Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Google search

Advanced search

HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Zimmerman's attorney plan...

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:12 PM

Star Member Baitball Blogger (11,657 posts)

Zimmerman's attorney plans to delay request for evidence

Okay, what does it mean? Everybody huddle.

George Zimmerman's attorney plans to delay the defense team's request for evidence from prosecutors and wants to protect potential witnesses in the Trayvon Martin shooting case, according to the attorney-run website.

In a new website posted today on gzlegalcase.com, Zimmerman's legal team said it would delay its demand for discovery, the legal process in which prosecutors are required to share evidence with the defense and would make such evidence a public record.

"We are concerned about the release of witness information to the general public, solely due to safety concerns. There has been a lot of animosity and emotions caused by incomplete and premature disclosure of information," the website reads.

Discovery materials typically would be released 15 days after the defense makes its demand for discovery. However, Zimmerman has the legal right to delay such a demand, according to the website.



http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-29/news/os-george-zimmerman-discovery-20120429_1_delay-request-attorney-plans-legal-team

29 replies, 2357 views

Thread infoBookmark this threadTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Zimmerman's attorney plans to delay request for evidence (Original post)
 Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 OP
LineReply what do you think it means? n/t
 hlthe2b Apr 2012 #1
LineLineReply Not sure.
 Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 #2
LineReply The simple answer would be that he suspects the evidence would be unfavorable to his client
 tularetom Apr 2012 #3
LineLineReply Your reason would suggest the exact opposite reaction.
 ManiacJoe Apr 2012 #4
LineLineLineReply Worried About The Jury Pool, Sir
 The Magistrate Apr 2012 #5
LineLineLineLineReply doesn't mean the defense lawyer knows.....
 grasswire Apr 2012 #7
LineLineLineReply Fear of witnesses changing testimony
 grok Apr 2012 #6
LineLineLineLineReply ANd letting us have the information beforehand, would give us all too much
 Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 #8
LineLineLineLineLineReply I don't think the defense cares what we refute.
 grok Apr 2012 #9
LineLineLineReply Delays always favor the guilty. nm
 rhett o rick Apr 2012 #10
LineReply "We are concerned about the release of witness information to the public, solely due to safety
 Quixote1818 Apr 2012 #11
LineLineReply The opposite
 pipoman Apr 2012 #13
LineLineLineReply The opposite of that. This is from the side of Prosecution.
 vaberella Apr 2012 #16
LineLineLineLineReply Investigators interview witnesses
 pipoman Apr 2012 #18
LineLineLineLineLineReply How do you know?
 vaberella Apr 2012 #19
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply My post #13 clearly states
 pipoman Apr 2012 #21
LineReply It means the evidence would essentially portray him as a murderer
 Cali_Democrat Apr 2012 #12
LineReply Whatever...another thread was attacking the Prosecution for not releasing evidence.
 vaberella Apr 2012 #14
LineReply "and would make such evidence a public record"
 cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #15
LineLineReply Actually it seems to be the case in Florida.
 vaberella Apr 2012 #17
LineNew Reply The "dead or alive" Black Panther bounty
 customerserviceguy Apr 2012 #20
LineNew Reply They don't want the witnesses subjected to a media feeding frenzy.
 Vattel Apr 2012 #22
LineNew Reply I have to wonder who he really is protecting.
 Life Long Dem Apr 2012 #23
LineLineNew Reply There is at least one witness I I wouldn't want to be
 grok Apr 2012 #26
LineLineLineNew Reply The kid walking his dog
 Daalalou Apr 2012 #27
LineLineLineLineNew Reply Didn't appear to be pressured
 grok Apr 2012 #29
LineNew Reply Those New Black Panthers are going
 leftynyc Apr 2012 #24
LineLineNew Reply I got my ass handed to me for suggesting that these things tend to create self-fulfilling prohecies.
 Baitball Blogger Apr 2012 #25
LineLineLineNew Reply Don't ever worry about pissing people off
 leftynyc Apr 2012 #28

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:35 PM

Star Member hlthe2b (47,519 posts)

1. what do you think it means? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:36 PM

Star Member Baitball Blogger (11,657 posts)

2. Not sure.

They say they want to protect their witnesses. I don't know enough about how this works to know if this is a ruse, or a strategically good move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:37 PM

Star Member tularetom (17,485 posts)

3. The simple answer would be that he suspects the evidence would be unfavorable to his client

But it appears that there are no simple answers to any aspect of this case.

IMO, Zimmerman got into a tight situation that was way too complex for him to deal with, panicked, and shot Martin out of fear.

The only reason I say that is that the actions of Zimmerman's family have been pretty bizarre and they've changed their story more often than they change their socks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to tularetom (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:42 PM

Star Member ManiacJoe (5,634 posts)

4. Your reason would suggest the exact opposite reaction.

If you suspect unfavorable evidence, you would want to know as soon as possible, not wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:47 PM

Star Member The Magistrate (80,938 posts)

5. Worried About The Jury Pool, Sir

Doubtless the lawyer knows already what the unfavorable items are; after all, the shooter knows what he did, himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to The Magistrate (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:00 AM

grasswire (36,881 posts)

7. doesn't mean the defense lawyer knows.....

...because it's my understanding that a defense lawyer doesn't ask his client what he/she DID, but rather what the police will SAY he/she did.

The client doesn't have to tell his lawyer the whole truth, and might not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 29, 2012, 11:58 PM

grok (447 posts)

6. Fear of witnesses changing testimony

Defense definitely wants to know all all the cards the prosecution has. The sooner the better.

But what is even more important is that witnesses don't change their testimony out of fear of retaliation. And they would be in fear If the public knows. If the media is entrusted to keep the names safe, would you REALLY trust them to not leak? I wouldn't.

If the defense fears this, this implies they already feel they are in a good situation and don't want things to change. Patience over dangerous expediency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grok (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:04 AM

Star Member Baitball Blogger (11,657 posts)

8. ANd letting us have the information beforehand, would give us all too much

time to refute it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:16 AM

grok (447 posts)

9. I don't think the defense cares what we refute.

We are not in the courtroom and under courtroom rules.

They actually might like it we keep arguing about it. keeps the legal defense coffers full. The minute we lose interest the money stops flowing in.

So what if we refute? We going to twitter all the thousands of ideas we have to the prosecution how they can outsmart O'Mara? We aren't even sure if they are serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 12:49 AM

Star Member rhett o rick (27,746 posts)

10. Delays always favor the guilty. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:12 AM

Star Member Quixote1818 (16,627 posts)

11. "We are concerned about the release of witness information to the public, solely due to safety

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:12 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

concerns. There has been a lot of animosity and emotions caused by incomplete and premature disclosure of information," the website reads.


This sounds to me like whatever it is, they don't want it released to the public because it's going to piss people off even more than they already are. This can't be good for Zimmerman or they wouldn't be pushing so hard to keep it away from the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:32 AM

Star Member pipoman (10,566 posts)

13. The opposite

I think it means that the witnesses or a witness is exculpatory. The defense and prosecution can and do talk. If there is a witness(es) who corroborate Zimmerman's story, that person could become a target. Zimmerman wasn't arrested for many days, it is possible his arrest was the product of public pressure and not a good case. maybe both the defense and prosecution agree that it would be best if public outrage waned before Zimmerman is either offered a minor offense plea bargain or charges dropped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pipoman (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:42 AM

Star Member vaberella (24,253 posts)

16. The opposite of that. This is from the side of Prosecution.

This is the Prosecution's evidence and witnesses not the Defense. You did the article did you not? The article is talking about the Prosecution not releasing evidence after the 15 day wait...not the Defense's side of the story. For instance no one has any information on the girl except for her phone records and there are still many other witnesses against Zimmerman who have yet to be made public...such as the woman on CNN. She never made herself public and her information would have to be made public. There could be many others. I'm a bit puzzled why you think this is from the Defense's side. The Defense simply does not want to push the Prosecution to release evidence...but the evidence is on the side of the Prosecution not defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to vaberella (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 04:11 AM

Star Member pipoman (10,566 posts)

18. Investigators interview witnesses

they record the witness perspective. Witnesses can be exculpatory. The prosecution is required to release ALL evidence, even exculpatory evidence. The defense would protect any exculpatory witnesses.

The article is talking about the Prosecution not releasing evidence after the 15 day wait...not the Defense's side of the story.

No, the story is about the defense agreeing not to require the prosecution to turn over their evidence in the time required. This is the defense's decision. Perhaps the prosecution agrees for the safety of the exculpatory witness(es).

The Defense simply does not want to push the Prosecution to release evidence...but the evidence is on the side of the Prosecution not defense.

How do you know what the evidence is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pipoman (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 04:30 AM

Star Member vaberella (24,253 posts)

19. How do you know?

You presumed quite a bit yourself in regards to what the evidence may be..which by your estimation is leaning in favor of Zimmerman and implying quite heavily on the incompetance of the prosecution as though his arrest was really for show due to public opinion rather than for any concrete proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to vaberella (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:51 AM

Star Member pipoman (10,566 posts)

21. My post #13 clearly states

"I think", meaning is is purely speculation. Your posts are extremely authoritative, as if you know more than the rest of us. My opinion is based on 20 years working on criminal defense teams, but it is still speculation..And don't kid yourself, prosecutors are very political..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:21 AM

Star Member Cali_Democrat (15,113 posts)

12. It means the evidence would essentially portray him as a murderer

And they don't want it public record to be discussed on 24/7 cable news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:37 AM

Star Member vaberella (24,253 posts)

14. Whatever...another thread was attacking the Prosecution for not releasing evidence.

Making her appear incompetant or not aware of the law. Now more information is released showing that it was actually the defense who delayed a demand. Thanks for some clarity...but I'm tired of these biased newspapers who want to make the prosecution look negligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:41 AM

cthulu2016 (7,946 posts)

15. "and would make such evidence a public record"

Um... that's weird. Discovery data isn't just all made public. Maybe this is a Florida thing, but I strongly doubt it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:43 AM

Star Member vaberella (24,253 posts)

17. Actually it seems to be the case in Florida.

I think this all pertains to their Sunshine law. So all aspects of the case and evidence is normally released and when there is a trial, the trial is videotaped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 07:24 AM

customerserviceguy (14,791 posts)

20. The "dead or alive" Black Panther bounty

was a stupid thing to do, now we know why. O'Mara's no fool, he's going to play it like a fiddle. He knows that before trial he has to take some steps to win this in the media, or at least get it to a draw.

When polling is about 50-50 for/against his client, he'll be ready for trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 09:54 AM

Vattel (3,296 posts)

22. They don't want the witnesses subjected to a media feeding frenzy.

My guess is that this is because they think that at least some of those witnesses are crucial to their defense, and so they don't want them to be hounded or possibly even harmed. They plan to file motions to prevent such a feeding frenzy. Not really that hard to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 10:48 AM

Life Long Dem (8,266 posts)

23. I have to wonder who he really is protecting.

The 911 tapes were damaging to Zimmerman. Seems this would be more of a concern for the defense. What witnesses currently need protection? I don't think there are any right now needing protection. So it makes no sense why now. The concern over witness protection, seems out of place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:15 AM

grok (447 posts)

26. There is at least one witness I I wouldn't want to be

Before the commotion about this case got dangerous there was a witness willing to speak to the press freely. Probably didn't realize the potential risk to himself.

Remember the young black guy out walking his dog? At one point he stated he thought he saw that the person on his back being beaten was wearing a red jacket. I don't recall how sure he was but it seemed rather significant considering he was on the ground and the other witnesses weren't that night. Haven't heard from about since. Seems to have been forgotten for the moment.

Could you imagine being the person that acquits the person that killed someone of your community or family? The pressure and shame would have to be intense.

Zimmerman is never coming back to this place. He has the bucks now. This poor guy probably doesn't have a choice and will have to live with the consequences of his testimony in a very personal way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to grok (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:03 PM

Daalalou (51 posts)

27. The kid walking his dog

He claimed that he only saw one person, the one lying on the ground. He was asked what color the person was wearing and said he didn't know. Then he was asked, "Was it red?" and answered, "I guess it was red." His mother said he felt really pressured by police to answer to things he hadn't witnessed or wasn't sure about. His mother has been interviewed on TV and in newspapers, but for obvious reasons, she is protecting her son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Daalalou (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 02:54 PM

grok (447 posts)

29. Didn't appear to be pressured

Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 02:57 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

according to the media interview he did early. Didn't hear of any police trying to control what he said then.


On the otherhand I can understand why his mother wants to to make his testimony appear more nuanced NOW.

Of course she is protecting her son. In her situation I would advice him to do the same or or provide the nuance myself.

Better to lie and live, than be truthful and die. Police is one thing, having to LIVE with your peers is something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 10:54 AM

leftynyc (10,487 posts)

24. Those New Black Panthers are going

to be the death of this case. All we're going to hear is "fear, fear, fear" and it's because of that moronic dead or alive nonsense. And I'm afraid to say, it's going to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to leftynyc (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:02 AM

Star Member Baitball Blogger (11,657 posts)

25. I got my ass handed to me for suggesting that these things tend to create self-fulfilling prohecies.

Though, admittedly, the article I linked to turned out to be less than accurate. The point, however, is valid, as we are now seeing how it can be used against us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002621266

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 02:14 PM

leftynyc (10,487 posts)

28. Don't ever worry about pissing people off

when you have something to say. If they can't handle it, the problem is them, not you. When we give them a reason to ignore the problem (as the Black Panthers do because THEY become the story), they will use them every single time. Anyone who doesn't see that is either very young or very naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread

General Discussion (Forum)
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

Advertise on DU

© 2001 - 2013 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.