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.
Professor Dow, who I have quoted on multiple occasions and who has stated that a second year law student could prove reasonable doubt in this case, is the founder of the Texas Innocence Project and has worked with over a hundred death row inmates. On the cases where innocents have gone to death row you often find prosecutorial conduct quite similar to what is happening now in the Zimmerman case.
Corey, the third heavily flawed central character in this case, will not get a conviction despite her witness tampering.
"witness tampering"... Exaggerate much? If there were ANYTHING even close to evidence of witness tampering, the Defense would be after Corey in a HEARTBEAT! Investigations would ensure immediately.
Btw, I am very curious to see if Prof. Dow is correct in his assessment of the State's case.
Once again, Professor Dow, founder of the Texas Innocence Project:
Quote:
So here is what the jury will learn: Zimmerman called police frequently to report supposedly suspicious characters, and every time he called he was suspicious about someone black. It will learn that a 911 tape records someone shouting "Help!” right before Zimmerman fired the single fatal shot from point-blank range. Some witnesses say the person screaming was Martin, some say it was Zimmerman, and the FBI's analyst says the recording is too distorted to tell. (Notably, the newly released documents reveal that when an investigator spoke with Martin’s father, Tracy, and asked whether the screaming on the tape was his son’s, he responded, “No.”)
The jury will also learn that the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet, as if he had been lying on his back in the wet grass; that he had apparently been struck in the face, and that he was bleeding from a gash on the back of his head. It will learn that police officers asked him at least three times whether he wanted to go to the hospital—confirming contemporaneously that he had visible physical injuries.
A second-year law student could identify enough doubt here to preclude a criminal conviction. A superstar lawyer, which is what Zimmerman now has, could get an acquittal in his sleep. Zimmerman's defense will be that he felt threatened by Martin, that his fear was reasonable because Martin was hitting him, and that he was therefore justified in firing. Florida’s lenient Stand Your Ground law makes all of this close to a slam-dunk.
"Florida’s lenient Stand Your Ground law makes all of this close to a slam-dunk. "
I don't think the witness tampering will change this from being a slam dunk case. Notice Dow only refers to witnesses on the question of who is screaming for help and the quickly refers to the FBI's conclusions based on the tape.
Quote:
A Florida inmate faces execution despite new revelations that the state prompted a trial witness to lie. Inmate Wayne Tompkins was to be executed in Florida on October 28, 2008, but was granted a stay of execution to allow time for the state Supreme Court to review his case. On November 7, the court denied Tompkins' appeal, even though the court acknowledged that a state witness, a jailhouse informant, admitted to providing false testimony at Tompkins' original trial in 1985.
Justice Harry Anstead dissented from the court's ruling, noting that jailhouse informants are often unreliable, and in this case the informant was apparently prompted to lie. He wrote, "Indeed, if the claim is true, we have a state prosecutor who committed a criminal act in tampering with a witness. Surely, common sense would tell us this is the kind of 'bombshell' disclosure that could change the jury's entire evaluation of the case." Tompkins' attorney Martin McClain cited numerous concerns about the state's case. "This is one of the most troubling cases that I have," he said. "The evidence against Mr. Tompkins is just absurd." Tompkins' stay of execution expires on Nov. 18.
And Zimmerman's statement "I didn't know he was unarmed," if he made that statement or anything similar, might be a slight glimpse into the defense at this point. Zimmerman's "perception" that TM was armed would support Zimmerman's claim that he was in fear for his life, etc. Of course, "I didn't know he was unarmed" means I thought he WAS ARMED and dangerous.
But then again, GZ has another weird statement. After telling the police about being held down on the ground, with TM holding his nose and mouth with both hands, swearing at him to ****. Then, GZ said he thought TM might have had something in his hand, the way he was being pounded.
Interesting.
Holding someone's nose and mouth would be difficult with something in your hand, especially if you were also punching him MMA style at the same time.
I'll bet Zimmerman's gun was exposed when he reached "into the wrong pocket" to get his cell phone. That's exactly what I would do when confronting someone "suspicious that might be on drugs or something". And, Zimmerman forgot he was carrying a gun.
Then, TM hit him in the nose. That's usually what you'd do when seeing a stranger revealing a gun.
But Zimmerman held the boy down, arms to his side while straddling him. George thought he might have a weapon then too, and was dangerous.
The cops must have said a million times, "we know he's lying, how do we prove it?"
I'll bet Zimmerman's gun was exposed when he reached "into the wrong pocket" to get his cell phone. That's exactly what I would do when confronting someone "suspicious that might be on drugs or something". And, Zimmerman forgot he was carrying a gun.
Then, TM hit him in the nose. That's usually what you'd do when seeing a stranger revealing a gun.
But Zimmerman held the boy down, arms to his side while straddling him. George thought he might have a weapon then too, and was dangerous.
The cops must have said a million times, "we know he's lying, how do we prove it?"
Unfortunately, for Corey, the workings of your imagination ain't evidence.
I'll bet Zimmerman's gun was exposed when he reached "into the wrong pocket" to get his cell phone. That's exactly what I would do when confronting someone "suspicious that might be on drugs or something". And, Zimmerman forgot he was carrying a gun.
Then, TM hit him in the nose. That's usually what you'd do when seeing a stranger revealing a gun.
Once again, Professor Dow, founder of the Texas Innocence Project:
"Florida’s lenient Stand Your Ground law makes all of this close to a slam-dunk. "
I don't think the witness tampering will change this from being a slam dunk case. Notice Dow only refers to witnesses on the question of who is screaming for help and the quickly refers to the FBI's conclusions based on the tape.
Are appellate lawyers also good, experienced trial lawyers? There is a difference between litigation attorneys and appellate attorneys you know. Maybe if Zimmerman is convicted, Dow can do his appeal. Was Tompkins ultimately executed or did they win that appeal based on prosecutor witness tampering?
From your quote in your post:
"A second-year law student could identify enough doubt here to preclude a criminal conviction. A superstar lawyer, which is what Zimmerman now has, could get an acquittal in his sleep. Zimmerman's defense will be that he felt threatened by Martin, that his fear was reasonable because Martin was hitting him, and that he was therefore justified in firing. Florida’s lenient Stand Your Ground law makes all of this close to a slam-dunk."
Does this ^^^ mean that you agree with me that the focus of the defense at trial will NOT be TM's character but rather that Zimmerman "felt threatened" (the defense will be Zimmerman's perceptions and belief)?
I wonder why Zimmerman's experienced attorney has stated that this case will be a long and hard fight?
In this particular case the defense will have to put on evidence because it has asserted an affirmative defense.
I disagree with you that TM's character and past is going to be a focus of the defense. The defense may "gently" touch on some of those issues, but IMO they are NOT going to make Zimmerman's defense that he was following and then attacked by a "bad kid" aka "thug" therefore blaming the victim for his own death in that manner. I think that's a loser strategy for the defense. Beating up on a dead, unarmed 17 year old kid with NO CRIMINAL RECORD does not "endear" the defense to a jury. Giving the jury something to really dislike about your trial strategy is not the way to win a case.
I think the defense will focus on Zimmerman's FEAR and PERCEPTIONS of Trayvon; after all, the major issue in syg and self defense is FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE AND/OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM/INJURY. In fact, I think it would be more helpful to the defense that Zimmerman DID NOT KNOW factually a lot about Trayvon, therefore the FEAR, not that Zimmerman was "justified" in his fear because in fact TM was known to be violent, etc Putting TM on trial basically would be very difficult and slippery slope for the defense. They have the fact that there was a physical altercation already; seems that all they would need to add to that is simply proving that trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman in that fight (Zimmerman's injuries) and that Zimmerman's PERCEPTION was that his life was in danger and/or he was in danger of great bodily harm/injury. Zimmerman's task is to PROVE that he BELIEVED his life was in danger, etc. Attacking Trayvon's character is not needed because Zimmerman didn't know ANYTHING about TM other than his (Z's) own perceptions that night.
TM's character will be part of the state's case. It won't be the 'Focus' [your word] of the defense, but they can't let the family and only witnesses called by the defense get away with a 'No questions, your honor.' I'll assume that O'Mara has conducted uncomfortable x-exams before.
TM's character will be part of the state's case. It won't be the 'Focus' [your word] of the defense, but they can't let the family and only witnesses called by the defense get away with a 'No questions, your honor.' I'll assume that O'Mara has conducted uncomfortable x-exams before.
Huh? I'm confused. "It won't be the Focus ... of the defense but they can't let the family and only witnesses called by the defense get away with 'No questions, Your Honor."?
Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed to me that your posts have contended that TM's character is something the defense will bring up and use as a large part of their strategy to prove Zimmerman was justified in being in fear of losing his life. Now you're saying that the State will bring up TM's character and that on cross examination the defense will use that as an opportunity to bring out negative things about TM like his facebook page, etc? You realize that on cross examination the defense is not allowed to go OUTSIDE what was brought up on direct examination, don't you? So how would the defense bring up facebook, etc, info if the State never went there in direct?
The state can bring up the fact that TM was UNARMED, had no criminal record, his age, his purpose for being outside that night, etc., etc., WITHOUT going into all the gossip, etc., via social media. The defense cannot bring up things in cross which were not brought up by the state. The defense would have to call the same witnesses called by the state, but then call them as defense witnesses in order to bring that other stuff in.
The defense has to put on witnesses in re self defense, and this is why I don't think they're going to be calling witnesses, such as people posting on social media, to testify about alleged violence by TM.
But as others have stated, while it is quite plausible, it isn't evidence.
I will state my position again. While I think GZ is lying, and maybe he is guilty of starting this incident, I haven't seen anything yet to indicate they can prove he is guilty of M2. Now they may well have additional evidence that can prove him guilty.
I also think that while GZ is a liar, a hothead at times, and maybe a genuine azzhat, that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Even azzhats have the right to a fair trial, and not be found guilty just because you want them to be found guilty, or innocent for that matter.
There are many bad people walking the streets because they either haven't been caught, or nothing was proved to find them guilty. Just the way things are. Given his background, I'm sure his name will pop up at some point in the future.
Disagree. Don't think they'll go far down that road. As I've stated many times, focusing on trying the victim is not a good strategy IMO.
Again, 'focusing on' are your words.
You don't believe tm's non-violent reputation, the unlikelihood he'd engage in the acts and words gz attribute to him will be part of the state's case ?
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.
Exaggerate much? If there were ANYTHING even close to evidence of witness tampering, the Defense would be after Corey in a HEARTBEAT! Investigations would ensure immediately.
