Prosecutor withholding evidence in Treyvon Martin Case

Post Reply New Topic

Except this could have altered a pre-trial ruling that could have forced the case to be dismissed under Florida Law, as to a new trial, Mr. Zimmerman hasn't had his trial yet, and thus it is entirely possible the case could be tossed due to prosecutoral misconduct.

There is no need to state the incredibly obvious--the merely obvious will do.

I am quite well aware of the nature of the evidence that the prosecution failed to disclose. I think it's a tad inflammatory to call it "withholding" since the report suggests that they failed to provide it in its original form--but leaving that aside, it is a failure to comply with the rules of disclosure.

As for motives, I think that it is irresponsible to attempt to ascribe them. This may be nothing more than honest mistake--and if so, the prosecution has corrected its mistake. If there is a pattern of non-compliance, then it is up to the Judge to decide on the gravity of the misconduct and determine the appropriate response. I am content that Mr. Zimmerman's lawyer will be aggressive in the defence of his client's interests, and I am content to leave it to the court to arbitrate these matters without weighing in on them.

One judge had to be removed from this case already due to bias, visagrunt. Also in the case of withholding evidence, it has been the latter scenario, this has actually been a pattern. In all honesty that photo may actually have gotten the case dismissed under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

Isn't Zimmerman's voice on several recordings saying racist remarks like "N****rs," "effin' c**ns" and "they always get away?" (If they were actually doctored, where's the evidence proving it?) What about the call Trayvon made to a female relative while he was being tracked by Zimmerman? What about the claim that his father lived in the complex? Or the numerous (vastly different) photos of the alleged perpetrator of the shooting? Something's off in this whole case (the lack of evidence present for either side's case is just one issue). Perhaps Florida needs to do away with the "Stand Your Ground" law.

See? The system works, and perhaps the courts can be trusted to police themselves as well as the conduct of the parties before them.



That has been alleged, but it has not been proven in court. I'm not going to uncritically accept one party's claim until the other party has had its opportunity to respond.



Now you are most certainly behaving prejudicially.

At this point all that the photo stands for is the condition that Zimmerman was in at the time that the photo was taken. The photo, alone, reveals nothing about how those injuries came about, who caused them, when they were caused, or--most importantly--Zimmerman's state of mind at the time the the shooting took place.

So let's just stop prejudicing the trial, and let the lawyers, the judge and the jury (once empanelled) get on with their jobs.

Racist remarks aren't automatically relevant. There is a difference between not liking people, killing them for a racist motive, and killing someone you don't like out of self defense.

I know about the phone call and that Martin lived in a nearby neighborhood. However, making a preemptive attack in the name of self-defense is illegal everywhere, and that's exactly what Martin did.

So, you were there the night Trayvon was killed?
The only people who knew what actually took place that night are Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman and only one of them can speak.

In other News, MSNBC has now been sued by George Zimmerman for airing a doctored 911 tape.

It doesn't matter that Martin can't speak. He wouldn't have been very credible anyway. There isn't any other explanation as to how Zimmerman could have been attacked like that before he could draw his gun and demand Martin stop and explain himself or hold him until the police arrived.

These kids look similar to Treyvon at their age, so is Obama going to come out and say if he had a son, that's what he'd look like?

Surely there must be some Caucasian thugs whose pictures you can show us.

ruveyn

If he felt threatened why didn't he shoot him in the foot or leg?You don't have to kill someone to stop them.And if he couldn't handle a gun well enough to get off a non-lethal shot he didn't need a fire-arm.
I don't think much of Florida's legal system.
You can steal an election there.
You can murder your little daughter and throw her body out in a trash bag like garbage and walk free.
And I guess you can gun down kids that look like they MIGHT be a gang-banger.
Lots of kids dress that way,with hoodies,kids of all races.
Plenty of caucasian thugs in jail roster of the county above me,real scary looking people.
I'd post some of them if I could figure out how.(newbie to computers).
Most teenagers here have rifles and most likely a handgun also.They have their picture taken with their firearms, so does that make them gangsters??

I'm not sure I see that as relevant.

If we assume, for the moment, that Zimmerman was acting out of a well founded fear for his own safety (thus opening the door to a defence of self-defence) the question of whether lesser force could have been used has to be balanced against the question of whether, in the circumstances, he had the skill to mitigate the force use; and whether he had the presence of mind to judge the level of force required.

I'm not yet satisfied on the question of self-defence. Neither am I satisfied on the justification for use of lethal force. But if a jury is satisfied on those two questions, I see little room for argument around mitigation of the level of force actually used.



Fair comment--but that does not change the fact that this is the law under which Zimmerman must be prosecuted.



Here I think you're straying into problematic territory.

The issues before the court relate to the events that took place with these two specific people. These general observations about kids, races, thugs and teenagers don't go to the question of what happened between these two people and what was Zimmerman's state of mind during these events. The court must judge the instant case; not the allegorical case.

That might not stop him. Also for all he knew, he could have had a weapon that he wasn't using. Shoot him in the leg, then he pulls his gun and shoots you in the chest.

When you fear for your life, it is understandably hard to fear for your assailant's life.

^^^^^^I think the boy was holding a drink and a bag of skittles.Menacing,candy and a cold drink.

But what you, or I, or anyone thinks is not sufficient for the purposes of the law.

The law requires proof. For the prosecution, this is proof beyond reasonable doubt. For the defence, that is proof on the balance of probabilities.

But for neither side does, "I think," provide sufficient probative weight to reach any conclusion.