The End Is Near?

Here is an odd announcement:

SANFORD, Fla. -

State Attorney Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, announced on Tuesday night that she will hold a news conference sometime within the next three days.

In a memo from her office, Corey said she will release new information regarding the investigation into Martin's death, but no specifics were provided.

The new information might be charges, and yes, she might well announce in advance the timing of that ppress conference.  And since it would ruin the suspense, she might label the press conference as being devoted to 'new information' rather than to 'charges'.

On the other hand, this might be just what she would do if she were announcing no charges.

TIMING IS EVERYTHNG: Commenter 'cboldt' notes the deliberate uncertainty about time and place and suggests it is flash mob management:

The media will be notified three hours in advance of the news conference as to when and where it will be held -- either Jacksonville or Sanford.

That strongly suggests that Friday won't be the day, although reasoning inductively can get tricky here.

And in response, 'Chubby' wonders whether she would be worried about flash mobs if she planed to announce charges.

BE COOL: Writing at CNN, Alan Dershowitz reviews the publicly available evidence, caveats that with the point that the forensics may support or rebut Zimmerman, and urges calm:

(CNN) -- On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.

...

All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don't yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.

All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.

Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is "immune from prosecution," that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.

So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The special prosecutor indicts; the judge does or doesn't grant immunity; if he doesn't, the jury acquits.

Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.

So much authority lowering the public's expectations!  Yesterday it was the Times explaining that an ethical prosecutor really ought to clear the "reasonable doubt" threshold in her own heart, even though the law requires the lower "probable cause" to charge.

Comments

[Chubby]

or perhaps just the end of the beginning.

[cboldt]

She gave a 72 hour window, with a 3 hour heads up. That means she could announce today, with a 3 hour heads up. She also noted two different options for location of the announcement, and the selection of which city would host the announcement would be disclosed in that 3 hours heads-up.

She also said that space would be limited, so as to be able to maintain security.

All designed to limit the ability of the mob to mobilize on site.

As the 72 hour window gets smaller, the mob has less difficulty creating a presence in both locations, in anticipation.

[Danube of Thought]

Dershowitz is always worth reading. He weighs in on this matter at the LUN.

[Danube of Thought]

Chubby, a belated thanks for your kind comment the other day.

The trip has been wonderful.

[cboldt]

Dersh also makes assumptions that are contrary to the evidence. He's built his thesis around speculation created by and reinforced by a mendacious press.

He's got the law approximately right, but speculates that "following" constitutes provocation.

[Cecil Turner]

Dershowitz is always worth reading.

Good analysis, but a couple of obvious issues with the "facts," resulting in some GIGO. I'll give him the speculation about voice analysis (which could cut both ways, though he doesn't consider that), but he leaves the rails here:

. . . an unarmed black teenager lies dead at the hand of an armed Hispanic man who ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the "suspect," and who may have -- and this too is forensically unclear -- uttered a racial epithet while chasing him.

There's no evidence for the first contention ("ignored a dispatcher's advice"), and anyone hearing "coons" on that tape is trying to, IMNSHO. Still, he notes the fact-driven nature of the issues, and caveats the results.

[cboldt]

The bias and errors in Dersh's piece are numerous. He substitutes "stand your ground" for "self defense" in the law; has Zimmerman ignoring dispatch and endeavoring to "engage" the suspicious person; he implies a possibility of Zimmerman "following and harassing," where all accounts have Martin speaking first.

It's interesting that he mentions waste of judicial resources. The judges in Corey's jurisdiction notice the increased workload she brings. IIRC, at least one has complained about it - likely in order to obtain additional judicial resources, not to say that Corey is charging improvidently.

[Tom Maguire]

Great intel from cboldt both on Dershowitz and on the flash mob prevention. Reasoning backwards, if "72 hours" means Wed, Thur or Fri, Fri is out. For inductive reasoners, that means Thur must be out as well, which means it must be today, which means today is out.

A different math school would say that Fri is a low probability after weighting for likelihood of flash mobs and any benefits of delay. But since Friday is at least possible, we can't inductively exclude all three days, and thereby prove the announcement was already made. OK I digress.

Dershowitz gets in cboldt's face with this, BTW:

The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.

All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.

Ethically, her course is clear is she lacks confidence in clearing a "reasonable doubt" hurdle. But practically?

[iwanabeanon]

I think cboldt's analysis is correct. There will be no indictment. Also the announcement will require that reporters have a valid drivers License as ID isn't that......raaaaacist?

[Chubby]

if she is going to say something that will appease the mob, why are they taking precautions against the mob?

[Belarus Bytes]

Assuming that Zimmerman is in fact somewhere outside of Florida, was in communication with Corey, and given the 72-hour window, the conclusion I draw is that he is being given time to return to Florida and surrender to authorities before the announcement of charges is made.

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting analysis from Tim Lynch (H/T Insty) :

When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher's statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his "suspect," he was acting outside and beyond the Stand Your Ground law. Other legal principles enter the picture and those principles run against Zimmerman. By following Martin, Zimmerman's actions set up the perilous confrontation. Consequently, he will likely be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the law. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that punch will likely be considered the result of Zimmerman's provocation. Since Martin was unarmed, a gunshot in response to non-deadly force (fisticuffs) will probably be deemed beyond the bounds of normal self-defense. (The Florida legal system will have to consider all of the available evidence and ultimately determine Zimmerman's legal responsibility.)

I have a real hard time with practically all of that (esp. following=provoking) , but at least it's well-argued.

[rse]

To take us back to where this story was supposed to go before the facts got in the way and the duplicity could not be hidden, beyond the racial component I think this was another assault on the 2nd amendment. Like Fast and Furious.

At this point I am monitoring certain sites all over the world and there are lots of frustrated people who feel they are under active assault by politicians and funded bureaucrats in areas of personal autonomy that should be sacred from interference.

I cannot tell you how often people all over the world mention how lucky americans are to have the 2nd amendment. They even know its number and these are not sites having anything to do with guns.

I think this was viewed as a means of getting at SYG initially and that could begin a rollback in the perception of what is acceptable here. Instead we are having discussions on the active culture to teach single takedown punches.

[Cecil Turner]

But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

I'd think the next step is to evaluate the immunity claim.

[Chubby]

((DERSHOWITZ: All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?))

to me the above seems like a false dillemma; if she thinks that there is "reasonable doubt" doesn't that automatically preclude what appears as "probable cause"?

[cboldt]

I think Dersh has the charging hurdle about right, and I think his noting that the mob may demand an indictment against the prosecutor's best judgment is a good observation.

What I'm not finding in the evidence we have is probable cause that Zimmerman's use of force was unlawful. The evidence that results in probable cause is all speculation or fabrication.

I agree that in the universe of going to trial there are many cases, maybe all of them, where there is both probable cause and the ability to create reasonable doubt. If either is absent, there is no trial. Or the trial is just a formality (again, picture the defense unable to create any doubt at all).

When the defense can't produce probable cause to doubt whodunnit, it pleads guilty or some other legal theory like insanity, or mens rea (lack of criminal intent), leading to a lesser charge.

So, interesting to remark about the universe of cases, but we have here a particular case. What evidence can be used to produce probable cause that Zimmerman did NOT act in justified self defense? How do you make Zimmerman a liar? The police didn't find any, so they didn't even arrest him.

[cboldt]

-- if she is going to say something that will appease the mob, why are they taking precautions against the mob? --

Because the only question before the mob right now is whether the riot will be celebratory, or angry.

[NK]

JimmyK asked yesterday what could Corey say to justify an indictment given all the obvious doubt. Dersh pretty much summarizes -- she would say things like "this is not an ordinary case, an unarmed young man is dead":, "the right to carry a powerful firearm on the street brings a high duty to use it lawfully and responsibly", "the charge is 2nd degree manslaughter, this was not a premeditated or even reckless murder, this was an irresponsible and negligent killing" and finally " the State believes that these charges are true and will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that a jury will so find, the State trusts in the fairness and intelligence of juries" so on and so on. Dersh says the "nightmare" for prosecutors is to have clear probable cause but also reasonable doubt-- can the prosecutor charge? Please, does TomM drink moonshine and blog? They do it everyday-- people they are called prosecutors because they -- well -- prosecute. They are not exonerators. And "Special" Prosecutors, they really prosecute (hello Patrick Fitgerald). Yes Patrick Fitgerald-- did he have doubts about Libby's guilt? I'd bet Fitzgerald knew everyone was telling a bit of the truth and lying a bit-- so what did he do? he indicted and convicted, that's the bias of the professional prosecutor. That's why I have assumed that Corey will indict, unless she has some unknown bit of exonerating evidence. We'll see soon. Resume tea leave reading.

[Jim Ryan]

Perhaps the announcement is that Zimmerman has a black great grandparent or two. Then the mob will go home and no longer have an issue with the killing.

[cboldt]

-- if she thinks that there is "reasonable doubt" doesn't that automatically preclude what appears as "probable cause"? --

Not at all. If the evidence supports suspicion, then there is probable cause. The evidence might be strong, so there is less doubt about the theory of events, or it might be weak. If the evidence is strong enough, but not dispositive (there is room for doubt, depending on the reliability and credibility of testimony and evidence), the case goes before a finder of fact, there is a trial.

Said another way, the existence of uncertainty (the absence of certainty) does not preclude having suspicion.

[BubuDublinKathy]

The evidence that results in probable cause is all speculation or fabrication.

That's good enough for me!

[NK]

Tea Leave reading: Belarus' is very logical.

Mob Security? cboldt-- the Crump/family/hustler reaction to a charge of 2nd degree manslaughter would be outrage -- and then the screaming and pushing starts. They have told the mob (they may even believe) that GZ stalked and hunted down TMartin and killed him in cold blood. That's their narrative-- when the State announces that there was a mutual fight, and that GZ had no lawful right to use a gun, the Crump/family/hustlers will scream whitewash, because the odds of a big payday just went down. Security would be needed.

[cboldt]

-- Patrick Fitgerald-- did he have doubts about Libby's guilt? I'd bet Fitzgerald knew everyone was telling a bit of the truth and lying a bit-- so what did he do? he indicted and convicted, that's the bias of the professional prosecutor. --

Fitzgerald had about as ironclad case as could be had. I agree he knew the evidence wasn't all metaphysical truth, people make honest mistakes.

But Libby set himself up by misleading investigators about Libby's awareness that Plame worked at the CIA. He claimed he didn't know - repeatedly. And there was strong evidence that he did know.

So, what evidence does Corey have that rebuts Zimmerman's account that he was reasonably in fear for his life? What evidence does she have that makes Zimmerman a liar?

[Extraneus]

Because the only question before the mob right now is whether the riot will be celebratory, or angry.

One would hope some of the inciters are trampled regardless, microphones in hand.

"Sir, can you describe what you're feel... AGGGGGHHHH!"

[Slowjoe]

My reading of this is that if she had made a decision to charge, she'd hold the press conference in Sanford.

The reason for the window is so that security can be arranged. The reason for two venues is to reduce the number of "professional agitators" in either location. The alternative is that she doesn't know herself whether she will charge. I rule that out.

Location will be Jackson, there will be no charges. Timing will probably be around 11am Wednesday.

There, that's my bracket. What's yours?

[Cecil Turner]

What I can't feature is a finding that Zimmerman doesn't have immunity, followed by a not-guilty verdict. If the judge rules against immunity, is there any way the jury can find him not guilty (except by overruling the judge)? Can the judge just punt the decision to the jury? ("No," if I read the statute correctly.) And can Zimmerman appeal the immunity ruling if it goes against him?

[narciso]

No, from the Armitage example, Fitz should have known that disclosure of Plame's identity
was not sacrosanct, but he went after Libby and Rove, anyways, and he committed an inquisitorial act with Miller.

[NK]

cboldt-- I agree that Libby lied, but so did all the other witneses, maybe even the FBI note takers. I don't mean re-litigate the Libby Case here-- my point is, given the mess -- Fitzgerald indicted, he didn't give Libby a pass. That's for the jury to decide; that's the bias of a prosecutor. My personal hope is that Corey's intensive 4 week investigation has turned up ironclad evidence exonerating GZ, because that is what it would take to avoid indictment.

[cboldt]

-- I'd think the next step is to evaluate the immunity claim. --

And that amounts to a sufficiency of the evidence determination, by the judge. The prosecutor has to have sufficient evidence to articulate how Zimmerman's account could be false, in a way that leads to finding Zimmerman guilty of a crime.

[myiq2xu]

If they announce on Friday afternoon that there will be no charges then by the time the rioting starts (assuming it does) government offices will be closed.

[cboldt]

-- If the judge rules against immunity, is there any way the jury can find him not guilty? --

Sure. That's an easy possibility. The judges determination amounts to finding enough evidence that can be read either way (not a question of strength of evidence, just presence of it), to justify putting the competing accounts before a jury. The state will have an account where Zimmerman was not justified, and Zimmerman will assert he reasonably was in fear for his life.

The jury hears the evidence, and decides it believes Zimmerman, and that it is reasonable to be in fear for your life in (whatever scenario the jury finds most likely happened).

[DebinNC]

Dersh..:A judge must decide whether the defendant is "immune from prosecution," that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense

I wonder how many judges will line up to make themselves and their families a target. Even retired judges who "rule wrongly" won't be exempt.

[NK]

narc-- I had forgotten about Miller. Prosecutors have a natural bias for prosecuting, and when they are stiffed by witnesses, they an be downright vindictive. And people believe prosecutors agonize over indicting because a jury may find reasonable doubt?

[cboldt]

-- Location will be Jackson, there will be no charges. Timing will probably be around 11am Wednesday. --

Did you mean Thursday? I think that's about right.

[NK]

why thursday?

[cboldt]

-- my point is, given the mess -- Fitzgerald indicted, he didn't give Libby a pass. --

My point was that Fitzgerald had a pretty strong case, based on the evidence. I do not see a strong case, in fact I don't see ANY case, for Corey.

Not saying she won't charge, just saying I have not seen any articulation of the evidence PROPERLY in the context of the law, that supports charging.

If the parameters of charging including working outside of the established legal framework for assault and self-defense, or include the use of allegation unsupported by evidence, then of course anything can happen.

[Melinda Romanoff]

My bracket?

Thursday, 8 AM, Jacksonville.

Because alarms aren't usually turned on, for certain social sets.

[Danube of Thought]

No matter what Corey does, this young man can never have a normal life--or even feel safe and secure--as long as Al Sharpton is alive. If he has family in Peru, he might give that a thought.

Very surprised by Dershowitz's "ignored the order" language. There's no evidence of that, and the 911 tape suggests the contrary.

[cboldt]

Thursday, because if it was going to be 11AM today, she's missed the self-imposed 3 hour announcement deadline.

[Jane (where is Jon Corzine?)]

I don't see, how under any circumstance a Judge could guarantee a fair trial given all this per-trial prejudice. The prosecutor could charge and kick that can to the judge.

Let the mob go after NBC for destroying their chance at revenge.

[NK]

cboldt- now I have to disagree. You say-- "in fact I don't see ANY case" Not ANY? a guy carrying a 9mm kills an unarmed kid on the property where the kid is living, and there's no possible case of ANY crime? not ANY? I'm sorry, that's not reasonable-- no offense but that's almost as unrealistic as the nonsense that GZ premeditately murdered TMartin.

[fdcol63]

She'll probably make the announcement from St. Petersburg, where it will be easier to choke off mob access into the venue if it becomes necessary.

[NK]

Florida questions-- IF GZ is 'charged' where does the State file the charge? Would an arrest warrant issue? if arrested, when would there be a bail hearing?

[Melinda Romanoff]

fdcol-

If we're going down that road, I'll pick Gasparilla Island.

[cboldt]

-- Not ANY? a guy carrying a 9mm kills an unarmed kid on the property where the kid is living, and there's no possible case of ANY crime? --

You're describing the posture when the investigator arrives on the scene. The only evidence is what you just presented. But we have more than that, now. Corey knows, and the police agreed, BTW, that this is a case that rings of justified use of deadly force in self defense. We have evidence.

What I don't see is evidence that undercuts Zimmerman's claim that just before the firearm was discharged, he was reasonably in fear for his life.

Sorry I didn't make that clear over the course of my last 50 or so posts.

[narciso]

Fitz has given more consideration to Radler, who was as big a crook as Black, and didn't touch any of the Hollinger directors, who at the very least did not practice due diligence,
he used Rezko to go after some small fry Chicago pols.

[Bruce]

she would say things like "this is not an ordinary case, an unarmed young man is dead":, "the right to carry a powerful firearm on the street brings a high duty to use it lawfully and responsibly", "the charge is 2nd degree manslaughter, this was not a premeditated or even reckless murder, this was an irresponsible and negligent killing" and finally " the State believes that these charges are true and will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that a jury will so find, the State trusts in the fairness and intelligence of juries" so on and so on. Dersh says the "nightmare" for prosecutors is to have clear probable cause but also reasonable doubt-- can the prosecutor charge?

Problem is that this is Florida that we are talking about, and the above "speech" ignores the critical element that there must also be probable cause to believe that the killing was not done in self-defense. In a lot of states, the prosecutor can just charge the manslaughter, and not worry at that point about the self-defense. If the defense doesn't make that claim, or if they don't introduce evidence to support it, then tough. Not the prosecutor's problem. Not so in Florida.

[fdcol63]

Melinda, maybe. I just think the Tampa/St. Pete area would have more LEO and riot control assets than a smaller community.

[cboldt]

Hannity: "Now, for a few weeks we have been pursuing an interview with Mr. Zimmerman to give him a chance to tell his side of the story. Now, yesterday, I was contacted by an individual that we in fact believe was George Zimmerman. He reached out to me, we spoke on the phone about his case and I agreed not to report on the contents of that conversation. That's it. I know nothing about his relationship with his now former attorneys."

[Melinda Romanoff]

Just thinking what one cruiser on a skinny little bridge would be able to do.

Because the boat thingie just wouldn't happen.

[Tom Maguire]

When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher's statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his "suspect,"

Doesn't he say "OK" and head back to the SUV? Or so he claims, IIRC.

Good point about mob security.

[NK]

Bruce-- what stops a florida prosecutor from indicting because -- in their view-- there is no doubt that using deadly force was not "reasonable " as required by statute and self-defense is not available to the killer?

[NK]

cboldt-- did that idiot hannity just make himself the subject of a witness subpoena? Is he going to be the next judith miller?

[narciso]

Of course when one relies on these decisions for Precedent, Dhimmi Durbin compares you to
Nazis and the Khmer Rouge;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814

[narciso]

I don't think we are talking about the same type of prosecutor, NK, meanwhile, Fitz had Ali Mohammed in for question, in '93, and then let him go, where he subsequently planned
the Embassy attacks, and from the December '98
PDB, was in contact with at least the early
9/11 planning.

[Melinda Romanoff]

narciso, put this one in the "I'm Shocked!" file.

A collective gasp would be appropriate, given the circumstances.

[boris]

in their view-- there is no doubt that using deadly force was not "reasonable "

It would not be reasonable to have CC law with SYG and exclude the reasonable use of deadly force against "unarmed" assailants. That may be a difficult pill for many to swallow but there is no way around it.

As Charlie pointed out ... that's why they call it the equalizer.

[cboldt]

-- what stops a florida prosecutor from indicting because -- in their view-- there is no doubt that using deadly force was not "reasonable " as required by statute and self-defense is not available to the killer? --

Nothing. Corey has done exactly that. A woman shot her husband after he slapped her. The woman asserted self defense. Corey charged her on the basis that shooting in response to a slap is not the sort of proportional use of force that the law admits.

So, when the force is deadly force, the threshold to justify resort to that force is to be reasonably in fear of serious injury or death (and a few other things, not applicable here).

Corey has to use evidence to upset Zimmerman's account. He described the predicament, the 911 calls establish a duration, eyewitnesses, etc. -- where in all of that is evidence that can reasonably be credible, that has Zimmerman in a superior position when the firearm discharges?

[DebinNC]

Chutzpah alert: GZ's low-life ex-legal advisors were on NBC this morning.

[cboldt]

-- did that idiot hannity just make himself the subject of a witness subpoena? Is he going to be the next judith miller? --

No, because the prosecutor has enough evidence to make her decision. In the event of a criminal charge, Hannity won't be a witness.

[narciso]

OK the Arabian part surprised me, a little,
Egyptians, Jordanians even Syrians, in part because they alternately held control of those
lands,

[Bruce]

When Zimmerman made the fateful decision to disregard the police dispatcher's statement to await the arrival of the police and not to follow his "suspect," he was acting outside and beyond the Stand Your Ground law. Other legal principles enter the picture and those principles run against Zimmerman. By following Martin, Zimmerman's actions set up the perilous confrontation. Consequently, he will likely be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the law. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that punch will likely be considered the result of Zimmerman's provocation. Since Martin was unarmed, a gunshot in response to non-deadly force (fisticuffs) will probably be deemed beyond the bounds of normal self-defense.

Not really that well reasoned. He starts out just fine, but following someone is not provocation for assault, esp. in this sort of situation, and the author does not know if Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life or great bodily injury. It wasn't just fisticuffs, but being on the ground with a taller, most likely better fit, man on top of you beating your head into the pavement, and possibly telling you that he is going to kill you. And, there is the possibility that the gun came into play only when Martin saw it and grabbed for it. Something like that.

The problem is that the only people who really have enough evidence to make any sort of rational pronouncements on the subject are the special prosecutor and the police. They have everyone's testimony, and, esp. Zimmerman's long almost contemporaneous interview right after it happened. Plus all the forensic evidence, including the extent of Zimmerman's injuries.

My guess is that if it were easy to legally charge Zimmerman, it would have been done so already. Which means to me that there is not strong evidence to support probable cause that the killing was not in self defense. That is because there is immense political pressure to charge Zimmerman and let the jury decide, and the special prosecutor has not done so, at least not yet.

But, the special prosecutor has not said that she won't file charges, which says to me that it isn't clear cut in the other direction either.

If I were to guess what was holding this decision up, I would think that it was the question of whether Zimmerman, having his head beat into the pavement, was reasonably in imminent fear for his life or great bodily injury. And, maybe if there was a fight for the gun.

We shall see shortly.

[Belarus Bytes]

I don't understand why you would publicly announce a 72-hour window if you were doing this to put security in place. It seems to me that you would quietly give a heads-up to the appropriate agencies on the where and when of the news conference so that the appropriate personnel and resources could be put in place without drawing attention.

[cboldt]

-- I don't understand why you would publicly announce a 72-hour window if you were doing this to put security in place. --

I don't understand that either, unless she's being helpful to the press, so reporters who are far away have an opportunity to come to FL to cover the announcement. She could have just given 3 hours notice, or even less.

[narciso]

I don't think Stan d your Ground really plays into it either, but we see how quickly 'so called libertarians' like Lynch fall into place, when the mob closes in, sheesh;

[Melinda Romanoff]

narciso-

I would take two things away from the admission. The first being that there may very well be historical Palestinians by birth. The second would be that a lot of money is being given to a golem, as it were.

[Threadkiller]

I predict the State Attorney's press conference will be timed with this:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-jersey-obama-ballot-challenge-not.html?m=1

Of course that is the cynic in me.

[NK]

"Hannity won't be a witness." sounds right-- so Hannity is just another grandstanding media hound. got it.

[cboldt]

-- If I were to guess what was holding this decision up, I would think that it was the question of whether Zimmerman, having his head beat into the pavement, was reasonably in imminent fear for his life or great bodily injury. And, maybe if there was a fight for the gun. --

Corey also has to address the sufficiency of the Sanford PD investigation. That's another layer of witnesses; and basically a case all it's own.

[Bruce]

Bruce-- what stops a florida prosecutor from indicting because -- in their view-- there is no doubt that using deadly force was not "reasonable " as required by statute and self-defense is not available to the killer?

Nothing, I think. And, even some doubt is probably ok. But, I think that there has to be some articulable evidence supporting this.

As I said in my last post, I think that the likeliest way to get charges filed.

[Danube of Thought]

Been cruising the Danube since last Friday; links often drop suddenly. One I just lost in mid-sentence was to an April 6 Reuters item saying GZ had taken--and passed--a voice-stress test on the night of the shooting. Is this new?

Interesting, though inadmissible. Was it a factor in the decision to let him go?

[narciso]

Yes, they are Bedu, they traveled all over
the region, now I don't think that fellow intended that point, he was trying to seek
leverage with the new regime.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 13 at Raz today.

Tied with Romney.

[cboldt]

DoT - the voice stress test was new information. I'm sure that if that had shown signs of lying, that would have supported an arrest even though no other evidence contradicted Zimmerman's account. That is, failing the voice stress test, and that factor alone, would likely justify having probable cause to doubt his account was truthful. Doesn't get into court in the case in chief, but it would justify arrest and detention.

[Belarus Bytes]

I don't understand that either, unless she's being helpful to the press, so reporters who are far away have an opportunity to come to FL to cover the announcement.

Since I'm not in the country, I've been relying on JOM comments for my understanding of this story but I was under the impression that the press, both print and media, already had representatives on the scene so this idea really doesn't make sense to me either.

[Bruce]

Corey has to use evidence to upset Zimmerman's account. He described the predicament, the 911 calls establish a duration, eyewitnesses, etc. -- where in all of that is evidence that can reasonably be credible, that has Zimmerman in a superior position when the firearm discharges?

I don't think that is it at all. I don't think that there will be any evidence that Zimmerman was ever in the superior (aggressor) position. We shall see.

Rather, I think that the issue is that it is worse than your wife being slapped, but the question is, how much worse? Would a reasonable person in Zimmerman's shoes that night, with his head being beaten into the pavement (or whatever the evidence shows was going on at the time) have had an imminent fear of death or great bodily injury?

I think that it was likely that Zimmerman had such a fear. I think that the problem is whether it was reasonable.

[narciso]

In general, ethnic definitions are rather flexible, in that part of the world wasn't Arafat's uncle Circassian, the original Mohammed Ali, Albanian,

[Threadkiller]

Cynical is as cynical does. The judge in NJ has already decided.

" In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to appeal.....

.....But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m.(4/10/12), he called Apuzzo to tell him that the Obama campaign had prevailed on both points. Said the judge, according to Apuzzo:

"As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii."

Apuzzo could not explain how Judge Masin could rule that way, after observing in open court that neither Obama nor his surrogates had shown that he was born in Hawaii.

Within two hours, according to a deadline that Masin gave him, Apuzzo filed an exception to Masin’s ruling. Apuzzo took exception to the following:

1. Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.

2. Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.

3. The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.

4. The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.

Apuzzo plans to appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He earlier told CNAV that he was ready to argue before the State and even United States Supreme Courts if he had to."

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/nj-judge-admits-obama-hasnt-provided.html?m=1

Back to your regularly scheduled unscheduled presser.

[NK]

IF-- IF, there is an indictment, I really would not want to be the EMT who treated GZ on the scene-- their statements and actions on the scene, will be micro-scrutinized -- well here for instance. What did they see? was GZ's cut life threatening? a serious injury? superficial? if it was serious, why didn't they hospitalize GZ? The EMT's observations are the most forensic evidence of GZ's 'reasonable' state of mind in that fight. It's critically important, and that EMT has to explain it. And please don't be so glib as to say all he has to do is 'tell the truth'; the pressure of public scrutiny is no easy thing.

[narciso]

Speaking of which, why did we save their butts again, last time, in the LUN;

[cboldt]

-- I think that it was likely that Zimmerman had such a fear. I think that the problem is whether it was reasonable. --

One of the accounts that is floating around has Martin uttering a death threat upon seeing the pistol. If Martin is attempting to disarm Zimmerman, while uttering a death threat, the problem of finding reasonable fear is less difficult to resolve.

[Danube of Thought]

"...possibly telling you that he is going to kill you. And, there is the possibility that the gun came into play only when Martin saw it and grabbed for it. Something like that."

One thing I would be very interested to know is, at what point in GZ's interview did he first refer to the death threat and the exposure of the weapon? If that stuff didn't come up very early on, it can be pretty effectively impeached. And there's no way it gets in unless he takes the stand.

If anyone finds anything about the voice-stress test, please pass it on.

[Extraneus]

unless she's being helpful to the press

And why would she want to do that?

If she's planning to charge him, being helpful to the press would indicate grandstanding. If she's not charging him, it might imply that she wants to get her message out to the public over the noise that's sure to follow.

I'm taking this as evidence of the latter, based on what I understand to be her no-nonsense reputation.

[cboldt]

-- Would a reasonable person in Zimmerman's shoes that night, with his head being beaten into the pavement (or whatever the evidence shows was going on at the time) have had an imminent fear of death or great bodily injury? --

While the formulation I am about to describe doesn't track the statutory language, it's another way to look at the case. Would the jury find it reasonable to use deadly force to stop a person who was beating you, slamming your head into the pavement, and showed no sign of letting up? That skips the "fear" part of the equation, and just asks the jury to use introspection about their "rights" in the same situation.

[narciso]

It's Reuters so consider the source;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/06/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-blotter-idUS214913966420120406

[Danube of Thought]

"(Reuters) — George Zimmerman’s defense team is growing, suggesting that he’s planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.

"Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?

"They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.

"A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual’s voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.

"This technology is not unique to Sanford. The National Institute for Truth Verification, a manufacturer of the technology, claims that over 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies use their product. They also claim to have trained U.S. Military personnel."

[Melinda Romanoff]

Steadman to conduct a thorough, "independent" review of TM's case.- Twitter

[NK]

Bruce/DoT's most recent comments get at why I assume there'll be an indictment. GZ's self-defense claim is buttressed by TMartin allegedly yelling I'll kill you and going for the 9mm. Who's the witness for that? If Corey has found no witness to corroborate that self-defense claim, then the only apparent eyewitnesses SEEM to say TMartin was on top of GZ and the EMT eyewitness account of GZ's injuries. I can't see how the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt -- there's tons of doubt, but how does a prosecutor not let a jury decide?

[centralcal]

Sticking up for Hannity (only a little bit). He says they had been trying to contact Zimmerman (as I am sure every media outlet was doing) and out of the blue Zimmerman contacts him.

Hannity didn't publicize this, Zimmermans media whore ex-lawyers did in the press conference and it was reported widely.

What was Hannity supposed to do once this info became so public? I think he did the right thing - said yeah, he was contacted, but refused to go further about what was said.

[narciso]

THanks, Don, who's candidate are you for again, facepalm;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/10/trump_blasts_ryan_budget_biggest_reason_why_gop_would_lose_in_2012.html

[NK]

Reuters? I'd take tea leave reading here over Reuters anyday.

[Danube of Thought]

My understanding of the prosecutor's challenge is this: "if I believe that no reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I must not charge him. Otherwise I am free to do so."

I believe that's the same test the judge applies in deciding a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, or a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

And I understand peoples' frustration with the use of "reasonable" in the law, but I've never seen any suggestions for substitutes.

[narciso]

He was probably just talking to Hannity, about how he feels at this moment, go all mighty, this is a human being who's not only
been forced out of his job, his college, a bounty has been put on his life, his parents
were threatened,

[narciso]

You know Mikey was more skeptical;

http://nation.foxnews.com/andrea-mitchell/2012/04/11/nbc-s-andrea-mitchell-suggests-mormons-are-racist

[Extraneus]

I know we have some tough hombres in some of these threads (who are probably still asleep at their parent's houses), but I haven't seen anyone try to describe the feeling of being punched in the nose and having one's head slammed on the ground.

First, the nose. Any person untrained in being beaten who has ever been punched in the nose (I'm excepting boxers, who are fairly used to taking these kind of shots), or has taken a sharp whack of any kind directly to the nose, knows that the immediate reaction is a kind of blindness that lasts for several seconds, during which one's eyes tear up and one's ears begin to ring.

It is very easy to be taken out with another punch or two while in this state, and trivial to be pushed to the ground. If you can survive the few seconds it takes to get your wits back, that's not the case.

If one was knocked to the ground during this few-second interval if blurry-ness, however, and felt one's head slammed down, the ringing would increase, and an immediate feeling of panic would ensue.

I think it's "reasonable" for a person to panic in that situation. I don't know if that's what happened to Zimmerman, but if it was, I wouldn't find his decision to pull the trigger unreasonable.

[cboldt]

-- I can't see how the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt -- there's tons of doubt, but how does a prosecutor not let a jury decide? --

It comes as no surprise, I'm sure, to find that self-defense killings are routinely no billed. So, ask what it is about that class of case (what is the nature of the evidence) that allows the prosecutor to allow the killer to be free without a trial to prove it.

I concede that being proned on your back, unable to move except by squirming, and having your head bashed against the pavement by a determined and angry adversary doesn't necessarily lead to fear of serious injury (at least not necessarily in the person being bashed); but I think it is risible to conclude that a jury, or the public, would be pleased with a prosecutor essentially asserting that if you use deadly force to extract yourself from that situation, I WILL PUT YOU ON TRIAL.

[NK]

A serious question for people who believe GZ; what if (a hypothetical) there is a witness who claims that they saw TMartin throw the first punch, knock GZ to the ground, sit down on GZ's torso, grab him by the shoulders and shake GZ's back and head to the ground 3-4 times, stop, and begin to rise up off of GZ, as TMartin was rising up off of GZ's torso, GZ grabs his pistol from his trouser waistband and shoots TMartin once in the chest. Is that ironclad 'reasonable' use of deadly force in self-defense?

[Another Bob]

NK, you seem to be arguing that GZ was obligated to sustain serious injuries. I think all that EMT stuff matters only to the degree it substantiates that GZ was attacked. The severity of the injuries won't matter as GZ ended the attack before his injuries became serious.

GZ's state of mind while being attacked, and it's 'reasonableness' are the issue.

[Cecil Turner]

Not really that well reasoned. He starts out just fine, but following someone is not provocation for assault, esp. in this sort of situation, and the author does not know if Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life or great bodily injury.

AFAICT, the law never defines "provoked"; and that's the only way I can see to bust Zimmerman's immunity. (In my non-lawyerly opinion, having someone trying--and well on the way to succeeding--to render you unconscious whilst you have a gun in your waistband is a slam-dunk on reasonable fear.) Again, don't agree with it, but it's the most reasonable articulation of the opposing side I've seen.

. . . an April 6 Reuters item saying GZ had taken--and passed--a voice-stress test on the night of the shooting. Is this new?

Clarice mentioned that last week (and referenced the new counsel's report, which I haven't seen). BTW, there's something basically wrong about DoT cruising the Danube.

[fdcol63]

Yeah, because for all GZ knew, TM was just getting into a better position to continue the pounding.