Duval County Medical Examiner Valerie Rao is still testifying as I write. Once again, the state is putting on a witness who is not helping their case. The lady seems determined to fight for the proposition that George Zimmerman's head injuries were minor and not life threatening. Further, she has voiced the opinion that all of the injuries on both sides of Zimmerman's head could have -could have or be consistent with to use her own words, a single blow of his head with the pavement. Rao is hardly an impressive witness. She doesn't even come across as much of an an expert. In addition, she is being argumentative with defense attorney Mark O'mara who is trying to make the point that she can't say definitively whether Zimmerman's injuries were the result of a single blow or multiple blows. (Rao did not perform the autopsy on Martin.)
As a legal point, even if Zimmerman's injuries ultimately proved to be non-life threatening, it was his frame of mind at the time as to whether he felt his life was in danger. How serious would the injuries have become had the struggle continued?
In addition, we will be hearing more about Ms Rao in the days ahead. She is a controversial figure in her own right.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/more-complaints-on-jacksonville-medical-examiner-dr-valerie-rao/-/475880/20640256/-/rurvpcz/-/index.html
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mostpopular/story/Medical-examiner-under-fire/L5GrDhA-jk2WYA9a8VtnPA.cspx
"Anyone whose had testimony by her, a conviction, has legal grounds to file a motion to get a trial. It's going to cost taxpayers greatly," said attorney Whitney Lonker.
In addition, the prosecution made the decision to show the jury the TV interview between Zimmerman and Sean Hannity. Zimmerman comes across as quite credible. Why did they show this? It seems they are trying to find some crumbs or pieces of it to contradict some of Zimmerman's claims, such as his state of mind when he actually went for his gun and fired. This is consistent with the previous state witnesses; a point here, a point there, but overall helpful to the defense.
In addition, the state has removed any need for Zimmerman to testify.
He already has, in effect.
The jury has hear the audio of his interview with Officer Singleton. They have watched the re-enactment of the incident with officer Christopher Serino (who also testified that Zimmerman's account never changed and he appeared relieved at the suggestion that the incident might have been caught on video). Now the Hannity interview. Zimmerman has told his story to the jury without even having to be cross-examined.
So what is the prosecution strategy here? Thus far, almost every witness has helped the defense and all the state has to show for it are bits and pieces they gleam out of each testimony, while the exculpatory parts take center stage.
Here is a possible theory.
The initial decision of the DA was not to prosecute. They were overruled and told to prosecute from higher up in the state chain of command. It was Angela Corey who spearheaded the decision to prosecute. It has been said that this was a politically-driven decision because of the racial aspects and public protests.
The duty of the prosecution is not to convict-rather to pursue a quest for truth. Could it be that the prosecutors trying this case, knowing they don't have a good case, have made a conscious decision to lay it all out there, good and bad, and let the jury decide (or the judge if she issues a directed verdict of acquittal once the state rests)? That way, hopefully everyone, including the supporters of Martin, realize that there was no basis for convicting Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder. It's just a theory and a possibility in my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Could it be that the prosecutors trying this case, knowing they don't have a good case, have made a conscious decision to lay it all out there, good and bad, and let the jury decide (or the judge if she issues a directed verdict of acquittal once the state rests)?"
I hardly think so. I think they are bringing all these witnesses out first good or bad, to avoid having the defense call them later in a gotcha moment. The prosecution doesn't want to appear to be hiding anything, as bad as it is for their case.
The Judge should dismiss the case already based on the absence of evidence to support a verdict.
When you watch it live, it is a lot more devastating to the State's case than how it is reported in articles.
.
You really want him to get off, don't you Gary?
I've never thought it was second degree murder. That's an overcharge. Maybe manslaughter or negligent homicide. If Zimmerman's vigilante actions put Martin in fear for his life, so that he turned on Zimmerman, then Zimmerman has a badly diminished "self defense" claim. There seems to be little doubt that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, instead of following Martin, then Martin would be alive today.
Siarlys,
It's not that I want him to get off. I want a righteous outcome. From where I view this, there isn't even close to be enough to convict him. If the state comes out with a smoking gun that shows that Zimmerman intitiated the violence and did not fear for his life, I will change my mind.
As for your word vigilante, how do you define it? Was Zimmerman trying to administer street justice to Martin or merely trying to pinpoint his location for the cops when they arrived? I don't consider the latter to be vigilantism.
Has Zimmerman stayed in his car.... Yes, but the detective testified that he broke no law by getting out of this car.
No, getting out of his car did not break a law. But, if I were walking home from the store on a dark night, and someone got out of their truck and started to follow me, I might feel threatened, and if their purpose was indeed to follow me, and I turned on them in perceived self-defense, and they shot me, they would be guilty of homicide, because their not illegal threatening action led to an avoidable confrontation which resulted in death.
I would have just sped up walking the other way, but that's because I'm not confident I could disable Zimmerman and walk away.
Siarlys,
So if Zimmerman's account is true, you would still find him guilty, right?
Which parts of Zimmerman's account?
If he was getting out of his truck and following Martin, and if Martin turned on him in fear that he was being followed and threatened, then I would indeed find Zimmerman guilty of some degree of homicide. Second degree in most states required malice, although not premeditation. I don't see malice in the strict legal sense used in homicide statutes here.
I watched a video at another site of Zimmerman driving around with a nice friendly cop describing what he did the night of the killing. If I were Martin, I would have been quite worried about this unknown, nonuniformed, person following me around at night, parking, watching me, driving ahead of me, pulling over, watching me walk past, then following me around a corner and a bend, then getting out of his truck.
I find it quite plausible that Martin was in fear for his life, and hoped to beat Zimmerman unconscious so he could leave the scene in safety.
I also think its plausible that the screams were Martin responding to the fact that Zimmerman had pulled out a gun.
If Zimmerman started that sequence of his events by his amateurish vigilante behavior, he's guilty of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide.
I have little doubt that Zimmerman was acting in a way he shouldn't have been acting, and that if he had not done so, this death would have been avoided. I see just a possibility that Martin's response was less provoked by Zimmerman than Martin's family would like to believe. That would be a close call, but I wouldn't give great weight to Zimmerman's unsupported word as "reasonable doubt."
Siarlys,
What is plausible to you may be plausible also to me, but plausibility doesn't convict anybody. What convicts is beyond a reasonable doubt.
"If Zimmerman started that sequence of his events by his amateurish vigilante behavior, he's guilty of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or negligent homicide."
Again, you use the word vigilante. If he were merely trying to determine Martin's location for when the cops arrived, that is hardly vigilantism. Vigilantism to me means he was going to capture and administer punishment to Martin. That has not been proven in any way at least beyond a reasonable doubt.
"That would be a close call, but I wouldn't give great weight to Zimmerman's unsupported word as "reasonable doubt."
Zimmerman's burden is not to support his version, though I think most of the state's case does just that. It is the burden of the state to rebut Zimmerman's account (which they presented themselves) beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not do that.
What the Judge hasn't allowed into the trial as irrelevant is highly relevant to me.
Martin had the seeming good fortune of attending school in the Miami-Dade School District, the fourth-largest district in the country and one of the few with its own police department.
For a variety of reasons, none of them good, elements within the SPD and the Miami-Dade School District Police Department, or M-DSPD, conspired to keep Martin’s criminal history buried.
As part of its mission the M-DSPD was allegedly trying to divert offending students, especially black males, from the criminal justice system and keep their statistics down.
Martin had been suspended twice already that same school year for offenses that should have gotten him arrested – once for getting caught with a burglary tool and a dozen items of female jewelry, the second time for getting caught with marijuana and a marijuana pipe.
In each case, the case file on Martin was fudged to make the crime less serious than it was. Arrest statistics coming out of Martin’s school had been “quite high,” and they “needed to find some way to lower the stats.”
Zimmerman, with nothing in his past about vigilante activity, was properly suspicious about someone who had already been suspended twice that school year and caught with a burglary tool and obviously stolen jewelry, not to mention the weed.
He should have been arrested on both occasions. Had he been, his parents and his teachers would have known how desperately far he had gone astray.
Instead, Martin was “diverted” into nothing useful. Just days after his non-arrest, he was allowed to wander the streets of Sanford high and alone looking, in Zimmerman’s immortal words, “like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something.”
Post a Comment