HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trayvon Martin case: Geor...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:14 PM

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman waives right to speedy trial

Source: Los Angeles Times

George Zimmerman has waived his right to a speedy trial, arguing to a Florida court that he needs more time to prepare. The move means it could be October at the earliest -- and likely much later -- before the start of his second-degree murder trial.

Zimmerman's intentions were outlined in two brief documents that Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, filed Tuesday in Seminole County, Fla., circuit court. The actions did not come as a surprise to legal experts, who said such moves are common even in less-complex and lower-profile felony cases.

Florida's rules of criminal procedure require that suspects charged with a felony be brought to trial within 175 days of their arrest, unless those defendants ask that the right be waived. Zimmerman turned himself in to authorities on April 11, charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager who was walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and whom Zimmerman considered to be suspicious.

Zimmerman, 28, was released from jail after posting $150,000 bond. He admits he shot Martin, 17, but claims he did so in self-defense. He has pleaded not guilty in court documents, making his appearance unnecessary at a Tuesday arraignment hearing.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zimmerman-waives-speedy-trial-20120508,0,4573513.story



More at link.

57 replies, 6961 views

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 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman waives right to speedy trial (Original post)
janx May 2012 OP
teddy51 May 2012 #1
janx May 2012 #2
iandhr May 2012 #3
janx May 2012 #4
jeff47 May 2012 #5
texshelters May 2012 #14
marble falls May 2012 #6
TBF May 2012 #7
hack89 May 2012 #23
janx May 2012 #27
slackmaster May 2012 #28
janx May 2012 #30
slackmaster May 2012 #32
janx May 2012 #33
slackmaster May 2012 #34
jpak May 2012 #8
azmaximillian May 2012 #9
Ruby the Liberal May 2012 #11
amandabeech May 2012 #10
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #12
amandabeech May 2012 #16
slackmaster May 2012 #17
amandabeech May 2012 #20
24601 May 2012 #50
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #43
24601 May 2012 #42
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #45
24601 May 2012 #51
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #53
csziggy May 2012 #18
groundloop May 2012 #35
csziggy May 2012 #36
groundloop May 2012 #37
csziggy May 2012 #40
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #46
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #13
csziggy May 2012 #41
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #52
texshelters May 2012 #15
Jerry Frey May 2012 #19
Boabab May 2012 #21
cstanleytech May 2012 #22
slackmaster May 2012 #24
24601 May 2012 #55
fascisthunter May 2012 #25
cstanleytech May 2012 #38
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #54
marble falls May 2012 #29
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #48
janx May 2012 #31
fascisthunter May 2012 #26
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #57
onenote May 2012 #39
JonLP24 May 2012 #44
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #56
RUMMYisFROSTED May 2012 #47
CommonSenseForChange May 2012 #49

Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:17 PM

1. Hoping that delaying a trial will allow the dust to settle and people to forget.

 

Probably a smart strategy I suppose, and I hope that it doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to teddy51 (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:19 PM

2. That was my guess, too.

And I don't think it will work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:51 PM

3. This is a common defense tactic. Not at all surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #3)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:26 PM

4. Why is it common?

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Reply #4)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:39 PM

5. Witnesses get lost, memories fade, etc. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #5)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:34 PM

14. Over prep the witnesses and

prerecord their testimony is what I suspect they will do.

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:49 PM

6. the drag it out defense. His lawyers must be worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #6)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:01 PM

7. That's my take on it too.

Slow it down, press loses interest, etc ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #6)

Wed May 9, 2012, 10:10 AM

23. Or they want some of the emotions to subside?

this is not a slam dunk case for the prosecution as long as the defense gets jurors to dispassionately listen to the case. It doesn't take much to undermine "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the right jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:47 PM

27. You're certainly right about that.

Jury selection for this one should be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Reply #27)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:02 PM

28. I don't envy what either side is going to have to go through to find 12 jurors who truly haven't...

 

...prejudged the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:21 PM

30. Not only that, but it will be

tough to find jurors who understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, as was pointed out earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Reply #30)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:26 PM

32. After serving on three trial juries, I find the subject of jury instructions fascinating

 

It's important to have jurors who are intelligent enough to understand the standardized instructions, and who are willing to abide by them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #32)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:45 PM

33. Yes, but some lawyers seem to want

unintelligent jurors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Reply #33)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:07 PM

34. I've seen that backfire a few times. Usually its in the best interests of both sides to have...

 

...jurors who are rational and at least reasonably intelligent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:06 PM

8. Justice delayed is justice denied - fuck that gun nut vigilante

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)


Response to azmaximillian (Reply #9)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:09 PM

11. Who is a liar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:07 PM

10. This is going to be a very complicated two stage case.

First will be the hearing before the judge on the validity of Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The standard of proof will be "preponderance of the evidence", which is the same standard for prevailing in a civil law suit.

If Zimmerman wins and survives the State's appeal, then he will walk free and will sue appropriate authorities for malicious prosecution, and will be immune from any civil suits by the Martin family since he will have proved by the civil standard of proof that he acted in self defense. That's the way it goes in Florida.

If Zimmerman does not prevail, he will go to jury trial, but will still be able to assert his claim to self defense. In the trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmrtmsn shot Martin. Mind you, the self defense claim *could* put reasonable doubt in the minds of some or all of the jurors, resulting in acquittal or a hung jury. Jury selection, called "voir dire" IIRC, will be extremely important in this case. Even if acquitted, Zimmerman may face civil suits for wrongful death from the Martin family, however, I doubt that Zimmerman will have much left after he pays his lawyers, who always get the fee off the top.

I fully understand why Zimmerman waived speedy trial, particularly with the pre-trial hearing, and I doubt if the prosecution minds the extra time. This is a major case, obviously, and as an ex-attorney, I believe that both sides need to get their ducks and experts all lined up.

Poorly prepared attorneys do not justice make for either side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #10)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:00 PM

12. I have noticed lately that a lot of people are using Fox tactics

Did you just say the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman?

What's that all about? Could be an innocent error, but I've seen a heck of a lot of those errors in the last 3 days. Please clarify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CommonSenseForChange (Reply #12)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:37 PM

16. I'm an attorney licensed to practice in New York and DC.

What I wrote is, to the best of my knowledge, a summary of Florida's law.

I stand by my opinion that this is going to be a long and difficult case on both sides.

I also stand by my opinion that justice rushed is often not justice at all, particularly because of the two-stage nature of the proceedings here.

Perhaps you've heard that the wheels of justice sometimes grind slowly but they grind finely. That's because cases sometimes are very complicated, and reputable judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers are all aware of that fact and don't want to screw up.

Judges, in particular, will take pains to get it right and not be overruled by a higher court, which most trial judges really hate. I know that because I spent a year interning with a federal trial judge in Texas. I know of at least one federal trial judge who had a "reversal room" in his courthouse that was filled with his commendations from various and sundry for his early work in desegregating a certain southern state. He would retire to that room if reversed by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. My judge was his best judge friend, FYI, and did plenty for the cause before he passed a few years ago.

AND I most assuredly did not say that the late Trayvon Martin shot at George Zimmerman.

If, after re-reading my post, you still think that I wrote "that the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman," I sincerely suggest that you find a good reading tutor.

What's "Fox"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #16)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:47 PM

17. amandabeech, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part, but here is a quote from your preceding...

 

...Reply, copied on my Blackberry:

...the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin shot Zimmerman...

HTH, and thanks for your contribution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:37 PM

20. I hate being wrong, but thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:25 PM

50. That Zimmermen shot Martin likely will be stipulated by the defense. But to convict for 2nd

Degree Murder, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman also had formed the prerequisite criminal specific intent. Without proving specific intent (not to be confused with motive or even general intent) there cannot be a conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #16)

Thu May 10, 2012, 07:35 PM

43. you edited your comment before bashing me, misleading commenter #42

---
amandabeech
10. This is going to be a very complicated two stage case.
Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
---
/begin OT

Lawyer meets Techie..

You edited your post to correct your original erroneous statement which was that Trayvon Martin shot George Zimmerman.

I gave you a civilized "out" because I know that humans make errors in typing. However, you edited your response before accusing me of needing a reading tutor. So now I conclude that in addition to your original errorneous claim that Trayvon shot Zimmerman, you are proven to be a dishonest, unethical cover up type of person that's more interested in being "right" or modifying the facts behind the scenes hoping not to be exposed. To add insult to injury, you then claim the other party bringing YOUR MISTAKE to your attention is the stupid one -- a Fox/Murdoch tactic.

Rather than getting to the truth, you've demonstrated that you will unlease verbal violence on otherrs to confuse and save face. Is that why you no longer practice law? (rhetorical)

Here's what you said to detract from YOUR MISTAKE:

"If, after re-reading my post, you still think thaat I wrote "that the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman," I sincerely suggest that you find a good reading tutor."

But you wrote that before another DU poster (slackmaster) posted your edit history and reposted your previous comment. Recopied here:

"Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 09:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
...Reply, copied on my Blackberry:
...the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin shot Zimmerman...
HTH, and thanks for your contribution."


You may have been a lawyer once, but I was once the person that fixed up and clarified what the attorneys attempted to write. That's why I gave you an out. I'm sure our egos will clash again.

/end OT

Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin for no legal reason. Deal with it!
The prosecutors are kicking Zimmerman's arse despite the media's biased claims that the state overcharged. Deal with it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CommonSenseForChange (Reply #12)

Wed May 9, 2012, 10:47 PM

42. He/she did not say what you questioned. Those words are nowhere in post #10. Were you

reading "self defense" and inferring that it necessarily meant that Mr. Martin shot at Mr. Zimmerman? Because that's not what was said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #42)

Thu May 10, 2012, 07:40 PM

45. the comment was edited before pontificating that the person who responded (me) couldn't read

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I originally thought she made a mistake. her response was full of venom, so i think she's just annoyed that i caught another right-winger posing as a dem. I could be wrong on her political affiliations, but i've seen this fox tactic of transposing names far too often. If it was a legitimate mistake, no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CommonSenseForChange (Reply #45)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:30 PM

51. OK, I think I understand that - but the Cherry Vodka could have me confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #51)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:42 PM

53. Haha!

Don't know what you mean, but on first reading, I too had ta LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #10)

Tue May 8, 2012, 10:43 PM

18. So far O'Mara has not said he would even try for SYG immunity.

I wonder if he will. Zimmerman was a mess on the stand during his bond hearing and the prosecutor was not even hammering him hard. On the simple question of whether or not Zimmerman had said he was sorry for shooting Martin the night of the killing, Zimmerman answers, "No", "Yes", and "I believe I did" in very short order:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to
the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never stated that, did you?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told that to the police?
ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html


I can't imagine trying to untangle a longer statement from someone who can't keep this little detail straight!

Of course, O'Mara could use things like this to claim diminished capacity.

If Zimmerman does get immunity with a SYG hearing, he is also immune from law suits - that is the only advantage to him at this point in trying for it. Well, that and the amount of money his "defense fund" is raising online.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #18)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:12 PM

35. Question for the legal experts - "...after you committed this crime...."


If he'd have answered in the affirmative would he be admitting guilt? (I used to watch a lot of Perry Mason.)

That sounds like a trick question and I'd have probably been unsure how to answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #35)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:29 PM

36. Zimmerman has never denied killing Trayvon Martin

The first thing he did when the police arrived was to tell the officer that he had shot the man on the ground and that he was still armed.

Zimmerman was safe in his vehicle. He knew the cops were on the way. He had no reason to pursue Trayvon Martin while carrying a gun. He should have stayed in his SUV and waited for the cops.

The only issue is whether Zimmerman is protected by the SYG law. The legislator who sponsored the bill for it in 2005 said that Zimmerman should not be covered since he pursued Martin. Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law and who supported its passage also has said Zimmerman is not covered.

But legal experts have said that whether or not Zimmerman pursued Martin, if Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger, Zimmerman is covered by SYG. Apparently the law is so badly written even if someone leaves a position of safety and provokes a confrontation, as long as they feel threatened, they can safely kill someone and get off with no consequences.

This is a very bad law and it needs to be gotten rid of one way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #36)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:41 PM

37. I agree with everything you said... however I think that was still a poorly worded question

that the prosecutors asked him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #37)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:18 PM

40. It could be

And you could be right that the prosecutor was trying to trip him up.

I see that neither Mr. O'Mara or his client appeared at the arraignment today. It made for a short session:
http://jacs.flcourts18.org/temp/CJC-1A_20120508-1400_01cd2d22f0cf0710.wmv

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #18)

Thu May 10, 2012, 07:43 PM

46. SYG cannot apply here

I do not believe Zimmerman can get immunity since he followed/pursued Martin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:06 PM

13. What did the judge decide about the lie told by Zimmerman as to him being indigent while owning 204K

That's what I want to know. We already knew that Zimmerman's attorney was asking for more time. How did the judge rule regarding Zimmerman's very low bail considering he lied on the stand at the bond hearing about being indigent? He had $204K in the bank and O'Mara had every means available to him to make himself aware of it even if George Zimmerman didn't disclose it. The information was reported in the media and later admitted by O'mara to the judge. What did the judge decide about these actions on the part of O'mara and his lying client George Zimmerman?

Did the judge really ok O'mara and Zimmerman's mockery of the entire U.S. justice system by not addressing this issue or taking action on this issue? Say it ain't so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CommonSenseForChange (Reply #13)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:21 PM

41. I don't see any information about that in the court documents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #41)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:40 PM

52. thank you for the link

I don't see any info on it either. That's why I'm asking about it. I don't want the court or the media to sweep this particular issue under the rug.

At the bond hearing, Zimmerman's wife, mother and father all indicated they had no knowledge of the amount of money raised by the website (which turned out to be $204K) and that they were poor. It was later discovered that over $50K of that money had already been used by Zimmerman so Zimmerman *did* know something about it. The judge stated at 2:09:00 onward in the bond hearing video that he took into consideration the Zimmerman's financial circumstances.

Listen to the vid for yourself: http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815


Zimmerman is thumbing his nose at the judicial system and O'Mara and the judge seems to be letting him do it. Early on, Zimmerman's grand release showed him exiting jail in a BMW. His prior MySpace pages mentioned something about thanks to whoever loaned him a suit to look good in court when he bragged that he was still free for beating the charges against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 09:36 PM

15. I know this is non-partisan, in a way

but the closer this gets to November, the more it might help Obama.

PTxS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:01 PM

19. Z trial

 

This incident has become a national tragedy, no matter what the outcome. Trayvon Martin was no angel while George Zimmerman, a cop wannabe, walked along a thin line and stumbled, or perhaps was knocked down.



http://napoleonlive.info/what-you-think/facts-about-trayvon-martin-killing/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry Frey (Reply #19)

Wed May 9, 2012, 09:57 AM

21. Trayvon was no angel? Who is? And what does it have to do with this case?

In case you're unaware, Trayvon didn't kill anyone. The moral "rectitude" of his murderer is going to be examined during the trial, and rightly so.

This disgusting dirtying of a child's name who was shot in cold blood is just sub-human.

The trial is a tragedy, for sure. It proves that someone can ignore orders, improperly chase an innocent person while armed, kill that person, then be protected by the judicial system by not being charged for more than a month after the incident.

Then, on top of everything, the killer gets "contributions" in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars to "support" him.

The message has already been delivered on this travesty, no matter how the trial ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boabab (Reply #21)

Wed May 9, 2012, 10:06 AM

22. Umm none of us know if it was in cold blood Boabab, thats why there is going to be a trial

to decide if hes guilty or innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #22)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:54 AM

24. There are many among us who are quite sure

 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."


- Bertrand Russell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #24)

Thu May 10, 2012, 09:11 PM

55. If I'm reading you right, you are pointing out that being "quite sure" isn't really such a good

thing when they weren't even there and are relying on press reports. Along the lines of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

If so, I'm supporting your position. Far better to avoid trying these cases in the media.

It's tragic enough with a young man dead and pre-judging the second just makes it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #22)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:00 PM

25. um... yes we do.... one person had a gun, the other didn't

There's enough evidence, knock off the BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #25)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:49 PM

38. Even though he had a gun unless you witnessed it you do not "know" at all

if he did it.
Do I doubt his story myself? Hell ya but even though I doubt it and believe he may be guilty my belief doesnt matter just as yours doesn't as the jury is the one that will decide this case unless of course the guy enters a plea deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boabab (Reply #21)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:53 PM

54. And he gets protection in another state if he choses

Talk about a mockery of justice! How are Trayvon Martin's parents protected while the murderer gets to visit a taxpayer paid for courthouse in a bullet proof vest and is living in a secured resort some where? How ridiculous is that?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry Frey (Reply #19)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:17 PM

29. So you think the "he was asking for it defense" is legitimate? .....

The abuse being heaped on Trayvon is unbeleievable. Pot residue is the worst thing that's come up. BFD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #29)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:07 PM

48. The U.S. has gone crazy since Fox/Murdoch was unleashed

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

All progress since the '60s is being rolled back by Murdoch and crew. That's why Canada won't allow Fox in their country and the British seem to be on a path to shut him down. It is NOT ok to distort the truth and attempt defamation of a young black male attempting to go home after making purchases from the neighborhood convenience store just because you are "suspicious" of him and got a call through to Hannity before raising funds for murder. Sick, sick, sick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jerry Frey (Reply #19)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:25 PM

31. Your link takes me to some information that claims to be factual,

but it's just more speculation. Facts will come out at trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:04 PM

26. he did it in self-defense... defense of what? Liar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #26)

Thu May 10, 2012, 09:27 PM

57. That's the $20M question

I think that's where profiling kicks in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:58 PM

39. The right to a speedy trial serves a variety of interests

First and foremost, the right to a speedy trial is a right that is intended to protect the accused in a criminal case from being left in legal limbo for extended period of time. Violation of the right to a speedy trial can result in the dismissal of charges against a defendant.

There are other reasons for encouraging speedy trials: for example, it is in the interest of the victim of a crime as well as of society as a whole to have criminal charges addressed as promptly as possible in order to give some closure to victims and to avoid evidence growing stale, witnesses becoming unavailable, etc. etc.

However, it is because the right to a speedy trial is intended principally as a protection for those accused of a crime, it is left to the accused to decide whether or not to waive that right. As the article in the OP explains, waiving speedy trial right is very common -- most defendants want as much time as possible to prepare their defense and, as noted, delay can often be the defendants' friend.

That being said, I wouldn't read anything into Zimmermann's lawyer making this move beyond the fact that the same move probably is made multiple times every day by those accused of crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Thu May 10, 2012, 07:39 PM

44. How I view this

Waiving your right to a speedy-trial gives both the defense & prosecution more time. If the defense feels more time is beneficial to their case, they will waive it. It is as simple to that IMO.

I don't think there is anything here to over-analyze(meaning this is a good or bad thing for whichever side or either side is in "trouble").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #44)

Thu May 10, 2012, 09:16 PM

56. It's bad; O'mara grand standed when the media was present pushing for speedy delivery of evidence

And now he's asking for a delay. He first made it seem that the state was holding him back, but now he wants to buy himself some time. It's dishonest. It's like Zimmerman's apology in the court -- for show in the media. Nothing more to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to janx (Original post)

Thu May 10, 2012, 07:57 PM

47. Massive irony.

He was all for a speedy trial earlier...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RUMMYisFROSTED (Reply #47)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:17 PM

49. Grand standing

O'mara is grand standing and buying time for Zimmerman. I found it to be major grand standing by O'marra when he offered the medical records to Gilbrath at the bond hearing and then renigs on the offer after Gilbratheh says he wants them. He had no intention of turning over those medical records (if they even exist and aren't faked).

It is no wonder to me that O'mara wants to postpone/delay evidence being made public. He's in over his head.

I also find it odd that since day one, O'mara claims to have no evidence or any knowledge of what transpired. I find it even odder that weeks later as well as at the bond hearing, he was allowed to pretend certain questions could not be allowed because he doesn't yet know the facts of the case. He objected to having certain facts admitted to the record at the bond hearing by claiming he has no knowledge just like he claimed he didn't know Zimmerman website had collected 204K while he claimed his client was indigent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread