Trayvon Martin case

[bsmooth]

Nobody had any idea how much had been raised by the website, no?  It was just knowledge that (several) websites existed and that Zimmerman was responsible for one of them.

He was recorded talking to his wife about the money before he testified before the court. His lawyer admits as much. Zimmerman and his lying wife knew he had received over $200,000.

[Phishfan]

Apparently the dumbasses are about the only ones in Central Florida who did not pay attention to the Casey Anthony case. Your calls and visits in jail are not considered private people (lawyer conversation excluded). Learn the lesson.

This is going to hurt his case tremendously. His word is the one thing his case hinged on and it just suffered a huge blow.

[CF DolFan]

Apparently the dumbasses are about the only ones in Central Florida who did not pay attention to the Casey Anthony case. Your calls and visits in jail are not considered private people (lawyer conversation excluded). Learn the lesson.

This is going to hurt his case tremendously. His word is the one thing his case hinged on and it just suffered a huge blow.

Lol that is funny. Even if he is found guilty this will have no bearing on the case. It's much to do about nothing. You bring up Casey Anthony and it had no bearing on that case either. Well, other than the court of public opinion.

[Phishfan]

^^^ There is a slight difference. Casey never said anything incriminating, she just tried to keep them from monitoring her. From what I understand the Zimmermans (at least the wife) perjured herself. The one escape clause (for George) is if George just discussed the money or if George actually told her to lie about the money. I only watched enough of the original bond hearing to see what she said. I'm not sure if George was asked about the money himself (I would almost guess he had to testify to his financial status when he took the stand) or exactly what was said in their conversation.

[CF DolFan]

^^^ There is a slight difference. Casey never said anything incriminating, she just tried to keep them from monitoring her. From what I understand the Zimmermans (at least the wife) perjured herself. The one escape clause (for George) is if George just discussed the money or if George actually told her to lie about the money. I only watched enough of the original bond hearing to see what she said. I'm not sure if George was asked about the money himself (I would almost guess he had to testify to his financial status when he took the stand) or exactly what was said in their conversation.

I'm not positive but my understanding was the wife was the one who lied. Either way I just don't get the impression it will have any effect. In fact I am told that had this not been such a high profile case he would have never been brought back.

[CF DolFan]

I just read an article in reference to prosecutor Angela Corey fighting with Alan Dershowitz about this case. She said she is going to sue him and Harvard for libel and slander. Anyway, Dershowitz points out she willfully submitted half-truths in an affidavit of probable cause that got charges filed against him. Interesting article about how the process works in my opinion but probably not worth another thread.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305


Alan M. Dershowitz’s Perspective: State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions.

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

 
State Attorney Angela Corey
(AP Photo)
She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.

She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.

Her beef was that I criticized her for filing a misleading affidavit that willfully omitted all information about the injuries Zimmerman had sustained during the “struggle” it described. She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense.

She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence.

She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Before she submitted the probable cause affidavit, Corey was fully aware that Zimmerman had sustained serious injuries to the front and back of his head. The affidavit said that her investigators “reviewed” reports, statements and “photographs” that purportedly “detail[ed] the following.”

It then went on to describe “the struggle,” but it deliberately omitted all references to Zimmerman’s injuries which were clearly visible in the photographs she and her investigators reviewed.

That is Hamlet without the Prince!

The judge deciding whether there is probable cause to charge the defendant with second degree murder should not have been kept in the dark about physical evidence that is so critical to determining whether a homicide occurred, and if so, a homicide of what degree. By omitting this crucial evidence, Corey deliberately misled the court.

Corey seems to believe that our criminal justice system is like a poker game in which the prosecution is entitled to show its cards only after the judge has decided to charge the defendant with second degree murder.

That’s not the way the system is supposed to work and that’s not the way prosecutors are supposed to act. That a prosecutor would hide behind the claim that she did not have an obligation to tell the whole truth until after the judge ruled on probable cause displays a kind of gamesmanship in which prosecutors should not engage.

The prisons, both in Florida and throughout the United States, are filled with felons who submitted sworn statements that contained misleading half truths. Corey herself has probably prosecuted such cases.

Ironically, Corey has now succeeded in putting Zimmerman back in prison for a comparably misleading omission in his testimony. His failure to disclose money received from a PayPal account requesting donations for his legal defense made his testimony misleadingly incomplete.

In her motion to revoke his bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman “intentionally deceived the court” by making “false representations.” The same can be said about prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

Even if Angela Corey’s actions were debatable, which I believe they were not, I certainly have the right, as a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years, to express a contrary view. The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander, to sue the university for which he works, and to try to get him disbarred, is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

Fortunately, truth is a defense to such charges.

I will continue to criticize prosecutors when their actions warrant criticism, to praise them when their actions deserve praise, and to comment on ongoing cases in the court of public opinion.

If Angela Corey doesn’t like the way freedom of expression operates in the United States, there are plenty of countries where truthful criticism of prosecutors and other government officials result in disbarment, defamation suits and even criminal charges.

We do not want to become such a country.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now

Read more on Newsmax.com: Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

[EKnight]

'Stand your ground' defense fails in Texas case. Lessons for George Zimmerman?

As he confronted several neighbors over a loud stereo two years ago, retired Houston-area firefighter Raul Rodriguez brandished a gun and warned, “I am standing my ground here” – a warning that was picked up by the camera he had set up to film the scene.

As the camera was knocked to the ground, a barrage of gunfire ensued, as Mr. Rodriguez killed Kelly Danaher, an unarmed elementary school teacher, and wounded two other unarmed men.

On its face, the scenario appears, as Rodriguez apparently realized, a classic example of a "stand your ground" defense. In all, 33 states – including Texas – have stand-your-ground laws that say a victim of a potentially deadly attack has no obligation to retreat, but can use lethal force in defense.

Yet on Wednesday, a jury in Houston took five hours to find Rodriguez guilty of murder, dismissing the stand-your-ground defense on a simple point: If Rodriguez had not provoked the fight and brandished the weapon first, it’s unlikely anyone would have been killed.
"This is not what stand your ground is," said Kelli Johnson, the prosecutor.

In all the states that have passed some version of stand your ground since Florida’s landmark law in 2005, defendants can’t claim the “no duty to retreat” protection if they’re in the commission of a crime or if they initiate the confrontation.

Now, as stand-your-ground laws are scrutinized in the wake of George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida, with critics claiming that the laws turn shooters into judge, jury, and executioner, the Texas case offers an example of the law's limits.

In Florida, Mr. Zimmerman was originally released without charges because police, referencing the stand-your-ground law, found no reasonable cause to disbelieve Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. The state only charged Zimmerman after the governor, under a storm of criticism, appointed a special prosecutor to investigate.

The Texas verdict shows, some say, that the legal process can weed those who attempt to abuse the law, with courts retaining significant power to determine appropriate use of force even in states where there’s no "duty to retreat."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0614/Stand-your-ground-defense-fails-in-Texas-case.-Lessons-for-George-Zimmerman

Goes on to note that until recently, 70% of SYG cases in Florida have been effective defenses. Interesting in light of the trial, Zimmerman's wife's charge of purgery, and the release of new documents forthcoming. -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^^ What one jury decides in one case, really has no bearing on what another jury in a different state is going to do with a different set of facts. 

The Zimmerman case is going to hinge on if the prosecutor can convince a jury BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that Zimmerman was the agressor and was not acting in self defense with conflicting evidence and a lot of he said she said credibility issues.  And based on the prior post it sounds like the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case is an idiot.  If this case comes down to Angela Corey vs. Alan Dershowitz's legal skills than Zimmerman is going to be aquitted.

With Raul Rodriguez there wasn't any doubt what happened.  Raul set up a camara that allowed the jury to easily see that he was the agressor. 

[Spider-Dan]

The irony of these SYG cases is that it seems like whenever there is recorded evidence, it works against the shooter.

If you look at most of the anti-Zimmerman evidence in the Martin case, it's the dialogue on the 911 calls.  If he had simply called 911 and then got off of the phone before initially pursuing Martin, his case would be a lot stronger.

[bsmooth]

^^^^ What one jury decides in one case, really has no bearing on what another jury in a different state is going to do with a different set of facts. 

The Zimmerman case is going to hinge on if the prosecutor can convince a jury BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that Zimmerman was the agressor and was not acting in self defense with conflicting evidence and a lot of he said she said credibility issues.  And based on the prior post it sounds like the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case is an idiot.  If this case comes down to Angela Corey vs. Alan Dershowitz's legal skills than Zimmerman is going to be aquitted.

With Raul Rodriguez there wasn't any doubt what happened.  Raul set up a camara that allowed the jury to easily see that he was the agressor. 

Actually it will come down to Zimmerman's credibility as he is the one saying he was defending himself. Now that he has been shown to be a liar with the bail revocation, his credibility has been tainted...even his current attorney admits such. Combine this with his violent criminal history and you have a very good chance that the jury will not believe his story of being the victim. Remember it does not matter what media whores like Dershowitz thinks about the prosecutor...it matters whether the jury believes that an armed Zimmerman was the victim of an unarmed teen who had no choice but to use lethal force.

[Phishfan]

Actually, his wife lied. You are misrepresenting what happened.

[Spider-Dan]

By his use of the coded statements when discussing the amount of money in his account, he conspired with his wife to mislead the authorities as to the amount of money they had.  You're splitting hairs.

His wife committed perjury (allegedly, anyway).  No one is saying that George perjured himself.  But that doesn't stop him from being a liar/deceiver.

[Phishfan]

I have not listened to much of the calls but from what I have heard I'd say calling it code stretches things a bit. Saying $155 = $155K isn't much of a code.

Also, it was her making the statements that I heard, not him. While he did indeed know his wife was lieing, that does not make him a liar. He had no responsibility to step up and say anything.

[Spider-Dan]

I haven't personally listened to the tapes, but the recounts I have heard describe a call in which Zimmerman tells his wife that she should withdraw and keep $8.60 with her; she responds with something to the effect of, "I don't know... that's a lot of money to be carrying around."

The bottom line is that they were speaking in a deliberately misleading manner to conceal the amount of money they had from the authorities.  You can argue that they used a very stupid and simplistic code, but it was a code nonetheless.

As for why she is the one facing perjury charges, I would imagine that if his attorney had any brains, he would have told Zimmerman to say, "I honestly don't know how much money is in my account right now" (which would have been true, because he's in jail and cannot verify that information himself).  It would be at that point that Shellie Zimmerman would have been brought in to testify as to the couple's finances (having access to their accounts), which is when she perjured herself.

That all being said, the fact that Zimmerman told his wife to withdraw $8.60 to keep with her (and did not respond incredulously when she said, "that's a lot of money to carry around") means he was aware of the code, which means he was fully complicit in conspiring to hide the money.  That doesn't make him guilty of a crime in that regard, but it does damage his credibility and honesty.  And given that his case is built on his word as to who attacked whom, that's a rather serious problem.

[Phishfan]

As for why she is the one facing perjury charges, I would imagine that if his attorney had any brains, he would have told Zimmerman to say, "I honestly don't know how much money is in my account right now" (which would have been true, because he's in jail and cannot verify that information himself).  It would be at that point that Shellie Zimmerman would have been brought in to testify as to the couple's finances (having access to their accounts), which is when she perjured herself.

I watched the bond hearing. George Zimmerman was not asked about finances, so he cannot lie about finances. He made no statement at all in regards to finances. The only time George was on the stand during the bond hearing was to provide a brief statement to the family which the prosecution then followed up on (but they could not get to where they wanted to go because it did not line up with the original questioning acccording to the judge).