Could This Be The Beginning Of The New White Panther Party?

[Maury Ballstein]

legal mumbo jumbo.......not guilty instead of immune is the play, but theres always a backup plan....

 

 

 

Vincent said that releasing the court dates doesn’t waive any rights Zimmerman has to have an immunity hearing, and indeed the defense may raise “Stand Your Ground” claims at trial. In addition, Zimmerman could seek immunity from civil claims at a later date.

 

some other "wacko" listed this seems similar to whats happening....dont hear the innocent "i just got out of my truck to find the address and was ambushed while being a good citizen angle"

 

 

BOTTOM LINE: The defense cannot risk putting the defendant on the stand at an immunity hearing because of the tsunami of extremely negative publicity that would result from the evisceration of the defendant on cross by the prosecution.

O'Mara does not want to admit that his client is not credible and I can understand why because the physical and forensic evidence refutes everything he says and he has given so many contradictory and inconsistent statements about what happened that with only eight exceptions, no one will believe anything he says.

The eight exceptions are:

1. I got in my truck.

2. I followed him in my truck.

3. He ran.

4. I got out of my truck.

5. @!$%#ing coons (or if you prefer, @!$%#ing punks).

6. These @!$%#s, they always get away.

7. Tell the officer (that was dispatched to the neighborhood) to call me on my cell phone when he gets here so that I can tell him where to find me.

8. I shot him (Trayvon Martin).

 

 

Poor lil georgie, not looking good...

 

Of course he wasn't going to use SYG, it NEVER applied to this case.

You can't FOLLOW someone, frighten them, and then shoot them when you "think" you are losing.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[Juror#8]

Hey T14 . . . My oldest brother Darryl didn't even go to a T300 vocational school, but he knows how to use the Internet. So he knows that criminal pattern jury instructions are published online in at least some states, and available to anyone who knows where to look. Funny thing, Darryl can't find a criminal pattern jury instruction from ANY jurisdiction that supports the notion that a witness who has lied about something should be considered more credible, when testifying about other issues, than the defendant, merely because the defendant is accused of a crime.

 

I'm guessing that even though most T14 law school grads never go near a criminal trial because the money is better elsewhere, law schools in at least the top 15 or so teach how to find pattern (i.e., pre-approved) jury instructions. So how about it, is there anything to back up your claims?

 

Then again, you tried to persuade us that your opinion on this matter was correct by stating "Period. End of story." So if you really went to a T14 law school, maybe you didn't get your money's worth.

 

At least, that's what Darryl thinks. And he plays chess.

 

Roll Tide!

 

Jury instructions direct the jury on what they should and should not consider within the context of that recently concluded proceeding. It gives them guidelines and parameters that they should adhere to.

 

You're not an attorney and your brother, Darryl is destined to be an incompetent one. That notwithstanding, there are things that I would expect you and he to know philosophically, even common-sensically.

 

I discussed with you the understanding that a witness testimony is going to be considered more reliable (all things considered) than the defendant's testimony. I mentioned this to you as a technical and practical reality.

 

You respond with some **** about jury instructions.

 

I've advocated for clients IN COURT. When I was at a little boutique firm in DC, I represented clients in their habeas petitions (2254 and 2255), and sentence reconsiderations, etc. I never represented a client in a criminal case and I never represented a client on direct appeal. But I've been present as advising counsel for clients under those circumstances. I've also been counsel of record for their habeas petitions. In those instances I had to read through VOLUMES of transcripts from the earlier stages of the court proceedings. That was necessary to find a constitutional basis (usually ineffective assistance of counsel, or excessive sentencing) upon which to predicate a firm consitutional argument. I also had to technically review jury instructions, sentencing guidelines, opening and closing statements, and objections in order to substantiate claims.

 

This is not my first rodeo, chief.

 

 

In Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 304, the trial court directed that:

 

"The law permits the defendant at his own request, to testify in his own behalf. The defendant here has availed himself of this privilege. His testimony is before you, and you must determine how far it is credible. The deep personal interest which he may have in the result of the suit should be considered by the jury in weighing his evidence and in determining how far or to what extent, if at all, it is worthy of credit..."

 

The Supreme Court determined that the instruction of the trial court was entirely appropriate, in fact calling it "prefectly reasonable."

 

They furthered opined:

 

"It is within the province of the court to call the attention of the jury to any matters which legitimately affect his testimony and his credibility. This does not imply that the court may arbitrarily single out his testimony and denounce it as false. The fact that he is a defendant does not condemn him as unworthy of belief, but at the same time it creates an interest greater than that of any other witness, and to that extent affects the question of credibility. It is therefore a matter properly to be suggested by the court to the jury."

 

To be fair, the court goes on to say that witness testimony should all be looked at equally and considered squarely along the same parameters. But the underlined portion here is instructive. The defendant has a greater interest in the outcome of the proceeding and that IMMEDIATELY affects his credibility - more so than that of any other witness.

 

Without going into as much detail on these (you're welcome to peruse them yourself), the court determined in:

 

Portuondo v. Agard

 

That a jury instruction that asked the jury to consider that the defendant was crafting his story based on previous witness testimonies was perfectly fine. They site to Reagan and specifically the language that:

 

"The deep personal interest which he may have in the result of the suit should be considered by the jury in weighing his evidence and in determining how far or to what extent, if at all, it is worthy of credit..."

 

People v. Cronin (to be fair...not controlling, simply jurisdictional)

 

"The defendant has offered himself as a witness on his own behalf on this trial, and in considering the weight and effect to be given his evidence, in addition to noticing his manner and the probability of his statements, taken in connection with the evidence in the cause, you should consider his relation and situation under which he gives his testimony, the consequences to him relating from the result of this trial, and all the inducements and temptations which would ordinarily influence a person in his situation. You should carefully determine the amount of credibility to which his evidence is entitled. If convincing and carrying with it a belief in its truth, act upon it. If not, you have a right to reject it."

 

I can go on...and on....and on....

 

Non-defendant witnesses don't have the same potential consequences that a defendant does. Therefore, even though the court's have been uniform in saying that you take all witness testimony fairly and consider them the same as a starting point, the probative value of a defendant's testimony, who is on trial for murder, is less INDEPENDENTLY RELIABLE than someone who is a more disinterested party - even one with character challenges.

 

I've underlined and bolded the above point because I don't want to cherry pick. That's why I'll mention:

 

U.S. v. Brutus specifically states that you can't presume that a defendant is lying, or that their testimony is necessarily untruthful. They opined that:

 

“an instruction that the defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case creates a motive to testify falsely impermissibly undermines the presumption of innocence because it presupposes the defendant’s guilt,”

 

I want to bold the above to be fair and clear. But see Brutus doesn't prohibit the considerations that arise from defendant testimony vis-a-vis other witness testimony. It doesn't prohibit the reality and acknowledgment of the reality that non-defendant witnesses don't have the same inducements and interests that the defendant has and that should be taken into consideration in any analysis and witness comparison. No other witnesses are saddled with the same inherent interests. That has to be taken into consideration. The worse the potential outcome, the more compelling the interest.

 

The meth mouth confidence schemer and the girlfriend don't have to deal with that. IF the character testimony is even allowed (and I can't think of a lot of ways that the girlfriend's statement will be allowed as impeachment evidence), and not thrown out as being highly prejudicial or in some Rule 403 test, then the jury will get a pattern jury instruction talking about considering the whole picture...blah blah blah...

 

The defendant has to deal with a very real presumption that their circumstances, and status as a "defendant," and the crime for which they're being accused, are inducements. No considerations on whether items are admissible because of "bias," "prior inconsistent statement," character," etc.

 

It just is. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

 

And the court is "ok" with this.

 

Not so for non-defendant witness statements.

 

Apples and Oranges, chief. Run tell "Darryl" dat.

 

But I suppose that you and "Darryl," considering his Excel High School pedigree, already knew that. Us T14s are still trying to catch up.

 

Your move.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

I guess we must ask ourselves what makes sense. Does GZ's story fit in with the evidence, or does the wild speculation and preconceived notions bear more credence? Also, if you were in GZ's situation would you rather be found not guilty or immune from prosecution?

[Juror#8]

Except Zimmerman told his story immediately after the event, and the known facts about the case are more aligned with his story. The girfriend's version was not a sworn testimony if you want to call it that, but a recording of an interview with Martin's family attorney, which appeared nearly a month after the slaying. And you are saying that her story carries more weight? You don't know what she told the prosecutors & defense in subsequent discovery and I'm guessing the prosecutors will have a tough time using her as a key witness, because there was no sworn testimony close to the act, as far as we know. Yet, you take her words at face value, through the mouthpiece of the family attorney of what Trayvon may or may not have said one month previously, when she didn't even know he was dead for three days.

 

Yet you are the one scolding everyone else to try to stick with the facts.

 

Hey........I see what you did there.........

 

You basically just spent a paragraph saying the same thing in different variations - that we can't assume that the girlfriend made the comment that she was alleged to have made.

 

You, very smartly, stayed away from arguing with me about the substance of my point and stuck to some ancillary points about whether or not she made those contentions in the first place.

 

Ok.

 

I'm going to assume that the "mouthpiece" of a family spokeperson is telling the truth and that she said what she was alleged to have said. You can prolong the inevitable and hold on to that last vestige of argument.

 

And your mentions about the diagram of the community just leads to some highly-opinated rant about what Trayvon would have done if he was really running scared...

 

I'll stick to the little facts about the incident that I know at this point. Those facts tell me that, at this point, I have no idea what happened between those two other than at one point, Zimmerman appeared to be persuing Martin.

 

You continue thinking that you know more and with the opposite side of your mouth blaming the media for jumping to conclusions.

[Maury Ballstein]

seems like a grey area to me in all seriousness. GZ does have some culpability in this matter, how much I don't think any of us know.

 

if i was in GZ's situation no one would have heard of this as a fight would have been the end of it. not sure the gunplay aspect would have been involved. really not even sure if a fight would have happened as i am no antagonist to strangers on the street. on the basketball court and PPP i might be a little different. some lively trashtalk is all in good fun IMO.

 

either me or him is taking a whooping.....im not a sissy like GZ who had to get the gun after getting his pride and ass stomped.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[Jauronimo]

Why someone would think they're qualified to discuss corporate tax code and criminal law after an hour long google search, I will never understand.

[3rdnlng]

seems like a grey area to me in all seriousness. GZ does have some culpability in this matter, how much I don't think any of us know.

 

if i was in GZ's situation no one would have heard of this as a fight would have been the end of it. not sure the gunplay aspect would have been involved. really not even sure if a fight would have happened as i am no antagonist to strangers on the street. on the basketball court and PPP i might be a little different. some lively trashtalk is all in good fun IMO.

 

either me or him is taking a whooping.....im not a sissy like GZ who had to get the gun after getting his pride and ass stomped.

 

It's not that I can't, but I choose not to argue this with you anymore. Instead of responding to my question you come up with bs like you wouldn't be put in this position. Tom was right earlier in this thread when he questioned why anyone would bother discussing this with you. You'r not discussing, you're babbling. Furthermore, your earlier post quoting GZ as calling TM a coon is so far off base and obviously prejudicial that I feel real shame for even going this far with you.

[Maury Ballstein]

eat a good lunch you will feel better, your feelings of shame will go away.

 

http://www.mediaite....trayvon-martin/

 

or you could listen to the 2:20-2:25 portion of video where he whispers f*#&% coons? had to tell the cops 2x it was a BLACK guy, and "THESE A*#&holes" always get away......who are "these" ? blacks? criminals of all races? or stupid teenagers with skittles and sweet tea?

 

 

 

guess this is the end of our convo...........but guess what jack....I would not be put in this position. I don't beat up cops, I dont go around looking for fights.........I'm not a stereotyper........so that is the truth my friend.............maybe you are scared of people on the street and understand why GZ did what he did, I do not.

 

im a grown ass man who knows the rules, i don't put myself in dumbass situations.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[Juror#8]

either me or him is taking a whooping.....im not a sissy like GZ who had to get the gun after getting his pride and ass stomped.

 

See outside of everything else that I've said, and as a purely personal feeling unrelated to my thoughts on this case, I feel the same way.

 

IF some kid in a hoody approached me talking ****, and tried to put his hands on me, there would definitely be a misunderstanding. I would whoop his monkey ass. I don't play that ****. I haven't forgotten Barry Farm.

[boyst]

Seriously? This is still about Trayvon?

 

[Chef Jim]

eat a good lunch you will feel better, your feelings of shame will go away.

 

http://www.mediaite....trayvon-martin/

 

or you could listen to the 2:20-2:25 portion of video where he whispers f*#&% coons? had to tell the cops 2x it was a BLACK guy, and "THESE A*#&holes" always get away......who are "these" ? blacks? criminals of all races? or stupid teenagers with skittles and sweet tea?

 

 

 

guess this is the end of our convo...........but guess what jack....I would not be put in this position. I don't beat up cops, I dont go around looking for fights.........I'm not a stereotyper........so that is the truth my friend.............maybe you are scared of people on the street and understand why GZ did what he did, I do not.

 

im a grown ass man who knows the rules, i don't put myself in dumbass situations.

 

Man you are way late to this !@#$ing party. You got it all figured out don't you?

 

So there have been breakins in the neighborhood and there is a young kid walking around looking at all the houses and you would not be concerned about that or consider that suspicious?

 

BTW !@#$ing coons?? Really, did you listen to the tape? He clearly says !@#$ing punks.

 

Hey maybe you can go over the TSW and talk about the Bill-Chargers game in December 2011

[Magox]

GZ made a dubious and fateful decision when he ignored the request of the 911 operator, and by the looks of it he is a a bit of a wuss. Having said that, neither of these two are a crime, he is well within his rights to defend himself and having someone physically attack you does allow him the rightful use of a firearm.

 

It's just unfortunate that the kid also made a bad choice in losing his temper and attacking him for following him. The more appropriate course of action would have been for him to simply walk away. You just don't begin to physically pummel someone because they are looking at you funny or for following you. That's just not how you handle things, and if you disagree with that, fine, but you put yourself in a position to be harmed, because the person you are attacking may be armed and he is protected by law in defending himself.

[Juror#8]

GZ made a dubious and fateful decision when he ignored the request of the 911 operator, and by the looks of it he is a a bit of a wuss. Having said that, neither of these two are a crime, he is well within his rights to defend himself and having someone physically attack you does allow him the rightful use of a firearm.

 

It's just unfortunate that the kid also made a bad choice in losing his temper and attacking him for following him. The more appropriate course of action would have been for him to simply walk away. You just don't begin to physically pummel someone because they are looking at you funny or for following you. That's just not how you handle things, and if you disagree with that, fine, but you put yourself in a position to be harmed, because the person you are attacking may be armed and he is protected by law in defending himself.

 

I agree with 90% of what you said.

 

I just can't agree that at this juncture we know who attacked whom. We know that there was a fight but we don't know who precipitated it.

 

It may have been Martin; it may have been Zimmerman. We just don't know.

 

What we do know was that Trayvon was winning and then was shot.

[Magox]

I agree with 90% of what you said.

 

I just can't agree that at this juncture we know who attacked whom. We know that there was a fight but we don't know who precipitated it.

 

It may have been Martin; it may have been Zimmerman. We just don't know.

 

What we do know was that Trayvon was winning and then was shot.

 

That's true, but I highly doubt, Zimmerman the wuss actually initiated a physical confrontation.

 

I just have a hard time believing that.

[Maury Ballstein]

Man you are way late to this !@#$ing party. You got it all figured out don't you?

 

So there have been breakins in the neighborhood and there is a young kid walking around looking at all the houses and you would not be concerned about that or consider that suspicious?

 

BTW !@#$ing coons?? Really, did you listen to the tape? He clearly says !@#$ing punks.

 

Hey maybe you can go over the TSW and talk about the Bill-Chargers game in December 2011

 

can you let me hold that miracle ear device for a second? it's hard to make out perfectly JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS CASE but sounds a lil coonish to me.

 

your opinions are more valid than mine.................The GZ exoneration train is in full effect i see here. Choo Choo!

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[Magox]

can you let me hold that miracle ear device for a second? it's hard to make out perfectly JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS CASE but sounds a lil coonish to me.

 

your opinions are more valid than mine.................The GZ exoneration train is in full effect i see here. Choo Choo!

 

Based on the evidence that is out there, it appears that GZ will be exonerated. Even most legal experts believe this to be eventual outcome.

[3rdnlng]

As I recall, GZ was asked for a description of the suspicious person. He said he looks black. The dispatcher asked him for an address and told him he didn't need to follow him. GZ walked around to the front to get an address for the dispatcher and then returned to his vehicle.(per GZ) He was near his vehicle when TM approached him asking him if he had a problem with him. GZ said "no". TM then allegedly said "you do now" and attacked GZ, breaking his nose and after he was down banging the back of his head on the cement. Someone yelled for help. GZ then reached for his gun and shot TM. Forensic evidence will either support these contentions or not. The fact that the altercation happened near GZ's vehicle and not closer to where TM was staying in my opinion is crucial to the veracity of GZ's contentions. We have an 80 page thread for over a year on all of this sorting things out in detail. What's been said lately is just a repeat of of the ignorant frenzied regurgitations of the ignorant rants of a year ago.

 

[boyst]

As I recall, GZ was asked for a description of the suspicious person. He said he looks black. The dispatcher asked him for an address and told him he didn't need to follow him. GZ walked around to the front to get an address for the dispatcher and then returned to his vehicle.(per GZ) He was near his vehicle when TM approached him asking him if he had a problem with him. GZ said "no". TM then allegedly said "you do now" and attacked GZ, breaking his nose and after he was down banging the back of his head on the cement. Someone yelled for help. GZ then reached for his gun and shot TM. Forensic evidence will either support these contentions or not. The fact that the altercation happened near GZ's vehicle and not closer to where TM was staying in my opinion is crucial to the veracity of GZ's contentions. We have an 80 page thread for over a year on all of this sorting things out in detail. What's been said lately is just a repeat of of the ignorant frenzied regurgitations of the ignorant rants of a year ago.

 

After this post, I want this thread closed.

[KD in CA]

As I recall, GZ was asked for a description of the suspicious person. He said he looks black. The dispatcher asked him for an address and told him he didn't need to follow him. GZ walked around to the front to get an address for the dispatcher and then returned to his vehicle.(per GZ) He was near his vehicle when TM approached him asking him if he had a problem with him. GZ said "no". TM then allegedly said "you do now" and attacked GZ, breaking his nose and after he was down banging the back of his head on the cement. Someone yelled for help. GZ then reached for his gun and shot TM. Forensic evidence will either support these contentions or not. The fact that the altercation happened near GZ's vehicle and not closer to where TM was staying in my opinion is crucial to the veracity of GZ's contentions. We have an 80 page thread for over a year on all of this sorting things out in detail. What's been said lately is just a repeat of of the ignorant frenzied regurgitations of the ignorant rants of a year ago.

He's only a year behind the story so give Ryan about 6 more to catch up.

[3rdnlng]

 

He's only a year behind the story so give Ryan about 6 more to catch up.

 

I opened his link and it was originally posted on 3-20-2012 when people were getting their panties in a wad over the injustice. That was the final straw convincing me discussion with him was a waste of time.