Posted on 04/12/2012 9:52:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
FWIW, I was answering whether it was mandatory for Zimmerman to take the stand in his own defense, in order to complete a motion for grant of immunity. It is mandatory that defendant produce the evidence and argument to support a motion to grant immunity under 776.032, but I don't see how it can be mandatory that the defendant be subjected to examination and cross examination in order to provide that evidence.
Under odumbi, if your white, you are incarcerated until proven guilty.
Someone needs to talk on TV about 13 percent making up 44 percent of criminals, 400,000 attacks on whites and 14,000 attacks on white women every stinking year by blacks. Someone.
Sure- that makes sense. Zimmerman’s lawyer is pretty sharp- once he is able to meet with him and see the witness statements, and the available evidence, he will advise him as to the best course of action.
Appreciate the civility in this discussion. I do hate the flame wars.
GG
Yes, he is.
If you haven't, you should investigate the contents of an Arthur hearing. That's the bond hearing set for April 20.
The state has to prove its case at an Arthur hearing, or else defendant MUST be given bond. The standard of proof the state must meet is "proof evident or presumption [of guilt] great."
Corey will have to substantiate the charging affidavit with evidence. The evidence may be in the form of witness affidavits, but the evidence has to be stronger than the probable cause that is used to hold Zimmerman a the present moment.
“investigate the contents of an Arthur hearing.”
I did, thanks. Interesting that the burden on the state is higher than at trial. I didn’t know that. Portends well for Zimmerman.
His new lawyer did say he wasn’t going to request bond until he had secured a safe place for him to go. No small feat.
It didn't dawn on me that the state had to put on some sort of "proof of the case" at an Arthur hearing. This is a substantive affair that demands a view of the state's evidence for all elements of the charged offense.
As for the burden of proof, I too see the "higher that beyond a reasonable doubt" remarks, but think that is misleading. The court will view the state's evidence in the best light, unimpeached, etc. Although defense can point out contradictions within the state's own evidence, putting any contention in doubt due to the contradictions. Which version, your honor, does the state choose to be presumed true?
Also, the rules of evidence don't apply as they would at trial. For example, inadmissible hearsay testimony can be part of the state's proof in an Arthur hearing. The defendant can challenge the credibility of the evidence, but it can't have it discarded entirely, as it might be able to do at trial.
One other point - the judge's decision is appealable.
FWIW- hubby is the lawyer in the family- he says the burden on prosecution at an Arthur hearing is “proof evident, presumption of guilt great” which is higher than trial “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The state’s case has quite a few holes- if the defense has the time and money to muster adequate rebuttal. I think the boy’s mother allegation that the voice crying for help is her son shouldn’t be permitted without some kind of independent proof. Or maybe the witness who SAW Zimmerman being assaulted and crying for help is enough.
I am hopeful...sort of. Mainly because we don’t know what all the evidence is that they based their charges. But I do have faith in the system working.
It's higher, but the two standards are in the alternative, and the state's evidence is put on via affidavit with no opportunity for cross examination. If the state puts up crap evidence (low credibility), the defense has to argue/explain why that evidence is not helpful to the state.
-- The state's case has quite a few holes --
That's an understatement. The depraved mind, for murder, for one thing. I don;t know what the state is going to offer for evidence to prove that, and if there is an absence of depraved mind, the charge is gone.
Same with all of the evidence that supports self defense - that goes to undercut the charge of murder; but it'll be up to defense to produce that evidence and argue how it undercuts the state's charge.
On voice crying, if the state can use Trayvon's mother, then the defense can use Zimmerman's father, brother, and friend - all of whom are willing to testify under oath that the voice is George's. Now, with a tie, turn to the third party eyewitness who saw George on the bottom, screaming for help.
-- I am hopeful...sort of. Mainly because we don't know what all the evidence is that they based their charges. --
I think we've seen it all. If they had more, it would appear in the information and supporting affidavit. The state's core witness is DeeDee (g.f. who called Trayvon), with mom bringing up a secondary role in establishing that Trayvon was yelling for help.
-- But I do have faith in the system working. --
I don't. The prosecutor shows that the system is rigged. In Bush v. Gore, I saw that even the highest court in the state can pull "rigged" with a straight face. Once a case turns front page news, the system becomes outcome driven, not fact and law driven. The players will deny that - but watch what they do, not what they say.
Martial law???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.