Stand Your Ground - Is It Part Of The Trayvon Martin Case, And How?

Florida's Stand Your Ground law (776) has been singled out by the NY Times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the left as a key obstacle to justice in the Trayvon Martin killing. Yet Jacob Sullum and others insist that, based on the available information, George Zimmerman was not in a situation where his duty to retreat was at issue; consequently, this is a normal self-defense scenario and Stand Your Ground should not be a whipping boy.

The resolution is here; I welcome feedback but this Florida attorney has put in one article bits and pieces I have seen floating around elsewhere.

And the answer is, both sides are right but Jacob Sullum is righter [Mr. Sullum makes similar points more modestly here]. Stand Your Ground was primarily about a presumption of reasonable force in a self-defense situation at home or in one's car.  It also eliminated the duty to retreat in other situations, but the duty to retreat does not apply here. So far, Mr. Sullum is carrying the day.

However!  Prior to the passage of Stand Your Ground these self-defense arguments would be raised at trial.  Stand Your Ground created the basis for a new pre-trial hearing which can terminate the case on self-defense grounds; if the defendant loses there, they can raise self-defense again at trial.

From the article:

The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.  The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense.  The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.  Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches.  The trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

...

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibits the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false.  Although, if prosecuted, George Zimmerman may attempt to later assert immunity, this does not prevent a prosecution from being initiated.  Prior to forming Hussein & Webber, P.L., Attorney Troy J. Webber served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford, Florida.  During that time, the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit routinely prosecuted defendants in the face of “Stand Your Ground” Motions.  In those cases, the prosecutor would file charges, and defense counsel would file a “Stand Your Ground” Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal [Click Here for an Example]. The matter was then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense had to show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.  If successful, immunity was granted and the case dismissed.  If unsuccessful, the prosecution resumed and the case resolved by way of plea or trial.  

From the NY Times:

The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.

At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School.

Normally a prosecutor would anticipate this process, evaluate the likelihood of success, and decide whether to bring charges. We certainly hope that happened here, and that Ms. Corey has a much stronger case than the publicly available information suggests.

BONUS TIMESWATCH: The duty to retreat evidently extends to Times editors.  Two of their early fulminations against "Stand Your Ground" specifically mention a duty to retreat:

March 21:

They threaten public safety by eliminating the longstanding legal requirement that someone sensing a threat has a reasonable “duty to retreat” from perceived danger before resorting to deadly force.

March 29:

Reported differences between local and state investigators over whether to charge Mr. Zimmerman initially only underline the dangerous vagaries of Stand Your Ground laws passed at the demand of the gun lobby in a score of states. Their lethal flaw is the abolition of the traditional legal duty to retreat from a threat before resorting to deadly force.

The duty to retreat is not at issue if Zimmerman really was flat on his back getting pummelled.  However, Stand Your Ground did create the basis for his pre-trial hearing.

In their most recent editorial, an April 12 victoy lap, the Times editors do not mention "retreat" but provide new evidence that the left hand does not know what the far left hand is doing; in reciting the background they include this:

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman exited his car to follow the teenager despite a 911 dispatcher’s warning: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Hah!  Ms. Alvarez reported that correctly today - Mr. Zimmerman was already out of his car when he got those instructions and responded "OK" when advised to go back.  As to what he actually did, the trial may tell.

But as evidence that Times editors don't follow their own links or read their own newspaper, let's follow their link to the March 20 coverage by Ms. Alvarez:

In the 911 call, Mr. Zimmerman, using an expletive and speaking of Trayvon, said they “always get away.” The 911 dispatcher told him not to get out of the car and said the police were on their way. Mr. Zimmerman was already outside. A dispute began. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon attacked him and that he fired in self-defense.

She was right then, she is right now, and the Times editors are just making stuff up. Or recycling "news" they didn't get from the Paper of Record.

If they don't take thier own reporting seriously, or follow their own links, why should we?

Comments

[Rob Crawford]

No, it's not.

The NYT's primary interest is in seeing our right to defend ourselves struck down universally. That way we become subjects of their preferred groups, criminals and politicians (BIRM).

[narciso]

You note how they don't bother to explain why
'the case will certainly include' such a statement,

[Dr. Dave]

A prosecutor with an actual non-politically motivated case is not usually so giddy when announcing the filing of charges

[Cecil Turner]

The SYG law explains why the arrest was delayed (the issue for most lefties), and will govern the next step in the process (a pretrial motion to dismiss for immunity).

While the SYG clause does not apply, the law very much does.

[Chubby]

what a tangled web. The people who are yelling against SYG because it prevented Z from being arrested have to argue SYG didn't apply in order to have him arrested. right?

[Appalled]

I guess this is going to be the thread of the day?

If Rattlergator comes this way, I do have a question for him -- has Corey, in cases that have not reached the media spotlight, tken a real strong, somewhat gushy approach towards the victims of a crime? Is this SOP for her?

Others -- why do many of you (I'm excluding some regulars from this -- Rick Ballard, GMAX in particular) think you know what happened in Sanford? There is so much information missing. Rob Crawford sounds like he wants to lead a troop of outraged citizenry to bust poor George Z out of jail. On what basis can he conclude the situation really warrents this?

Also, interesting that the charge was Second Degree. I remember that the original investigator was said to want a charge of manslaughter. Why the difference?

Folks, ranging from Sylvia and bunkerbuster to Rob Crawford and Gus think they have exactly what happened in this tragedy nailed down. What makes them so confident?

[bunkerbuster]

Appalled: Again, I've said over and over and over again there's no way we can know what happened just before Zimmerman killed Martin. I've made that uncertainty the crux of my entire argument in favor of a trial.
Zimmerman's angry-mob cheerleaders are the ones basing their views on naked presumptions about what happened.
It's downright appalling for you to try to spin a diametrically opposed reality.

[Rob Crawford]

Rob Crawford sounds like he wants to lead a troop of outraged citizenry to bust poor George Z out of jail. On what basis can he conclude the situation really warrents this?

Florida law specifically states you are immunized if you acted in self defense.

I've seen nothing that contradicts the claim of self-defense. Such evidence may exist, and if it does, then my position is wrong. But until we're aware of that evidence (and I think it should be made public ASAP), I think it's as much a horror to subject Zimmerman to imprisonment, impoverishment, and probable violence as it was to railroad the Scottsboro Boys.

You don't "repay" past injustices by committing more of them.

[Steve]

Is it important that Zimmerman was not charged with lying to the police investigators? They must have asked what his position was when he fired the shot, where Martin was, how much distance between the two of them.

[Janet]

When I see the players - the MFM, the usual race baiting suspects, the emotional "he was an angel" family members all over TV vs. the evil, "white-hispanic" Zimmerman....my natural tendency is to push back. The phony meme needs to be pushed back just to get the case back to some fairness.

[narciso]

Taranto keeps point out, they don't read the Times, at the Times, that's why their Op Eds
are often so far afield of the actual underlying news, the Journal is similar, but
their editorials actually do more reporting.

[Rob Crawford]

No, buub, we're basing our views on the available evidence and the applicable laws.

You're the one saying that, despite the absence of evidence of a crime (the evidence is that his actions were legal self defense), Zimmerman should be tried anyway just to be sure. You really want that to be the new standard for "justice"?

[bunkerbuster]

And is it too bad, isn't it, that Andrew Breitbart isn't among us to help whip up the vigilante mob against trial by jury.
If the paranoia and hatred coursing through his veins hadn't congealed into a heart-stopping gummi bear the other day, maybe he'd be around to pay James O'Keefe to dress like a pudgy, skinhead neighborhood watchman who follows Afro-American teenagers around suspiciously until one of them cold-cocks him. Hell, even I'd pay to see that...

[Rob Crawford]

buub -- do you really expect to be taken seriously, when every other sentence you write is an expression of bad faith, bigotry, and hatred?

You really do live a life unexamined, don't you?

[narciso]

And as Archie would put in, ina 'Fish Called Wanda' I apologize unreservedly for having
foisted Alvarez on you fine folk, although she was at the Knight Ridder version of the paper, back in 1983-85.

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for what I think is a solid argument that Corey's end game is plea bargain.

[rse]

Appalled-weren't you horrified by the prosecutor taking a feeling approach instead of a dispassionate analytical approach that showed empathy rather than being clearly grounded in it?

[bunkerbuster]

Rob: Again, the available evidence doesn't tell you what happened just before Zimmerman killed Martin. Your suggestion that it does is without foundation.
You're saying you believe it was self-defense, but you have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was self-defense.

Nor do you have any way whatsoever of knowing what evidence Corey does or does not have. Yet, absurdly, you carry on in a state of ludicrous denial, pretending that you know Zimmerman's being railroaded.
You were dead wrong about probable cause, and that ship has sailed. I'd have thought it would give you some pause, but of course not...

[narciso]

Much of the same approach exhibited here;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/12/us-usa-campaign-biden-idUSBRE83B0Q520120412

[Appalled]

Bunkerbuster: You don't charge someone just to satisfy your curiosity or the demands of a group. You got to have a reason to do it beyond "X is dead and someone's responsible". Nonetheless, I missed the nuance in your position so I'll gve you a limited exemption.

Rob Crawford:

You have to assume, in a case like this, tht you don't have all the facts. Everyone is spinning on the outside and the investigators surely do not want to reveal their case, in the hope they can catch their target (and, under the circumstances, Zimmerman has to be a target) in a lie.

[cboldt]

Nitpicky, but the relevant statutory provision is 776.012, not 776.013. Same end result.

[bunkerbuster]

Oh Rob, stop whining! You wear your fear and hatred of Afro-Americans the way Richard Simmons wears jogging shorts...

[Steve]

"... investigators surely do not want to reveal their case, in the hope they can catch their target (and, under the circumstances, Zimmerman has to be a target) in a lie. ..."

but Zimmerman has already spoken to the police. He was interviewed by D. Singleton on the night of the shooting. If he had lied to them he would have been charged with misleading the investigator, no?

[narciso]

Maybe if we had certain other folks not to be
'so sure of what turns out to be wrong;

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/11/Obama-Prof-Flunks-Criminal-Law-at-Sharpton-Hate-Convention

[Appalled]

rse:

I'm not sure how I feel on the prosecutor's conduct, to tell the truth. She's an elected official, and a concern about victim's rights is part of being a prosecutor. I am curious whether Corey has taken a similar approach in cases that were merely high-profile locally.

[bunkerbuster]

What about the witness, cited in NYT, that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin?

Is the denial bubble really that thick? Are you all really going to keep weaving scenarios that pretend that witness doesn't exist? Maybe that goes without saying...lol

[narciso]

Well it would be straight out perjury, because it would material to the investigation,

[Appalled]

Steve:

If you think you can make a charge of murder stick, you don't go for perjury. Perjury is what you use when you ain't got nuttin. (See Libby, prosecution of...)

[Janet]

When are the charges against the New Black Panthers gonna be announced? We all saw the wanted poster & know about the reward for a hit on Zimmerman. When's the news conference for THAT!

[narciso]

The pattern is pretty clear, with Anderson, they couldn't prove intent, so they couldn't
prosecute the officials at the boot camp, so
with Charmin' Charlie's help they got the civil suit against Bay Cty.

[Steve]

"... If you think you can make a charge of murder stick, you don't go for perjury. Perjury is what you use when you ain't got nuttin. (See Libby, prosecution of...) ..."

Can they add a charge later? The prosecutors got Martha Stewart for lying to the investigators. By charging with lying you give the jury something to convict him on if there is not enough evidence for a murder conviction.

[Caspar Weinburger]

What about the witness, cited in NYT, that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin?

That was seconds after the shot. The most important witness, John, saw Trayvon beating the shit out of George while the former was on top.

[narciso]

Similarly with Amadou Diallou, the officers were ultimately acquitted, which neccesitated this turn of events;

On April 18, 2000, Diallo's mother, Kadiatou, and his stepfather, Sankarella Diallo filed a US$61,000,000 ($20m plus $1m for each shot fired) lawsuit against the City of New York and the officers, charging gross negligence, wrongful death, racial profiling, and other violations of Diallo's civil rights. In March 2004, they accepted a US$3,000,000 settlement. The settlement was reportedly one of the highest against the City of New York for a single man with no dependents under New York State's restrictive wrongful death law, which limits damages to pecuniary loss by the decedent's next of kin.[citation needed]

[Ignatz]

--Appalled: Again, I've said over and over and over again there's no way we can know what happened just before Zimmerman killed Martin. I've made that uncertainty the crux of my entire argument in favor of a trial.--

You're a lying little asshole, buub.
In the last thread you made the bald faced statement Zimmerman "murdered" Martin as you have before and you previously repeatedly stated he "lynched" him.

You see no incongruity in making this claim to just wanting a fair trial and for all the evidence to be revealed so that this dirty, racist murderer can be locked away for life.
The only reason you feign a desire for even handed justice is so if Zuimmerman is acquitted or doesn't go to trial you can claim you're not as big a fool and liar as you have repeatedly proven yourself.

[Thomas Collins]

Appalled, I realize that when I am commenting on a news story, there might be information I don't know. If the standard was a strict "know what happened," noone would ever post. Facts of this case have been vetted extensively. There could be more evidence that comes to light that might change a particular view. At the moment, what's out there, in addition to my review of what current or former defense attorneys and prosecutors not involved with this case have said, not to mention Corey's own statement, convinces me that Corey overcharged to get a plea bargain, and that a plausible reason is that such result serves her political ends. If more evidence comes out that undercuts that view, so be it. When I read comments on this case, I assume that the commenter is open to changing his or her view if more evidence comes out.

[cboldt]

-- Can they add a charge later? --

Yes.

[narciso]

I was reminded of that case, because the MSNBC contributor, who write for my fishwrap
mentioned it, along with the Andersen case, as a defense of Sharpton, and unintentionally
gave the game away,

[Thomas Collins]

With respect to whether evidence will come out that will change my view of this case, it's possible but unlikely. I think if Corey had evidence supporting a second degree murder charge, she would have leaked it.

Take a look at the entirety of Corey's and O'Mara's statements. To me, they are the statements of two savvy lawyers in the Florida criminal justice system who realize that this can be plea bargained. As the saying goes, in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls.

[derwill]

I said yesterday when the 2nd degree murder charge first came out that I thought Corey was hoping to use it as a means of getting him to cop to manslaughter. Z. may think ten years (or whatever it is for manslaughter in FL) is preferable to life--which is what he faces if he's convicted on the second degree charge. Especially if he's worried that he won't get a fair trail, or that the jury will be swayed by the mob baying for his blood.

It's a tough dice for Z to roll, but my gut thinks any trial is going to end in a hung jury. This thing stopped being about the law and justice a long time ago, and is now in the realm of the tribal and the political. So unless either the prosecution is in possession of some overwhelming evidence against Z that we don't know about or she can manage to stack the jury with 12 bubus, then a unanimous verdict one way or the other might be hard to come by.

[Thomas Collins]

Derwill, I think Corey would deal even after the motion to dismiss is heard and decided in her favor. If it's decided in Zimmerman's favor, the point becomes moot. As to Zimmerman, I agree that Zimmerman may not want to roll the dice. Which is why the notion that the prosecutor, in a case like this, should just charge and "let justice take its course," is pure unadulterated BS. A defendant without unlimited amounts of cash and facing the power of the state might well decide to plea even if he or she thinks he is innocent.

[Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)]

Bubu,

You are a racist.

[Chubby]

((I think if Corey had evidence supporting a second degree murder charge, she would have leaked it.))

I find that to be a depressing statement because it implies the charge if false and I don't think that is right, even if it was just the first step in a dance.

[James D.]

why do many of you (I'm excluding some regulars from this -- Rick Ballard, GMAX in particular) think you know what happened in Sanford? There is so much information missing.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, it's not that I think I know what happened. It's that just nearly everything that's been reported in the MSM that points against GZ has been at best a gross distortion, and at worst a flt-out lie (the 3 yeear old photo of TM, the "250 lb man vs. 140 lb. teenager", the "46 calls in 8 months", the editing of the 911 tape, the police station video, that GZ was given the gun back, and on and on...). And nearly all of that has come from TM's family attorneys or supporters.

Everything that's actually come out that's true, as far as we know, supports GZ's version of events. Nothing the prosecutor said yesterday changed that. And the lies and distortions keep being repeated in news stories all over the country. And the Attorney General of the United States is speaking out in favor of Al Sharpton. And 2nd Amendment opponents across the country, and their cheerleaders in the MSM, are using this case to further their goals.

It looks to me like a manufactured controversey, with lies spoon-fed to a willing and complicit media, in order to gin up protest, keep bad actoes like Sharpton, Crump et all in the spotlight (and raising money all the while), and advance leftist political goals.

I don't know what happened. Neither do Crump or Sharpton or Holder or President Zero or Mike Bloomberg, or the liars at NBC and ABC and the NYT, but that isn't stopping them from waving TM's bloody hoodie in front of the mob and using his death to further trash the rule of law and push for their agendas.

[Jim Ryan]

a unanimous verdict one way or the other might be hard to come by.

Would someone please refresh my memory - what happens next after the jury is hung? I think Z can reasonably expect there is no way 12 will find him guilty, and if so, why is hoping for hung jury not a good option for him compared to plea bargaining? I forget this stuff. Thanks.

[Rob Crawford]

You have to assume, in a case like this, tht you don't have all the facts.

I make just that assumption. But there is no indication there are relevant facts unavailable to the public.

The attempts to undermine the claim of self defense have been based on lies and fantasies. There may be some evidence that is not public that undermines the claim, but until it is made public, I can not make a conclusion based on it.

[Rob Crawford]

Would someone please refresh my memory - what happens next after the jury is hung?

I believe the mob does the same to Zimmerman.

[Clarice]

Once again, it seems to me, there is something fundamentally wrong with our justice system. I don't know what the answer is but perhaps we need to have someone with oversight of prosecutors who are now utterly out of hand political creatures.

[Rob Crawford]

Janet:
When are the charges against the New Black Panthers gonna be announced?

Never. The government clearly considers them above the law.

Disgusting, but not suprising, considering how close Obama is to their leadership.

[Thomas Collins]

Jim Ryan, I believe the possibilities are (i) State of Florida retries Zimmerman, (ii) plea bargain after hung jury, and (iii) State of Florida drops case.

[Steve]

"...
-- Can they add a charge later? --

Yes.

..."

a question to anyone, to add a charge later, the charge would have to be based on new evidence or a new criminal act. The prosecutors have the recording of what Zimmerman said to the investigators. I doubt they can charge him with lying later when they did not charge him with that initially.

The point being, the ballistics must confirm what Zimmerman told the investigators. And if Zimmerman had told the investigators he shot Martin at other than point blank range during a struggle, those initial investigators and DA would have arrested him.

[MarkO]

Rob, LOL.

[narciso]

iN THE Diallou case, there was a change of venue to Albany, (just as it was with Lozano to Orlando, after the '89 shooting, that provoked the last major riot,

[Steve]

"... I don't know what the answer is but perhaps we need to have someone with oversight of prosecutors who are now utterly out of hand political creatures. ..."

a good defense lawyer would go a long way to achieving this end. Zimmerman's lawyer should be demanding that the key evidence the prosecutors have be released to the public immediately.

[cboldt]

-- I don't know what the answer is --

Daylight and basic honesty. Two commodities in short supply. It also helps to have a substantial fraction of the public versed in critical reasoning skills.

[Jim Ryan]

Thanks TC (and Ha! Rob).

Then why plea bargain now? There won't be 12 to convict no matter how many times they try him (unless there is damning evidence we don't know about.)

[cboldt]

-- Zimmerman's lawyer should be demanding that the key evidence the prosecutors have be released to the public immediately. --

It's not O'Mara's job to educate the public. His client is Zimmerman.

[Extraneus]

You're a lying little asshole, buub.

Can't we just stipulate that and stop responding to this fool? Same with his buddy.

They've been consistently dishonest, and haven't added anything of value to the discussion except for the occasional dropping of their masks. (KY jelly, true intention behind opposition to SYG law, etc.)

It's not worth cluttering up the threads arguing with these jerks.

[derwill]

From what I've read about plea bargaining lately, it seems to have really gotten out of hand. The prosecutors throw the book at people in order to scare them into taking a plea. And the public defenders, who don't want the work of an actual trial, talk them into taking it.

Can you imagine being innocent of a crime, but without any clear-cut evidence at hand to prove it, and someone puts the choice to you: take ten years with the possibility of parole in five, or risk getting a life sentence if you're convicted of all these heinous charges we're about to bring against you?

[Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)]

I keep saying this to the crickets: Zimmerman cannot get a fair trial, not in Florida or anywhere else. The case should be dismissed. It would be the proper lesson for Sharpton, the Black Panthers and all the racists in Congress.

[Enlightened]

Thanks Ex - I was just about to say the same thing - please ignore the trolls - they bring nothing to the table but filthy hatred.

[DanInMN]

As I said over at the HQ yesterday, I think Corey filed Murder II to defuse the powder keg in South Florida. It might even work and might even save some lives. But, unless there is strong evidence we don't know about, there is now way in hell she makes Murder II stick. The justice system should not be used to throw a sop to quiet the mob. Doing so subverts justice and empowers the mob.

As for a plea bargain, I wouldn't take one. At least not until after the SYG immunity hearing. Without something big that hasn't been made public, Corey probably doesn't get past that.

Bottom line, at this point, this is probably going to be the Rodney King riots all over again and there's not a damned thing anyone can do to stop it.

[Rob Crawford]

The point being, the ballistics must confirm what Zimmerman told the investigators. And if Zimmerman had told the investigators he shot Martin at other than point blank range during a struggle, those initial investigators and DA would have arrested him.

ISTR that his gun had jammed -- fired the round in the chamber, then failed to cycle, so the magazine was still full. There was some discussion of this on a gun blog (weerdworld, I believe), and the possibilities were that Zimmerman didn't have a proper grip on it ("limp-wristed it") or that there wasn't enough room for the gun's action to work.

Either is likely in a struggle -- if you fear for your life, you're not going to take the time to double-check your grip, or the two could have been physically so close there was no room for the slide to move.

[cboldt]

I can't think of a single case that has been outright dismissed on an allegation of "everybody in the state/country" is tainted.

[rse]

jim-the cost of a criminal defense to these charges is in the hundreds of thousands to 7 figures. That's why it is so critical that the prosecutor show discretion in disputed fact cases like this.

A plea bargain when there appears to be an objectively solid case of self defense because the defendant is not in a financial position to bear the costs of going to the trial that shouldn't happen makes a travesty of our justice system.

That's why Corey's feeling approach and ignoring the reality of too much self-defense evidence to get over the hurdle at trial is so objectionable.

It suggests she is whoring this every bit as much as others. If not, she should have handled that presser yesterday far differently.

Right now she appears to be just another adult trying to gain something from trayvon's death. She is a professional and that was not the way she should have handled herself to avoid the presumtion she is catering to the mob.

[Thomas Collins]

Jane, given that the POTUS has come out in favor of Martin and national MSM has poisoned the well, I agree Zimmerman can't get a fair trial anywhere (except perhaps with 12 JOMers sitting as the jury, which won't happen). And I agree this case should be dismissed. So this cricket agrees with you!

[cboldt]

Anybody done the tough slogging through the process to rough out a timeframe?

Without any research beyond memory of what I've read, the state can drag on production of evidence for 15 days, and it can drag out the immunity hearing process as well.

Corey is going to want to slow walk from here on out.

[Chubby]

I agree with derwill re plea bargains and Jane re no chance of a fair trial, although if Corey had been less biased, and asked for prayers for the Zimmerman family as well, I might have more hope of the fair trial

[cboldt]

-- A plea bargain when there appears to be an objectively solid case of self defense because the defendant is not in a financial position to bear the costs of going to the trial that shouldn't happen makes a travesty of our justice system. --

It would be a travesty if it was done to a wealthy person. Except Bloomberg and Corzine.

[Cecil Turner]

ISTR that his gun had jammed . . .

This is based on an interpretation of a second-hand unsourced police account. I wouldn't give it much weight . . . yet.

[dublindave]

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibits the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false

Exactly.The situation never rose to meet the required standard.

[Jay]

What about the witness, cited in NYT, that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin?

There is no such witness.

You not being able to understand that Zimmerman was standing over Martin after Martin was dead, isn't the same as what you said, points to you being an idiot.

It does not point to a fact.

[cboldt]

I wonder if O'Mara is trying to get the immunity hearing removed from Seminole County. I assume that is the case, on news reports that he is requesting a change of venue, but the news reports all report in terms of a trial.

[Thomas Collins]

I agree, cboldt, that the case won't be dismissed on the ground that Zimmerman can't get a fair trial anywhere. I don't happen to think he can, but it won't be dismissed on that ground. I think it should be dismissed on the self-defense ground, even with the lower evidentiary burden on the State of Florida applying to the hearing.

[MarkO]

As a purely political move, I would prefer that Zimmerman goes out on bail and the case lingers until after the election so that Obama cannot use it to stoke the racial fires.

[Jim Ryan]

wasn't enough room for the gun's action to work.

Ouch. If so, that should have left a very painful bruise somewhere, for instance Z's chest.

[Jay]

non-bondable offenses are set by Florida law, and 2nd Degree murder is one of them. So the defense will ask for an Arthur Hearing.
At the hearing, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great. At that point we'll get some idea of Corey's evidence.

[PDinDetroit]

RC - IIRC, the pistol Zimmerman used is a Keltec PF-9 (Single Stack 9mm). The grip on these is short and not easy to hold onto (I did not like the one I tried). It would have been easy to "limp-wrist" it or not have enough room for the action to cycle in a "Close Quarters Engagement". One can only hope that those who carry Semi-Auto Pistols for Self-Defense practice Failure Mode/Clearing Drills, especially one-handed.

[Janet]

James D. @ 11:12 is exactly right.

Would someone please refresh my memory - what happens next after the jury is hung?

"I believe the mob does the same to Zimmerman."

Heartbreakingly true, Rob.

[Rob Crawford]

This is based on an interpretation of a second-hand unsourced police account. I wouldn't give it much weight . . . yet.

True.

[cboldt]

-- At the hearing, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great. At that point we'll get some idea of Corey's evidence. --

All she has to do is again pretend that there was no altercation - just ignore all the evidence that suggests the possibility of self defense. O'Mara is at a disadvantage, having not yet developed the details of his defense.

Unarmed victim, minor, armed man, armed man admits possession of firearm and discharge, death by gunshot. That's it your honor, murder 2 with weapons enhancer.

[rse]

cboldt-my 1st year criminal law prof was representing the lead defendant in the case I cannot think of now but someone will supply it. They massacred a whole family in south Georgia and there were jury members who knew the family. They refused to move the trial because they wanted the satisfaction of trying the murderers. Awful facts but the courts eventually ruled that everyone had to be retried despite no questions as to guilt.

Delayed the executions by at least 10 years.

[cboldt]

Sad story rse.

I was wondering if O'Mara isn't thinking that the judges in Seminole would not give a fair hearing. He can't say that directly, of course, but if he wants the immunity hearing out of Seminole, he wants that for a reason.

[rse]

cboldt-but the wealthy person is simply left with less money from the fight. Without money GZ may have to serve time no jury would require. Literally paying in incarcerated time when there is no legal crime.

[NK]

Appalled-- the State overcharged; there's no way --based on the public evidence-- to make out a reckless 2nd Degree murder charge at trial. I hope, the purpose of the overcharge was to ONE: show that Corey is treating this case just like when she charges gangbangers, and second, to leave room for a manslaughter plea deal after the immunity motion is denied. We'll see.

[Steve]

"... All she has to do is again pretend that there was no altercation - just ignore all the evidence that suggests the possibility of self defense. O'Mara is at a disadvantage, having not yet developed the details of his defense.

Unarmed victim, minor, armed man, armed man admits possession of firearm and discharge, death by gunshot. That's it your honor, murder 2 with weapons enhancer.
... "

this would imply that any person who shoots an unarmed person has the burden or proof to show they fired in self defense.

[Steve]

Will the autopsey show that Martin had been punching someone, or otherwise striking something with his fists minutes before his death?

[cboldt]

Would a manslaughter plea deal be a just result?

[cboldt]

-- this would imply that any person who shoots an unarmed person has the burden or proof to show they fired in self defense. --

Well, they do. And I don't have a problem with that.

[Tom Maguire]

Nitpicky, but the relevant statutory provision is 776.012, not 776.013. Same end result.

Thanks, I just re-linked to 776. The 2005 revisions are sprinkled in several sections and I am sure to miss something.

What about the witness, cited in NYT, that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin?

Ms. Cutcher, who heard an argument, then a gunshot, then ran out and saw Zimmerman on top of a dead, face-down Martin?

I sort of figure that if Martin had been shot in the back the Sanford PD would have noticed. Maybe not.

From the Miami Herald:

“This was not self-defense,” Cutcher said. “We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting.”

She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window. Seconds later, they dashed out to find a boy face down on the ground and a man standing over him, a foot on each side of the body on the ground, with his hands pinning the shooting victim down.

“I asked him, ‘What’s happening here? What’s going on?’ ” said Cutcher’s friend, Selma Mora Lamilla. “The third time, I was indignant, and he said, ‘just call the police.’ Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: ‘Oh man, I messed up.’ ”

The women, who were the first on the scene, said they saw Zimmerman pacing back and forth.

“I know what I heard. I heard a cry and a shot,” Mora said. “If there was a fight, it did not happen here where the boy was shot. I would have heard it, as this all happened right outside my open window.”

The women think there may well have been a physical altercation between the two, but it must have taken place in a different spot, where Zimmerman perhaps had a chance to compose himself and draw his weapon.

What they didn't hear is pretty impressive, considering the 911 tape with a gunshot.

And what they didn't see was any fight that might explain Zimmerman's bruises.

They did see an aftermath; maybe Zimmerman was standing when he shot Martin, maybe he was on the ground and rolled the body off of himself - they have no real idea, do they?

Send better witnesses.

[NK]

Steve@1209-- personally I think as a social question, shooting an unarmed person should be a big deal, and a trial should be the right way to decide self-defense. The State should only let shooters go uncharged in the most clearcut cases-- house breakins, carjackings, robberies, domestic violance cases, rape, protecting a child etc. 2 men in a fight? for me, a trial is almost always going to be needed. I think some of the comments here that GZ shoots and walks no questions asked, are just off the wall IMO.

[Rick Ballard]

I believe the Holder butt kiss of Sharpton yesterday sealed the end of the race baiter component of this affair. The Martin family shift to 'accident' plus their release of additional photos indicates that they understand the damage done to their brand by their son's twitter antics and the facebook photos. The info released by the SPD was exemplary to all PDs for artful butt covering. The fact that it acted as a seeming exoneration of Zimmerman was a byproduct.

The MFM will now take a page from Emily Litella as George Zimmerman contemplates the reason why even an innocent man is ill advised to consider agents of the state as other than noisome and potentially very dangerous.

[Ignatz]

--Would a manslaughter plea deal be a just result?--

Not with the evidence we have now.
If there's more, maybe.

[Ignatz]

--Send better witnesses.--

I hope those two aren't the reed Corey is hanging her charges on.

[NK]

Would a manslaughter plea deal be a just result?
Posted by: cboldt

cboldt-- I don't do 'just' cause reality is hard enough. I said in 2 earlier comments that GZ/O'Mera will be begging the State for the manslaughter2d plea, and I believe the stumbling block will be that prick Holder refusing to waive Federal charges. We'll see.

[narciso]

Yesh, and the police report counteracts their own subsequent statement, curious that, there
was no fight what did they think was going on,

[Mom]

This case reminds of a very similar one...with a surprisingly different outcome. LUN

[Clarice]

NK, so the deal is protect yourself and live to be bankrupted and put through the ordeal of a criminal trial or let yourself be killed outright? Having seen enough of the corrupt criminal system , the second choice is what I'd advise. Just get it over with.

[Danube of Thought]

"What about the witness, cited in NYT, that saw Zimmerman on top of Martin?"

An honest interlocutor would have included in that question the fact that the witness did not see anything before the firing of the fatal shot, after which it would be normal to see the shooter in a position superiot to that of the decedent. But we have long known that bubu is not an honest interlocutor, and is not very bright.

If Appalled is keeping score, I'll stand on my record of having consistently said that I do not know enough of the evidence to make a determination as to whether a charge should be filed. I have also maintained, and do maintain, that on the evidence publicized to date I cannot see proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But we should learn much more about the evidence in three weeks or so.

[Tom Maguire]

It's not worth cluttering up the threads arguing with these jerks.

Excellent point. Their potential value is in saving us a dumpster dive at DKos and bringing the lib talking points to our doorstep. But geez, send better talking points.

As to the argument that we don't know all the facts, well, yeah. But one fact we do know is that the local cops and DA never charged in three weeks.

So even though we don't know all the evidence, such as the forensics, to believe they are decisive you have to believe either:

(a) the key lab work took more than three weeks to come back (maybe.)

(b) the Sanford PD or DA was in the tank for Zimmerman. Well, sure, grab the tinfoil.

As to (a), if Martin had been shot in the back I think the locals would have noticed even without high-tech forensic reporting.

But suppose (!) that on Feb 26 they observe a surprising lack of gunshot residue on Martin, considering he was supposed to have been shot at point blank range. Still, gunpowder on a gray hoody? Who can say?

Three weeks later the lab comes back swearing Martin was nowhere near the gun that went off. OK, book Zimmerman.

Whether a lab test would take that long, I have no idea. It never does on CSI or NCIS, but I understand that Abbey is fictional.

Or maybe there are plenty of witnesses who *don't* want to audition for a reality show (Ms. Cutcher looked good for one) and have talked to the police but not CNN. OK, why are they convincing now but not six weeks ago? No idea.

I do think the Sanford PD would have delivered some self-serving leaks about key evidende they had dug up, if they had any. As to Ms. Corey? She doesn't need facts, she is a media darling who prayed with the sweet Martin family.

[Ignatz]

--I said in 2 earlier comments that GZ/O'Mera will be begging the State for the manslaughter2d plea..--

How are people so sure of what is going to happen or others are going to do?
I'm not a lawyer but I could have put myself through law school four or five time for what I've spent on them and I've probably got as many hours as I would have in law school in trials, depositions, etc.
There is no more unpredictable place on the planet than the "justice" system and quite often no more lawless one.
If you think watching the law made is a sausage factory try being on the receiving end of its application.