Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial LIVE VIDEO – Day 5 – State’s Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial LIVE VIDEO – Day 5 – State’s Witnesses

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will post a mid-day update (not just a list of tweets this time!). We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.

This morning Court is expected to start at 9:00AM.

To see yesterday’s video of witness testimony and our exclusive analysis, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Day 4 – End-of-Day Analysis & Video of State’s Witnesses

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here: ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here: Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense.)



Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Friday, June 28 Commentary

. . .


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense” which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves (second edition shipping in June – save 30% and pre-order TODAY!).  Many thanks to the Professor for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yesterday, West’s tie had subtle salmon and blueberry stripes. Today, both West AND O’Mara have ties with salmon as the predominant color.

I need to know what rhorton makes of this development. I won’t be able to frame my reaction to today’s defense performance until we hear from him.

    rhorton1 in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 11:32 am

    It’s not rhorton. It’s rhorton1

    Bud_Denton in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    As a dedicated clothes horse, I can assure you that none of the lawyers is getting good grades in the tie department. The defense ties are the wrong colors, not conservative enough, while the prosecutors ties are boring and cheap cheap cheap — they look like they got them two-for-one at Sears.

    Having said that, I’d have to say that O’Mara is easily the best-looking lawyer out there. Tall, cool, in control. Guy was supposed to be the best-looking lawyer, but he comes off as a lightweight, like Thom Cruise playing a lawyer, kinda confused about just how loud he is supposed to talk to appear earnest.

    Guys OS, which was supposed to be “dramatic,” is looking more and more idiotic — “That man has a potty mouth! Yeth he does! He said a swear word! Yeth he did!”

    Starting to look like that isn’t going to be quite enough to win, huh?

      Matt in FL in reply to Bud_Denton. | June 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      @Bud_Denton: I agree about MOM outshining Guy in the “whole package” department, even if Guy’s got him on straight “photographic looks.” MOM just looks cool, calm, and collected.

      On a related note, was I the only one that noticed that Ms. Mora yesterday seemed to have a real thing for MOM? I saw what appeared to be a coquettish smile on several occasions during her testimony.

LilMissSpellcheck | June 28, 2013 at 9:25 am

I asked this early this morning on yesterday’s wrap-up thread. Reposting:

I haven’t been following all the geography in the testimony, but did’t Jeantel’s unassailable testimony establish that Trayvon(TM) was speaking to her from “behind his daddy fiance house?” But the shooting took place around a corner and more than a hundred feet away from the unit where Trayvon(TM) was staying? So this innocent teen, terrified of being raped or worse, moved from a place of relative safety to a dark back alley to initiate a peaceful and reasoned Socratic dialog with a ferocious stalker abut his illegal and unjust profiling?

Sounds to me like Jeantel’s testimony, in all its ultimate moral authority, debunks the notion that GZ was the pursuer.

And her recounting of the words spoken clearly makes Trademark the confronter, not the confrontee. Unless some additional details emerge when she is recalled to the stand during rebuttal.

Am I wrong here?

Mr. Branca:

There was a tweet about something Rachael Jeantel (hereafter RJ) said yesterday (Thursday morning) that I was astonished by, but saw no further comment on, and would appreciate confirmation/clarification.

RJ was being asked to look at a transcript of her previous testimony, and the defense attorney (West?) was asking to confirm that she had said it.

RJ replied, according to my memory of the tweet: “that’s your opinion”; i.e., the fact that the transcript recorded her words was just a matter of Mr. West’s opinion. The implication was that if RJ chose to believe that they were NOT her words (even though the transcript clearly said they were), then they were no longer her words.

Have I correctly remembered the exchange, and correctly interpreted its implications?

Thanks.

    rhorton1 in reply to dwlayman. | June 28, 2013 at 10:30 am

    The witness was not agreeing to the defense attorney’s interpretation of what she said. That interpretation is what she meant when she referred to as his opinion.

      dwlayman in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 11:43 am

      I’m pretty sure that’s NOT what the tweet said. It was a question about *whether she had said it.* Does anyone know how to find the tweet?When I go to my own Twitter account, subscribe to #Rachael Jeantel, I can’t find it.

        #Zimmerman Trial Day 4: Jeantel says transcript "not what I said, it's just your opinion, sir." http://t.co/ulIhPQD3Fg— Andrew Branca, LOSD (@LawSelfDefense) June 27, 2013

        https://twitter.com/LawSelfDefense/status/350290237240508417

          dwlayman in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 12:45 pm

          Thanks, AmyFL!
          Now the only question is, was Jeantel referring to the transcript itself, or the defense attorney’s interpretation of something in the transcript. The tweet certainly makes it appear the former: “Jeantel says transcript ‘not what I said, it’s just your opinion, sir.'”
          Here’s why it’s important. As a college teacher, I know that my students (in general) believe that *everything* is up to interpretation. If two philosophers have different judgments about issue X, then it is all just a matter of “opinion”.
          If the tweet is accurate, then Jeantel is simply articulating the logical consequences of post-modernism: everything is opinion, even facts. If you claim the facts are so-and-so, *that* is also “just” an opinion—even if the facts are staring you in the face.

          *The fact that you think it is a fact is just an opinion.*

Why does Bernie De La Rianda always seem aggressive in his questioning of supposedly “Friendly to the prosecution” witnesses? It seems to me that Don West and O’mara have a much better elocution in directing questions to the witnesses. De la Rianda seems to be on the edge of leading the witness, and the defense’s objections being overruled is telling. Let’s do an NFL instant replay of that question instead? 🙂

Unlike the movies, bare knuckle punches to the face don’t make much noise.

    MegK in reply to JasonI. | June 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Not that I’ve ever heard it, but I suspect a head hitting concrete doesn’t make much of a noise either.

Mr. Good is a State’s witness?

    Well, he’s a witness they called anyway. Whether he actually helps them is doubtful.

    Flyover Conservative in reply to JasonI. | June 28, 2013 at 10:30 am

    So the one guy who appears to be the only eyewitness to fighting confirms Zimmerman’s account and yet the state still charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder? If this is how the state’s case plays out with their witnesses I don’t see how there isn’t a directed verdict of acquittal when the state rests.

      Agree completely. Absurd that the State has burdened some many with a non-exixtant case. Prosecution should be sanctioned.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Flyover Conservative. | June 28, 2013 at 10:48 am

      Directed verdict: Not. Gonna. Happen.

      This judge is biased and has no courage.

        My evidence instructor (an appellate court justice) called it the “Dead Body Rule”. He said trial judges don’t want to take the heat for decisions that terminate big cases, such as in excluding a corpse (and autopsy results) from evidence because of an illegal search.

        So they pass the buck to the appeals court.

BDLR didn’t ask him his address, but played the 911 tape in which he stated his address multiple thanks. Thanks a lot.

    BHD (bald-headed dude) didn’t ask him his current address. It doesn’t matter so much if people know where he used to live.

      JasonI in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 9:59 am

      Sorry, I missed that he had moved since.

        No worries. It only struck me because I thought, “OMG, another one who’s moved on from there.” It doesn’t sound like the kind of neighborhood people stay in very long, if they can help it.

        Matt in FL in reply to JasonI. | June 28, 2013 at 11:45 am

        I’m pretty sure everyone even remotely involved in this case has moved out of RATL. Not that I can blame them. On the other hand, if someone was smart, real estate must have been a buyers market in there for the past year. Good time to snap it up.

      James IIa in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 10:02 am

      Yeah, everybody’s being treated as possibly former residents. It sounds like a neighborhood one might want to move out of.

O’Mara giving the Jury some control over the proceeding of the cross examination. O’Mara’s voice compared to De La Rianda’s is so much more calm and collected. I am beginning to wonder why De La Rianda seems so “Amp’d” up. Could it be he’s living on energy drinks lately?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Paul. | June 28, 2013 at 10:23 am

    If Barack Holder was your boss wouldn’t you be a little bit on edge too?

    healthguyfsu in reply to Paul. | June 28, 2013 at 10:37 am

    I think he has began the case agitated because he was handed a virtually unwinable trainwreck by higher-ups. As things have proceeded, he might even get sanctioned for witness tampering. That would be enough to agitate anyone in his position.

    He’s going to be infamous rather than famous…as the guy who lost it for the black community and allowed a huge injustice to take place. He will be the new scapegoat.

O'Mara gets Good to admit he is very reluctant to testify, worried about backlash (from #Trayvon's violent supporters). #Zimmerman— Bob Owens (@bob_owens) June 28, 2013

Yep. I would be too.

With this testimony, Murder II is back in play.

    Now I have to clean coffee off my keyboard.

    –Andrew

    bernie49 in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 10:38 am

    What makes you say that?

      rhorton1 in reply to bernie49. | June 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

      Because the witness has nothing favorable to say in support of the defense on the crucial issue of who is the first aggressor, i.e. who started the altercation. A couple of minutes pass, after the witness first hears the altercation, before the witness looks out. So he doesn’t see how it begins. Then when he does look out he does not see Martin straddling Zimmerman and pounding him. First he sees the two of them laying down on the ground struggling, with Martin eventually gaining the upper hand. The two best items of evidence the defense had, at least as I understood it, was this witness and the location of the shooting, i.e. Martin did not go home. I bet the prosecution is wishing it did not refer to defendant’s statement so much in its opening statement. I have always thought the most likely verdict is NG MII and G Manslaughter. Given the totality of the evidence so far the prosecution can reasonably argue this is a Murder II case.

        Ragspierre in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 10:59 am

        WRONG.

        As you SHOULD know, it isn’t who started a shoving match.

        It is WHO FIRST ESCALATED TO DEADLY FORCE OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

          rhorton1 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 28, 2013 at 11:17 am

          This is the Florida statute on self-defense:
          776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
          (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

          (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
          (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

          (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

          We can spend hours analyzing what it means, but the bottom lines is it is much more difficult for an intial aggressor to persuade a jury that he killed in self-defense.

          Simply read section 2(a).

          –Andrew

          myiq2xu in reply to Ragspierre. | June 28, 2013 at 11:36 am

          Horton obviously does not understand the concepts of “burden of proof” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

          rhorton1 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 28, 2013 at 11:40 am

          Section 2(a) is a question for the jury to decide. There are arguments that both sides will be brought to to bear on the issue of whether Zimmerman, under the circumstances, had the legal right to kill Martin. As a lawyer, you should recognize this is not an open and shut case. If the defense had been able to establish that Martin was the first aggressor it would be in a much stronger position. Without Zimmerman’s testimony (or the prosecution foolishly going ahead with its plans to use his earlier statements, there is no evidence (unless I’m missing something) that Martin was the first aggressor.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm

          Arguments…??? Wul, yah. You can FLUCKING argue ANYTHING.

          I have this flaw that only allows me to argue EVIDENCE.

          And, it becomes increasingly obvious, the State is coming a cropper WRT any EVIDENCE that would support what it has charged, or even manslaughter.

          And, again, you were simply wrong.

          SCLEO in reply to Ragspierre. | June 29, 2013 at 1:21 am

          I HATE to say anything possibly perceived to be as backing rhorton, but (at least as far as South Carolina law is concerned, which admittedly may be much different than Florida) it does matter who pushed who first because if Z pushed M first, then he created the fight that he claims self-defense on, which would throw out self defense.

          HOWEVER, (rhorton, listen AND understand) there is so much testimony AND physical evidence that backs Z’s story and no physical evidence that supports our nonspeaking lying phone witness’s assumptions of what occurred AFTER her phone call ended, that it would take a large amount of stupidity (which rhorton seems to possess) to conclude that 5’7″ Z attacked 6’0″ M first.

          I think that this is a slam dunk for Zimmerman.

        Because the witness has nothing favorable to say in support of the defense

        He’s the prosecution’s witness, darlin’. Has he had anything favorable to say in support of the prosecution?

        P.S. How ’bout them ties! I think salmon is a lovely color theme for a Friday, don’t you? It kind of says “We don’t have to be Timmy Try-Hards like those losers in the boring Sincere Blue ties.” What color tie are you wearing today?

        Pauldd in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

        rhorton1: You are just playing games now, right? Trying to provoke people for fun to see what kinds of reactions you get?

        moonstone716 in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 11:17 am

        Come on, there is no way that you really are that stupid. Your need for attention does not mean you can impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

        Please everyone just scroll past him; hopefully at some point he will go back to whatever cave he lives in.

          Mansizedtarget in reply to moonstone716. | June 28, 2013 at 12:01 pm

          Rhorton says this shows Murder II and does not show Trayvon started fight. But what shows Zimmerman started it. Their star witness did have the “get off me” comment, but the jury under circumstances could conclude it was Zimmerman saying that. Plus that contradicted her earlier statements of “what do you mean.” I believe they’ll disregard all of her testimony other than fact of call and hearing start of conversation and, most important, he maded it to daddy’s fiance’s house and then somehow ended up 100″ away at the t-intersection, i.e., he doubled back.

          This guy killed state’s case. He established positions, did not “feel” who was on top unlike the cat lady, and had the closest, most unobstructed view.

          Another thing missing from Rhorton’s anaylsis is witness credibility. The state’s three biggest witnesses were the nurse, who was credible but didn’t see much, the cat lady who made assumptions based on news reports and contradicted herself, and the girlfriend, who lacked a lot of credibility for obvious reasons. The other witnesses, Jenna, was very credible but also only saw a little bit of what happened, and mostly confirmed defense account of who was fighting, where, Zimmerman’s basic calmness and normality. The busty Hispanic women, who didn’t materially contradict defense and was murky on who was where. And now this guy, who basically confirmed the entire account of self defense. Plus we have the NW coordinator, who was very much a fan of Zimmerman. You don’t need to add this all up to believing Zimmerman, just to reasonable doubt, as the prosecutor retains burden of proof on that issue, even though defense has to put it in evidence through burden of production. I don’t see how they convict under these circumstances.

        KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm

        No way you are an attorney. No attorney would make the claim you just did, I mean no self-respecting attorney except for the ones on MSNBC or HLN.

        Voluble in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 12:20 pm

        Actually, what evidence there is points pretty clearly to Martin being the aggressor. RJ says he initiated the conversation that escalated and that Martin had plenty of time to avoid any contact had he chosen to do so. The neighbor says there was a deep forceful voice which we know from having heard Zimmerman speak has to be Martin’s. She thought otherwise because she thought Trayvon was a child but that is easily clarified.

        The best witness places Trayvon on top and describes a situation exactly as Zimmerman described. He is well spoken and very careful with what he says and is by far the most believable of the people who have testified. In fact, he is overly careful, but in contrast to RJ who said she did not even take all of her interviews seriously this guy is the gold standard. He has Zimmerman yelling for help and the voice that was yelling never changed… that person never had the upper hand in the fight.

        Against that, the best the prosecution could get from their own witness was that he could not tell if Zimmerman’s head was pounded on the ground while he was being pummeled. The defense photos are more than enough to establish that fact and it bolsters the credibility of this witness that he was careful in only confirming the parts he saw even though it would be easy to infer that such pounding would be a natural part of grounding and pounding.

        We also have statements in Trayvon’s mouth showing anger towards Zimmerman and racial epithets used against him. Just as an outside observer with no dog in the fight it seems pretty clear to me what happened here. Trayvon got pissed that someone was suspicious of him and thought he would teach the guy a lesson. There is absolutely nothing here to make a reasonable person believe Zimmerman was looking for a fight and plenty to show Martin was the aggressor.

        I agree Zimmerman may have to take the stand just to get his version of events on record since every single bit of evidence backs up his version of what happened and it will make it easier for the jury to understand that fact if he testifies. For instance he can clarify that yes when the figures separated he would have been on top having assumed that position to make sure Trayvon did not continue his attack after the gunshot. But saying the state can now put Murder II back online is just a ridiculous bit of trolling. There was nothing added about Zimmerman’s state of mind other than the fact he wanted someone to stop beating him. And that fact does a great deal indeed to bolster his case for using deadly force.

        I love a skeptical take and try to add it when I can but rhorton1, you really aren’t making any sense and are just pot stirring with a lot of your posts. I also don’t think you believe many of the things you post.

    Flyover Conservative in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Al Sharpton is that you?

    “WHAAAAAT??!!”

    — Rachel Jeantel aka DeeDee aka Diamond Eugene

    txantimedia in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 10:48 am

    You are clearly deluded.

    Ragspierre in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 10:51 am

    …if by “back in play” you mean “dead, dead, dead”…

    Haven’t been listening, but this guy is credible, no?

    txantimedia in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 11:35 am

    @Andrew Branca “Simply read section 2(a).”

    Don’t push it Andrew. rhorton1 has enough problems already without asking him to read and comprehend.

    rhorton1 in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Upon reflection, I hereby officially and without reservation rescind this assessment. Without delving deep into Florida law, but applying generally accepted standards, Zimmerman would lack the necessary mens rea, even assuming he was the initial aggressor, as the shooting occurred during course of an altercation he was losing. Manslaughter vs. not guilty remains the choice. Mea culpa.

    SCLEO in reply to rhorton1. | June 29, 2013 at 1:26 am

    rhorton: Murder II? No, but I don’t doubt that Bullcrap III is definitely in play. After all, you’ve been milking that latter charge on all four teets for five days now.

So, according to the prosecution witness (Good) the guy on the top was dark skinned and wearing the dark clothes, and was beating the guy on the bottom with the light skin and red colored clothes. The guy on the bottom was screaming for help.

Why doesn’t this case end right now?

Seems to me that O’Mara is dragging this out too much. IMHO Good has provide immense support to Z’s description of events.

    Ragspierre in reply to bernie49. | June 28, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Again, I’m not listening, but…

    sometimes it is REALLY good to just go sit down and pass the witness.

    Let that home-run just hang in the air. It won’t get better than that.

I can’t believe we have “ground and pound” in the record now. The prosecution made hurculean efforts to get Good to refute that description. Now that it’s in the record, it explains Zimmerman’s injuries and provides the justification for him shooting in self defense. Furthermore it shows that, rather than shooting immediately, Zimmerman absorbed a great deal of punishment before drawing his weapon.

How does the prosecution continue from here with any possibility of winning the case? And how can a judge, having now seen this testimony, allow the case to continue? Or not provide a directed verdict should the jury find against Zimmerman?

I’m stunned that this farce is continuing apace.

Looks like BDLR will need to attempt to impeach another of his own witnesses on redirect. Good’s testimony shows how ridiculous and unwarranted by the facts charging 2nd degree murder was.

Great witness for the state, speaks well, knows what he saw, hasn’t changed his testimony. Only one problem, confirms everything Zimmerman said. Well done Bernie!

I can’t remember the movie name, but I remember an amusing scene in a movie that is reminiscent of BDLR’s treatment of his own witnesses that I couldn’t help but to share.

Defense: Objection, he’s badgering the witness!
Judge: It’s HIS witness!

    Ragspierre in reply to SCLEO. | June 28, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Seemingly ironic, yet it is a PERFECTLY good objection.

    Judges tend to be protective of witnesses, and a “badgering” objection is ALSO great for the jury to hear. Sometimes, they are demanding it from the opposing lawyer.

    styro1 in reply to SCLEO. | June 28, 2013 at 11:27 am

    The only reason BDLR has called this witness is he knew defense would so it’s better if he did. Jury would have assumed state didn’t want his testimony on the record. In a non-political and ethical trial this would have been the 1st witness called by prosecution. An eyewitness to most of the main event of that day. Only problem is he saw Zimmerman on bottom and not him standing over Martin and shooting.

Why would BDLR call this witness – given that the witness’s numerous statements support the defense? Does it give the prosecutor some kind of advantage?

BDLR is now trying to bolster his other witnesses (especially RJ) by suggesting that this witness changed his testimony in some details and he didn’t consider himself to be lying.

This guy so desperately doesn’t want to be here, I think because he’s afraid his testimony is going to bring heat down on his life from Martin supporters . And now BDLR is going to try to impeach his own witness I suspect.

rhorton must surely see this as a devastating blow to the defense… somehow…

CNN “experts” seem to be watching a different trial than me.

PackerBronco | June 28, 2013 at 11:21 am

The commentator on Channel 9 news is an idiot. He just got done saying: “Zimmerman has to take the stand because after this latest testimony we don’t know ‘who accosted who’ and Zimmerman has to clear this up.”

What???

Zimmerman has to PROVE his innocence?

Where did that moron get his law license????

Truly laughable seeing these clowns you call analysts trying to defend the prosecution witnesses as this pathetic excuse of case which never should have come to trial goes down in flames.

Thanks for the laughs!

    Bud_Denton in reply to Beatleh60. | June 28, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Yes, only they aren’t really funny. They aren’t really “analysts.” They are propagandists. Their job is not to report on the trial. Their job is to pretend that Zimmerman is guilty and thereby pander to black anger in service of the politicians.

    This is not a good idea, BTW. If there are riots following a verdict of not guilty, the moral responsibility for those riots will be on the liars and opportunists who ginned up this case in the first place and then flogged it along.

    Bernie and his two earnest young clown/henchmen are the designated chumps/fall guys for the fiasco. But my nominee for ultimate villain in this case is faux “conservative” Florida governor Rick Scott. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Scott appoint Angela Curry as a special prosecutor after the police initially made the simple (and oh-so-obviously correct) call that this was an open-and-shut self-defense case?

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Bud_Denton. | June 28, 2013 at 11:59 am

      Scott and Bondi do not have the courage and integrity to stand against the PC/racist manure that Gov. Rick Perry and Ted Cruz, former TX AG have.

      ebola131 in reply to Bud_Denton. | June 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      Propagandists have no morals.
      III/0317

      KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to Bud_Denton. | June 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm

      Angela Corey should burn for this.

      CENTFLAMIKE in reply to Bud_Denton. | June 28, 2013 at 12:25 pm

      “If there are riots following a verdict of not guilty, the moral responsibility for those riots will be on the liars and opportunists who ginned up this case in the first place and then flogged it along.”

      If there are riots, then there is another major news story that he can excitedly cover.

      By the way, his background is not in the law, he used to be the local TV sports guy.

Commentary from Channel 9’s Expert (The channel in which LI has linked): GZ must now testify b/c Good said the person on bottom could get off. Thereby nullifying imminent threat to life or serious bodily injury.

For those of you following along at home the reason I wrote earlier “I bet the prosecution is wishing it did not refer to defendant’s statement so much in its opening statement”, is because by referring to the defendant’s statements the prosecution basically obligated itself, not legally, but practically to retain a sort of credibility in the eyes of the jury, to use at least part of those statements in its case in chief and thereby absolving Zimmerman of the need to take the stand to get the defense self-defense theory before the jury. If the government does not use the Zimmerman statements, given the state of the evidence, there is some doubt that the defense will even be able to persuade the judge to instruct the judge on self-defense. Presumably the prosecution wants to get Zimmerman on the witness stand, so it can cross-examine him. It would not surprise me if the prosecution spends the weekend re-assessing where it stands, and decides to forego use of any Zimmerman statements.

    myiq2xu in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Good’s testimony alone is enough to require a self-defense instruction.

    …and thereby absolving Zimmerman of the need to take the stand to get the defense self-defense theory before the jury.

    You’re just trolling now. You tried claiming yesterday that Zimmerman was required to take the stand in order to “prove” self-defense:

    Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense. If he doesn’t testify, the assertion that he was not justified stands.

    You got shot down, and now here you are back again making basically the same claim.

    There is no need for Zimmerman to take the stand just because he’s claiming self-defense, and you know it.

    I don’t actually think you’re stupid, so I can only go with disingenuous. What is your game here?

      DrKyleJones in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      My take on his game is this: perpetuating the propaganda that GZ is guilty. As long as there appears to be reasonable minds that disagree on the issue, anyone who happens to stroll through the comments without watching the trial, etc, will continue blissfully in their self assurance that a great wrong was done. If it looks like there is a consensus that GZ is innocent and the defense in winning by a landslide, they just might be forced to examine their opinion. Rhorton1 is courageously taking up the standard here in this forum, I’m sure there are others doing it elsewhere.

      I’m not saying this is a 100% conscious decision, I’m an Engineer not a psychologist, but I think his compulsive need to tear down the defense is because on some level, he wants GZ to be found guilty.

      rhorton1 in reply to AmyFL. | June 28, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      I didn’t write that second thing you have there.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to rhorton1. | June 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    Don’t worry, Mr. Horton, they (the entire Martin and State and media circus) will all be defendant’s soon enough. If there were ever a case for false, (life-endangering, threats, politically-motivated) prosecution, THIS IS IT.

    SCLEO in reply to rhorton1. | June 29, 2013 at 1:47 am

    I think that regardless of the state’s and defense’s, there is a strong chance that Zimmerman will take the stand. By the time that this is over, the jury will desperately want to cut him loose and that the only thing that the jury wants to hear is Zimmerman lay every piece of the puzzle that all the witnesses’ partial aspects together from the perspective of one surviving person who knows it all.

    And if Zimmerman is truly a man who did nothing but defend himself (which is what I believe is the case), then he doesn’t really have anything to fear from it.

    He may or may not testify, but as the topper of the overpowering defense, I personally would want an opportunity to lay this out to the jury myself as well.

What might O’Mara talk to Good about?

This was phenomenal. The State calls a witness who nails it for the defense. Then tries to impeach its own witness. And can’t.

Henry Hawkins | June 28, 2013 at 11:42 am

I’m not a lawyer, nothing like it, and I hate to show up all you actual professionals, but in MMA fighting ‘ground and pound’ is not only allowable, it is a winning tactic. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a ground and pound and have had enough, the rules say you may simply ‘tap out’, that is, indicate surrender by tapping your opponent repeatedly to end the fight. You are NOT allowed to pull a pistol and shoot your opponent. Automatic disqualification.

Zimmerman is clearly and undeniably guilty and you “legal experts” ought to be just a little bit embarrassed right about now. Enjoy that crow sandwich. Maybe a little humble pie for dessert?

(I’m just showing rhorton how to troll with style. The boy is flat terrible at it, needs a role model)

So far, the evidence has established that he was at least following TM, and that at some point there was a physical fight. That fight, at least according to Good, placed TM in an advantageous position that would have placed GZ in fear of imminent grave bodily harm.

SYG does not enter this case, because TM was sitting on GZ as GZ was screaming for help. This means that GZ had no reasonable means to escape the battery he was receiving.

The only option that is left to the state at this point is to prove that GZ was the aggressor.

Is it possible that Zimmerman initiated the altercation? Yes, but there has thus far not been any evidence to establish that. Unless there is some new testimony or evidence that shows GZ as the aggressor, there is certainly enough reasonable doubt here to preclude a guilty verdict.

At this point, barring any new evidence, I say acquittal odds are about 90%.

    Rosco P Coaltrain in reply to divemedic. | June 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Will the defense be able to get TM’s recent drug use and prior fights in to show that TM is the more likely aggressor?

@LawSelfDefense — #ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT — “Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down MMA-style” http://is.gd/1UFCQU

Just now able to check in:

Quick overview-

Has the State been able to produce any evidence yet, or are they still doing a bang-up job for the defense?

Legal question. When the prosecutor, BDLR, asked witness Good about whether he was MMA trained or if he knew whether TM or GZ were MMA trained, did he open a line for the defense?

I’m not an attorney, but from my perspective, this crap sammich of a case is going to cost a bunch of folks a boatload of money…and some their jobs.
This monstrosity of a trial will end at a perfect time in Florida; hot and humid.
The Media induced riots will be great fun to watch…from a distance. The illiterate gangstas will be out in force…looting and burning.
It will be interesting to see if Daddy Obama comes out to tell “his people” to behave civilly. Remember; It was his son, Trayvon.
I’m stocking up on Arizona, Skittles, popcorn and Gentleman Jack for the show.
III/0317

theonewhoknocks | June 28, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Most of the media is doing a real disservice to the country with the reporting of this case.

This case is going to result in a full acquittal for George Zimmerman, and there would be a lot less outrage with that verdict if the media would report what is really happening in the trial, which is of course, that the evidence is proving this was a case of self defense.

    The media have deliberately and steadfastly ignored any evidence which might be favorable to GZ no matter how persuasive. Why should it stop now.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to theonewhoknocks. | June 28, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Our problem is that we look through objective lenses at the behaviors of a totally subjective media, a guild of professional communicators who individually and collectively consider the truth to be relative to circumstances, and whose own lenses screen out bothersome evidences that their beliefs are not the utmost in logic, empathy, and moral righteousness. They know and we don’t. If we knew, we’d belief precisely as they do. They are neither blind, nor stupid. They stand so close to the billboard of reality they cannot read it.

      Sally MJ in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 28, 2013 at 4:51 pm

      They are all at the same pizza party deciding where next to play mailbox baseball – They all have to agree on the house!

Don’t forget the Robitusin DM

Andrew just tweeted: “Trial Day 5: Manalo: “When LEO approached, Zimmerman tossed his cell phone on ground.” Smart.”

Can someone (Andrew) explain why this was smart?

Mansizedtarget | June 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm

Based totality of circumstances, I’d be shocked Manalo didn’t have his own gun on him when he went out there with flashlight. Not sure if anyone ever asked him about that.

    Matt in FL in reply to Mansizedtarget. | June 28, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    @Mansizedtarget: My thoughts exactly. I’d love to know the answer to that question, just for my own edification.

    bernie49 in reply to Mansizedtarget. | June 28, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    That is an excellent question. It certainly would have added to the context. Since neither BDLR nor DW asked, I suspect they simply missed it. Andrew picked up on the fact that this guy knew his guns.

    Agree. He waits til he hears a gunshot and then he goes outside? Odd, unless he was armed.

Again, that was a State witness, right?

It seems BDLR is saying you must be beaten to a bloody pulp and be so dazed and confused before you can defend yourself with deadly force. In the real world that might be to late.

Question: Does Zimmerman have to pay for both defense teams ?

Why does the CH9 “expert” keep pointing out that GZ didn’t have life threatening injuries? Is he so unfamiliar with self-defense law that he needs a primer from http://lawofselfdefense.com/, or is he being intentionally misleading. My guess is he thinks that you must first receive life threatening injuries before you can use self-defense. I suppose his timeline is, get attacked, receive life threatening injuries, die, use self-defense.

    MegK in reply to Jazzizhep. | June 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    He obviously doesn’t understand reasonable doubt either, because his entire prosecution seems to be “if no one saw it, it couldn’t have happened”. No one saw his head being bashed into concrete, yet his head has cuts and knots in it. No one saw him being punched in the face, yet his nose was misshapen and his face was bleeding and bruised. He offers no explanation (as of yet) as to how those injuries got there, only “no one saw Trayvon do it”.

Henry Hawkins | June 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm

I’ll bet Zimmerman voted for George Bush.

    legalfecal in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    It’s been widely reported that Robert, George’s brother, has claimed George is “a registered Democrat. He registered as a Hispanic. He kind of did some internal family campaigning for Obama.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/06/Zimmerman-brother-voted-Obama

    Regardless of that, it’s a safe bet that if we were to look at the 2012 FL voting rolls we would probably find that TM voted for Obama also, maybe even 2 or 3 times.

      Sally MJ in reply to legalfecal. | June 28, 2013 at 4:38 pm

      After this debacle that has destroyed his life, I wonder if he will vote conservative. I think his support has come mostly from conservatives. I could be wrong about that – but conservatives ignore the MSM, libs worship it. He’s been burned pretty badly by those who always said they care about him.

    Sally MJ in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 28, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    WRONG – He voted for Obama, per his brother, who also voted for Obama. Why would you say that?

    What does one’s political ideology have to do with defending themselves from being murdered? Are you saying that liberals willingly lay down their lives in that situation?

    Or are you saying liberals don’t own guns? Well, that’s a fallacy: about 35-40% of liberals own guns. Despite how Obama feels.

    nomadic100 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 28, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    You lost any semblance of objectivity with this comment. Go back to your room.

GZ writes with his left…shoots w/ right

    Harperman in reply to Jazzizhep. | June 28, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    I noticed that also. I didn’t really look closely at the holster. It may have been cross draw holster. That may have saved his life as it would have been much easier to access the weapon when prone on his back from a cross draw than from a convention carry position.

      Sally MJ in reply to Harperman. | June 28, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      I don’t think it was cross-holster. Looks great on TV and the movies, but is much slower in a real life and death situation. Apparently he is left-handed on most things, and right handed with a firearm (and probably throwing a ball).

      If he did the cross holster thing, or used his left hand, he probably would be dead now.

      divemedic in reply to Harperman. | June 28, 2013 at 5:58 pm

      It was a cheap nylon Uncle Mike’s IWB holster, not a cross draw, and cross draw is the worst holster you can have in a physical altercation. The gun in a cross draw holster is on your weak side, with the grip facing your assailant. This means that the assailant has more leverage over your weapon than you do.

      Bad idea.

    Sally MJ in reply to Jazzizhep. | June 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    How do you know he’s a left-handed writer? I don’t remember hearing that.

    Some people do have a degree of mixed-handedness. A number of baseball players bat with their left (or both), and throw with their right. Some right handed writers are “left-footed” (left is their leading foot), etc, can do one thing with both hands, but everything else with the dominant side.

    Are you saying you doubt GZ because he has some mixed-handedness? If he had tried to shoot with his left hand, he would be dead not, shot by TM. You don’t bring your non-dominant hand to a gunfight.

      Matt in FL in reply to Sally MJ. | June 28, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      MOM specifically addressed the fact that he writes with his left and does most other things with his right to the jury. I believe it was late on Day 1 or early on Day 2.

      Harperman in reply to Sally MJ. | June 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm

      “How do you know he’s a left-handed writer?”
      They showed him writing not too long ago. He was using his left hand.
      I am left handed but shoot with either hand. Nevertheless in an emergency would use my dominant hand if at all possible.
      I do agree with you about cross draw holsters being slow but still many people prefer the cross draw position.

    rantbot in reply to Jazzizhep. | June 28, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    I do that, and I’m not even part Hispanic.

Just an aside, Guy sounds exactly like Kevin Costner.

    Matt in FL in reply to MegK. | June 28, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    I’ve made that exact observation a couple times. It’s uncanny.

    Sally MJ in reply to MegK. | June 28, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Costner as in “The Untouchables” and “Dances with Wolves”, or everything after? Since the early stuff was great, and the later stuff was crap? Hopefully the early stuff…

Everyday has been a bad for prosecution but I must say today’s testimony has been a total disaster for them.

So now the prosecutor is trying to smear George Zimmerman’s character by introducing Zimmerman’s entire medical file, rather than just the parts dedicated to his relevant injuries, introduced into evidence. Nice.

Get ready for more of this to be happening now that electronic medical records are being implemented in healthcare systems around the country before the necessary privacy laws and information technology protections have been developed.

So glad the stimulus act threw $1.2 billion to push EMRs into medical practices around the country before the needed privacy protections within IT had been developed, and the policy discussion wasn’t resolved.

    divemedic in reply to Cassie. | June 28, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    The fact that GZ is obese and had a resting heart rate of 100 works in GZ’s favor. How can an obese 28 year old run down, catch, and beat a 17 year old athlete?

      SCLEO in reply to divemedic. | June 29, 2013 at 2:13 am

      I don’t think we want to go there, because he wasn’t obese at the time of the incident, he just became obese over the stress of the last 16 months. HOWEVER, even when the incident occurred, he was still half a foot shorter than Martin, and unless he possessed some superior fighting skills, I think it is unreasonable to believe that Tiny Tim would have attacked the giant that came down from the bean stalk.

So why did the photos at the police station not show blood? Is it that “Hollywood makeup artists” applied fake blood and fake injuries to GZ’s head in that “initial” photo that was actually taken after the fact?? No, it’s because the paramedic cleaned him up BEFORE the bloody face photo, and he was also given a bottle of water and tissues to clean up at the station. Dumba$$es. They so want GZ to be guilty that they have lost their hold on reality and can’t even think logically.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Sally MJ. | June 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Silly girl, you’re looking at the evidence and working forward towards understanding. They’re working backwards from a preconceived conclusion.

    SCLEO in reply to Sally MJ. | June 29, 2013 at 2:18 am

    Because although he wasn’t transported by EMS, he was still treated at the scene. EMS will typically wipe off the blood to get a good look at the injuries to better inspect their severity or lack thereof and slap on a band aid or determine that a mandatory transport is necessary. By the time he gets to the police department, he’s already been cleaned up. It isn’t an attempt to hide anything (although that’s what the prosecution would prefer), just first aid by the EMT’s because both the police and the EMT’s are responsible for ensuring his wellbeing.

So the state was arguing that GZ had no right to self defense because TM hadn’t killed him yet?

BDLR might want to reconsider his efforts to get George Zimmerman’s full medical history entered into evidence, if that is what he is doing.

If Zimmerman has ongoing health issues and has to take daily meds, that might incline the four women over fifty who are on the jury to have more sympathy for him, not less.

    Sally MJ in reply to Cassie. | June 28, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    I don’t think so. BDLR doesn’t care about GZ. It’s irrelevant – only the records specific to his injuries. I think he made a comment to the effect of, “I am really disturbed by ‘the violence’ – I can’t sleep, etc. Which is a sign of PTSD, not guilt for committing a murder.

    The doctor STRONGLY encouraged GZ to follow up on his mental health issues resulting from the shooting. But the prosecution would love to see his mental health records and whether he’s had an STD, etc. We know he has ADHD. He probably has depression from the PTSD, or just in general. He may have bipolar that is under control. The prosecution wants anything that can make GZ look unstable in any way.

    I don’t think GZ has to release his medical records because of the HIPAA law that protects Personal Health Information (PHI). His medical information belongs to him.

      Endocannabinoids and the amygdala are the main keys to PTSD.

      There are more endocannabinoid receptors in the body than any other receptor type.

Is he trying to imply that Zimmerman was the one throwing down MMA style punches, despite the fact that Martin didn’t have a mark on him?

    Sally MJ in reply to MegK. | June 28, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    They were “stealth” MMA style punches. Don’t leave a mark, just destroy your mind and your internal organs.

    Matt in FL in reply to MegK. | June 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Re: MMA punches: That’s exactly what he’s doing. Trying to introduce doubt or suspicion into the jury’s mind.

What I don’t get is why didn’t Martin run home. Zim had lost sight of him and was short of breath when talking to non emerg. guy who said “don’t need you to do that”. No way could he have found him and run him down. Zim 204 lbs. out of shape pudge after a fit 17 yr old.

    Sally MJ in reply to rotate. | June 28, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    That is the whole point. When people say, if GZ had just stayed in his truck, none of this would have happened – I say, WRONG, If TM had just GONE HOME, not stalked, jumped, beaten the crap out of GZ, said he would kill him, tried to grab his gun, none of this would had happened.

      SCLEO in reply to Sally MJ. | June 29, 2013 at 2:34 am

      Although it was unwise for Zimm to follow Martin on foot in the dark, there is nothing AT ALL illegal about it. But since he did choose to do that, I’ll start by saying that I agree with you and will take it a step further… if Martin had just answered Zimm’s question of, “what are you doing here?” with any statement to the effect of, “going home, I live in the neighborhood at 123 ABC Street,” and Zimm would have likely said, “My bad, I’m sorry, see you later,” and walked away. But no, Martin had to act like a thug and show what a bad ass he was.

    SCLEO in reply to rotate. | June 29, 2013 at 2:27 am

    Zimm was only 185lbs at the time of the incident, but he was also half a foot shorter than Martin and not likely to go looking up at Martin towering over him with the intent to kick his butt. However, to answer your first question, I’ve seen through the course of my profession 1000 times over, the reason that thugs (regardless of race… that has nothing to do with it, it’s all about the mentality of a thug) decide to kick someone’s butt is because they feel dissed (disrespected) in some way and that they have to show that they are a bad ass who is not to be messed with. It is a sign of weakness to walk away from any opportunity to show how tough you are.

    SCLEO in reply to rotate. | June 29, 2013 at 2:50 am

    Sorry on last, Rotate, you were right about the 204lbs, but all other points I indicated in my opinion remain as is.

State again attacks its own witness.

The appearance makeover of zimmerman is simply remarkable – He’s gone from white supremacist skinhead to pudgy shoe salesman. Did O’Mara and West foot his bill for twinkies? Did he decide (wisely) that a shaved head wouldn’t sit well with any jury?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend