George Zimmerman trial: Defense will likely rest case Wednesday
Source: CBS/AP
(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. -- The defense will likely wrap up their case in the trial of accused murderer George Zimmerman Wednesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said in court Tuesday afternoon.
After the defense rests, the state will have the opportunity to call rebuttal witnesses, reports the Orlando Sentinel.
The defense launched testimony Friday, after the prosecution rested its case. Defense attorneys have called to the stand numerous witnesses including Zimmerman's mother and uncle to testify that the voice screaming for help in the background of a 911 call is Zimmerman's.
The call, placed by a neighbor the night Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin in a gated Sanford, Fla. community, has been a key point of contention because it could provide clues at to who was the aggressor in the fatal confrontation.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592953-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-defense-will-likely-rest-case-wednesday/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)And then onto his and his wife's trial for illegal money transfers. As wire-fraud doesn't necessarily include the use of a firearm, I imagine his support here will lessen for that fine, upstanding young man. 
B Stieg
(2,410 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)It ain't gonna happen. Besides, unless he makes some big money from selling reich wingers his story, what's there to sue him for? As soon as he is either finally acquitted, or his appeals have run out if convicted, the knuckle-draggers will dump him like they did with Monica Lewinsky.
John2
(2,730 posts)acquitted too and sued. A Civil law suit doesn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I would sue the housing complex, that allowed George Zimmerman to be a community watch person who carried a gun when advised not to. I would also sue the State Florida and challenge the Stand your Ground Law. I would also sue the City Police Department.
I don't think the Prosecution has done as good job of prosecuting this case so far. The prosecution has went along with the defense's assertions, a person fighting for their life would be the one with the most injuries. That is a flawed theory, if more competent lawyers bought it out. I'm pretty sure they can find some cases, where the assailant received the most injuries.
Just because Zimmerman had injuries to his head and face, does not mean he wasn't the attacker. His lack of injuries on his hands does mean, he wasn't using all means to defend himself. The prosecution never approached that theory. They need to call a rebuttal witness to the assertions on marijuana, but it isn't based on any scientific fact, about it making people violent. He also changed his testimony near the end of the Prosecution's case.
They also could bring in the allegations against the police department. Did they ever put the 13 year old boy and his mother on the stand, or the three police officers, Detective Serino accused of pressuring him to charge Zimmerman? I also think the judge's decision to not strike certain jurors and the composition of the jury if he is acquitted should be challenged. It seemed like Trayvon Martin was the one on trial and not Zimmerman. I think Zimmerman's criminal record should have been bought in, because it involves overly aggressive behavior.
I also think better lawyers would investigate alleged information from news articles, about other aggressive behavior by Zimmerman, cush as his altercation with a motorist and tailgating,him allegedly working as a bouncer, and members on neighborhood watch claiming he was aggressive. I think his wife should have been called to the stand also, in regards to Zimmerman obtaining and carrying a gun and how he was allowed to carry one. She could testify to his creditability and mannerism at home also. Such as, if he ever shown any aggressive behavior or hit her.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)If GZ prevails, he's immune from civil prosecution, AND he gets his lawyer fees paid back to him by the state.
John2
(2,730 posts)of your Florida Statute for initial aggressor. That is the instructions the judge should have read to the jury. George Zimmerman initially pursued Martin. That is why Zimmerman is guilty of murder and not self defense. Zimmerman provoked the whole events that occurred after he initially pursued Martin. He also falsely profiled Martin.
The prosecution is working for the State and City. The initial aggressor needs to use all alternate means to retreat. They do not have the same immunity of a non aggressor.
Zimmerman nor his defense team has presented no collaborating evidence in this trial,Zimmerman stopped pursuing or Martin circled back to pursue Zimmerman.
The Deadly Weapon Doctrine should also come into effect. That should be automatic, because Zimmerman pursued Martin with a deadly weapon, that was already loaded and ready to fire.
It gave Martin reasonable grounds to believe his life was in danger and a reason to use all available means to defend himself, even causing the injuries to Zimmerman. The prosecution is negligent in not bringing that out to the jury, if they don't. Just because Zimmerman had the most injuries, doesn't mean he was defending himself or was the one reasonably believing his life was in danger.
The emphasis on Zimmerman having a gun in pursuit of Martin gave him the upperhand period. It is not reasonable to believe Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun, much less it was loaded or how to even use it. Do you know a gun manuel that teaches gun owners to have a loaded gun with the safety off in a holster, when carrying it around?
The bottomline is, if the judge read the proper instructions to the jury and they follow the law, Zimmerman should be found guilty as charged.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)... but I'm saying IF he is found not guilty, then it appears that under Florida law he cannot be sued civilly, and his legal fees for the criminal trial will be reimbursed.
I am not an attorney. Just someone reading the statutes.
obama2terms
(563 posts)That if the 2nd degree murder charges are thrown could he still get manslaughter charges? Maybe voluntary manslaughter? I wish I knew but I'm not a lawyer.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)He is charged with Second Degree (Depraved Mind) Murder - FS 782.04(2)
Among the lesser included offenses is Manslaughter - FS 782.07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/page/charges-george-zimmerman-16123710
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter33/schedlesserincludoffens.rtf
Morganfleeman
(117 posts)Involuntary manslaughter is arguably not available because the prosecution never alleged culpable negligence in the criminal complaint. They are alleging a willful act, and there's caselaw to the effect in Florida that if not in the complaint, manslaughter premised on negligence is not an appropriate lesser included. My guess is Nelson will allow it anyway, but it is certainly grounds for appeal if she does and he is convicted on that charge. Aggravated assault may be an appropriate lesser included to charge the jury with. If convicted on aggravated assault, because a firearm was involved Zimmerman can spend up to 20-25 years in prison.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Looks like even under manslaughter, if there is culpable negligence, Zimmerman could go away for a LONG time.
obama2terms
(563 posts)Florida is pretty messed up. If this happened in my state ( Tn.) Z would have been arrested and jailed the night it happened. It seems only in Florida do these obvious killers get away with it. Anyone remember Casey Anthony?
I found another article on huffpo about it too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/george-zimmerman-trial-jurors-lesser-charges_n_3579753.html
delrem
(9,688 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)bossy22
(3,547 posts)Thankfully someone always does. That is the beauty of our legal system.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I'll bet quite a few of them think what happened to OBL was a travesty, and that "dumping his body at sea" was the ultimate coverup for *something*.
E.g. we have photo-ops of Obama, Clinton, and crew, rapt before video screens watching events as they happened. The fact that they were rapt, that Obama, Clinton and crew are somehow "heroes" who made a "heroic decision", is clear. The facts about what actually happened are totally "classified".
But the stark fact is that when that much of our world is "classified", we're living some movie script designed by folk who might have crude motives, but don't have true convictions.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Check out what some Internet commenters are saying. Go read the comment feed at the bottom of e HLN site or the HuffPo site. It's somewhere between a Teabagger convention and a good ol' fashioned Klan rally.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... How can one be a defense attorney if/when you know your client is a scumbag, or - often in the case of public defenders - you're not trying to prove his innocence but just help him cop a lighterr sentence (I've seen it with 'the usual suspects' in the office I was interning at: revolving door, just tack on some time without a vigorous defense, simply to get the thing closed).
Conversely, how can you be a Prosecutor when you know some of the laws you're prosecuting people for are unjust bullshit?
And that is why I never finished law school.
ColesCountyDem
(6,944 posts)bossy22
(3,547 posts)With what evidence there is it is IMHO almost impossible for the prosecution to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt. The whole incident is too murky and the only person who knows what really happened (And is still alive) is Zimmerman.
And I'm not sure that such a verdict (acquittal) is so wrong, irrespective of the burden placed on the prosecution. I have always believed that the whole incident went down pretty much like this- Zimmerman provoked Martin (in some form- most likely verbal) and Martin being a teenage boy through a punch. Teenagers (especially boys) are well known for their lack of self-control. This is not to say that Zimmerman isn't an asshole, if it wasn't for his over-zealous cop wannabe attitude this kid what still be alive. Zimmerman put events into motion which lead to the outcome.
John2
(2,730 posts)with you whatsoever and I don't think Martin's parents should agree with you. The evidence is clear who pursued whom. Are you suggesting it wasn't? The first 911 call indicates it.
Yiu don't have any evidence Trayvon circled back and attacked Zimmerman. If you do, what is it?
What evidence do you have to say Zimmerman had his gun in his holster and Trayvon went for it? And what evidence do you have proving Zimmerman carries a loaded gun in his holster with the safety off? You have any other evidence than Zimmerman's claims to back you up?
Stuckinthebush
(11,203 posts)Z walks.
Your scenario is very convincing. Z is an ass and killed a kid because he was scared and had a gun. TM probably did throw a few punches and was likely getting an upper hand on that slob Z. Hell, at that age I would have gone after an asshole who was following me.
Did it warrant murder. Hell no. But the defense has done a good job at establishing reasonable doubt.
Sad.
Kennah
(14,578 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)A mistrial would be a victory here. I just don't see that happening with this no-nonsense judge, either.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Zimmerman won't testify so all they have is his previous statements that kept changing.
I honestly think it's his many lies that will get him convicted. He should have just told what actually happened. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he has the right under FL law to shoot the kid if he feels his life is in danger.
So, no matter what led up to the shooting, he can do it as self-defense as long he fears for his life. Because he told so many lies about what happened, I'm pretty sure the prosecution will be able to convince the jury he's lying about the part where he feared for his life.
That's what this case boils down to. Why, exactly, did he point the gun at the kid's heart and pull the trigger.
First it was because his head was being repeatedly slammed on the sidewalk. But he was too far from the sidewalk for that to be true. Then it was because he was being smothered when the kid held one hand over his nose and the other over his mouth. Only he also claims the Martin kid broke his nose with the first blow and yet he had none of Zimmerman's blood on his palms or under his fingernails.
He should go to jail for lying about why he was so scared he had to shoot the kid. Even if he really was in fear of his life, which I doubt, he should know better than to lie to the dead kid's parents about it.
Much more likely he was just living out his favorite fantasy and was never really scared at all.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)However, self defense law in most states really only begins to care what you did when the first blow is thrown, so to speak.
You can follow somebody, you can talk to them, even rudely, you can call them names, you can be a racist- none of that matters in self defense.
It only matters when the first blow is thrown and what happens after that.
The problem is that there simply isn't enough evidence from the time period that matters, the struggle.
If the jury is even 80% sure that Zimmerman is guilty, 20% is reasonable doubt, and they must acquit.
As a self defense instructor this case has me very conflicted. I have no doubt he profiled, and his judgement in pursuing Trayvon outside his car was very poor. But with go good witness of how things went down, we just don't know with certainty.
So on on hand, I want him in jail for life. I know he belongs there. But I also want it done by the same standard of justice that we have always had in this country that presumes innocence unless proves beyond a reasonable doubt. And I just don't think that the state had reached that burden- and I am really questioning why they are not trying harder.
I have always said that I would rather see 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person convicted, and even through my time working in LE I kept that opinion that our justice system should be set up with that sort of twist to protecting rights. When I was a deputy it just knew I had to work harder to have all my facts in line to convict. But this case really has me questioning if that is how we should be administering justice in this country, in a way where just by raising the possibility it could be other than what the state claims is enough to get away with it.
John2
(2,730 posts)any specific State or Local law, that says what you claim in provocation? What law specifically say that you can follow a person and verbally abuse them without any provocation? You actually really think that you can follow me for example and verbally abuse me when you want? Any reasonable person can also take that as threatening to them. People are not just going to let any maniac follow them around and be verbally abused or intimidated.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It is not that there is a law permitting it, it is that there is no law prohibiting it.
Saying mean things to a person in a public space is protected speech. No matter if it is a racist following and profiling a black man or a union member on a picket line letting a scab know what he thinks of him as he walks to his car. Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters them. This is a basic premise of common law and I would be very surprised if any states view it differently.
I will speak to NC specifically, since that is the state I know best, but simply put no matter what a person says to you, it does not justify the use of physical force in response. You might find a very, very, very rare circumstance where you could articulate the threat was so dire that it justified physical force in response, but it would take much more than just walking near a person and saying distasteful things. And that would have to be an affirmative defense in court.
If the person uses "fighting words" intended to provoke a fight, that is not legal, and is punishable as disorderly conduct here in NC.
But fighting words, in and of themselves, are not justification for the use of physical force to counter them. If I walk up and say I am going to beat your ass for being in my neighborhood, and you punch me, I am guilty of disorderly conduct but you are still guilty of assault.
And if your assault on me is to the degree that I reasonably fear death or great bodily harm, I am justified in using deadly physical force to resist it. Even if I used "fighting words" before the assault began.
It really all does hinge on who initiates the use of physical force in most cases.
Now, I don't know about FL, but here in NC there is another twist. If I start a fight with you but then attempt to withdraw and end that fight, and you continue the fight and keep beating me, now you are choosing to continue the encounter after an attempt was made to end it, moving your actions from self defense to offensive- and in some cases there I could then be justified in using deadly physical force. It is almost as if the law views it as two separate fights after the party that initiated the assault chooses to back down. Kinda crazy, but it is the law.
John2
(2,730 posts)law, that gives you the right to stalk and intimidate a person. That is what you are insinuating. There is a difference from passing by a person and intentionally stalking them for the purpose of intimidation. There is no law protecting you right to do that. A person can reasonally think such a person would be dangerous to their life. If the Klan stalked me, I'm going to physically act and feel dam justified to do so. let one of them stalk me and casll me nigger, and see what happens! We will see in a court of Law in front of a jury.
But you may feel that way, but as mad as it may make you it is simply not legal justification to use physical force against them.
Yes, if I choose to follow you and call you names and make threats against you, I can be charged with disorderly conduct.
But that DOES NOT give you cause to use physical force against me. One persons wrong is not justification for your own improper acts.
In NC it is an affirmative defense in front of a jury to claim that the person made threats of violence, so your resulting physical force was preemptive self defense, but even then you have to be able to articulate that you had cause to believe that it was more than just words and an assault on you was imminent. That is a high legal bar to reach, and it will have to be done in front of a jury and at considerable legal expense to you.
Trust me, if you hit somebody just for calling you a racial slur, even if they are following you around doing it, you will get convicted. At least in this state.
ColesCountyDem
(6,944 posts)The law on the use of deadly force by a civilian is remarkably clear here in Illinois: Before any civilian can use 'deadly force' to defend him- or herself, he/she has a 'duty to retreat', as long as one can do so with 'a reasonable expectation of safety'. Further, one also has a legal duty to obey any 'lawful command' from a law-enforcement officer (this includes emergency-services dispatchers, in criminal or possibly criminal circumstances).
Were Zimmerman being tried in Illinois, there is little doubt that he would be convicted. He ignored the dispatcher's 'lawful command' and he CLEARLY had a 'duty to retreat' at the point he chose to pursue Mr. Martin.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)One of my pet peeves was people confusing dispatchers with sworn officers. Unless FL is different a dispatcher is a civilian and has no authority to give a lawful command. The dispatcher certainly gave prudent guidance, but since they are not sworn officers is is not a lawful command. Are dispatchers in Illinos sworn officers?
He defiantly ignored good and prudent advice from the dispatcher/call taker. But it wasn't a command that carried any legal authority, so lets be accurate about what it is. We have enough on him to show what he is without misrepresenting stuff.
And as someone who teaches self defense, I abhor duty to retreat laws. They make victims responsible for their attackers safety, make them second guess their actions and hesitate when there is no time for hesitation, and leave the door open for an attacker to later take legal action against a victim who defends themselves. A woman who has a man pull a knife on her and say he is gonna have a good time with her shouldn't have to debate if a jury would think she should have tried to run before she uses whatever the most effective means she has available to defend herself.
ColesCountyDem
(6,944 posts)I dislike the law for exactly the reasons you state; personally, I'm a 'castle doctrine' supporter and, to a very limited extent, a 'stand your ground' supporter. As to your first argument/question, The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly and unanimously that in 'criminal' situations like the Zimmerman/Martin one, emergency-services dispatchers "...may be considered to be (sworn) law-enforcement officers, for the limited purposes of the statute...." (placing a duty on the individual to obey the 'lawful commands' of a law-enforcement officer).
As you undoubtedly know, the laws governing such situations vary widely, from state to state.
JustAnotherGen
(38,031 posts)More likely Casey Anthony. Florida, a 'glamorous defendent', a sexy story. Looks like Casey Anthony to me. . .
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Like the doctor today(?) that said the shot was at much closer range than the prosecution is attempting to prove.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)So theyre not witnesses, just people giving their opinions? Wtf? 
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)and so did the one today.
Both experts, they disagree.
Thus, the jury.
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)
obama2terms
(563 posts)But the "Son of Sam law" may not apply to him if he's found not guilty.
lindysalsagal
(22,902 posts)I don't even understand how you can claim self defense when you could have done as told, stayed in your car, and driven away.
This is just absurd.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Its pretty sick that a cold blooded killer could get away with it on basis of " self defense "
Self defense my ass!!
frylock
(34,825 posts)and then on foot is perfectly LEGAL. of course, many of these same folks support CCW to protect themselves in the event they get followed by car and then on foot.
hack89
(39,181 posts)could it be that they are in fact perfectly legal acts?
frylock
(34,825 posts)what i'm saying is those that claim that TM had nothing to fear by being followed by someone in a truck and then followed on foot by the same person appear to be the same that support CCW to defend themselves if they were to be followed in the same fashion.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I will be glad when it is over.
frylock
(34,825 posts)peace.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The problem is that when you combine them all and a child ends up shot in the heart, and then you demonstrably lie to the police about what happened and thereby throw all credibility out the window, it's a crime.
Response to Nevernose (Reply #26)
hack89 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)I just got off a 12 1/2 hour shift, tried to catch up, all my patients have it on TV. Heard defense decided not to bring it up, because then prosecutors could bring up Zimmermans own Rx. drug cocktails. True?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Bit whether they use it or not, we don't know.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)the guy Zimmerman beat up who turned out to be off duty cop? Since the gym guy said Zimmerman didn't know how to fight?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Like the ex girlfriend he beat up. Or maybe the woman in the bar that he beat up back when not-knowing-how-to-fight Zimmerman worked as a bouncer.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)But he doesn't know how to fight? He just picked out a likely weak target (TM) and didn't like it when the kid didn't yield. Hence, the gun.
Just my 2 cents.
DallasNE
(8,002 posts)Than most in the media. It was too pat. Plus, it is easy to concoct a scenario that lines up with somebody's story when you know what that story is ahead of time. One obvious concoction was his theory that when the bullet struck the left lung it was deflected and lodged behind the heart. He didn't perform the autopsy and is only looking at photographs. That is far less convincing than having hands-on access. And his theory that Martin stood up after being shot through the heart and wandered around for before falling down about 8 feet from the sidewalk is critical to Zimmerman's claim that Martin was pounding his head into the sidewalk and 5 seconds later was 8 feet away. Now if this is poppycock one has to wonder what else that he said is also poppycock. He was glib though. And he never explained how Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin but not on his hands, under his nails or on the sleeves of the hoodie. It is a hard sell to say the rain washed it off everywhere you would expect to find it but didn't wash it off from other locations. So once again the physical evidence tells a far different story than what this expert attempted to weave.