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.
George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers Tuesday when they waived their client's right to a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin a year ago.
However, the defense lawyers didn't say whether they would waive the immunity hearing outright. They left open the possibility for that hearing to be rolled into Zimmerman's second degree murder trial. Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain in his Florida subdivision, shot and killed the teen, who was visiting a house in the area.
The move allows the defense more time to prepare for the trial this summer, but also raises the stakes.
I am not a legal expert but you often see trials where extremely relevant information gets excluded for some technical legal reason. I'm guessing there's something the Defense needs to use for his main defence which they are worried will be ruled inadmissable if they do the Stand Your Ground thing.
There was one rape case where the rule "the victim's sex life isn't relevant" was invoked to prevent the defense from even mentioning the fact that this was the woman's 12th rape accusation and that all 11 previous accusations had been proven to be deliberate falsehoods.
So I'm guessing something like that is happening here. If the Defense thinks he has a better shot in a main trial on the entire situation than in a specific stand your ground hearing, they don't want to end up not being able to use something in the main trial due to it having already been used in the hearing.
Um, check the facts, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Despite not being a police officer, despite being told by authorities to stay in his car, he chased down Martin with zero evidence that Martin was doing anything other than walking through his neighborhood while talking on a cell phone. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, that is a fact and not up for debate.
Your facts are wrong. Zimmerman was in his car on the phone with the dispatcher when the guilty conscience Martin started to approach him with his hand in his waistband. He then stopped his approach, turned and ran. Zimmerman got out of his car and was following Martin to see where he was going while still on the phone with the dispatcher. Only then did the dispatcher ask Zimmerman if he was following him. Zimmerman complied and said yes. The dispatcher told him don't do that. Zimmerman complied, stopped and said Martin was gone. Zimmerman turned and headed back to his truck. Martin made a loop around the apartment complex and confronted Zimmerman in a aggressive manner. Zimmerman then shot the kid in self defense after he had his head bashed into the concrete walkway.
Not a chance. He's walking. The guy was innocent the whole time and had a right to defend himself from a aggressive negro.
You're wrong. If his acquittal were such a sure thing, he would have gone for the stand your ground hearing. The fact that he waived it indicates concern on the part of the defense. How many months was it that people here on cd ranted and raved about how it was a clear stand your ground case and he'd be released when he had the stand your ground hearing?
I, however, am not at all surprised that he waived the immunity hearing (stand your ground hearing). I didn't think his attorney would take that kind of chance because seems to me in a syg hearing, Zimmerman would have to be a witness for himself to effectively prove his case. Zimmerman on the witness stand, IMO, is a sure conviction for many reasons. He's a loose cannon, and if he took the stand, then evidence of his lack of credibility may have been permissible, whereas, if he does not take the stand, certain important evidence of his credibility problems probably cannot be put into evidence.
What does black on black teen crime have to do with what man perceived as a child being chased down and murdered for being a black person in a predominantly white community ?
Except for the fact that this isnt what happened...
Um, check the facts, Zimmerman was the aggressor. Despite not being a police officer, despite being told by authorities to stay in his car, he chased down Martin with zero evidence that Martin was doing anything other than walking through his neighborhood while talking on a cell phone. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, that is a fact and not up for debate.
Not sure you know what "Fact means".
I've read that he was following him, but LOST him and was going back to his car when he was attacked by Martin.
I am not a legal expert but you often see trials where extremely relevant information gets excluded for some technical legal reason. I'm guessing there's something the Defense needs to use for his main defence which they are worried will be ruled inadmissable if they do the Stand Your Ground thing.
There was one rape case where the rule "the victim's sex life isn't relevant" was invoked to prevent the defense from even mentioning the fact that this was the woman's 12th rape accusation and that all 11 previous accusations had been proven to be deliberate falsehoods.
So I'm guessing something like that is happening here. If the Defense thinks he has a better shot in a main trial on the entire situation than in a specific stand your ground hearing, they don't want to end up not being able to use something in the main trial due to it having already been used in the hearing.
What they don't want is to reveal their case and strategy to the State and rely on the Judge to rule that the killing was a stand your ground issue.
Big difference between a stand your ground (immunity hearing) hearing and a trial. In the SYG hearing, ONLY THE JUDGE makes the ruling. There is no jury. Also, in a stand your ground hearing, who could testify to Zimmerman's feelings of fear for his life other than Zimmerman? Zimmerman on the witness stand would be a HUGH, HUGH RISK. Zimmerman cannot keep his mouth shut nor is it difficult to "push his buttons" and he would likely convict himself.
I think that waiving the SYG hearing is a clear sign that all those who have been so positive that this is/was a syg case and Zimmerman's release was a slam dunk for all these months, were/are perhaps mistaken.
If O'Mara had a "sure thing" with syg, he would have requested a hearing months ago. It is strategic that he waited so long to waive the hearing.
Not sure you know what "Fact means".
I've read that he was following him, but LOST him and was going back to his car when he was attacked by Martin.
That facts are that Zimmerman followed Martin for a distance... who was walking home from a 7/11 unarmed and doing nothing suspicious. A witness who was on the phone with Martin has stated Martin became scared of the man following him, and began to run. Zimmerman admits this, and admits to getting out of his car to follow him. Zimmerman then ends the call to the non-emergency police line. After that, there are no other witnesses as to what happened. Zimmerman is the only one to claim that he was walking back to his vehicle and was then attacked. The only facts agreed upon by all parties (prosecutors and defense) are that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation by first following Martin and then getting out of his car to chase him.
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.
