Powered by TypePad

« NBC's "He Looks Black" - Now You See It, Now You Don't | Main | Santorum Out? »

April 10, 2012

Comments

Ignatz

--"It's quite possible that there is some information that creates a doubt or uncertainty in the case. But if that doubt is there, I haven't seen it."--

The betting windows are open.
Professor Nunn is actually;
1. buub
2. wee Dublin Davey
3. Kathy Kumquat

Ignatz

And just for the record *C*umquat is also acceptable. (cboldt had me wondering the other day)

JeffC

Mr. Zimmerman was arrested that night, he was booked and then released ...

the Sharptons of the world don't want him arrested, they want him punished ...

Sue

It seems odd to me that the state of Florida is preparing for an emergency, the same as if a hurricane was about to hit, when Corey announces. I have seen nothing on the right to indicate there will be a firestorm if he is arrested. I'm wondering if they are preparing for the worst without word (spending money they probably don't have) or if they have been given a heads up?

Iqvoice

Listening to bubu sound so confident of Zimmerman's guilt really makes me want to go to the Duke case and excerpt some of bubu's greatest hits from that debacle.

Chubby

((
1. buub
2. wee Dublin Davey
3. Kathy Kumquat))

aka bubu, duda, and kaka

NK

TomM-- I read the NYT piece differently. They know they got caught in the initial stories spewing race hustler propaganda. So now? They publish a suck up piece about the State prosecutor hoping to influence her to make a "tough on crime" indictment. The Times operatives are slags, no shame slags.

RattlerGator

No law professor who understands anything about Florida criminal law can be shocked at a decision not to utilize a grand jury.

In fact, that QUOTE from Nunn is the shocking part. I've got to find out who the hell this guy is.

cboldt

Corey told the press, the day she took the case, that her threshold for charging was different (higher) than what the police have for arrest and detain. The press reported what Corey said about this.

The quote from Nunn is not atypical. The majority of law professors is politically-motivated left wing hacks.

cboldt

-- the prosecutor can certainly indict Zimmerman on the basis of probable cause --

Not ethically. She has to find that the evidence supports finding guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rick Ballard

What's the shortest sentence which can be constructed to explain what she must prove beyond reasonable doubt? I get 'She must prove that George Zimmerman had no reason to believe he was in danger of imminent physical harm.'.

Tough sledding.

RattlerGator

Well, black people look at me crazy when I express strong skepticism about how we as black people are responding to this case.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised when now comes a law professor from U.F., who has been in Florida for more than 20 years, and happens to be black with a law degree from Cal, spouting this kind of nonsense.

Still, it is truly disappointing.

Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)

TM, I posted this in the other thread as well:

TM,

Your email doesn't work - so ...

Can I get you to come on the radio this weekend and talk about this case? There is a clamoring for you. I have, of course, held myself out as an insider at JOM.

Email me at fwdaj@live.com. WE can do it by phone (Sat AM) and I promise it will be painless.

cboldt

She must prove that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he was at risk of serious injury or death.

NK

My complete speculation? Corey files a manslaughter indictment and punts to a judge the self-defense motion to dismiss, the judge denies the motion and punts to a petit jury the factual question of self-defense, the circus carries on for a year.

cboldt

The "reasonable" part of "reasonable belief" does not probe what is in Zimmerman's head. It looks at the circumstances he found himself in, and asks the jury to determine whether a reasonable person, in those circumstances, would be in fear of serious injury or death.

Johnv2

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand, FL permits an evidentiary hearing at the defendant's request when a claim of self-defense is made. If the judge at the hearing determines that a preponderance of the evidence supports self-defense, the defendant is given immunity from criminal and civil liability. And that's it, even if additional evidence turns up later. Again, AIUI.

So if the charges are made, Zimmerman gets one shot at proving self-defense before a judge. Perhaps the DA thinks Zimmerman might get that immunity, and is waiting for additional evidence before triggering the immunity hearing?

NK

cboldt@11:29-- isn't Florida (like all other states) a "reasonable man" objective self-defense under the circumstances standard, not the shooter's subjective belief?

narciso

Well was there any doub t about Nunn,;


http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/nunn/

cboldt

If Corey charges Zimmerman, it will be with evidence that hasn't been made public.

What are the state's witnesses going to testify to, that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked? That Zimmerman was screaming for help?

Oh wait, the state calls NBC to the stand ....

NK

cboldt@11:33: ah, the Florida statute is like all others, OK.

Rick Ballard

RattlerGator,

A group of NYT subscribers would give you the same looks. The comments on that article are worse than those provided by the JOM circle of jerks.

narciso

No surprise, where he's coming from;


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=336400

NK

cboldt-- Why is evidence that hasn't been made public needed? I've become completely cynical about public officials -- to me they are all Pontius Pilates favoring expediency over justice and truth. Using the metaphor of the former Chief Judge NYS's highest court, Zimmerman is the Ham Sandwich du jour.

cboldt

NK - That wonderful legal weasel-word, "reasonable," alwasy, as far as I know, indicates an objective (cough cough) standard, to be determined by the jury, and not probing the subjective state of mind of the person or actor in question.

It's so in assumption of the risk, in torts; negligence; defective products; medical malpractice; etc.

NK

"weasel-word" -- the stock in trade of the practicing lawyer!

Rob Crawford

Why is evidence that hasn't been made public needed?

Because the evidence made public indicates an open-and-shut case of justifiable self-defense.

cboldt

-- Why is evidence that hasn't been made public needed? --

Because none of the evidence made public cuts against Zimmerman's account. So, if she is going to make the case that Zimmerman is guilty of unlawful use of force, she is going to have to produce evidence and a theory to support the charge - she has to make Zimmerman a liar, and prove it.

narciso

Yes, this is very 'unexpected' that he would come to this conclusion, Katrina, Rosewood,


www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/nunn/resume.pdf

Rob Crawford

Interesting BigGov article, pointing out that "stand your ground" laws are based on... wait for it... SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT!!!

the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, “not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as … [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.”

LUN

So all the agitation against these laws is really just agitation against a unanimous Supreme Court ruling!

cboldt

-- "weasel-word" -- the stock in trade of the practicing lawyer! --

Tools of the trade. Anyway, when I see "reasonable" I mentally translate "social issue for the jury to decide." And that is a moving target.

NK

RobC/cboldt-- the State Prosecutor typically (I'll assume Fla is typical) has a duty to file charges only where there is a "reasonable" belief, that a "reasonable" interpretation of the facts could be construed by a "reasonable" jury to prove unlawful killing beyond a "reasonable doubt". Lots of cboldt's weasel-words there. If the prosecutor WANTED, they could easily say that TMartin's right to be on the property, couple with the 'mild' injuries suffered by GZ mean that a jury could "reasonably" conclude beyond a "reasonable doubt" that GZ acted "unreasonably". Weasel words everywhere, to me that means GZ becomes the Ham Sandwich du jour. Just my speculation.

Porchlight

cboldt, I can't tell you how glad I am that you're back posting.

cboldt

All the agitation against SYG is agitation against a straw man of the agitators' own fabrication. They stuff him, then they damn him. Pretty silly of the agitators, but hey, maybe they're literally no-brainers, like Scarecrow!

narciso

Soem sanity from one of the few that got the Contra story right;


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/09/2739691/today-shows-dirty-editing-of-911.html#morer

cboldt

-- If the prosecutor WANTED, they could easily say that TMartin's right to be on the property, couple with the 'mild' injuries suffered by GZ mean that a jury could "reasonably" conclude beyond a "reasonable doubt" that GZ acted "unreasonably". --

No, she has to rebut Zimmerman's account, and Zimmerman's account has him in fear based on a verbal death threat combined with revelation of his firearm.

She has to convince the jury that Zimmerman is not telling the truth.

What you describe is a shifting of the incident and of the law - the "legally present" and "injuries not serious" are irrelevant distractions from the legal standard and facts at issue.

Corey knows this. She's not stupid.

Sue

Way off topic, but Iran is claiming it has captured Israeli spies. Source

cboldt

-- I can't tell you how glad I am that you're back posting. --


Y'all are too kind. I'd be lying if I said I didn't appreciate the sincere compliments. Thank you - the pleasure is mine. I'm apt to disappear as quick as I popped in - waiting to see what other current event captures me to the point of distraction.

NK

cboldt-- I'd really like you to cite to the Fla State Supreme Court decision holding that a motion to dismiss an indictment must be granted, where the State failed to properly weigh the merits of the anticipated self-defense claim, and the State failed in the duty to disprove the self -defense claim as part of filing the indictment. Honestly, I can't imagine Florida law imposes that kind of duty on the State in filing an indictment, but I'd love to see the case if true.

Rob Crawford

NK -- except that Florida has a law limiting what can be done to persecute people who act in self defense.

Frustrating for you, but that's the rule of law.

narciso

Do they mean assets, or actual Israelis, that's left unclear, we know back in the 80s, Iran in addition to Lebanese nationals like
Mugniyeh, Iraqis like Abu Muhandas, who were
in the Quds force, to carry out operations
in Kuwait and other locations,

Rob Crawford

Way off topic, but Iran is claiming it has captured Israeli spies.

ISTR they claim they capture spies from someone or the other every few months. It keeps some of the people convinced they're under siege by their enemies, and gives the mullahs an excuse to execute people who tick them off.

Last round were "emo" kids, I believe.

Captain Hate

Soem sanity from one of the few that got the Contra story right;

After reading that article I'm with Mel: NBC was given that already edited tape and that's why they're being so evasive about it.

Extraneus

Hey, RattlerGator, nice blog at your LUN. And what a cool blogroll.

Here's from BlackInformant.com:

A “friend” of min on Facebook decided to take his angst regarding the Trayvon situation a little higher. So he decided to post real pictures of Blacks being lynched and burned with the subtitle “I am Trayvon”.

On the Blackinformant.com Facebook page, I posted a picture of a young girl holding up a bag of Skittles and a bottle of tea. My response to that? “Free advertising. More money leaving the community.”

Another person calls for his friends to kill Zimmerman if they happen to see him.

Where am I with all of this right now?

I am still convinced that we are not getting the entire story of what happened that night. As I have been saying over and over again, there are no sides to this issue. I just see it as a young boy who lost his life, and now we need to get to the bottom of the “why”? question. Was it self-defense? Did Zimmerman chase down this boy to shoot him? I wasn’t there. My crystal ball hasn’t worked in years, so I do not know.

I have been reminding people that the same mob rule mentality they are using to judge this case is the very same type of judgement that hunted down innocent Black men and women in the Jim Crow era and lynched them. Naturally, the conversation goes quiet after that.

Lastly, I think I have finally come up with the best line that summarizes all that I have been feeling this last week or so.

“But what pisses me off is that many of these same negroes just a week ago were begging me to help them buy a dang rake for their Farmville game…all while Black kids were killing themselves wholesale on the norm. Now all of a sudden, cue up “Fight the power?”. Please…”

This comes from a person who has a long history of keeping the Black on Black crime issue on the table for discussion. From someone who has highlighted people who have been both fighting and crying over this issue for years. So yeah, I want justice in this case, but I am still very pissed.

Justice for Trayvon.
Justice for Zimmerman.

Rob Crawford

All the agitation against SYG is agitation against a straw man of the agitators' own fabrication.

The raging paranoid in me wonders if they're not trying to discourage people from defending themselves against the violence they intend to unleash later.

The slightly less paranoid part of me notes the number of people -- including supposed conservatives -- who act as if carrying a concealed weapon automatically makes you a murderer, and wonders why they're bothering.

The sensible part of me chalks their reactions up to, well, pure twitch-nerve reflex. From the beginning, the left has shown no interest in the facts of the case, preferring to simply to mold it to fit their prejudices and bigotries -- thus, "white Hispanic", thus the need to invoke imaginary conspiracies.

Porchlight

You're welcome, cboldt. Hope that even if you do scamper off at some point, that you'll return more frequently in the future.

Rob Crawford

After reading that article I'm with Mel: NBC was given that already edited tape and that's why they're being so evasive about it.

The local affiliate is out-and-out blaming the network, now.

To which I wonder, why do they use the network feed for national stories? Aren't they reporters? Isn't reporting their job?

Captain Hate

Nice blog, RattlerGator. Go Tebow!

narciso

Now this site suggests that the Florida Supreme Court, as usual, borched the job

http://selfdefenseflorida.com/index.html

cboldt

-- I can't imagine Florida law imposes that kind of duty on the State in filing an indictment, but I'd love to see the case if true. --


The duty is an ethical one, to the prosecutor. See Nifong.


As for the adequacy of evidence, or sufficiency of doubt to support a trial (if there is no doubt, there is no need to weigh conflicting testimony), the cases will be about the evidence, not the conduct of the prosecutor.

The law that a judge will apply in a motion to dismiss turns on whether or not the prosecution's evidence supports the charge; whether or not the admitted and alleged facts support all of the elements of the offense charged.

And in self defense, the prosecutor will have to rebut the defendant's account; again with evidence. The evidence has to be at least equivocal, so it can be read against the defendant's favor. And, being equivocal, it gives the jury something to decide, as between competing accounts.

narciso

Stelter was told and repeated in Decoder, it was just a lowly drone in Sector 7G, now the drones are saying we got it from Home office

bgates

all the agitation against these laws is really just agitation against a unanimous Supreme Court ruling!

Rob - you're holding up a Jim Crow-era decision by an unelected group of people?

pagar

A neighborhood with no watch.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/flash-mobbery-portland-black-youths-loot-convenience-store-attack-clerk-video/

"On the surveillance video, one person came into the Chevron convenience store on SE 92nd and Foster. Then a second person came in and pretty soon,"

Amazing!

narciso

Yes, but it was written by John Marshall Harlan, I see what you did there,

NK

RobC-- I am frustrated by imprecise generalities. This thread is talking about whether an indictment will be filed by this Prosecutor. The Florida statutes provide SUBSTANTIVE affirmative defenses to a charge of unlawful killing that a petit jury will be instructed to consider after hearing trial evidence(self-defense and SYG.) I have no doubt that the Florida State Supreme Court has ruled that the State must consider whether those defenses preclude a reasonable jury from convicting before filing an indictment. But you and cboldt -- apparently -- claim no indictment can even be filed unless the State meets a high burden of DISPROVING the self-defense claim. I'd like to see caselaw from the Florida Supreme Court setting forth such a high burden for the State before filing an indictment, and failing to meet that burden will result in dismissal of an indictment.

Extraneus

Still reading BlackInformant.

In his on-topic post entitled If you Want Justice, Start With the TRUTH, he links an interesting crime-chronicle site called ViolentFlashMobs.com:

The purpose of this site is to document dangerous, violent, or otherwise unwanted flash mobs and group mayhem. I find these crimes to be particularly galling because they're indicative of societal dysfunction, rather than an individual pathology.

[snip]

I fully admit it's often difficult to distinguish between a flash mob, a wilding, a riot, an unruly crowd, a swarm robbery, and a fight with an unequal number of participants. One incident often has elements of all those things so you may find some of the flash mobs I've identified don't fit your definition.

Sue

Rob,

My instant thought, with absolutely no basis to it, was did they capture them after someone leaked the info about Israel using Azerbaijan to attack Iran's nuke sites. Or maybe, now that you have pointed out their prior record, they did this to make someone think they found out by the leak from the US. Kind of like they don't know that we know that they know we know, but here's to hoping it is hogwash.

narciso


I noted that Roy Black did act like he was looking at the facts, I think Dershowitz did too, but that was from a momentary glance


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/10/pmt-zimmerman-panel.cnn

Dublindown Onstoopid

"claim no indictment can even be filed unless the State meets a high burden of DISPROVING the self-defense claim"

I read them as saying no claim should be filed. The prosecutor can file anything he or she wants.

NK

cboldt@12:14-- thanks for all that, but my question still stands, In Florida, what 'equivocal' evidence needs to be presented by the State to withstand a motion to dismiss? As long as a prosecutor "reasonably" believes their indictment will withstand a motion to dismiss, they are free to indict, and let the petit jury decide after hearing trial evidence-- in the States I've seen decisions, the standard for upholding an indictment is very low, even where self-defense or some other stautory defense is invoked. it maybe wrong, it maybe unjust, but it is all 'legal' and 'ethical'. hence, my Pontius Pilate and Ham Sandwich metaphors.

Rob Crawford

But you and cboldt -- apparently -- claim no indictment can even be filed unless the State meets a high burden of DISPROVING the self-defense claim.

They could indict without any evidence. Then when it's decided it was self defense, the state and each individual involved in the decision to indict would be open to lawsuits.

If they think they can convince a jury it wasn't self defense, then they'll charge.

If they don't think they can convince a jury it wasn't self defense, then they won't charge -- largely because the law makes it clear that's considered a Bad Thing.

NK

DDO@12:34-- OK, fine no indictment "should" be filed. So GZ has to hope that Corey is a champion of fairness and justice, rather than a cowardly bureaucrat. I wish him luck-- I have my doubts.

Porchlight

OT but somewhat interesting on the Senate horserace front. Pryor is not up until 2014, but he's already sounding a little nervous. If he's worried now, imagine how someone like McCaskill feels.

The Hill: Sen. Mark Pryor: No plans to actively campaign for Obama

Pryor said whether Republicans win control of the White House and Senate is secondary to his focus on seeking solutions.

“I’m not there to represent a president,” Pryor said. “I think that is one thing that I think people in Arkansas understand, but nationally people have forgotten this.

His opponent has endorsed Romney.

narciso

I'm sure there are plenty of Armitages, and Pillars and Kirikaou's in the woodwork, leaking to the likes of Mark Perry and co,
what they know and often what they don't know.

NK

I really doubt the State here is worried about defending against GZ's 'wrongful prosecution' civil action if he is acquitted. Personally, I think the state is more concerned about the claim that by NOT indicting, they are giving GZ and Sanford immunity to a wrongful death claim by the family. I think politics play a big part in deciding whether to indict, and I doubt the politics help GZ avoid indictment.

benquick

Rick Ballard:
What's the shortest sentence which can be constructed to explain what she must prove beyond reasonable doubt?

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either:
1) GZ threw the first punch or used fighting words.
OR
2) GZ was on top of TM when the shot was fired.

All of the skittle, ice tea, neighborhood watch etc,etc are pretty much irrelevant compared to those two events.

Rick Ballard

"She must prove that Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he was at risk of serious injury or death."

cboldt,

Did you exclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt' after 'prove' because I asked for the shortest sentence? I agree that it's understood but I was looking for one sentence that the NYT might have added to their article to provide evidence that they still had any ability to deliver news along with the daily propaganda.

benquick

Actually #2 should be more accurately stated as:
The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that TM was not on top of GZ when the shot was fired.

Which is a slightly lower barrier

Rob Crawford

Personally, I think the state is more concerned about the claim that by NOT indicting, they are giving GZ and Sanford immunity to a wrongful death claim by the family.

Um, as I understand it, if they indict and the case is tossed out on a finding of self-defense, Zimmerman can sue them and is still immune to civil suits. So, lose-lose for the government.

Regardless, the idea that they'd try to throw an innocent man in prison in order to open him up to lawsuits, so as to avoid the commission of future crimes by other people is disgusting.

RattlerGator

Except, NK, a grand jury is very rare in Florida I'm pleased to say. You elect and pay a State Attorney to avoid the type of mob rule being shamefully demanded in this case, one a grand jury might sign off on.

Luckily, The State Attorney can't indict a ham sandwich; there are higher standards at play. And we don't elect and pay State Attorneys to rubber stamp law enforcement's decision to detain. The sad fact in the Trayvon Martin case --so far --is that everything has been done properly yet folks are being pilloried for properly doing their job.

NK

RobC-- it may be disgusting, but see Senator Stevens prosecution, Scooter Libby, Labor Secy Donovan, Iran Contra etc etc etc. Prosecutors have done far worse.

Um-- if the Prosecutor in an act of 'discretion' does not indict, then the State is automatically immunizing GZ and Sanford, that's a more immediate politcal problem for the State than indicting and losing on the merits. I long ago lost any expectation that government officials work out of abstract notions of fairness and justice. Right or wrong I think there will be a manslaughter charge, just my opinion.

fdcol63

And they've been pilloried based on lies and half-truths and distortions from the MSM, the race-baiters, and the Martin family attorneys.

narciso

He learned this skill, covering Arafat I believe;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/are-obamas-job-policies-hurting-women/2012/04/09/gIQAGz3q6S_blog.html

NK

Thanks RattlerGator-- glad to hear Florida doesn't give free license to prosecutors to indict, overcharge etc and there are 'higher standards'. Is there a convenient statute or case decision cite?

Danube of Thought

Beginning at about 11:34 a.m. today I left a series if billeys-doux for te Identity Teenager on the "No Grand Jury" thread. My effort at comedy gold in this tragic saga.

Rob Crawford

A few days ago, NK, you were one of the people calling for the indictment of Zimmerman.

Now you're saying it's going to happen because the prosecutors are corrupt and political.

That mirror sure is cloudy, innit?

narciso

I noticed that Kessler, did a fact check some months about Hadi Al Ameri, the Iraqi minister who had been with the Revolutionary Guards, dismissing that claim, despite the fact that the CRS had come to opposite conclusions,

narciso

Now a fellow revolutionary, maybe he was just being polite;

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/10/Visibly-Annoyed-Obama-Gets-Lecture-Form-Female-President-of-Brazil?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Danube of Thought

Let me add my gratitude for cboldt's return. His scholarship during the Libby matter was the gold standard, and it is again in this case. He's been sorely missed.

Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)

How's Vienna Dot?

NK

RobC-- please copy and paste my comments "calling for the indictment of Zimmerman." I don't recall ever saying that. I originally said in March that I thought the original prosecutor mishandled the case in the sense that the appearance of a slow moving and half hearted investigation gave the race baiters the angle to make their outrageous claims; then in the last 2 weeks as TomM methodically organized the public evidence, my comments moved to unless there were forensics to the contrary, there was no way to prove unlawful killing beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the whole thing had become "a mess". I even said tht your opinions that the facts would ultimately prove self -defense, had been proven by events, and my scepticism had ben disprooven. Shall I find those comments for you? What I meant by "a mess" was exactly, what I now believe, right or wrong there will be a manslaughter charge. Just my guess from 30 years of practicing law. BTW-- drop the distortions and personal attacks, that's what the trolls are for.

Jim Ryan

How about she must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

"If I indict Zimmerman I will eventually become wealthy from the resulting media circus, book deal, interviews, etc."

Rob Crawford

Just my guess from 30 years of practicing law.

Really?!

Then explain your comment at 11:49AM today.

narciso

As I pointed out, about Nunn, at 11;35 and 11:45, about where he is coming from.

Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)

"If I indict Zimmerman I will eventually become wealthy from the resulting media circus, book deal, interviews, etc."

I hope not. In the beginning of this saga I heard Pam Bondi talk about Corey and how tough she is. To me, being tough also means having the ability to say "no case here".

Remember, the original arrest was made by the same cops Zimmerman has once complained about for being racist. They had to get some prosecutor to travel 50 miles and then he let Zimmerman go. I don't think that was Corey. She was brought in, in response to all the noise.


NK

My11:49: OK I reread it; what's to explain? There is a low threshold to bring an indictment (in NYS/NJ/Ct it's the "Ham Sandwich" standard). If the State wants to bring an indictment, it has to meet a very low standard to justify the indictment (RattlerGator says it's higher in Florida-- I'd be curious to see what that standard is.)I then said very clearly that "my speculation" was that the State would avail itself of the low standard, indict GZ for an unlawful killing, then make the Judge and Jury decide the merits. I wasn't calling for an indictment, I just think that the path of least resistance for the State is to indict, and let justice take it's course. If you must know, IMO if the public evidence is all the State has, and no other credible witnesses have come forward and the forensics are consistent with GZ's story -- indicting would be cowardly and unjust, an act of politcal asscovering. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Hope I explained myself to your satisfaction.

cboldt

-- ut you and cboldt -- apparently -- claim no indictment can even be filed unless the State meets a high burden of DISPROVING the self-defense claim. --


That's not my claim. My claim is that the prosecutor has to have evidence that could disprove the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense, as plead by Zimmerman, will certainly include being in an inferior position in a physical fight, having his head bashed against something resembling pavement, calling for help and none coming. It is likely to include the verbal death threat by Martin, on seeing his (Zimmerman's) gun revealed.

By equivocal evidence, I mean observations or testimony that can be read either for or against the defendant. In other words, the prosecutor doesn't have to have evidence that can ONLY be read against the defendant, just that it could be read against the defendant. If the evidence goes either way or both ways, then interpretation of that evidence belongs in the hands of the finder of fact, the jury - and the prosecutor will argue the side that cuts against the defendant.

NK

Jane-- I hope you're right. I'm not optimistic, because prosecutors are more comfortable prosecuting than exonerating, and "special" prosecutors really are biased in favor of prosecuting (see Fitzgerald,IranContra and Starr.) It's so easy for them to say that the jury must determine the facts and the verdict, the Prosecutor merely "presents the evidence."

cboldt

-- I think the state is more concerned about the claim that by NOT indicting, they are giving GZ and Sanford immunity to a wrongful death claim by the family. --


The town doesn't get immunity from the decision. It stands in a different position from Zimmerman.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Oh my, JOM has been made famous on Facebook by The Kitchen Cabinet:

The Kitchen Cabinet

Over at "Just One Minute" blog they are following along as NBC News tries to shove their previous "erroneous" edit of the George Zimmerman 911 phone call down the rabbit hole.

"NBC's "He Looks Black" - Now You See It, Now You Don't"

"NBC is busy taking down the evidence of its repeated usage of its bogus edit of the George Zimmerman 911 call. This follows the firing of a producer for the use of the same bad edit on the March 27 Today Show. Left unanswered - what about the March 22 use on the Today Show? [LATE ADD: a third usage of "He looks black" has been found and edited out of existence (but not Google Cache!) at NBC 6 Miami, as described below. When will the Elite Media sniff a cover-up?]"

Uh... why would they? "Anything to support the narrative" seems to be their long-held motto and they sure seem to be sticking to that!!!

More: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/nbcs-he-looks-black-now-you-see-it-now-you-dont.html

Rob Crawford

OK I reread it; what's to explain?

The reliance on immaterial points.

narciso

Yes, this deserves the Nelson Muntz treatment;

https://twitter.com/#!/NathanWurtzel/status/189704230649602048

Porchlight

DoT's pummeling of bubu on the No Grand Jury thread is lots of fun. Poor bubu can't keep up.

cboldt

Rick Ballard: --Did you exclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt' after 'prove' because I asked for the shortest sentence? --


No. I was just recomposing your sentence into a form that mirrors the legal theory, omitting the standard of proof.

Rob Crawford

The town doesn't get immunity from the decision. It stands in a different position from Zimmerman.

Is my understanding correct, that the town (and state, and involved individuals) would be opening themselves up to suits from Zimmerman if they indict and it's found he acted in self defense?

GMAX

Law and Cultural Studies? How is that for an odd combination. Professor Nunn teaches an ethic studies class in Law School? WTF

Jack is Back!

Having followed Corey for the last 4 years during her firing, campaign, victory and the Fernandez case, she will do the right thing not the political. If she believes there is no evidence to convict (any charge) she won't proceed. Let the cards fall.

But I have no idea as to the efficacy of any charge she might bring if she does not being a lawyer or cop. I do know her reputation and I doubt she will bring any charge just to make her role here more acceptable to the lynch mob.

cboldt

-- Is my understanding correct, that the town (and state, and involved individuals) would be opening themselves up to suits from Zimmerman if they indict and it's found he acted in self defense? --


The town is out of the picture from that direction. It didn't arrest or unnecessarily detain Zimmerman.


The prosecutor would have to be egregiously in the wrong. Generally, prosecutors are immune from suit for bringing a case. But, bringing a case with NO supporting evidence is egregiously wrong. There has to be something, although i agree, it can be slim slim slim.

jwest

This is what I love about JOM.

Normally, I have to pay a $1000 an hour to listen to two lawyers argue without ever coming to a definitive conclusion.

NK

cboldt-- don't disagree with anything you say @1:43. But aren't you outlining the broad discretion prosecutors have in deciding whether to indict? (again I am curious to learn the standards that apply in Fla. )

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame