Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[Guest Gwith40]

I don't know the prosecutor (Corey)...but there is something creepy about her. If you had the displeasure of watching her news conference, you would know what I mean. She acted like she was at a birthday party or something. I suspected, though, that as soon as she was appointed, there would be charges filed. I think that was her sole purpose.

[Garufa]

This is how ridiculous its become...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/george-zimmerman-buys-79-84-worth-items-jail-214706403.html

[mikegideon]

This is how ridiculous its become...

http://news.yahoo.co...-214706403.html

He should have tried the Skittles

[Guest Gwith40]

That seals it...next we will hear from experts that he is a sugar addict, which probably contributed to his behavior.

[Moped]

Pus is always an indication of some kind of bacteria. We're just debating the type and quantity. Bloomberg is a sawed off little twerp... the little zit that could.

I think of him more as an infected hemorrhoid.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Even Dershowitz gets it...sort of sums up my take on the case so far.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

I don't agree with Dershowitz very often, but I do on this. I found a PDF of the complaint affidavit and it's absolutely pathetic. It does say that it does not contain all pertinent facts and evidence, but if I had ever turned in an affidavit like that, it would have been rejected. It doesn't speak to the elements of the crime at all. If they don't have much more of a case than this...

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

[Guest Gwith40]

Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but: Is it possible to make a false statement in an affidavit?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sure, why not?

I understand what Dershowitz was saying now. She wanted to get it in a trial to let judge dismiss it or

a jury acquittal.

[Guest Gwith40]

I guess I phrased that question poorly. I would think it literally possible to make false statements but, would anyone be held accountable. In other words, would it be called a false statement, or would it be a Clintonian situation. If relaying what someone said, does it have to be a direct quote, or a paraphrase? This is important, because it can change the meaning of what is said.

I am referring to things said on the police tapes and noted in the affidavit.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Gwith40

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Okay, gotcha. ET you still on here?

That affidavit seemed to me to be poorly written and very vague from what I thought would have been something

of substance. I liked the part "Mr.Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin". Sounded like that was the sum of their

case, but that's the first one I've seen, so I would be wrong for me to say what really should be in one. Both sides

will see the evidence.

The whole thing looks stupid to me. The new lawyer vaguely using the word "plea bargain" and this poor affidavit

still makes me think it is a ruse to quell a riot.

[Guest Gwith40]

While it is hard to get into the mind of Corey, who the hell knows what she is up to, I think you might be right about the ruse part. I would really like to see a high-powered attorney of national prominence step up for Zimmerman. It might throw a wrench into whatever plans the state has for Zimmerman.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

While it is hard to get into the mind of Corey, who the hell knows what she is up to, I think you might be right about the ruse part. I would really like to see a high-powered attorney of national prominence step up for Zimmerman. It might throw a wrench into whatever plans the state has for Zimmerman.

Gerry Spence claimed to retire in 2008. Dunno if he would find the case interesting, assuming he is still sharp enough to take it on. Would be worth watching.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Okay, gotcha. ET you still on here?

That affidavit seemed to me to be poorly written and very vague from what I thought would have been something

of substance. I liked the part "Mr.Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin". Sounded like that was the sum of their

case, but that's the first one I've seen, so I would be wrong for me to say what really should be in one. Both sides

will see the evidence.

The whole thing looks stupid to me. The new lawyer vaguely using the word "plea bargain" and this poor affidavit

still makes me think it is a ruse to quell a riot.

That's what I was getting at. It is far too vague. A complaint affidavit is supposed to contain enough information to show that evidence exists to prove each element of the crime has been met. So for 2nd degree murder, the affidavit should at least somewhat spell out how he acted with intent to kill Martin with "a depraved mind regardless to human life.". I just don't see that in there. Does saying someone is an @$$hole show depravity? I've written complaint affidavits as long as that for some misdemeanor cases I made. In all fairness, I worked in the 14th Judicial Circuit in Florida, and each circuit does things slightly differently. Perhaps their standards for writing up a complaint are different than I was required to do. Also, it was common practice to be somewhat vague in the complaint so that you didn't lay out all of your evidence in the public document and kept it private in the actual case file. This is done for practical reasons so that all of the evidence doesn't get into the media and possibly damage the case, impede the continuing investigation, or taint a possible jury. Of course, the defense can get the entire case file through discovery (assuming the prosecution is ethical and does turn over all evidence as required by the law).

I'm under the suspicion based on what I read that the prosecution plans to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante whose attitudes towards criminals and disregard for the justice system was so deep and spiteful that it raised to the level necessary to show a depraved mindset. I think this is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps there is some other evidence to back it up, but I think at most this act is a clear case of manslaughter - at most. I think it's pretty obvious that Zimmerman is a decent person who made a really dumb decision, put himself in a position that got out of control, and he responded with a bit too much force. Maybe the prosecution is hoping for a plea bargain. Perhaps the prosecutor charged high for political reasons and hopes she can pin any sort of acquittal or lesser conviction on an overly sympathetic jury. Or maybe she really believes this was a heinous crime deserving of life in prison. Either way, I feel as if the charge is over the top.

Always remember folks, the CJ system is not our friend. It is a bureaucratic organization with it's own goals, ideology, and cultural mindset. Most of the time it works to our own personal advantage, but if you come into the focus of the system, you are now subject to their interpretations of "justice" and right vs. wrong. I think I have mentioned it on TGO before, but there is an excellent book chapter that talks about the ideals versus realities in our justice system (link to it below). In it, Packer points out that our system is founded upon the idea of "due process," but in reality it has taken on a "crime control" focus that relies on plea bargains and efficient processing of cases through the system. In the due process model, justice is measured by the process itself, regardless of the outcome. The crime control model measures justice by the outcome, specifically a quick and efficient guilty verdict. When Packer wrote this back in the 1960s, he suggested that we were returning to a "due process" system, which was a logical assumption based on the multiple SCOTUS decisions that came out during the Warren Court at that time. However, since then, it is clear that we have most definitely gravitated to the crime control model. I actually use this dichotomy to explain police misconduct, problems with the court process, and our current model of punishment. For those interested, here is a link to Packer's chapter on this:

http://www.hhs.csus.edu/Homepages/CJ/BikleB/Packer%20-%20Two%20Models%20of%20the%20Criminal%20Process.doc

[mikegideon]

Corey is up for reelection in November. Ztmmerman's attorney is putting the trial date between 6 months and a year. Any questions?

Edited April 13, 2012 by mikegideon

[Guest Gwith40]

Thanks for the explanation ETN. I understand your point about not putting forth any more evidence than necessary but I have to say, if I am on the bench, you better do a bit more professional job than this, if you want to go forward.

Not only is an election coming up for Corey but don't forget a national election is coming up as well. Also, it is my understanding there is a little meeting of Republicans in Florida scheduled for August.

I am hearing and reading that this prosecutor has a history of doing some over the top things. One case involved attempting to charge a 12 year old as an adult and apparently being less than truthful about sentencing.

Why is it that Florida seems to have so many controversial cases?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Dunno enough about law but agree that the charge seems excessive from what is publicly known.

[Guest Gwith40]

If this case gets to trial, and I believe it will, the cross-examination of the girlfriend will be quite interesting. She claimed to hear a confrontation and was worried about Trayvon. However, it looks like she didnt bother to call the father, the mother or the police. Doesn't sound all that concerned to me. If she had bothered to make any of those calls, the father would have known what happened to Martin much sooner. This all assumes she was actually on the phone at the time.

[mikegideon]

If this case gets to trial, and I believe it will, the cross-examination of the girlfriend will be quite interesting. She claimed to hear a confrontation and was worried about Trayvon. However, it looks like she didnt bother to call the father, the mother or the police. Doesn't sound all that concerned to me. If she had bothered to make any of those calls, the father would have known what happened to Martin much sooner. This all assumes she was actually on the phone at the time.

If the father would have given a rat's ass about Trayvon, he would have known sooner. Decent parents make calls when their kids don't show up.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You would think so, anyway.

[mikegideon]

Maybe I was raised wrong

[QuietDan]

Trayvon lived in between his mom and his dad, who are separated & divorced. I imagine he played a good bit of mom versus dad to get the best deal for himself, and that neither parent knows the whole truth of where Trayvon's been and what Trayvon's done. They are about to find out and I doubt it will be pretty.

Edited April 13, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know how that will affect things, but I imagine everything like that will be brought up. The same things will happen to Zimmerman, very little of it could be pertinent to the case. They both have already been documented more than Obama.

[mikegideon]

Dan,

It's obvious you haven't been watching the news. He was precious..

Edited April 13, 2012 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, I turned off the TV about then. Enough was already on the interwebs.

[E4 No More]

Dan,

It's obvious you haven't been watching the news. He was precious..

Every life is precious.

Naw, I couldn't say that with a straight face.