Home » Uncategorized » June 23, 2013

June 23, 2013

Why was Trayvon Suspicious to George Zimmerman?

If you listen to the race-baiters, you will hear that George found Trayvon suspicious for one reason, because he was black.  I am comfortable that the FBI findings into their hate crime investigation turned George’s life inside out and found no evidence of racism.  As reported in the Orlando Sentinel on July 12, 2012.

I put together a video playing the non-emergency call George made on February 2, 2012 when a person matching Trayvon’s description was seen looking into the windows of Frank Taaffe’s home. Also of note is that George had trouble giving an address in this call and had to call the police back again with the right address.  He explains this to Detective Serino in his Feb. 29th interview.

In the video, I write that the prowler seen on February 2, 2012 got away.  In reviewing the transcript of George’s interview with Detective Serino on February 29th, I note that George said that when he saw Trayvon up in Frank’s yard, what first caught his attention was “a car backing up.” Had Trayvon just got out of the car that was backing away?  Was it coming out of Frank’s driveway?

“He stopped in front of the house and then I drove, there was a car like backing up, so I, I slowed down, and then I drove around him. And he kept looking at me, and then when I passed, oh, it was raining, and I said, you know what, he’s not walking briskly to get out of the rain. He wasn’t, um, he didn’t look like a marathon runner that’s active and like, you know, that trains in the rain. He was just walking slowly in the grass and on the sidewalk. I just said, something’s off. So, that’s why I called non-emergency.”

The trial starts tomorrow.  Hopefully we will get answers to all our questions soon.

DONATE_BUTTON2

Thank you to everyone who has helped in the fund-raising effort. Last we heard (4pm June 9th) the fund was in excess of $85K. I’ve been advised that no update will be given until after a jury is selected. I assume all energies are being focussed on jury selection right now. The goal is to get $120K. Please continue to spread the news that help is needed. Even a $5 donation will help. This is one worry we can take off George Zimmerman’s shoulders. Thanks again.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed. If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life. Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

Anyone who wants to share something privately, email me at nettles@bell.net

Advertisements

226 thoughts on “June 23, 2013

  1. Trayvonites are trying to make an issue out of nothing, this is one of the supposed discreptancies that GZ committed. It is just GZ explaining why he thought that TM was suspicious. This is just sour grapes on their part, like Leatherman now declaring that Judge Nelson was right to exclude the experts, Of course when the news first came out he was adamant that she had made the wrong decision, but now has come around.

    The Trayvonites at Leatherman are restless, his group includes many women and some of the negative comments about having a all women jury by some of the posters really rubbed some them the wrong way. It funny how some posters just recite the stuff that Papa had put on video and are citing it like it was a fact, even though the prosecution is not and has not made the same claims.

    • What I found most amazing about the ladies in the lounge was how many seemed to have the hots for Bernie.

      As Dave Barry used to say “I am not making this up”.

  2. “I don’t know what he’s doing and I don’t want to approach him personally.”

    This is the same person the prosecution is wanting to describe to the jury as a rabid vigilante who chases down and confronts people.

  3. No opinion because I think he is great but I think it is very unusual that West will be on center stage tomorrow.

    Does anyone know if the state had a jury consultant?

      • There was no jury consultant in the courtroom with them. To do their job, I’d think a consultant would need to be present in the courtroom.

        John Guy and BDLR had a huge spreadsheet and I found it amusing to watch John Guy try to protect the sheet on Thursday.

        At one point, O’Mara went to state’s table to show the facebook posts of M75 and Guy was quick to turn the paper over. A little later they all got called to the Judge’s bench and again John Guy gathers up his paper and folds it so it can’t be read while holding onto it for dear life at the bench.

        What can I say. It doesn’t take too much to amuse me. 😆

  4. “Why was Trayvon Suspicious to George Zimmerman?”

    I’m guessing a real estate agent could best answer that.

    Location, location, location

  5. If you have the stomach for it, visit NatJac Facebook page. Be sure to read the comments. This was part of her post regarding Paula Deen:

    “Maybe it’s because I’m from the south and have had similar experiences where I’ve heard my family and friends make derogatory or joking remarks about white people (and other races & ethnicities) that I’m able to understand what Paula meant when she said that she didn’t mean any harm. I have friends and family (of all races) who (whether they admit it or not) have committed the same sins that Paula has been “out-ed” to have done. HE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE…personally; I’m not throwing any stones. I hope Paula, and all of us, will use what she is going though now as learning experience to grow and be better human beings.”

    And I’m sure Nat became enraged and called her family and friends racist…NOT…hypocrite…

  6. Mark Nejame, an Orlando attorney and legal analyst for news 13 Orlando, has said that he believes that the state will reduce the charge from 2nd degree murder to manslaughter now that they are not allowed to present their audio experts at trial.

    I think this is crap. George, the papers have read for well over a year, is charged with 2nd degree murder. If the state uses the denial of experts as a reason to drop charges to a lesser offense I point out that state claimed to have evidence of 2nd degree murder back on April 11, 2012 when Angela Corey held her press conference. The “experts” didn’t become witnesses who would testify in the case until April 2013 and the defense asked for more time to vet their findings. Mr. Owen submitted his report to the State of May 3rd and Mr. Reich has said he wasn’t given enough time to complete his report, he’s still working on it.

    So if this happens, the state better be prepared to tell the public why they charged what they charged in April of 2012 when the experts were a year away from being consulted with.

      • Ask Hornsby why he thinks Zimmerman’s self defense claim will fall.
        The Gibbs case is the one where the jury found culpable negligence, and Gibbs appealed that conviction, and got a new trial because the self defense / provoke instruction was deficient and misleading. I don;t know what the result of retrial was , but it darn well could have been “not guilty” based on justified use of force.
        Gibbs v. State, 789 So.2d 443 (FL Ct. App. 2001)

        • It’s called a compromise verdict. Many times, even though a jury may find a defense meritorious,, they will nonetheless also think that the defendant contributed to the problem and not want to let them completely off. When they are reading the jury instructions, they don’t know Culpable Negligence is a misdemeanor. But it tragic situations, where both parties are partly to blame, they often return this verdict because it seems to fit the situation. But for the record, I think he legally defended himself, I am just opining based upon my experiences with how juries do things at times. As an aside, I will be writing a a blog post later in the week where I will discuss the possibility the defense may ask the judge not to offer either the lesser of Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence and lesser of Culpable negligence specifically to try and avoid this possibility. However, such a request is a high risk, high reward scenario.

          • Richard – Thanks for clarifying on a comprise verdict & the possibility of why Culpable Negligence might be an option for the jury. Looking forward to your blog article later this week, thanks for your contributions to the case.

            You offer unique information as someone who practices Criminal Law in Fla., have practiced in front of Judge Nelson, as FLa. Law is different in many ways.

            I have been shocked at the States performance in this case after watching Ashton/Burdick/George, a real disappointment at the winning at all cost philosophy BDLR/Guy/Corey practice imo.,

            • Let me second that sentiment. Richard I too have appreciated your insights about the case. You are largely the reason I predicted the judge wouldn’t allow the state’s experts to testify. When she didn’t rule right away, my hopes went way up.

              It’s very helpful to have the insights of someone who has worked with or against others in this case and that you have come before Judge Nelson in your own career gives your opinions a lot of weight.

              Thanks for helping us non-lawyers out with the legal aspects of the case. I appreciate that you take the time to do that.

            • Richard, you are not the only one who has been shocked. I am not an American citizen, although I have lived in the USA for a short time, and in an area where there was only one murder in the time that we were there!!

              This case stands out to me because the person defending himself is being railroaded.

          • The jurors in the Casey Anthony case were so sure that she did something to contribute to Caylee’s death that they voted to acquit her. You can start with not reporting her missing for a month while she partied away. The state’s case against CA was much stronger than the state’s case against GZ, and the prosecution failed to convince them that she was guilty of anything.

            In the George Zimmerman case he is to be found at least in part at fault for getting out of his truck? The jurors are to elevate their moral judgements above the law? Heck there are some who believe that it is morally acceptable to kill, or let an infant born alive die because they were unwanted by the mother? Some believe it is morally acceptable to cut someone’s head off because they don’t worship the same God. But George is to be faulted, and to serve time in jail, because he got out of his truck? The only thing BDLR ever said that was accurate is that the jurors should use their God given common sense.

            • pinecone – KC’s jury wanted a video of the murder & was caught up in the CSI effect, endless legal analyst have stated KC’s jury was not going to find her guilty because it was hard to fathom a young mother murdering her 2 1/2 yr. old, they needed the video of KC murdering Caylee. Judge Belvin Perry said there was more than enough evidence to convict KC & was shocked when he saw the verdict BEFORE announcing it in Court. 85% of the American public believe KC murdered Caylee & that hasn’t changed, that’s why KC remains the # 1 hated person in America & her life remains threatened, she walked away from the murder of her child.

              There was no crime scene to be investigated where Caylee was murdered, only the scene where Caylee was dumped 6 houses down from KC’s home. In GZ’s case, there was a crime scene that has been investigated, GZ has rendered many statements & done videos that will likely be played in Court, witnesses that will contribute in the trial, decisions GZ could or could not have made will be evaluated by the jury as they will be presented in trial which is different from KC’s case.. There is no defending OJ’s jury, they weren’t going to find OJ guilty of anything.

              We have no idea what the jury of 6 will think or what they will consider when deciding GZ’s fate, but we do know what happened in KC’s case & what her jury thought as they shared that with the public.

              GZ’s jury is all women, 5 of them are mothers. will they consider GZ should have shown better judgement? ABSOLUTELY no one knows that, is it a possibility. imho, yes. Will GZ testify? Many analyst think its imperative as the jurors may want to hear it from GZ, but the analyst state it would be at a high risk to GZ. There remains many unknowns, it will be the jurors decision alone.

      • I’d add that in the Gibbs case, the force used by Gibbs was not deadly force. She shoved Julia Osmun, who, according to Gibbs, came at Gibbs with fists flailing. Osmun was old, bad health, etc. and had a heart attack half an hour after the dust up.
        I make the point because the threshold for justified use of non-deadly force is quite different from the threshold for justified use of deadly force, and discharge of a firearm is the ONLY act that is per se, use of deadly force.
        In order to find Gibbs guilty of culpable negligence, the jury rejected the claim of self defense. The jury could have found that Gibbs verbal insults and mooning of Osmun were acts of provocation, which changes the self-defense calculus. However, as a matter of law, provocation only occurs with the threat or use of physical force, and insults and mooning do not constitute threats or use of force.
        Anyway, what Hornsby is predicting is that the jury will reject Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. If that’s the case, then Zimmerman used deadly force without justification, resulting in death. I have a hard time believing that combination fits into “culpable negligence with injury.”

      • One minor correction to Hornsby’s prediction, and not to admit that culpable negligence is a possible lesser included, given Zimmerman’s actions and the death of Martin. FS 784.05 – Culpable negligence is a second degree misdemeanor if the negligent act “exposes another person to personal injury.” However, if the negligent act “inflicts actual personal injury on another,” then it is a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year. I see no way Zimmerman’s action can be characterized as “exposing Martin to injury,” vs “inflicting actual injury.”
        Just to complete the statutory offense, not that it’s relevant in Zimmerman’s case, if the culpable negligence involves an insecure loaded firearm that is accessed by a minor, and used, the culpable negligence is a third degree felony.

      • Maximum penalty of 60 days in jail, and the final hurdle Crump needs to get over to begin his lawsuits against everyone that breathes or moves.

        Hornsby was also the one who said that George was morally wrong for getting out of the truck. That is the Chris Serino mindset that if only he stayed in the truck, all of this could have been avoided. Sounds very much like the guy that had $25,000 to donate to the defense if someone could convince him that George was not morally wrong for getting out of his vehicle.

        What those like Serino and Hornsby seem to completely discount is that if TM was in fact up to no good, and he knew that George was watching him, he may have run off to get rid of drugs, blunts or whatever, and then he very well could have come back to George’s truck, and beat him in his truck, or drug him out of the truck to beat him. The can of watermelon juice could have been used to smash a truck window to gain access to George. TM was staying at Brandi’s, and was supposed to be moving there with Tracy. He knew that George saw him and could ID him as they would be living in the same complex and would likely run into each other again at some point. George had to be warned that snitches get stitches. The most important part is that once TM ran off, he could very easily have been safe inside Brandi’s, but he knew that George would recognize him at a later time, and would probably call the police to report that.

        • So would this “morally” wrong be the same as telling a rape victim she was “morally” wrong if she dressed and acted in a provocative way, therefore responsible for her own rape?

        • pinecone ~ Along w/Hornsby & Serino, others agree that GZ was morally wrong including Alan Derchowitz & Mike Iglarsh to name only a few. BUT all agree GZ is not guilty of 2nd degree murder.

          There could be some on the jury that saw this as senseless & want to consider something lesser than manslaughter.

          I’d like to see GZ walk on everything, but it’s not up to any of us NOR do our opinions matter, it matters to the 6 people who will decide the case. As far as a Civil Suit, imo, that’s a given no matter what the verdict is. GZ could walk on all charges & still face the Civil Suit.

            • and I think he already spent a month in jail right? that would be used as time served so only have a month and prob get less because of how they shorten sentence. Still I pray all out aquittal

          • This case, as in all cases, is to be decided on the law, not on anyone’s moral beliefs, personal judgements, emotions and sympathies. As repulsive as the verdict was in the CA case, they said that the state was unable to prove that she did murder Caylee, and that is why she walked.

            This case will likely not be decided ultimately by the six pack. It will be decided by the DCA. I firmly believe that.

          • I don’t know Art. I have never been an avid court watcher, or legal analyst watcher. I am only going on my laymans instincts with the George Zimmerman case, and trying to post what I think is common sense. I’ll have to defer to you as you have been the avid court case watcher, the legal analyst expert watcher, and your knowledge about how all these things go. I dunno, maybe everything I’ve thought from the beginning with the Zimmerman case has been really wrong. Who knows. I can’t claim the position of long time court case watcher. What the heck do I know. I’m not a lawyer either, so you have that also.

          • Morally wrong? how? Dershowitz did not elaborate sufficiently to guess what he meant. Riots forced prosecutors to charge BART cop Johannes Mehserle who killed Oscar Grant when he pulled a gun instead of his taser while attempting to arrest Grant during an mob scene following a fight on the train. The jury sentence was modified by the judge. The rioting crowd simmer down, Mehserle served a short sentence, the compromise was somewhat successful.

            I do not think GZ acted immorally what so ever.

      • Old article on the Gibbs case: Woman Guilty In Heart Attack Case – Sun Sentinel – May 4, 2000
        I’m sure most of this didn’t come in to the trial, but I think I get the picture …

        Gibbs, a former telemarketer, has had convictions for prostitution, drug charges, aggravated assault, resisting arrest and drunken driving in the past decade.
        The confrontation between the two women began when Gibbs said hello to Osmun, who was sitting on a bench in front of her apartment building at 4370 Community Drive. Osmun was waiting for a ride to her church. When Osmun didn’t respond to Gibbs, Gibbs asked why. Eyewitness testimony diverges from that point.

        And, another article. It appears on retrial, there was a conviction. Deputy Dies After Struggle With Teen – Sun Sentinel – April 1, 2002

        Witnesses said Gibbs, who is black, and Osmun, who is white, exchanged words at a bus stop. While witnesses’ accounts varied from that point, one person said Osmun’s threatening gestures caused Gibbs to push her to the ground. Gibbs was given an eight-month jail sentence.

    • Nettles – NeJame along with Hornsby & Sheaffer have said the same thing, the charges will be reduced.

      Hornsby has said on his BLOG that Corey always does this, she overcharges & then sees what she can prove. Apparently, this is common practice for Corey, many of her cases take a PLEA to a lesser offense than originally charged & asaren’t tried at all.

      • I recall reading on Talk Left in the early days that the way the information for charge was written up, it left out the possibility of lesser charges. The writer thought that was a gift to the defense and a mistake by the state.

        Now I read regularly that lesser charges can be added or the charge changed altogether. I’m confused.

        • I remember that article so I am confused, too. Maybe cboldt has the answer, I trust his opinion more than any of the analysts in the media.

        • There may have been a post like that, but I’m pretty sure it would have been corrected. The notion you describe is pretty much an “inversion” of the difference between an information (by the prosecutor) and an indictment (by a grand jury).
          With the charge coming on an information, the prosecutor has more leeway to modify the charge. There is no need to re-engage the grand jury if new evidence comes in, or old evidence drops out, etc.
          But, in either form of being charged, by the prosecutor or by the grand jury, defendant is at risk of being convicted of lesser included charges. In other words, the words of the indictment or the words of the information don’t have to be changed in order to sustain a conviction of a lesser included offense.
          At this point in time, it’s too late to change the words on the information.
          Zimmerman is charged with violations of 2nd degree murder, 782.04, with penalty enhanced by parts (1) and (2) of Possession or use of weapon, 775.087.
          Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150 gives the jury the power to convict on lesser included offenses. The judge is required to give instructions on “any offense that as a matter of law is a necessarily included offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indictment or information and is supported by the evidence.”
          The “lesser included” calculus depends on evidence adduced at trial, and will be litigated by the state and the defense before the jury is charged. Looking at the instruction (7.7) for manslaughter (782.07, I doubt that culpable negligence instruction will be given because there is no evidence the discharge of the firearm was accidental.

        • In Florida some charges come with lesser charges already included. For the State this allowed them to charge Murder 2, which already has the lesser included charges of Manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, non-homicide lesser, culpable negligence, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, other misdemeanors.

          There is also the aggravating factors, in these case 2, TM was a minor and a firearm was used which could turn a misdemeanor conviction into a felony and be sentenced as such.

          You can find all of included lesser charges, judges instructions and more at this link:
          http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

          • Heheh … looking for that file on my computer, and notice the filename misspells “jury” as “jurry.”

          • There is a difference between the category one and category two lesser included offenses. The only category one lesser included offense for murder two is manslaughter.

            To instruct the jury on a category two lesser included offense, the accusatory pleading must allege the necessary elements of the lesser included offense and there must be sufficient proof to support a conviction.

            Some of the category two lesser included offenses are out, for want of the element being present in the pleading.

  7. What I am anticipating is whether BDLR will make any of the points that the Leatherheads keep harping on, such as the location of the bullet wound in TM’s shirt and stuff like that.

    I think the Leatherheads will be very dissapointed.

  8. I never heard that GZ saw a car backing possibly out of Taffe’s driveway, and that TM possibly could have gotten out of that car. That fits with O’Mara’s statement from several weeks ago that TM’s phone pinged way out of the confines of the RTL/711 area. I wonder if George was able to give any description of the vehicle.

    • WTF-TV says “The court accepted the testimony of one state audio expert and the defense’s three experts.”
      I suppose they count Nakasone as a state expert.

    • I love how MOM explains things, plain and simple, to the point. How anyone can deny George was screaming for help is beyond me. George’s excited utterance that he was screaming for help and no one came tells it all. Now, let’s see how hard the state fights to keep it out.

    • Interesting….. the black reporter was already bringing up Crump’s new meme that GZ denied it was his voice! Some people really have no idea what Crump and NatJack are about…. they must not research anything themselves, just take Crump’s words and interpretations as facts….

    • They will want his statements out because they have nothing to dispute them. But without his words, what will they use to twist this nothing case into 2nd degree murder?

    • Yet the state can use terms like profiled, wanna be cop and vigilante etc.

      It was a dark and rainy night when the wannabe cop, who was rejected when he applied to be a police officer, profiled the innocent kid, who was wearing a hoodie, and was trying to get home to daddy’s, with iced tea and skittles for his little brother. So the vigilante took the law into his own hands, chased the kid, confronted him by saying you don’t belong around here dude, and I’m going to make sure you don’t get away like you guys always do.. I’ll just help the police and shoot you know, spin my 9mm, slam it back in the holster while I wait for the police. I know enough about the law to flout it, and I’ll get away with murder, because my dad was a justice of the peace, and he is friends with Norm Wolfinger and Chief Lee.

      Excerpt from- Full Steam Ahead Has Been Accomplished, How I railroaded George Zimmerman by Angela Corey, co-authored by Bernie DeLaRionda, with commentary by Pamela Bondi.

  9. Wonder if John will be able to testify that GZ said “I shot him in self defense.” Sounds like an excited utterance.

    -MM

    • He said that to witness 13 (the Asian man living on RVC at the T). John and George never spoke that night.

      Don West was trying to argue George’s statements to W13 plus the one he made to Officer Smith about screaming for help but no one came should be allowed in. He argues they are spontaneous utterances not self-serving statements. The Judge told him to put it in writing (after deflecting this issues on two prior occasions).

      Mr. West filed it in writing on Friday. http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/re_self-serving_statements.pdf

    • That was W13, IIRC. The statements heard by W13 is black-letter exited utterance, in my layperson opinion. That should probably extend to recalled by Ofc. Smith as well, but there is at least some argument of time, distance and motive there. Smith'[s issue, I imagine, will be the rule of completeness. If Smith testifies that Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin, then he should be able to testify the reason Zimmerman gave since it was made at the same time and describes the same events.

    • I just listened yesterday to the 45 minute 2nd interview with W6 from 3/20/12. He said that after he went back inside his home to make his 911 call he was upstairs and looked out his window. He saw Martin on the ground and Zimmerman with his hands in the air. Neighbors were already on the scene and W6 said he heard Zimmerman say ‘The gun is on the ground. I just shot a guy in self defense.’

  10. NatJac Tweet

    @Curious111188 Will have GZ’s NEN call, 911 call w/screams, record of TM was on phone at time, no GZ DNA on TM hands,& body 50 yds fm home.
    12:03pm – 21 Jun 13

    Nat mentions TM was on the phone at the time, but doesn’t mention DD? Mmmm. Even if he was on the phone at that time, without DD testifying it was with her and what was said, they got nothing. If state is dumb enough to put her on the stand, defense will expose her as a liar in record time. So the way I see it, 911 call -much more proof it was George screaming, no DNA means nothing – so many reasons to explain why DNA is not always present, body 50 yes from home – means what? Is this the “overwhelming” evidence?

    • No Sybrina in that list either. The state says “Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewd the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.”

    • It is interesting that she mentions the “record” of TM on the phone at the time. So the state will be allowed to use the DD phone class, and possibly texts, but the defense may not be able to bring any of those records in as evidence, including that DD and TM were fighting all that day, and at times was very angry and hostile?

      BDLR will put Sybrina on the witness stand, play the NEN tape with the screams, and Sybrina will break down in sobs saying that yes that was her son. Then when the defense gets their turn they can call Tracy to the stand and make him repeat that he told the police it wasn’t his son. Then put the officers who heard him say that on to verify that that was what he said.

      As far as no GZ DNA on TM’s hands, he was laying in the wet grass for how long? They rolled him over to do CPR, and then rolled him back over again to take crime scene pictures. It was raining, any DNA that was there likely would have washed off. Who tested TM’s hands for GZ’s DNA? Was it the same person who took his drug testing samples incorrectly?

      NastyNattie has to keep face with the Frances Oliver community.

  11. The thought of both O’Mara and West working their butts off for over a year without a penny in pay is simply overwhelming. That’s a lot to really comprehend for this poster’s brain. I only hope that they will eventually get “paid” for their work but am not exactly sure how that would happen, unless their return comes from civil suits.

    I have no respect for anyone who would maliciously attack them. Arm chair lawyers have worked for free but, in a sense, so has the defense. Which of the two commands the most RESPECT?

    Has anyone heard any more about the NBC suit?

      • Thank you. I sort of wish that suits would have been initiated against a few others BEFORE the trial. Do we know if Beasley might have been paying O’Mara and/or West or providing any financial assistance for the defense? There was some conjecture about that at CTH right after they first filed the suit.

        • Jordan…MOM/West dont make a move with out Beasley…This case is about the money. Nelson will never oversee the NBC suit…Dont take this wrong ,mom/west beasley care about george.As with The Dark Side its all buout the money

          • That actually makes sense but I would like to read more about that arrangement. Do you have a link? Maybe SD was right about this one b/c he was the first one who mentioned it and I began to use that in later threads but he corrected me, saying that arrangement was not confirmed at the time.

            Thanks for the post.

            • Oh..Please..This is where I agree with SD…MOM is a snake. George had what 200k when he came online,
              what did he do with it?
              He knew about NBC and what they were doing to that NEN call.. In comes Beasley
              Here is where disagree..Mom is doing everything he can to Win this case…
              This case is ALL about the money…This has nothing to do with George…

              • Wow! “Mom is a snake.”

                Mr. O’Mara took this case on April 11th. On April 12th he talked with GZ about his finances and learned GZ was indigent. He talked to him about filing to state funds to help pay for the defense.

                There is an abundance of evidence that both Mark O’Mara and Don West believe in the system they work in and they took the case to help GZ manoeuver through it.

                Don West quit his job and hasn’t had income since joining the team on May 31st.

                And you have the audacity to describe Mr. O’Mara as a snake? Use your common sense.

                If GZ ends up with money in his pockets and he is the man I think he is, he will be paying the lawyers their hourly rate. If he can afford it, I’d recommend he double it.

                This constant personal criticism of a person trying to help George is baffling to me.

                • Nettles – I would imagine GZ has already signed off w/the Beasley Group as is customary in Civil Suits as they are usually done on a contingency basis, what he will pay & that comes out of any Judgement that is won & GZ would get a check for the remainder. imo, GZ’s legal fees plus the Beasley fee would be a part of what GZ signed off on.

                • EZ..EZ..Nettles cool down..Do you honestly believe what you are saying..At the end of march the NYT ran the NBC article..End of march I donated to George..To say mom did not know about the money ,,well he would have been the only person in the USA who didn’t..JMO
                  To say i don’t support george is not true.. I see your point you may be baffled. Nothing is free when it comes to Law..Be cool Im on your side..

                  • LOL, what did I say that gave you the impression I’m Hot and need to Cool down?

                    Where did I say you don’t support George?

                    My point is when Mr. O’Mara took the case there was no sign from anyone that people would respond to GZ plea for donations. I think the judge and prosecutor didn’t pay it much attention on April 20th b/c most thought no one will help him out. They thought he had been soundly soiled in the press.

                    Never worry about me posting when mad. I make it a habit not to do it. When posting I am always in control of my emotions. Keep that in mind in going forward.

                • the money was not used up by O’Mara. The real snake is Angela Corey and BDLR. The money disappeared because of the high bail that was set after BDLR pulled that dirty trick where he manipulated what was said by Shellie.

                  • The money dried up as soon as a certain website began to criticize MOM. IMO, donations were on the rise and those allegations abruptly put on the brakes. IIRC, the perjury allegation came a bit later. I got into “trouble” for calling that to other folks’ attention.

          • moaldee – I have read many times it would be Judge Nelson that hears GZ vs NBC, Judge Nelson goes to Civil Court after this case.

            Are you predicting that the Beasley Group will request another Civil Judge instead of Judge N?

              • moaldee – Judge Nelson has already been re-assigned to Civil Court. Judge N might not be re-elected the next time she runs for her job, but I don’t see the 5DCA taking action. Judges make bad decisions all the time & sre appealed all the time, I’ve never seen a Judge removed by Appeal Court Judges, unless they have done something that was proven illegal.

                • moaldee – I’m having a hard time following some of your comments, you state things as if fact, when they should say “imo.” That way, there wouldn’t be any confusion. Your previous comments about Beasly providing money to MOM/West & your comment on the 5DCA seeing that Judge N is on her way out are at issue.

                  It, I assume, is ONLY your opinion that Judge N is on her way out, but there is NO evidence that the 5DCA will remove her. If it is just your opinion, consider stating it as such.

  12. The heart of the State’s probable cause affidavit was that a young girl was on the phone with Martin either in the minute or so before he was shot or at the beginning of the conflict. According to the state, what she heard helps to prove the alleged “depraved mind” part of 2nd degree murder. That is HUGE, and, until she was exposed, she remained a key witness for the State’s case for quite a while. Then the news about her vanished.

    What is the latest word about DeeDee testifying? Will the defense call her and, if so, how much will her testimony be restricted?

    If for no other reason other than mere entertainment, I really want to see her on the stand. Her name has never been disclosed so maybe she is one of those who wants to remain anonymous. Is that possible?

  13. Just posted this at the CTH…Beasley is all over this..The Audio experts came from Beasley…The money if needed will come from them..Theres a lot more to that NEM call,a lot more..

  14. I was reading over the transcripts of GZ’s statements and noted that Singleton on Feb. 29th misstated what GZ had told her on Feb. 26th about why he got out of the car. In the Feb. 26th interview he told her he got out of the car to get a street sign AND to see if he could see which cut-through TM used so he could tell the police. See page 6 and 7 the transcript from Feb 26th http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/singletontranscriptomara.pdf

    In the Feb 29th interview Singleton tells GZ that he told her he got out of the car to get an address but on the tape it shows he got out of the car to follow Trayvon. In this Transcript Singleton doesn’t remember what GZ told her exactly on Feb 26th and she characterizes this way “Singleton: The other day you told me you got out of the car because dispatch was asking your location and you wanted to orient yourself. You did not tell me that you said, “Oh, shit, he’s running” and then got out of the car and went in that same direction at the same time. Do you see what the problem is?” Transcript here: https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

    I think GZ was accurate. When he got out of his truck he was looking to see which cut through Trayvon was going to use so he could tell police which way the youth went. Once out of the car and not being able to answer the dispatcher question, he decided to get the house number of RVC. As we don’t hear the wind in the phone start up again and he doesn’t give the house number while talking to Sean in the two minutes after he leaves the truck, it’s probable he walked to RVC for the house number after he hung up with Sean. In walking back to the truck is when Trayvon called out to him.

    On Feb. 29th it was Detective Singleton who wasn’t remembering correctly.

    • Although George never actually said this, i still believe he was “instinctively’ following Sean’s “instructions” to keep Martin in sight. Maybe he didn’t think of what he was doing the interviews.

    • Excellent point, well stated, I have argued with far too many trayniacs caught up in a supposed great address hunt. I will remember this.

  15. Mr. O’Mara got a great opportunity in preparing the jury for their role and what’s needed in this case. You may recall that one juror thanked him for educating her on what was expected. That was juror B-51. She is on the jury.

    Mr. O’Mara got the judge to read the instruction not once but twice. In most cases, jurors listen to all the evidence without the prior knowledge of how to apply it to the law. Mr. O’Mara prepared them. While he couldn’t define the word abiding and what that means, they may have sought a dictionary if they thought they didn’t know.

    The jurors enter tomorrow knowing what is being asked of them. I have no doubt they will use their common sense and like most of us, ask at the end of this case, “What was the State of Florida thinking”

  16. First post here folks, howdy. I am hanging over at Click Orlando’s live trial coverage because there I am live Tweeting under the moniker MortimerEsq (I guess you could call me “stealth co-counsel,” similar in concept to the stealth jurors I have dubbed “Facebook Jerry” and “The Church Lady,” E7, E22 respectively.) Also I have been keeping my YouTube channel updated with selected play by play coverage. Example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2sC2D04TrM

    ____________________

    Anyway, as many of you may have observed Bernie “The Coward” de la Rionda’s litigation style is to obstruct justice (as many federal courts have ruled his litigation style). The way he obstructs is to endlessly object. For example, recently during the general voir dire of the jury MOM West did not once (at least that I can recall from watching the entire proceeding) to Bernie “The Coward” de la Rionda’s voir dire, which he intended to be an opening statement, closing argument, and to (improperly) mention facts that will NOT be admitted at trial. In contrast, Bernie “The Coward” de la Rionda about three minutes into MOM’s voir dire made an objection, and within an hour had made a total of seven objections. You can view my YouTube MOM general voir dire posting if inclined to want to see what I am talking about.

    I digress with my prefatory statement, sorry. My point is that MOM West should battle fire with fire. They should strategically object to throw off Bernie’s stride, and more important, where necessary create a record for appeal. (The carved-in-stone rule of appeals is that if a party failed to object at trial, usually a party cannot bring up the issue on appeal because the party WAIVED the objection at the time.

    Sidenote: That is why you see MOM West constantly mentioning “We did not have time to do this, or deal with that;” they are creating a record for appeal, getting into the record specific acts of prejudice caused by the State’s dilatory, obstructionist tactics, and prosecutorial misconduct.” A good example of this process at work is when Don “Walter White” West gave his brilliant closing argument on the Frye Motion. See where he repeatedly said they did not have time to prepare for dealing with the experts.

    — End sidenote–

    Well I have to run some errands so I guess I’ll get to the reason I came in here to post a comment:

    As soon as Bernie says the word “profile” in opening statement MOM’s or West’s relevance objection should be sustained. This is because “generic” profiling is NOT a crime. Fact is, we all profile, hundreds of times a day.

    When you see someone in a $100,000 BMW and think he or she is successful, you have profiled.

    When a store clerk has trouble counting back your change and you conclude he must be a dummy who didn’t graduate from high school, you have profiled the person.

    Profiling is part of a person’s thought processes. I am not aware of anywhere in the U.S. that the govt. can prosecute you for your thoughts, even if you wish death on a driver who almost ran you off the road.

    Yes, there’s certain types of profiling that can be illegal, but that’s usually limited to govt. (LEO) action as a prelude to arrest or detainment, for example.

    The theory of the State’s case against Zimmerman on Murder 2 has always been that his alleged RACIAL profiling of Trayvon Martin proved an essential element of murder two, that Zimmerman had a depraved heart and mind.

    To this day the State has not come up with any evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin. This was confirmed by Judge Nelson forbidding the State to say “racial profiling” in opening statement.

    The State confirmed it has no case based on race when it did not argue against the Judge’s racial profiling restriction.

    So the bottom line: When Bernie “The Coward” de la Rionda says in opening statement that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, that should be subject to immediate objection on relevance grounds. THAT kind of LAWFUL profiling has nothing to do with the case, so why bring it up.

    If nothing else, at least MOM or West can get in a nice “speaking objection” on why Bernie “The Coward” de la Rionda is nuttier than squirrel sheet.

  17. STATE’S 18TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
    just posted @ GZ Legal & signed off by WeaselBoy Mantei

    Hope the Legal Fund UPDATE comes soon, since the Jury has been seated now for about a day and a half.

  18. I wonder if West will use the “if only” scenario in opening statements tomorrow. He can say some believe “if only George didn’t get out of the truck” and then go through a litany of “if only’s” which is in reality hindsight and/or wishful thinking. If only I was born 10 years later, I would be 10 years younger right now. If only I bought a lottery ticket, I could be a millionaire If only Trayvon had stayed in Miami, he could still be alive today. If only Tracy supervised Trayvon, he would still be alive today. If only Sybrina didn’t kick Trayvon out of her house, he would be alive today.

    • Only IF MD-SPD investigated the stolen jewelry found in TM backpack then TM would be a convicted burglar and if caught prowling town homes no one would dare accuse GZ of racial profiling.

      • Sure they would. Corey and company are shameless liars. They are sociopaths, no conscience, purely self serving when the chips are down.
        The argument would be that Zimmerman doesn’t know Martin is a burglar, and there is no evidence that Martin was presently burgling, therefore (even though there is no evidence of this), Zimmerman’s suspicion was not justified.

        • I have always said that even if you grant the idea that George should have stayed in his truck, then the essential question becomes – did the act of getting out of his truck mean that he (George) deserved to die that night? If not, then he had a right to defend his own life when confronted with force that he reasonably feared could cause death or great bodily harm.

        • But, then, there would be the appeal on the Florida Arias case where the appeals court threw out a conviction because the judge had not allowed the strange and under influence actions of the attacker to be used as a self-defense charge (sorry IANAL and don’t have cite) to jury.

          And, if only Trayvon had not ignored the reality that actions have consequences and he should have known the possible response he may face if he beat someone in view of others.

    • At least George did homework assignments and turned them in. That’s a lot more than can be said of Trayvon who was never in school.

      So if I ever have to defend my life, I will have all of my college courses including Deviant Behavior, and The Criminal Justice System used against me? This desperation to get a conviction at all costs, no matter how rediculous you look, should be a wake up call to not only those in Fla., but to every American citizen in this country.

      Now, on the eve of opening statements in the trial, the state is only now handing over George’s emails? The defense has been asking for that information for a very long time.

      • moaldee – I agree, imo, I think BDLR thinks if he could just get GZ on the stand, he’d twist the mild inconsistencies against GZ as if they were intentional lies GZ told to cover his butt. Too, one can never predict how a jury will like a defendant, are they remorseful someone died even if the victim was killed in self defense? (the tape could be played from FOX,) is the defendant arrogant? does the jury believe the defendant.

        I was surprised to read that TM supporters were posting on the OS blog how arrogant GZ was during voir dire. I didn’t see that at all, imo, GZ looked tense/afraid, it was a relief to see him smile a few times. What some jurors saw in Jeff Ashton in KC’s trial as an obnoxious Prosecutor, I saw as a compassionate Prosecutor pursuing a guilty verdict for the murder of Caylee. imo, BDLR shares the same problems, he is obnoxious, a smart ass at times, unlikable, & seems to have an impulse control problem & acts unprofessionally when it comes to his temper.

        Something jurors say time & again after a trial, “we really wanted to hear from the defendant.” Does it matter? IDK.

        • mom is a lot of thing ..but he is not dumb..george does not have to take the stand unless the state has info we don’t have..I don’t think they do..we will see..

          • moaldee – I agree, I have every confidence MOM/West will make the right decision with GZ if he testifies, it will depend on how well the trial is going, what the State has presented, OR more importantly, not presented. The States case appears so weak, there may not be any reason for the defense to even consider it, LOL, BDLR can just dream.

      • It is not up to the state to determine if George should take the stand or not. That is up to the defense. After the prosecution does their thing, the defense may not have to even present anything.

        • Agree 100%…just sayin if they have damning info he may have to…but i don’t think so..See that the good thing about The Dark Side they don’t know when to STFU

        • pinecone – ABSOLUTELY no one said it was up to the State if GZ takes the stand!!! I have followed many, many, high profile cases my entire adult life, since Betty Broderick & OJ Simpson. EVERYONE understands this. Maybe you might RE-READ a comment before commenting to something that was never stated.

          The Defense & GZ will make the determination at the appropriate time if GZ takes the stand, that’s the bottom line, BUT OF COURSE, everyone knows that too, I assume you do too.

          Would the State LIKE the opportunity to cross ex GZ if he should take the stand? YOU BET, JUST AS I STATED!

            • pinecone – your above comment is NOT what you stated.

              QUOTING ~ pinecone stated: “It is not up to the state to determine if George should take the stand or not. That is up to the defense.”

              I replied, everyone knows that!

              • Forgive me ArtTrat. I just can;t seem to understand anything anyone says, and thank you so much for calling me out on just never saying what I really said.

                With respect ArtTart, please back off.

        • For GZ to claim “self defense” & that be an option on the verdict form, a minimal defense has to be presented, the Defense cannot just “pass” & choose to do nothing.

          • That evidence can come in during cross examination. We won’t know the extent of that (defenant’s side of the story elicited on cross examination) until the state rests – stops calling witnesses.

            • cboldt – It is correct that the Defense can cross exam to get information, but the Defense has gathered important witnesses to prove their case that it was self defense, they will not, imo, pass on the opportunity to call their own witnesses to support self defense, they’ve worked too hard leading up to the trial to pass. . This is in no way a slam dunk for the Defense, imo, they have a strong case but not strong enough to pass putting on a defense to validate their position.

              • The case doesn’t have to be very strong to prevail. If a prima facie case of self defense exists in evidence, and the state has not rendered that theory of self defense “impossible” or contradicted by evidence, then the judge is obliged to grant an acquittal without even bothering the jury.

            • pinecone – you’re right about Judge N giving the instruction of “self defense, twice.” She didn’t want MOM explaining it.. I don’t think there is any doubt that the Defense will put on a solid case, even if they garner positive information during cross exam of the States witnesses that it was self defense.

              imo, the defense may just want to solidify perhaps in the juries mind that GZ had no choice but to defend himself from the assault.

              Will the State enter the pictures of GZ’s bloody injuries? LOL! They didn’t even want to turn the colored digital pictures over to the Defense. GZ has an important story to tell, I think MOM/West will do a good job of telling it.

    • Did Judge give her approval for this late entry, or does the wonderful prosecution team even need her OK?
      Maybe the rules are different for State & Defense, seeing as how all negatory* TM stuff is disallowed auto-maticulaly**.

      * old USA military terminology
      ** Crumpism?

    • Remember when Judge Lester used George’s knowledge of the criminal justice as part of his reason for revoking his bail. I don’t remember exact wording, but I’m guessing, that’s where the state is going. My comments then were, apparently George missed the most important part of Criminal Justice 101…NEVER GIVE STAMENTS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY! I want to see them explain why someone so knowledgeable would do that if they were so devious.

      • Lester cited Zimmerman’s “very sophisticated knowledge of the criminal justice system” in his July 5, 2012 order reinstating bond. This finding was used to dispel O’Mara’s claim that Zimmerman was confused and distrustful, and having a sense of having been betrayed by the system. Lester used the education to find the opposite, and to support a finding that Zimmerman tried to manipulate the system.

        • When they depose GZ’s former professor (who can’t be in court b/c he is on vacation), I hope they ask him when he taught George it’s recommended to talk to police without a lawyer? and follow up with how could you teach him to do something that ill-advised?

          • On the criminal justice side, the mission is to get the suspect to talk. I don’t think that course is taught the same way a course for would-be defendants is taught. CCW courses cover the ground that the state is concerned with. Use deadly force only when in fear of death or serious injury, shoot to stop (not to kill), stop using force when the threat stops. Say nothing to investigators other than what is necessary to identify yourself and allow them to disarm you. Submit to investigative detention, call a lawyer.
            I take Zimmerman’s steady cooperation as a sign of innocence. Naivete too. I really hope Corey is burned badly by this, but I doubt that will happen. There is no justice on this earth, and the law is unreasonably arrogant, as it claims to be a force for justice.

          • WHY doesn’t the State just buy the books from the Seminole College Bookstore? WHY do they assume GZ still has them, he’s moved at least twice that we know of.

            • LOL, I don’t think they are asking George for his books, they have entered these 2 books into discovery.

              You may recall the state asked to be allowed to interview George’s former professor and submit the interview during the trial as the professor will be on vacation and unavailable during trial.

              The State issued that discovery on Friday, June 21st. It’s likely the books that are listed in the class the professor taught George in.

      • I was just about to post almost exactly the same thing. It seems the state is going to argue that GZ’s knowledge of law allowed him to effectively lie and cover up what he did. It’s a Traybot theory. GZ must be a psychic or a genius to know in advance what witnesses saw and what was recorded on 911 calls. They’re going to continue to attack his character and honesty. It’s all they have.

        • When that jury gets a grip on the fact that George called LE in advance to let them know he was going to murder someone, they will convict him of first degree insanity.

    • Nearly everybody instinctively knows that you have to be in fear of death or serious injury in order to justify use of deadly force. The state’s allegation, which it has no evidence for, will be that Zimmerman made up the verbal threat by Martin; and knew he had to make up a verbal threat.
      Recall Mantei asking if Reich heard “you are going to die, MF’er” or similar?
      All the state has is unsupported insinuation and conjecture. I expect the defense will object to the evidence being submitted to the jury.

    • Does this homework contain the caution that “when seconds count, cops are only minutes away” or explain that is one very good reason that self-defense is absolutely justified when one is threatened with great bodily harm or death?

    • Nettles..Thanks for letting me play..It is odd to run into someone who give of himself so freely..I guess there are some good people left..thanks

    • I listened for a few minutes and learned from RZ that GZ changed radically from the incident, he become a very somber person, that two things bothered him deeply;

      1. that TM died
      2. that none of his neighbors came out to help

      Diwataman has an compelling post today and ask people to consider what motivates their interest in the case. I have known all along, since like GZ I was changed by the race based violence. Hearing from RZ drove it home for me. What truly changed me was the realization when I arrived at the park where my kids were victimized was to see dozens of families barbecuing within 30′ of where my son was stomped in the head. It was memorial day holiday, and nearly all the people picnicking in the park were black, they was a local white teacher pushing her toddler on the swing but even though she had witnessed the incident she was unwilling to come forward for over two weeks. She told me later it was the worse act of racism she had ever witnessed.

      All those moms, and none helped my children who were visibly younger than the teenage offenders. None call police, none yelled stop, none walked my injured and traumatized children home.

      Really the biggest if in this case is what IF one of neighbors took a bat or flashlight outside with them and helped George when hearing his desperate cries. No wonder people carry firearms. I do not own a gun, but I fully understand that you cannot rely on others to help when you are a victim of crime.

      This case deeply disturbs me. And I so agree with Cbolt, Corey and BDLR are sociopaths.

      • A deeply moving comment cassandra, I truly hope that in the future there will continue to be people like George willing to place themselves in danger if and when the need arise to save/rescue another be it your child or a neighbor. I’m reminded of Nettle’s recent post I paraphrase ‘on that night although many heard the cries for help none answered, let us each and every one stand ready to answer that cry for help, now and in the future.’

        • You can count on me, I have my fireplace poker and a bat. I have done it before and will do it again, whatever race the victim is.

          The other damaging part of being a victim of a racial motivated crime committed by blacks is that most people are so uncomfortable dealing with the racial aspects that they have to silence the victim, as is happening to George, he is a victim too.

          Here is a link to story about a friend Patrick who shot a teen when threatened him on his property in Oakland. Patrick was labeled vigilante by the local BGI, but the cops and Mayor stood behind Patrick, the kid was only hit in the arm though, so that is a big difference. Oh, by the way, Patrick is black. Check out how differently NPR covers Patrick “standing his ground” he is a hero.

          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4626854

          In Oakland, California, one man’s lonely battle against drug pushers and gang bangers has turned into a Bay area controversy. Many people call Patrick McCullough a hero, but when he shot and wounded a teen-ager, his critics labeled him a gun-totting vigilante. As NPR’s Richard Gonzales reports, friends are now urging Patrick McCullough to move, even as he’s vowed to stand his ground.

          • I have been the victim of crime and have also intervened in other crimes. Your comment hits hard, as I could place myself right on the scene, as if it was happening to me. As a society we have come to a point where it is just not possible for us to depend on the police for protection.

            In a sense we have come full circle, to a time when there was no police. It is up to us to look out for ourselves. As this case has shown, and there are many others, trying to look out for the community is a dangerous and lonely, thankless job. Hopefully with GZs acquittal we can show that trying to protect others is not criminal, that self defense is legal, that the law will be followed and applied regardless of who is involved.

            • SD wrote an entire post about this long ago. LE has no legal duty and/or requirement to prevent a crime. They cannot be sued for failure to respond.

              • And their lies in the problem, we have been fed the lie that the police will protect us, and that only government can protect us.

                Because of this we have a large portion of the population that feel, that anything that is not sanction by the police of the government is wrong. Those that feel that GZ getting out of the truck makes him guilty, is a perfect example. To many that is where he went wrong so anything that happened afterwards was a consequence of that. After all he had done his civic duty, he called the cops.

                GZ was expected to just wait for the police at that point, he did not and that is used to justify the rest. I firmly believe that unless it is proven that GZ did more than just follow at a distance this type of thinking is wrong and dangerous both morally and ethically.

                It is the type of thinking that has allowed criminals to operate freely in some neighborhoods, as they know that though they may be watched they won’t be stop by anyone. I grew up in a neighborhood like that an experience first hand how this thinking wrecks lives.

  19. The M2 case is what it is…The state has nothing,,The Dark Side knows that. I believe that they want to lose.The big money will come only if george wins..he goes after NBC..NBC settles out of court..then The Dark Side goes after george…Thats the way I see it..JMO.

  20. If I were a protestor, I might be handing some of these out but I would sure as hell have a can as tall as I am right by my side and a unique sign. You can design your own unique sign.

      • The witnesses are listed throughout their supplemental discoveries. They just put them altogether and emailed them to the reporters.

        The reporters just got this in an email and Christina Vazquez from Channel 10 news tweeted it out.

        • Go to the CTH…mom/west will never ask a question that they don’t know the answer to…I thinks SD lost it..LOL

    • Page 3 has two names from the ME office. Is either one of them the person that MOM wants to depose?

      Notice F on page 5. Shouldn’t that read “but NOT limited to?”

  21. I suspect tomorrow morning there will be a few housekeeping issues. One being Mr. West’s motion to allow W13 and Officer Smith to tell the court what GZ said to them in the minutes after the shooting. If the state plans to appeal the experts, we’ll know first thing. Then it should be onto opening statements and after lunch we may see the first witness in the case called.

    Martin Savage of CNN predicted each would take about 20 minutes for their statement. Someone else on Channel 13 thought each may take up to an hour.

  22. I would love to see a Perry Mason moment…

    SD says:

    Will this lead to my being able to rush into the courthouse -files in hand- and pass along to the defense team at the critical hour? Not sure – but I can assure you if I get them, I will.

    Yes, we are at that point where, for the first time, I’m willing to engage the Defense Team directly.

  23. The two textbooks the state has listed in its 18th supplemental discovery are both fairly old (as far as textbooks go)… the one is a 2007 4th ed (the current ed of this textbook is 7th) and the other was a 3rd ed published in 2005 (latest ed came out in 2011).

    Criminal Law for the Paralegal: judging from the table of contents, this is just a general overview of the legal and criminal justice systems.

    Criminal Justice in Action: again, judging from the table of contents, this seems to be a general overview of LE practices and procedures.

    They’re available used on Amazon:

    Criminal Justice in Action (2007 4th ed) … $0.01 cent

    Criminal Law for the Paralegal: A Systems Approach (2005 3rd ed) … around $5 bucks

    • Maybe Bernie found Cliff Notes for each one. Isn’t this ridiculous? Who the hell would read those books and what could they possibly prove?

      • Criminal Justice in Action: page 119, stand your ground law

        Criminal Law for the Paralegal: page 228, self defense (might discuss SYG?)

        If I had to guess, the prosecution is going to try to claim that George lied when he said he wasn’t familiar with SYG laws. But I can tell just from the lone page numbers (119 & 228) that SYG could not have been discussed in much detail at all… and if these two textbooks are anything like the textbooks we used, this law was probably barely even a footnote. (* I just went through my textbooks and SYG was only specifically mentioned as such (by name) once in one textbook. Another textbook mentioned no ‘duty to retreat’ but did not call it ‘stand your ground’)

        I graduated with a 4.0 and actually read my textbooks cover to cover, and if someone had asked me this morning if we had studied SYG in any of my courses … I would have said no. I would have been wrong apparently, but I wouldn’t have been lying.

        • Do we know when GZ took classes that used those books and what editions of those books were used? Also important to note is that it’s not always the case that everything in a given book is covered in a given course. Presumably that’s what GZ’s professor will talk about and what GZ’s homework is supposed to show?

          I don’t see the relevance. GZ’s story has always been that TM punched him and got on top of him. He couldn’t get up (retreat). So, if he was knowledgeable about the statute, he would know that it didn’t apply. I can’t see how the question of SYG is even relevant. GZ never claimed SYG (that was the SPD as reason for no arrest IIRC) and, if knowledgable about it he would have known it wouldn’t apply anyways.

          GZ isn’t claiming SYG so if BDLR triest to bring it up then I think the defense should strongly object (relevance?). But IANAL.

          • “Do we know when GZ took classes that used those books and what editions of those books were used?”

            I’m assuming the editions listed in the state’s 18th supplemental discovery are the specific editions that George would have used.

            The one textbook is 4th edition copyright 2007 and has been updated frequently (current ed is 7th)…. so it would have been used around 2007-2008.

            The other textbook is 3rd edition copyright 2005 and was updated in 2011 (current ed is 4th)… so a window of 2005-2010.

            I just don’t see much in the way of probative value here… BDLR is obviously going to try to make a mountain out of a molehill… and there is significant risk of confusing the issues and the jury if BDLR starts discussing SYG laws. This is a traditional self defense case.

            • ” BDLR is obviously going to try to make a mountain out of a molehill… and there is significant risk of confusing the issues and the jury”

              There you have it. the prosecution’s case in one sentence.

              • From Nelson’s 12 pager.

                §90A03, Fla. Stat. (2013) provides in pertinent part, “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative
                value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the
                jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”

                • Of course both Owen and Reich’s potential testimony was so blatant that even Nelson had to exclude it. BDLR may be more subtle with what he introduces and Nelson can let it slip by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s