Featuring Malisha identifying who the good guys are

July 29, 2013

Monday, July 29, 2013

Good morning to all of our friends:

Crane has a post up about a pregnancy disaster in jail and I have a post about the Supremacy Clause trumping the Nullification Doctrine, which is quite popular with state’s-rights and 10th Amendment enthusiasts. This is the same crowd racist crowd that has supported and continues to support George Zimmerman. They want to re-fight the civil war to reestablish white supremacy and segregation and legitimize slavery through imprisonment and debt.

I think this group is far more dangerous to our collective peace and security than Muslim terrorists.

I am featuring Malisha’s comment this morning because I think she nailed why so many powerful and influential people decided to demonize a child and rig the outcome for George Zimmerman

I think we actually DO know the truth, but up until this very morning I had not put it into a sentence. The sentence it came to me through was Serino’s sentence when he began to gently — ever so minutely and shyly, like a little girl wondering, with her thumb in her mouth, if she could ask the regal old woman for a cookie — question Fogen’s story. Serino said, mid-sentence, after saying that Trayvon Martin was not doing anything wrong, “You’re still the good guy here.”

Those (and now, the individuals included in “those” is legion) who worked hard to exonerate Fogen after he murdered Trayvon Martin were essentially saying:

Fogen has to still be the good guy here.
No matter WHAT he did,
No matter WHAT WHOPPERS he told,
No matter how innocent and undeserving Trayvon was;
No matter what the facts show,
No matter what the forensics reveal,
No matter what the law says,
No matter what his intentions were,
No matter how many wrongs he committed,
No matter what the morality issues are,
No matter what (including but not limited to ANYTHING)

George Zimmerman has got to stay THE GOOD GUY here.

… why? …

Because if he is NOT,
THEN:

A white guy went out hunting and chased down an anonymous Black kid he picked and targeted like game in a forest,
and he chased him
and he scared him
and he killed him
and there is no excuse.
And he did it because he knew he could get away with it.
And he DID get away with it.

If a theorem is true, the contrapositive is true.

If a white guy is a good guy,
then he is right to target and kill a Black and blame the Black.

If he is NOT right
(to target and kill a Black and blame the Black)
then he is not a good guy.

Since this case started with everyone in power saying:

HE IS STILL THE GOOD GUY,

Then he had to be NOT GUILTY of any crime
because it HAD to be that what he did was right.

OtherWISE, all the wrongs the white South has committed
would make them NOT the good guys any more.

And Rick Scott would not put up with that.
State’s Rights.

Serino gave us the verdict in the very beginning:

“YOU’RE STILL THE GOOD GUY HERE.”

Let us know your thoughts on this matter and if you believe Michael Dunn’s prosecution and trial will be rigged in his favor for the same reason.


The prosecution concealed police corruption in Zimmerman trial

July 21, 2013

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Good evening my friends:

The jury delivered its verdict in the George Zimmerman trial a week ago tonight. I was shocked and dismayed by the verdict. Like most of you I initially focused my wrath on stealth juror B-37 because she basically admitted on national television approximately 12 hours after the verdict was announced to having decided that “George” (referring to him as though he were a personal friend) was not guilty before she heard any evidence in the case. Indeed, her summary of the evidence matched the false narrative that Mark O’Mara had been preaching and the national media had been duly reporting for a year.

She bought O’Mara’s Trayvon-is-a-thug story despite no evidence to support it. Her race-based criticism of Rachel Jenteal’s manner of speaking and her consequent decision to ignore her testimony was a breathtaking admission of racist thinking that she quite obviously regarded as acceptable normative behavior that no one would question.

When I thought she could not possibly do more damage to herself, she added insult to injury with her giddy announcement that she had reached an agreement with a literary agent to sell her story to a publishing house before the story was even written. Never mind that she or her attorney husband must have contacted the literary agent in violation of the sequestration order, unless they contacted her in the middle of the night after the verdict was announced.

I seriously doubt that literary agents accept cold calls on late Saturday nights and early Sunday mornings from unpublished authors pitching ideas for unwritten books. Thankfully, the agent had the good sense to nix the deal once she realized she was dealing with an out of control racist wacko.

I was so disgusted and angered by B-37’s false statements under oath during voir dire, her willful violations of the sequestration order and her oath to follow the jury instructions that I urged the prosecution to prosecute her for perjury. Well, I have not seen any sign that Angela Corey intends to make an example out of her to warn future jurors not to engage in those behaviors. Seems to me that such a prosecution probably is necessary in Florida to convince jurors that an oath truly is a promise to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. In addition, B-37 truly is an unrepentant racist and egregious human being who deserves to spend time in prison for who she is as well as what she did.

While I have no doubt that B-37 contributed significantly to the miscarriage of justice, she was not alone. I also hold Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda responsible two disastrous tactical decisions; namely, the decision to remove race from the case and the decision to refrain from aggressively attacking Investigator Chris Serino and Officer Doris Singleton for their testimony supporting Zimmerman and vouching for his credibility. Serino, in particular, deserved to be raked over the coals for tampering with witnesses at the crime scene in an attempt to convince them that the defendant uttered the terrified death shriek.

Witness tampering in a murder case is a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

I first read about Trayvon Martin’s murder while the Sanford Police Department was still investigating the case and it seemed that Zimmerman was not going to be charged.

Their reluctance to charge appeared to me to have been imposed from the top down by State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and Chief Bill Lee due to as yet unknown reasons political reasons rather than the merits of the case.

That is corruption and that is not how our legal system is supposed to work.

As soon as I reviewed the defendant’s statements, including what he said during the NEN call, I realized that this case was all about race and could not be understood without mentioning race. If Trayvon Martin had been white, for example, the defendant would not have called the police.

I wrote an article in which I stated that anyone who believed George Zimmerman’s story was necessarily a racist. That is, one had to assume that Trayvon was a violent and crazy thug who all of a sudden for no apparent reason decided to attack and attempt to kill with his bare hands a menacing stranger who had followed him in a vehicle and then on foot after Trayvon had successfully eluded him by running away and hiding in a dark area behind a building containing townhomes. No person in their right mind would do that.

The defendant described Trayvon as a stereotypical black gangsta popularized in comics and blaxploitation films. In order to believe Zimmerman, people had to believe that the stereotypical black gangsta in films actually exists in real life.

I have represented black gang-bangers from Los Angeles who were members of the notorious Crips and Bloods. They were real flesh and blood people with more than a passing interest in survival. Yes, they had participated in gang violence and killed people but they planned what they did and they acted together. They did not utter dated movie lines or issue warnings to their intended victims before shooting them. They did not wander off unarmed and alone somewhere and suddenly decide to attack and kill a stranger with their bare hands. None of them would have believed Zimmerman’s ridiculous story. Only a white racist fixated on young black males who gets a thrill out of watching movies about mean and vicious black gangstas believing that they represent real people would even be capable of making up such a ridiculous story.

I was and continue to be astonished that anyone believed his story.

I believe that the extent to which it is believed offers a pretty accurate measuring stick indicating the prevalence of racism against blacks in our current society.

George Zimmerman did not profile Trayvon Martin as a thug casing the neighborhood for a house to burglarize in the RTL around 7 pm on a rainy Sunday night in late February because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and walking around in the rain. He profiled him because he was a young black male and he invented a self-defense claim to justify killing him by describing Trayvon Martin as character in a movie.

Race was the proverbial elephant in the living room and the prosecution should never have agreed not to mention it. Zimmerman selected Trayvon because he was black and he hunted him down and attempted to detain him because he assumed certain things about him because he was black. He was the aggressor because he was determined to prevent him from escaping out the back entrance before the police arrived just like all of the other fucking coons and assholes who got away.

A review of all of the defendants NEN calls establishes that he obsessed about blacks. Black residents of the RTL had negative experiences with him where he accused them of wrongdoing. A visible pattern emerges of Zimmerman repeatedly assuming that blacks engaging in normal activities actually were up to no good and he called the police NEN to report them.

All of this evidence was relevant to why he selected Trayvon and why he killed him

As John Guy said, “George Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to. He shot him because he wanted to.”And he did it because Trayvon was black.

In other words, he committed a federal hate crime and I hope the Justice Department prosecutes him.

I do not know why the prosecution decided not to stress the importance of race. I imagine Angela Corey made the decision with Bernie de la Rionda’s consent. I do not believe John Guy or Richard Mantei participated in that decision. I think Corey and de la Rionda owe us an explanation.

They also inexplicably allowed Chris Serino and Doris Singleton to support George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. I can understand not wanting to attack a law enforcement agency in order to avoid incurring the probable wrath of other law enforcement agencies. However, once Serino and Singleton turned against the prosecution, Bernie de la Rionda should have torn Serino to shreds by bringing out that he tampered with witnesses to get them to identify George Zimmerman as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek and he set up Tracy Martin at his most vulnerable moment to deny in front of other officers, including Singleton, that he could positively identify Trayvon as the person screaming.

Serino was obviously following orders issued before he arrived at the crime scene. The fix was in and the orders were issued from the top down. He ran that investigation to produce the appearance of an investigation and he only varied from that course of action at the last minute when he realized that the department was not going to get away with not charging Zimmerman. I think he made that decision on his own hoping to save his job and hoping people would not look closely at what he did.

I think he was a trusted player in the corruption game or the Chief would not have put him in charge of the investigation.

Bernie de la Rionda also should have confronted Singleton for wearing awards on her uniform that she had not earned.

The verdict in this case might well have been different if Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda had not made these decisions.

The bottom line is Chris Serino and Doris Singleton are corrupt cops in a corrupt police department. They still have their jobs and that suggests that the effort to clean-up the department is only for the sake of appearances.

The prosecution’s decision to allow them to lie and gut their case to justify and conceal how they mishandled the investigation bespeaks a form of intolerable corruption in which Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda aided and abetted corrupt police work.

And the end result is that a racist lying psychopath is now free to kill again.

That is why I cannot and will not accept this verdict as legitimate, ever.

This is why I join with LLMPapa in urging Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute George Zimmerman for a hate crime.

I regret to say that I do not believe Zimmerman will be charged with a hate crime. I fear the decision will be made for political reasons rather than on the merits of the case itself.

Assuming I am right that will add even more corruption to a corrupt and shameful case.

At the very least, by speaking truth to power, we draw a line in the sand and declare for all who have eyes to see that we are not fooled by the appearance of justice. We saw through to the corrupt core of this case and in this way we honor Trayvon Martin and his memory.


Florida’s homicide statutes are a mess

July 18, 2013

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Good morning:

Florida’s homicide statutes are a mess and the legislature needs to fix them. Fortunately, a model exists for them to follow. Produced by the American Law Institute, it’s called the Model Penal Code.

The American Law Institute is a non-profit independent organization composed of prominent judges, lawyers and legal scholars who comprehensively developed and redesigned criminal statutes to simplify and unify existing criminal codes so that everyone would be on the same page, so to speak, operating with a uniform set of understandable concepts and statutes. The Model Penal Code was published in 1962 and updated in 1985.

A crime consists of a prohibited act (actus reus) committed with a particular mental state (mens rea). The Model Penal Code established four mental states.

Here’s Wiki:

One of the major innovations of the MPC is its use of standardized mens rea terms (criminal mind, or in MPC terms, culpability) to determine levels of mental states, just as homicide is considered more severe if done intentionally rather than accidentally. These terms are (in descending order) “purposely”, “knowingly,” “recklessly”, and “negligently”, with a fifth state of “strict liability”, which is highly disfavored. Each material element of every crime has an associated culpability state that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Purposely. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or cause the result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, he is aware of the circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.

Knowingly. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. If the element involves a result, he is practically certain that the result will occur. Further, if the element involves knowledge of the existence of a particular fact, it is satisfied if he is aware of a high probability of the existence of that fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
Recklessly. A person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.
Negligently. A person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.

If an offense requires a specific kind of culpability, then any more severe culpability will suffice. Thus if an offense is defined in the form, “It is illegal to knowingly do X,” then it is illegal to do X knowingly or purposely (a more severe state), but not to do so recklessly or negligently (the two less severe states). Strict liability means that it is illegal to do something, regardless of one’s mental state. If a statute provides only a single kind of culpability for a crime, that kind of culpability is assumed to apply to all elements. If no culpability is stated by statute, a minimum of recklessness is assumed to be required. The MPC declines to use the common terms “intentional” or “willful” in its specification of crimes, in part because of the complex interpretive history of these terms. However, it defines that any (non-MPC) statute in the jurisdiction’s criminal code that uses the term “intentionally” shall mean “purposely,” and any use of “willfully” shall mean “with knowledge.” If a law makes an actor absolutely liable for an offense, MPC sections 2.05 and 1.04 state that the actor can only be guilty of what the MPC calls violations (essentially meaning civil infractions), which only carry fines or other monetary penalties, and no jail time.

The actus reus for homicide is to cause the death of another person.

In Washington State where I practiced law for 30 years, the legislature defined four degrees of homicide, according to the mens rea:

(1) Murder in the First Degree: premeditation;

(2) Murder in the Second Degree: intentional;

(3) Manslaughter in the First Degree: reckless; and

(4) Manslaughter in the Second Degree: gross negligence.

The difference between premeditated and intentional murder is a reflection on intent to kill and a decision to go ahead and kill.

Recklessness is best exemplified by the game Russian Roulette. It is state of mind in which the actor is aware of a substantial risk of harm to another person if he commits a particular act, but he goes ahead and does it anyway.

Criminal negligence is a failure to be aware of a substantial risk of harm to another person where that failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard to exercise due care to avoid injuring or killing other people.

Each crime is a lesser included offense of the more serious degrees of homicide. Therefore, Murder in the Second Degree is a lesser included offense of Murder in the First Degree and Manslaughter in the First Degree and Manslaughter in the Second Degree are lesser included offenses of Murder in the Second Degree.

Murder in the Second Degree in Florida does not require proof of intent to kill and it is easy to confuse with Aggravated Manslaughter because the mens rea for both is recklessness. That is, evincing a depraved mind is defined as acting with extreme or reckless indifference that a particular act will cause the death of another. That’s recklessness and Aggravated Manslaughter is defined as reckless homicide.

Intent creeps into the Florida instruction on Murder in the Second Degree requiring proof that the defendant intended to commit the act that caused the death of another, as opposed to proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim. See Haygood v. State, No. SC11-294 (February 14, 2013)

The mental state for Manslaughter in Florida is defined as “culpable” or gross negligence, which is the same as Manslaughter in the Second Degree in Washington State.

Given the evidence introduced at trial and using the Washington statutes as an example, I would have instructed on Murder in the Second Degree (intentional murder), Manslaughter in the First Degree (reckless homicide), and Manslaughter in the Second Degree (criminally negligent homicide).

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


Will the defendant testify or not testify?

July 6, 2013

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Good afternoon:

I write regarding whether the defendant should testify.

I advised my clients not to testify, unless there was some specific reason why I believed they had to testify. That reason typically would involve testifying about something that the jury would not otherwise know unless the client testifies. This is a common occurrence is self-defense cases and why most lawyers will say that a client must testify in such a case.

As Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei said yesterday, the use of deadly force in self-defense is unlawful unless the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious injury when he used deadly force. The reasonableness requirement means that the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated objectively by comparing his conduct to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

The jury of 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, will decide whether the defendant acted reasonably.

The defendant is the only person who can tell them whether he believed he was in such danger when he shot Trayvon Martin. According to various witnesses who have testified, he described a situation to them that, if true, probably would objectively constitute such a danger. For the past year, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara has been aggressively selling the defendant’s story on national television and waiving the two bloody cell phone photographs of the back of the defendant’s head and his face as proof that the defendant acted reasonably. I think the national media has uncritically accepted O’Mara’s sales job and shamelessly promoted it.

The critical question, however, is whether the 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, believe what the defendant told others. They are not required to believe anything he said. I doubt they will believe him, given his many contradictory statements, implausible claims, and the forensic evidence, particularly the DNA evidence, which proves that Trayvon Martin did not hit him 20-30 times in the face, grab his head and repeatedly slam it into a concrete sidewalk, or attempt to smother him by placing his hands over the defendant’s nose and mouth.

I believe the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant provoked the encounter with Trayvon Martin by following him in a vehicle and then on foot after Trayvon attempted to elude him. He hunted him down and attempted to restrain him contrary to a request by the police dispatcher not to follow him and he never identified himself or explained why he was restraining him. Under these circumstances, Trayvon Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself, escalating to deadly force when the defendant pulled out his gun. Therefore, Trayvon Martin used lawful force to defend himself and the defendant’s use of force was unlawful.

If he were my client, I would tell him that this is my assessment.

If he responded with, “What about my mother identifying me as the person who screamed?” I would say she did not do so unequivocally. Sybrina Fulton did and she was credible.

I would tell him that he gets to make the call regarding whether to testify. Given my assessment that the jury is going to convict him, I would also tell him that his only chance to avoid conviction would be to testify and persuade those 6 women, 5 of them mothers, that they should not convict him.

I would explain the following information.

The burden of proof in all criminal cases in this country is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. The defendant is presumed innocent throughout the trial and the jury must find him “not guilty” unless the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is generally defined as such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully and fairly considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence. The prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists, as opposed to a speculative doubt or a mere suspicion. The Florida instruction states that a person is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they have an abiding belief in the truth of the charge. An abiding belief is a long lasting belief. The idea is that a juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they are sure that they will not change their mind sometime in the future due to some doubt they have about the strength of the evidence.

The definition of reasonable doubt is circular, which frustrates jurors who expect and want reasonable doubt quantified. For example, preponderance of the evidence, which is the burden of proof in a civil case, is defined as proving that a proposition is more likely so than not so or supported by more than 50% of the evidence. There is no equivalent percentage of certainty used to define reasonable doubt. I believe most trial lawyers and judges would agree that it’s possible that different juries hearing the same case could reach different conclusions. This is why attorney voir dire during jury selection and the use of cause and peremptory challenges to select a jury are so critically important.

Our legal system guards and protects the sanctity of the jury room and juror deliberations. A jury is never required to explain or justify its verdict. As a result, a jury actually gets to decide what constitutes reasonable doubt, even though they are never told that they have this power. The jury is a reflection of the community and it acts as the conscience of the community when it decides whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would tell him that if he can express his humanity and touch their hearts, he has a chance at manslaughter.

I would also tell him that he must tell the truth without any bullshit like he uttered on the Hannity Show.

He must admit when he lied, to whom he lied, and why he lied.

He must convince them that he acted out of fright, not anger.

I think he’s going to testify for all the wrong reasons because he has always been able to lie his way out of trouble.

Ain’t going to work this time.

I have one final reason for believing he will testify. His lawyers did not voir dire the prospective jurors on his right to remain silent and not testify. I always did that in my cases to make sure the jurors understood that they could not use his silence against him by presuming he had something to hide.


Judge Debra Nelson denies defense motion for judgment of acquittal

July 5, 2013

Friday, July 5, 2013

Good evening:

Judge Debra Nelson summarily denied a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal this afternoon after the State rested its case.

The first witness called by the defense was the defendant’s mother, Gladys Zimmerman, who identified him as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek that is audible in the background of a 911 call. However, she admitted on cross examination that she had never heard him scream for help or cry out like that.

Her testimony contrasted sharply with testimony this morning by Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, who identified him quietly and sorrowfully without equivocation.

The State rested its case after presenting the testimony of Dr. Bao, the Assistant Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on Travon Martin. He described the gunshot wound as direct from front to back with the hollow point bullet passing through the front and rear wall of the right the ventricle before coming apart and scattering in different directions finally coming to rest in the pericardial sac.

He testified that Trayvon would have been conscious and in pain from 1 to 10 minutes but unable to move or speak during that time. His testimony contradicts the defendant’s claim that Trayvon sat up and said, “You got it,” or “You got me.”

It also makes it extremely unlikely that he did not know that Trayvon was dead before the police arrived, contradicting his claim on the Sean Hannity Show that he did not know that he’d hit Trayvon when he fired the shot and did not find out he was dead until someone told him at the police station later that evening.

The defendant’s claim on the Sean Hannity Show that he has no regrets, would not do anything differently, and everything happened according to “God’s plan,” is chilling in light of today’s testimony.

Judge Nelson recessed the trial for the weekend until Monday morning at 9 am EDT.

Between now and then, the defendant will have to decide whether to testify or remain silent.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


Welcome to liveblogging day 9 Zimmerman trial (morning session)

July 5, 2013

Friday, July 5, 2013

Good morning:

Court will resume this morning at 8:30 am EDT.

The prosecution probably will rest is case today.

I am expecting the Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Bao, who did the autopsy. Expect graphic and gruesome photos. If you aren’t into that, you may want to cover your screen and listen.

Also expecting the State to call a wind-up witness, possibly FDLE Detective Gilbreath to connect all the dots with charts, diagrams and timelines.

Sybrina Fulton may also testify to identify Trayvon’s voice. If she does, expect Don West to do his best to impeach her credibility by accusing her of being a bad parent and bringing up the lawsuit against the HOA.

Here’s the link to the livestream coverage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52117880/

See you in court.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

Thank you


Defendant faces Hobson’s Choice

July 4, 2013

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Happy Independence Day to everyone!

I write today to allay concerns regarding the sufficiency of the State’s case.

First, we know they are going to call the Dr. Bao, the Assistant Medical Examiner who did the autopsy. I think we can reasonably expect that he will tie up any remaining loose ends regarding Trayvon’s death. Expect graphic and gruesome photographs that will firmly ground this case in the reality of a death that did not need to happen.

Second, the prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up or summary witness who ties everything together with the aid of charts, graphs and timelines that bring the evidence into focus. I am anticipating that FDLE Detective Gilbreath will be the witness and Bernie de la Rionda will ask the questions that steers him through the maze and haze.

Third, I am expecting the State will call Sybrina Fulton and she will identify her son as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I believe the State will use most of tomorrow to finish up its case.

After the State rests, the defense will move to dismiss the murder charge and enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to present a prima facie case.

The test sJudge Nelson will apply in deciding that motion requires her to assume for the purpose of deciding the motion that all of the evidence introduced during the State’s case-in-chief and all reasonable assumptions that can be drawn from that evidence are true. Given those assumptions, she must decide if a rational trier of fact (i.e., a juror) could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree.

Expect Judge Nelson to deny the defense motion.

After she denies that motion, the defense will have to decide whether to present any evidence. I believe sufficient evidence of self-defense has come in through the defendant’s statements to support instructing the jury on self-defense. Therefore, the defendant will not have to testify to get that instruction and the defense could rest without calling any witnesses.

Will the defendant testify?

As I commented last night,

The combination of the SPD photographs that show no significant injuries to the defendant’s face and head and the absence of any of the defendant’s blood and DNA on Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and his hoodie sweatshirt, particularly the sleeves and cuffs, put the lie to the defendant’s story.

Trayvon Martin did not hit the defendant repeatedly or slam his head against a cement sidewalk because, if he had done so, he would have been covered with the defendant’s blood and DNA.

Therefore, the defendant was never reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and sleeves would have been drenched in blood, if the defendant’s story were true. The argument that the rain washed away the defendant’s DNA, and/or the packaging of the damp hoodie in a plastic biohazard bag degraded all of the defendant’s DNA is specious because Trayvon’s blood and DNA were detected.

There is no question that the defendant followed Trayvon Martin first in his vehicle and then on foot with the intent of preventing this “asshole from getting away.”

There is no question that Trayvon Martin attempted to run away from the defendant.

There is no question that the defendant had two opportunities to identify himself but decided not to do so.

There is no question that the defendant ignored the dispatcher’s warning to cease from following Trayvon Martin when he told the dispatcher to have the officer en route call him for a location and he subsequently pursued Trayvon Martin into the grassy area behind the townhomes south of the T intersection.

Given his unambiguously expressed intent to prevent Trayvon Martin from getting away, there is no doubt that he confronted him when he found him.

The defendant’s hostile pursuit makes him the aggressor and he cannot legitimately claim that he acted in self-defense, unless Trayvon Martin resisted his effort to detain him with deadly force and he could not withdraw from the encounter.

The defense claim that Trayvon Martin was “armed” with a cement sidewalk is controverted by Dr. Rao’s testimony and the DNA evidence.

I think the jury will likely find the defendant guilty, if he does not testify.

Yet, I cannot imagine how he can talk himself out of the mess he has created.

He has the right to decide whether to testify.

We will have to wait and see what he decides to do.

I am not expecting the defense to present any other evidence, with the possible exception of calling a family member(s) to identify the defendant as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I suspect the jury will not believe them since the defendant was never in any danger and the shriek abruptly ends with the gunshot that silenced Trayvon Martin forever.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


%d bloggers like this: