<p>“I hope the prosecution isn’t being overly ambitious with murder 2 rather than manslaughter.”</p>
<p>Sets the stage for a plea deal.</p>
<p>^And… I hope they are smart enough to accept one this time.</p>
<p>Any Fl. criminal attys? Can a plea deal be for less than the state mandatory minimum?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is “they,” the State of Florida?</p>
<p>Regretable phrasing by Ben Crump, the Martin family’s attorney: “It’s about justice, justice, justice. If we just stand our ground, we can make a difference.”</p>
<p>^^^ SMH. That’s exactly what George thought he was doing, look what happened as a result.</p>
<p>I’m really quite surprised the charge is 2nd degree murder. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is particularly high for the prosecution, which leads me to wonder just how much evidence has come to light within the past three weeks. The lead investigator said he had reason to question GZ’s account of that night. I, for one, am very curious to know what made him advocate that Zimmerman be charged, as well as what made the state’s prosecutor get out of bed at 11:00pm and drive down to the Sanford Police station to override his recommendation.</p>
<p>IMHO, the most likely reason for the decision to charge 2nd degree murder - vs. manslaughter – is that the prosecution determined that Zimmerman gave false statements to police (indicating he may not have thought he was “standing his ground” at all). The autopsy + ballistics evidence will provide a fairly narrow set of possibilities as to how the shooting could have taken place – if Zimmerman’s account is inconsistent with the physical evidence, then he’s in big trouble. I think we can assume that the prosecution also has statements from numerous witnesses, and probably has done voice analysis on the 911 tape, with experts comparing the sounds of the screams for help to both exemplars of Zimmerman’s voice & Martin’s voice.</p>
<p>
If Zimmerman told a story that can be easily disproved by physical evidence or direct witness testimony, that burden is considerably lightened. (The burden is the same, of course, but its a lot harder for a defense lawyer to have to deal with the client’s lies as well as the prosecution’s evidence.)</p>
<p>“And it is the search for justice for Trayvon that has brought us to this night.” </p>
<p>our oath will be upheld for our victim, Trayvon Martin, and for the man responsible for his death."</p>
<p>As a Floridian, I found some comfort hearing these statements. I watched the prosecutor on CNN, while working out at the gym and it brought me to tears. </p>
<p>I was also wondering about the murder two charge, and the burden of proof the prosecution must meet. Who knows, there could be witnesses who saw/heard everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you don’t go to the hospital to rule out a concussion…</p>
<hr>
<p>Hopefully the prosecution has the evidence to back up what they’re looking at. If they don’t, then there are really going to be people calling for their heads (job and possible their life!) if the whole thing falls apart…</p>
<p>Shall wait and see…</p>
<p>The prosecution doing the charging either has stronger evidence against Z than previously believed, are going for a higher charge for plea bargaining, or both. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the jurors are predisposed to bias in favor of Z for various reasons and/or are emotionally tone-deaf*…that statement is understandable in light of the family’s circumstances. After all…they lost their son…how else are parents supposed to feel about a man who shot and killed their kid? If anything…if they tried to be too objective…I can easily see some jurors losing sympathy for the family for being “too cold” and “unfeeling” about the loss of their kid. </p>
<ul>
<li>I.e. One lawyer friend of mine who is all about the law and not only ignores the human/emotional/differing perspective/societal aspects of the case. It’s not only about the law…and “nothing but the law”…but he’s also completely ignoring contrary information. Not only is that being emotionally tone-deaf…he’d be the worst defense attorney possible because such folks come across as cold and arrogant to most regular folks IME…the ones who are likely to be on juries. He’d also be unable to anticipate prosecution arguments effectively enough to not only parry them away…but also understand possible juror emotional reactions and use that knowledge to try create a more sympathetic portrayal of their client.</li>
</ul>
<p>myturnnow, I was also very impressed by the prosecutor. She seems to have a strong moral compass. I hope she’s as good as she seems.</p>
<p>Like everyone else, I’m surprised by the charge of second-degree murder. I think that everyone would have been satisfied with a charge of manslaughter. I wonder whether the evidence against Z is stronger than we think?</p>
<p>I wonder who Z’s new attorneys are?</p>
<p>It’s something like Mark O’Meary. Murray? It was an M name.</p>
<p>Interesting comments, calmom. I guess if he went on record with a version of events, and his version was disproved by evidence, then he is pretty much defenseless. </p>
<p>This prosecutor did not sound like someone who would overcharge in an effort to get a plea bargain. She spoke of her obligation to be fair to Z, and I found her believable.</p>
<p>She only mentioned one charge, right? Isn’t is more usual to charge multiple crimes?</p>
<p>Did anyone see the Bill Cosby interview? They asked him if he thought this was about race, and he said, “it’s about the gun.” I so agree with this.</p>
<p>I hope that they aren’t overreaching with the second degree charges. But, they took their time before they arrested him. I imagine they thought it through.</p>
<p>It will be taken to a judge and the judge will decide if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. It’s much better that this prosecutor was willing to be brave enough to make the call herself and not to take it to a grand jury, where it would just have more time to simmer and involve more people in the brewing tempest. </p>
<p>I give her credit for being willing to take the responsibility on her own.</p>
<p>Corey said that Z will appear in court within 24 hours. Think he’s grown his hair out so that no one can see whether or not there’s a scar on the back of his head?</p>
<p>In the snippet that I saw of Corey’s announcement, she was laughing, almost giggling. I hope we don’t have another prosecutor who’s a little too excited about being in the headlines.</p>
<p>LasMa, I found Corey to be quite professional in her presentation, maybe the snippet showed a moment of laughing. She struck me as clear and strong and authoritative, like she took her role very seriously. </p>
<p>hopscout–just wondering, how many times have you taken a child to an ER for a cat scan to determine if they have a concussion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Ask Natasha Richardson about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never. It’s not the standard of care.</p>