Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.
"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."
When Sanford police arrived on the scene on February 26, 2012, after Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they conducted a "sound" investigation, and the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, he said.
State adding on manslaughter and aggravated assault as included lesser charges.
Amazing! The only one guilty of a crime that night is now dead and beyond earthly punishment.
The court is constitutionally required to instruct on lessers and the general rule is that a defendant cannot refuse a lesser included instruction or potential verdict on a lesser included.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
It could be argued that a reasonable person would not have pursued TM.
No it could not ... not in the sense that that term means in the law. In the law it means a non-negligent person. How is it negligent for a neighborhood watch captain to follow the path (not pursue, now) of a suspected burglar in an effort to keep him within view so as to report his general location for the cops who were on their way? No way in hell he was going to confront him, because if he wanted to do that, he had plenty of opportunities on the road. That was the last thing he wanted to do.
How could he be guilty of manslaughter and or aggravated assault if not of murder?
Looks like to me either it was self defense or not in either case.
I agree. If he's not guilty of murder 2 due to justified use of lethal force, that also clears him of manslaughter and aggravated assault. Makes no sense.
State adding on manslaughter and aggravated assault as included lesser charges.
Amazing! The only one guilty of a crime that night is now dead and beyond earthly punishment.
The court is constitutionally required to instruct on lessers and the general rule is that a defendant cannot refuse a lesser included instruction or potential verdict on a lesser included.
You've got it backwards. The court cannot refuse a lesser if requested by the defendant. However, when the prosecution requests a lesser, it must be supported by both evidence supporting the elements AND the pleadings.
The defense will be fighting the addition of the lessers.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The second week of the Zimmerman trial has proven as disastrous for the prosecution as the first. The only conclusion the jurors could reach beyond a reasonable doubt at this point is that the state has wasted their time and ruined the life of a hapless neighborhood watch volunteer.
Insuperable doubts abound in the case. Not a single piece of incriminating evidence has been nailed down. Bob Beckel, Fox�s Falstaff, claims that Zimmerman is a �wannabe cop who didn�t like black people.� That�s what the prosecution would like people to think. But the only racism it has managed to establish implicates Trayvon Martin, who called Zimmerman a �creepy-ass cracker� and �[bleep].�
Even on the irrelevant question of whether or not Zimmerman �profiled� Martin, the prosecution has struggled, despite enjoying the advantage of getting to leave jurors in the dark about most of Martin�s past. Zimmerman�s monstrous hate crime, it turns out, was that he profiled a juvenile delinquent as a juvenile delinquent. He said that Martin looked like he was on drugs. He was. He said that he was behaving suspiciously. He was. Jurors may hear about the marijuana in his system (the judge has now said that the defense can use a toxicology report), but they won�t hear about his suspension from school at the time, his school�s discovery of stolen goods and a burglary tool in his backpack, and his past fights.
Zimmerman�s �profiling� fell well within the range of reasonableness for a neighborhood watch volunteer. So even if that were the subject of the trial, as the prosecution has tried mightily to make it, he would deserve to prevail. The media will undoubtedly portray an acquittal, should it come, as a narrow legal, not moral, victory, spin which can already be seen in anxious, craven commentaries about the trial on most channels. But it is not at all clear what Zimmerman did even morally wrong, apart from make one profane aside to a 911 operator.
�I do not see how a jury, as a legal matter, convicts of either second-degree murder or manslaughter. Now, that does not mean that George Zimmerman was justified, it doesn�t mean that George Zimmerman was right,� said Dan Abrams of ABC, setting the tone for potential post-acquittal coverage.
In other words, Zimmerman is a vile person who could have committed a crime but it just wasn�t proven. By adopting this line, the media shows its amoral willingness to deliver Zimmerman�s head to the mob. A responsible press would turn its attention to prosecutors and ask why they brought the case in the first place. It would paraphrase to prosecutors Raymond Donovan�s famous question: Which Seminole County office should Zimmerman go to get his reputation back?
On Monday, two detectives testified that Trayvon Martin�s father told them that the screams captured on a 911 call did not come from his son. �There�s no doubt� that is what he said, according to detective Doris Singleton. This devastating testimony came after a mounting number of witnesses testified to Zimmerman�s voice on the call, testimony which corresponds to the account from the only eyewitness to the incident, John Good, who said last week that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman in a �ground and pound� style and heard Zimmerman crying for help. On Tuesday, a black neighbor of Zimmerman�s also testified that when she heard screams on the call she identified the voice as Zimmerman�s.
The defense also called on Tuesday a forensics expert, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who testified that the gun burn on Trayvon Martin�s sweatshirt supports Zimmerman�s account. �Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward,� he said. �If you are lying on your back your clothing is going to be against your chest,� he said. �The clothing is consistent with someone leaning over the person doing the shooting.� Di Maio also confirmed that Martin would have had enough oxygen in his brain to have spoken after the shooting, as Zimmerman told police he did (Martin said something like �you got me�) � a part of Zimmerman�s story the prosecution had claimed was implausible.
The confidence of the defense�s witnesses is in sharp contrast with the shakiness, hedging, and bumbling of the prosecution�s. On Monday, illustrating this problem, Trayvon Martin�s father took the stand and attempted to contradict the detectives. His performance was less than convincing. He claimed that he didn�t deny it was his son�s voice but that he just couldn�t �tell� one way or the other. Even if this fudging were true � and there is no reason to think the detectives are lying � how could it possibly help the prosecution�s case? Reasonable doubt is established, not eliminated, by such testimony.
�I can�t tell� � that line defines the emptiness of the prosecution�s case. The state had nothing more than a politicized hunch, now proven worthless, that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder. No direct evidence, just conjecture, changing stories, motive-mongering, and burden-shifting. A conviction, not an acquittal, would merit protests in the streets.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
It could be argued that a reasonable person would not have pursued TM.
No it could not ... not in the sense that that term means in the law. In the law it means a non-negligent person. How is it negligent for a neighborhood watch captain to follow the path (not pursue, now) of a suspected burglar in an effort to keep him within view so as to report his general location for the cops who were on their way? No way in hell he was going to confront him, because if he wanted to do that, he had plenty of opportunities on the road. That was the last thing he wanted to do.
I meant that in a moral sense ... not in a legal sense.
Zimmerman's lawyer makes a good point, how can manslaughter be considered when Zimmerman's actions were intentional..he intentionally defended himself. Naturally the judge is going to allow manslaughter.
I understand the defense attorney arguing against the Vol Man lesser, but it was entirely proper for the court to instruct on it. Of course Zim acted intentionally, the issue is whether his intentional acts were negligent. People act intentionally and negligently all the time. In Kalifornia it would be reversible error not to instruct on a lesser included where the evidence shows it to be applicable. Not sure about the Florida rule but the general rule is that the court must instruct on applicable lesser, even over the defendant's objection. The rationalization is that courts of law are not "gambling halls" and if the lesser is justified by the facts, the jury must be permitted to consider it's applicability, rather than permit the defendant to control the potential outcome by "rolling the dice" on all or nothing.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
I understand the defense attorney arguing against the Vol Man lesser, but it was entirely proper for the court to instruct on it. Of course Zim acted intentionally, the issue is whether his intentional acts were negligent. People act intentionally and negligently all the time. In Kalifornia it would be reversible error not to instruct on a lesser included where the evidence shows it to be applicable. Not sure about the Florida rule but the general rule is that the court must instruct on applicable lesser, even over the defendant's objection. The rationalization is that courts of law are not "gambling halls" and if the lesser is justified by the facts, the jury must be permitted to consider it's applicability, rather than permit the defendant to control the potential outcome by "rolling the dice" on all or nothing.
I understand the defense attorney arguing against the Vol Man lesser, but it was entirely proper for the court to instruct on it. Of course Zim acted intentionally, the issue is whether his intentional acts were negligent. People act intentionally and negligently all the time. In Kalifornia it would be reversible error not to instruct on a lesser included where the evidence shows it to be applicable. Not sure about the Florida rule but the general rule is that the court must instruct on applicable lesser, even over the defendant's objection. The rationalization is that courts of law are not "gambling halls" and if the lesser is justified by the facts, the jury must be permitted to consider it's applicability, rather than permit the defendant to control the potential outcome by "rolling the dice" on all or nothing.
Voting for Obama as an example.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
I must confess, I've done over 150 jury trials, most of them felonies and I have never, ever seen a judge place a defendant under oath before advising him of his right to testify. I have heard some judges (in an abundance of caution and perhaps where they had doubts about the competency of defense counsel) advise the defendant of his right to testify (or not to testify) and insure that he understands and waives that right, but even that is rare. However, I have never, ever, ever heard a judge compel a defendant to give sworn testimony on that issue. I believe it was improper, but probably utterly harmless. The larger question it raises though is what in hell was the judge thinking? The response of O'Mara under his breath ("what is going on here") suggests that what she did was highly unorthodox in Florida also. So, again, what in hell was wrong with the judge? Why in the world did she do that? Its just odd.
Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 07/10/13.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
I must confess, I've done over 150 jury trials, most of them felonies and I have never, ever seen a judge place a defendant under oath before advising him of his right to testify. I have heard some judges (in an abundance of caution and perhaps where they had doubts about the competency of defense counsel) advise the defendant of his right to testify (or not to testify) and insure that he understands and waives that right, but even that is rare. However, I have never, ever, ever heard a judge compel a defendant to give sworn testimony on that issue. I believe it was improper, but probably utterly harmless. The larger question it raises though is what in hell was the judge thinking? The response of O'Mara under his breath ("what is going on here") suggests that what she did was highly unorthodox in Florida also. So, again, what in hell was wrong with the judge? Why in the world did she do that? Its just odd.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
You took the words right out of my mouth.