Skip to comments.Zimmerman will seek 'stand your ground' hearing
Posted on 08/09/2012 5:39:57 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Attorneys for the neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the death of an unarmed teen say they'll seek a "stand your ground" hearing that could lead to criminal charges being dismissed.
A statement posted Thursday on the website for George Zimmerman's legal team says evidence released by prosecutors shows "clear support for a strong claim of self-defense."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.com ...
They will intimidate the "judge" into denying what is obvious to a child: Zim was defending himself.
Riot in August, riot in November, it doesn’t matter, they are going to riot.
With this case, and the two recent mass shootings, the gun grabbers undoubtedly have a veritable library of pending legislation they would love to pass restricting the 2nd Amendment.
What's obvious is that he judge is already in the bag.
Oops — there goes Crump’s million dollar civil suit.
Zimmerman has a solid case for his hearing. There is not a chance in the world that he will win, since that court is not about the law and the facts, it’s about the politics. I hope Zimmerman survives this lynching.
Zimmerman’s got a good attorney, IMHO.
Wait for ALL of the persecution’s evidence to be laid on the table — weigh it, vet it for unacceptable risk, build the case — and THEN move for dismissal under Stand Your Ground.
Plus — he’s now laid the groundwork for appeal of a stand-your-ground rejection (if it comes) as well as a conviction (if it comes) by asking the judge to recuse himself.
I was operating under the assumption that they had given up on dismissal under stand your ground as it would expose Zimmerman to his own testimony.
This guy is good.
His attorney reminds me of a skinny Perry Mason......Just goes about his business putting the prosecutor on the defensive.
If a judge would have done the right thing to begin with the case would have been thrown out and the prosecutor been warned not to ever bring this kind of heresy back into his court ever again. Consequently, my prediction is the defense has about ZERO chance of getting these charges dropped. The judge and the prosecution are not following the law they are following orders. I hope I'm wrong on this and just maybe the judge will see this as a way out of this mess! I guess we will see.
I also disagree about Zimmerman's lawyer. I don't think he's very strong at all. I think it was a huge mistake to let Zimmerman be interviewed by Hannity on national television. The attorney's statements to the press have also been very weak in my opinion.
>> I hope I’m wrong on this and just maybe the judge will see this as a way out of this mess! I guess we will see.
I hope you’re wrong too. We’ll check back in a month or so.
>> If a judge would have done the right thing to begin with &etc
Keep in mind that an impartial judge doesn’t go into a case with a predisposition for EITHER side. So the idea that he’ll read the indictment and “do the right thing” and magically wipe away the charges before seeing any evidence is fantasy — I don’t care what Alan Dershowitz says. :-) And it’s not his job to go out looking for evidence either.
I could be wrong too, but I’m not pessimistic about Z.’s chances in this case. I think he has truth on his side and a competent lawyer to lay it out; truth WILL out and either the charges will be dismissed or at worst, he’ll be acquitted.
But as you say, we’ll see.
In light of a forthcoming trial, you may have a point.
But I maintain his lawyer had a stand-your-ground dismissal in his back pocket the whole time.
Anybody out there in electron-land ACTUALLY BELIEVE that these lawbots are going to follow the law??
Let Z. WALK????????????
That judge is already prejudiced agains’t Zimmeman. He will never dismiss the charges. He should have recused himself.
Perhaps that statement should be sent to the judge, the prosecutor, to the letters to the editor columns of all nearby newspapers, played on 15 second radio and TV spots and plastered on billboards. Maye they can be shamed into giving him a fair hearing! < /wishful thinking >
Surely the forensics evidence is in and can corroborate (or not) the eyewitness and other witness accounts. Was Trayvon shot while on top of Zim at close range, or not?
Also determine the likely state of mind of the perp, Trayvon. Was he downing Robitussin purple drank on a regular basis? Had he purchased ingredients that night?
Had he consumed them or other drugs? Why was he loitering in the dark in the rain off the pathway between houses?
Z will have to prove that he was attacked. He can’t do that and would have to testify and be subjected to hard cross in order to try. He will be his own worst enemy. A SYG hearing will only do him harm.
His attorney waived that long ago, and it was a good call.
1. Put as much time as possible between the trial and the howling mob.
2. It should be no trick at all to delay this until after the election. If Romney wins, the "Just US" department bows out. That would be a very good thing.
But Judge Lester did in this case. He called the prosecution's evidence "strong" all the while dismissing the defense's attempt to present any evidence of their own at the second bond hearing.
And he maintained his stance even after the prosecution's investigator had been handed his lunch on the witness stand, and all the exculpatory evidence released afterwards and presented to the Court at the second bond hearing showed that most everything the prosecution claimed in its charging affidavit to have been untruthful.
Before the court considers that question, it would require some foundation.
>> [Judge Lester] ... called the prosecution’s evidence “strong” all the while dismissing the defense’s attempt to present any evidence of their own at the second bond hearing.
In the first bond hearing though, the shoe was on the other foot; the prosecution even whined to the judge about the defense getting away with “trying the case” at the first bond hearing.
It may be that the fiasco with the Z. website and the unreported money pissed an impartial judge off into bias against Z; I haven’t kept up with the trial details since the first bond hearing so I’ll have to rely on your good judgment there.
While it doesn’t have anything to do with Z.’s innocence, withholding the financial information was not a really bright idea.
I still think Z. will prevail, though.
You mean like these from Mark O'Mara:
"SYG is an absurd law."
"There is a credibility question that needs to be explained away."
"Zs credibility has been tarnished and he will have to rehabilitate it."
"The prosecutor has made a very specific showing that the case was strong. It was important for us to counter that."
"My client is charged with a crime that he doesnt believe he committed" Instead of: My client is innocent.
With a lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor???
Before all this drama you’d think the court would have had that on day one.
No -- that was the second bond hearing.
At the first the state had all the exculpatory evidence in its hands and had not released it yet to the defense.
At the first bond hearing O'Mara cross examined the prosecution's investigator Gilbreath who signed the charging affidavit and got him to admit that they had no evidence to prove that it was not self defense. And this was right in front of the judge.
With an admission like that, how can an impartial judge possibly label the prosecution's case as "strong", and then continue to maintain that opinion after the defense presents a bucketload of the state-released exculpatory evidence to the contrary at the second bond hearing, most of it being witness testimony, forensic evidence and medical reports independent of the defendent's credibility.