The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[SOM]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I doubt it will have any impact on the case in a court of law. How is it relevant to the charge of second degree murder and how does any relevance outweigh its potential unfair prejudice? What does what he said about Mexicans 7 years ago have to do with whether he committed second degree murder when he killed an African-American youth two months ago? Especially given that he identifies as Hispanic? Despite what the article says (yes, I read it), I think it's unlikely that this information will matter in court.

Here's an idea: Instead of posting nothing but links to random articles, why don't you give us your thoughts on why all of these articles are worth reading or have anything to add to the conversation.

Well besides just reading the articles MysticCat, I also spoke to several friends and associates who are in the legal field. They thought that it could have an impact in court as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SOM

Well besides just reading the articles MysticCat, I also spoke to several friends and associates who are in the legal field. They thought that it could have an impact in court as well.

Well, maybe things are different in Florida -- always a possibility -- but I have some trouble imagining that a judge would let this in.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

Kevin: This may have some impact on case-not only in court of public opinion but in court of law.

It will likely have no impact, unless the defense has literally no idea how to pick a jury.

While this article may be far from perfect, it does bring out the point rather well.

The point that there's a Myspace page? You and I have far different expectations out of articles.

At the very least, it would make one give the idea some thought

Giving ideas thought is always a good plan.

On a less snarky note, WHAT idea?

[SOM]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Well, maybe things are different in Florida -- always a possibility -- but I have some trouble imagining that a judge would let this in.

While perhaps self-serving:
From Washington Post article:
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said Wednesday that prosecutors could use Zimmerman’s MySpace comments against him.
“It’s not just speculation and innuendo. He has a history and a habit of profiling people,” Crump said. “He thinks certain things about certain racial groups.”

A statement posted on a Zimmerman defense site run by O’Mara concedes that the comments “will cast Mr. Zimmerman in a less-than-favorable light” and that they could become evidence in the case. The statement says there will be no comment on the MySpace statements for that reason, but it does confirm that the posts were by Zimmerman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/old-ge...washingtonpost

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

Well besides just reading the articles MysticCat, I also spoke to several friends and associates who are in the legal field. They thought that it could have an impact in court as well.

MC is "in the legal field" as well ... also, when people say things like "are in the legal field" it usually means "they're not lawyers though." Are they? In Florida?

[SOM]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

MC is "in the legal field" as well ... also, when people say things like "are in the legal field" it usually means "they're not lawyers though." Are they? In Florida?

They are and it seems as if both of the attorneys directly involved are of the mind that this could be in play at trial.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

They are and it seems as if both of the attorneys directly involved are of the mind that this could be in play at trial.

No.

First, the attorney for the Martin family is completely uninvolved in the criminal proceedings. That opinion is less than worthless - it's likely intentionally slanted or misleading.

Second, here's the entire context for the defense attorney's statement:

Originally Posted by Zimmerman's Attorney O'Mara

The article details a number of statements that will cast Mr. Zimmerman in a less-than-favorable light especially considering the charges he faces. In that regard, it is possible that the statements Mr. Zimmerman made could be used as part of the trial, and therefore it is our policy not to comment directly on items that could become evidence.

It's a glorified "No Comment" - an easy way to address it without actually addressing it, or tying his client to anything. Don't assume that means it actually will become evidence, or even that O'Mara actually believes it has a significant chance to become evidence.

MC's given us an informed opinion: in most jurisdictions, most judges would find the posts more prejudicial than probative. Likely because, well, they're not at all probative on whether he shot a kid 7 years later, particularly given the decision to avoid Murder 1.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SOM

While perhaps self-serving:
From Washington Post article:
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said Wednesday that prosecutors could use Zimmerman’s MySpace comments against him.
“It’s not just speculation and innuendo. He has a history and a habit of profiling people,” Crump said. “He thinks certain things about certain racial groups.”

Perhaps self-serving? And, as KSig RC (who, like Kevin, is also "in the legal field") said, not from anyone actually involved in the criminal case.

Aside from general irrelevance to elements of second degree murder, as a general rule evidence of past behavior is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in a manner consistent with that behavior in committing the crime charged. In other words, the fact that someone did something in the past is not evidence that they did it on the occasion for which they're facing charges. Exceptions to that general rule can apply if the evidence serves some other purpose, such as to establish motive or because of real similarity between the past acts and the current one. Without something else, I don't see how evidence of things he said about Mexicans 7 years ago would meet this exception.

[SOM]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Perhaps self-serving? And, as KSig RC (who, like Kevin, is also "in the legal field") said, not from anyone actually involved in the criminal case.

Aside from general irrelevance to elements of second degree murder, as a general rule evidence of past behavior is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in a manner consistent with that behavior in committing the crime charged. In other words, the fact that someone did something in the past is not evidence that they did it on the occasion for which they're facing charges. Exceptions to that general rule can apply if the evidence serves some other purpose, such as to establish motive or because of real similarity between the past acts and the current one. Without something else, I don't see how evidence of things he said about Mexicans 7 years ago would meet this exception.

Well it would seem fair to say that based on what you all have said or indicated here that unless one of you is directly involved in this case none of your POVs matters all that much either. I will put more faith into what the lawyers directly involved say or do than anyone here. The only POV that does will be the judge's and the jury's when all this comes together. In what will no doubt be two trials-Criminal and Civil.

And I should add that I place more faith in people that I know as family, friends, Brothers or business associates than unknown people in a social media setting.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SOM

Kevin: This may have some impact on case-not only in court of public opinion but in court of law.

All I have to add to the previous comments is this: LOL.

Please just drop this. We don't need a Zimmerman news aggregation service here on GC. I am not at all concerned about what Zimmerman may or may not have said 7 years ago. For a variety of reasons, e.g., relevance and difficulty of authentication, this will never make it to the jury.

I frankly doubt this case ever even goes to a jury at this point.

[SOM]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All I have to add to the previous comments is this: LOL.

Please just drop this. We don't need a Zimmerman news aggregation service here on GC. I am not at all concerned about what Zimmerman may or may not have said 7 years ago. For a variety of reasons, e.g., relevance and difficulty of authentication, this will never make it to the jury.

I frankly doubt this case ever even goes to a jury at this point.

LOL back at you Kevin-As far as I know-no one is forcing you to read this thread. A thread with almost 9,000 views. And a thread that someone else started.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SOM

Well it would seem fair to say that based on what you all have said or indicated here that unless one of you is directly involved in this case none of your POVs matters all that much either. I will put more faith into what the lawyers directly involved say or do than anyone here. The only POV that does will be the judge's and the jury's when all this comes together. In what will no doubt be two trials-Criminal and Civil.

And I should add that I place more faith in people that I know as family, friends, Brothers or business associates than unknown people in a social media setting.

You're cute when you're mad.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by SOM

And I should add that I place more faith in people that I know as family, friends, Brothers or business associates than unknown people in a social media setting.

Originally Posted by SOM

LOL back at you Kevin-As far as I know-no one is forcing you to read this thread. A thread with almost 9,000 views. And a thread that someone else started.

CAN I GET A FLOUNCE?!


Plz...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

CAN I GET A FLOUNCE?!


Plz...

[Kevin]