Zimmerman: O’Mara admits he cannot prove defendant utters terrified shriek

May 5, 2013

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Good Evening:

Amanda Sloane of HLN TV reported last Tueday after the hearing before Judge Nelson:

Cries for help: Is it Zimmerman or Trayvon?

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said Tuesday that a 911 call could be the key piece of evidence in the case against George Zimmerman. In the background of the audio recording, you can hear someone screaming for help.

If it’s Zimmerman, O’Mara said it shows that the night watchman was the one under attack “and documents his story completely — it also documents his injuries.” If, however, it’s 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s voice on the recording, then it could show Zimmerman was “acting in a very aggressive way toward him,” O’Mara said.

So which one is it?

O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can’t seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.

Should jurors be able to decide for themselves whom they hear on the call?

Translation of O’Mara-speak into ordinary English: O’Mara knows that Trayvon uttered the 40-second terrified shriek.

Quite an admission by the man who has been so certain in the past that his client uttered the shriek.

Most of us are not surprised because we figured it out last summer.

We have been wondering when everybody else would finally figure it out.

So, what does O’Mara want to do?

He wants to exclude the tape, so the jury will not even hear it.

There is absolutely no chance Judge Nelson will grant that motion.

The legal rule is that arguments regarding the identity of the person who uttered the terrified shriek go to the weight that the jury should assign to the opinion of each witness and not to the admissibility of the testimony itself.

Notice the disappearing defense.

No immunity hearing and now this damning admission.

Say good-bye, George.

Justice for Trayvon

(H/T to Elcymoo for providing the link to the HLN article)

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

242 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Terrified Shriek, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Zimmerman: The defense must retain its own experts

May 5, 2013

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Good morning:

Amsterdam1234 provided the inspiration for this post with this comment:

@xena

About the contents of Trayvon’s phone. I listened very carefully to what was requested by the defense, and how the state responded to the requests concerning data on Trayvon’s phone.

The state gave defense 2 reports that listed some information found on Trayvon’s phone. They also gave all the raw data they were able to retrieve, to the defense.

During the hearing West was whining about not being able to read the data without special software. That defense team is an embarrasment. It is very obvious they haven’t hired a forensic digital data expert yet, and they are hoping to find out what was on that phone through the state’s forensic analysis of the data.

Bernie said “we’ve given them the data in the format they requested it, they can hire their own expert to analyze it.

Maybe one of you legal minds can explain what is work product and what is discovery that needs to be given to the defense.

For the following reasons, I believe the defense is committing malpractice by not employing its own team of experts to review all of the raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts.

The defense asked the State to turn over the raw data generated by all of the State’s experts and I believe the State has complied with that request.

This was an appropriate request that I would have made.

I specialized in forensics and I was more interested in the raw data and bench notes rather than an expert’s opinion, or interpretation of the raw data, because I was used to seeing interpretations that conflicted with or were not supported by the raw data and bench notes. If the lawyer does not have the raw data and bench notes to compare to the expert’s report, the lawyer has no way of evaluating the accuracy of an expert’s conclusions.

Literally, an expert’s report is worthless without the raw data and bench notes to support it.

Since the vast majority of criminal defense lawyers do not know squat about science and forensics, they would have no idea how to interpret raw data and bench notes. Most do not even know what bench notes are.

Given the alarmingly high rate of forensic fraud in public and privately owned and operated crime labs in this country, I believe every criminal defense lawyer absolutely must have the assistance of their own experts to review all of the raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts. This is so important that I believe a criminal defense lawyer cannot provide effective assistance of counsel to a client unless he does so. In other words, the failure to do so would potentially constitute a Sixth Amendment violation pursuant to the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

I say, “potentially,” because counsel’s failure to secure the assistance of an expert would have to have materially affected the outcome of the trial. That is, that it is more probable than not that the jury verdict would have been different if defense counsel had retained an expert.

Murder trials differ significantly from regular criminal trials in many ways. One of the most significant differences is the prosecution’s heavy reliance on forensic evidence to prove its case. This heavy reliance means that the forensic evidence will almost always qualify as material evidence that more probably than not affects the outcome. For this reason, I believe a criminal defense lawyer commits malpractice in a murder case, if he does not retain experts to review all of the raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts.

That is the only way to effectively evaluate the validity of the conclusions and opinions expressed by the State’s experts. Asking them to interpret their own data is worthless because they are not going to admit that the raw data does not support their conclusions.

This is why I said the defense did the right thing by requesting the raw data.

Of course, it’s useless to them, if they do not know how to interpret it.

This is why the defense should have assembled its own team of experts last summer to review all of the raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts. Of course, the assistance of its own expert would ordinarily not be necessary, if the conclusions and opinions of the State’s expert are exculpatory.

However, the defense has no reason to believe that any of the State’s forensic evidence is exculpatory since Bernie de la Rionda did not advise the defense that it was. Therefore, the defense has to assume that the evidence is not exculpatory and this means that it must retain its own experts to review all of the raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts. Obviously, that includes the raw data retrieved from Trayvon’s phone.

For this reason, I consider West’s whiny request for assistance from the State in understanding the raw data on Trayvon’s phone to be an admission of malpractice.

Aside from ignorance, the obvious problem for the defense is lack of money. However, the defense created that problem by not setting aside sufficient funds for experts.

The solution is to admit the egregious and grossly negligent mistake and apply to the court for the relief that the defendant is entitled to pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 US 68, 105 S. Ct. 1087, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1985). However, that would require a finding that the defendant is indigent. Apparently, he has too much pride to do that and his lawyers have too much pride to admit that they screwed up.

That brings us to where we are today, a little over 30 days before a murder trial with a stubborn defendant represented by two lawyers who do not know what they are doing.

Finally, Amsterdam1234 specifically asked about discovery violations.

The State has not committed a discovery violation and the defense should STFU and get its own expert instead of whining about not being able to comprehend the raw data retrieved from Trayvon’s phone.

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

129 Comments | Attorney Malpractice, Bench Notes, Bernie de la Rionda, Don West, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Raw Data, Reports of Forensic Examination, Reports of Forensic Examination, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment Right to the Assistance of Experts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Zimmerman: Let there be thunder that makes the mountains tremble

May 4, 2013

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Good afternoon:

The defendant’s friend, Frank Taaffe, described the defendant’s state of mind the night that he stalked and killed Trayvon Martin.

He was mad as hell and he wasn’t going to take it anymore.

Given that Taaffe uttered this statement after he found out about the shooting, I believe we can reasonably assume that he believed the defendant pursued and confronted Trayvon with murder in mind.

Why did he believe that?

Why was the defendant so angry?

What was it that the defendant was not going to take anymore?

I have puzzled over Taaffe’s statement ever since I heard him say it.

Despite a lack of objective evidence that would support a belief that the gated neighborhood was besieged by burglars and thieves, the defendant appears to have believed that was actually happening, or he pushed that false narrative in hopes of creating a justification for the Homeowner’s Association to hire him to provide security.

He also appears to have believed that the burglars and thieves were Black and they always got away.

Frank Taaffe told us that the defendant was mad as hell about that and he was going to put an end to it.

The defendant said during the NEN call, “fucking coons,” and “these assholes, they always get away.”

This explains why he got out of his vehicle and hunted for Trayvon, ignoring the dispatcher’s request not to follow him.

Indeed, we can see by his actions that he was “mad as hell.” Acting as police officer, prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner the defendant decided that Trayvon was one “fucking coon,” one “asshole” who wasn’t going to get away.

A little over two minutes after the defendant ended the NEN call, after telling the dispatcher to have the officer call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, he hunted Trayvon down and shot him to death as Trayvon was telling Dee Dee about the creepy man who stalked and frightened him.

Trayvon never found out who he was or why he stalked and attacked him.

He died in the dark and cold rain begging for his life and shrieking in terror and disbelief.

Although Trayvon was a good kid, it would not have mattered if he were the Devil incarnate.

He was unarmed and he did nothing except try to escape from a creepy man who stalked him, first in a vehicle and then on foot.

The defense effort to demonize him and his family disgusts and infuriates me.

Demonizing Trayvon, even if successful, is not a defense and evidence of bad acts or character, assuming such evidence exists, is not admissible.

Defense counsel deserve harsh criticism and universal condemnation for pursuing this incredibly depraved and unnecessary course of action.

By attempting to exploit racial stereotypes and race-driven fear of Black males in a high publicity case, Mark O’Mara, Don West and everyone who supports what they do give us all a bad name.

Let there be thunder across this land that makes the mountains tremble,

Justice for Trayvon

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

240 Comments | Dee Dee, Don West, fogen, Frank Taaffe, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Playing the Race Card, Playing the Race Card as a Defense Strategy, Trying the Case in the Court of Public Opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Zimmerman: Probable outcome of defense motion for acquittal after prosecution rests case-in-chief

May 3, 2013

Friday, May 3, 2013

Searching Mind posted a comment in which he asked me to explain what might happen when the defense moves for a judgment of acquittal after the prosecution rests upon completing the presentation of its case-in-chief.

The defense in any criminal case can and should move for a judgment of acquittal, sometimes called a directed verdict of not-guilty, after the prosecution completes its case-in-chief.

Pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979), the rule the judge must apply requires her to assume for the purpose of ruling on the motion that all of the prosecution’s evidence, together with all of the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, are true. Given that assumption, she must decide whether a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. In the context of this case, she would have to apply that test to whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime of murder in the second degree and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

With regard to the murder charge, I think the likely area of dispute will be the sufficiency of the evidence that the defendant’s act of shooting Trayvon evinced extreme indifference to human life (i.e., depraved mind). The answer to that question will depend on whether he shot Trayvon in self-defense.

With regard to self-defense, I believe the dispute will concern whether the defendant reasonably believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious injury when he shot and killed Trayvon.

I believe the judge will conclude the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant evinced a depraved mind when he shot and killed Trayvon, since I am expecting she will find that the evidence shows that he was not justified in using deadly force because, regardless of the defendant’s claim that Trayvon initiated the confrontation, the defendant’s injuries did not reasonably place him in imminent fear of death or serious injury when he pulled the trigger.

I am not anticipating that the prosecution will have any difficulty satisfying that test. I do not believe that any rational person will dispute that the person who uttered the 40-second terrified shriek for help that ended so precisely with the gunshot that it appeared to have been silenced by it, was not the person who had the gun. If it had been the person with the gun, he would have continued screaming for help after the shot since, according to the defendant, he thought the shot missed. No, I do not believe there is any chance that a rational trier of fact would conclude that the person armed with a gun uttered that shriek or was in any danger whatsoever from that unarmed person when he pulled the trigger.

After Judge Nelson denies the defense motion, the defense will have the option of putting on a case or resting and submitting the case to the jury.

I would not be surprised if the defense rests without calling the defendant or any other witnesses because the prosecution’s case is strong and the defendant so hopelessly compromised himself with a blizzard of conflicting and inconsistent statements such that no jury would believe anything he said.

Notice that I did not mention Dee Dee (W8). I intentionally did not mention her because I have never believed she was a necessary witness, much less the prosecution’s star witness, as the defense and the media have described her.

Her testimony will be cummulative rather than critical. In other words, it will be mere icing on the cake.

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

223 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Motion for Judgment of Acquittal | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Zimmerman: The immunity hearing should not be combined with the trial

April 30, 2013

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Good evening:

The immunity hearing should not be combined with the trial for the following reasons:

A defendant has a 5th Amendment right to remain silent throughout the trial. If the Court were to combine the trial with an immunity hearing, that would put pressure on the defendant to testify during the defense case.

Depending on how well the prosecution’s case-in-chief might have gone, the defense might be tempted after the prosecution rests to rest and not put on a defense. However, because the burden of proof in the immunity hearing is on the defense, the defendant would have to testify. This is a classic example of compelling a defendant to testify and possibly incriminate himself by doing so. The 5th Amendment expressly prohibits compelling a defendant to incriminate himself.

That would not be the case if the immunity hearing were held before trial. The defendant could testify in the immunity hearing without waiving his right to remain silent at the trial.

Another reason not to combine the two is that the order of presentation differs. The State goes first at trial, but the defense goes first in an immunity hearing. Strategy can change dramatically depending on whether a party has the burden of proof. Whether a party goes first or second will affect the evidence it will present, its choice of witnesses, and the order in which the witnesses will be called.

Finally, the purpose of an immunity hearing is to identify strong self-defense cases early on and to immunize those defendants from criminal and civil liability so that they do not have to endure the psychological and emotional wear and tear of living a life in limbo while possibly in custody for a year or more before trial. Saves the expense too for all concerned. Combining the immunity hearing with the trial cancels out all those advantages.

Finally, just because a defendant has a fundamental right to an immunity hearing does not mean that he cannot waive that right as the defendant did today.

500 people are going to be summoned to court for jury service in this case and it makes no sense to go to the time, trouble and expense to do that just because the defendant wants to wait and see how jury selection and the prosecution’s presentation of its case is going before he decides whether to seek immunity.

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

595 Comments | Combining Immunity Hearing with the Trial, Defense Strategy, Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent, fogen, George Zimmerman | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Can Shellie Zimmerman testify against her husband in his murder trial

April 20, 2013

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Good morning:

Today’s topic will be the husband-wife marital privilege. What is it? What does it cover? How does it apply to Shellie and George Zimmerman?

The husband-wife marital privilege is an evidentiary rule that protects confidential communications between spouses from disclosure to third parties. The purpose of the rule is to encourage open communication between spouses without fear that one spouse may be forced under penalty of law to disclose what the other said.

The privilege does not apply to all communications; it only applies to communications that were intended to be kept confidential.

Not all confidential communications are protected. For example, in Florida there is no privilege:

(a) In a proceeding brought by or on behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.

(b) In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime committed at any time against the person or property of the other spouse, or the person or property of a child of either.

(c) In a criminal proceeding in which the communication is offered in evidence by a defendant-spouse who is one of the spouses between whom the communication was made.

See: FL Stat. 90.504(3)

Open communications between spouses in the presence of other people are not confidential. For example, anything the defendant may have stated to his wife in the presence of another person, such as Mark or Sondra Osterman or Frank Taaffe, regarding his encounter with Trayvon Martin before or after the shooting would not be privileged.

Communications between spouses during recorded jailhouse telephone calls are not privileged when the parties are warned at the beginning of the call that it will be recorded.

I believe an interesting argument can be made, pursuant to FL Stat. 90.504(3)(c), that Shellie Zimmerman can testify about disclosures by her husband regarding the alleged murder since she is a “defendant-spouse.” Even though she is a defendant in a different case, the two are related matters.

Certainly the argument is more powerful regarding the admissibility of any statements that her husband may have made to her about her alleged perjury because it occurred at the defendant’s bond hearing in an effort to conceal substantial assets exceeding $100,000 from the court, including a second passport that the defendant may have been planning to use to flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution.

Flight to avoid prosecution is admissible to show consciousness of guilt and, as Judge Lester noted in his order setting bail, the evidence supported an inference that only the fortuitous attachment of an ankle bracelet with a GPS device prior to the defendant’s release from jail may have prevented him from fleeing the United States with a valid passport and more than $100,000 of other people’s money.

Should the fortuitous circumstance that related criminal cases are pending against a husband and a wife under different cause numbers, instead of a single cause number, exclude application of section (3)(c)?

What do you think?

(H/T to Searching Mind for spotlighting this issue in comments this morning)

________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

206 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Husband-Wife Privilege, Privileges, Shellie Zimmerman | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

How to interpret witness lists

April 18, 2013

Lawyers rarely, if ever, call everyone listed on their witness list and sometimes they will call someone who is not on their list.

Generally, they will list everyone they believe they might call to the stand, including listing several people who would testify about one thing when only one witness is necessary and testimony by the others would be cumulative and likely inadmissible.

Prosecution witness lists tend to be more accurate and reliable because they have the burden of proof and put on their case first.

Defense counsel usually include many prosecution witnesses on their lists but never call them to the stand because they make their points while cross examining them after the prosecution calls them to the stand and completes the direct examination. Since the defense usually makes its case during cross examination, you will not often see it present much of a case after the prosecution rests. Two major exceptions would be defense expert testimony and testimony by the defendant.

Scheduling witness testimony and arranging travel and overnight accommodations is a major hassle that requires patience and flexibility to change plans without appearing to miss a step.

When the judge says, “Call your next witness,” you better be ready to go.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today that the defense has filed a new witness list listing more than 200 people, including more than half of the Sanford Police Department.

I cannot imagine why they did that since a lot of those people probably had nothing to do with investigating this case and their opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant or his character are irrelevant and inadmissible.

In fact, the defense dare not open the door by introducing evidence of the defendant’s good character. That would permit the prosecution to introduce evidence about the defendant’s bad character. In other words, Katie bar the door.

To get a more realistic idea of whom the defense might call to the stand, compare the prosecution and defense lists and eliminate every name on the defense list that also appears on the prosecution list.

Eliminate the SPD cops and everyone else on the defense list who might be a character witness.

The remainder is a reasonable ball-park guesstimate.

Should be pretty much limited to experts.

That’s the list I am most interested in.

The rest, not so much.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

184 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Witness Lists | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

How and when to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

April 17, 2013

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Good afternoon to all.

Searching Mind has asked a series of good questions in comments to my article yesterday regarding whether a defendant can raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim (IAC) on direct appeal. Xena also asked me to discuss the experts I would contact about the case. I will not identify anyone by name, but I will mention the subject matter that I would want to discuss with an expert suitably qualified in that area.

First, let’s take a look at whether an IAC claim can be raised on direct appeal.

I agree with Searching Mind that IAC claims can be raised on direct appeal, if the record unequivocally supports the claim such that there are no disputed material facts and therefore no need to remand the case to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts. This is equivalent to saying that the DCA can decide the issue as a matter of law on a set of undisputed facts.

This situation does not happen very often. For example, one of the elements of an IAC claim requires a defendant to plead and prove the standard of practice at the time the alleged error was committed by defense counsel. The defendant also must plead and prove that defense counsel violated that standard, that the violation was material and not merely a tactical decision. In most cases, the parties dispute one or more of those issues and the DCA cannot determine whether the defendant has a valid IAC claim by reviewing the transcript on appeal. The answer isn’t there.

Therefore, the rule is the DCA will not review an IAC claim on direct appeal when material facts are disputed, the answer is not in the record, and the disputed facts cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing.

Every rule has an exception and the exception to this rule is that the DCA will consider an IAC claim on direct appeal when there is no genuine dispute of material facts and the DCA can resolve the claim as a matter of law.

Now let’s take a look at the defendant’s case and assume that O’Mara does not file a motion asking Judge Nelson to find the defendant indigent and authorize the appointment and compensation at public expense of an investigator and such experts as may be reasonably necessary to assist defense counsel in presenting a defense.

Let’s further suppose that O’Mara does not call any expert witnesses and the jury convicts the defendant.

Can the DCA decide an IAC claim on direct appeal?

Answer: Probably not, because an evidentiary hearing would have to be conducted to determine if the outcome of the trial probably would have been different, if the defense had presented the testimony of certain expert witnesses, who I am assuming would exist for the purpose of this demonstration. The identities of those witnesses and their testimony would not become known unless habeas counsel did what O’Mara did not do.

Under this set of circumstances, the IAC claim would have to be raised in a state habeas petition after the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The habeas petition would be granted, if we assume for the sake of argument that the standard of practice would have been to obtain an order of indigency appointing experts at public expense, that expert testimony would have materially supported the defendant’s claim of self-defense and the defendant probably would have been acquitted if the experts had testified.

At this point there are too many unknowns to predict an outcome, except to say that a murder conviction appears likely, given the evidence that has been released to the public.

Now, let’s tackle Xena’s question about which experts I would consult, if I were representing the defendant.

I would consult with a pathologist to review the autopsy report and the AME’s findings regarding the entry wound, trajectory of the bullet, and the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the entry wound when the shot was fired. I also would discuss what the evidence shows relative to the positions of the victim and the shooter when the shooter fired the fatal shot. I also would want to know if the pathologist disagrees with anything in the autopsy report and whether the defendant’s statement to police describing the shooting is consistent or consistent with the autopsy report. Finally, I would ask about the length of time the victim would have remained conscious after the shot, whether he could have said anything, and positional asphyxiation as a contributing factor to cause of death.

I would want to consult with a firearms expert to discuss the weapon used, the fatal shot, and whether the defendant’s statement about how he fired the fatal shot is consistent with the evidence. I also would want to review the crime lab analyst’s report and bench notes regarding the bullet holes in the sweatshirts and whether they align with the entry wound.

I would follow Lonnie’s advice and look for a kinesiologist or someone in a related field to discuss the relative positions of shooter and victim when the fatal shot was fired.

Next up, I would want to discuss the defendant’s injuries with a trauma surgeon, blood spatter expert, and DNA expert.

Consulting with an expert on GPS tracking would be high on my list as would consulting with an audiologist about identifying the person who uttered the shriek.

I probably also would have the defendant undergo thorough psychological testing because I suspect he may suffer from some kind of organic brain disorder that may affect perception and functioning.

I probably would consult with other experts, but that is all that comes to mind right now. This post has reached 1,000 words, so I am going to wrap it up and reserve further discussion for the comments.

The steps I have described here regarding consultations with experts in a case like this are what I would consider to be the standard of the profession. A failure to pursue and document this line of inquiry would fall below the standard and constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish a valid IAC claim, however, the defendant would still have to establish that the result of the trial would probably have been different if counsel had done these things, discovered material evidence in his favor, and presented it at trial.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

228 Comments | George Zimmerman, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Mark O'Mara, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Gloom in Mudville: The defense is upside down by $10,000

April 15, 2013

Monday, April 15, 2013

Greetings to everyone.

The defense is falling apart.

In the latest issue of Zimsanity News, which is my handy new way of referring to propaganda information about the legal case released by Mark O’Mara or information about the defendant’s clueless family released by its official spokesperson, Robert Zimmerman, Jr., we find out that Mark O’Mara wants the settlement agreement opened up for public review, including the settlement amount.

Ben Crump is OK with publicizing the agreement, but he wants the settlement amount to remain confidential.

Meanwhile, O’Mara announced on Friday that the defense fund is upside down by about $10,000. That’s bad news for the defense team with only 56 days left until trial.

Could this mean that the defense might be on the verge of tossing a white handkerchief into the ring, if the Court of Appeals denies the writ?

Possibly, because insufficient funds to try the case the way it should be tried is often cited by private counsel as the reason for a last minute guilty plea.

Do I have any evidence that such discussions have taken place?

No, I do not.

I discussed the lack-of-money problem a couple of months ago and suggested that the defense should consider filing a motion asking Judge Nelson to declare the defendant indigent. That would assure that all reasonably necessary defense expenses for deposition transcripts, investigators and expert witnesses would be paid by the court. No fuss, no muss regarding unpaid bills. That would certainly lighten the stress load.

Not so fast, you say?

Well, you’re right. O’Mara’s plea for more money from donors brought in approximately $60,000, but I gather that donations have slowed to a trickle.

Will another plea for money prime the pump, so to speak, and avert the looming financial crisis?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

If O’Mara cannot pull another financial rabbit out of his hat, he will have to ask Judge Nelson to declare the defendant indigent. However, given how quickly the defense blew through the $60,000 I cannot help but wonder if the defense has mismanaged the donations by spending far too much money for the defendant’s living and security expenses. I have not kept a tally but IIRC, they’ve blown through close to a half million by now and more than half of that money was spent on living and security expenses.

I think Judge Nelson would be required, as a matter of law to declare the defendant indigent, if he can satisfy her that he truly is indigent, even if he is responsible for having attained pauper status by spending too much money on non-essential items.

Bottom Line: O’Mara needs to take action to solve this problem ASAP because the longer he waits for the money to start flowing again, the more incompetent and irresponsible he will appear to be. That is exactly the wrong message to be broadcasting this close to trial, especially after he basically waived the “sure thing” immunity hearing and we now know that the HOA was not buying the narrative he was pushing on the public.

After all, why would potential donors remain willing to contribute money, if the defense failed to manage previous donations responsibly and O’Mara blew his credibility with donors when he waived the immunity hearing that was supposed to be such a sure-thing?

Those two circumstances might very well turn out to be death blows to the defense.

And then there is the message from Gladys blaming the public for the decision to charge the defendant with second degree murder.

I am going to pass on criticizing a mother for defending her son.

She is entitled to her opinion.

I base my opinion on the evidence.

The case is starting to smell like decomp to me.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

429 Comments | Benjamin Crump, fogen, George Zimmerman, Gladys Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Settlement agreement is dreadful news for George Zimmerman

April 8, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

I asked a question yesterday and did not get an answer.

The question was, Did Mark O’Mara advise the HOA to settle the Fulton-Martin lawsuit?

Rene Stutzman at the Orlando Sentinel provided some additional information today.

That secret homeowners association settlement with Trayvon Martin’s family may not remain secret much longer.

Seminole County Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse has written a letter to Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, telling him that she doesn’t think it meets the standard of a confidential filing so she intends to make it public in 10 days.

Even so, the total dollar figure paid out by the association will likely remain a secret. That’s because Crump edited it out before he put the 12-page document in the court file Thursday.

It’s believed to be more than $1 million.

Stutzman also revealed that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton settled their claim against the HOA without filing a lawsuit. Therefore, the settlement agreement has not been reviewed by a judge.

We know that the Traveler’s Insurance Co., was not a party to the agreement because the HOA did not purchase the insurance until March 30, 2012, a little over a month after the defendant shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Why did Benjamin Crump file the settlement agreement in the GZ criminal case?

Here’s Stutzman again,

Why Crump had it placed in the file in the first place remains a mystery. He did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel. But his clients, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, were deposed last month by Zimmerman’s attorneys and were likely asked about the settlement.

In an interview last month, when asked if the settlement was a specific figure between $1 million and $2 million, Crump would not say.

“I have no comment on the subject,” he said. “I know you didn’t get that from me.”

There is an unconfirmed rumor that the New York Times reported in February that Mark O’Mara said Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton had rejected a $1 million settlement offer.

Stutzman said today about the settlement amount, “It’s believed to be more than $1 million.”

Sundance Cracker at the treehouse, which is Mark O’Mara’s internet site of choice, reported yesterday that the settlement is closer to $2 million.

Difficult to draw any conclusions without more information, but I sincerely doubt the claim was settled for nuisance value because, given the defendant’s waiver of an immunity hearing and a substantial likelihood that a jury will reject his claim of self-defense, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton would have no incentive to settle the case for peanuts. Better to wait and sue him and the HOA together after he is convicted when, basically, the sky would be the limit.

I figure they were in the driver’s seat and could afford to demand a substantial sum of money to cut HOA loose before trial.

This settlement agreement is dreadful news for the defendant.

BTW, Dee Dee definitely is not the prosecution’s star witness.

The prosecution’s star witness is the defendant and that is why a jury will convict him of murder in the second degree.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

102 Comments | Benjamin Crump, Civil Lawsuit Against HOA, fogen, George Zimmerman, HOA, Sundance Cracker, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 260 other followers

%d bloggers like this: