You’re right. The test results are not admissible under Rule 702 and the Frye Rule, which prohibit the use of evidence produced by a machine unless the test and the machine are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.

          The VST is not generally accepted so it doesn’t come in.

      • Rachael says:

        Oooh longtimegeek, good thinking!

      • bettykath says:

        I’m being picky here. You say that the test results are not admissible. But what about the part of the video that shows the test administration? I believe that is also not admissible. Is this correct?

        • “I’m being picky here. You say that the test results are not admissible. But what about the part of the video that shows the test administration? I believe that is also not admissible. Is this correct?”

          Answer: Depends on whether the machine is recognizable and whether the jury can tell what’s going on from the audio. If I were the judge, I would not want the jury to wonder if some type of lie detector test was administered because then they might be wondering what the results were.

          One way to fix the problem, assuming this solution is workable, would be to start and stop the video so that references to the test are not heard.

          Another way the judge could handle it would be to instruct the jury to disregard the test.

      • princss6 says:


        They basically can’t see he “passed the test.” I don’t know if they can show him answering the questions. I would say that they could but I don’t think the prosecution would do so as that would beg the question, did he pass or fail. So IMO, everything but the test and the results can be shown. The test is only about ten minutes of that two-hour plus tape.

      • whonoze says:

        We don’t know whether they actually gave GZ a “voice stress test” which produced any actual results. They TOLD him they were giving him a test, and they TOLD him he passed, but police are allowed to lie to suspects – e.g. Serino telling GZ there were (non-existant0 witnesses.

        So the prosecution could argue the SPD knew from the outset that any ‘results’ of the test would be totally invalid, and they merely used the ‘test’ as a ruse to keep GZ talking, and as such there are no actual ‘results’ to disclose one way or the other.

        Do you think that argument would help get the interview tape admitted, Prof.?

      • bettykath says:

        There were actual printed traces of the tests. They are in the evidence. I read that the VST were tested using known drug users. Half were to tell the truth and half were to lie. Some truth tellers were shown to be lying; some liars were shown to be telling the truth. The net: you might as well flip a coin.

      • aussie says:

        And they “calibrated” it on really REALLY stressful “lies” like “what colour is the wall of this room”.

        How stressed would you feel saying green instead of blue?

  57. Brown says:

    Thank you for a new post. Per my post if you closed the banning post or started a new post I will donate again. True to my word, I have sent another donation.
    : ^ )
    PS Good question TM.

    • Dave says:


    • Thanks very much.

      Took me a little longer to write the article than I anticipated.

      Even after all these years, I still underestimate how long it will take to complete a project.

      • bettykath says:

        I worked in computer software development. When determining the number of person months needed to do a job, we had historical data to say it took x number of person months to produce y lines of code (loc). So each programmer was asked how many loc would be needed in her/his part of the project. It didn’t me long to see that early in the project I needed to double the loc estimate. Later in the project the percent increase was less, but at no time did the number I work with equal what the programmer told me. They were giving honest estimates but always underestimated what was required.

        In one instance a programmer said he could complete a design by himself in one month if he could be left alone in his office. He undoubtedly could have completed the design alone, but would have needed much more than one month. We ended up with a full team of 4 full time designers and a handful of as-needed programmers for 3 months to do the job.

        Even though I was very good at putting together software plans, I’m pretty lousy at planning my own projects. I forget to double my estimate.

        So, the point is, professor, underestimating how long it will take to do a job is pretty standard.

      • Brown says:

        You are very welcome, kind sir.
        Ah don’t worry about it, you got it done.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      you’re a sweetheart, blushed brown. i made my contribution a couple of days ago, as promised when i received my SSDI check and will do so monthly.

  58. racerrodig says:

    Zimmerman’s call to Corey’s office is so odd it defies description to me. Clearly he was fishing in an effort to see how strong the case was. From what I understand, all of his interviews comply with the Miranda laws and will be admissible. What are your thoughts on his call to the prosecutors office. At the time he had Uhrig and his team as counsel so there was no real reason for him to call. I see that as Z trying to call the shots again.

    • Brown says:

      GZ feels if he can just talk to you he can explain away any bad thoughts you have about him. For instance telling John I had to shoot him because I was getting beat up. Or asking Judge Lester for a private chamber meeting to tell him why he lied about the money.

    • I think George Zimmerman thought he could talk Angela Corey out of prosecuting him. That’s an example of poor judgment.

      • BigBoi says:

        No doubt about that whatsoever which is exactly the reason he kept going back for me. He thought with each passing day that he was closer and closer to this blowing over.

      • longtimegeek says:

        It reminds me of a GZ jailhouse call when he said that it’s too bad judges are elected and not appointed. I wonder if his gumption or talkativeness knows any bounds.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Is it possible he had a question he thought only the prosecutor could answer?

      • Rachael says:

        Like what 2 sides? And even if he did, why would’t he have his attorney find out rather than take it upon himself? The whole thing is just weird.But shows me a pattern of taking on things on his own, like taking on the responsibility of chasing a “suspicious” kid. Just seems to be a pattern with him.

      • It’s also an example of his stupidity!

    • Xena says:

      Serino had 2 phone calls to GZ where GZ agreed to come to Jacksonville for another interview with Sonner and/or Uhrig. Apparently, that did not happen. Evidently, GZ wore out welcome at Osterman’s and left for (what his attorneys said) a place “far, far away from Florida.” GZ launched his website and called Corey’s office. Corey announced a decision in 72 hrs. There were reports that he called Corey to ask for protection. (Probably an assumption that he would not be charged.) Also, reports that when he arrived in Jacksonville, that he did not know he had been charged.

      GZ’s fans say that he turned himself in, but that’s not true as he had cut-off communications with his attorneys. Also, it is not logical that GZ would drive to Jacksonville to turn himself in while having another gun in his rental car. He would have wanted to keep that gun hidden, just like his valid passport, IMO.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        this is true, zena – the zim apologists (and his lawyer) like to point out that he turned himself in, which in fact, he did not. corey was being kind in her presser when she stated that zim did turn himself in when in fact, he just showed up at her office to beg for help just as she had completed filing the information for his arrest.

        i honestly do not know what kind of person just shows up at (what we californian’s would call) the DA’s office for any reason.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      hey racer – nice to see you buddy, since you no longer see me at the place which shall remain unnamed 🙂

      • looneydoone says:

        Not unlike papi Z waltzing into the SA’s office on 19 March to ask how the investigation was progressing (pg 68 of 284)

      • Xena says:

        @looneydoone. “Fauxmccoy
        Not unlike papi Z waltzing into the SA’s office on 19 March to ask how the investigation was progressing (pg 68 of 284)”

        I was shocked by Papa Zim’s suggestions. Just posted the taped interview:

        • TruthBTold says:

          Thanks Xena. “He goes to the store the same time each week. “Everything being said on the news is a lie.” yada yada yada. I don’t know what he wanted them to tell him. It was an ongoing investigation. The suggestive tone of this interview was bizarre, but personally I don’t follow-up much with Robert Zimmerman. He’s the parent of the now defendant and he is operating from that place.

      • crazy1946 says:

        That is the first time I have actually listened to Robert Zimmerman speak, I had read the transcripts instead. What does strike me when listening to this man is his speech patterns, I would have expected a person who was a former judge have a better education than this man exhibits in this interview. His word flow is extremely poor for someone who has held the positions he is alleged to have held. I did find his suggestion that somehow they should issue a report finding his son to be totally innocent of these charges astounding! I might suggest that he and the rest of his family (including George) simply go home and allow the police to do the jobs they are paid to do. If there is actually a physical threat, simply do what they used to do, pick up the phone and dial 911, like a normal citizen would do…

      • Rachael says:

        @Crazy, while I *think* (I’m not sure) George told police his father was a judge, he was not. He was a magistrate.

      • princss6 says:

        @crazy – Zimmerman sr was not a former judge. He is a former magistrate. In Virginia they are not judges. A magistrate does not need a law degree.

        The office of the magistrate traces its development through centuries of English and American history. Many of the duties now performed by magistrates were once carried out by the Justice of the Peace.


        While magistrates are NOT JUDGES possessing trial jurisdiction, they are an integral part of the judicial system and are judicial officers…


        The principal function of the magistrate is to provide an independent, unbiased review of complaints brought to the office by police officers, sheriffs, deputies and citizens. Magistrates are not police officers nor are they in any way connected with law enforcement. Instead magistrates are ISSUING OFFICERS who served as a buffer between law enforcement and society. MOST magistrates are NOT lawyers…


        Magistrates have the following powers:
        1) To issue search warrants
        2) To admit to bail or admit to jail
        3) To issue warrants and subpeonas
        4) To issue civil warrants
        5) To administer oaths and take acknowledgements
        6) To act as a conservator of the peace
        7) To accept prepayment for traffic and certain minor misdemeanor offenses
        8) To issue temporary detention orders

        Lastly, they are appointed. Both GZ and his father had no business trying to pass him off as a “magistrate judge.” No such thing exists in Virginia. You are either a magistrate or a judge. They were just trying to gain some type of status by passing off the father (a de facto administrative officer for the courts) as a bona fide Judge.

        They LIE! See the link below.

        Click to access The%20Office%20of%20The%20Virginia%20Magistrate.pdf

      • didy8369 says:

        @Faux 😦 I noticed you haven’t been around, that’s saddens me as I so enjoy your insight! Yours, and racers of course 🙂

      • Xena says:

        I’m sorry. You can’t see me but I’m near tears laughing. I’m sorry because I have a default respect for judges. But when I think of “magistrate” I think of the Animal Planet Program “Animal Cops Detroit.” Animal Control goes to the magistrate to sign warrants giving them authority to seize abused animals, or to sign a warrant so they can arrest animal abusers.

        So when I heard that GZ’s dad is a retired Virginia Magistrate, I imagined him looking at photos of abused animals and summarily signing off on papers.

      • bettykath says:

        I listened to the tape of Mr. Zimmerman. What I heard was a father concerned about his son and the health and financial aspects of having to keep moving due to the death threats. He believes George and he wants all the bad stuff to end. I don’t hear anything inappropriate.

    • hinkster4ever says:

      George is read and signs his miranda rights Feb 22, 2012

      At the beginning of the interview.

      • hinkster4ever says:

        correction 26th of Feb

      • hinkster4ever says:

        oops delete the video, I just meant to leave a link..sorry

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        This GZ guy just describe typical sterotype of a black man..

      • rachael says:

        Fell backward into the grass – then how did he get to the sidewalk? Ughhh. Liar. (about 14:00)

        “He still kept trying to hit my head against the pavement or I don’t know if there was a sign or what it was” (15:29)

        WTF? Why would there be a sign on the sidewalk or in the grass?

      • Bill Taylor says:

        @rachel, that was a Freudian slip the reality is his head wounds came from a sign or more likely the back of one where the bolts stick out a bit, they clearly did NOT come from a head bashing on concrete

    • CommonSenseForChange says:

      George Zimmerman possibly didn’t trust his father and the lawyers his father wanted. News at the time was that he posted his “therealgeorgz..” site in order to get control of his own donations instead of letting his daddy-owned lawyer “advisors” handle donations.

    • heartofhearts says:

      I wonder how much Osterman “his good friend” had influenced him legally and possibly advised him to call the prosecutor.

      I was reading the partial chapters of his book on the conservative tree house and did not realize that Osterman and George’s father were there the following day when he did the reenactment of what happened.

      If I were George I wouldn’t be taking advice from Osterman who appears to only want to make a buck off of this murder. I think his book is going to make a bigger mess out of this case because he is quoting George.

      I do remember hearing Det. Singleton giving George his Miranda Rights. And they only have to do that once, correct? It doesn’t matter how many times they interview him?

      • heartofhearts says:

        It seems that I do my best thinking when I am out walking and I realized that the answer to my question was in the original post from the professor! Sorry. 🙂

  59. TM says:

    Professor, If an arrested is brought in and questioned and they answer many of those questions to be condemning then LATER get
    nervous and ask for counsel. Are the prior answers recorded and can be used as evidence against this suspect. If so, Would those answers be called circumstantial.

    • Yes, as long as the previous answers were obtained in compliance with Miranda, they are admissible.

      A suspect may exercise his right to remain silent at ant time.

      • logi says:

        Thank you professor ! (enter big sigh of relief)

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        “I believe the prosecution may argue that Zimmerman was free to leave and therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, all of the statements were non-custodial, voluntary, and admissible.”

        This, I think, is why I can’t completely condemn SPD. Serino is the one that said to uncuff Zimmerman before Singleton’s questioning. This gave us the signature of Zimmerman waiving his rights and talking freely to SPD. The statements made by Zimmerman are what will take him down. I can’t help but credit both these feats to Serino and Singleton.

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: