<p>If Zimmerman takes the stand to testify in his own defense, then the prosecutor can impeach his testimony by introducing evidence of any and all previous statements he has made that are materially different from the story he is telling the jury. That would include statements he made to his brother, father, or anyone else. </p>
<p>Statements made by a defendant in a criminal action that are deemed to be “admissions” are also admissible, as clear exceptions to the hearsay rule – and if nothing else, Zimmerman’s statements to his brother & father appear to be admissions that he intentionally pulled the trigger (as opposed to a claim that the gun accidentally went off during a struggle).</p>
<p>OK, I think I understand the argument for SYG now. Z, as we know, chased after Martin. But then, Z claims, he broke off the chase and started back to his car. He then claims that Martin attacked him. Here comes the Stand Your Ground-- he could have turned around and left, but he decided to stand his ground. Then, the Zimmerman side will claim, Martin started winning the fight and Z was in danger of death, so he shot Martin.</p>
<p>To accept this claim, the jury would have to believe that Zimmerman did nothing to start the physical altercation-- because SYG doesn’t apply to the aggressor-- and that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. A bit of heavy lifting, I think. The evidence that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life, in particular, looks thin.</p>
The problem for Zimmerman is that his dad & brother have given statements that include very explicit and graphic details. It would be hard for them to walk back those statements and say they made them up or were basing them on media reports. And of course the graphic detail is preserved in the filmed interviews, and accompanied by other statements suggesting that the information was based on what George Zimmerman told him.</p>
<p>I was thinking about the personalities of Trayvon’s parents. They are very calm, restrained, and non-aggressive, not the kind of people who fly off the handle. With these people for parents, how likely is it that Trayvon would have started an altercation (as in the story that he followed Z back to his car and attacked him)? I’ve been assuming that Trayvon might have started the fight by punching Z in the nose during the verbal confrontation (“Why are you following me?” “What are you doing here?”), but now I wonder whether he would have done this.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for Z’s new lawyer. He has said that he has not had a chance to talk to Z yet, and he has not seen any evidence yet. He knows only what has been reported. He may be quite dismayed when he sees everything.</p>
<p>I had the same reaction hearing O’Mara yesterday and today again where he states he won’t be going after Trayvon’s mother’s words. He reiterated how she lost a child and is a victim.</p>
<p>He exemplified what we discussed on this thread yesterday, expressing remorse over the death of a child, even if there’s a belief or a defense that it was in self defense. While I do like his style, I would also imagine this is part of his defense. To tone down the angry, almost arrogant rhetoric which has come from Z and his family thus far.</p>
<p>I seem to recall there are contemporaneous written reports by the officers (and EMT??) at the scene that it was observed that Z had wetness and grass on the back of his jacket and blood on his face and the back of his head when they arrived. Some people think the enhanced tapes at the police station show indications of injury to the back of Z’s head.</p>
<p>Also, there will be the information that within the people investigating the incident there was disagreement over whether Z could be charged. In other words, reasonable doubt. And, all of that comes out of the mouths of people other than Z. </p>
<p>The prosecution is going to have to discredit the police and the initial investigation. And, the “big gorilla” in the room is that the “new” charges–that it was 2nd degree MURDER– not even just negligent homicide– came only after a media campaign, racial posturing and shooting at local police cars.</p>
<p>While some will feel that only after public outcry did the system “do its job,” it may not be hard for some locals on the jury to believe the system caved in to “outside agitation” and to placate the howls threw murder 2 out there on Z. Also, “law and order” feelings can kick in. Orlando is in the bottom 2% of cities on crime stats.</p>
<p>I keep wondering if everyone remembers that it is a jury of Z ‘s peers, not just the 25% of the citizens who have college degrees, etc. Heck, some of those juror may even feel like Trayvon’s Mom that it was an accident whether that gets into evidence or not.</p>
<p>07DAD, all this evidence will be hashed out at the trial, as it should be. </p>
<p>I don’t see why I as a juror would be interested in whether someone else thought Zimmerman should be charged. He has now been charged, and my job as a juror would be to determine whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Since I would have access to whatever evidence the police had, I would use my own judgement and not defer to them.</p>
<p>O’Mara couldn’t possibly go after the mom’s “testimony” that the shooting was an accident. She has no standing to have an opinion - she was not a witness in any way shape or form. Her legal standing is about the same as mine in this regard. Having said that, he seems to be a very classy guy. The first time I heard him interviewed, the very first thing he did was express how tragic Trayvon’s death was. Smart, but classy.</p>
<p>CF, you said that SYG doesn’t apply to the aggressor. Could someone say that in the course of the entire incident, the pursued person did turn into the aggressor? </p>
<p>I have to add that the brother’s story is laughable. I picture Martin holding Zimmerman down on the ground with one set of hands, with his second set of hands over Zimmerman’s mouth, while Zimmerman screams while not being able to breathe. Does he really think anyone would buy that?</p>
<p>07DAD, if Zimmerman is correct that Martin was on top of him, attacking him and causing serious harm such that Zimmerman had to pull out his gun and shoot him, why was there none of Martin’s blood on Zimmerman? I mean, if a guy is on top of me and I shoot him, wouldn’t the blood fall downward onto me?</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang–the prosecution would want you on the jury. But, I’ve been on a jury and it is frightening to me how much totally extraneous stuff came into the deliberation. </p>
<p>The same goes for juror interviews after a trial is over. The stuff they mention as “whys” seems to me to defy logic. But, by then the case is over.</p>
<p>07DAD, the defense might want me on the jury. I take “beyond a reasonable doubt” seriously. In my personal opinion, I’d guess Z is guilty, but if I were on the jury, I would want evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang–I did not mean to suggest that the defense would not want you. So long as a juror understands beyond a reasonable doubt, a juror who does not believe and consider anything other than what is presented at trial is a gem.</p>
<p>One Casey Anthony juror lamented that the prosecution just did not give them the evidence needed to convict on the offense charged.</p>
<p>The wrongful conviction rate in Dallas county indicates that all too often a juror may just go with the prosecution because they’d rather be safe (have the defendant off the street)than sorry (if the defendant commits a crime after being acquitted).</p>
<p>This is slightly OT, but I’d be interested in opinions. Indiana just passed a law saying citizens have a right to shoot dead a policeman they think is entering their house unlawfully. </p>
<p>Bout time, right? After all, the police have such an easy time of it that they need a few challenges to make sure they stay on their toes. Imagine if this law were in effect in Boston when the police went into the house of that Harvard professor. If he were in Indiana, he could have just shot the policeman instead of something so wimpy as a mere argument.</p>
<p>He might have backed up when he saw the gun in which case the blood should be on the ground in between them. I believe that they took Zimmerman’s clothes (don’t recall where I read that). I don’t recall any reports by forensics teams on the site itself - just descriptive reports by the police.</p>
In which case there would be no need to shoot. </p>
<p>However, the Zimmerman version of events would still be implausible. Not sure how he manages to reach his gun and also convey that he is holding a gun, while someone is sitting on top of him and bashing his head into the pavement and/or holding hands over his mouth – nor why the attacker in such circumstances would stand up & back away as opposed to using his physical advantage (in that setting) to try to wrest the gun from the hands of the person he was sitting on/smashing/suffocating.</p>
<p>My gut sense is that Zimmerman is an embellisher – and that he gave embellished, but differing, accounts to different people when questioned. I am figuring that rather than providing a truthful account, that whenever he was asked a question that suggested any error or culpability on his own part, he offered some sort of rationalization and along with embellished details. Some people are like that – they can’t ever admit that they are wrong, they have an explanation or excuse for everything, and they pretty much make up stuff along the way.</p>
<p>That’s why you end up getting multiple stories with the second hand accounts of what Zimmerman said. He answered questions posed by different people, and came up with different stories depending on the tone and content of the different questions.</p>