Short and Sweet

Saturday, January 12, 2013

I wrote Short and Sweet to follow-up on my article yesterday titled, Keep It Simple, Stupid.

The defense in the Trayvon Martin murder case apparently does not have any credible evidence that he was a martial-arts trained aggressive bully who assaulted people. I say “apparently” because I am certain we would have heard about it, given the defense effort to try its case in the court of public where defense counsel can testify with impunity, rumor and innuendo are admissible, and the prosecution cannot cross examine or introduce any evidence. Since evidence that Trayvon was a martial-arts trained aggressive bully who assaulted people would not be difficult to find, if it existed, I believe we can reasonably conclude that such evidence does not exist.

The one thing we do know from reviewing the complaint filed by the security/investigation company against the defendant, his wife and the defendant’s attorney is that its investigators found nothing useful for the defense and could not even confirm a rumor that a client’s daughter could have purchased marijuana from Trayvon.

Instead, the prosecution apparently has a mountain of evidence that Trayvon was peaceful and non-violent.

This evidence is not admissible unless the defense opens the door by claiming that Trayvon was the aggressor and initiated the confrontation by sucker-punching the defendant in the nose, knocking him to the ground.

Difficult to imagine the defense will not make this claim during its opening statement, since this is an important and necessary part of the defendant’s self-defense claim that he provided to the police and to a national audience during the Hannity interview. Therefore, I think we can reasonably assume that the defense will open the door during its opening statement and the prosecution will be introducing evidence of Trayvon’s non-violent and peaceful disposition during its case-in-chief.

On the other side of the coin, the defendant has shown that he has a violent temper and a willingness to assault others when he loses his temper. That uncharged-misconduct evidence is not admissible under rule 404(b), unless the defense opens the door by claiming he is a non-violent and peaceful person or a person with good character.

The defense will make a bad mistake, if it opens this door, but I think they will do it.

Why?

Because the defendant still appears to be driving the bus and he is as clueless as clueless gets.

Katie bar the door, if they do.

47 Responses to Short and Sweet

  1. Tzar says:

    Breaking news: I found some evidence that Trayvon was a peaceful sort and it comes from the killer’s mouth, “he’s running”. This after being followed for several minutes.

    also when confronted with clearly established and threatening foe, instead of a throat punch, Trayvon chose to go with, “why are you following me?”

    Very peaceful sort indeed.

  2. Lonnie Starr says:

    Clueless is an understatement LOL. They seem to process information using a methodology that is much the same as the process used by bricks. 😀

  3. Trained Observer says:

    This excellent “Short & Sweet” post underscores logic that O’Mara must surely realize but will be hard-pressed to avoid, courtesy of the motor-mouth defendant and his yammering, low-life friends and family. Together, with their conflicting comments and tall stories, a mountain range of obstacles and dilemmas awaits O’Mara.

    It would not surprise me if MOM either bails or gets replaced by the know-it-all defendant before trial …. to delay, delay, and delay in the defense team’s never-ending fantasy that it will all go away with just the right magic legal trick or a miracle shift in public opinion that would encourage jurors to support cold-blooded murder of an unarmed kid deemed “up to no good.”

    I also can’t help but think back to when the defendant did that unscheduled appearance on the stand at one of the hearings, when he said he thought Trayvon was about his age …. this after telling the non operator that he thouht Trayvon was in his teens.

    Should the defendant testify at trial (does anyone think this dufus will miss out on his chance to be a star?) … just imagine the unplanned bon mots he’ll deliver that likely will lead his lawyer toward a massive coronary..

    • leander22 says:

      It would not surprise me if MOM either bails or gets replaced by the know-it-all defendant before trial

      The know-it-all defendant seems to be driving O’Mara, at least O’Mara allows us to get that impression.

      But O’Mara wouldn’t have taken the case pro-bono if he didn’t expect some kind publicity effect from it. To that effect he has to swallow his tale hook-line-and-sinker. He is actually in a fix now. If he doesn’t, he will publicly appear disloyal to his client. That’s a no no for a lawyer. And that is also how the metamorphosis of O’Mara into the Treehouseconservative racist happens. Although he slips it in more carefully and tries to remain charming and he never says black although the combination with watermelon seems to trigger it in people’s minds:.

      O’Mara: If you consider talking about ten, and twenty, and one fifty-five as being code, then maybe you’re accurate. […] I’ve involved myself in cases where drug dealers talk, and they talk about watermelons and things like that.

      When you talk about nine or ten, I’m not certain that that is so much of a code for eight- or ninety-thousand dollars–that that’s legitimately trying to deceive anything.

      **************************************************************************
      sex drugs and rock n roll

      An American friend’s younger brother one day appeared on the Northern West coast with a suitcase full of money asking him to buy him a house. He would give him his Swiss bank account number later, he said. He had been in a difficult situation and realized how fast he could be dead. The account number was handled by his lawyer, he said. He left again and two weeks later he was shot, in Florida, where he lived.

      The older brother hadn’t known anything about his business before. He is married to my best girlfriend from schooldays. He drove marijuana from Morocco to Frankfurt Germany. But he seemingly was only a tiny chain in a very professionally organized criminal network. They did everything necessary to get him through then all the diverse frontiers in Europe he didn’t need to do anything but drive the bus. Spain was very, very controlled at the time. But at the time there was another frontier to France and then Germany. Officially he was an American tourist. He was wiser than his younger brother, he bought a house started a business and settled.

      Both are or were white Americans. Both were involved in marijuana smuggling on a really big scale. The younger even more then the older. He seems to have used buses of beat groups that were filled over the half size with the drugs arriving from South America in Florida

      the gray area between legal and illegal

      Temazepam

      • Xena says:

        But O’Mara wouldn’t have taken the case pro-bono if he didn’t expect some kind publicity effect from it.

        Yes, O’Mara saw some sort of publicity lift for him by representing GZ. However, he took the case pro bono before he knew about the begging site and how much money was donated. Since then, he still presents it as a “legal defense fund” reminding people that he has not been paid a dime. The majority of that fund has been spent on GZ’s living expenses and things associated with it with a few thousand for depositions. Now. O’Mara has said that someone needs to drop a million dollars into in order for GZ to get a “good defense.”

  4. I have a question. Is prosecution required to release information that would typically not be admissible? For example, if they interviewed witnesses supporting Trayvon’s nonviolent behavior, should that information already be part of discovery? I have read no discovery about Trayvon’s character yet. Have I missed something?

    • Admissibility is not a relevant factor.

      The scope of discovery depends on the rules of discovery, which can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

      The SCOTUS has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to require the prosecution and the police to turn over all exculpatory information in their possession, custody or control.

      Discovery rules in Florida are very broad due to the Sunshine Law, which requires the prosecution to not only turn over the following information to the defense, but to the public as well:

      1. A list of all the witnesses it intends to call during its case-in-chief at the trial. This includes expert witnesses as well as fact witnesses and law enforcement officials.

      2. All of the statements and reports that witnesses made relative to the case. This includes all police reports, photographs and itemized lists of evidence seized. Also includes reports of forensic examinations and the results obtained. Basically requires the prosecution to disclose everything it has.

      3. The criminal records of any of its witnesses.

      4. All of the defendant’s statements, whether oral or written, and an inventory of all of the evidence seized from the defendant, including affidavits for search warrants and the search warrants.

      The Sunshine Law permits a few restrictions on the release of information to the public. These restrictions are designed to protect privacy and include civilian witness identities and residential addresses. Basically, either side can request certain information not be released and the judge decides whether to grant or deny the request. In this case, phone records and email and text messages have not been released.

      • Thank you for your reply, Prof. Leatherman. I am still curious about why no information about Trayvon’s character has been released in any of the discovery. Is this kind of evidence exempt from Discovery Rules, or has the state not collected any?

        • The discovery rules require the prosecution to identify the witnesses it intends to call and provide copies of their statements to the defense and public.

          Those statements do not necessarily include all of the information obtained from the witnesses. Defense counsel have a duty to investigate their cases and that includes tasking an investigator to interview them or to be present and take notes when the lawyer interviews them. Florida permits the use of depositions under oath.

          Interviews and depositions provide an opportunity to obtain information not included in the statements and reports.

          The best source of information about Trayvon’s non-violent and peaceful nature is his family and friends like Dee Dee. She described him that way to Crump and de la Rionda.So did the librarian where he used to study after school. His parents have described him that way publicly.

          Note that the defense, which has been trying its case in the court of public opinion has not produced any evidence at all to support its claim that he was an aggressive martial arts enthusiast who picked fights and bullied others. Obviously his school records contained no information to support that claim or the defense would have shouted it from the tree house.

          In this situation the absence of evidence to support the defense claim might reasonably be considered evidence that he was not an aggressive martial arts enthusiast who picked fights and bullied others.

          That absence of evidence is consistent with what we have heard from his family and Dee Dee.

          There are other witnesses too. I vaguely recall his former football coach describing him that way, for example.

          In other words, you have to read between the lines sometimes because the prosecution is not required to document all of its evidence. The reports and statements will never be admitted into evidence because most of them are hearsay.

          The evidence in court will be what the witnesses say and the prosecution had no particular reason or obligation to reduce that information to writing.

          Part of the game is to conceal as well as reveal only that which you are required to reveal.

  5. whonoze says:

    Prof. L.:

    If the prosecution follows the KISS plan, do you think they will call “DeeDee” as part of their case-in-chief? If you were the prosecutor, would you? It has been suggested in this blog that the case for Murder 2 can be made effectively on the basis of the forensic evidence alone (including the photos of GZ’s anti-grav bleeding). Do you think that case is strong enough, and that KISS suggests they stick to concrete facts rather than add on inherently subjective accounts?

  6. cielo62 says:

    >^..^< KISSing along.

  7. ahh, memories..thanks francis.

    • Xena says:

      Taaffe demonstrates the ultimate attitude of White entitlement. What he said in a nutshell is that all Black males are suppose to submit to the questioning of strange men of other races, even those like GZ who have absolutely no authority to ask other strangers anything.

      The circles that Frank and the Zidiots present are devastating! On one hand, they argue that GZ was not on NW duty that evening. On the other hand, they argue that GZ was concerned about crime in that community and had the right to follow and confront Trayvon.

      Even with NW, GZ had no authority to ask anyone their business.

  8. Jun says:

    I think Fogenhats will open that door

    He’s trying to convince people he is an upstanding citizen and would never attack anyone and the violent “black thug” he was suspicious about attacked him and almost beat him to death, along with his family and friends

    He’s tryna convince people that he was innocently stalking a young teenage boy and then walking back to his truck

  9. wait! after taking a gander at the ridiculous amount of money gz wasted on security, remember that cost was JUST for the bodyguards, who knows how much they wasted on themselves just during that time!
    can he now come to the court and ask for money??

    • Don’t forget the extra $85 K they basically gave away to the bonding company to pay the $100 K bail bond premium on the $1 M bail.

      His bond was revoked because he and Shellie played that stupid shell game concealing and lying about their assets.

      IIRC, he initially paid a $1,500 premium to bond out on the $150 K bail. Therefore, he had to come up with another $85 K to bond out.

      Then they paid $40,000 to the security/investigation company and owe them another $27,000 for protection that was just for show and never necessary.

      Add the $35 K spent paying off creditors and purchasing phones with one-year prepaid contracts and you’re up to $200 K, plus change.

      I do not see any evidence of intelligence in those choices.

      The bail bondsman must be laughing himself sick.

      • Xena says:

        He’s spending an estimated $3 to $4 K a month on hotel rooms too.

      • intelligence!? lolol him and shellie were really living the dream. they thought it would never stop. i know that kinda attitude. they went bananas and nothing or no one could’ve stopped them! they were entitled to that money because they earned it!! they justified all that entitlement in the jail tapes; your a hero! your an example to everyone! you need to tell everyone that they need to get the word out! they need to SHOW their appreciation!

      • Arewethereyet? says:

        If GZ is convicted, is the bond money returned to….Shellie?

      • looneydoone says:

        AreWeThereYet,
        No refund coming from the Bailbondsman, that $100k is his fee for underwriting the full Bond amount of $1 million , and the first Bond in the amount of $150k. Actually gz got a discount of $15k since he posted just $85k the second time around.

        Ordinarily, those two Bondsman fees should have been $115k, plus collateral.

  10. Xena says:

    According to O’Mara, GZ doesn’t have money for a “good defense.” He might as well argue GZ’s character so the prosecution can tear him another butt-hole and proceed to present evidence, get the trial over and get him sentenced.

  11. Malisha says:

    Fogen cannot be credibly presented as a non-violent person by nature. That’s a loser. I think it’s true that there really is no defense to the Murder-2 charge but if there is a trial, self-defense is the only possible avenue for O’Mara to try to skip down. What a route that would be. That’s why I think there will not be a trial.

  12. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    Excellent articcle!!

  13. The whole zimmerman family appears to be clueless…..

    • looneydoone says:

      The entire family seems to be arrogant, fueled by inflated egos and an unwarranted sense of entitlement. They are manipulative, pathological liars, and exhibit signs of being abusive when *stressed*….yes, they are clueless.

      • ALL that and more!! the whole damn family!
        and that’s weird isn’t it?? how many families do you know that you can say every single one of them are totally deranged??
        we know most families will have at least one dingbat or two, but not all four members of an immediate family..mother, father and both kids- oh wait, there’s another sister!! she’s weird too.. i forgot about her. but she’s the one on the jail calls that is sucking up to gz and making these creepy incestuous comments about gz’s fat ass??!! grossss

      • ladystclaire says:

        They also lack morals and feelings towards their fellow men. if they think their actions concerning this murder, which was committed by their son/brother make them look as if they are the victims here, they are dead wrong and, what they look like is a family of idiots, trying to help Fogen lie his way out of doing prison time.

        If his worthless lying father had let him accept responsibility for his other crimes, he might have turned out to be a better person than what he is today. the bloated goat needs to stand up for once in his stinking life and, be responsible for what he has done, and that is his murdering an innocent child who he knows did not in any way lay a hand on his fat ass.

    • jm says:

      To me it appears the whole Zimmerman family is not so much clueless but liars. They are afraid GZ will bring shame on the family so their spokesperson, RZ Jr, continues to try to influence public opinion with rants, double-talk, threats and holier than thou attitude. RZ Jr is bringing more shame on the famiy exposing them as racists with his commentary and ignoring facts about his brother and his family’s history that is part of the evidence. To summarize, the Zimmerman family, they are lying idiots hoping to get the attention and support of people who are stupider than they are.

      • elcymoo says:

        I clicked on a link to Robert Sr. and Gladys’ site yesterday, and received a notice that it was unavailable, so it appeared to me that George’s parents weren’t successful in raking in big bucks the way he did initially.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        Elcymoo, I bet there’s a story behind that disappearance too, I wonder what it means.

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: