Circle The Damn Wagons And Move On (In A Circle...)

David Carr of the NY Times pretends to grill NBC President Steve Capus about the ghastly mis-edit of the Zimmerman 911 call.  The comic gold is this:

The clip was first broadcast on March 22, but no one noticed until it was rebroadcast on March 27. Later, when word of the misleading edit got out, everyone from Sean Hannity to Jon Stewart reacted with disbelief, with good reason.

Some went on to draw a line from NBC to MSNBC and its aggressive coverage of the incident and then on to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has tried — awkwardly and unsuccessfully — to tread the line between talk show host and advocate.

People I talked to in and around NBC say it was idiocy, not ideology, that led to the edit, and that seems like a reasonable explanation, so I’m not buying that part about it being one more example of the liberal plot to subvert America.

The NY Times doesn't see any liberal bias in the media?  We look forward to their hard-hitting look at whether fish feel wet.

Mr. Carr provides lots of this and that about not much, and absolutely ZERO on the fact that NBC Miami, a wholly owned affiliate, ran three text stories on their website from March 19/20 with the misleading edit. Just as the Today Show cited time constraints, I have no doubt that NBC Miami would cite a pixel contraint, if anyone ever asked them about it.

Of course, asking them now is trickier - online critics flagged the stories on April 8, and by April 9 NBC Miami had re-edited them without explanation, investigation or apology.

I smell cover-up; the NY Times smells like those fish they are covering.

The navel gazing and thumb sucking is captured at Media Gazer - people bloviate about the right way to run a correction while ignoring the utter cover-up at NBC Miami.

So now they can all pretend they did their due diligence and on move on.  "NBC? We covered that."  Sure they did.

PUZZLER'S DELIGHT: We learn that MSNBC has a corrections page! Here they expound on the TODAY mistake:

The TODAY show broadcast truncated a portion of George Zimmerman’s conversation with a police dispatcher, and that truncated interview appeared on TODAY.com and msnbc.com. The video was removed from the site on March 30, as NBC News launched an internal investigation. On April 3, NBC News issued this statement: “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”

Well that's clear!  Other than omitting the dates the error was broadcast, just for starters.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Fox Orlando links to the newly released court filings. The OS outlines the upcoming calendar.

Comments

[narciso]

The whole thing seems as deranged as yesterdays episode of Mad Men,where Roger Sterling met Timothy Leary, yes you read that right.

[Clarice]

It's always a mistake I think for a trial lawyer to putz around nipping at ankles when he (she should aim for a swift kick further up.

There is no case. Period. End it.As for the threats of riots, they will not be greater if the case is dismissed at pre trial than after a trial with all the media lying even more than they already have and eating out of Crump's hands.

[Jane]

Rick,

I had faith in Corey - and look what a joke she ended up being. I like this judge but I am not holding my breath.

[Danube of Thought]

I think GZ will take the stand at the immunity hearing, although perhaps only as a rebuttal witness. His side goes first; O'Mara puts on his prima facie self-defense case sans GZ; then GZ bats cleanup after the state is heard.

Can the state call GZ during its case-in-chief on the basis of a waiver at the bond hearing? No bloody idea. I would guess not.

[Danube of Thought]

I understand that in rejecting Lee's resignation, the City Council mentioned Al Sharpton by name, and said they weren't going to let him run their town.

[Rob Crawford]

There is no case. Period. End it.As for the threats of riots, they will not be greater if the case is dismissed at pre trial than after a trial with all the media lying even more than they already have and eating out of Crump's hands.

And, frankly, we'll be worse off kowtowing to the mob than standing up to it.

A lesson I thought we learned when the country made it clear the White Klan was unacceptable.

[Clarice]

I would guess not, either, DoT. His "testimony" there did not rise to testimony about the case IIRC--It was as he made clear his only opportunity to reach out to the MArtin family.

[GMax]

54% disapproval today and only 45% approval. While its bouncing around a bit, it seems to spend about 1/3 of time in this range.

[Danube of Thought]

Anyone who has any doubt about the media's collective lust to milk this story need only reflect on the term "white Hispanic." How many times in your like had you ever read or heard it until George Zimmerman came along?

How many times have you seen Bill Richardson described as a white Hispanic?

What was the media's purpose in using that obscure term to describe GZ?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

My martini is making me more loquacious. DOT@9:29, I heard that top and saw some the Council meeting. Apparently, there is also a movement afoot for a demonstration supporting GZ put together by his neighborhood and friends.

I agree with Clarice's approach to litigation. If you have the horses, go for the win. Don't shoot to wound. I don't know if O'Mara has the horses, but he knows. He also clearly knows how the judge thinks a lot better than we do. So far, he has been appropriately aggressive IMO, and is not afraid to take calculated risks. If I were grading him on a scale of 1-10, he's hitting about an 8 or 9 so far.

[Danube of Thought]

Christina Aguilera: Perto Rican father, Irish mother. Ever seen her described as a white Hispanic? Why not?

[centralcal]

Exactly, DoT - "white Hispanic." Sheesh, next thing you know we will be talking about our "white Black" El Presidente (using Spanish in honor of third world dictators such as Hugo Chavez, a good amigo to our El Presidente).

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

I believe that the political theater side collapsed when NO_LIMIT Grillntats' social media showed up. The Black Klan Kleagles softened up a bit and the "deal" cut by Zimmerman's mouthpieces and Corey started to crumble. The recusal of the first judge and the hiring of O'Mara reflect the breakdown of the "deal".

Judge Lester may disappoint as well but I'm betting more on the change in the political and propaganda fronts than upon him. There may well be a bit more of an odor to the President's adopted son than we know of as yet.

[narciso]

The Python reference come to mind when you think of Gilbreath and probably De Rionda, 'it's just a flesh wound'

[Kilo]

"The whole thing seems as deranged as yesterdays episode of Mad Men"

More like an episode of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" where the gang decides to become prosecutors.

[Danube of Thought]

"If you have the horses, go for the win."

As the great L.A. plaintiffs' antitrust lawyer Max Blecher used to say, "give me my five best documents and my three best witnesses and let's go to trial."

[East Bay Jay]

White hispanic was in response to the discovery that the white guy had a Peruvian mother. So white became white hispanic and no correction was required - move along already.

White came from.....well, wasn't that the story?

[jorod]

Mendacity? Mendacity you say..???

[fdcol63]

I wonder if there are any pics of GZ mentoring those African-American kids that his mother spoke about in the bond hearing?

[Clarice]

Discovery rules have turned American lawyers--or too many of them at an rate--into paper shufflers instead of trial lawyers. 5 docs and 3 witnesses sounds about right to me.

[Threadkiller]

Indeed. And did those African-American children look like they could be Obama's children. (Assuming Obama is American)

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

As the great L.A. plaintiffs' antitrust lawyer Max Blecher used to say, "give me my five best documents and my three best witnesses and let's go to trial."

That's what I'm talking about. My career was too short. I never had the pleasure of trying a case with any of the trial lawyers on this site. You guys would have been fun to practice with.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

off?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

off?

[Clarice]

Well, I'm too old for that stuff now..although I notice Blecher's about a 2 ft high 200 pound fighter so it must be possible to battle on after a certain age. Niters.

[Sara]

To tell the truth, I never heard Hispanics were anything but white until the illegal alien stuff became front page news. They were certainly considered Caucasian when I was growing up. What else would they be but white or if they are of mixed ancestry, then maybe Caucasian/Mogoloid or Caucasian/Negroid. A mother from Peru is either full Spanish (Caucasian) or she has Peruvian Indian ancestry. If mixed, then she would be Caucasion/Mongoloid.

I'm sorry, but it is one of my pet peeves to refer to ethnic groups as a race. In traditional anthropological studies there are actually 5 races.
These are
1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

[narciso]

You know I thought he was a wretched Nazgul, but this something else again,

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/23/video-former-dem-vp-candidate-goes-on-trial-today/

[MJW]

Me: Perhaps his demand for a bill of particulars may be the first step in that direction [dissmisal].

Consider State v. Davis, 243 So. 2d 587 - Fla: Supreme Court 1971:

When the prosecuting officer has, in the statement of particulars, specified as definitely as possible and as is known to him what the material facts are (and such is his clear duty) and, in the opinion of the trial judge, such facts do not legally constitute the crime charged or they affirmatively establish an effective bar to the prosecution, then the motion to dismiss should be granted. This is in accord with the purpose of RCrP 1.190(c) (4) of permitting a pre-trial determination of the law of the case when the facts, for the purpose of considering the motion, are not in dispute.

[Tom Maguire]

The Times neglects their chance for a Sharpton shout-out but does include this re the Lee non-resignation:

Patty Mahany, a city commissioner who voted against the resignation agreement, praised Chief Lee during the debate, saying he was one of the finest law enforcement officials in Florida. “At least the city has taken a step back and a deep breath,” she said, insisting the firestorm around the case was driven by outsiders. She also said she wanted an independent review.

Easy to believe she mentioned Al there.

[Rick Ballard]

Narciso,

I keep looking for an indictment of Don Corzione but the SEC and DoJ just don't seem that interested. It's very puzzling.

[Rob Crawford]

Yeah, with Corzine I have to wonder how much of the "evaporated" money is going to end up in the Obama campaign coffers, filtered through anonymous online donations...

[narciso]

Consider that the Octopus, reattached a tentacle to their board, in the person of James Johnson, 1.2 billion dollars going voom.

[jimmyk]

I keep looking for an indictment of Don Corzione

LOL, Rick.

[Frau Wau-Wau]

"Assuming Obama is American"

TK, no matter what, it's obvious that Barry has Grandpa Stanley Dunham's Hapsburg chin.

[Frau Wau-Wau]

Corine has taken a number and misplaced it. He learned that from Maxine Waters.

[Frau Zithermusik]

Corzine! Has someone been using all the z's?

[Sara]

Gerard Vamderleun cracks me up and this is two of many reasons why:

For you TM and our dear Ann:

17. I accept that I will never outgrow my compulsion to fisk Paul Krugman with a chain saw until every part of him is reduced to steaming gobbets of bloody flesh.

18. A good flamewar in the comments is nearly as good for traffic as hosting a film clip of Michelle Obama trying on bathing suits.

[Frau Zithermusik]

Habsburger ... that's two in a row. I'll go sit in the corner.

[Bruce]

First, I do think that judges take the easy way out, esp. when the stakes are low. At least that has been my experience. But, for most, much less so when either the stakes are high or the case has a lot of visibility.

But, I would also suggest that the major concern of trial court judges is docket management. And, a lot of that is their criminal docket. They can push most of the civil stuff off until it settles, but not a lot of the criminal stuff.

So, what is the best thing that the judge could do to keep his docket under control? Grant the immunity motion. That way, he isn't facing a long jury trial when the appeals dust settles.

Sure, the prosecution could win. But would they? I just don't see an appeals court, absent egregious conduct on the part of the trial judge, reversing and remanding a finding of immunity. They would have to be second guessing him as a fact finder, which they are usually loathe to do. And, given the posture of the parties, I would expect a remand for more fact finding, instead of a straight up reverse and rejection of immunity. On the other hand, if the trial court grants immunity, and the appeals court affirms, case is over. Period (excluding Eric Holder's bite of the apple, but that isn't their problem).

But, if the judge denies the immunity motion, it gets appealed, pretty automatically, and, given the intent of the law, I would expect that there would be some pressure to reverse. In any case, they also know that it will end up back before them if Zimmerman is convicted.

Its a long way of saying that I think that if the evidence is close to even, that the judge is probably more likely to lean towards immunity than against, since it would help his docket, and maybe that of the other judges too, who might get tasked with helping with his cases, if he gets stuck trying a high profile jury case.

And, yes, I think that we may be able to view the judge's question about the distance of the weapon when it was discharged as a slight lean in Zimmerman's direction.

[Bruce]

Also, please, get over the idea that Zimmerman incited Martin, or anything similar. It is plain irrelevant. What matters is who swung first (unless, maybe, the altercation was initiated by Zimmerman showing the gun to Martin, and, esp. in a threatening manner, and we have no evidence of that whatsoever). Both of them had a legal right to be where they were. If Zimmerman had cast aspersions on Martin's mother, or otherwise dissed him, it still wouldn't matter, if Martin swung first. Keep in mind that what we are talking about with the immunity hearing is self-defense. And all that stuff about depraved mind and extreme indifference is pretty much irrelevant for that. It is only when you get to the 2nd Degree Murder charge at trial that it might be relevant (but, as many legal pundits have pointed out, it is still quite weak).

From what I saw of the bail hearing, the defense attorney kept his eye on that ball, and pounded home that the prosecution did not have any evidence to disprove Zimmerman's assertion of what had happened. His attorney seemed to me to be concentrating almost exclusively on the evidence that would show self-defense, getting the investigator to agree that they had no actual evidence really (except maybe some evidence showing that Zimmerman was not truthful) to counter his claim of self-defense.

And, yes, even if the investigator may not have seen what defense counsel was doing, I think that the judge saw it quite clearly.

We shall see.

[Have Blue]

Happened to catch part of the MSNBC coverrage tonight (4/23) on the refusal to accept Lee's resignation. "Going ballistic" with rage and indignation would be putting it mildly. (As to watching MSNBC - don't blame me, we only get about 6 channels and my dispatcher had that one on.)

[daddy]

Fire your dispatcher.

[MJW]

The Florida rule for statements of particulars is:

Statement of Particulars. The court, on motion, shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars when the indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. The statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney, including the names of persons intended to be defrauded. Reasonable doubts concerning the construction of this rule shall be resolved in favor of the defendant

It's up to the judge to decide whether the information sufficiently informs the accused of the particulars of the offense. Judging by the special prosecutors actions so far, I suspect they will oppose the the request, claiming that because the time, location, and offense are specified in the information, it alone is sufficient. Since the basis to establish a depraved state of mind is not contained in the information, I think a statement of particulars is necessary.

[Have Blue]

Fire your dispatcher.

Posted by: daddy | April 24, 2012 at 02:48 AM

Believe me sometimes I wish I could. Frequent object lesson in how jumping to the first immediately obvious conclusion will lead you wrong. If I had a dime for every time I have heard a sentence start, "Well it must be..."

[Have Blue]

Off

[cboldt]

Testing italics off button

[Clarice]

More "Justice for Trayvon"
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/24/and-now-its-time-to-play-how-deep-did-they-bury-the-lede/

[DebinNC]

Interesting info above, Bruce and MJW. I'm glad the case is in the experienced hands of Judge Lester. After 15 yrs. on the bench, he must have handled many similar cases. As long as his rulings in GZ's case jibe with his history in earlier cases, the decisions will be generally perceived as fair.

[jimmyk]

Not to the mob if he tosses this thing, DebinNC. I don't see this dying down like the Duke lacrosse case. Maybe it won't quite be Rodney King, but only because the police will be ready.

[cboldt]

Google">http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf+florida+motion+for+immunity&hl=&ct=clnk">Google Cache of Order in Florida v. Jarkas Immunity Hearing

Order Granting Immunity in Florida v. Jarkas (pdf)

This is a post trial event, as there were, apparently, two murders.

Defendant argues that this Court is bound by the physical evidence and the Defendant's unrebutted version of events. Legally, Defendant is correct. See, Rodriguez v. State, 550 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 376 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), (upholding the granting of a sworn motion to dismiss where there was no legally sufficient evidence that could have been submitted on which a jury could legally find a verdict of guilty).

Defendant did not testify at this hearing, the Court relied on the record from the trial testimony, for defendant's version.

Interesting case. The evidence was not as favorable to Jarkas, as it is to Zimmerman. Four shots, not close enough to cause burns, conjecture that "victim was not lunging at Jarkas" could not be supported.

Defendant then claimed that the victim hit him in the head with the heel of his hand. When Defendant tried to leave the house, he testified that the victim stated "you're not going anywhere. I'm going to kill you here." Defendant then testified that the victim grabbed him by the jacket, interfering with his ability to Ieave the house?' Defendant testified that he saw something shiny in the victim's hand. He didn't know if it was a knife or a gun (exhibit I, p.63, lines 10-12). Defendant then testified "I tried to leave so he didn't leave me. It was, like, very fast. So I scared for my life. I was frantic, very panic. I mean he's bigger than me. He has something in his hands. I just took the gun and I shoot" (exhibit I, p. 63, lines 16-20).

[cboldt]

Sorry about botching that first link. I found it useful because it is plaintext, not pdf. So, one try at correcting the bad link ...

Google">http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf+florida+motion+for+immunity&hl=&ct=clnk">Google Cache of Jarkas Order

[cboldt]

Must be some transliteration going on at typepad. I'm sure I put the link in correctly, along with the correct html.

[cboldt]

Another example, in this one, defendant did testify. Plenty of eyewitnesses.

Horn v. State, Case No. 2D09-882 (Fla. App. 8/26/2009) (Fla. App., 2009)

In the case at bar, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in which the parties presented live testimony from eyewitnesses, including the defendant. The court weighed the credibility of the witnesses, made numerous findings of fact with a substantial, competent basis for its factual findings, and applied the preponderance of the evidence standard in denying Mr. Horn's petition seeking immunity.

Evidentiary pattern ...

Some witnesses testified that Mr. Martel then punched Mr. Horn in the face or forehead, but the witnesses nearest the incident (aside from Mr. Horn) said no punches were thrown. However, it was undisputed that Mr. Horn then fired six shots into Mr. Martel, at which point the gun jammed. Mr. Horn maintained that Mr. Martel was still walking towards him trying to get the gun after four shots, but at least one other witness stated that Mr. Horn fired the last two shots down at Mr. Martel while he lay on the ground. One witness testified that Mr. Horn said he shot Mr. Martel because Mr. Martel was "stalking his sister."

[AliceH]

Just browsing through the links.

I agree, that Jarkas case is much weaker than GZ. Of course, as you point out, this immunity ruling happened after the trial. I didn't catch that the 3 counts included 2 for murder - just that there was acquittal on 1 count, mistrial on the other 2. I may have time to go back to it before I lose my place/browser tabs.

I'll scan the next one first, though.

[cboldt]

State v. Orr. Orr stands charged with Murder 2 for the stabbing death of John Wayne Joseph. He filed a motion for immunity, which has been denied.

37-year-old who killed 63-year-old in Lake Park to argue Stand Your Ground - Naples Daily News - March 5, 2012

John Orr says when a Naples man attacked him from behind on a Lake Park street in October, he feared for his life and used deadly force.

But investigators say the 63-year-old victim didn't have weapon and had too many stab wounds to count on the scene.

While investigators don't dispute that Joseph might have instigated the fight, they paint Orr as an aggressor who used excessive force against an unarmed victim. In an affidavit for a search warrant, Naples police detective Robert Young said Orr stabbed Joseph in the abdomen, neck, eye, forearm and back.

Young wrote that "Joseph had no handgun, no knife or weapon, yet (Orr) felt his life was in imminent danger from the 63-year-old man. Orr made no attempt to seek help for the dying man despite gaping wounds to the neck and abdomen of Joseph."

Orr's Motion for Immunity

3. The specific facts on which Defendant relies are:

a. Defendant had no relationship with deceased and never knew him; he was a complete stranger.

b. Defendant was walking home at night and was attacked from behind without waming, knocked to the ground, and battered by the deceased.

c. At that time and place Defendant reasonably believed he was in jeopardy of imminent death or great bodily harm. The deceased threatened to kill Defendant and appeared to be highly intoxicated.

d. Defendant reasonably believed that the force he used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself and/or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony on himself ...

e. The deceased continued to attack Defendant while Defendant was face down on the ground. Defendant was able to finally turn his body over so that he was lying face up on the ground with the deceased was on top of him.

f. The deceased repeatedly struck defendant's head on the ground, attempted to gouge Defendant's eyes, and stated, "I will fucking kill you!".

g. The deceased never expressed his reason for attacking Defendant.

h. Defendant was unable to free himself from deceased's attack so Defendant retrieved and used his fishing knife to defend himself until such time as Defendant was able to free himself and the attack on him was stopped. ...

VERIFICATION
I, JOHN RICHARD ORR, being duly sworn, depose and say that I have read the above and know the contents thereof to be true and correct.

[cboldt]

-- I agree, that Jarkas case is much weaker than GZ. Of course, as you point out, this immunity ruling happened after the trial. --

My curiosity is going in more than one direction. One is to get a handle on the sort of fact pattern that police, a prosecutor, and a judge might find as insufficient to establish immunity (knowing that each has a different standard of review); and the other is to get a handle on whether (and if so what circumstances favor this) a defendant can skip giving testimony at an immunity hearing.

At any rate, Jarkas was granted immunity. No eyewitnesses, and forensic evidence didn't contradict his version of events. The state's case was based on circumstantial evidence that Jarkas had plotted to kill the man that stole his wife. Jarkas argued, successfully, that the court was limited to physical evidence and Jarkas's version of events.

[cboldt]

-- I didn't catch that the 3 counts included 2 for murder - just that there was acquittal on 1 count, mistrial on the other 2 --

Acquittal on 2 counts dealing with the wife, Suzuky (sounds like a brand of motorcycle) - so my contention that she was murdered is probably false. Oops. One count of murder, which ended in mistrial as the jury could not reach a verdict.

In Jarkas, the state had no evidence to rebut, so the preponderance of evidence has to resolve in Jarkas's favor.

So, what evidence does the state have to rebut Zimmerman? Forensics and medical supports Zimmerman's account, an eyewitness supports Zimmerman's account, ear witnesses are not able to say who was screaming (or are prejudiced in favor of Martin). I'm having a hard time putting a preponderance of the evidence against the claim of self defense.

[Ignatius J Donnely]

Cboldt et al,
The State seems to want to push a chase scenario. The defense says that there is no evidence that GZ did not go back to his truck when he hung up. We know TM had to have approached GZ in order to account for when and where the fight happened, but GZ had to have walked up that sidewalk to the street. He walked there either while he was on the phone or I think after he hung up.
You say it does not matter where he walked.
Is the state afraid to guess where TM was all of that time? Is that in a bond hearing not much detail is given?

[Ignatius J Donnely]

Is that why they did not push the question of GZ's whereabouts? GZ must have told the po pos that he walked up to the street., hence Tracy Martin talking about GZ "doubling back."

[cboldt]

-- The State seems to want to push a chase scenario. The defense says that there is no evidence that GZ did not go back to his truck when he hung up --

Which means the chase scenario is not only irrelevant, it is dead. Without evidence, the state has no way to push this theory.

-- You say it does not matter where he walked. --

Because walking is his own neighborhood is legal, and can't amount to provocation (doing something that justifies somebody else to use force against Zimmerman) as a matter of law. The self-defense claim starts at the point where DeeDee's call stops - Zimmerman's assertion that he was decked by Martin.

For evaluation of the murder case or charge, the walking about and intentions DO matter. But my point is that for the self defense issue, the review starts by running the clock backward from the shot; and once we reach the point in time where it's established that Zimmerman didn't initiate the use of force, we have the totality of time that is relevant for the self defense claim.

The state's evidence in that 90 second window is scant, and most if not all of it supports Zimmerman's story.

-- Is the state afraid to guess where TM was all of that time? Is that in a bond hearing not much detail is given? --

The bond hearing is "satisfied" when Zimmerman shows that there is at least reasonable doubt about the state's narrative. O'Mara hit two points there, "profiling" and "who started the fight," both of which goes to depraved state of mind, and creates a hook to find the possibility of reasonable doubt. So, Zimmmerman gets bond unless he is a flight risk or danger to the community.

So I guess, yes, in a bond hearing not much detail is given. There's no need for it.

[Ignatius J Donnely]

What is your opinion of O'Mara? He seems to be good at controlling the action.

[cboldt]

-- Is the state afraid to guess where TM was all of that time? --

It should be. He could have gotten home. The state's theory is full of holes. Martin afraid, maybe an easy 1 minute walk home, has 3 minutes to get home, but doesn't get to the safety of his home.

So, the state's narrative, once you see that gap of time hanging out, leaves us wondering why Martin would hang around, and why would he initiate contact with Zimmerman?

-- Is that why they did not push the question of GZ's whereabouts? --

The state invites the reader to conclude that Zimmerman's whereabouts are determined by Martin's path, as Martin runs to escape his killer. There are a few holes in that too, no evidence, but even as conjecture it falls apart. Martin is faster, and could get home, or closer to home. But the fight took place closer to Zimmerman's truck.

-- GZ must have told the po pos that he walked up to the street., hence Tracy Martin talking about GZ "doubling back." --

If Zimmerman is "doubling back" to get to his truck, it favors Zimmerman. Tracy is inviting the listener to conclude that Zimmerman doubling back is synonymous with Zimmerman pursuing Martin. But there is no evidence that Zimmerman made an effort to move closer to Martin, after Zimmerman lost visual contact with Martin.

[cboldt]

-- What is your opinion of O'Mara? --

I like him, so far. He has a low key persona, he expresses empathy with the loss of life but he is not a pushover (see his response to Crump's criticism of the condolances - basically called Sybrina insincere, and now it's up to her and you (Crump) to say what really you want Zimmerman to do), he sandbagged the press by giving them a bogus timeline (can't ask for discovery until after arraignment - arraignment is May 29) which was very effective at giving life to the "this process is going to take months" conclusion.

His motions are written in clean and precise language. He's good at oral examination of a witness (pays attention to what he actually asked, as well as to the answers), he seems confident, but not cocky. Deferential to the judge's experience (I have cases, but you probably know them ...).

[Clarice]

It's always problematic to put on a defendant in a trial. The state hasn't enough evidence to make its case and there's no reason to put GZ on the stand. Nevertheless, despite admonishments that they are not to do so, some jurors always infer guilt from the defendant's failure to testify. It was genius to have him testify at the hearing..potential witnesses got to see him there and may be less likely to make such an inference if this case does go to trial.

[Sara]

Clarice: I agree that jurors don't like it when the defendant doesn't testify. However, in the 1st degree murder (with special circumstances) trial where I was a juror, one of the first things said when we got to the deliberations room was how much we all were disgusted with the "arrogant asshole" prosecutor. And he really was. He completely turned me off when he treated the defendant's mother, a woman in her 80s, as if she was the murderer. Snide, snarky, dismissive, etc. So, I wonder if my experience is so unusual.

I'm getting the impression that this prosecution team is much like the prosecutor in the above case and I think that will play to GZ's favor. What do you think?

[Ignatius J Donnely]

http://www.bradenton.com/2012/04/24/4010321/carl-hiaasen-zimmerman-charge.html

This article is from 4/24/2011! WTH?

[Ignatius J Donnely]

Would it be dangerous to be to hard on Dee Dee?

[Ignatius J Donnely]

Too hard

[Sara]

Before following this link, keep two things in mind, it comes from a drama queen, Dan Riehl, and he tends to get hyperbolic and take you on a big circle jerk. However he includes other links:

Formal complaint to be filed against Angela Corey

[DebinNC]

leaves us wondering why Martin would hang around, and why would he initiate contact with Zimmerman?

DeeDee may claim TM told her he'd run from GZ in his truck and was hiding on a patio near where he died. TM then watched GZ walk past his location, talking on his cell, stopping, turning as if to his truck, spying TM in hiding, prompting TM to reveal himself and ask the question, "Why are you following me?" ...i.e. DeeDee may contend TM was too afraid to run home and expose himself to GZ, and had been hiding near the death scene the whole time.

[Sara]

DebinNC: Why would a 6'2" guy be afraid of a diminutive man like GZ following him? I think this is the most bogus part of the story.

[DebinNC]

I don't think TM was afraid, but I can see him hiding from GZ as a game. Maybe flitting from place to place keeping GZ in view and providing play-by-play to the listening DeeDee. Once DeeDee went through Camp Crump, the hide-and-seek of TM reality may have morphed into the mythical search-and-destroy of GZ.

[Sara]

Good point Deb.

[cboldt]

Florida v. Gallo Immunity Hearing (1.6 Mb pdf)

Reads like a wild west gunfight. Victim was claimed to have been shooting at Gallo, but no weapon was recovered from the victim - a crowd of about 100 prevented police access to the body for some minutes, enough time for the weapon to be disappeared.

Victim's girlfriend testified. Many inconsistencies in her testimony. Gallo also testified at the hearing. Immunity was granted.

[Sara]

OT: FYI, I just upgraded to Firefox 12 and the text formatting toolbar works just fine.

[Ignatius J Donnely]

TM wasn't afraid. He not only did not run when he first noticed GZ, he moved closer.
The police leaks seem to suggest that TM sort of circled GZ's truck as he was walking. I'd say he only ran because Dee Dee suggested it. TM ran around the corner, ducked into a yard, yakked with Dee Dee, and
came out of hiding when he saw GZ poking around on his way back to the truck. Robert
Zimmerman Sr. said that TM came out from behind a house, so TM did not go far and he did move until he saw GZ.