WHY THE JURY DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN Part 7
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: WHY THE JURY DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN Part 7

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638

    WHY THE JURY DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN Part 7


    ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 7: WHY THE JURY DIDN’T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN
    Posted: 24 Jul 2013 09:27 AM PDT
    The discovery materials which the defense finally received from the prosecution after a long and arduous fight revealed Trayvon Martin to be deeply into drugs, and a young man who reveled in street fighting, and more. (Didn’t seem to have much respect for women, either.) None of that was allowed in.
    The reason tracks to something found in the Federal Rules of Evidence in the Rule 404 series, particularly Rule 404(b). Among other things, it means that prior bad acts of the person you harmed, IF THEY WERE NOT KNOWN TO YOU AT THE TIME YOU HARMED HIM, cannot be used by you to defend inflicting that harm. This is because, being unknown to you, they had no part in your decision to act as you did, and it is that act and that decision for which you are being judged at trial.
    Some courts have disagreed with that. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court in two precedent cases, and the Arizona State Supreme Court in one, have ruled that if the deceased had attacked people previously a manner similar to how the defendant described being attacked by him, that the jury SHOULD be allowed to know. (There was reference in the discovery materials to Martin having punched out a school bus driver.) There is no such precedent in Florida that I know of. State Supreme Court decisions from other jurisdictions do not bind on other states, but can be used as persuasive argument during a pre-trial motion in limine to allow such evidence.
    Back in 1984, I was on the defense team as an expert witness called by two of the finest attorneys I’ve ever worked with, the great Roy Black and the brilliant Mark Seiden. Mark and I later served two years together as co-vice chairs of the forensic evidence committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and Roy’s courtroom accomplishments are legend. It would be worth your time to read Roy’s autobiography “Black’s Law.” In the 1984 trial, Roy and Mark defended Miami Police Officer Luis Alvarez against Manslaughter charges in the shooting death of one Nevell “Snake” Johnson. (There were interesting parallels between that case and Zimmerman’s. An officer of Hispanic descent had shot a 20-year-old black man who was reaching for a gun as that officer and another attempted to arrest him. The shooting triggered a race riot. A scapegoat was needed. Janet Reno, then State’s Attorney there, indicted the cop.)
    In that case, the state had portrayed the late Mr. Johnson as a perfect specimen of innocent young manhood, and this is what opened the door for the judge to consider the 40-page memorandum of law that Black and his team put before the bench. The judge set aside 404(b) to allow the defense to rebut that characterization, and the jury got to hear an elderly black woman describe the terror she had experienced when Nevell Johnson had made her the victim of an armed robbery. To make a long story short, Alvarez was acquitted. (Which triggered another race riot, but that’s another story.)
    The lead prosecutor in Zimmerman, Bernie de la Rionda, was too smart to open that door. I understand why Judge Nelson did not allow evidence of prior bad acts by Trayvon Martin to go in front of the jury. Interestingly, though – at the very end of the trial, when it was too late for the defense to do much of anything about it – second seat prosecutor John Guy made the state’s final argument to the jury, a soliloquy rife with references to Martin, who was much taller than the man he attacked, as a “child.” “Child” was also used in this respect by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the verdict, and was Martin family lawyer Ben Crump’s refrain from the beginning.
    Yet the Trayvon Martin who emerged from the state’s reluctantly-provided evidence, the evidence the jury didn’t see, was something else entirely. (Discovery available here.)
    If Guy, Bloomberg, or Crump had ever met 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in life, and called him a helpless “child” to his face, I strongly suspect Martin would have kicked them in the balls.
    Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 7: WHY THE JURY DIDN?T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    For those who might have or want to read the other Parts 1-6 can click this link.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    Probably why there most likely won't be a civil suit, then this info would come out.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Warrior1256 View Post
    Probably why there most likely won't be a civil suit, then this info would come out.
    Ya never know but lets hope not. The 'media' reporting after the verdict has been down right nauseating. Including the response from the White House.

  6. #5
    To clarify my above post...I meant lets hope it doesn't go to a civil suit. As far as the truth coming out, I hope so. But the 'media' isn't to be counted on.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by gejoslin View Post

    ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 7: WHY THE JURY DIDN’T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN
    Posted: 24 Jul 2013 09:27 AM PDT
    The discovery materials which the defense finally received from the prosecution after a long and arduous fight revealed Trayvon Martin to be deeply into drugs, and a young man who reveled in street fighting, and more. (Didn’t seem to have much respect for women, either.) None of that was allowed in.
    The reason tracks to something found in the Federal Rules of Evidence in the Rule 404 series, particularly Rule 404(b). Among other things, it means that prior bad acts of the person you harmed, IF THEY WERE NOT KNOWN TO YOU AT THE TIME YOU HARMED HIM, cannot be used by you to defend inflicting that harm. This is because, being unknown to you, they had no part in your decision to act as you did, and it is that act and that decision for which you are being judged at trial.
    Some courts have disagreed with that. The Massachusetts State Supreme Court in two precedent cases, and the Arizona State Supreme Court in one, have ruled that if the deceased had attacked people previously a manner similar to how the defendant described being attacked by him, that the jury SHOULD be allowed to know. (There was reference in the discovery materials to Martin having punched out a school bus driver.) There is no such precedent in Florida that I know of. State Supreme Court decisions from other jurisdictions do not bind on other states, but can be used as persuasive argument during a pre-trial motion in limine to allow such evidence.
    Back in 1984, I was on the defense team as an expert witness called by two of the finest attorneys I’ve ever worked with, the great Roy Black and the brilliant Mark Seiden. Mark and I later served two years together as co-vice chairs of the forensic evidence committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and Roy’s courtroom accomplishments are legend. It would be worth your time to read Roy’s autobiography “Black’s Law.” In the 1984 trial, Roy and Mark defended Miami Police Officer Luis Alvarez against Manslaughter charges in the shooting death of one Nevell “Snake” Johnson. (There were interesting parallels between that case and Zimmerman’s. An officer of Hispanic descent had shot a 20-year-old black man who was reaching for a gun as that officer and another attempted to arrest him. The shooting triggered a race riot. A scapegoat was needed. Janet Reno, then State’s Attorney there, indicted the cop.)
    In that case, the state had portrayed the late Mr. Johnson as a perfect specimen of innocent young manhood, and this is what opened the door for the judge to consider the 40-page memorandum of law that Black and his team put before the bench. The judge set aside 404(b) to allow the defense to rebut that characterization, and the jury got to hear an elderly black woman describe the terror she had experienced when Nevell Johnson had made her the victim of an armed robbery. To make a long story short, Alvarez was acquitted. (Which triggered another race riot, but that’s another story.)
    The lead prosecutor in Zimmerman, Bernie de la Rionda, was too smart to open that door. I understand why Judge Nelson did not allow evidence of prior bad acts by Trayvon Martin to go in front of the jury. Interestingly, though – at the very end of the trial, when it was too late for the defense to do much of anything about it – second seat prosecutor John Guy made the state’s final argument to the jury, a soliloquy rife with references to Martin, who was much taller than the man he attacked, as a “child.” “Child” was also used in this respect by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the verdict, and was Martin family lawyer Ben Crump’s refrain from the beginning.
    Yet the Trayvon Martin who emerged from the state’s reluctantly-provided evidence, the evidence the jury didn’t see, was something else entirely. (Discovery available here.)
    If Guy, Bloomberg, or Crump had ever met 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in life, and called him a helpless “child” to his face, I strongly suspect Martin would have kicked them in the balls.
    Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 7: WHY THE JURY DIDN?T LEARN ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN
    My reading of 404 does not prevent that info from being brought out. It is clearly covered in the exception in (b) (2)as TM had " plan " , " knowledge ", " opportunity " when taking the MMA training and using it to attack GZ and (b) would not apply if what GZ did was not attacking TM but defending himself anyways. 404 (a) is where the defendant has the right to bring it forward as GZ was the victim, not TM. 412 does not apply as this was not a sex crime.

    (b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

    (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

    (2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

    (A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

    (B) do so before trial — or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.
    It does prevent the prosecutor from using evidence against the defendant without giving notice and allowing the defense to see it. And if need be, rebut it in court.

    . Federal Rules of Evidence
    aboutsearch.Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
    (a) Character Evidence.

    (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

    (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

    (A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

    (B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

    (i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

    (ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and

    (C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
    If the prosecution had tried to make it out that TM was a peace loving kid, the defense would have had a field day with the attack on the bus driver.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    756
    Im sorry if this sounds rude but I think a wide variety of people dont care about the Treyvon Martin trial anymore, I guess I was one who didnt care to watch it, didnt support or oppose it. I as a CPL carrier was on the side of stand your ground however, both persons involved brought the "tragic outcome."
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier....One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    Im sorry if this sounds rude but I think a wide variety of people dont care about the Treyvon Martin trial anymore, I guess I was one who didnt care to watch it, didnt support or oppose it. I as a CPL carrier was on the side of stand your ground however, both persons involved brought the "tragic outcome."
    There's a huge difference between taking a deep interest in the legal case surrounding a use of claimed self defense that is national news, and taking sides on behalf of either of the principles involved in the case. A jury in Florida upheld the self defense claim of George Zimmerman, even in the face of more than a year's media coverage that was utterly and purposely deceptive about the character of each of the players. I agree with you that both parties contributed to what happened on 2/26/12, but what happened after that in the courts of public opinion and of the law, are things that every citizen, gun-owner or otherwise, should be interested in. This stuff matters, and it's a sign of the times in which we live. Ignoring it, or indifference to it, is imposing willful ignorance upon one's self. I don't think it's rude per se, but it is rather baffling as to why someone would post just to say, "I don't care." Lack of comment would say the exact same thing.

    And by the way, in case you develop a level of caring about the case and/or the justice system (such as it is) in this country, it wasn't the "Trayvon Martin Trial," it was the George Zimmerman trial. He was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers, yet your federal Department of Justice is still persecuting him simply because the leftist radicals "leading" this country now didn't like the verdict. Jus' sayin', in case you care.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Itstjs View Post
    Im sorry if this sounds rude but I think a wide variety of people dont care about the Treyvon Martin trial anymore, I guess I was one who didnt care to watch it, didnt support or oppose it. I as a CPL carrier was on the side of stand your ground however, both persons involved brought the "tragic outcome."
    It is NOT a stand your ground issue!

  11. “Dispatcher: Are you following him?

    Zimmerman: Yeah.

    Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast