Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[Moonlight J]

Wholly irrelevant, but thanks for trying to misdirect again. You don't have to register or join an association to be a concerned citizen who chooses to keep an eye on the goings on in his neighborhood. Whether he was even part of a registered or non-registered neighborhood watch or not changes nothing with respect to the law in this case.

Look, we have VCOP's, Voluntary Citizens on Patrol, in my area and I hate them. They are always hassling me and calling the real cops when I have a poker game and some of my guests park illegally on our street or even in my driveway but across the sidewalk. Before this trial started, based on what little info I gleaned from the media simply because I couldn't avoid it because I live 50 miles away, I assumed Zimmerman was an overzealous, failed wannabe cop who abused his "authority" as a neighborhood watchperson. I'd seen it many times before. But I watched the trial, and the evidence does not support that at all.

I'm not here as a proponent or opponent of neighborhood watches, or gun control, or race relations, I have no political agenda in this thread. I just hate the ignorance and misinformation being spread, and the hate it breeds and inflames, and if it leads to Zimmerman's murder, a little bit of his blood will be on you.

Then what the fuck was he the captain of?

It's not misinformation to point out that he was a captain of a self-created group that could not take the time to register with the official neigbhorhood watch association under the National Sheriffs Association. When a person or a group doesn't want to associate with a larger group, it tends to be because they don't agree with their rules.

The guy got out of his vehicle to see where someone was going, emboldened by the firearm he had on his hip. If you're a concerned citizen worried enough about a person to call 911, you're not getting out of your car to track where that person went unarmed...you're going back to your castle. The tenant of any "watch" group is to report what they see. Wit the attitude GZ had with the dispatcher (these assholes), clearly just reporting it wasn't good enough for him.

[Moonlight J]

ETA: Assume for a minute there was no car involved. He was simply a guy walking through his neighborhood, keeping a closer eye on things than most people would because there had been a rash of crimes in the neighborhood, when he sees what he believes was a suspicious person. From that point everything occurs pretty much the same and he continues to walk in the direction he last saw Martin heading in an effort to maintain, or regain, the knowledge of his whereabouts. Getting out of the car is legally irrelevant to the case, he had every right to do so, neighborhood watch or not, registered neighborhood watch or not.

You can't do that.

Would Martin have come up and (allegedly) attacked the car that he thought was following him? If he were to have thrown the Skittles or the AZ tea at the car in frustration, would that have made GZ feel threatened enough to defend himself? GZ had the high ground in terms of safety and gave it up to make sure another "asshole" didn't get away.

[DJBeasties]

To me this is just the game of playing "court". This time the defense won. My feeling is he should be in jail but the law and the game played won it for GZ. OJ won his and we all knew that was court played well by Johnnie Cochran.

[Lucky]

Can I ask why people keep pointing to Zimmerman's not taking the stand as evidence of his guilt or that there is some reason he should have been compelled to have to take the stand when there is no legal reason he would be required to?

I get that people arent fans of Zimmerman, but if you are in that same spot I guarantee that none of you are taking the stand.

This is a very good point, and there are three issues really being raised here.

The first is clear...Zimmerman had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify, and he exercised that right. There is nothing wrong with that from a legal standpoint, and it was a good strategic move. Neither the judge nor the jury should infer anything or draw any conclusions from his failure to testify. It is not evidence of guilt or anything else.

The second issue is a little less clear. As people not involved in the case or responsible for making the hard decisions, may we nonetheless consider the fact that he didn't testify in determining how we feel about the case? Some feel (including me) that self-serving pretrial statements by the defendant are not as probative as sworn testimony, in court, and subject to cross-examination. This doesn't mean he was wrong in taking the Fifth. But it also runs contrary to some of those in this thread who think we must believe everything Zimmerman said outside of court as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I've been in the system for over 30 years. The story which comes out while the defendant is on the stand is almost always different in some ways from the statements made by the defendant before court.

The third issue, which is to me the most esoteric and the most interesting, involves the use of out-of-court statements in bolstering a justification (self-defense) claim. We have a right not to testify. And we have a right to claim self-defense. Some in the legal community believe, however, that exculpatory pretrial statements should not be admitted in a case where the defendant is going to plead the Fifth. I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this. I do believe very strongly that it will become a standard strategy in high-profile or high-dollar cases for defense lawyers to have their clients go on Oprah and tell their story. If the pretrial statement is admitted, then the client takes the Fifth. Tough question. The closest thing I know of now is this: If a defendant does take the stand in his own defense, he cannot thereafter avoid questions on cross-examination by taking the Fifth. By taking the stand, you waive the Fifth Amendment protection. One could argue that in this case Zimmerman had the advantage of both taking the stand and taking the Fifth. If you doubt that, look back at post after post of evidence which consisted of nothing more than pretrial statements by the defendant. So, are the Fifth Amendment and the justification defense sometimes at odds? There will probably be a few new Law Review articles about this.

[baldgriff]

Thanks Lucky -
Full disclosure here - I havent followed this as closely as others. That said the attorney locally that has discussed this at some length made reference that the Prosecution actually placed in the court record statements made by Mr Zimmerman that seemed to support his case. As such there was no need for Mr Zimmerman to testify as the Prosecution was making his case for him.

It just seems that the prosecution did themselves no favors by doing this (if I understand what he said correctly).

[Lucky]

Thanks Lucky -
Full disclosure here - I havent followed this as closely as others. That said the attorney locally that has discussed this at some length made reference that the Prosecution actually placed in the court record statements made by Mr Zimmerman that seemed to support his case. As such there was no need for Mr Zimmerman to testify as the Prosecution was making his case for him.

It just seems that the prosecution did themselves no favors by doing this (if I understand what he said correctly).

I agree with your local guy. I'm not sure why they would put those statements in, unless they were convinced the defense was going to be able to get them in on cross-exam of the state witnesses. I think you're right when you say the prosecution didn't help themselves there.

[chancellor]

From a blogger covering the Roderick Scott case: "Our state values victims over victors. It enshrines passivity over direct action to preempt or thwart criminal activity. It excuses the acts of teenaged thugs, revising history to absolve them of blame for their petty crimes, while pillorying good citizens who dare to defend themselves with legally permitted arms."

For those unfamiliar with the case, Mr. Scott saw three teenagers breaking into his car, left his house armed with a .40 cal pistol, confronted the kids, one rushed him (but never touched him, much less bashed his head into concrete), and Mr. Scott shot him dead. He was also recently found not guilty in upstate New York.

And why has this case received very, very little national attention? It does make one go "hmmm".

[heyelander]

because those kids were breaking into his car rather than walking home eating skittles?

[Roto Rooter]

because those kids were breaking into his car rather than walking home eating skittles?

How do you know this?

[Lucky]

From a blogger covering the Roderick Scott case: "Our state values victims over victors. It enshrines passivity over direct action to preempt or thwart criminal activity. It excuses the acts of teenaged thugs, revising history to absolve them of blame for their petty crimes, while pillorying good citizens who dare to defend themselves with legally permitted arms."

For those unfamiliar with the case, Mr. Scott saw three teenagers breaking into his car, left his house armed with a .40 cal pistol, confronted the kids, one rushed him (but never touched him, much less bashed his head into concrete), and Mr. Scott shot him dead. He was also recently found not guilty in upstate New York.

And why has this case received very, very little national attention? It does make one go "hmmm".

As you might imagine, I disagree with the blogger.

Nonetheless, the law in Arkansas (with which I agree) is that deadly force can be used to preserve life, but not property. When I was teaching the carry courses here, I would explain to everyone that if you wake up and hear someone stealing your bass boat out of your front yard, you cannot go outside and kill them.

I don't know the Scott case, but from what you wrote, it sounds like the defendant went outside his home and used deadly force to protect his car. Cases like that tend to result in murder convictions down here.

[chancellor]

because those kids were breaking into his car rather than walking home eating skittles?

Or, on the flip side, the kid who rushed Scott was unarmed and never touched him but Martin actively smashed up Zimmerman's face and bashed his head into the concrete.

[chancellor]

I don't know the Scott case, but from what you wrote, it sounds like the defendant went outside his home and used deadly force to protect his car. Cases like that tend to result in murder convictions down here.

He went outside to scare the kids off, but an unarmed kid rushed at him (based on the case notes, likely to give his brother, who was going to jail if caught, time to escape), and he shot the kid dead before the kid touched him. The case occurred in upstate New York, and the shooter is black and the kid white.

[heyelander]

How do you know this?

Because chance said so

[Lucky]

I'm hearing from more sources that federal charges may be filed against Zimmerman.

[Hornsby]

This is a very good point, and there are three issues really being raised here.

The first is clear...Zimmerman had a Fifth Amendment right not to testify, and he exercised that right. There is nothing wrong with that from a legal standpoint, and it was a good strategic move. Neither the judge nor the jury should infer anything or draw any conclusions from his failure to testify. It is not evidence of guilt or anything else.

The second issue is a little less clear. As people not involved in the case or responsible for making the hard decisions, may we nonetheless consider the fact that he didn't testify in determining how we feel about the case? Some feel (including me) that self-serving pretrial statements by the defendant are not as probative as sworn testimony, in court, and subject to cross-examination. This doesn't mean he was wrong in taking the Fifth. But it also runs contrary to some of those in this thread who think we must believe everything Zimmerman said outside of court as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I've been in the system for over 30 years. The story which comes out while the defendant is on the stand is almost always different in some ways from the statements made by the defendant before court.

The third issue, which is to me the most esoteric and the most interesting, involves the use of out-of-court statements in bolstering a justification (self-defense) claim. We have a right not to testify. And we have a right to claim self-defense. Some in the legal community believe, however, that exculpatory pretrial statements should not be admitted in a case where the defendant is going to plead the Fifth. I'm not 100% sure how I feel about this. I do believe very strongly that it will become a standard strategy in high-profile or high-dollar cases for defense lawyers to have their clients go on Oprah and tell their story. If the pretrial statement is admitted, then the client takes the Fifth. Tough question. The closest thing I know of now is this: If a defendant does take the stand in his own defense, he cannot thereafter avoid questions on cross-examination by taking the Fifth. By taking the stand, you waive the Fifth Amendment protection. One could argue that in this case Zimmerman had the advantage of both taking the stand and taking the Fifth. If you doubt that, look back at post after post of evidence which consisted of nothing more than pretrial statements by the defendant. So, are the Fifth Amendment and the justification defense sometimes at odds? There will probably be a few new Law Review articles about this.

Let's be totally honest here...a defense lawyer, ANY lawyer, is not going to put his client on the stand if there's any way to avoid it. It opens up too many avenues for the prosecution to discredit his case, and in some cases, his person. I would guess that of all the trials that you've adjudicated, less than 10 percent of the accused testified in their own behalf...it's just done that rarely. And when it is done, it's generally as a last resort. Zimmerman not taking the stand was the norm, not the exception.