O'Mara Defends Angela Corey on Delayed Discovery Disclosure

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 08:13:57 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A lawyer for the media is claiming States Attorney Angela Corey missed the 15 day deadline for providing discovery to George Zimmerman. The media wants access to the documents under Florida open records laws, which the media maintains must be made available to it 15 days after the defendant files his request.

When denying requests from the public for the Zimmerman discovery records Friday, Corey's office told Local 6 Florida law allowed her to keep the records secret using a criminal investigative exemption because "no records have been provided to the defendant." But Ponce, who specializes in public record law, believes that Corey can no longer use that reason to withhold records from the public, now that the 15 day discovery deadline has passed.

The problem with the media's argument, according to O'Mara, is that he told Corey to delay giving him the documents and hasn't yet received them. O'Mara issued this statement on the website he established for the case, in which he defends Corey. [More...]

We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses. Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules.

Ms. Corey in not violating any rule or statute, as it is our decision, not hers, to wait until proper motions regarding the witnesses have been drafted and filed.

O'Mara also points out discovery is a right of the defendant.

While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters.

Florida's discovery rules are here. Rule 3.220 states:

(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a Notice of Discovery which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules.

Section (d) provides that when the defense files a discovery request, it triggers an obligation for the defense to provide the prosecution with reciprocal discovery within 15 days of receiving the states's discovery. It also provides:

(2) The prosecutor and the defendant shall perform their obligations under this rule in a manner mutually agreeable or as ordered by the court.

O'Mara filed his request for discovery on April 12, in the same pleading in which he entered a plea a not guilty and asked that Zimmerman be excused from attending the May 8 hearing.

The public records law provides that documents turned over to the defense must be accessible to the media. But if the prosecutor hasn't turned the records over, because the defense authorized an extension, it doesn't seem like the media has a right to demand the records sooner. Its right seems subject to the defense request of the discovery.

So, can the parties -- the state and defendant -- extend the 15 day deadline without seeking a court order? Or do they have to apply to the court for an extension?

This will all be moot shortly, as O'Mara is preparing motions to restrict details such as the names and addresses of witnesses.

I don't like Florida's law, so I don't agree with the media's stance, whether they are right or wrong. But I also don't know why O'Mara is speaking for the witnesses. His only client is Zimmerman. He writes:

We are concerned about the release of witness information to the general public, solely due to safety concerns....While the media and the public have an absolute right to know about this case, that right has to be balanced with the rights of these witnesses. They are doing their civic duty in testifying in this case. We doubt any of them enjoy the scrutiny they are under due to the coincidence of their involvement in such a high profile matter.

It's Angela Corey who represents the people of the state of Florida -- all of them, not just victims. If anyone is going to represent the privacy rights of witnesses, why isn't she stepping forward?

Florida's public records law is here. The pertinent sections appear to be here. I will leave the analysis to others, hopefully some defense attorneys who have had experience with it will publicly discuss it.

I haven't read through it all, and don't intend to, but I did notice this provision:

(e) Any information revealing the substance of a confession of a person arrested is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, until such time as the criminal case is finally determined by adjudication, dismissal, or other final disposition.

Does that mean Zimmerman's post arrest statements are exempt, since he admitted shooting Trayvon? Since the state will rely on claimed inconsistencies in his statements in its attempt to prove he committed murder, doesn't that make them the equivalent of a confession, in its view?

The police reports and witness statements and testing results are "criminal investigative information." The statute says:

Criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information shall be considered "active" while such information is directly related to pending prosecutions or appeals. The word "active" shall not apply to information in cases which are barred from prosecution under the provisions of s. 775.15 or other statute of limitation.

Here's Florida's 352 page Sunshine Manual explaining the law. It has a section on Discovery at page 81.

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that there is no First Amendment right of access to unfiled discovery materials....Even though unfiled discovery material is not accessible under the First Amendment, it may be open to inspection under Ch. 119, F.S., if the document is a public record which is otherwise subject to disclosure under that law.

It cites a case holding the "public’s statutory right of access to pretrial discovery information in a criminal case must be balanced against a nonparty’s constitutional right to privacy."

Added: You can follow events from the Zimmerman perspective not only at the website established for that purpose, but on Twitter and Facebook.

You can use this thread to discuss all things Zimmerman-related.

< White House Correspondents Dinner | Sunday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

O'Mara Defends Angela Corey on Delayed Discovery Disclosure | 136 comments (136 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Frenzy (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 11:05:49 PM EST

It's not surprising that O'Mara would like to delay disclosure to the public. Release of information means renewed media interest, with another round of lies, distortions, and selective omissions.

: Won't they be posted online? (none / 0) (#13)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:14:04 AM EST

I'd like to read them. I'm the public.

If TM were responding safely... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:51:25 AM EST

...he would have gone in his back door before GZ was off the phone.

That said, to get to M2 the prosecutor will supposedly have to prove a depraved indifference to human life, or somesuch. Must be some evidence of propensity she can bring in. But... disregarding police instructions, even had that happened, doesn't cut it. A policeman told him that the gun should be purchased as the solution to a problem. The police reports show that black juveniles were a problem (white ones too... the stolen laptop incident involved 3 black+1 white), and "profiling" by GM isn't illegal. Or depraved. On current knowledge I don't see ANY evidence of depravity.

Conjecture that going home was safe (5.00 / 0) (#61)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:57:03 PM EST

Had GZ observed TM entering a home, no telling what GM would have done.

I also consider it hearsay a news report that a "friend" said the "police said" GZ should buy a gun to protect his wife from a dog. Even if it is true, were a policeman to tell me to buy a gun to protect myself from a dog, I would report the policeman to supervisors and take up the matter with town authorities. If a cop thinks a dog presents that much danger, the dog should be removed from being a threat. The danger to the community was only increased by GZ buying a gun and not making it secure. There is is even one report from relatives that "GZ forget he even had the gun that night." If "depravity" won't stick, would "airhead"?

I wouldn't think, either, that a claim of "depraved" would rest on a disregard of police instructions. But I hear evidence of a very wrongheaded mindset in that 911. Whether it fits the legal description of depraved in this case, I don't know.


My use of "airhead" (none / 0) (#68)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:15:00 PM EST

jeralyn,

If my use of the term "airhead" is out of bounds for this site, I retract it with apologies, but kindly ask you to only airbrush out that part of it so that the rest of my response stands.


I cannot edit comments (none / 0) (#75)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:59:29 PM EST

The site's structure doesn't provide that ability. I can only delete them.


: I gather that the post to which I replied... (none / 0) (#100)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:32:59 PM EST

...has been deleted. My post looks a bit scattered when the fact that it was a point-by-point refutation is lost.

Airhead (none / 0) (#88)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:35:53 PM EST

If "depravity" won't stick, would "airhead"?

Diminished capacity could be a defense or mitigation.

On the night of the shooting Zimmerman made a non-emergency police call, not a 911 call.


the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#63)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:59:47 PM EST

was deleted for going far outside the Zimmerman case. Please take your discussions of your theories of "what many believe" about black teen violence elsewhere. It was stereotyping and off-topic.


Thank you (none / 0) (#64)
by ks on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:03:15 PM EST

As an aside, I know it's been heated on this subject and I've had may part in it but, thanks for the forum and your efforts.


thank you for that (none / 0) (#89)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:40:05 PM EST

I wrote my "admonishment" comment to you before seeing this. I would appreciate toning down the emotionalism in comments. Ridiculing the position of those who disagree with you (and this is directed to everyone) detracts from the conversation and reduces the chance for everyone to consider all views and both sides.


: Comments one thinks are ridiculous (none / 0) (#109)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:57:39 PM EST

are best dealt with by being ignored. (I usually follow my own advice on this, but occsaionally I do sin...)

I am not a lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:52:12 AM EST

(and I do not play one on TV:) but I would certainly hope that people's thoughts of why George watched Trayvon would not be allowed. Or neither would thoughts of why Trayvon fled (guilty?). All would be pure speculation.

OTOH, I would think relevant statements actually made by either individual could be admissable. For example if, hypothetically, George had actually said to someone 'I am going to shoot and kill the next burglar who enters our complex' or Trayvon had said 'next guy to watch me to too closely is going to get his skull knocked in'.

I am curious to know if each side brings in character witnesses, if under cross examination the credibility of their testimony can/will be challenged based upon the types of things we have heard in the media. I am thinking more of the defense challenging character references since Martins recent school history doesn't reflect positively.
We already know the prosecution has tried to introduce George's past.

IMO, evidence of Zimmerman's ... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Yman on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:11:02 AM EST

... prior "bad acts" (i.e. DVI, altercation with the ABC officer, etc.) will likely be inadmissable. Judges generally don't like to admit such evidence because of its questionable relevance and it can be highly prejudicial - particularly if the evidence is being used to suggest that the defendant acted similarly in the present case. It can sometimes be admitted to show motive, plan, intent, lack of mistake or to impeach a witness's credibility. I don't see it getting in in this case, however.

The evidence re: Zimmerman's knowledge of the break-ins, however, is highly relevant to his state of mind and not prejudicial to the defendant, since they are the acts of others. Any evidence that Zimmerman knew of these break-ins will likely be admitted, IMO.

The statements from third parties re: Zimmerman's perception of threats are likely just hearsay, IMO.

The use of those studies to suggest that, because Martin was a black teenager, he was more likely to engage in violence, is just ridiculous, racial profiling/stereotyping.

public access to criminal discovery records (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by bripaf10 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:14:15 AM EST

for some information regarding the public availability of criminal discovery records across the country, check out my research paper linked here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1788568

According to my research, Florida is the only state in country to statutorily allow the public access to criminal discovery records.

In the casey anthony case, it could be said that the plethora of public information benefited the defense as Ms. Anthony was acquitted. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out and what impact the public availability of these records will have on both finding a jury and the eventual outcome of this case. As a practicing public defender in a state where these records are specifically deemed not public, I do not feel these records are meant for mass public consumption

Reginald Denny (1.00 / 0) (#2)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:25:45 AM EST

There's been some scoffing at the notion that Zimmerman was in any serious danger from having his head struck on a concrete sidewalk. I decided to check up on how Reginald Denny fared, after being struck in the head by an object described as a 'brick' or 'cinder block'.

Time Magazine:

Damian Monroe Williams took a cinderblock and bashed Denny's skull, fracturing it in 91 places and causing severe brain damage.
The only reason he probably did not die that day was because four South Central residents . . . drove him to a nearby hospital . . .
Denny had to undergo years of rehabilitative therapy, but his speech and ability to walk were permanently damaged.

Football Williams threw that cinderblock... (none / 0) (#7)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:15:48 AM EST

...with a velocity considerably in excess of that that TM was likely to be able to impart to GZ's skull. And GZ may have succeeded in moving away from the concrete before shooting TM. So the head-slamming serves to substantiate GZ's fear in that it demonstrates TM's reckless indifference to GZ's survival, but the justification for shooting TM is primarily his reasonable belief that he could not afford to lose control of his gun. IMHO.


Velocity (none / 0) (#8)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:54:58 AM EST

Williams threw that cinderblock with a velocity considerably in excess of that that TM was likely to be able to impart to GZ's skull.

How do you know that?

the justification for shooting TM is primarily his reasonable belief that he could not afford to lose control of his gun.

That Martin grabbed for the gun will probably be supported only by Zimmerman's testimony. The head banging is supported by medical evidence, which the prosecution has at least partly conceded. There will likely be forensic evidence as well.


How do I know the missile flew faster than... (none / 0) (#12)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:11:30 AM EST

Ziummerman's head could be bashed? Video. From a helicopter. Full windup of brick. Direct hit. Not to be forgotten.

If "John" says the fight had moved off the walkway then fear of head banging won't cut it to provide reasonable fear of severe bodily injury. Neither will the forensics, that I can see. But with the gun present, and the circumstances we already know, it was reasonable for Z to fear for his life. His testimoiny is sufficient, absent disproof. What's -your- point?


Trayvon Martin's right to self-defense and SYG (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:56:31 AM EST

Do you know who started the fight? If so, I believe you are the only person who claims to know.

If GZ started the fight and Martin fought back in self-defense, if GZ reached for his gun, then Martin wasn't obliged to wait to find out if GZ would shoot. He had a right to do whatever was necessary to prevent GZ from using it.

GZ is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He not entitled to suspension of disbelief about his version of events -- which we still haven't heard directly from him, and the several versions that are out there on his behalf all sound like works in progress.


GZ claims to know, and does... (none / 0) (#26)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:34:08 AM EST

...DeeDee claims to know, and doesn't. TM knew, but he's dead. One of the prosecutor's investigators has admitted that he doesn't know. Maybe GZ reached for his gun and TM had a right to use deadly force to defend himself -- but he didn't pull that off, so it doesn't matter. If the forensics proved GZ was lying we wouldn't have had to wait for Corey. You can choose to believe or disbelieve GZ, but you're not entitled to convict him unless you've got proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's not showing up, IMHO.


What GZ is saying, not what he knows (none / 0) (#70)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:36:11 PM EST

GZ might not ever tell us what he knows. We only have what he supposedly has been saying and might say in the future. Also, you can't entirely discount the possibility that reasonable people might come believe, with foundation, that GZ himself has no creditable recollection of the events. Self-deception is a powerful thing, plus we already have one version of GZ's story where he was nearly knocked unconscious by the first blow.

As for Dee-Dee's testimony, there are lots of reasons to discount it almost sight unseen (if you overhear something on the phone does it have the same status as the police overhearing something said to a paramedic) -- but I will point out that when GZ's defenders think that Dee Dee's report helps exonerate GZ, they cite her report.

I'm very comfortable sticking to the presumption of innocence for GZ and making the prosecution carry the entire burden of proving its charges beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. But until a judge throws out the charges as without merit, I'm open to hearing the prosecution's case.


Citing Dee Dee (none / 0) (#98)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:15:29 PM EST

I will point out that when GZ's defenders think that Dee Dee's report helps exonerate GZ, they cite her report.

Would you like to cite an example?

That's not a challenge. I'm just curious. I may have done that myself, but I don't remember.


I did, relying on characterizations... (none / 0) (#101)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:50:30 PM EST

...of it. On further (incomplete on my part) investigation it seems we don't have that much of her story, just a few interview fragments and Crump's tendentious (eg, Z "cornered" M) recitation. She has M challenging Z before Z questions M, but that's not much. Nothing she says she actually heard contradicts Z's story, that I've noticed.


Overheard (none / 0) (#112)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 03:46:10 AM EST

Crump's tendentious (eg, Z "cornered" M) recitation.

At least one ABC News reporter sat in as Crump took a statement from Dee Dee. I think we have to credit ABC for the 'cornered' paraphrase.

Nothing she says she actually heard contradicts Z's story, that I've noticed.

It's not direct contradictions, but what's in one version that's missing from the other.

Dee Dee didn't hear a second sentence from Martin, and she didn't hear a punch connect with Zimmerman's face.

She did hear what sounded like Martin's headset falling off. Zimmerman doesn't seem to have noticed the headset.

I'm wondering what kind of headset Martin wore, and if it would be likely to fall off because Martin threw a punch. I've tried it with my heavy earmuff type, and the earphones settle back into place even after a vigorous punch. But they do rattle, so I imagine lighter types might well fall off, especially those whose earphones are just pads. What about the kind that plug into the ear canal? It might depend on the type.

One of the 911 callers overheard them talking. I think she is the one who twice appeared anonymously on CNN. I discussed her in an earlier comment. On the 911 call she says 'I used to be a teacher,' which means she is probably the witness ABC News reported was 'corrected'. I missed that before.

There are some inconsistencies in her three versions of events, but in all of them she seems to have the conversation going longer than Dee Dee or Zimmerman.

I've edited these excerpts, to stay on topic and reduce redundancy. I've included parts of interviewers' questions only when needed for clarity.

911:

I heard people talking out there, and I was kinda like, oh gosh, where they - you know, it's pouring rain, why would they be outside? I figure walking their dog or something. And then I heard more talking voices. . . . I saw, oh, those two men talking to each other, or, they looked like they were wrestling each other, and then - then I heard the man saying "Help! Help!"

CNN, March 29:

At first I heard the voices with my window closed. . . . I thought it was rather loud, but I had just shut my window 'cause it had just started pouring out rain. And then, and I thought "Oh, my gosh, who's out there walking their dog in the rain?" And I didn't look. And then I went ahead and did something else. And then I heard the loud voices again. And I thought "Well, let me see who that is." And I opened up my window with the screen. And, yes, it definitely was a very loud, predominate voice. . . . I couldn't hear the words, but it was like, OK, this is not a regular conversation. You known, this is someone aggressively, you know, yelling at someone. . . . I definitely would say that there was a gap of time. And the reason for that, because if they would[sic] kept on arguing I probably would have opened the window the first time.
Q: You said you went and did something else. That didn't take a long time?
Not at all. But there was a time of not hearing the voices.

CNN, April 6:

I didn't hear the words. But when I opened my window I could definitely hear someone arguing, someone yelling. It wasn't like someone was out there having a conversation. . . . I could still hear the younger, thing[sic] again, the younger person's voice, but the[sic] really the other voice was the one that was more dominant, and loud.
Q: The deeper voice was louder?
Yes. . . . you could still hear the other person's voice, but just not as much as the person that was being the louder, aggressor. . . . I just immediately knew that it wasn't something[sic] having a conversation. It was something very serious.
Q: [D]id it sound like both were confrontational?
I would have to say both, but you just really hear that one louder, dominate voice, more than you hear the other one.

The account of the voices in the last interview goes on a bit longer.


I stand corrected on the "cornering". (none / 0) (#116)
by Gandydancer on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:17:51 AM EST

Crump's recitation is here, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html, at the end.

If you're right that the witness you cite was from the longest 911 call... Well, I'll try to listen to it again. Really unpleasantly hysterical, which is why it went on so long. But a contemporaneous recitation that there was a period of yelling, then a break, then more yelling, all before the screaming for help started... very interesting. Is there time for all this?


FWIW, here are transcripts of... (none / 0) (#121)
by Gandydancer on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:50:49 AM EST

...the 911s: http://www.examiner.com/article/neighbors-911-calls-before-during-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-t ranscribed

The transcriber of the ex-teacher gives up in a few places...


Tough Call (none / 0) (#122)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 06:43:05 AM EST

Yes, all the calls are emotionally stressful to listen to, but that one most of all.

You can skip the last few minutes. Just before 8:20 she remarks that the fight was 'about three feet' from the 'porch' (patio) of a nearby house. That's the last thing she says about the events or the scene. The rest is mostly her talking with the dispatcher about arranging counseling for her. That's clearly a good idea, which I hope was followed up on.

Is there time for all this?

I think so, but I haven't nailed it down.

The phone billing records are only accurate to a minute. If the first 911 call could theoretically have come in the very second Dee Dee's call was dropped, it could also have been up to 59 seconds afterward.


: I wasn't that sympathetic. I wanted to slap her... (none / 0) (#141)
by Gandydancer on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:35:57 PM EST

But, anyway, if the first call came in just after DeeDee's call dropped, then her account of angry voices arguing is crapola, because no such thing was recorded. The maximum length of any screaming before the shot on any 9-1-1 has to be subtracted from the available time to see how much time could have been consumed by the pre-combat argument she recounts. That was my question. :59 - dial time - recorded scream time = possible pre-fight argument time.

Crump's Presser (none / 0) (#124)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:38:04 AM EST

Thanks for the CNN link. That's a much fuller account of Crump's March 20 press conference than I had seen before.

It seems Martin's headset is of the earplug type.


I don't know if Z isn't guilty... (none / 0) (#104)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:18:35 PM EST

...of some crime that just can't be proved, but I'm convinced that the abusive process to which he's been subjected is a travesty. The Affadavit for Probable Cause in particular catches my attention. Florida law clearly prohibits Z's arrest without probable cause that he committed a crime (http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/can-the-police-arrest-someone-for-homicide-when-its-clear-he-killed-but -likely-in-self-defense/) and I'm infuriated at the way Judge Herr rubber-stamped the wholly inadequate APC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI836x9laZc
"I just received here, moments ago, a two-page(sic?) affadavit...to stand for probable cause for filing of an information in this matter...[@~1:00] After reviewing the short Affadavit for Probable Cause I do find that probable cause [exists] for the charge as put in the information."). Now, I'm reliably informed that I shouldn't be too hard on Judge Herr, that the Constitutionally-required "non-adversarial" hearing he presided over is understood by everyone to be of no consequence... but I happen to be mad as hell to find criminal procedure in such a degraded state. And Corey has done NOTHING to deserve the benefit of the doubt about her case, or the motives behind it.


Sufficient? (none / 0) (#44)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM EST

His testimoiny is sufficient, absent disproof.

Not if the trier of fact doesn't find his testimony credible.


: What part of "absent disproof" did... (none / 0) (#105)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:28:40 PM EST

...you miss?
Triers of fact aren't entitled to just make up their own facts. And prosecutors aren't entitled to bring cases in the hope that they will do so.

The issue is also reasonable belief, yes? (none / 0) (#11)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:09:48 AM EST

My understanding of the law is that what matters is whether GZ reasonably believed that Martin intended to kill him or do him "great bodily" harm, not whether the history of medicine shows that striking your head on concrete can be fatal or lead to permanent injury. After all, GZ could have grabbed Martin and Martin, in fear of his life, could have punched GZ, knocking him to the ground. If GZ's head hit the curb and he died, Martin could have claimed SYG and gone back to school.

GZ seems to have formed the belief that Martin would be a physical threat to him personally well ahead of any actual encounter with Martin (he pulled back from giving his address to the cops out of fear of being overheard by the out-of-sight Martin). Another grown man in GZ's situation -- on the ground, being hit by a teen -- might not have felt so threatened.

If Martin reached for GZ's gun, as some stories allege, GZ's conclusion that Martin intended to shoot him with it is open to question -- especially since one version of events has a neighbor witnessing the fight, telling the combatants to stop, and announcing he is calling the police.

Some stories say that GZ heard Martin make an explicit verbal threat to shoot GZ. I wonder if audio enhancement of the neighbor's call to the police where the yells for help can be heard can shed some light on the veracity of that claim if it turns up again.


When seconds count, the police... (none / 0) (#14)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:24:02 AM EST

...are a minute or so away. Z was under no obligation to test the theory that M wouldn't shoot him if M got the gun.

If it can somehow be proved that it was M yelling then any story that M was threatening can be discarded. But at that point Z would be going down anyway. But "John" says otherwise.


John also said he went for help (none / 0) (#18)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:35:53 AM EST

And GZ said he was calling for help and "no one" came. Yet John has been described as being explicit that he shouted at the combatants to stop and shouted he was calling the police. It raises a puzzle about Zimmerman's version of events.

Even apart from that, one version of the events being told on behalf of GZ is that GZ saw Martin reach for his gun, so he shot Martin before Martin could get control of the gun.

Another version says that GZ saw Martin reach for the gun PLUS Martin talked about the gun and verbally threatened GZ with death.

I am wondering if an audio enhancement would pick up any words from Martin if Martin said anything. Or if Zimmerman said anything.


I don't see a puzzle at all (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:27:32 AM EST

from his statement that he called for help and none came. I think it is obvious he meant no help came before he felt had to pull the trigger. Obviously help came, just not in time, from his POV.


"John" didn't come. And didn't help. (none / 0) (#21)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:17:56 AM EST

At the time. At the trial, he's crucial. But like the police that GZ knew were already on the way, a superfluous and unnecessary 911 call changed Z's situation not at all. So, what's the puzzle?


What is puzzling (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:12:05 PM EST

There is one version of events where GZ is overheard saying "I called and called for help and no one came" (attributed to police as source)
There is another version of events that night where "there is a witness who saw everything, right from the first blow, you'll be surprsied" (attributed to GZ's relatives in news reports)
There is another version of events where "John" has gone outside yelling at the combatants to stop, and shouted that he is calling the police, and does (attributed to John on presumably recorded call to police)
There is another version of events where another neighbor has told police "I yelled at them to stop" (neighbor's account to news media I believe)

What is puzzling is that in GZ's version to police, neighbors are eliminated from the scene completely. In other events, they are present. Is John embellishing his role? Was GZ so punch-drunk he didn't hear anything? Did the cops only ovehear a fragment of what GZ told paramedics? I'm sure we can all write screenplays to explain away the discrepancies to make GZ's version look credible, but I'd rather wait for some credible testimony -- if it ever arrives!

Also, I find myself in the position of being asked to beiieve several improbable things before breakfast when I am asked to both believe that a) not only did a teen launch an unprovoked attack on an adult he had only minutes before been seen "running" away from, but also that (b) this same teen hears one or more other adults shout at him to stop fighting this stranger and that police are being summoned and yet same teen elects to keep pummeling strange adult AND reach for a gun to shoot him.

Again, we can all write a screenplay with such a plot line, but I think it needs more work before we send it to Hollywood.


: A John Divided (none / 0) (#94)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:10:48 PM EST

I think you've split John into two different people.
Have you ever been in a fight? I've been in few real ones and many sparring matches. They tend to absorb the attention.

Zimmerman Didn't Know (none / 0) (#49)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:32:57 AM EST

. . . that police were on the way to his location, as opposed to the general area of The Retreat at Twin Lakes.


If he wanted to be sure the (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:08:21 PM EST

police would respond to his location, perhaps he should have stayed with his vehicle, no?

The dilemma that Zimmerman created for himself was: What is most important? To speak with the police when they arrive and tell them everything I observed from the safety of my car, and let them follow up? Or make some effort to sight this suspicious person so when the police call me, I can pinpoint the suspect's location for them?

He created a dilemma where one did not have to exist. And this is where the watch program is, I think, going to come into play, because I do not think you can find any standard watch program that encourages its members - whether out on patrol or otherwise - to follow any suspicious person, ever. It's not even on the decision tree as a possible action to take.

So, no - George didn't know the police were on their way, which is why he should have secured his own safety above all else. Wait in the car, call the neighbors to let them know what's going on, and, if he's really scared - drive away!

He made bad decisions, which may have led to other bad decisions on his part and possibly on Trayvon's. The real tragedy here - in my opinion - is that it's so easy to see that that it didn't have to end the way it did.


He didn't know the police were on tbe way? (none / 0) (#53)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:12:45 PM EST

Even though he told the dispatcher to have the police call his cell when they got there???

Where would he have thought they would be calling from?


I probably should have said that he (5.00 / 0) (#76)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:34:04 PM EST

knew they were on the way - or at least had reason to believe the dispatcher was sending them - but because he hadn't given them a specific location, he had no idea where they would show up.

I can only imagine, if he was engaged in some kind of physical something-something, that he may have regretted leaving all of that so open-ended, because he had to have realized - too late - that even if the cops called, what's he going to do - say, "excuse me while I answer my phone?"

I think George Zimmerman is going to have a hard time explaining the decisions he made - assuming he takes the stand, and assuming the trial isn't forestalled as a result of him prevailing at a SYG hearing.


And assuming (none / 0) (#78)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:17:13 PM EST

That his version of events isn't true.


Zimmerman Testify? (none / 0) (#81)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:51:45 PM EST

If O'Mara thinks his client is better off testifying that not, he may well put him on the stand for the immunity hearing.


: I absolutely (none / 0) (#96)
by bmaz on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:55:54 PM EST

...believe O'Mara intends to put GZ in the chair if there is an immunity/Dennis hearing. You do not permit, while you ar the attorney of record, the defendant to take the stand at a freaking bail hearing if you are not willing to put hi in the chair for the Dennis hearing. You just do not do that.

Slight difference? (none / 0) (#54)
by ks on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:34:39 PM EST

I think Anne is responding to the previous poster's assertion that GZ didn't know the police e were on the way "to his location". I think the poster meant exact location as opposed to general area.


KS - the presumption of (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:43:58 PM EST

innocence applies at this site. I deleted your comment that says it does not apply because you aren't deciding his fate in court.


But, I never said it didn't ... (none / 0) (#62)
by ks on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:57:21 PM EST

...apply to this site. Perhaps I was unclear but, I said it didn't apply to my opinion and, iirc, I haven't said anything about this case here that has "infringed" on the presumption of innocence this site of is offering to GZ.


you said it doesn't apply (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:55:57 PM EST

to those forming opinions outside of court. Stop hair-splitting. And do not encourage others here to follow your example of excluding the presumption of innocence in forming their opinions.

In my opinion, you are one of most biased, anti-defense commenters here. You have become a chatterer. You are about to be limited to four comments a day. I'm giving you one last warning before imposing the limit.


: I don't understand (none / 0) (#91)
by ks on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:50:01 PM EST

I'm not being snarky. I really don't get your point other than the warning and general nastiness towards me.
I read the post I originally responded to as saying that IUPG should apply to posters opinions about this case (i think he/she said judgement of Zimmerman) generally and not simply here at TL which, in the latter case, would make sense. Maybe I read it wrong as being a bit presumptious but that was my take on it.
Zimmerman's certainly entitled to be considered IUPG and people are entitled to their opinions one way or the other. Despite the current drama of this case, I think people can navigate the two without much trouble. So long as TL posters don't post anti-IUPG opinions here, I don't see a conflict unless you are considering any anti-defense opinion posted here to be anti-IUPG also which, I don't think you are doing?
In terms of encouraging others, that's not a fair characterization. I only speak for myself. Usually with many typos.

The presumption of innocence vs. manslaughter (none / 0) (#90)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:47:21 PM EST

@jeralyn,

You run a a great site and before I head off to a vacation, I would just like to add this about the "presumption of innocence" for GZ regarding these charges, and the frequent talk that the charges should have been manslaughter instead.

I have trouble reconciling the two. I have no problem with the arguments that the prosecutor may have brought the wrong charges, and that manslaughter would have been far easier to prove given the known facts of the case. But doesn't that imply that people who would have preferred to see manslaughter charges have a belief that GZ has some form of legal liability in the death of Trayvon Martin, that some law was broken here by GZ?

I'm not sure my question is clear and I don't want it to taint the reality the GZ is, in fact, not just in theory, innocent of any charge unless proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers beyond all shadow of a reasonable doubt. It is cases like the death of Trayvon Martin that make me want to bind myself to rule of law with hoops of steel.

I first got interesting in your site because of the Valerie Plame case, when I was infuriated to see journalists (even unpopular journalists) put in jail without trial with no uproar from the left. (I just lurked and learned a lot.) When this case broke in such inflammatory fashion on both sides, and I felt I had more questions than answers, I thought it would be worthwhile to stop by and see how you were thinking about it. It has been. I'll quit chattering now!


More than one way to interpret that request (none / 0) (#69)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:29:20 PM EST

To my ears, on the 911 call, when GZ asks to have the police call him, the meaning is ambiguous. I can't tell what he is thinking.

In the context of the call, it sounds like he is unwilling to agree to the suggestion to meet at an agreed spot because he doesn't know where Martin is and he is afraid of Martin. But it also sounds like he has no confidence that the dispatcher has understood any of the directions he has provided about where to find his truck or where the police should enter the complex. At times I think the request to call him is he wants confirmation that the police actually did arrive.


There's one interpretation that (2.33 / 3) (#72)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:06:12 PM EST

you left out, and that's the one where, having already been following Trayvon, Zimmerman asks to have the cops call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is because he's got no intention of ending this thing.

And my reaction to Zimmerman pulling back on giving out his address was not that he was afraid Trayvon might hear him - because how would Trayvon, someone who doesn't "belong" in the neighborhood, even know that's what Zimmerman was giving out - for all this suspicious stranger knew, Zimmerman could be telling the dispatcher the address of his current location; he may have been reluctant to give his address because it would end up in a publicly available transcript/recording.

I keep seeing people ask the question about why Zimmerman would have called the police if he intended harm to Trayvon, and I agree that doesn't make sense. I don't really think he did intend to harm Trayvon, but maybe the better question is, was George Zimmerman so enamored of being a cop - and being denied that dream - that what he did, what his intentions were, was about currying favor with law enforcement, showing them how valuable he would be as one of them? And that he let that take over from reason and common sense, and that's where it all went sideways?

There are many, many ways to interpret what we have heard and seen - and only time will tell if these theories bear any resemblance to what really happened that night. But I think that, just like the watch program is going to be an issue, so is Zimmerman's desire to be a cop.


GZ's reluctance to give his address (5.00 / 0) (#84)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:11:52 PM EST

What I heard on the tape was GZ start to give his home address, and then stop short of completion, adding "I don't know where this guy is."

Beyond the tape, we have some information from a Reuters news story that a neighborhood house break-in, termed as a "home invasion", was particularly upsetting to GZ, and his concern for the victim and offers of help were of such note that some in the neighborhood, also upset about the "home invasion", asked GZ to organize a neighborhood watch and be its captain.

I know very little about GZ's dream of becoming a policeman. For me, where things go "sideways" is when GZ tells the dispatcher that "suspicious guy" he is observing may "be on drugs" and is in his "late teens." The dispatcher echoes: "Late teens?" for confirmation. GZ confirms. Moments later, GZ begins to describe TM moving toward him, "carrying something" that GZ can't discern, and he believes TM is "definitely" checking him out. Audibly nervous, he says "I don't know what's up with this guy." And that TM is "running" away.

At that point, why an adult who is carrying a loaded gun would pursue a teen he believes may be drugged and armed indicates a depraved regard for the life of not simply TM, but the entire neighborhood! GZ, from what I hear on the tape, was exponentially adding to the likelihood of a dangerous and even fatal outcome -- which is exactly what transpired, and an unarmed teen is dead..

Anyway, a judge may rule that none of GZ's thoughts or intentions matter except for the less than one minute when GZ may or may not have formed the belief that TM was about to kill him or gravely injure him. That might be the law.

Why an armed man with some suspicion


No intention of ending this thing? (3.50 / 2) (#79)
by MyLeftMind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:29:26 PM EST

Zimmerman asks to have the cops call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is because he's got no intention of ending this thing.

Just call the cops and hope they come quickly and ask every guy they see walking home that night if they were recently standing in front of another house acting strangely?

If I saw someone that I thought was casing my neighborhood, and if my complex had been burglarized as often as theirs was, I'd want to know where that guy was going. I'd want an address to give to the cops so they could follow-up on my report of that person's suspicious behavior. What if they guy was a known criminal, or if he matched a description of a perp in a recent burglary? Or, better yet, if there was a video of him burglarizing a house but he hadn't been caught yet. The cops could investigate, maybe get a search warrant if he was the same guy on someone's video of another case, and arrest him. It makes complete sense that Zimmerman would want to know where the guy went so he could report that to the police.

Would I have followed Martin? That depends on if I thought I could do it without the guy realizing I was behind him and coming back to confront me. Should Zimmerman have followed him? You seem to think not, but reasonable people on a jury may think he did the right thing to help the police locate a potential criminal. Of course if Zimmerman had stayed in his car the entire incident could have been avoided. But we still don't know what Martin did. If he came back to beat Zimmerman up, then his actions are what caused his death.


The dispatcher also thought GZ should not follow (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:29:00 PM EST

It isn't just Anne who doesn't think GZ should have followed TM. The dispatcher specifically asks: "Are you following him?" When GZ says yes, then the dispatcher says: "We don't need you to do that."

I believe that the dispatcher is speaking with the authority of the police department, and that GZ implicitly accepts that authority by making the call in the first place.

GZ is heard to say "OK" in response to the dispatcher pointing out to him that "following" is not for GZ to do.

I have heard nothing on the tape to make me think that GZ did not stop following TM at that point. I hear several things to suggest that GZ sincerely hoped he would never see TM again any time soon, unless maybe in the custody of the police.

I don't know what people on this jury would believe, or what they will be allowed to hear, but most of us believe that when call the police for help about what we perceive to be situations threatening to our neighbors, we are obliged to follow explicit police instructions regarding our movements in the area, and those instructions needn't be repeated twice.

Like I said, based on what I heard on the audio, it sounds like GZ did that. I don't know what a judge would tell a jury about how to regard evidence that he didn't.


At this late date... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07:33 PM EST

...I'm surprised to read "we are obliged to follow explicit police instructions regarding our movements in the area, and those instructions needn't be repeated twice."

Dispatchers don't have any such authority.
This dispatcher's alleged "instruction" wasn't "explicit". He did the opposite of telling GZ to meet the officers.

Z says on the phone call that M is running for the back gate. Taking that into account, and the amount of time that has to be accounted for, my best guess is that after hanging up he walks down the cut-through, past the "T" and seeing no one on that path, to the next street over to see if he can still see M running towards that entrance (which I believe is on the west side of that street). This also enables him to acquire a house number to give to the arriving officers. Then he walks back and TM appears to his left when he is in the vicinity of the "T"... and whatever happens happens. And it's just a framing device. I'm not asserting this happened, just that if anyone has any information inconsistent with it I'd like to know. E.g., does anybody have a distance for how far down from the "T" the body was? If it's too far, this mental image doesn't work.


Even taking into account that Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by Anne on Tue May 01, 2012 at 06:46:29 AM EST

did not have a duty to obey the dispatcher who told him they didn't need him to be following Martin, the real question is, why is this private citizen engaged in an activity best left to law enforcement? What made George Zimmerman think he was qualified to handle a situation like this - that he had a little card that identified him as a watch member, and a gun?

Tell me the last time you followed, in the dark, someone you thought fit the kind of description Zimmerman gave to the dispatcher?

Zimmerman didn't see Martin do anything of a criminal nature - didn't see him break into a home or a car, didn't see him wandering around sheds or garages; he saw him walking, didn't recognize him, and from there, it seems, his imagination took over, adrenaline started pumping, and common sense flew out the window.

There's a reason Zimmerman was told that the cops didn't need him to follow Trayvon - because Zimmerman wasn't qualified or trained to do so, and he had more or less told the dispatcher he thought Martin might have a gun - the "hand in his waistband." Whatever danger Martin may have posed to the community, the greater danger was an armed citizen following someone who might also be armed.

If Zimmerman was concerned about the safety of his neighbors, he needed to get on the phone to them to alert them to the situation, and that he had called the cops - that's what real, trained, community watch members do after the police have been called.

Perhaps Zimmerman's heart was in the right place, that he thought he was being a responsible community member, but looking at the decisions he made - one bad decision after another - having the best of intentions just wasn't enough.

What troubles me deeply about the SYG thing is that George Zimmerman may be saved by what he reasonably felt in the last seconds before he shot Trayvon, but there is no accounting or responsibility for the minutes before then, where George Zimmerman's decisions created the conditions that put him in fear for his life.


: At some point (3.67 / 3) (#130)
by bmaz on Tue May 01, 2012 at 04:48:40 PM EST

...does not the fact that, whether you like it or not, George Zimmerman appears to have been doing not just completely legal activity, but activity that, in his relevant community under their circumstances at the time, seems to have been appropriate, have to have some impact on your analysis?
I waltzed into the Zimmerman/Martin case outraged by "what was going on" as reported by the liberal press and commentariat, many of whom are my friends. What I found is darn near 180 degrees different.

: Let go of your preconceptions for a moment (none / 0) (#139)
by MyLeftMind on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:43:07 PM EST

why is this private citizen engaged in an activity best left to law enforcement?

Think about it a minute and imagine you live there. Put yourself in the shoes of a twenty something man who is interested in law enforcement and has offered to help your neighborhood as a community watch person, but who hasn't gone through any training for that function yet. You've had multiple break-ins in your neighborhood. Someone stole a bike right off your own porch, and although it was reported, the police didn't recover it. Some of the burglaries were done while the residents were right in their houses! Dangerous and scary. You and your neighbors very much want to stop these criminals, and you probably feel a mixture of fear and anger about the local crime spree that's destroying your neighborhood.
You see a guy hovering near a neighbor's house and you call the cops to report him. As we've already said, Martin may have just been spacing out and standing around while on the phone to his girlfriend, or he could have been casing the neighborhood. We just don't know. While you're on the phone to the non-emergency police, he stares at you, then approaches you. Suddenly, he takes off running.
Maybe you've seen people before that you considered a threat and you called the cops on them, but the police didn't show up fast enough to catch the guy(s). Is it so unbelievable or shocking that the person reporting the suspicious activity would continue to look around to see if where the guy went? Given that the police weren't likely to show up in time to catch him, wouldn't you want to know where the guy had run off to in order to help the police locate him for questioning?
Now, we don't know how far or where Zimmerman went while looking for Martin. Maybe Zimmerman chased Martin, caught up to him and grabbed him, and then Martin fought back. It's also possible that he just went to see if he could tell what direction Martin was running, and went back to his car when he couldn't see him. Maybe Martin was p!ssed off that Zimmerman profiled him and called it in, so after running away, he went back to sneak up behind Zimmerman and blindside him. Hopefully the court case will elucidate what happened after Martin ran, but we may never really know the truth.
Granted, there are other mitigating factors to consider. Zimmerman was armed, which to some people seems outrageous, but for all we know, that may have been what saved his life that night. Zimmerman has been painted by the media and African-American leaders as a murderous racist thug who hunted down and killed an innocent child, while Trayvon Martin was depicted as a sweet little 13 year old child who was just coming home from the store with candy. But in reality, plenty of angry teenaged men have committed assaults that resulted in the death of the victim.

but there is no accounting or responsibility for the minutes before then, where George Zimmerman's decisions created the conditions that put him in fear for his life..

You don't know that. If Zimmerman reported the crime and then looked to see where Martin disappeared to without getting close or engaging him in any way, and if Martin hid, then came back and beat Zimmerman up, then your interpretation is wrong. Yes, if he were locked in his car, he would be safer, but he could have been attacked as he walked back to the car. This is exactly what has happened in the media and public discourse about this event: people have decided who the bad guy is and are now recreating events to match their preconceptions.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Regardless of what actually occurred that night, many people have already decided that they know happened. There is an enormous amount of hostility in the discussions about this case because people are heavily invested in making it fit into their preconceived notions about race relations in America. Even on a professional blog like TalkLeft, posters who express understanding and compassion for Zimmerman are routinely spam rated with 1s. I really can't see Zimmerman getting a fair trial at this point.

I guess you don't realize that, (none / 0) (#102)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:56:40 PM EST

rather than provide some logical explanation why Zimmerman wasn't determined to see this situation through, you've explained why he could have been:

So, yeah - he calls the cops and lets them handle it; people who take things into their own hands, in the mistaken belief that they somehow have what it takes to handle anything that happens, often end up regretting that decision.

As I imagine George Zimmerman does, and will for the rest of his life.


: Agreed. (none / 0) (#140)
by MyLeftMind on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:42:11 PM EST

George Zimmerman will probably regret that night for the rest of his life. If he didn't commit a crime, and he gets a fair jury, he'll be at risk from revengeful people. The rest of his family will also be at risk. That's one reason why I don't like the judgments already made by the public, including good people like you Anne.
It's still not clear how far Zimmerman went to try to see where Martin ran. If he didn't get close to Martin, but just went to see whether he was going to a nearby townhouse or out of the complex, his actions would have been very helpful to the police. "Letting the cops handle it" often results in a perp getting away because the police don't show up very fast, especially if there's no clear crime in progress or no sighting of a weapon. Sometimes people have video recordings of burglars in their house (or police have collected fingerprints) but the police are unable to make an arrest because they can't get a match. Then the perp does something that attracts police attention and they put the two together. It makes sense that someone reporting suspicious activity to the police would want to watch to see where that person went if they ran away.
If Zimmerman actually chased Martin down, he may have put himself and his community at risk. If he just went to see where Martin was running to, not so much risk, but a potentially great payoff if the guy turns out to be someone who already committed other crimes. I hope someone can work out plausible scenarios based on witness statements and the calls to the police.

I always thought neighborhood watch people (none / 0) (#115)
by Mary2012 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 04:57:54 AM EST

followed movements of anyone "suspicious" by phone, looking out their windows. One person would watch until the suspicious person left their site & they would call the next person who would then watch and so on. Apparently, that's changed.
-------------

From what you wrote:

OR is it just a teenager using a hands free cell phone, perhaps also gesturing with is hands as he talked & walked, talking with his girlfriend as he walked back to a home he was visiting, in a rain with apparently intermittent downpours, who believed he was being followed.

GZ seems completely oblivious to the effect his OWN behavior was/ might've been having on Trayvon Martin that night. MG, he even parked is car at the cut off TM might've used (at least initially if I have the events down pat yet, which I doubt I do; though I'm working on it). Unbelievable. If this ever gets to court, I hope he's questioned on these things.

----------------

Does anyone know when GZ and TM first crossed paths and has anyone speculated how TM knew to be leery of/ suspect of GZ following him? (If this is what happened & imo, I would think there would've been something). I knew right off the bat when I would be followed years ago but it makes me wonder what GZ did that made TM aware of/ leery of him.

My opinion, MyLeftMind, is that TM tried to avoid GZ. I could be wrong -- I'm still doing research on what happened that night -- but right now, imo, TM tried his darnedest to avoid GZ.

If TM was doing his darndest... (3.50 / 2) (#118)
by Gandydancer on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:26:31 AM EST

...to avoid GZ why didn't he make it home before GZ's call ended?


Crossing Paths (none / 0) (#117)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:19:22 AM EST

Does anyone know when GZ and TM first crossed paths and has anyone speculated how TM knew to be leery of/ suspect of GZ following him?
[I]t makes me wonder what GZ did that made TM aware of/ leery of him.

I don't understand this. It seems to be assuming information I haven't heard of.

About 45 seconds into Zimmerman's non-emergency police call, Zimmerman says 'And now he's just staring at me.' I know of no evidence that Martin was aware of Zimmerman any earlier than that.


In effect "I see him now and he's staring (none / 0) (#127)
by Mary2012 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 08:25:14 AM EST

back at me," which is what I have in my notes but I'll go back and check that call again. It just seems to me he would've said something like "He's standing at the Club House, I've been watching him for x number of minutes" instead of "I see him now"? Maybe I'm reading too much into it?

I'm trying to match up what we know of Trayvon's call to Dee Dee -- which began around 7:12 -- with GZ's call to the non-emergency (which began around 7:09)

For example, when GZ tells the non-emergency dispatcher, in effect, TM has his hand in his waist' 'something in his hands",etc. -- this was around 7:11 or so. Trayvon was probably getting ready to call Dee Dee to let her know/ talk to her re strange man following him.

Here Now (none / 0) (#129)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 03:03:52 PM EST

On the police call, the first thing Zimmerman says about Martin is 'there's a real suspicious guy . . .'

When the dispatcher asks for a clothing description, he uses the past tense: 'Did you see what he was wearing?' Zimmerman responds by describing Martin's clothing. Right after finishing the description, Zimmerman says 'He's here now.'

Most likely Zimmerman thinks the dispatcher may be wrongly assuming that he no longer sees Martin, and wants to correct that possible mis-impression.


: I noticed that too, re disp. using "did" (5.00 / 0) (#135)
by Mary2012 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:24:58 AM EST

When the dispatcher asks for a clothing description, he uses the past tense: 'Did you see what he was wearing?'
If you go back to the beginning, GZ immediately gets in 3 statements to the non-emergency dispatcher: 1) break-ins 2) real suspicious guy 3) "the best address I can give you [is the Club House]".
Perhaps the dispatcher was hearing it the same way I did. It sort of gives you the impression he's (TM's) not in sight at the moment and yet, GZ has an (a good?) idea where he is, and, then soon states in effect he's here now.
Then by the time the dispatcher asks if (TM) is at the Club House, TM is, & is walking toward GZ's vehicle. IOW, he's in motion; he's walking from ... (where)???
When TM is staring at GZ/ his vehicle, he might well have been trying to see if it's the same vehicle or same occupant -- I don't know if GZ's windows are tinted or not -- GZ gets fairly nervous around this time, suspects (imo) TM might be walking to his car (maybe) BUT instead, he (TM) turns and continues along Twin Trees. You almost expect some kind of confrontation but instead (TM) turns down, away from GZ. If that's what/ how it happened, I would classify that as avoidance of GZ; no confrontation, no violence, just avoidance, imo, despite possibly knowing at that point he'd been "dissed" or whatever the correct term is.

Dee Dee and the Timeline (none / 0) (#131)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:25:52 PM EST

I've tried that too. I don't think it works, except by assuming that most of what Dee Dee says relates to the period after Zimmerman's police call.

When Dee Dee suggested Martin run, and Martin said he would 'walk fast', that would be a few minutes after the first time Martin ran from Zimmerman. That's not impossible, but it sounds odd.

The one exception, is Dee Dee's first statement in the ABC News segment: 'He said this man was watching him . . .'

Dee Dee called Trayvon, 'moments' after ending a previous call. I read somewhere that the earlier call lasted eight minutes, but I don't have a link for that. Martin would have been on the earlier call when Zimmerman first saw him.


: Running (none / 0) (#136)
by Mary2012 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:31:51 AM EST

When Dee Dee suggested Martin run, and Martin said he would 'walk fast', that would be a few minutes after the first time Martin ran from Zimmerman. That's not impossible, but it sounds odd.
Maybe because Zimmerman chased him when he (TM) ran the first time?? I say this because & it's purely speculation as only TM knows the reason for the above. However, for me to make any sense of it was to fall back on an article written by Jonathan Capehart in the Washington Post entitled "Under Suspicion", re lessons his mother taught him as he grew up. I don't know if there is a tie-in here, but it made me think of this article & since you brought it up, I thought I would mention it to you (and hopefully that's allowed at TL?); it was how I was able to make some sense out of it.
Re the earlier call: What I "know" of the earlier call was it started around 7:04, so that would appear to match (how you describe it). Btw, thanks for clarifying the 2 calls.

Telephone Tick-Tock (none / 0) (#132)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:26:52 PM EST

For example, when GZ tells the non-emergency dispatcher, in effect, TM has his hand in his waist' 'something in his hands",etc. -- this was around 7:11 or so.

It's less than a minute and a half into the police call, closer to 7:10 than 7:11. Dee Dee and Trayvon would be on the first call. Martin might have been adjusting the volume or some such.

Dee Dee and Trayvon were on the phone most of the day. I'm using 'first call' and 'second call' to mean the two calls that overlap with Zimmerman's police call.

I'm thinking the end of the first call would have been about the time Martin started running at the earliest, and more likely after Zimmerman lost sight of him.

We need not assume everything Dee Dee says refers to the second call, even if some press accounts imply so. I'm thinking Martin would have told Dee Dee about Zimmerman watching him on the first call, but everything else would be on the second call.


Better Telephone Tick-Tock (none / 0) (#134)
by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:51:13 AM EST

Zimmerman's police call began at 7:09:34, says the Miami Herald. That means Zimmerman said 'He's got something in his hands' at almost exactly 7:11. I apologize for the impertinent non-correction.

If we assume the telephone records are synchronized to the same standard, 7:12 would be in the interval 7:12:00 to 7:12:59. I doubt they would be out of sync by more than a few seconds, but I'll allow 10 to be conservative.

The earliest moment for the first Dee Dee call to end would be as the dispatcher is asking 'Which entrance is that, that he's heading towards?' That means after Martin starts running. It could be that his running jostled the phone and lost the connection. That would explain why Dee Dee would call again almost at once.


: No problem... (none / 0) (#137)
by Mary2012 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:40:15 AM EST

I apologize for the impertinent non-correction.
I keep thinking IF this ever goes to court, everything will change anyway (i.e., times, locations, etc.).
You bring up an interesting point re the phone connection. I would hope it wouldn't cut out just by running but maybe it does. The two calls appear to be very close together.

The Cut-Through (none / 0) (#120)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:47:03 AM EST

MG, he even parked is car at the cut off TM might've used (at least initially if I have the events down pat yet, which I doubt I do; though I'm working on it).

You mean the cut-through?

On the police call Zimmerman says he's parked at the cut-through. That would be the place to park, to keep an eye on the clubhouse area from the greatest possible distance. That could be seen as evidence that Zimmerman wanted to avoid contact with Martin. Zimmerman didn't know it was on Martin's way home. He sounded surprised and troubled when Martin started to walk in his direction.


: Right, "cut-through", sorry about that (none / 0) (#125)
by Mary2012 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:58:27 AM EST

Where are you coming up with this nonsense (2.67 / 3) (#82)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:53:12 PM EST

Zimmerman could be telling the dispatcher the address of his current location; he may have been reluctant to give his address because it would end up in a publicly available transcript/recording.

And
but maybe the better question is, was George Zimmerman so enamored of being a cop - and being denied that dream - that what he did, what his intentions were, was about currying favor with law enforcement, showing them how valuable he would be as one of them? And that he let that take over from reason and common sense, and that's where it all went sideways?
C'mon


: Nonsense? What makes it nonsense? (5.00 / 0) (#85)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:27:51 PM EST

That it doesn't fit with any of the scenarios you've been suggesting?
I guess you missed the part of my comment where I said there were many ways to interpret the events of that night; we've read, endlessly, your versions, which you insist by your response to those who suggest any alternatives, are the only ones that make sense, but I guess you have no interest in entertaining other possibilities. I'm pretty sure the state is considering those other possibilities, so ignoring them just seems foolish to me - and they are not negated just by use of the word "nonsense."
And you have a little problem downrating comments just because you don't like them - that's not the way things are usualy done here - you might check with Jeralyn on that - but in the interest of playing this your way, I have returned the favor.

Non-Emergency Call (none / 0) (#83)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:07:08 PM EST

Zimmerman's call on the night of the shooting was a non-emergency police call, not a 911 call.

There are two ways to verify this.

One is to listen to the dispatcher answer the phone, and compare with how the actual 911 dispatchers do so.

The other is the call logs. In the heading for each report, after 'Call Source:', you see either '911' or 'TEL'. 'TEL' indicates a non-emergency call.

In the bond hearing, the investigator gets this right, and on at least two occasions a lawyer is corrected by the investigator or corrects himself.

This is by far the most common error in coverage of the case. The vast majority of press reports that I have read get this wrong.

I don't think bias against Zimmerman is the main driver, though it probably plays some role. I think the prevalence of this error is a canary in the coalmine for the deterioration of our major media. I know the point itself isn't earthshaking, but I'm dismayed that so many media outfits have not only gotten such a simple, basic point wrong, but failed to correct it for week after week.


Whoever Screamed (none / 0) (#45)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:03:49 AM EST

If it can somehow be proved that it was M yelling then any story that M was threatening can be discarded.

I think way too much importance is being given to the question of who was screaming.

Personally, I don't doubt Zimmerman was screaming. But supposing arguendo that Martin was for some odd reason screaming for help as he was winning the fight, other evidence still supports Zimmerman's justification claim. Martin isn't less threatening because he's screaming.


: Winning the fight AND screaming "HELP"? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by Gandydancer on Tue May 01, 2012 at 05:30:12 AM EST

Odd, indeed. Also, there's John.

The cinderblock comparison (none / 0) (#35)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:22:53 AM EST

The cinderblock comparison is not very useful. You can put a lot more kinetic energy into a cinderblock with a full arms length windup against no resistance than you can thrusting a head downward for a few inches against resisting neck mussels.

OTOH it is really beside the point. If your head is being bashed against a concrete sidewalk you are absolutely at risk for death or brain damage. The only question is the degree of risk. Is it 50% per bash, or 5% or 0.00005%? That depends on the velocity and angle of the thrust, the surface if the concrete (flatter is safer, a small protrusion less so) and the strength or weakness of the skull being bashed.

In short, neither TM nor GZ could possibly know what the degree of risk was.

a comment in response to this (5.00 / 0) (#59)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:50:49 PM EST

was deleted for improper racial comments and the commenter is asked to refrain from repeating her own personal story and applying it to this case.

There are other threads it which her experience was explained and sympathy was offered. Please discuss this case. And refrain from using racially charged terms. Thank you.


The one-punch homicide scenario ... (none / 0) (#77)
by RonK Seattle on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:46:25 PM EST

... where a victim falls backward, strikes his/her head on pavement or other hard surface, and never recovers, is extremely common.

Respective parties expectations or intentions can vary widely, as can legal outcomes.


Masterton trophy (none / 0) (#95)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:42:25 PM EST

The NHL's Masterton trophy was named after a Minnesota North Star that fell backwards and died from hitting his head on the ice. At this time helmets in the NHL were not common.

Masterton's head hit the ice so hard I could hear the hit in the cheap seats on the other end of the rink, so Zimmerman would not have experienced anything like that kind of force.


: Crack! (none / 0) (#133)
by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 01, 2012 at 08:09:51 PM EST

Right after the 911 tapes were released, the Martins' lawyers were claiming two gunshots could be heard. The sound they took for an earlier shot could be Zimmerman's head striking pavement.

: So obviously, lesser but lethal impacts ... (none / 0) (#138)
by RonK Seattle on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:18:29 AM EST

... and impacts on surfaces with different acoustic properties are commonplace (even with post-1968 advances in treatment of brain injury).
Your point is ... ?

But the risk was already realized and GZ (none / 0) (#99)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:23:57 PM EST

had an idea of the extent of the damage to his head. His story,according to his relatives, is that he got himself onto the grass to prevent further injury. He did not shoot Martin while in the act of having his head banged on the sidewalk. That part was over.


: Temporarily perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 01, 2012 at 07:59:16 AM EST

.
But the realization that the guy on top of you has demonstrated a willingness to engage in actions that put your life at risk, informs your understanding of every subsequent action.
As a hypothetical example a hand over the mouth may be nothing more than inappropriate noise suppression or an attempt at suffocation since cracking the skull open failed.
.

What does a ... (none / 0) (#71)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:00:34 PM EST

... 20-year-old incident from the 1992 L.A. riots have to do with anything here? That's a complete non-sequitur.

Further, you weren't there, so you really don't know for sure how those abrasions on the back of George Zimmerman's head happened to get there. Don't just assume that what the defendant say happened is true and then run with that sort of conjecture, to the point where you're offering us a 20-year-old incident as though it's some sort of justification for what he did.


: Preponderance (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:58:43 PM EST

Further, you weren't there, so you really don't know for sure how those abrasions on the back of George Zimmerman's head happened to get there. Don't just assume that what the defendant say happened is true . . .

I don't have to know for sure. More important, neither does the judge in the immunity hearing. The standard is preponderance of the evidence. IMO there is a preponderance of evidence for Zimmerman's head being banged on the sidewalk, even if his own testimony is discounted completely.
In the bond hearing, Gilbreath admitted Zimmerman's 'injuries are consistent with' his head 'striking' the concrete or 'cement' sidewalk.
He also admitted that forensic evidence showed Martin was shot at close range.
There is eyewitness testimony of two people wrestling, one wearing red on the bottom and one wearing 'white' on top.
There is the police report, likely to be confirmed by the testimony of the officer, of dampness and grass blades on Zimmerman's back.
There is a sidewalk close to the site of the body.

The "scoffing" ... (none / 0) (#73)
by Yman on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:33:33 PM EST

Not sure what "scoffing" you're referring to, but no one is claiming that being hit in the head with a brick (or your head striking a concrete walkway) can't be life-threatening, as it was in Denny's case. It would be just as easy to cite an irrelevant story about someone suffering a cut on their head during a fight on the ground and then recovering very quickly, but those kinds of stories don't typically make the news.

The question in this case is whether Zimmerman's injuries corroborate his story and whether the injuries actually were such that they suggest he was in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death, as opposed to a relatively minor injury during a struggle.

BTW - Just to state the obvious - someone needn't actually suffer serious/life-threatening injuries for that such a fear to be reasonable.


Striking Concrete (none / 0) (#97)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 08:06:42 PM EST

Not sure what "scoffing" you're referring to . . .

Most Recent Example

It would be just as easy to cite an irrelevant story about someone suffering a cut on their head during a fight on the ground and then recovering very quickly, but those kinds of stories don't typically make the news.

The standard is whether he had a reasonable belief in the danger, not whether he had any hope of surviving.

The question in this case is whether Zimmerman's injuries corroborate his story . . .

As I've suggested elsewhere, I don't think Zimmerman's 'story', or his credibility, are as important as many seem to think. I think a reconstruction of events from other evidence supports justification to a reasonable doubt, and probably even to preponderance of evidence.

. . . and whether the injuries actually were such that they suggest he was in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death, as opposed to a relatively minor injury during a struggle.

The injuries matter because they show, along with other evidence, that Zimmerman's head was 'striking' concrete. It doesn't matter how severe they were. What matters is what Zimmerman reasonably believed about the injuries to come if the 'striking' continued.

I think it's reasonable to expect Martin's 'striking' to improve with practice.


: You followed your ... (none / 0) (#103)
by Yman on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:06:32 PM EST

There's been some scoffing at the notion that Zimmerman was in any serious danger from having his head struck on a concrete sidewalk. I decided to check up on how Reginald Denny fared, after being struck in the head by an object described as a 'brick' or 'cinder block'.
... "scoffing" comment with a reference to the Reginald Denny case, suggesting: 1) that they're analogous, and 2) that the "scoffing" was mocking the idea that a blow to the head could result in serious injury/death - hence the reference to Denny. Moreover, the comment referenced clearly suggests the poster doesn't believe that Martin would have escalated the fight beyond an "arse-kicking". A conclusion you disagree with, but others agree with.

The standard is whether he had a reasonable belief in the danger, not whether he had any hope of surviving.
Yes, I know .... which is precisely why your Reginald Denny story is completely irrelevant. No one is claiming you can't be seriously injured or killed from a blow to the head - although apart from being struck by a hard object in the same part of the body, Denny's injuries have nothing to do with Zimmerman's.

As I've suggested elsewhere, I don't think Zimmerman's 'story', or his credibility, are as important as many seem to think. I think a reconstruction of events from other evidence supports justification to a reasonable doubt, and probably even to preponderance of evidence.
Your opinion - I disagree. Barring some forensic bombshell or eyewitness testimony, Zimmerman's testimony will be crucial to whether or not his claim of self-defense is convincing. In fact, I'd wager there isn't a single expert in criminal law who 's willing to make that kind of claim. Those "reconstructions based on other evidence" are speculation built on top of more speculation.

The injuries matter because they show, along with other evidence, that Zimmerman's head was 'striking' concrete. It doesn't matter how severe they were. What matters is what Zimmerman reasonably believed about the injuries to come if the 'striking' continued.
Of course their severity matters, both in term of his credibility and in terms of the reasonableness of his fear. A jury could very well determine that the injuries to his head - which appear to be very minor - are inconsistent with having his head violently and repeatedly slammed against concrete. If person A gets into a fist fight with person B on a street/walkway/patio/etc., and person B's head strikes the ground and gets cut, that doesn't mean person B is reasonably justified in fearing serious injury/death, just because his head suffered a minor cut.

I think it's reasonable to expect Martin's 'striking' to improve with practice.
You're assuming that Martin was "practicing" and trying to "improve" his striking. OTOH - judging by the appearance of Zimmerman's head injuries, ...
... his "striking" (if that's what it was) couldn't get much worse.

Your bluelink to the Florida public records law... (none / 0) (#3)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:49:01 AM EST

..doesn't work. Whether you are accurate in saying that "[t]he public records law provides that documents turned over to the defense must be accessible to the media" is the question, exactly. If so, and the turnover can be delayed in a "manner mutually agreeable" then I don't see why the court ought to get involved as regards material not subject to "Ch. 119, F.S."

Fixed now (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:59:00 AM EST

Hopefully you can access them now.


the attorney generals site (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:04:11 AM EST

with the Sunshine Laws and Manual appears to be down. It's myfloridalegal.com. That's probably why my first link didn't work for you and the manual link won't either. I found alternate links to the statutes, but for the Sunshine Manual, you may have to wait until the site is back up.


: "Exceptions" law is up, no help there. (none / 0) (#15)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:26:02 AM EST

Sunshine link is still down.

No Confession (none / 0) (#6)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 03:12:13 AM EST

Since the state will rely on claimed inconsistencies in his statements in its attempt to prove he committed murder, doesn't that make them the equivalent of a confession, in its view?

As a lay person, I would say that a statement denying the offense, while being arguably inconsistent or otherwise impeachable, is not a 'confession' in the ordinary meaning of the word.

If he made a statement admitting (none / 0) (#9)
by expy on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:14:49 AM EST

to being the shooter, then he is not "denying" the offense.

The fact that he offered an explanation that he felt would provide legal justification would not transform the nature of the statement. Criminal defendants routinely offer up self-serving explanations or excuses in the course of making statements that are seen by the police or prosecutor as confessions.

Essentially, I think it is a "confession" if it contains any statement whatsoever that could be damaging to the defendant at trial, whether or not the defendant intended to "confess" to anything.


The Miranda warning (none / 0) (#16)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:26:54 AM EST

I assume GZ was warned that anything he said once he was arrested could be used against him in court of law. If GZ volunteered evidence that incriminates him, is that a confession?

For instance, if GZ walked the police through the crime scene, and "explained" the events (i.e., I was standing here when the phone call ended, I walked over there, TM came from there), and subsequent investigation by the prosecutor's office indicated GZ surely was not telling the truth about his location, would GZ's statements to the police be considered a "confession" just because they would be damaging to him at trial when contrasted with the truth?


: I would think a confession (none / 0) (#22)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:20:54 AM EST

Is an admission of guilt to a crime. Zimmerman has plead not guilty.

: Miranda (none / 0) (#50)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:57:23 AM EST

I think Miranda is required before questioning. If a suspect is volunteering statements, a good investigator lets him keep talking.

Still No Confession (none / 0) (#43)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47:52 AM EST

Shooting isn't an offense unless it's unlawful. Admitting to the shooting, while denying the shooting is unlawful, is denying the offense.


: It's admitting an element (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:52:53 PM EST

of the crime. It's an inculpatory statement. Again, I don't have the answer.

Regarding O'Mara speaking for everybody (none / 0) (#10)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:55:17 AM EST

I've observed before that O'Mara seems to like to talk a lot, offering a lot more information than anybody asked for. Perhaps his long stints as a talking head on TV formed a habit of believing its his job to patiently explain all sides of the case to everybody.

Corey's office may just be more economical and direct in answering only the questions it was asked.

You didnt see the Affadavit/... (none / 0) (#17)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:35:27 AM EST

..."sweet parents" presser, eh. No "economy" there.


I don't live in America (none / 0) (#19)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:41:55 AM EST

I don't see any American television. I did read about Corey's announcement of the charges, and I thought some of the outrage about her emphasizing the "sweet parents" reflected a misunderstanding of the prosecutors role. She is the prosecutor, not the judge. She believes in the justice of her case (I hope!) She intends to press her case from every angle.

I stick by my observation that she and her office are a lot less gabby and camera-prone than O'Mara.


Even more than a prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:24:42 AM EST

She was brought in more as an investigator. One who hardly seems to have been impartial. Praying with the Martins. Never requesting medical records for proof of Zimmerman injuries or asking his family to identify his voice on the non emergency call etc.

It seems quite unjust how this process has unfolded. I am not sure if there is any recourse though.


The need for full public scrutiny (none / 0) (#27)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:49:13 AM EST

Jeralyn didn't elaborate on what problem she has with Florida's laws governing making things transparent in this case (and I am not sure I am reading her correctly anyway), but it seems to me that the high degree of public suspicion about the public institutions in this case -- the suspicion that Martin's death was treated unjustly, the suspicion that Zimmerman is now the victim of a politically motivated charge -- all that tells me that the more transparent the process is, the better.

However, I have to dispute that the State Attorney who was hired to be a Special Prosecutor shouldn't start acting like a prosecutor the minute he or she is persuaded there is a criminal case and a criminal who needs to pay for his or her crime. A prosecutor is acting on behalf of the well-being of the community. That doesn't mean Corey can do any ol' thing she likes, but if the charges are well-grounded, her overt sympathy for the victims is not out of line.

It's possible that further public scrutiny of her actions will confirm your suspicious. But for many people, GZ's position really does appear to close to that of the proverbial parent-killer who begs for sympathy he's an orphan. GZ is solely responsible for creating a highly dangerous situation wherein even if he didn't know TM was armed, he knew he was armed, and surely knew of the possibility his weapon could be taken from him. What is just treatment in light of GZ's assertion "but then he hit me first and I got so scared I shot him" goes beyond the issues of the injuries he ended up incurring in the fight.


correcting a typo above (none / 0) (#28)
by 12345 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:51:14 AM EST

I meant to type that even if GZ didn't know whether TM was armed, GZ knew that GZ was armed.


i agree (none / 0) (#31)
by Darby on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 07:57:30 AM EST

a prosecutor might be come attached to the victims family. The problem I was concerned with was her becoming attached and praying with them when meeting them, at the outset of the investigation.

I think generally investigators find the evidence, take it to the prosecutor if there is a case.

In this instance, it seems as though the investigators didn't have a case. Corey was brought in and immediatley bonded with the Martins and didn't conduct an unbiased investigation.


: Or maybe, Corey has met enough victims' (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by Anne on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:40:37 AM EST

families to know that putting them at ease, developing a level of trust and getting them to be cooperative and open means figuring out what it is that will help do that - and if they are deeply religious people, and prayer is reassuring to them, there's more value in doing it than not.
Did she have to publicly announce that they prayed together? No, but remember how tense things were in the local community and that this tension was also percolating around the country. Remember that the Sanford PD had had a history of not dealing well with black victims of crime, and that Angela Corey, as a representative of the judicial system, needed to show the Martin family that she was not their enemy, and then I think both the prayer and the public disclosure of it make sense.
I readily admit that I winced when I heard her announce it, but I've had time to consider all that was involved at the time she met with them, and then it made sense - clearly, you don't share that feeling.

: A bit off base speculation (5.00 / 0) (#46)
by ks on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:06:29 AM EST

"...didn't conduct an unbiased investigation."? You don't know that at all.
Also, I don't think when she supposedly is "bonded" with the Martin family matters much. She may have prayed with them at the outset but, based on her statement, she also stated that she didn't promise them anything in terms of charging Zimmerman.

: Of course, you don't know (none / 0) (#41)
by Towanda on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:24:11 AM EST

what she was praying for Him to do from on high.

: In addition to having met enough victims (none / 0) (#113)
by Mary2012 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 04:31:34 AM EST

Re praying
It seems to me I heard at some point she was up for re-election. If true, there might've been -- at least in part -- a political side to this as well, at least to some degree, however small. I believe she said it was a regular practice for her.
I have to agree with Anne: it also made me wince at first, too.

Just Treatment (none / 0) (#52)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:09:46 PM EST

What is just treatment in light of GZ's assertion "but then he hit me first and I got so scared I shot him"

I expect a majority of jurors would put aside any feelings they may have about 'just treatment', and follow the judges instructions regarding the law.

But it does seem likely a minority of jurors would take the 'just treatment' approach. That's why I think a jury is likely to hang, if the case goes to a jury.


Prosecutors don't have to talk as much (none / 0) (#92)
by SuzieTampa on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 06:22:13 PM EST

in this case, because TM's parents and their lawyers are speaking out almost daily.


Material required to be turned over to defendant (none / 0) (#37)
by cboldt on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:26:09 AM EST

Material required to be turned over to defendant by the discovery rule [3.220(a) and (b)] becomes a public record by the operation of FS 119.011(3)(c)5.

"Documents given or required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested, except as provided in s. 119.071(2)(h) [sex crimes], and, except that the court in a criminal case may order that certain information required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested be maintained in a confidential manner and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until released at trial if it is found that the release of such information would:

a. Be defamatory to the good name of a victim or witness or would jeopardize the safety of such victim or witness; and

b. Impair the ability of a state attorney to locate or prosecute a codefendant."

The argument that the material is part of an "active" criminal investigation doesn't work, because by operation of FS 119.011, the material isn't criminal investigative information at all.

The fact that the state hasn't delivered the information by the deadline works against the statutory definition that "documents given" are not criminal investigative information, but does not work against the "documents required to be given" clause of the law. The documents were required to be turned over, by the end of Friday, April 27.

Link to FL Sunshine Statute (none / 0) (#38)
by cboldt on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:34:03 AM EST

FS Chapter 119 - Public Records

It's not a handbook, but it is the operative statutory language.

Disclosure can be delayed for cause, and I would like to hear Lester, O'Mara and de la Rionda say that they are working on redaction of witness ID material, with a date certain for public release of the state's evidence.

Police photos of Zimmerman can come out today without compromising the safety of any witness.


: Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#48)
by bmaz on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:26:09 AM EST

...and good to see you. I agree they ought to get on with disclosure. It is not like they have a year's worth of departmental reports, wiretap records etc. to sort through. There are only so many germane witnesses and the investigation looks relatively simple as such things go.

Forgot the opening of 119.01(c) (none / 0) (#39)
by cboldt on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:37:23 AM EST

"(c) 'Criminal intelligence information' and 'criminal investigative information' shall not include:

5. Documents ... required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested"


So, O'Mara was wrong, right? (none / 0) (#107)
by Gandydancer on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:09:44 PM EST

"Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information" shall not include... Documents... required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested.

So any documents that were not required to be released because they fell in one of these two categories lose that exemption when they are REQUIRED to be released (15 days), and not when the prosecutor, in agreement with the defense, PERFORMS her obligation, contra O'Mara.

Just checking my understanding - O'Mara was wrong, right?


Not Yet (none / 0) (#108)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 11:42:17 PM EST

In my non-lawyer's reading, if the defense is allowed to decline the documents until they are ready for them, the prosecution isn't required to turn them over until the defense wants them.


: Don't think so. (none / 0) (#114)
by Gandydancer on Tue May 01, 2012 at 04:50:59 AM EST

Statutes are generally to be read such that their elements are not superfluous. If the loss of exemption is not triggered until the documents, etc., are actually given then the clause after "or" would be superfluous. Then there is the plain language of the 15-day rule, which says that delivery is required 15 days after notice is filed. Executing the requirement is subject to mutual agreement, but the requirement kicked in on a date certain. IMHO.

The Court has already ordered ... (none / 0) (#40)
by cboldt on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:41:57 AM EST

That was already done, orally (twice, once at bail hearing, once at the press hearing), with an order issuing from the bench. Now it's time for information to flow through the court so it can be redacted and released to the public.

From the docket ...

Attorney O'Mara made an ore tenus motion to have discovery remain sealed
as it pertains to the witnesses names and addresses. State attorney addressed the court on the ore tenus motion. Attorney Ponce for the media submitted case law and argument on the
defense ore tenus motion. The court orders the matter will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

: not exactly (none / 0) (#87)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 05:34:16 PM EST

the prior release order was for documents in the Court file (see april 23 order.)
At Friday's hearing, according to the minutes (which you correctly quote) O'Mara made an oral motion for redaction of witness names and addresses from the discovery (not the court file). The state and media lawyer spoke in response. The judge said he would address the matter on a case-by-case basis.
I take that to mean he wants a detailed request to limit access made for each piece of discovery the defense seeks limited access. O'Mara says that's he's preparing those motions now, so I think he took it the same say.
The Judge didn't rule on the discovery access/witness names motion. I think he put the burden on O'Mara to make specific requests. O'Mara's statement indicates this:

Ms. Corey in not violating any rule or statute, as it is our decision, not hers, to wait until proper motions regarding the witnesses have been drafted and filed.
His oral motion was insufficient and he's preparing written motions.

Does anyone know.... (none / 0) (#55)
by Mary2012 on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:37:30 PM EST

if this was Trayvon's first visit to the Retreat at Twin Lakes or if he'd been there before? If he'd been there before, approx how many times?

Good question (none / 0) (#57)
by jbindc on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:43:18 PM EST

I believe his father said (none / 0) (#65)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:04:33 PM EST

in an interview he had been there before. If I come across it again, I'll put up the link. I just read it yesterday.


: Thanks Jeralyn & to all who responded (none / 0) (#111)
by Mary2012 on Tue May 01, 2012 at 03:25:48 AM EST

I'll look for it, too, and post a link if I succeed in finding it.

I have searched for such info, (none / 0) (#66)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 01:09:11 PM EST

the basic question I was interested in was how familiar TM was with the condo complex, but I have found no relevant information.


Protecting Witnesses (none / 0) (#80)
by RKF on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 04:33:15 PM EST

"I don't like Florida's law, so I don't agree with the media's stance, whether they are right or wrong. But I also don't know why O'Mara is speaking for the witnesses. His only client is Zimmerman."

I do not practice criminal law, only civil law. But I do know that I always try to "protect" witnesses that I perceive will testify in a helpful manner, just to continue to incur their goodwill.

Though I have interviewed them, and may have captured their testimony under oath, I still think it's important that they perceive my siade as favorably as possible when they are prepared to testify. Consequently, it makes perfect sense to my way of thinking for O'Mara to want to publicly take actions that he believes will be appreciated by the witnesses and preserve their privacy to the greatest extent possible under law. I think it's entirely reasonable that he believes that doing so is in the interest of Zimmerman

: Not to mention that on (none / 0) (#110)
by gyrfalcon on Tue May 01, 2012 at 12:01:16 AM EST

high-profile cases that inflame passions on both sides, you've got to worry that witnesses favorable to your case may be intimidated, change their stories in subtle and not so subtle ways, or even disappear sometimes.

DD's Statement (none / 0) (#142)
by MSimon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:47:21 PM EST

If Crump took DDs statement does that make him a party to the case and subject to a gag order? Or possible ethics charges?