Judge denies request to dismiss charge against Zimmerman

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Judge denies request to dismiss charge against Zimmerman

By Barbara Liston
SANFORD, Florida | Fri Jul 5, 2013 5:37pm EDT

(Reuters) - Florida Judge Debra Nelson denied a defense request to dismiss the second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman, ruling the jury should decide whether to convict the neighborhood watch volunteer who killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman's defense lawyer had asked for the dismissal once prosecutors rested their case in chief, leading to arguments in which the defense said prosecutors failed to prove their case after nine days of testimony.

Prosecutors countered that Zimmerman offered at least three different explanations for how his confrontation with Martin began, casting down on his claim of self-defense.

"There are two people involved here. One of them's dead. One of them's a liar," prosecutor Richard Mantei said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/05/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE9640II20130705

[Lurks Often]

1. Standard defense tactic and the judge declined to do so as expected n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. All completely routine.

You move to dismiss to preserve legal issues for new trial motion and appeal. Judge almost always denies it but you have your butt covered.

[premium]

3. This isn't uncommon,

most criminal defense attorney's will, after the prosecution rests it's case, ask the judge to dismiss the charges saying that the state hasn't proven it's case, it's rarely granted by judge's.

[grok]

4. Would have breen political poison to do allow request.

Those that count are the loudest. Those calling for a head to roll, then would demand hers.

If a jury acquits she is off the hook...

If an appeal of a conviction succeeds, she won't be blamed either. She "tried".

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Not only that, but Zimmerman needs a complete trial.

He may get aquitted. He needs for his story to be told and go to a jury for decision. If he had been aquitted by the judge there would have been screams of outrage and rioting. Both pro and anti Z factions need a complete trial.

If he does get aquitted by a jury, there may be rioting anyway.

[grok]

8. what would be the riot target? white/hispanic women?

Those were the jurors. Could get ugly...

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Riots don't need specific targets.

Once they start, they tend to turn into looting parties.

[Chan790]

30. Wealthy enclaves? Local businesses? Who knows? Rioters rarely make sense. n/t

[Hoyt]

29. What makes you think there will be riots? I think if convicted, Zimmerman supporters

might pull out their sniper rifles or assault weapons and declare war on judge, prosecutor, jury, minorities, etc. Just as likely - really more so - as minorities rioting when another black kid is steamed rolled by bigots with guns.

[Pelican]

39. And you base that on experience?

Just like the last time someone who claimed defense was convicted and hordes of gun owners across the country turned their weapons on the federal system?

Oh.. that has never happened? Gosh..

[Hoyt]

43. My point is that only a bigot would expect minorities to riot. You get it now?

But then you are probably a Randy Weaver type supporter.

And don't tell me gun nuts don't shoot people - MLK, Kennedy, abortion docs, etc.

[Pelican]

44. If that was your point you wouldn't have said...

I think if convicted, Zimmerman supporters might pull out their sniper rifles or assault weapons and declare war on judge, prosecutor, jury, minorities, etc

This is my new favorite thing from you and a few choice others. Make outlandish claims about the violent and racist tendencies of those you fear and then hope no one calls you on it. If they do then you didn't "mean it that way" or "you just don't get it..."

There was a doozy where one of your compatriots said that gun owners are just itching to go to other neighborhoods to kill people of color, women and children. Silly bullshit of course but this is in the same line and worth noting.

On a side note there have been multiple riots that have had racial beginnings and as a result of court verdicts. I can't think of any that involved gun owners as a group. So the odds of one is higher than the other based on past experience.

P.S. If you say "What about the Revolutionary War?" my ability to take you seriously will drop even lower.

[Hoyt]

45. My comment was that that is more likely than the minority riots the bigots claim will happen.

You've said nothing to change my opinion.

[Pelican]

46. Ahhh.. that clears it up...

Math and history are not your strong suits...

See, when certain conditions arise that have created a result in the past we use that as a predictor of future events... (i.e. Racially charged court case, the decision of which were racially charged riots) These things are by no means certain but rather serve as indicators.

On the other hand if those same conditions (i.e. a racially charged court case) have never resulted in a result (i.e. gun owners across America turning on the Federal government as you suggested) then we can suggest that it is less than likely to occur.

See how that works? Math and history... amazing subjects...

[Hoyt]

47. Pelican, I've heard the same crap from right wing bigots for 50 years.

Minorities aren't going to riot,

but gun lovers will buy more guns if Zimmerman is convicted, will spout more racist BS, will send more money to NRA, and will likely take it out on more innocent people like Trayvon Martin.

Enjoy your guns.

[Pelican]

48. It is important to note...

That buying guns, saying racist BS, and sending money to the NRA (all legal activities) are not equivalent to your actual and initial claim that "Zimmerman supporters might pull out their sniper rifles or assault weapons and declare war on judge, prosecutor, jury, minorities, etc"

Just keep on moonwalking back... I'll wait...

I don't think that "minorities" will riot either btw... but it is more likely, based on HISTORY and MATH, than the gun owners of America targeting the entirety of the judicial system en masse.


Last note: Being wrong for 50 years doesn't make it right. You can't wait it out... You are still wrong... for 50 years. Good lord that is a long time.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Rodney King - 1992

If Z walks I think there may be a repeat of 1992.

[Hoyt]

50. All the bigots where I work agree with you. They will be wrong again.

[NoGOPZone]

13. Or maybe she saw insufficient reason to granting the request.

the simplest explanation is usually correct

[grok]

16. Could be but

but what's somewhat telling is how she seems compelled to explain her rulings when they go against the prosecution. There was no need to spend all night writing up a huge text on why she had to deny the prosecution's voice analysis witnesses. Just deny would have been enough. Would not have come up on appeals.

We know which side she has to fear. And rightly so.

Obviously she didn't even bother doing so with denial of this defence request.

[NoGOPZone]

17. No, it's not telling at all.

and, no the notion that she has anything to fear, let alone a 'side', to fear, isn't obvious. If the judge was unwilling to judge motions on their merit and was unable to resist political pressure, she should have asked to recuse herself from the case. As you seem convinced of this, you might want to bring up your concerns with the correct authorities. Or perhaps O'Mara and West should petition to have her removed.

[Just Saying]

23. Or she didn't dismiss because the prosecution has a case against Zimmerman.

It's routine to ask but there was no cause for her to throw out the charges.

I wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is found guilty.

[premium]

27. He'll be sentenced to prison

and his lawyers will file appeals.

[Just Saying]

37. I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point or what.

Some posters seem to think that it's obvious we should fear one side (Trayvons) which is interesting since I find Zimmerman's side much more disturbing.

[premium]

38. Dammit, I need thicker glasses,

my apologies, I thought you said I wonder what will happen to Zimmerman if found guilty,
looking at it again, it says I wonder what will happen if Zimmerman is found guilty.

Probably nothing, just like I don't think much will happen if he's acquitted.

[Just Saying]

40. I've done the same thing before.

And I don't even wear glasses!

I doubt there will be civil unrest because of this verdict either way. I like to think we've come a long way since the LA riots.

[ker0412]

52. Also...

Many times the judge would rather not help decide the outcome of a verdict and leave it up to the jury. I'd hate to be the to throw out a case like that and think I may have just released a potential criminal back into society....:!

[zanana1]

55. Welcome to DU, kero0412!

Please stay with us and comment,comment,comment,!

[Hoyt]

5. Might be "procedure or common," but in this case Zimmerman is also guilty.

[premium]

7. Oh, he's guilty of killing Trayvon,

it remains to be seen whether or not it's in self defense, and the jury will soon decide that.
Right now, all anyone here has is an opinion, which, in the end, means squat.

[Hoyt]

9. My opinion is that it was not self defense, more like a lynching or failure to act

like human.

[premium]

11. My opinion is that he's guilty of Manslaughter,

not 2nd Murder, but it won't surprise me if he walks or gets a hung jury, the prosecution has been very inept so far, especially with their ME today, that guy was a disaster for the states case.

[Voice for Peace]

26. That was my thinking as well but after today's presentation by the prosecution

re why case should go to jury, for the first time I
thought a second degree conviction was very
possible, and justified.

If you haven't watched John Guy's bit from today,
do, it's very good.

[premium]

28. I've watched the trial since day 1

and John Guy was good today, if, IMHO, the state has any chance of getting a conviction, they better have him do the closing.

[John2]

10. I didn't hear any evidence

that proves Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense, except his own words. Lets see if the Defense places Zimmerman's friends and family on the stand under oath also. There is a difference between giving statements to the Press and testifying about Zimmerman's character under oath and on the stand. There is a possibility, somebody will commit perjury. I heard his wife has already been accused of perjurying herself for Zimmerman. It will be interesting to see if daddy Zimmerman will stick to his line about Zimmerman's character and his past history of violence. He painted Trayvon as a thug, that tried to kill his innocent little boy. Zimmerman has a past of aggressive behavior, daddy had to get him off. So lets see if he continues that line under oath? The Defense already tried to bring out Trayvon's character. It will be hard for them to continue to attack Trayvon's character with their own witnesses, unless they call Trayvon's friends as their witnesses. This is a good time for the Prosecution to bring in Zimmerman's past criminal history with his own friends and family. Let them bury him on the stand or commit perjury.

[Honeycombe8]

12. I don't know that character testimony is any more relevant for one than the other.

Character testimony wasn't allowed for Trayvon. Because someone has been aggressive in the past does not mean that TM did not beat GZ up in this instance.

It's like rape cases. Just because a woman said "yes" before has nothing to do with whether defendant raped her in this instance.

I think you could show a pattern of behavior, like in rape cases. You can show a defendant accused rapist has done the same thing more than once before. If that existed in this case, the prosecution would've presented that evidence.

[John2]

20. Not if the people that

know Zimmerman best are defense witnesses. Zimmerman's own father would know about Zimmerman's past criminal record and aggressive behavior, as would his wife and brother. His father has painted Zimmerman as some kind of choir boy, that was attacked by this bad boy. He is insinuating that Zimmerman hasn't attacked anyone before or shown aggressive behavior. There is an indication, his father might have used his influence to get Zimmerman off before. The prosecution has every right to ask his father if he coached Zimmerman also about his self defense claim. That is assuming that Zimmerman spoke to his father and family before speaking to any lawyer. His wife is also game, if she has any different accounts about why Zimmerman needed a gun and her target practicing too. We need to know more about how he was able to pass a background check. We need to know if allegedly other members on community watch, accused zimmerman of being overly aggressive and profiling people. We need to know if he tailgated another moterist, and was accused of lying about what happened? That motorist claimed Zimmerman lied to police and both statements ended up being dropped by the Police. Zommerman also made a counter charge against his ex after she accused him of roughing her up. Both people were granted an order to stay away from each other, but his ex made the complaint first about Zimmerman beating her up. His wife would know if Zimmerman had employment as a bouncer and possibly got fired for over aggression. They have apparently tried to hide things before, and it is why she is up on a perjury charge. I wouldn't play footsie with O'Mara, and double dare him to bring out Martin's past compared to Zimmerman, because I think he is bluffing. The prosecution should use all the ammunition at their disposal and let the chips fall where they may. I would like to know who are Zimmerman's donors too. The NRA, FOX or any other group with a political interest. They opened that can of worms with the female medical examiner. The defense team wouldn't like me.

[John2]

21. Do you have any evidence

Trayvon Martin beat up anybody, except some hearsay on a twitter account? Trayvon Martin was not on trial for murder. Unless you have evidence Trayvon Martin murdered or beat up someone in the past, it is irrelevant and has no equivalence to direct evidence, Zimmerman attacked people, or things on file in his criminal record. Whatever, the defense had on Trayvon, wouldn't be allowed in evidence in any court, because it is all hearsay. Not only, that Trayvon like I said isn't on trial for murdering or beating up Zimmerman. Zimmerman has to prove, Trayvon was going to murder him. He hasn't proven it and Trayvon's past doesn't help him.

[premium]

22. No,

the defense only has to show that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death, not that Trayvon was going to murder him.
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, notice I said murdered, not killed? There's no disputing that he killed Trayvon, what's in dispute is whether or not it was self defense.

[John2]

31. The judge gave pre- instructions

as I understand it, specifically to the jurors about self defense and the difference when using Deadly Force. In her instructions, she said all means before using deadly force. The use of a Deadly Weapon also comes into effect. It comes under the Deadly Weapon Doctrine for intent.

I think the prosecution has shown independent evidence George Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and pursurer in this case. The only words claiming he wasn't are his. Those prior 911 calls and his own words incriminate him acting overagressively towards Martin despite what the defense team claims. He didn't just need the advice of the 911 operator telling him not to pursue Martin, he also had prior knowledge, just from his position as community watch captain. So the fault of pursuing Martin is his alone.

You have no evidence, whatsoever or given any evidence by the defense team Martin circled back on Zimmerman, except Zimmerman's own words. No witness saw Martin double back and jump Zimmerman. You also have no witness claiming Zimmerman had his gun in his holster, and it was a loaded gun with the firing safety off at that.

You on the otherhand have a witness, if you want to believe her or not claiming she heard Zimmerman approaching Martin, after Martin tried to lose him. The only other witness you have is Zimmerman. It was also verified, Jenteal, was on the cell phone with Martin in both accounts. I know the defense tried their best to impeach her but she is believable.

The only witness claimimg Zimmerman was on the bottom and calling for help was Good, outta 8 or 9 other witnesses. He was also the only witness. supposedly in a position to help Zimmerman. There are problems with Good's account, even from Zimmerman's own mouth. Even Good has changed his account at times. According to Zimmerman, the lights were not that good or even on. Zimmerman has also been caught in several lies already, with stand your ground.
it also comes down to if you want to believe Martin's mother, or Zimmerman's father and brother. Who do you think is lying, Mom or those people? Just because you are a Judge, don't mean you can't be impeached for lying. I just got a feeling, somebody might be ripe for perjury on the Defense covering up for Zimmerman. One of them has already been accused of perjury.

[ker0412]

54. Burden of Prooof

It is true that self-defense is Z's claim, however, the burden of proof-which would come from evidence-is on the state and not on Z. Evidence from Z does not have to apply to get him off the hook. But, I think this case could go either way. I'd stick to common sense thinking...if I'm the man wth the gun, locked, loaded, and ready to kill and get into a brawl....WHY WOULD I BE the guy SCREAMING??!! Nonsense! I hope the jury keeps tht in mind.

[whopis01]

42. No one has to prove Zimmerman acted in self defense

And that is why I believe he will be acquitted.

Not because he acted in self defense. Not because Trayvon was the aggressor. But because there isn't going to be enough to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life.

[Finnmccool]

51. They have to offer some proof

it was self defense. When you claim self defense that's known as an affirmative defense like insanity and you're required to show evidence to support that.

[whopis01]

56. Evidence yes - not proof beyond a reasonable doubt

My point was that to convict him there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense.

To find him not guilty does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self defense.

Therefore the defense does not have to prove self defense - they only have to put out enough evidence to make it a reasonable possibility.

[NoGOPZone]

14. It's a shame the judge doesn't read DU

than she'd know what a train wreck the prosecution has been.

[premium]

18. The prosecution has been a train wreck

I've testified in enough criminal trials to know that the prosecution's case for 2nd Murder is weak as hell.

[John2]

24. I have been on the stand,

a witness, a juror and a defendant. I think the prosecution has already proved their case, but it would be a lot stronger, if they just take the gloves off and ignore the defense's threats. The only witness, claiming he saw Trayvon attacking Zimmerman was John Good. The prosecution shouldn't have called him as their witness. They should have ate him up. The person Zimmerman apparently told directly to help him had to be John Good. Zimmerman also claimed it was too dark for him to see Trayvon come up on him, because there was no lights. Zimmerman's own testimony puts Good's testimony in doubt. You are saying Good saw Zimmerman get beat to death and asking him for help, while Good made no attempt to help him? Good also claims his testimony was only clarifications, while the defense accused Jenteal of lying. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either Good took out information or added in information to fit Zimmerman's account. Another disturbing part also, is none of the witnesses, except one person living in those residences, knew Zimmerman at all. By that definition, they all could have been suspicious according to Zimmerman. Some community watch captain. He didn't even know the streets and addresses of the community, he was watching. So why don't people just stop trying to make excuses for Zimmerman. It is very obvious, they are trying too hard to justify it if he gets off with this all white jury.

[premium]

25. The prosecution has not proven 2nd Murder,

maybe Manslaughter, which is the lesser included charge, but the prosecution has been so inept that I'll be surprised if he's convicted, IMO, it's going to be either acquittal or a hung jury, I hope not, but from my experience, this is not going to end well for the state.

The only way I can see the state pulling this off is a kick ass closing, other that that...

Of course this is only my opinion, but it's an informed opinion.

In the grand scheme of things, it matters not one whit what any of us think, it's whether or not the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, then Zimmerman walks, if so, Zimmerman goes to prison.

[customerserviceguy]

32. I agree with you

I'd be extremely surprised if O'Mara put GZ on the stand, so many things about his past would have to come out. Besides, GZ was clever enough to get his side of the story out from the Hannity interview.

My bet is that O'Mara is going to find some other ways to attack TM's character in the defense half of the trial, to try to show his state of mind when the fight broke out. The jury has already heard that TM had marijuana in his system, I expect other such revelations to be forthcoming.

[Gothmog]

34. The trouble is that Zimmerman told several stories

The story that Zimmerman told Hannity has fallen apart because it is clear that Zimmerman lied about his knowledge of self defense and stand your ground. Zimmerman's story is not consistent and it was stupid for Zimmerman to give so many different statements to the police and then to the press. Parts of Zimmerman's story are simply not believable and the use of the term "suspect" and the claim that the dying words of Mr. Martin was that you got me sound like a story made up by someone who knew that he blew it.

[customerserviceguy]

35. Yes, there have been several versions

but the prosecution put them on, and the defense is not going to go back over any of them, subjecting them to further attacks. This part of the trial is for O'Mara to put doubts in the minds of the jury about Trayvon Martin's character, we saw how he tried to sell the "thug" thing before jury selection.

O'Mara's trying to make this look like two very flawed people who just got mixed up in something that neither one could find a way to stop before it came to use of the weapon that GZ had. He knows he can't make his client look like a saint, so he has to make TM look like he wasn't one either.

[JimDandy]

41. Sure it matters not one whit, but to match ones wits is entertaining.

See what I did there...entertainment.

[CatWoman]

19. you said it much nicer than I

add to that the MANY comments thru out the threads asserting there is no "there" there.

[Gothmog]

33. I disagree

We have a situation where one witness is dead and the other witness is a liar. The prosecution did a good job of making a case and satisfying its burden

[Kingofalldems]

36. Anyone with a CC permit should be allowed to shoot

a 'suspect' on sight.

Cause they're cool And they know.

[Rex]

53. There was no reason for him to.

They can ask.