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

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

I really hope that folks don't use the verdict as an excuse to riot, loot, otherwise misbehave, etc.

But it does appear that rioting in protest seems to be "the plan" so to speak.

 

Based on past experience, the "good" stores are already well-scoped out.

 

Items later discovered missing from looted stores will correlate highly with Christmas wish lists.  

 

No justice, no . . . PS3!  :-)

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[QuietDan]

.

Edited June 14, 2013 by QuietDan

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Zimmerman Jury Selection -- Day Five Wrap-Up

 

Hey folks,

 

I just posted up the end-of-day wrap-up for day five of jury selection in the Zimmerman case, [URL=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-five-wrap-up/]available at Legal Insurrection here[/URL].

 

There were four notable events of the day, apart from the jury questioning.

 

Perhaps today’s most interesting news happened outside the court room. Juror E7, since identified by media sources as Jerry P. Counelis, who was dismissed from the jury pool on Wednesday for apparently misleading the court, was back at the court house today. We’ve done a separate write up just on Mr. Counelis, so if you’re interested in more just click the link in the header above.  I did a separate post just on this interesting development, [URL=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/dismissed-zimmerman-juror-escorted-from-courthouse-after-trespassing/]which can be seen on Legal Insurrection here.[/URL]

 

Another unexpected bit of news today was the release by Robert Zimmerman, George’s father, of an e-book entitled as in the header above, covering the travails of his son through the current crises. I’ve downloaded a copy to my Kindle, and will comment as soon as I’ve had some time to “flip” through it.  If you're interested, a copy [URL=http://www.amazon.com/Florida-Zimmerman-Uncovering-Prosecution-ebook/dp/B00DE19P3K/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1371247539&sr=1-3&keywords=Robert+Zimmerman]can be obtained at Amazon here[/URL], for $3.99.

 

The Judge also raised the issue of scheduling the as yet not completed Frye hearing from last week, to determine whether the State's speech "expert" witnesses would be permitted to testify at trial.  Nothing was determined within hearing of the cameras, but the court room was left with the impression that the Frye hearing would be wrapped up next week.

 

Finally, she released a group of 23 prospective jurors who had “survived” to the next round of voir dire.  They were told to return to court next Tuesday, and admonished to not discuss or research the case in the meantime, nor access any news about the case.  Of the 23, 19 were women, 4 were men, and three of the group were black.  Talk around the court house is that both sides want to bring 40 prospective jurors into the next round of voir dire, in anticipation of heavy attrition.

 

The remainder of the day the court moved through preliminary voir dire of another seven prospective jurors.  For all the juicy details, [URL=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-five-wrap-up/]check out the full end-of-day wrap up post at Legal Insurrection[/URL].

 

Monday we do another full day of live stream, all-day coverage of day two of jury selection.  Be sure to join us.

 

Best,

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[TripleDigitRide]

Thank you again for the updates.

 

As someone who's never had the pleasure of being part of a jury, is it safe to assume the potential jurors are questioned without other potential jurors present?

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

1st Written Statement of Zimmerman to Police, Night of Shooting

 

George Zimmerman fired the shot that killed Trayvon Martin at 7:17PM, Sunday, February 26, 2012.

 

Just over four hours later, at 11:36PM, Zimmerman signed his first written statement recounting the events of the shooting to Investigator Singleton of the Sanford Police Department.

 

If you've ever been interested in seeing that written statement first-hand, instead of just hearing the evidence misinterpreted through a disinformation campaign fully supported by the mainstream media, now's your chance.   Ever wonder how much, if at all, Zimmerman's later recounting of events might have changed from his original statement to police?  Don't rely on any one else's opinion (not even mine)--come take a look at the evidence yourself.

 

I've obtained a copy of Zimmerman's original 4-page hand-written statement to the police, and uploaded both a typed transcript (a bit easier to read) and a PDF scan of the original documents to the [URL=http://www.lawofselfdefense.com]Law of Self Defense blog[/URL].

 

You can access that blog post directly here:  [URL=http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-evidentiary-flashback-zimmermans-1st-written-statement-to-police-the-night-of-the-shooting/]Zimmerman's 1st Written Statement to Police the Night of the Shooting[/URL].

 

Once at the blog you can also, of course, access the many other blog postings on both the Zimmerman case and other self-defense issues from around the country--it's all totally free, of course.

 

Be sure to register if you'd like to be alerted directly whenever we post up a new self-defense related blog, which usually happens two or three times a week.  Although I post here in this forum as much as I can, a lot of longer pieces of legal analysis just isn't well suited to a forum post.

 

Enjoy.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[mikegideon]

Thank you again for the updates.

 

As someone who's never had the pleasure of being part of a jury, is it safe to assume the potential jurors are questioned without other potential jurors present?

 

I was in a pool for a murder trial once. The prosecution and defense interviewed us as a group in the court room. I didn't make the cut, because I was a gun owner with a 9mm handgun. Guess that made me sympathetic to the defendant, who was charged with a drive-by shooting in the hood. We're all killers, ya know.

[DaveTN]

Thank you again for the updates.

 

As someone who's never had the pleasure of being part of a jury, is it safe to assume the potential jurors are questioned without other potential jurors present?

No. I was called for jury duty in a big Federal case in Nashville. I told them I was former cop and had absolutely no chance of being selected for a jury; but they made me go anyway. We were brought in about 25 at a time and questioned in front of the suspects and all their attorneys. Some people were pretty outspoken. After over 100 potential jurors being questioned they had selected 1.

[mikegideon]

No. I was called for jury duty in a big Federal case in Nashville. I told them I was former cop and had absolutely no chance of being selected for a jury; but they made me go anyway. We were brought in about 25 at a time and questioned in front of the suspects and all their attorneys. Some people were pretty outspoken. After over 100 potential jurors being questioned they had selected 1.

 

Yep. They put me on a case with an old lady in a neck brace. Liberalism lost that day :)

Edited June 15, 2013 by mikegideon

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

As someone who's never had the pleasure of being part of a jury, is it safe to assume the potential jurors are questioned without other potential jurors present?

 

Usually they'll ask kind of general questions of the group as a whole--does anybody know or have a relationship with either of the parties, that kind of thing.  

 

When they get around to asking if anyone has a particular reason why they feel they can't be a fair and impartial juror on the case, they'll often bring them in to the judge separately and speak outside of the other prospective juror's hearing.  I often wonder if that's really to protect the person's privacy, or an effort by the judge to keep the other jurors from learning what they need to say in order to be dismissed.  :-)

 

But sometimes they'll do the latter thing in a group setting.

[mikegideon]

Usually they'll ask kind of general questions of the group as a whole--does anybody know or have a relationship with either of the parties, that kind of thing.  

 

When they get around to asking if anyone has a particular reason why they feel they can't be a fair and impartial juror on the case, they'll often bring them in to the judge separately and speak outside of the other prospective juror's hearing.  I often wonder if that's really to protect the person's privacy, or an effort by the judge to keep the other jurors from learning what they need to say in order to be dismissed.  :-)

 

But sometimes they'll do the latter thing in a group setting.

 

They had us sitting in the jury box, and interviewed us one at a time. It may have gone to a higher level later. I was kicked out in the first pass, just the way I like it :)

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman "chase" Martin against police orders?

 

Hey folks,

 

One of the many untruths in the Zimmerman case that has been vigorously disseminated and ingrained into the public consciousness is that Zimmerman "chased/followed" Martin against police orders, or that he exited his vehicle after being told to stay inside the vehicle, or other variations of this theme.

 

This narrative has continued, with the full-hearted support of the mainstream media and its hundreds of "investigative reporters" despite the fact that even a cursory review of the evidence clearly shows this narrative to be patently false.

 

We know this because we have a real-time audio recording of the events in the form of Zimmerman's non-emergency phone call to the Sanford Police Department to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood. 

 

I've prepared an audio clip of the relevant part of that non-emergency call,  as well as an annotated transcript of what I hear in that audio clip, and [URL=http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-myth-busters-did-zimmerman-chase-martin-against-police-orders/]posted them to my Law of Self Defense blog here[/URL]. 

 

When I listen to that audio not only do I NOT hear Zimmerman disobeying the dispatcher's instructions, I hear him exiting the vehicle specifically to answer the dispatcher's explicit question.

 

Take a listen/look and let me know what YOU think.  Personally, I think this myth is . . . BUSTED.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[DaveTN]

I don’t think there is any “Myth” to bust. I haven’t seen any of us that don’t support what Zimmerman did say that he disobeyed any Police orders. “We don’t need you to do that.” Is not an order; It’s just letting him know he is doing something stupid.

[RobertNashville]

Maybe you never listened to PMSMBC or any of the other "news' outlets but they've had people on there almost from day one screaming about how Zimmerman was "ordered" to stop following Trayvon and "disobeyed".

 

Moving on, how many of the great unwashed massed in this country even understand the difference between a police "order" and a simple request the a person has no responsibility to follow.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

I don’t think there is any “Myth” to bust. I haven’t seen any of us that don’t support what Zimmerman did say that he disobeyed any Police orders. “We don’t need you to do that.” Is not an order; It’s just letting him know he is doing something stupid.

 

I'm sorry to inform you that your perception might be accurate enough for this forum, but if so this forum is certainly not the norm in that regard--not even among gun forums in particular.

 

I wander through a couple of dozen gun forums on a regular basis, and on almost all of them there are folks who start screaming for Zimmerman's head at the slightest mention that he might not have committed the crime with which he is charged.  

 

But it's not for them that I prepare these posts, nor for people like yourself who have already seen through the disinformation and propaganda of the Martin camp.  I write these posts for the vast majority of folks who want to be fair in their opinion but don't have any ready means to separate the wheat--the actual facts in evidence--from the chaff--the disinformation, half-truths, and outright lies being aggressively disseminated by Crump and others with the full support of the mainstream media.  

 

For those people, there is a real need to have these myths busted or we end this fight with the "public narrative battlefield" in the possession of the bad guys.  

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

Edited June 16, 2013 by Law of Self Defense

[DaveTN]

 

I'm sorry to inform you that your perception might be accurate enough for this forum, but if so this forum is certainly not the norm in that regard--not even among gun forums in particular.

 

I wander through a couple of dozen gun forums on a regular basis, and on almost all of them there are folks who start screaming for Zimmerman's head at the slightest mention that he might not have committed the crime with which he is charged.  

 

But it's not for them that I prepare these posts, nor for people like yourself who have already seen through the disinformation and propaganda of the Martin camp.  I write these posts for the vast majority of folks who want to be fair in their opinion but don't have any ready means to separate the wheat--the actual facts in evidence--from the chaff--the disinformation, half-truths, and outright lies being aggressively disseminated by Crump and others with the full support of the mainstream media.  

 

For those people, there is a real need to have these myths busted or we end this fight with the "public narrative battlefield" in the possession of the bad guys.  

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook:  Law of Self Defense

Yes, I have opinions that I openly discuss. Sorry to see you don’t think they should be allowed on this forum.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

I really hope that folks don't use the verdict as an excuse to riot, loot, otherwise misbehave, etc.

But it does appear that rioting in protest seems to be "the plan" so to speak.

Exactly what I've been thinking right along. My station sits right in the middle of one of the neighborhoods most likely to be burning.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Yes, I have opinions that I openly discuss. Sorry to see you don’t think they should be allowed on this forum.

 

Clearly you have interpreted my post in a way wildly different than intended.  

 

What, exactly, was it that I said that sounded to you like I don't think your opinions should be allowed on this forum?  Because I meant nothing of the sort, and I am bewildered as to how you could gather than impression from the words I wrote.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[RobertNashville]

 

Clearly you have interpreted my post in a way wildly different than intended.  

 

What, exactly, was it that I said that sounded to you like I don't think your opinions should be allowed on this forum?  Because I meant nothing of the sort, and I am bewildered as to how you could gather than impression from the words I wrote.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook:  Law of Self Defense

I re-red your post...I can't see that you said anything that could have reasonably be interrupted as his opinions not being welcome on this forum. In fact, it seemed to me as if you clearly complimented him as being one of the people who has already "seen through the disinformation and propaganda".

 

There seem to be several who, for whatever reason, seem to want to assume Zimmerman was the "bad guy" here...words like "following" become "chasing" and someone looking out for the safety of his neighborhood becomes "playing security guard" or they "can't buy" that Zimmerman couldn't have pushed this "kid" off of him and avoided discharging his weapon.  :shrug:

 

I truly don't know if ZImmerman was justified in using his weapon that night or not...but I certainly don't see how that facts I have read/herd can cause some to have such an iron-clad, unwavering opinion that Zimmerman is guilty.

Edited June 16, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

 

Clearly you have interpreted my post in a way wildly different than intended.  

 

What, exactly, was it that I said that sounded to you like I don't think your opinions should be allowed on this forum?  Because I meant nothing of the sort, and I am bewildered as to how you could gather than impression from the words I wrote.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook:  Law of Self Defense

If I misunderstood your response; I apologize. You and I clearly have different opinions on what happened that day. Clearly, what should happen is that the truth should come out and a jury should make a decision based on the evidence without any concern about race or what will happen after their verdict. Will that happen? Who knows.

 

Am I clear that my opinion and the opinion of others that think Zimmerman’s reckless acts resulted in the death of an innocent person not popular on a gun forum… Crystal.

I am color blind to this issue and have tried to stay out of the discussion about what will happen after the verdict other than to say I think Zimmerman is hosed no matter what the verdict. Do I think that’s right? No, and I am ashamed that law enforcement and the justice department has stood by silently and failed to act. Is that part of this issue race related? Yes, in my opinion it is.

 

I try to discuss the issues and not make assumptions as to why the people are saying what they say. What Robert is trying to tell you is that I am a former Police Officer and that impacts my decisions and opinions. Is that true? Certainly it is. Just as your opinions as a defense attorney impacts your opinions. Do I think we can both make informed decisions; certainly. Do I think a person is innocent until proven guilty? As far as the court system goes; yes. Have I formed an opinion based on the information available to me? Sure, so have you. But I am not a potential juror and my opinion doesn’t matter anymore than yours. I could make a convincing legal argument for either side of this case based on the law. But as far as justice goes I would rather be a Prosecutor in this case.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

 I could make a convincing legal argument for either side of this case based on the law. 

 

But not on the facts in evidence (as opposed to the disinformation in the media).  It can't be done.  There's no way a fair and impartial jury could reach murder 2 with the facts in evidence in this case.  Once pure speculation is set aside the State has virtually no evidence of murder 2, and certainly not evidence that can carry them to "beyond a reasonable doubt" on every element of that charge. 

 

I've read the entire discovery file on this case, but perhaps you're aware of evidence not known to me.  If you were arguing this case as the Prosecutor what would be the, say, six most compelling pieces of evidence (not speculation) that you would present in support of murder 2?

 

Of course, if your position is merely an emotional one, that's fine, too.  We're all entitled to our own opinion.  Just not to our own facts.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

Edited June 16, 2013 by Law of Self Defense

[QuietDan]

Yes, I have opinions that I openly discuss. Sorry to see you don’t think they should be allowed on this forum.

 

Don't feed the Trolls , , ,

[RobertNashville]

Don't feed the Trolls , , ,

apparently your definition of "troll" is significantly different than mine   :shrug:  

[Oh Shoot]

If I misunderstood your response; I apologize.

 

Good. Was a big whoosh, even for you. ;)

 

- OS

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

New Game: Count the untruths in the affidavit for probable cause (see actual copy)

 

Hey folks,

 

George Zimmerman was arrested, charged, and soon will be tried for murder in the second degree based upon the affidavit for probable cause submitted by investigators from Angela Corey's office. *These two investigators, T.C. O'Steen and K.D. "Dale" Gilbreath, at the time collectively possessing 44 years of law enforcement including decades in homicides, put down on paper and under oath the words contained in this affidavit.

 

I've obtained an copy of the original affidavit of probable cause (created a transcript for easier reading) and placed them at my blog for public access here:  [URL=http://lawofselfdefense.com/affidavit_for_probable_cause_count_the_untruths/]Zimmerman Trial: Evidentiary Flashback: Affidavit for Probable Cause–Count the untruths.[/URL]

 

Reading it now, with so much evidence finally revealed through discovery, and so much disinformation and propaganda now having been de-bunked, it is amazing that anyone could have believed the deceptions and untruths contained in this document.

 

I have my own count, but I'm sure I must have missed some. *How about we play a count the "half-truths/un-truths" game and see how many you folks can identify and list.

 

Bonus points for whoever can find in this affidavit, even assuming every word in it is true, the elements of murder in the second degree--[URL=http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-782-04-murder/]782.04(2). Murder[/URL]--gets bonus points, because I sure can't find them.

 

Not even if the affidavit is true. *(Which it's not.)

 

(For a discussion of what Florida law means when it requires that a person have acted with a "depraved mind" to be guilty of murder 2, see:  [URL=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/getting-to-murder-2-finding-george-zimmermans-depraved-mind/]Getting to Murder 2: Finding George Zimmerman’s “Depraved Mind”, over at Legal Insurrection[/URL].)

 

Anyway, take a look for yourselves and see what you think.

 

Good hunting.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[URL=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-of-Self-Defense/176397865719110]Facebook:  Law of Self Defense[/URL]

[mikegideon]

Dershowitz ripped that document to pieces when it first came out.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-guest-alan-dershowitz-slams-zimmerman-prosecutor-her-affidavit-is-a-crime/