Trayvon Martin Case (Zimmerman charged; 2nd deg. murder)

[TimothyC]

Let's actually get a news article here Zaune how about that?

(CNN) -- Items taken from Trayvon Martin's cell phone -- including a text-message discussion of drug use and pictures of a gun and marijuana plants -- are among new details released Thursday by attorneys for the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of killing him without provocation 14 months ago.

The evidence, George Zimmerman's attorneys say, paints a different picture of the 17-year-old than the one portrayed by his family and supporters. Lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara says he will try to use the evidence if prosecutors attempt to attack Zimmerman's character during his trial on second-degree murder charges, set to begin next month.

Also Thursday, O'Mara filed motions in court. One asks for sanctions against the state for withholding evidence and for saying it didn't have more evidence when asked. The second requests that his client's trial be delayed.

Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman's attorneys comes from Martin's cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots.

In other pictures, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait, as well pictures showing him with friends and in other settings.

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

"So you just turning into a lil hoodlum," the person with whom he is texting says.

"Naw, I'm a gangsta," the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

"U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out)," one text message sent from Martin's phone reads.

The text messaging logs are also peppered with references to marijuana use.

"I got weed nd I get money Friday," a message sent from his phone reads.

"I hid m weed," another text sent from Martin's phone reads. "its wrapped."

The attorney for Martin's family, Benjamin Crump, says the evidence is "irrelevant" and predicted it would never be used at Zimmerman's trial.

"Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?" Crump said in a statement released Thursday.

"If so, this stereotypical and closed-minded thinking is the same mindset that caused George Zimmerman to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon, an unarmed kid who he didn't know. The pretrial release of these irrelevant red herrings is a desperate and pathetic attempt by the defense to pollute and sway the jury pool."

Instead, he said, jurors will focus on Zimmerman's arrest for battery on a police officer, a domestic violence injunction and other issues he said demonstrate a "propensity for violence."

Zimmerman's defense also released Thursday a handwritten note that was allegedly written by someone who was on the phone with Martin when the confrontation with Zimmerman took place.

The note, dated March 19, 2012, is not addressed to anyone in particular and it's not clear why the person wrote it.

It reads: "He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn't follow him. Then he said the man didn't follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!!

"Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and (not legible) no response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story."

Zimmerman recently waived his right to a pretrial hearing under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force when threatened regardless of where they are.

His attorneys will claim self-defense at trial.

A representative of the special prosecutor handling the case did not immediately return an e-mail message seeking comment on the evidence.

Prosecutors renewed their motion for a gag order in the case Thursday because, they say, they're concerned about finding an impartial jury given the "inordinate amount of media coverage."

Two previous gag order requests by the prosecution have been denied.

[PeZook]

How is it character assassination for there to be photos showing that a teenager is, oh holy shit, not the angel his mother wants him to be remembered as and is in fact a teenager and maybe in fact one with a rebellious streak in certain parts of his personality?

Because it has drugs in it, and as we all know drug users are good for nothing criminals who are just waiting to kill you to get drug money. Notice how the attorneys talk about two specific items: marijuana use and guns, the obvious unwritten suggestion is that he was nothing more than a teenage criminal (PROPER teenagers never do stuff like that!) who'd plausibly attack Zimmerman.

[Gaidin]

How is it character assassination for there to be photos showing that a teenager is, oh holy shit, not the angel his mother wants him to be remembered as and is in fact a teenager and maybe in fact one with a rebellious streak in certain parts of his personality?

Because it has drugs in it, and as we all know drug users are good for nothing criminals who are just waiting to kill you to get drug money. Notice how the attorneys talk about two specific items: marijuana use and guns, the obvious unwritten suggestion is that he was nothing more than a teenage criminal (PROPER teenagers never do stuff like that!) who'd plausibly attack Zimmerman.

Reality sucks. Not only did his attorney's talk about how it would be used if it would be used. But they talked about how the Prosecution tried to keep the evidence from them. Cry me a fucking river and play by the rules next time.

[energiewende]

The reason this case is concerned with implications and trivialities is that there is almost no actual evidence of who started the fight, which is the salient point. The case against Zimmerman is that he is a racist and the case against Martin is that he is a wrong 'un. The problem for the prosecution is that Zimmerman doesn't need to make any case against Martin: he only needs there to exist reasonable doubt that he was the one attacked. Since it is very unlikely that the evidence that has so far emerged can destroy this reasonable doubt the case is a waste of time. This is why the police did not charge him before the media and politicians became involved.

[PeZook]

Is it, really?

Let us assume for the moment that it is indeed the case that Zimmerman followed Martin, started the fight and then shot him ; The evidence is probably not enough to convict him, but what message does it send if he just gets off without as much as a trial? Even if he is acquited due to a lack of evidence, then any potential copycats who try to do it in the future will be aware that there is at least a risk of serving jail time if they fuck up ; And the public now knows that the state at least treats deaths of its citizens seriously.

And if he is indeed innocent and is acquited, then this cuts down on any potential trials of public opinion - you can point to the trial if anyone ever says Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer.

It is in the state's best interest to not appear indifferent when someone is killed in a fight, even if the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

[energiewende]

Let us assume for the moment that it is indeed the case that Zimmerman followed Martin, started the fight and then shot him ; The evidence is probably not enough to convict him, but what message does it send if he just gets off without as much as a trial?

That we live in a country still with a persumption of innocence, and therefore the terrorists indeed haven't yet won.

I am not a supporter of trials being used as punishment-by-process. What if the government began launching terrorism or sedition proseuctions against people who oppose drone strikes or the Afghanistan War? No doubt they would be acquitted but the government could drag out the trials for many years and bankrupt all involved.

And if he is indeed innocent and is acquited, then this cuts down on any potential trials of public opinion - you can point to the trial if anyone ever says Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer.

This is a trial of public opinion, lobbied for by the media against the initial (pre-politicisation) legal advice, and criminal courts merely declare people "not guilty", not "innocent" (OJ is the perfect example, where even another court with a laxer burden of proof later decided he was guilty).



Of course Zimmerman might be guilty, and if he is he gambled and won, but he hasn't exactly set a precedent for anyone to murder anyone else. He took the chance that Martin wouldn't run away: a shot in the back isn't convincing. He took the chance to get close: Martin could have taken the gun from him. He used a single handgun bullet: chances were that Martin would have survived to testify and he didn't. He did it in an open street: no cameras, no one at the window, no driver turning onto the street at the right/wrong moment, but this was chance not design. If it was a murder it was a sloppy one and Zimmerman got lucky.

[Zaune]

I'd hardly call giving Zimmerman his day in court a punishment; in fact, it's probably in his best interests to put his version of events to a jury of his peers and settle the matter once and for all, rather than spend the rest of his life dealing with people wondering if he was really acting in self-defence.

[TimothyC]

I'd hardly call giving Zimmerman his day in court a punishment; in fact, it's probably in his best interests to put his version of events to a jury of his peers and settle the matter once and for all, rather than spend the rest of his life dealing with people wondering if he was really acting in self-defence.

If you think that a jury verdict that is in his favor will settle this once and for all in the court of public opinion then you are a moron. This also ignores the fact that this case has resulted in Mr. Zimmerman losing his job, which is this economy can be financially ruinous. As much as I disagree with energiewende's posts, he makes a good point that punishment by process is a bad thing and should be avoided.

[xthetenth]

Would he not have suffered those consequences if his case were dismissed during the media circus? Because unless that's the case the punishment is coming from the media circus and not the trial itself and so it's an entirely different can of worms.

[Simon_Jester]

Let us assume for the moment that it is indeed the case that Zimmerman followed Martin, started the fight and then shot him ; The evidence is probably not enough to convict him, but what message does it send if he just gets off without as much as a trial?

That we live in a country still with a persumption of innocence, and therefore the terrorists indeed haven't yet won.

The presumption of innocence does NOT guarantee that you will not be summoned to trial if there is reason to think you may have committed a crime. The point of a trial is not to take presumed-guilty people and punish them. It is to establish whether someone is guilty in the first place.

Therefore, the state can presume that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. And put you on trial, because the trial exists, literally, as a venue for the attempt to prove you guilty. It is in this venue that evidence of your guilt or innocence would be presented. It is in this venue that (formally defined and delimited) arguments can be made for your guilt or innocence.

That process has to happen at some point, or we have no criminal justice system at all.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that people should not be put on trial if there is doubt about whether they committed the crime?

I am not a supporter of trials being used as punishment-by-process.

In the case of Zimmermann this is blatantly not what's going on; the state has no particular interest in punishing Zimmermann except for the fact that he is suspected of having committed murder while operating as an auxiliary of the police forces.

And if he is indeed innocent and is acquited, then this cuts down on any potential trials of public opinion - you can point to the trial if anyone ever says Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer.

This is a trial of public opinion, lobbied for by the media against the initial (pre-politicisation) legal advice, and criminal courts merely declare people "not guilty", not "innocent" (OJ is the perfect example, where even another court with a laxer burden of proof later decided he was guilty).

You do not know what "trial of public opinion" means. That refers to the purely extrajudicial process by which a person becomes a public outcast, when the public thinks they are a criminal: see "ostracism" for historical analogies.

As to a case like O.J. Simpson, it sounds like you're assuming by default that the evidence against him was crap, that it was completely without substance. That's not my impression of the case.

Of course Zimmerman might be guilty, and if he is he gambled and won, but he hasn't exactly set a precedent for anyone to murder anyone else. He took the chance that Martin wouldn't run away: a shot in the back isn't convincing. He took the chance to get close: Martin could have taken the gun from him. He used a single handgun bullet: chances were that Martin would have survived to testify and he didn't. He did it in an open street: no cameras, no one at the window, no driver turning onto the street at the right/wrong moment, but this was chance not design. If it was a murder it was a sloppy one and Zimmerman got lucky.

You do not have a realistic picture of what Zimmermann is being accused of, by those who think he committed murder.

The belief is that Zimmermann intentionally provoked a conflict with a random innocent stranger (by pursuing him), then shot him. The key point here is that you can't start a fight, then kill the other person when you begin to lose that fight, and get away with it on grounds of "self-defense." So there has to be some kind of investigation: this fight that you got into, that ended with you shooting someone, did you start the fight?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The belief is that Zimmermann intentionally provoked a conflict with a random innocent stranger (by pursuing him), then shot him. The key point here is that you can't start a fight, then kill the other person when you begin to lose that fight, and get away with it on grounds of "self-defense." So there has to be some kind of investigation: this fight that you got into, that ended with you shooting someone, did you start the fight?

Just a reminder. Zimmerman still could have started the fight and be justified in his use of deadly force. Just because I start a fight with you doesn't mean you get to seriously injure or kill me when I lose.

[energiewende]

Where on Earth did you get the idea that people should not be put on trial if there is doubt about whether they committed the crime?

If there is no reasonable expectation of proving the case. The evidence does not tell us that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt, because we don't know what happened other than that there was a fight. That is why no charges were brought until negative media coverage, protests and petitions induced the Governor of Florida (a politician) to direct the elected State Attorney (another politician) to bring charges. The prosecution seems certain to fail but it is brought anyway because there are votes in it.

[Thanas]

The evidence does not tell us that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt, because we don't know what happened other than that there was a fight.

While I agree with you that it seems somewhat unlikely that Zimmermann will be found guilty, especially in a jury trial, the bolded part is for the court to decide. It is not as if the evidence is completely made up.

[energiewende]

The evidence does not tell us that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt, because we don't know what happened other than that there was a fight.

While I agree with you that it seems somewhat unlikely that Zimmermann will be found guilty, especially in a jury trial, the bolded part is for the court to decide. It is not as if the evidence is completely made up.

Oh I am not claiming any evidence has been falsified. I am merely saying that even taking all prosecution evidence at face value it adds up to something quite a bit less than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I think if it were a civil case it would be worth trying. I am not necessarily saying I think he murdered Martin on balance of probabilities either but I think there is at least a discussion to be had about that.

[Simon_Jester]

Just a reminder. Zimmerman still could have started the fight and be justified in his use of deadly force. Just because I start a fight with you doesn't mean you get to seriously injure or kill me when I lose.

True, but troubling- the big problem is that people get a hyped-up, exaggerated sense for the cost of losing fights or confrontations. So I get into a fist-fight, and I somehow get the idea that I can't just give up, I have to keep fighting the guy, and I freak out and start bashing him about the head with a club or something.

This also leads to things like one party freaking out on adrenaline and chasing after the other, fleeing person and stabbing him in the back with a knife. In his mind, he's a gibbering primate chasing an aggressor "out of his territory;" the security camera will show cold-blooded murder.

Personally, I think that if you provoke a fight*, and kill someone in it you shouldn't get off scot-free. But that's just me.

*- not something under controlled conditions like a boxing match, but a fight.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that people should not be put on trial if there is doubt about whether they committed the crime?

If there is no reasonable expectation of proving the case. The evidence does not tell us that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt...

As Thanas notes, that is a question the court should settle. In this case there were several pieces of evidence that suggested such evidence might be found, such as the testimony of people who spoke to Martin or saw Zimmermann at some point. Most of this stuff was later proven questionable or inconclusive, but that's not the prosecution's fault- if they thought they had a case and were later proven wrong, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have pressed charges in the first place.

We accept that the prosecution will sometimes overestimate the strength of their own case. If we didn't, then either we'd stop having trials (since the decision to prosecute would guarantee conviction), or we'd never have them at all (because we couldn't risk a prosecution failing).

[aerius]

Let us assume for the moment that it is indeed the case that Zimmerman followed Martin, started the fight and then shot him ; The evidence is probably not enough to convict him, but what message does it send if he just gets off without as much as a trial? Even if he is acquited due to a lack of evidence, then any potential copycats who try to do it in the future will be aware that there is at least a risk of serving jail time if they fuck up ; And the public now knows that the state at least treats deaths of its citizens seriously.

And if he is indeed innocent and is acquited, then this cuts down on any potential trials of public opinion - you can point to the trial if anyone ever says Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer.

It is in the state's best interest to not appear indifferent when someone is killed in a fight, even if the verdict is a foregone conclusion.

Based on the evidence which is publicly available, there's no reason to bring him to trial under Florida's laws. Now, there may exist something which we're not privy to, but given that the police and DA chose not to lay any charges until well after the media circus started I'm rather doubtful of that. Whether we agree with Florida's laws is another matter.

[Patroklos]

The evidence does not tell us that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin beyond reasonable doubt, because we don't know what happened other than that there was a fight.

While I agree with you that it seems somewhat unlikely that Zimmermann will be found guilty, especially in a jury trial, the bolded part is for the court to decide. It is not as if the evidence is completely made up.

Its also for the prosecution to decide, and they decide if a court gets their opportunity. If the prosecution is knowingly bringing a dead end case to the courts it is valid to ask why. And if they thought there was a reasonable case before and were wrong, its valid to ask why they haven't abandoned the prosecution at this point.

[Flagg]

And the bullshit character assassination of Martin won't be allowed at trial. Which was fucking obvious.

[TimothyC]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday.

Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

"I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said.

White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said.

Phone and email messages left at the office of Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney Angela Corey were not immediately returned.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in 17-year-old Martin's killing and has pleaded not guilty, saying he acted in self-defense. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson has denied a defense motion to delay the trial, which scheduled to begin on June 10.

White led the Nassau County state attorney's office before resigning in December, citing differences of opinion with Corey. He is now in private practice.

White said the photos Kruidbos retrieved were of a hand holding a gun and one depicted drugs. The content of the text messages wasn't specified.

"I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution," White said.

The defense released photos of a gun, marijuana plant and Martin's text messages publicly, saying that if prosecutors planned to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor and Martin as the innocent bystander, they wanted the information to defend him. Attorneys won't be able to mention the teen's drug use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements at the trial, Nelson ruled Tuesday.

Nelson has set a full hearing on the turning over of evidence for next week.

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara has previously brought a handful of motions alleging that the state attorney's office had been slow to turn over other evidence.

White said his disclosure to the defense isn't sparked by any animosity toward his former employer.

"It has to do with the rule of law," White said. "When Mr. Kruidbos testifies next week, it will be his testimony and not my own."

O'Mara said Tuesday that he felt compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the judge after a hearing earlier this month in which De la Rionda was emphatic that he'd turned over all evidence related to Martin's cellphone.

"(Kruidbos) knew information that nobody else would know about what (the state attorney's office) didn't give us," O'Mara said. "The picture of the gun in the hand, for example, had not been turned over to us. But that had been created back in late January within the state attorney's office.

"That inquiry, if in fact it continues and it certainly should, could lead to some very dire consequences for those who made presentations to the judge that were not accurate."

O'Mara reported on the defense team's website Wednesday that Zimmerman's defense fund had less than $5,000 left. The fund had raised almost $315,000 by January.

His attorneys are calculating that Zimmerman needs another $120,000 to put on a good defense, or even another $75,000 to give him a fighting chance.

Great, prosecutorial misconduct.

[aerius]

Great, prosecutorial misconduct.

I can't say I'm surprised, the prosecution has been a fuck up from the start.
Hell, the entire case is a fuck up, then again the damn thing is a media & political circus more than anything else so once again I can't say I'm surprised.

[TimothyC]

Judge: No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial
Jun. 22 11:04 AM EDT

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The judge in the murder trial of George Zimmerman said Saturday that prosecution audio experts who point to Trayvon Martin as screaming on a 911 call moments before he was killed won't be allowed to testify at trial.

Judge Debra Nelson reached her decision after hearing arguments that stretched over several days this month on whether to allow testimony from two prosecution experts. One expert ruled out Zimmerman as the screamer and another said it was Martin. Defense experts argued there was not enough audio to determine who the screams are coming from. Zimmerman's attorneys also argued that the state experts' analysis is flawed.

Nelson ruled that the methods used by the experts aren't reliable. But her ruling doesn't prevent the 911 calls from being played at trial.

The screams are crucial pieces of evidence because they could determine who the aggressor was in the confrontation. Martin's family contends it was the teen screaming, while Zimmerman's father has said it was his son.

Opening statements are set for Monday in the second-degree murder trial for the former neighborhood watch volunteer who says he fired on the unarmed black teenager in self-defense last year. Zimmerman is pleading not guilty.

The elimination of the audio experts will likely shorten the trial by a week. Before the ruling, attorneys had predicted the trial could last two to four weeks after opening statements.

A spokeswoman for prosecutors didn't immediately return an email Saturday.

Audio experts from both sides testified at different times during the hearing, which stretched over three weeks. Voice experts were hired by lawyers and news organizations to analyze the calls, which were made during the confrontation between the two. The experts arrived at mixed conclusions.

In deciding whether to admit the voice-recognition technology used by prosecution audio experts Tom Owen and Alan Reich, Nelson had to determine whether it is too novel or whether it has been accepted by the scientific community at-large.

"There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable," the judge said in her ruling.

Owen was hired by the Orlando Sentinel last year to compare a voice sample of Zimmerman with screams for help captured on 911 calls made by neighbors. He said Zimmerman's voice doesn't match the screams. He only compared Zimmerman's voice to the 911 calls because he didn't have a voice sample for Martin at the time.

"The screams don't match at all," Owen testified during the hearing. "That's what tells me the screams aren't George Zimmerman."

Owen also testified that remarks Zimmerman made in a conversation with a police dispatcher aren't a racial slur. He testified Zimmerman said, "These f------ punks."

Reich testified in a report for prosecutors that the screams on the 911 tapes were from Martin, and the defense does not want him to testify at trial.

Reich's analysis also picked up words that other experts couldn't find. They include the words, "This shall be" from Zimmerman and "I'm begging you" from Martin.

Reich's testimony would "confuse issues, mislead the jury," the judge said.

In contrast, a British audio expert testified for the defense that it would be extremely difficult to analyze voices by comparing screaming to a normal voice.

"I've never come across a case in my 13 years where anybody's tried to compare screaming to a normal voice," said audio expert Peter French.

A second audio expert for the defense, George Doddington, also criticized prosecution experts who said Friday that screams and pleas on a 911 recording likely belonged to Martin.

"It's all ridiculous," Doddington said.

Well, that's a win for the defense.

[une]

DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries

[Flagg]

DNA Report does NOT support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin caused his injuries

Shocking. Too bad DNA probably won't matter to the almost all white jury.

[aerius]

Nice. Now why the fuck didn't this report ever show up in the affidavit or any one of the other legal docs which were filed last year? It's not like this lab report just turned up last week, it's been around for over a year and pretty much every other file related to the case has been leaked or come out already. If this DNA report had been in the affidavit it would've made for a much better case instead of making the prosecution look like flunkies.

[hunter5]

Actually looking at the report itself all I really see is a lot of inconclusive data, unable to confirms or just not enough of a sample to get any result. However I am not a forensic expert and will wait for this to be revealed at trial so the actual conclusions can be given. However if the conclusions the dailykos reached from the report are true this will hurt Zimmerman's case a great deal.