The state concedes, after 16 months of allowing this misinformation to be spread, it is factually incorrect. If I remember correctly, Bernie used the phrase "he was ordered to stay in his car" on more than one occasion in the courtroom. This should be headline news...was the state lying or just incompetent? Didn't they listen to the entire NEN tape? To me this is one of the biggest talking points of Trayvon supporters and the biased media. "He got out of the car after he was told not to". It's a point argued over and over again with the willfully ignorant. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard or read it. I'm glad MOM included it in his motion, it forced the state to admit it's a lie and they won't be able to use it to mislead the jury.

All I've seen indicates the Trayvon initiated the confrontation. I suspect the state will try to show George provoked it by having pursued Trayvon, while also pushing as much blame on George for every thing that happened that evening ....he did get out of his vehicle!.

Even if George had confronted and attacked Trayvon, the state must convince the jury that George pulling the trigger did not result from him

"...reasonably believ[ing] it [was] necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself ...or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

The reason George gave for such was Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That looks to me to be more so the specific instance that must be the "crux of the state's case" than the confrontation.


ADD: Just to give gredit where it is due... I'm not sure who posted the law I quoted, but my money on me having copied it from one of Chip's comments!

I missed the earliest part of the hearing today, so I have a couple question if any can help here:


What witness?

Was there more context to this claim? The only thing I recall that even comes close to this would be the PC Affidavit. I do not see it as a major problem, just trying to figure out WTH they have that would even hint at that "fact of the case."

I'm trying to recall who did not see this problem coming up! Problem with those phone records - and absent records - will be popping up throughout this trial.

Never mind:

Context:

State (via Guy) admits that "self-appointed neighborhood watch captain" is not factual, in that Zimmerman started NHW program, and was appointed as its captain
State admits that the following is not factual, and says the State will not assert it: "Zimmerman got out of his car after he was ordered not to"
State indicates that the State would not rely *expressly* on racial aspect of profiling in claiming that Zimmerman profiled Martin.
State indicates that nothing precludes State from using terms such as "vigilante" and "wanna-be cop"
State indicates that "Zimmerman confronted Martin" is a key component of its case against Zimmerman, and is a point that it intends to use its evidence to prove.

Nelson agrees that non-factual statements should not be used ("self-appointed NHW captain", "got out of car after ordered not to"), but orders that "profiling" would be allowed, as well as terms such as "vigilante" and "wanna-be cop", and that the State would be allowed to indicate that "Zimmerman confronted Martin", as it is a key element of its case. Nelson points out that the Defense retains ability to point out to jury any of those elements that the State asserts in its opening argument, but fails to prove in its presentation.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Gordon Pleasants a college professor. Evidently George took one of his classes.

PJ E-22 struck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLhl1yW ... ed#t=2379s

Go to about 39:30 of video.

Thank you, sir!

ADD: I'm lost as to where they'll get any help on that "Zimmerman confronted Martin."

"Nelson points out that the Defense retains ability to point out to jury any of those elements that the State asserts in its opening argument, but fails to prove in its presentation."

How will state prove that GZ confronted Martin? Does that mean that BDLR will serve W8 up for destruction?

That's the only possible way - but even Witness 8 stated that *Martin* verbally confronted *Zimmerman*, and not the other way around.

No, I suspect that "circumstantial evidence" will devolve to "speculation by inference" (such as the garbage Gibreath testified at the bond hearing, when asked for evidence of who confronted whom), by portraying Zimmerman as a crazed wanna-be cop, pissed off at "assholes" who "always get away", contrasted against mama's boy, wanna-be astronaut Martin, just out on a candy run for his little brother. In that scenario, isn't it obvious who confronted whom?

Related note: if the State fails to have Witness 8 testify, and since Witness 8 provides the sum total of relevant, asserted fact to demonstrate probable cause, can the defense still argue the validity of the Probable Cause Affidavit? Or is it too late for that?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Rel ... idavit.pdf

I just checked back over the PC Affidavit to see the exact wording mentioned about the confrontation:

"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

Not much there, but reading through it refreshed my memory that the Affidavit was written in a manner that leads one to believe the "calls for help... were recorded in 911 calls," plural.

The Frye left me believing the state "experts" only tried to match up Trayvon and George to screams from a single call. Maybe I missed it being addressed.

I don't think defense can challenge the PCA at this point. Florida seems to lack provision for a preliminary hearing, so the stupid little rubber stamp proceeding in front of the magistrate appears to constitute judicial determination of probable cause. Florida does provide for summary judgment type pre-trial motion to dismiss when there is not evidence to support the charge, but that would have been DOA in front of Nelson.

Defense will make motion(s) for judgment of acquittal at trial. Defense can appeal denial of JOA motion to DCA in the event that jury does not acquit.

Some discussion here about challenging PCA:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/6/ ... -Criticism

Suspicious Thug Recognition 101

I believe Nelson said she does not have a fax at home …not sure about email or phone.

I'm thinking the 5 depositions could create new reason(s) for a continuance, which evidently may have to wait until Monday morning for filing a motion on

"confronted" :

O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used thirty words.

O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

Way, way behind here, can you refresh my memeory of E22?

"The crux of the state's case is GZ confronted TM? How are they going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt??"

I don't think that's the crux of their case. They'll use it as part of their guilt narrative. I think they are going to say GZ's life wasn't in imminent danger when he shot TM. That's why it's so important to them to have the expert witness testimony identifying TM's voice on the 'screaming tape.'

Here's what I'm guessing the state will say. TM was screaming because GZ was pointing the gun at him, and verbally threatening to kill him. If George didn't shoot Martin when the fight was still in progress, but aimed his gun at him and shot him after he started screaming, that doesn't rise to the standards of the Florida statute 776.013 requirement of "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm." The wounds George received from Trayvon during the fight were obviously not life-threatening. If he had the gun pointed at unarmed Trayvon, his life wasn't in jeopardy. Under that scenario, it doesn't matter who started the fight. If the jury comes to believe George shot Trayvon after he started screaming, they're not going to believe 'a reasonable' person would believe their life was still in danger, and 'self-defense' wouldn't apply under the statute definition.

We'll see what happens Monday, but I'm pretty sure the judge will rule to admit the State's audio experts. If so, the trial will probably pivot on dueling expert witnesses.

_________________