Has Zimmerman Waived His Right to a Pre-Trial "Stand-Your-Ground" Hearing?

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

I realize the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case is in Florida, and this (obviously) is a Tennessee forum, but I've seen a tsunami of headlines by the mainstream media this past week about how George Zimmerman has allegedly waived his right to a pre-trial "Stand-Your-Ground" hearing, and speculation on their part that this is yet "another" sign of how desperately week his self defense case is.

 

As usual, the mainstream media have it completely wrong, on every count.  

 

First, Zimmerman didn't waive anything, he simply let a tentatively assigned date for the hearing go, so the court knew it could use that date for other purposes.  He's still free to make a motion for the pre-trial hearing at a later date (subject, as always, to the judge's discretion, but Judge Nelson in the video I've seen certainly seems favorably inclined to such a motion).  The actual trial isn't scheduled to begin until June 10.  (In the same video one case see the prosecution flailing desperately to have the record reflect some kind of "waiver" by Zimmerman on the issue, but the judge clearly shuts that down.)

 

Second, the prosecution doesn't seem to really know what it's talking about.  Although they refer to the pre-trial hearing as a "Stand-Your-Ground" hearing, there is no such thing under Florida law.  Instead, the pre-trial hearing is to ascertain whether Zimmerman qualifies under Florida's self-defense immunity statute.  If he does, the charges against him would be immediately dismissed (and, incidentally, he would be immunized against civil claims, as well).  When the prosecution can't keep its statutes and pre-trial hearings straight, it doesn't exactly make me think they've got the upper hand on the defense.

 

Third, there are good strategic reasons why the defense might wish to delay the pre-trial hearing or even to wait until the actual trial to make a motion for self defense immunity, so any such delay or even a "waiver" of the pre-trial hearing does not mean the defense is necessarily weak.  For example, it's pretty common knowledge that the prosecution has been "slow-rolling" the defense on discovery matters, and when that's the case it's usually in the best interests of the defense to delay as long as possible, so that they can collect as much discovery as possible, before the "shooting" part of the legal battle begins.  

 

Anyway, I was just completely astonished at how badly the mainstream media had read this thing (although I know I shouldn't have been, it's not like they get much else right, and they want Zimmerman to be found guilty so bad they can taste it), and I thought it might be worthwhile to throw in some informed two-cents, for those who are interested.  

 

For those interested in the legal details backing up everything I've stated above, feel free to take a look at my blog entry on it, which includes all relevant cases and statutes, and even some video of the judge smacking down the prosecution.  If I understand the rules here correctly, I'm not supposed to post links to outside sites, but if anyone is interested feel free to PM me and I'll provide the link. 

 

Andrew

[mikegideon]

I'm not a lawyer. So far, I've been real impressed with Zimmerman's defense team. I view the prosecution as a bunch of thugs. Until I'm proven wrong, my money is on O'Mara and Co. to win. As I read it, they're not giving up on the "stand your ground" defense. Just manipulating the schedule, which is part of the strategy.

[DaveTN]

Get on with the trial; let a jury decide. It's been beat to death here.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Well the way I read it they are going to drop the stand your ground and go for self defense only because:

 

1.  He couldnt get away from Treyvon because he got jumped

 

2.  If he wins on self defense he has automatic immunity from a civil trial (this being the main reason)

[mikegideon]

Well the way I read it they are going to drop the stand your ground and go for self defense only because:

 

1.  He couldnt get away from Treyvon because he got jumped

 

2.  If he wins on self defense he has automatic immunity from a civil trial (this being the main reason)

 

Maybe that's it. I just skimmed the article. This thing has already turned into a big money pit.

[JohnC]

All I got to say is they better pick the jury right or he's screwed.

 

You go out of here and on other forums not related to guns and listen to how folks view this case and you'll see what I mean.

 

It's all about race and guns are bad to half of America.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I appreciate your assessment and agree with it.

[RichardR]

I look at it this way, Zimmerman didn't receive the wounds to his face & the back of his head AFTER shooting Martin.

Therefore his claim that he fired in self-defense is undeniable, there is zero doubt in my mind that Zimmerman was being brutally assaulted when he fired his weapon.

So I believe anyone & everyone who is pushing for Zimmerman to be charged/prosecuted/imprisoned is doing so for idiological/political/racial reasons.

Both Zimmerman & Martin had a right to be where they were, but Martin did not have the right to brutally assault Zimmerman, Zimmerman did however have the right to end/stop that ONGOING (at the time) brutal assault with deadly force, due to the seriousness/immediateness of the situation.

Simply put ... you cannot repeatedly/violently smash another person's head into concrete without putting that person in fear of their life &/or serious bodily injury.

Had the assault ended & Martin had gotten up to walk away when the shot was fired then & only then should Zimmerman been charged, but from all accounts, the assault was still ongoing when Zimmerman shot Martin.

The only crime I can see is charging Zimmerman because Martin "was black" & a bunch of other "black folks" demanded Zimmerman be charged.

Sickens me to no end to see such blatent racial politics poison our justice system to the extent where victims of violent crimes also become victims of a corrupt system.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"So I believe anyone & everyone who is pushing for Zimmerman to be charged/prosecuted/imprisoned is doing so for idiological/political/racial reasons."

Sums it all up, quite well.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Both Zimmerman & Martin had a right to be where they were, but Martin did not have the right to brutally assault Zimmerman, Zimmerman did however have the right to end/stop that ONGOING (at the time) brutal assault with deadly force, due to the seriousness/immediateness of the situation.

 

This.

[TMF]

"So I believe anyone & everyone who is pushing for Zimmerman to be charged/prosecuted/imprisoned is doing so for idiological/political/racial reasons."
Sums it all up, quite well.

Not me. Wouldn't matter much one way or the other. From what I've observed there has been race related bias on both sides of this issue from the start. My feeling is the incident was instigated by Z, as it has always been. However, I agree that if the only evidence the prosecution has is the physical evidence from the scene then Z will walk as a free man using the self defense argument. I still am trying to figure how SYG ever made it into the argument at the start of all this. I don't recall Z's lawyers ever suggesting they would use it and it wouldn't apply if Z's story was that Martin had him pinned. You can't make the choice to "stand your ground" if escape isn't an option. We'll see; I'm expecting some revealing evidence to come out when this goes to trial. Edited March 12, 2013 by TMF

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

My feeling is the incident was instigated by Z, as it has always been.

 

Well, it's a good thing for all of us that a man can't be convicted of murder two based on someone's "feeling".  Evidence is required.  And there's simply no evidence that Zimmerman committed a single act of legally adequate provocation that would justify Martin's attack upon him.

 

And it's very rare in a criminal trial that "some revealing evidence" suddenly comes to light in the middle of the trial.  Hashing out the admissible evidence is what discovery is for.  For "surprise" evidence to appear, it would have had to be held back from discovery, and would likely be excluded for that very reason.  The prosecution is not allowed to "ambush" the defense with evidence they held back fro mandatory discovery.

 

Andrew

[TMF]

Well, it's a good thing for all of us that a man can't be convicted of murder two based on someone's "feeling".  Evidence is required.  And there's simply no evidence that Zimmerman committed a single act of legally adequate provocation that would justify Martin's attack upon him.

 

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but are you suggesting that I feel as if someone should be put in jail based on "feelings"?  Go back and read my statement please if you believe that was my sentiment.  If my "feeling" is true the prosecution will present evidence to that fact at the case; if not, Z will walk free.  He gets to have a jury and everything, just like everyone else.  If the only facts of the case are the physical evidence then the defense should have no problem raising reasonable doubt in all jurors' minds and the state will be embarassed and there will likely be backlash.

 

My feelings are also that Casey Anthony murdered her child.  The prosecution was not able to eliminate reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.  She walked.  What are your questions?

[DaveTN]

And there's simply no evidence that Zimmerman committed a single act of legally adequate provocation that would justify Martin's attack upon him.

Sure there is. Zimmerman jumped out of his truck and started chasing a kid that was doing nothing wrong. Martin was scared and defended himself; he may have even seen the gun. Martin had a right to be where he was and had no requirement to run from a lunatic that was chasing him. Unfortunately for Martin all he had to defend himself with was his hands. He was doing okay until Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him to death. Zimmerman started the encounter and he ended it; and an innocent person is dead. Do I think justice will be served? I don’t think 12 people can reach a unanimous verdict on this.

But, this has been beat to death here, just as it has been everywhere. I just wish they would get the trial over with. I do feel kinda sorry for Zimmerman in that he’s screwed no matter what happens.

[TMF]

We all make choices.

[DaveTN]

We all make choices.

And have to live with them.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Maybe I misunderstood your post, but are you suggesting that I feel as if someone should be put in jail based on "feelings"? 

 

No, it's clear that YOU understand the legal dynamics fine (except for the part where you think the prosecution is going to come up with some surprise evidence that we haven't already heard about--that doesn't happen in real-world trials).

 

My point is that there are a lot of people who want Zimmerman to be found guilty, and yet they can't point to a single, specific piece of evidence that would warrant a conviction.  They just "feel" his conviction would be the "right thing".

 

I expect that if any one of us were, heaven forbid, to be forced to use deadly force to defend ourselves or our families, we wouldn't want our liberty, for the remainder of our lives, to hang on how people "feel" about it, but on the evidence.

[TMF]

No, it's clear that YOU understand the legal dynamics fine (except for the part where you think the prosecution is going to come up with some surprise evidence that we haven't already heard about--that doesn't happen in real-world trials).

 

My point is that there are a lot of people who want Zimmerman to be found guilty, and yet they can't point to a single, specific piece of evidence that would warrant a conviction.  They just "feel" his conviction would be the "right thing".

 

I expect that if any one of us were, heaven forbid, to be forced to use deadly force to defend ourselves or our families, we wouldn't want our liberty, for the remainder of our lives, to hang on how people "feel" about it, but on the evidence.

 

Has the all the evidence the prosecution has been released to the public?  I'm not being a smartass, I honestly don't know.

 

On another note, how would this situation be playing out right now had Martin been legally carry a firearm and fatally shot Z as he was being chased?  Perhaps we'd be second guessing his actions too, but no matter how you slice it, Martin wasn't breaking the law and Z was chasing him.  We can debate on what the definition of "chased" is 'til we're both blue in the face, but I can tell you with great certainty that if some strange man starts following me and I run, then he runs after me he will be staring down the barrel of my gun

[knewcomb]

I thought Martin jumped Zimmerman after he had went to his vehicle?

[TMF]

I thought Martin jumped Zimmerman after he had went to his vehicle?

 

That is his story.  If the defense stories of murderers were immediately taken as fact there would be no one on death row.

Edited March 12, 2013 by TMF

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Sure there is. Zimmerman jumped out of his truck and started chasing a kid that was doing nothing wrong. Martin was scared and defended himself; he may have even seen the gun. Martin had a right to be where he was and had no requirement to run from a lunatic that was chasing him. Unfortunately for Martin all he had to defend himself with was his hands. He was doing okay until Zimmerman pulled a gun and shot him to death. Zimmerman started the encounter and he ended it; and an innocent person is dead. Do I think justice will be served? I don’t think 12 people can reach a unanimous verdict on this.

But, this has been beat to death here, just as it has been everywhere. I just wish they would get the trial over with. I do feel kinda sorry for Zimmerman in that he’s screwed no matter what happens.

 

(1) There is no evidence of a "chase" in any legally meaningful sense.  If two people are both in a place they have a right to be, there is no law against one of them observing or even following the other.  It's certainly not legally adequate justification for Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(2) There's no evidence that Martin was "scared".  If he was scared, why didn't he call 911, as Zimmerman did?  After all, we know Martin had a cell phone in hand and a signal, he was on the phone to his "girlfriend" (the lying witness #8).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.  

 

(3) There's no evidence that Martin saw the gun, that's pure speculation on your part.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(4) There's no evidence that Zimmerman was a "lunatic".  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(5) There's no evidence that Martin had any legal justification for "defending himself with his hands"--a quaint way to describe Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman.    For Martin to be justified in using deadly force against Zimmerman in self defense Martin would have had to be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, or he must have been been preventing the imminent commission of a forcible felony.  (See Florida statute 776.012. Use of force in defense of person:  http://bit.ly/XDlfaS .)  There's simply no evidence to support such a claim (see #1, above).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(6) There's no evidence that Zimmerman "started the encounter" in any legally meaningful sense (see #1, above).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(7) It is incontrovertible that Martin used deadly force on Zimmerman.  Absent any evidence that Martin was legally justified in doing so (see #1-#6, above), it's a considerable stretch to conclude that Martin was "an innocent person."  In any case, it's irrelevant, as Martin is not on trial.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

So, what evidence do you have that Zimmerman committed murder 2?  Anything?  Much less, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Law of Self Defense

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

And have to live with them.

 

Or die with them.  

[TMF]

(1) There is no evidence of a "chase" in any legally meaningful sense.  If two people are both in a place they have a right to be, there is no law against one of them observing or even following the other.  It's certainly not legally adequate justification for Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(2) There's no evidence that Martin was "scared".  If he was scared, why didn't he call 911, as Zimmerman did?  After all, we know Martin had a cell phone in hand and a signal, he was on the phone to his "girlfriend" (the lying witness #8).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.  

 

(3) There's no evidence that Martin saw the gun, that's pure speculation on your part.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(4) There's no evidence that Zimmerman was a "lunatic".  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(5) There's no evidence that Martin had any legal justification for "defending himself with his hands"--a quaint way to describe Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman.    For Martin to be justified in using deadly force against Zimmerman in self defense Martin would have had to be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, or he must have been been preventing the imminent commission of a forcible felony.  (See Florida statute 776.012. Use of force in defense of person:  http://bit.ly/XDlfaS .)  There's simply no evidence to support such a claim (see #1, above).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(6) There's no evidence that Zimmerman "started the encounter" in any legally meaningful sense (see #1, above).  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

(7) It is incontrovertible that Martin used deadly force on Zimmerman.  Absent any evidence that Martin was legally justified in doing so (see #1-#6, above), it's a considerable stretch to conclude that Martin was "an innocent person."  In any case, it's irrelevant, as Martin is not on trial.  So, that's not evidence of murder 2.

 

So, what evidence do you have that Zimmerman committed murder 2?  Anything?  Much less, beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

You say there is no evidence of any of this.  I asked you a question a few posts back.  Has the prosecution released all evidence to the public?  If not, you have no idea what evidence they have any more than I do. 

[mikegideon]

For your reading pleasure :)

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/46239-dont-think-this-is-how-the-stand-your-ground-law-works/?hl=trayvon

[mikegideon]

Here we go, again...