Posted on 07/12/2013 1:53:47 PM PDT by Tunehead54
From an article linked:
George Zimmerman studied self defense, including Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law and got an A in the course, his college instructor told a courtroom today, appearing to contradict Zimmerman's claims shortly after he killed Trayvon Martin.
Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter testified today that he taught Zimmerman criminal litigation back in 2010 at Seminole State College. Carter, who is now an Army prosecutor, called Zimmerman one of his "better students," noting that Zimmerman received an A for his work.
The testimony is aimed at undermining Zimmerman's credibility because he has denied prior knowledge of self defense laws.
When asked by Fox News' Sean Hannity "prior to this night, this incident, had you even heard stand your ground?" Zimmerman responded "No Sir." Again Hannity asked " You have never heard about it before?," Again the same answer: "No."
Zimmerman, 29, is on trial in a Florida courtroom, charged with second degree murder in the shooting of Martin, 17, on Feb. 26, 2012. He maintains he killed Martin in self-defense.
Carter's testimony was made possible after Judge Debra Nelson handed the prosecution a legal victory before court resumed today by allowing Zimmerman's criminal justice course load, and his failed application for a Virginia Law enforcement job, to be entered into evidence. The ruling opened up Zimmerman's past to scrutiny.
It was the first time in eight days of testimony that jurors heard about Florida's "stand your ground" law.
Zimmerman had waived a pre-trial immunity "stand Your ground" hearing before a judge, which would have exonerated him from all future criminal and civil proceedings if a judge ruled in his favor. Zimmerman's attorney had argued that the former neighborhood watch captain wanted this case decided by a jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at 12newsnow.com ...
Mark O’Meara may have had a “brilliant” close but for whatever reason he did not utilize the protections available under the true, new improved Florida self defense law effective since 2005.
If Zimmerman is convicted a solid point of appeal might be ineffective assistance of counsel.
On its face, Florida SYG provisions establish that a person claiming self defense is IMMUNE from arrest, prosecution AND civil liability. If the authorities find probable cause that he committed a crime then he may be arrested.
However, there is law defined by recent Florida cases interpreting the Stand Your Ground (SYG) additions to self defense law that provides for a hearing, the day after, the week after, 2 months after, a year after the arrest to have a hearing to dismiss all charges based on his claim of self-defense.
The hearing is before the judge assigned to the case.
Uniquely, because of the IMMUNITY provisions of the law, whereas in “regular” motions to dismiss, ANY matter of fact subject to dispute PROHIBITS a dismissal because it is up to the trier of fact, not of the law.
SYG makes the judge in a motion to dismiss hearing BOTH the trier of fact and the trier of law.
The judge gets everything from both sides. There are NO instances where the judge is “sheltered” from potentially inflammatory, prejudicial, hypothetical, prior convictions, hearsay or whatever we protect juries from, the judge knows in an SYG hearing and in fact has to make his ruling based on all these facts.
And the defense knows. And the appellate court will know. Everything presented by both sides. Even if the judge has an agenda, is committed to convicting him, the whole record is there on the record. What was known, what was proven.
A denial of the motion is instantly subject to appeal. The appellate court could dismiss the case itself or instruct the trial judge to hold a new hearing.
In Florida, if you were legally present ANYWHERE in the state and you are attacked, you may meet force with force.
If you are reasonably in fear of imminent great bodily harm or death of you or yours you may use deadly force.
The SYG rights were enacted to prevent what Zimmerman faces today. A crap shoot. After a year and a half of misery his fate lies in the hands of 6 people who viewed the case through blinders.
In this case, O’Meara threw 99% of these protections, under Florida law, under the bus.
If he is convicted he will go to prison. An appeal may get him off but not within a year. Or two or three or more.
O’Meara for whatever reason, ego, PC pressure from the outraged crowd, whatever did not elect to protect Zimmerman from a blindered jury. Zimmerman faces 30 years of hard time based on a crap shoot.
A besmirched defendant. Totally at the mercy of a jury “protected” from many of the true facts of the case. Human beings subject to frailties, prejudices, failings or even agendas, hidden or not, acknowledged and known or worst, subconsciously guiding their decision. A crap shoot.
Win or lose, Zimmerman could have had a no downside, quick and dirty or extensive presentation of ALL evidence to determine whether he had reasonably defended himself.
Worse case? The motion is denied and you either plead or go to trial. But first you had the opportunity to relatively quickly get in front of a judge, get all the facts out, nothing withheld and shoot for dismissal of all charges.
Arguably, with an early motion to dismiss denied another motion could be made in light of new evidence. Or another and another, BEFORE trial. You are IMMUNE from prosecution if you can establish legitimate self defense.
Instead of a huge, complex process where each side in fact has an opportunity to try to fool the jury.
I have not followed this trial very closely since O’Meara elected to go to trial. It was a major mistake. I just hope Zimmerman does not pay for it.
O’Meara is not a genius, the true state of Florida self-defense law has been muzzled.
My street cred? It took a year of my life, facing three years of hard time, with a state prosecutor, here in Florida in 2007-08, trying his best to put me away with no pleas available.
Arguing daily with MY attorney to take a motion to dismiss under new cases developing as my trial approached.
Finally, before a judge whose glares at me during pre-trial appearances made my knees quiver, we presented live testimony and all other evidence and two weeks after finally getting my motion all charges were dismissed with prejudice.
I’ll bet Zimmerman, truly given the choice would have preferred to take that route rather than find himself there, now, facing prison on a crap shoot.
I pray he gets off but given the facts of this case he should not be here today, praying, his life on the line, on a single roll of the dice.
/Rant
Was he under oath on Hannity's show?
It doesn’t really matter if he lied about his understanding of Florida self defense laws imho.
here is a clue for the clueless..
your homeowners insurance does not cover damage caused by:
acts of war
riots
acts of nature
please.....
prepare accordingly
No - but the jury saw the whole thing ... raising credibility issues for Zimmerman;s story.
Only if as it affects the jurors view as to whose account of events is credible.
Only in the minds of the mentally infirm.
Uncle Chip - I’m not trying to hijack your thread but for all those who think an acquittal is a slam dunk let them speak before the jury returns. I haven’t seen all the trial but I’ve seen enough and know enough that the verdict could go either way.
If you have a Zimmerman/SYG ping list I’d be grateful for the heads up to the various experts here at FR. ;-)
With six gashes to the back of GZ’s head, a broken nose, an expert analysis that explained how the evidence supported TM being on top when the gun was fired, and a witness that described TM ‘grounding and pounding’ GZ, I see no way that this case is a legitimate ‘either way verdict’.
Is there some reason why they would be refrained from speaking afterwards???
Those people who think that it should be an acquittal are those who have followed this for over a year and know the facts and the evidence and the parties involved.
They wouldn't be saying anything different now or afterwards that they haven't been saying all along.
TRIVIA QUESTION:
Name a race-riot in the last 30 years in which the poverty pimps/race-hustlers DID NOT make a ton of money off of.
Ah, so an acquittal is a certainty? A simple yes or no will suffice.
acts of war
riots
acts of nature
Why, then, did they pay for my hailstorm damage?
But your other two points are valid...
I listened very carefully to the Professor who taught that class.
He apparently did not refer to SYG by that “nickname” when teaching, but instead used a more correct term - “The Castle Defense”
So George may not have been lying if he did now know that nickname at the time of the Hannity interview.
Does anyone in Florida know how it is described in the provisions of the law?
Except for a little marijuana the jury is weighing a dead St. Trayvon - not an actual thieving, MMA, "no limit nigga" (sp?) gangbanger wannabe ...
I'm certain Zimmerman should be found not guilty. Whether he will be is still a toss up. Absent juror misconduct their verdict is final.
Tune, I don’t know you, as I am sure you don’t know me, but please don’t take this as a personal attack, but you are playing a little fast and lose with you SYG claim.. The prof explained that he taught this section of the lesson as an overview of the law generally, and not the Florida Law...
He went further and stated that he did say it as a background for Self Defense lesson.. I haven’t been to school for some time now, but very few subjects remained with me for longer than the final test... jus sayin.. :)
And already, you've wasted more bandwidth than you deserve with your meaningless drivel...
It is obvious that there have been embellishments, obfuscations, and outright lies told, to varying degrees, by both sides; however, there is a large body of evidence that strongly supports Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was on top of him causing damage to his face and head which would cause any sensible person to fear imminent grave bodily harm or death. This is all that SHOULD matter with regard to the issue of “reasonable doubt”. The prosecution all but told the jurors to ignore the evidence and, thus, the law however so Zimmerman may indeed be convicted despite the reasonable doubts any reasonable person would certainly have within their mind after the defense laid it all out so clearly.
There is nothing that can be done about it now. It's in the hands of the jury.
Hope you’re right. Honest. ;-)
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.