Zimmerman case is simple: Trayvon Martin acted in self-defense

Friday, May 31, 2013

Good morning:

I hope to forever put to rest the following argument: Since the defendant had a right to get out of his vehicle and a right to follow Trayvon, those actions cannot be considered as evidence of guilt.

As I will soon show, that argument makes about as much sense as arguing that the purchase of a gun with intent to kill someone cannot be considered as evidence of premeditation because the person had a right to purchase the gun.

Both arguments fail because a lawful act can be committed to achieve an unlawful result. Yes, indeed. A would-be bank robber can purchase a clunker to use as a getaway vehicle after robbing a bank.

As any lawyer familiar with the law of conspiracy well knows, conspiracy indictments typically allege the commission of lawful acts by co-conspirators in furtherance of objectives of a conspiracy. Thus, simple events like using a cell phone to confirm a scheduled meeting with a co-conspirator are often charged as overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Therefore, the issue is not whether the act itself was lawful. The issue is what was the actor’s intent when he committed the act.

Nobody would seriously argue that the defendant could not get out of his vehicle and follow Trayvon Martin. He certainly could.

The relevant questions in this case are why did the defendant get out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon Martin and why did he lie about it afterward?

I do not believe the jury is going to have any difficulty figuring out the answers to those questions: The defendant intended to prevent this “asshole” from getting away and he shot him to death when Trayvon resisted. The defendant lied about it afterward because he did not want to go to prison.

Trayvon Martin is the only person who acted in self-defense.

That is basically all there is to this case.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

Ibragim Todashev may have been unarmed when killed by FBI agent

USA Today is reporting that 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev may have been unarmed when he was shot and killed by an FBI agent in Orlando on May 22nd.

Todashev’s father Abdul-Baki Todashev told the the Moscow media that his son had multiple gunshot wounds to his torso and one to the back of his head. The elder Todashev also displayed photos he claimed were of his son’s body in a Florida morgue, according to AP.

Ibragim Todashev was the ethnic Chechen whom the FBI were interrogating regarding his association with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the late Boston Marathon bombing suspect. Todashev was also a suspect in a triple homicide in Massachusetts two years ago.

The early reports that I read said Todashev was shot because he pulled a knife on an FBI agent.

The USA Today story quotes unnamed sources that Todashev had overturned a table but was unarmed when shot.

The Florida branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has called for a federal civil rights investigation into Todashev’s death.

“We have confirmed through senior sources within the FBI that Ibragim was indeed unarmed when he was shot seven times in the head, what appear to be even in the back of the head,” said Hassan Shibly, executive director of the CAIR Florida. “That’s very disturbing.”

Mark O’Mara should be sanctioned by the Court

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Good morning:

Bad character evidence about the victim of a homicide is not admissible in a self-defense case unless the defendant knew it before the encounter that ended with the victim’s death.

In other words, if the defendant did not know that the victim was a violent thug, he cannot introduce evidence that the victim was a violent thug in support of his claim of self-defense.

Mark O’Mara is using the information obtained from Trayvon’s phone in a fruitless attempt to establish that Trayvon was a violent thug. Even if he were successful, the information would still be irrelevant and inadmissible because the defendant did not know Trayvon before he killed him.

O’Mara must know this because he is a lawyer who specializes in criminal law. Since he knows this, we can reasonably conclude that he knows his motion for sanctions against BDLR will be denied.

The question people should be asking is why did he file the motion since he knew it would be denied?

I believe the answer is obvious.

He is using the motion as a vehicle to publicize irrelevant and inadmissible information about Trayvon Martin. He wants the public to believe that Trayvon is a violent thug who deserved to die.

Since he waited to file his motion until after 500 people received a summons for jury duty, we also can tell that he is using his motion for sanctions to convince as many of those 500 people as possible that Trayvon was a violent thug who deserved to die.

Two additional important points that are getting lost amid the hue and cry caused by the release of the information are that:

(1) it does not prove Trayvon was a violent thug, and

(2) it does prove that Mark O’Mara acted in bad faith when he filed the motion for sanctions.

Therefore, Judge Nelson should sanction O’Mara for filing the motion for sanctions in bad faith.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

Mark O’Mara engineers snipe hunt to avoid responsibility for publicizing irrelevant evidence

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Good afternoon:

NBC News reported late yesterday:

A Florida judge ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman’s defense team cannot mention Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school, prior marijuana use, text messages or past fighting during opening statements at next month’s trial.

Judge Debra Nelson said that during the trial she will consider motions to admit details as evidence on a case-by-case basis, outside the presence of jurors who will decide if Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin.

Although this statement is technically correct, it also is misleading because Judge Nelson actually concluded that the evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible. That is why she granted the State’s motion in limine to prohibit the defense from mentioning any of those things during jury selection and opening statement.

The only reason she might change her mind is if the State were to open the door by introducing evidence of good character. That is not going to happen because Trayvon’s character, whether good or bad, is not an issue in this case. BDLR has no reason to introduce evidence of good character and I am certain that he was not planning on doing that because he knows that good character evidence is irrelevant. Since the defense cannot rebut something that does not happen, the jury will not hear any of this information.

That is not the end of the story, however, because the irrelevant information in question was obtained from Trayvon Martin’s phone and it is the subject of a defense motion for sanctions and request for a judicial inquiry that Judge Nelson has scheduled for June 6th, the same day as the Frye hearing regarding the admissibility of expert testimony identifying the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I do not believe Judge Nelson is going to find that BDLR withheld evidence from the defense. The evidence was recorded on Trayvon’s phone in binary code and a copy of that raw data was disclosed to the defense sometime in late January. O’Mara did not hire an expert or purchase a software program that can translate that code into plain English.

A few weeks ago, O’Mara was contacted by an attorney who represents Ben Kruibdos, the Director of Information Technology for the Fourth Judicial Circuit. The attorney is Wesley White.

The Miami Herald reports:

White led the Nassau County state attorney’s office before resigning in December, citing differences of opinion with Corey. He is now in private practice.

White said the photos Kruidbos retrieved were of a hand holding a gun and one depicted drugs. The content of the text messages wasn’t specified.

“I’m an officer of the court and I’m obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it’s by the defense or prosecution,” White said.

Apparently, Kruibdos extracted the two photographs and possibly the text messages from the binary code and gave them to BDLR who did not pass them on to O’Mara.

Does that constitute a discovery violation or a tempest in a teapot?

I believe it is a tempest in a teapot, so long as BDLR turned over the raw data.

Judge Nelson has already ruled that the evidence is not relevant or admissible and it certainly is not exculpatory.

We will have to wait and see how the hearing turns out, but this looks like another snipe hunt instigated by O’Mara to distract everyone from holding him accountable for publicly disclosing information that should not have been disclosed.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

Zimmerman: Judge rules that evidence published by defense last week is not relevant or admissible

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Good afternoon:

Judge Nelson denied the defense motion for a continuance of the trial.

None of the information about Trayvon, which caused the big hullabaloo last week after the defense improperly released it for publication to the Orlando Sentinel, will be admitted into evidence at the trial because all of it is irrelevant and inadmissible.

However, Judge Nelson granted O’Mara’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion for sanctions against BDLR for alleged discovery violations pertaining to that information. Unfortunately, she had to continue the hearing to June 6th because O’Mara did not have all of the witnesses he needed to present his case.

I do not believe that he has a legitimate argument, since the evidence is not admissible at trial or exculpatory, and the prosecution disclosed it to the defense in timely fashion back in January. O’Mara claims that the disclosure was not timely because he was provided with raw data that he could not interpret.

However, he specifically asked for raw data, which is a proper request, and he should have retained an expert and/or the software program that is used to interpret it. His failure to do that cannot be blamed on BDLR.

FYI: Defense counsel should routinely ask for raw data, since it is the actual result and less susceptible to misinterpretation. Note that O’Mara waited until after the panel of 500 potential jurors were summoned to jury service. His delay in filing his motion for sanctions suggests that he was more interested in gaining a tactical advantage with that motion than he was in obtaining an interpretation of the raw data.

Judge Nelson granted the defense request for a Frye hearing regarding the admissibility of expert testimony identifying the person who uttered the terrified death shriek. She scheduled the hearing for June 6th and 7th and will permit expert witnesses on both sides to testify by videophone.

The defense still has not endorsed any expert witnesses. Remains to be seen, if any legitimate experts will disagree with the State’s experts and if they have the money to pay an expert. I doubt that they do.

At a press conference after the hearing, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. aggressively promoted the conspiracy theory that I wrote about in my last post.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

Zimmerman Pretrial Motions Hearing

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Good morning:

Are you ready to rock and roll?

Post your comments here

First up for us today is finding a source for livestream coverage.

Fred

Defense team is out of control

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Good afternoon:

Countdown: Only 2 days until the May 28th hearing and the trial gets underway with jury selection 2 weeks from tomorrow.

In today’s post, I am going to follow-up on Friday’s post with some important new information that will more clearly reveal the defense strategy.

In tomorrow’s post, I will breakdown Tuesday’s hearing.

Now, let’s take another look at what happened last week.

Two important criminal defense attorneys in Florida, Eugene Nichols and Jeff Deen, criticized the Zimmerman defense team for publicizing private, irrelevant and inadmissible evidence about Trayvon Martin.

Eugene Nichols is the newly elected President of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which is the Florida affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). Jeff Deen is a former assistant state attorney and the present director of a state agency that represents criminal defendants.

I support and thank both of them for speaking out because, when a criminal defense lawyer deliberately commits a sleazy and indefensible error like this in a high visibility case, the misconduct can splash onto all criminal lawyers. Let’s face it, the public does not have a high regard for criminal defense lawyers. To many people an incident like this would merely confirm their low opinion of criminal defense lawyers in general.

That is one reason why I spoke out Friday and used the word “disgusting” to describe what they did. The other reason, of course, is that, as the blog owner, I have a duty to report what I observe without mincing words. After 48 hours to reflect on what I said in Friday’s post, my opinion has not changed. As I will proceed to explain, I am even more disgusted today than I was Friday.

I hope a lot more criminal defense lawyers will publicly condemn the defense team over the weekend. We need to remind the public that criminal defense lawyers are officers of the court who respect the law and abide by the rules of professional conduct even as they fight for their clients.

Mark O’Mara and Don West are violating those core principles by doing everything they can to obstruct due process of law and the fair administration of justice. For example, consider the following:

1. By waiving the pretrial immunity hearing, they have, in effect, conceded that they cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

2. As lawyers admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of Florida and authorized to represent themselves to the public as specialists in the practice of criminal law and trying cases, they can be presumed to know the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials conducted in the circuit courts. Therefore, they knew that the information that they publicized last week about Trayvon would not be admissible at trial for any purpose pursuant to rules 401, 402, 403 and 608 of the rules of evidence.

3. They waited to publicize the irrelevant and inadmissible information until after the 500 people in the jury pool were notified by summons to report to court for jury selection on June 10th, thereby increasing the likelihood that most of the prospective jurors will have heard or read about it before June 10th.

4. In an effort to avoid being held accountable for poisoning the jury panel with irrelevant and inadmissible information, Mark O’Mara blamed Bernie de la Rionda. He said BDLR withheld the information from the defense in violation of the discovery rules and the Brady rule, which requires the State to disclose exculpatory information well in advance of the trial.

5. That explanation is false because:

a. the Brady rule does not apply since the information is not exculpatory for the same reason that it is irrelevant and inadmissible;

b. even if the information were exculpatory, BDLR disclosed it in timely fashion in early January;

c. The information was in the form of raw data, which is the same format that it was in when BDLR received it;

d. The defense specifically asked to be provided with the raw data and that is what it received;

e. the defense waited until after the jury summmons were mailed out to retain an expert to interpret the raw data; and

f. the defense waited until the last possible moment before the May 28th motions hearing to publicize the irrelevant and inadmissible information and to file its motion asking Judge Nelson to impose sanctions against BDLR.

6. The timing and sequence of these events constitutes powerful circumstantial evidence that poisoning the jury pool with irrelevant and inadmissible evidence was the defense team’s real motive.

7. Lawyers are required to act in good faith and prohibited from intentionally deceiving the Court.

8. Thus, defense counsel appear to have intentionally created an unringing-the-bell problem.

9. Courtesy of Robert Zimmerman, Sr., and Jr., last week the jury panel also got to hear them say that the prosecution is the result of a conspiracy between the governor, the prosecution and the judiciary to convict an innocent man.

The apparent purpose of these efforts is to maximize the possibility of seating one or more pro-Zimmerman jurors in stealth-like fashion, who are determined to acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence and the Court’s instructions.

With exception of a deadly mix of stupidity, ignorance and incompetence that I doubt to be the case, I cannot think of any other explanation for the strange tactical decisions and materially false statements by the defense.

We should soon see an effort by the defense through one of its proxies to inform the jury panel that jurors have a right to vote their conscience in disregard of the evidence and the instructions (i.e., jury nullification).

In conclusion I believe defense counsel are engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice which is unlawful and unethical.

If I am correct, they should be disbarred from the practice of law.

In the meantime, I think the best way to promote Justice for Trayvon (as well as George Zimmerman) is to communicate our concerns to others and hope that BDLR and Judge Nelson put some serious hurt on the defense strategy by granting the State’s motions in limine, including the motion for a gag order. The defense motions should be denied.

_________________________________________________

I hate to hassle people for money, but contributions have been lagging this month.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred