Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think as attorneys in a high profile case, the State might be hesitant file on what they considered to be a very weak case. From my reading of that link, I felt that it was very possible for the State to prevail even with just the evidence which has been disclosed; and then there is the evidence that has not been made public. I could be wrong though.
Btw, I totally disagree with Alan Dershowitz.
I don't base my opinion on Dershowitz. I didn't think it met probable cause for murder 2 and the judge said ok because they usually do and in this case, with the political and social pressure, was there any doubt he'd move the case along.
Even looking at everything favorably for the state, it barely meets probable cause on the key elements---
There was an unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is "imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind" if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Do the defense witnesses have to testify in open court? Would their names have to be entered into the record? I ask because I think these two witnesses may balk at testifying in Zimmerman's defense for fear of their safety. I think their fear would be justifiable. I'm familiar with the constitutional right of the defendant to confront his witnesses but does such a right confer to the prosecution?
The "Confrontation Clause" only applies to the accused in a criminal trial, the prosecution does not "enjoy" this right...
There could be the option that "special" witnesses testify via closed circuit TV or video-link which will still comply with the "face to face" cross examination to satisfy the defendant's rights and could provide anonymity to the witnesses for a period of time, unless the public sues for the sealed|redacted information...
The one witness is 13, so he would definitely fall under the "special witness" statute, the question remains (still researching) if the "special witness" statutes only apply to prosecution witnesses...
The "Confrontation Clause" only applies to the accused in a criminal trial, the prosecution does not "enjoy" this right...
There could be the option that "special" witnesses testify via closed circuit TV or video-link which will still comply with the "face to face" cross examination to satisfy the defendant's rights and could provide anonymity to the witnesses for a period of time, unless the public sues for the sealed|redacted information...
The one witness is 13, so he would definitely fall under the "special witness" statute, the question remains (still researching) if the "special witness" statutes only apply to prosecution witnesses...
IMO, it would be bad strategy to call a 13 year old in a case like this. Even with a very gentle cross examination, his testimony could easily be rendered useless; based on what his mother has said, there is a serious question about the investigators pressuring this kid to say more than he actually remembered. That information would most likely not be lost on seasoned attorneys.
I"m sorry, Edward, but you cannot compel me to address anything, much as you would like to. I've addressed "John" before, in a number of threads. I don't feel like going back and researching John, what he said, etc.
Frankly, I think an attorney could rip up any of those witnesses. I doubt the 13 year old's mother will let him testify. My opinions about these witnesses.
I agree with this one and I don't blame her one bit. Whether the law will her to allow her to do this and if this refusal could lead to a mistrial are intriguing questions.
His first statement, which is most likely in the original police report, confirms parts of Zimmerman's account.
Not sure about the law concerning this but seems to me if the defense has a witness that can prove its innocence and they can't testify their rights maybe violated and a mistrial declared. Again I'm not sure about this one.
I agree with this one and I don't blame her one bit. Whether the law will her to allow her to do this and if this refusal could lead to a mistrial are intriguing questions.
I don't know why that would cause a mistrial. He really didn't see that much; he had to run after his dog.
AND the burden is on Zimmerman to prove he acted in self defense.
Edward, do you know what an affirmative defense is and what it entails? Have you looked at the elements of 2nd degree murder in order to know what the state has to prove? What's going on with that ability to read the law and understand it as well or better than some attorneys?
Can you explain in detail how conflicting witnesses help Zimmerman, rather than cancelling each other out?
So you are basing your entire "case" (opinion) actually on ONE WITNESS. IMO that's a very simplistic view and one consistent with someone who has absolutely no experience in and little knowledge of how cases are litigated in the real world. If you are ever in a position of having legal troubles, you should definitely hire a lawyer to help you.
I'm aware of that this is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman has a witness that affirms parts of his story. The state still has to poke holes in the affirmation or it loses.
There are several reason why I believe the prosecution doesn't have much of a case, the witness John is the most damning in my opinion.
I agree with this one and I don't blame her one bit. Whether the law will her to allow her to do this and if this refusal could lead to a mistrial are intriguing questions.
It will NOT lead to a mistrial. Parents have enormous power when it comes to children being questioned by LEO and testifying in court.
Since you can read the law and understand it so well, perhaps you should do a little legal research and find the answers to the questions you think are so intriguing.
I'm aware of that this is an affirmative defense. Zimmerman has a witness that affirms parts of his story. The state still has to poke holes in the affirmation or it loses.
There are several reason why I believe the prosecution doesn't have much of a case, the witness John is the most damning in my opinion.
Edward, you're hedging. Judging from your answer, you don't know what an affirmative defense is and what it means for the trial.
I didn't ask you about why you think the prosecution doesn't have much of a case; basically I said that you seem to be basing your entire opinion that Zimmerman is "right" on the ONE witness, John. However, can you tell us in detail why you think the prosecution doesn't have much of a case, even though you do NOT know the entire extent of the state's evidence?
I don't base my opinion on Dershowitz. I didn't think it met probable cause for murder 2 and the judge said ok because they usually do and in this case, with the political and social pressure, was there any doubt he'd move the case along.
Even looking at everything favorably for the state, it barely meets probable cause on the key elements---
There was an unlawful killing by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is "imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind" if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
I'm not sure I agree with you that Judges go along with insufficient probable cause affidavits simply "because they do."
"Barely meeting" probable cause requirements, still meets them. I would have thought the state would have been silly to reveal their whole case in a probable cause affidavit. In fact, seems to me that pleading as little as possible was a smart strategic move on the part of the state. I could be wrong. We will see as the case moves forward and more evidence is revealed, which may not be until time of trial or immunity hearing.
IMO, it would be bad strategy to call a 13 year old in a case like this. Even with a very gentle cross examination, his testimony could easily be rendered useless; based on what his mother has said, there is a serious question about the investigators pressuring this kid to say more than he actually remembered. That information would most likely not be lost on seasoned attorneys.
I agree, it's true children|tweens can be unpredictable and impressionable, it could be a risk to either side...there is also the possibility bringing in a 13 year old to testify under duress could create ill will from the jury towards the side that called him...even though they are not supposed to allow emotions|feelings to rule, it does happen...
Last edited by tiluha; 04-29-2012 at 05:44 PM..
Reason: I need a proofreader!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judging from your answer, you don't know what an affirmative defense is and what it means for the trial.