BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:18 PM

In the course of any investigation a prosecutor will come across information not related to the case and stuff that most definitely would not be considered as evidence...

Does the defense attorney have a right to that information???

That is the question here...

When it comes to the pics on Martin's phone, I haven't heard any credible reason why Zimmerman's attorney believes that:

a. These pics are evidence of a crime committed later and not related to those pictures and...

b. Why Zimmerman's attorney thinks they are...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:35 PM

They probably have read it, Richard - they just are incapable of comprehending it.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM

Brucie and Jest - FFS go and READ the stuff I got from Cornell University (no less).

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 11:25 AM

1) Q: Is it evidence at all? A: If the judge so decides.

2) Prosecution is not allowed to keep anything from the defense. On occasion, prosecutors have been know to keep some stuff until a few days before the trial, but keep it too late so it doesn't allow the defense to modify or construct its argument and the judge will be seriously POed, if the judge is worth his salt.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:56 AM

Dickie Bridgie,

IT IS STILL NOT THE PROSECUTORS CALL.

That is for the JUDGE to decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 09:27 AM

Juicy Brucie - did you read what I linked to about "stand your ground"? There has been no prior hearing on "stand your ground" but it COULD still be raised at trial.

Secondly - if, as I argue, the matter in question is not evidence and is not discoverable, then no evidence has been withheld.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:22 AM

And his lawyer has stated he is NOT using the "Stand your ground" law in defense.


So?????

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM

Well Brucie I don't think anyone doesn't want him to have a fair trial but Dan's point has always been the only salient point. The stand your ground law should be disregarded when Zimmerman should never have been on THAT ground and hence had no ground to stand. The transcript of the 911 is clear. "We don't need you to do that."(follow Martin)


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:56 AM

No arguement at all, old dude, Bobert, and JtS


- BUT HE STILL DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.

The prosecutor cannot withhold evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:06 AM

100% with you on that Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:16 PM

Exactly, Ol'ster...

Same in martial arts... You will find that the baddest of bad asses in the dojo will do everything in their power to avoid a fight...

People who have no real training with guns are very dangerous people...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:07 PM

Forget the politics, when you carry a firearm (I do) you need to take extra care to avoid such situations. You will be held accountable in the harshest of terms. If a police officer tells you wait in your car we are on it, the only time you could ignore that is if someone's life was immediately in danger (ie) he heard a scream or a cry for help. Ya can't be a lone ranger, you can and will be charged with murder. That being said, he is entitled to full disclosure of all evidence and nothing can be withheld that is the law ..

But I do not feel a bit sorry for him. One person is dead and his life is ruined no matter how it turns out. Ya just can't do what he did or what is reported he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:51 PM

At this point it doesn't much matter how the trial ends...

Because this event is so polorized, one half of people (regardless of the evidence) will believe that Zimnmerman in guilty and the other half will believe the opposite...

Too bad that the divide seems to follow the same divide as everything else in the country...

Republicans = innocent...

Dems = guilty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:12 PM

YY,

I think that GF and BB just like calling each other names.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:52 PM

BB is right: "...if the trial is unfair, that is a bad thing EVEN IF HE (i.e. Zimmerman) IS CONVICTED."

Perhaps we should all just leave it at that?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:12 PM

BULLSHIT, Greggie boy.

I want a fair trial- YOU are the one who wants to lynch him, regardless of his guilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM

That's right, Beardy - you want a "fair trial - just so long as Zimmerman is exonerated.

Gotcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:32 AM

I agree with Bobert's post of Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:26 PM . All true.



However, NONE of that leads to any less need for a fair trial, with the rights of the accused being followed. He may well be guilty- but if the trial is unfair, that is a bad thing EVEN IF HE IS CONVICTED.

The Prosecution needs to be aboveboard and follow the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:12 AM

I think everyone on this thread wants to see a FAIR trial.

Where we differ seems to be on the odds of that occurring - and the best way to achieve it.

It's true that many of us (including me) think it highly unlikely that Zimmerman is "not guilty". If we were in the jury, that would be a serious problem, as everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence... in court.

gillymoor - absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:53 AM

As a Floridian it distresses me that Zimmerman was given a CC permit and allowed to function as quasi police considering his own history.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM

What **I** want to see is a fair trial, without lynching Zimmerman because of past injustices in the justice system.



"There had been a rash of recent break-ins at the Retreat, and Zimmerman was wary of strangers walking through the complex.
He was well-known to police dispatchers for his regular calls reporting suspicious people and events.
Martin was walking back from a convenience store after buying ice tea and Skittles. It was raining, and he was wearing a hoodie.
Zimmerman called 911, got out of his vehicle and followed Martin behind the townhomes despite being told not to by a police dispatcher.
'These a*******, they always get away,' Zimmerman said on the call. Zimmerman, who had a concealed weapons permit, was armed.
The two then got into a struggle. Zimmerman told police he had lost sight of Martin, and that Martin circled back and attacked him as he walked back to his truck. Prosecutors say he tracked down Martin and started the fight.
Zimmerman told police Martin punched him in the nose, knocking him down, and then got on top of him and began banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
Photos taken after the fight show Zimmerman with a broken nose, bruises and bloody cuts on the back of his head. He said that when Martin spotted his gun holstered around his waist under his clothes, he said: 'You are going to die tonight.'
Zimmerman said he grabbed the gun first and fired. Martin died at the scene."

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jun 13 - 09:37 PM

Seems that the people behind paying for Zimmerman's defense won't be happy until Zimmerman is elevated to sainthood...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 11:33 AM

Suspect BB wouldn't [disagree], either...

Oh, you kidder, you. That really IS amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:26 AM

No, YY... I doubt if bb would agree with me... All along he has sounded as if it's Zimmerman who is getting the shaft...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:23 AM

Works for me too!

I hate to say it, but I suspected things would go this way.

Zimmerman should have been tried somewhere far away from the town whose law enforcement tried to ignore the death of Trayvon Martin, and let his killer go without the circumstances even being investigated.

It took a public outcry to make them earn their pay, and even then the investigation was heavily slanted in the killer's favour, with some rather suspect cosmetically enhanced photos of dubious origin being published.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 08:43 AM

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, Bobert.

Suspect BB wouldn't, either...

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:26 PM

The problem here, YY, is that the judge is falling down on his job... His job is to insure that the trial will be untainted... He has allowed Zimmerman's attorney to use the media to poison the jury pool... That's exactly what Johnny Cochran did back in the early 90s when he got O.J. Simpson off when there was a mountain of evidence that O'J. did the crime...

My problem is with judges who sit in Southern states... The US has a history of looking the other way... Unfortunately, when it comes down to these kinds of crimes, the South has a very bad track record...

In 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, there was a non-violent, peaceful and legal civil rights march... The KKK set up shop on the march route and shot and killed 5 marchers... Not one ever was charged...

The South has a way of looking the other way when it comes to these kinds of things...

I know all too well... I was born in the South... Raised in the South... Educated in the South and still here... I've seen enough to suspect that one day we will look back on this trial as an injustice...

Oh, well???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM

(posted this once already; it doesn't seem to have taken - so apologies if it eventually shows up twice...)

I've already made it pretty clear where I stand on this, i.e.:
I'm with BB (and a few others) in believing that you don't get to choose which bits of the law should apply to a case depending on who you think is guilty/innocent.

I'm with Bobert (and many others) in thinking that: this evidence is not/should not be considered admissible evidence; that the defense should not have been allowed to release it to the media/the media should not have been allowed to use it; this may well "poison the well"; and it seems all too likely that justice will not be served.

I don't see what was so terrible about the original post; it contained factual info that struck me as worth sharing.

In BB's third post, he says, "Regardless of one's opinion of the shooting, it deserves to be tried in a fair, legal fashion, without opening up unwarranted areas for appeals or declarations of mistrial."

To me, that is a pretty sensible assessment of the situation (one which I think even Bobert would agree with). In other words: if you feel Zimmerman should not "get off", you (logically) would not want the prosecution to be playing fast & loose with the law, because that increases the chance(s) that Zimmerman will get off due to a mistrial.

Seems to me that folks on this thread actually agree when it comes down to it - they just don't seem to be understanding what each other are saying (getting personal/saying nasty things doesn't help, of course).

When people keep saying the same things over and over and still not understanding each other, perhaps it's time to call it a day (or should that be "call it a thread"?). Just a thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 05:48 PM

First of all, who cares???

What we are getting is a a lot of noise which is being used as a smokescreen from the facts of the case... The facts do not bode well for Zimmermen so that means its time to...

...change the subject...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 12:07 PM

So What, Beardy?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM

"SANFORD, Fla. (AP) -- For a second day in a row, a Florida judge is weighing whether to allow certain voice experts to testify at the trial of a neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the fatal shooting of an unarmed teen.

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson is listening Friday to testimony from voice experts about whether witnesses with expertise in speech identification should be allowed to testify when George Zimmerman's trial starts next week.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a struggle in a gated community. He is pleading not guilty, claiming self-defense.

Neighbors called 911 during the fight and cries for help can be heard on the recordings.

Martin's family claim the cries came from the teen while Zimmerman's father has testified they were those of his son.'

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:31 AM

BB: This aged, clever nit-wit says good night and good luck. ( The good luck part may be overstated.)

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:07 AM

Elmore,

In your first post, you were a wit.

By now, you are less than a nit-wit.




But a clever one, I will allow.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:04 AM

BB says "Address the thread topic." Okay. Hellooooooh thread topic. This thread topic, like pornography, has no redeeming social value.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 09:28 AM

O.k. BB the thread topic was introduced by someone who loves to cause trouble, and is nasty and profane when someone disagrees with him. This thread topic would be a total waste were it not for intelligent, thoughtful responses by many Mudcatters. For my thoughts on this thread topic, see my May 31 entry.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 09:17 AM

In case you have problems scrolling :



1. DO YOU AGREE that the procecutor has now made it easier for Zimmerman to get off,

2. and that the ILLEGAL withholding of evidence from the defense was WRONG????


Two YES or NO questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 09:15 AM

Bobert, Try addressing the thread topic

YES or NO to my two stated questions???


Or are you saying you are just here to be a shithead about the topic, preventing reasonable discussion of the legal points involved?


Getting your hemp rope ready? Find a nice tall tree??

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

He not only YELLS but his answers/responses make no sense at all..,. He avoids common sense like it was a radiation pit...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 09:04 AM

Elmore,

Could you please address the thread topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:43 AM

BB: Could you please stop YELLING?

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:22 AM

Bobert,


"1. I challenged you to use your wildest imagination to explain a situation where Martin's pictures that were taken well before he was murdered amounted to evidence... You didn't answer that question at all... You just played silly..."


I GAVE you the text message that I thought would be significant evidence- which you ignored.



"2. Then you say that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself from getting his pounded in the ground... First, if you come at me with a gun and I can find a way to defend myself then guess what... If it means pounding your head in the ground I'm gonna do it... Duhhhhh???"


IF he had the gun out. IF he had it concealed, and called out, AND WAS ATTACKED by Martin, he WAS defending himself.




"3. Bottom line, had Zimmerman ************OBEYED************* the police and stayed in his fucking car then two things would not have occurred that night... First, there would have been no self-defense my Martin and, two, Martin would not have murdered Martin...


THIS I agree with. As do MOST here that you refuse to be reasonable in this discussion with.

I stated it was a BAD DECISION.



Now, about the thread topic.

1.
DO YOU AGREE that the procecutor has now made it easier for Zimmerman to get off,

2. and that the ILLEGAL withholding of evidence from the defense was WRONG????


Two YES or NO questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 05:35 AM

Hadn't seen that when I answered Dan's post Richard, but that would seem to make the whole thing a storm in a rather dirty teacup.

After all, one might suppose that both sets of lawyers should know this, so Bobert may be right about the shit stirring intentions of a dodgy defence brief.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 05:25 AM

""He will only get grounds for either a new trial or a dismissal if the law isn't followed.""

And that is the only consideration that should decide what is done with anything which might later be ruled admissible by a Court of Appeal.

It isn't about getting him falsely convicted, it's about ensuring that he cannot overturn a conviction on a technicality.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM

Bah. Why don't people look shit up. From Cornell University: -

"Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and:

(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;

(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or

(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant".



So in the present case the key question is whether the item is material to preparing the defence. While the material MIGHT be evidential of Martin's character, it seems to me that that what may be in issue (that is not the same thing as what will necessarily be in issue) is what Zimmerman reasonably believed Martin's intentions to be that night. It is very hard indeed to see how month-old photos that Zimmerman had never seen could influence Zimmerman's belief on that night.

It looks to me therefore as if the photos were not discoverable.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:02 PM

BTW, in my 7:20 post...

Correction: "Zimmerman would not have murdered Martin"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:46 PM

Discovery isn't supposed to be an open ended fishing expedition...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:40 PM

"
The reason for discovery is that no side knows what is relevant or not. All information must be given to the attorney that is the law and his constitutional right. I cannot stand Zimmerman from what I have read and heard, what occurred should not have occurred had he followed the police order. But .. the law is the law. He will only get grounds for either a new trial or a dismissal if the law isn't followed"

At last a reasonable human to debate with!!

I totally see what you mean, but doesn't discovery apply to relevant information? To evidence the prosecution will use in its case or evidence that weakens the prosecutions case? If Zimmerman is defending himself saying that he had reasonable fear for his life. He can't say he had based that fear based on deleted picture in the kid's cellphone. He is not alleging that the kid threatened him with the marijuana leaves or the gun in the picture. The essentials of the crime and his claim of self defense is what happened that night and how he came to be there in that deadly dangerous situation. The kids prior, private life have NOTHING to do with the crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 07:20 PM

Wow... More shit than a manure factory...

First, bb...

1. I challenged you to use your wildest imagination to explain a situation where Martin's pictures that were taken well before he was murdered amounted to evidence... You didn't answer that question at all... You just played silly...

2. Then you say that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself from getting his pounded in the ground... First, if you come at me with a gun and I can find a way to defend myself then guess what... If it means pounding your head in the ground I'm gonna do it... Duhhhhh???

3. Bottom line, had Zimmerman ************OBEYED************* the police and stayed in his fucking car then two things would not have occurred that night... First, there would have been no self-defense my Martin and, two, Martin would not have murdered Martin...

Do you get common sense, dude...

Quit with the BS games... They are retarded... No, not even that intelligent...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 04:19 PM

How? Are you here for this type of thread? If so you need to know they get raw. Don't come into these and you'll be a happy camper as there are lots of fine musical threads and some pretty fair jokes and other fun BS. If you think any thread relating to this case would be clean and pristine, you'd be wrong!

So as the old saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat you can fuckin' blow me." Now go off and have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
From: Elmore
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 04:16 PM

Guest, Guest. Coming from a troll like you, that's a compliment. Is that you Bruce? Or Songwronger? Or the gone but not forgotten Henry Krinkle?