Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'

[sharon]

He wasn't saying you were a lawyer. He was talking about the woman that authored the link I posted.

Thanks for clearing that up.......

 

[ric27]

LOLOL I am not a lawyer... I have some training but it was in civil litigation and healthcare contracts.

To understand law, you also have to understand legal theory.. Do you have a university education?

How about addressing my point. Your modus operandi seems to be...when you can't defeat the argument you attack the person.

You must *know* that only a small percentage of lawyers actually work in the court room, it's not like what you see on Law and Order on tv. Most lawyers are not defense or plaintiff lawyers, most never step foot in the courtroom.

I know lawyers who specialize in: Antiterrorism, children advocacy, transactional work (contracts, real estate, etc.), business/corporation setup, patent law (some are engineers), some do private law enforcement through *private attorney general laws*, some are cops, some lawyers are medical doctors who do bioethical research, etc

Criminal law is a specialized branch. Not every attorney has the knowledge and experience to handle criminal cases

Thats my point

 

[sharon]

How about addressing my point. Your modus operandi seems to be...when you can't defeat the argument you attack the person.

You must *know* that only a small percentage of lawyers actually work in the court room, it's not like what you see on Law and Order on tv. Most lawyers are not defense or plaintiff lawyers, most never step foot in the courtroom.

I know lawyers who specialize in: Antiterrorism, children advocacy, transactional work (contracts, real estate, etc.), business/corporation setup, patent law (some are engineers), some do private law enforcement through *private attorney general laws*, some are cops, some lawyers are medical doctors who do bioethical research, etc

Criminal law is a specialized branch. Not every attorney has the knowledge and experience to handle criminal cases

Thats my point

LOLOL.. and you are a former cop turned rentacop. Do a little wiki on O'mara.

 

[ric27]

LOLOL.. and you are a former cop turned rentacop. Do a little wiki on O'mara.

Please try to understand....PLEASE

O'mara has nothing to do with it. I was replying to Chiefgator's article. The lawyer who wrote the analysis piece on Zimmerman

 

[American]

yes, you are indeed simply making **** up. Perhaps you don't take this issue seriously, since you REFUSE to acknowledge possibilities other than your strongly-held views.

Aww look, he's trying to act all mature and serious.

:failpail:

 

[Billy the Kid]

This is the best analysis of the Martin/Zimmerman case that I have come across thus far.
The Statutory Basis of the Murder Charge Against George Zimmerman and His Available Defenses Under Florida Law | The View From LL2

Thanks for the link. I have to say I was confused about the 2nd Degree/Manslaugher thing. This at least explains why. It's good to have as much info as possible.

 

[Chiefgator]

Please try to understand....PLEASE

O'mara has nothing to do with it. I was replying to Chiefgator's article. The lawyer who wrote the analysis piece on Zimmerman

Well, I can't speak for Sharon. However, in my case, I am very aware of how lawyers work.
The woman that wrote the article that I posted, gave full disclosure that she was not a criminal trial lawyer. The fact that she holds a juris doctorate and I do not, gives her much more credibility.
Her analysis broke down each facet of this case. She talked about the thought process that the states attorney must have used when seeking the murder two charge. She broke down Zimmerman's probable defenses to each of those arguments. She did so in a manner that us lay people can understand.

If there are errors in her analysis, please point them out. Attempting to discredit her peice because she is not a criminal trial lawyer is absurd. Does it lose some weight? Absolutely! If it were totally discredited, then all of our comments are discredited.

 

[Excon]

But it is the best review that I have seen written in plain language.

Did you read the comments as to why what she says may not be accurate?

 

[Chiefgator]

Did you read the comments as to why what she says may not be accurate?

Yes, and I addressed them.

 

[Excon]

Yes, and I addressed them.

Just for clarification. If I wasn't clear.
I meant the comments there. Not the comments here.

 

[Chiefgator]

Just for clarification. If I wasn't clear.
I meant the comments there. Not the comments here.

On her site? No. But I will look.

 

[Chiefgator]

What name did you post it under?

 

[Excon]

What name did you post it under?

lol
I did not want to make any post regarding what she said.
But I may reconsider it.

 

[dolphinocean]

This is the best analysis of the Martin/Zimmerman case that I have come across thus far.
The Statutory Basis of the Murder Charge Against George Zimmerman and His Available Defenses Under Florida Law | The View From LL2

I absolutely agree. The best analysis of this case by far.

She systematically put everything together logically not only with appropriate quotes but also citations from supporting case laws. It also exposes the inaptitude (or possible wrong doing of the previous DA's unexplained "conflict of interest" cited by him) in refusing to charge Zimmerman even for the negligent homicide or manslaughter charge as recommended by the lead detective that night or early the next morning. From Susan Simpson's systematic analysis of this case, it's hard for me to believe that the previous DA couldn't even get it half right nor had the confidence of a conviction even for a simple negligent homicide or manslaughter case. Something here ain't right.

This case certainly has more than sufficient probable cause for Zimmerman's arrest and charge of negligent homicide or manslaughter. I have no doubt about it whatsoever since the beginning even before the media got hold of it. Yet, even after this case exploded in the public through media frenzy, the police chief had the audacity to make a fool of himself with his lame excuse to let Zimmerman walked. Again, it just doesn't seem right to me here.

This goes to show why the public was so outrage by the previous DA and the Sanford police dept handling of this case when, instead of telling the public that the police were still investigating this case, the police chief came out to say there was no probable cause for Zimmerman's arrest.

He even bent over backward to say that the dispatch's advice wasn't a legally binding order that Zimmerman had to follow, as if to say you can carry a weapon and follow or stalk someone at night if you wanted to. It's also akin to saying you can ignore the advice against shouting "fire" in a crowd theater if you feel like it. It's that what a responsible law enforcement chief should even say?

And without allowing this case to go through the justice system, he acted as if he was the sole judge and jury to accept Zimmerman's claim of self-defence and decided all by himself to let him walk without so much of a cross-examination under oath by the prosecutor nor examination of the physical/forensic evidence let alone a trial. Either he was unwittingly providing falsehood in his zeal to sweep this case under the rug or he was so incompetent as to be so negligent in his duty in seeking justice for Trayvon in this case.

As Susan's analysis puts it:

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Zimmerman’s possible claim of self-defense is that, in order to raise it, Zimmerman may very well be forced to take the stand in his own defense. As previous Florida case law has held, “in order to be entitled to instruction on self-defense, there must be some evidence that the defendant acted out of self-defense...

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based. This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

(emphasis mine)​

​

 

[Excon]

I absolutely agree. The best analysis of this case by far.

She systematically put everything together logically not only with appropriate quotes but also citations from supporting case laws. It also exposes the inaptitude (or possible wrong doing of the previous DA's unexplained "conflict of interest" cited by him) in refusing to charge Zimmerman even for the negligent homicide or manslaughter charge as recommended by the lead detective that night or early the next morning. From Susan Simpson's systematic analysis of this case, it's hard for me to believe that the previous DA couldn't even get it half right nor had the confidence of a conviction even for a simple negligent homicide or manslaughter case. Something here ain't right.

This case certainly has more than sufficient probable cause for Zimmerman's arrest and charge of negligent homicide or manslaughter. I have no doubt about it whatsoever since the beginning even before the media got hold of it. Yet, even after this case exploded in the public through media frenzy, the police chief had the audacity to make a fool of himself with his lame excuse to let Zimmerman walked. Again, it just doesn't seem right to me here.

This goes to show why the public was so outrage by the previous DA and the Sanford police dept handling of this case when, instead of telling the public that the police were still investigating this case, the police chief came out to say there was no probable cause for Zimmerman's arrest.

He even bent over backward to say that the dispatch's advice wasn't a legally binding order that Zimmerman had to follow, as if to say you can carry a weapon and follow or stalk someone at night if you wanted to. It's also akin to saying you can ignore the advice against shouting "fire" in a crowd theater if you feel like it. It's that what a responsible law enforcement chief should even say?

And without allowing this case to go through the justice system, he acted as if he was the sole judge and jury to accept Zimmerman's claim of self-defence and decided all by himself to let him walk without so much of a cross-examination under oath by the prosecutor nor examination of the physical/forensic evidence let alone a trial. Either he was unwittingly providing falsehood in his zeal to sweep this case under the rug or he was so incompetent as to be so negligent in his duty in seeking justice for Trayvon in this case.

As Susan's analysis puts it:

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Zimmerman’s possible claim of self-defense is that, in order to raise it, Zimmerman may very well be forced to take the stand in his own defense. As previous Florida case law has held, “in order to be entitled to instruction on self-defense, there must be some evidence that the defendant acted out of self-defense...

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based. This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

(emphasis mine)
​

That is just hilarious.

Alan Dershowitz

a Professor at Harvard Law School

or

Susan Simpson

... Trade law, international tribunal procedure, -

feminist jurisprudence to criminal law is quite a stretch ...

Alan Dershowitz?
or
Susan Simpson?

It so tough to decide.
lol

Let me show you how this part of her analysis is incorrect, just by highlighting the appropriate portion of the cited case law.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Zimmerman’s possible claim of self-defense is that, in order to raise it, Zimmerman may very well be forced to take the stand in his own defense. As previous Florida case law has held, “in order to be entitled to instruction on self-defense, there must be some evidence that the defendant acted out of self-defense...

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant [highlight]and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based.[/highlight] This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).​

​

(emphasis mine)​

The Court decided no instruction was necessary because the assertion the defendant made did not explain the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based.

In the case at hand.
Zimmerman has already offered up such explanations on what his assertions are based, to the police investigators and prosecutor.
He even did reenactments for them.

Her analysis on this point could only be true if he hadn't.
But since he already has, her analysis on this point is irrelevant.

If this case goes to trial, before a jury, there will be such a jury instruction.

 

[dolphinocean]

That is just hilarious.

Alan Dershowitz
or

Susan Simpson


Alan Dershowitz?
or
Susan Simpson?

It so tough to decide.
lol

Merely citing the names and credentials of the expert and comparing them isn't a logical argument.

The merit of an argument is based on the premise asserted or argument made and not on the names and credentials of the experts. If there is a dispute in a legal point of argument between Alan Dershowitz and Susan Simpson, you should be able to point it out and we can see who had cited case laws to support his or her view. Merely making an opinion without legal support is baseless. So, what is it Exxcon?

Let me show you how this part of her analysis is incorrect, just by highlighting the appropriate portion of the cited case law.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Zimmerman’s possible claim of self-defense is that, in order to raise it, Zimmerman may very well be forced to take the stand in his own defense. As previous Florida case law has held, “in order to be entitled to instruction on self-defense, there must be some evidence that the defendant acted out of self-defense...

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant [highlight]and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based.[/highlight] This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).​

​

(emphasis mine)​

The Court decided no instruction was necessary because the assertion the defendant made did not explain the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based.

In the case at hand.
Zimmerman has already offered up such explanations on what his assertions are based, to the police investigators and prosecutor.
He even did reenactments for them.

Her analysis on this point could only be true if he hadn't.
But since he already has, her analysis on this point is irrelevant.

If this case goes to trial, before a jury, there will be such a jury instruction.

You are completely wrong in your take on this.

This part you quoted and debated is taken from the Appellate Court opinion. The case did go to court unlike Zimmerman's case before the public uproar that resulted in the special prosecutor being appointed to rehandled the case.

In this Appellate case, the defendant did not take the stand and thus his testimony through a third party (the police) was not cross-examined by the State. This became simply an assertion (in the Appellate's own words, "this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant"). Therefore, an assertion is not an admissible court evidence to be considered by the jury.

As noted and highted by you, the opinion said:

"The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.”

Therefore, if Zimmerman did not take the stand, the testimony by the police would be just that, an assertion. Actually, a bald assertion.

Thus, no matter your claim that "Zimmerman has already offered up such explanations on what his assertions are based, to the police investigators and prosecutor" (prosecutor?) or "He even did reenactments for them", if he didn't take the stand and testify under oath and cross-examined by the prosecutor before the judge and jury, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense. One point you need to understand: the police isn't the trial court of judge, prosecutor and jury all wrap up in one.

In the Appellate's own words, "the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense". (emphasis mine).

 

[Excon]

Merely citing the names and credentials of the expert and comparing them isn't a logical argument.

The merit of an argument is based on the premise asserted or argument made and not on the names and credentials of the experts. If there is a dispute in a legal point of argument between Alan Dershowitz and Susan Simpson, you should be able to point it out and we can see who had cited case laws to support his or her view. Merely making an opinion without legal support is baseless. So, what is it Exxcon?

Well doltintheocean, the point is rather obvious.
She isn't experience in the field of criminal law.

In addition her experience is underwhelming, especially compared to that of a experienced attorney.
Those are the points.

You are completely wrong in your take on this.

This part you quoted and debated is taken from the Appellate Court opinion. The case did go to court unlike Zimmerman's case before the public uproar that resulted in the special prosecutor being appointed to rehandled the case.

In this Appellate case, the defendant did not take the stand and thus his testimony through a third party (the police) was not cross-examined by the State. This became simply an assertion (in the Appellate's own words, "this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant"). Therefore, an assertion is not an admissible court evidence to be considered by the jury.

As noted and highted by you, the opinion said:

"The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.”

Therefore, if Zimmerman did not take the stand, the testimony by the police would be just that, an assertion. Actually, a bald assertion.

Thus, no matter your claim that "Zimmerman has already offered up such explanations on what his assertions are based, to the police investigators and prosecutor" (prosecutor?) or "He even did reenactments for them", if he didn't take the stand and testify under oath and cross-examined by the prosecutor before the judge and jury, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense. One point you need to understand: the police isn't the trial court of judge, prosecutor and jury all wrap up in one.

In the Appellate's own words, "the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense". (emphasis mine).

:lamo:lamo:lamo
No, I am not completely wrong.
You are.
You truly have no understanding of what you speak.

My analysis of hers, was on point.
Zimmerman has not just made a "bald assertion of self defense", his assertion has already been explained and reenacted.
You obviously do not understand what that means. So don't try to argue that you do.

This information is already "facts in evidence", and can and most likely will be, in whole or part, extracted from the prosecutions witnesses.

 

[dolphinocean]

Well doltintheocean, the point is rather obvious.
She isn't experience in the field of criminal law.

In addition her experience is underwhelming, especially compared to that of a experienced attorney.
That's the points.

Other than resorting to attack on her credential and experience, what are the arguments she made that are in disagreement or in dispute with that of Alan Dershowitz or any other experienced attorney?

If that's the point, then by all means tell us about your credential and your experience. Go ahead.

:lamo:lamo:lamo
No, I am not completely wrong.
You are.
You truly have no understanding of what you speak.

My analysis of hers, was on point.
Zimmerman has not just made a "bald assertion of self defense", his assertion has already been explained and reenacted.
You obviously do not understand what that means. So don't try to argue that you do.

This information is already "facts in evidence", and can and most likely will be, in whole or part, extracted from the prosecutions witnesses.

Lamo? You mean "Namu Amida Buddha"?

BY "This information" you mean the statement Zimmerman gave to the police the night of the shooting? If so, it is NOT "facts in evidence". It is merely his statement of self-defense assertion, nothing more, as opined by the appellate court.

In order for it to be facts in evidence Zimmerman had to take the stand under oath to explain to questions the prosecutor is going to ask about the event that occurred that night in which he claimed self-defense. He had to explain before the jury in court and not privately with the police while not under oath. The police cannot explain anything for him to whatever questions the prosecutor might ask. Only Zimmerman himself can and must explain "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based" if he took the stand.

 

[Excon]

Other than resorting to attack on her credential and experience, what are the arguments she made that are in disagreement or in dispute with that of Alan Dershowitz or any other experienced attorney?

I thought so.

What you failed to understand is that I thought your reply was hilarious.
Your reliance on what she had said, even though you didn't understand the information provided, was hilarious.
Not her.

Lamo? You mean "Namu Amida Buddha"?

Leave bigfatbutthism out of it.

I clearly said and meant this :lamo!

BY "This information" you mean the statement Zimmerman gave to the police the night of the shooting? If so, it is NOT "facts in evidence". It is merely his statement of self-defense assertion, nothing more, as opined by the appellate court.

Wrong.
It is not yet admitted evidence in a trial.

It is his claim of what is true, it is a fact.
It is evidence.
It is facts in evidence to us.

Your attempt to dismiss evidence is ridiculous.

It is, in fact, evidence.
It is evidence that is used during the investigation.
It is evidence that would be used against him if it was found to contain false assertions.

It is merely his statement of self-defense assertion, nothing more, as opined by the appellate court.

Wrong.
Zimmerman's statements are not "merely" an assertion of self-defense, but included explanations of the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based.
Secondly you apparently are confused because you do not know how to read or understand "case law".
I attempted to explain, but you chose to ignore. That is on you.

I will try one more time.

The two cases are not similar.

This is what the appellate court said in Nunez v. State, 542 So. 2d 1061 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1989, as wrongfully cited by cited by Susan as simply Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based. This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).​

In Nunez, the court determined that his statement, as testified to by a police detective in trial, was nothing more than an assertion by the defendant and not entitled to the jury instruction of of self-defense because it "in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based".

Do you see the underlined portion?

Who testified to it? That's right, you can say it, the police officer.

If Nunez had explained to the officer "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based". That information would have been then extracted from the officer on cross. It would then have met the requirement to generate the self-defense instruction.


From information I previously provided.

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
...
An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. [highlight]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses [/highlight]or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.
...
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES​

Did you see that?
"The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of Government witnesses"
Do you understand that now?


The two cases are not similar because Zimmerman has explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based, where Nunez did not.

In order for it to be facts in evidence Zimmerman had to take the stand under oath to explain to questions the prosecutor is going to ask about the event that occurred that night in which he claimed self-defense. He had to explain before the jury in court and not privately with the police while not under oath. The police cannot explain anything for him to whatever questions the prosecutor might ask. Only Zimmerman himself can and must explain "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based" if he took the stand.

Wrong.

Zimmerman does not have to take the stand to generated the instruction. It can be done through cross of the Gov. / Prosecution's witnesses.

Zimmerman has already explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based.
He didn't just explain them, he even enacted them.

This information can and will be extracted from the investigator on cross.
Unless you are suggestion that the Prosecution is not going to introduce at trial what Zimmerman told the investigators.
That would be an incredibly naive assertion.


He does not have to take the stand, to have the instruction generated.

So don't even bother to reply unless it is to ask questions of what you don't understand.

 

[dolphinocean]

I thought so.

What you failed to understand is that I thought your reply was hilarious.
Your reliance on what she had said, even though you didn't understand the information provided, was hilarious.
Not her.

Evasive much, Exxcon?

This was what you offered for argument:

Alan Dershowitz?
or
Susan Simpson?

It so tough to decide.

Where did you even mentioned anything else let alone alluding to my reliance on what she had said?

Like I said, with this kind of logic, if the great mathematician such as Sir Isaac Newton had slipped his tongue and said 1+1=3 and your unschooled great grandma had said 1+1 =2, you would easily sided with the renowned mathematician over your great grannie. By your logic you'd tell your grannie she was wrong.

See? Name alone, no matter how highly credentialed a person is, isn't the argument. You have to examine the premise of the argument.

Certainly, a highly credentialed individual, who is an expert in the specialized field relating to the issue in question, is respected and regarded as an authority in matters relating to the field of interest, but the merit of the argument has to be judged solely on the basis of the premise of the argument.

So, I've been asking you for the premises of the argument that Susan Simpson made that Alan Dershowitz disagreed so that we can determine whose argument is valid and correct, but so far you're just being evasive.

 

[dolphinocean]

Wrong.
It is not yet admitted evidence in a trial.

It is his claim of what is true, it is a fact.
It is evidence.
It is facts in evidence to us.

Your attempt to dismiss evidence is ridiculous.

It is, in fact, evidence.
It is evidence that is used during the investigation.
It is evidence that would be used against him if it was found to contain false assertions.

You are completely and utterly engaging in spurious argument.

They are NOT facts in evidence to us. All the stories we heard so far of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense are through third parties, i.e. his father, brother and a close friend, all of whom weren't there that night when the fatal event occurred. What they are, are simply hearsays.

Zimmerman's statement to the police about that night's fatal shooting is evidence, i.e. the statement he made. The statement he made can be used against him. But, the accounts of self-defense he made in the statement is only an assertion and not facts in evidence. The only thing that is considered as fact is the fact that he did make a statement to the police that night or immediately the following morning.

So far, nobody has seen or read Zimmerman's statement of self-defense to the police.

Wrong.
Zimmerman's statements are not "merely" an assertion of self-defense, but included explanations of the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based.
Secondly you apparently are confused because you do not know how to read or understand "case law".
I attempted to explain, but you chose to ignore. That is on you.

It doesn't matter whether his explanation to the police contained exact circumstances (which is impossible) or not. The police on the stand can't testify under oath on his behalf and answered any possible situational questions put to him during cross-examination. In another words, the police cannot raise his hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth for Zimmerman about that night.

The police in that case most likely did the same as Sanford police case in securing the explanation of the "exact circumstances" in the stabbing with the same degree of completeness complete with reenactment, which you can't prove otherwise, neither was such lack mentioned in the Appellate opinion. Hence, it's apparent that you are attempting to make a nonsense argument.

In any event, the police still can be called by either the prosecution or the defense team to give testimony about the statement of self-defense made by Zimmerman as a third party account, if Zimmerman decided not to take the stand. Together with any physical or forensic evidence presented in the court with regards to self-defense, the judge could still instruct jury on self-defense. The jury could also consider the possibility of self-defense even in the absence of judicial instruction.

What get you so confused is that the Appellate Court merely said,

"...the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)."

​

The phrase, "not required" does not mean "cannot". Therefore, the trial judge could still give jury instruction on self-defense if he chose to. Hence, when Susan Simpson stated that:

　

"But, from a quick read of Florida law, it seems like Zimmerman’s only route of guaranteeing that a self-defense instruction is made available to the jury is by providing his testimony on why self-defense was necessary.'​

　
she did not depart from the meaning of the Appellate Court's opinion.
　
　
　
　
　
　






　

 

[dolphinocean]

This is what the appellate court said in Nunez v. State, 542 So. 2d 1061 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1989, as wrongfully cited by cited by Susan as simply Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction. The sole evidence at trial on the issue was the testimony of a police detective who stated that the defendant made an oral statement to the police that, “ ‘I stabbed the victim in self-defense.’ That he was assaulted by group of males.” Plainly, this evidence was nothing more than an assertion of self-defense by the defendant and in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based. This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).

In Nunez, the court determined that his statement, as testified to by a police detective in trial, was nothing more than an assertion by the defendant and not entitled to the jury instruction of of self-defense because it "in no way explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based".

Do you see the underlined portion?

Who testified to it? That's right, you can say it, the police officer.

If Nunez had explained to the officer "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based". That information would have been then extracted from the officer on cross. It would then have met the requirement to generate the self-defense instruction.

How do you know Nunez had not explained to the officer "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based"?

Where is your proof? Link to source to support your claim please.

But, that doesn't even matter because if Nunez did not want to take the stand to be a witness in his own behalf regarding his own self-defense claim, how does the judge or jury even know there is more to the story than meet the eyes let alone a presumption of "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based"?

Whether it is "the exact circumstances upon which the assertion was based" is a decision for the jury in trial court to make and not an Appellate decision since appellate Court doesn't conduct cases nor hear evidence and testimonies. To even attempt to make such argument is just laughable. I shouldn't be wasting so much time here trying to explain this to you.

From information I previously provided.

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
...
An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.
...
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSESDid you see that?
"The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of Government witnesses"
Do you understand that now?

The police office wasn't a witness to the event, so how can he or she be considered a Government witness? A police officer who did not witness the event cannot testify under oath what he had not witnessed and thus is not in the position of being cross-examined with regards to the event. He or she could only testify as to what was presented in the police statement but not answer to questions about the event that happened.

A Government witness is a person who was physically there to witness the event in part or in toto. He or she can only testify as to what he or she saw or heard.

The witnesses in Zimmerman's case can testify under oath and cross-examined whether Zimmerman took the stand or not. That's not in debate.

Furthermore, according to your source:

To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory sought...

Under "D Burdens" it said, "The burden of production to
generate an affirmative defense is on the defense."​

The two cases are not similar because Zimmerman has explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based, where Nunez did not.

Don't just claim Nunez did not explained "the exact circustances". Please show proof with a link to source.
Just what constitute "the exact circumstances"" Legal source please.
　

Wrong.

Zimmerman does not have to take the stand to generated the instruction. It can be done through cross of the Gov. / Prosecution's witnesses.

Nobody says he has to take the stand. Please don't misread what I said.

As the Appellate Court had decided:

　

"“[W]e conclude that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense because, simply stated, there was insufficient evidence adduced below to support such an instruction...
This being so, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on self-defense based solely on the defendant’s bald assertion of self-defense.” Gaffney v. State, 742 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)."
​

Furthermore, your source stated:
　

"To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory sought...

The burden of production to
generate an affirmative defense is on the defense."
​

Zimmerman is not required to take the stand. Again, that's not debated. Ultimately it's up to the judge to decide whether there's sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on self-defense in the event that Zimmerman did not testify in his own behalf.

That's what Susan meant when she basically allude to there's no guarantee unless he took the stand. You appear to have problem in understanding her statement.
　
　

Zimmerman has already explained the exact circumstances upon which the assertion of self-defense was based.
He didn't just explain them, he even enacted them.

Irrelevant.

This information can and will be extracted from the investigator on cross.
Unless you are suggestion that the Prosecution is not going to introduce at trial what Zimmerman told the investigators.
That would be an incredibly naive assertion.

The only thing the investigation can give is to read directly from the police statement Zimmerman gave. Beyond that the investigator cannot answer anything further to questions from cross-exam regarding that night in which the answers are not found in the statements.

He does not have to take the stand, to have the instruction generated.

So don't even bother to reply unless it is to ask questions of what you don't understand.

No, he does not have to. If he does not take the stand, then it's up to the judge to decide.

Based on the witnesses we have heard so far and any physical evidence available to that effect, there is a good possibility that the judge would do just that. But, as Susan Simpson had alluded to in her article and citing case law, there is no guarantee.

Hence, you are crying wolf and beating about the bushes, much ado about nothing for crying foul.

 

[joko104]

[emphasis added by bubba]

actually, what IS true is that the state put on its witness to testify. [emphasis added by bubba]
Zimmerman apologizes as judge sets $150,000 bond - CNN.com

he cannot take back that sworn testimony
the state's case is toast
they have nothing to refute zimmerman's testimony that he shot in self defense after being assaulted by martin

From the linked article:

"Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman's prior run-ins with a police officer and a woman who named him in a domestic violence injunction show that he is violent and a threat to the community."

The State Attorney should be sanctioned for that statement. The "run in" was dropped AND unless Zimmerman testified it otherwise inadmissible anyway. A civil domestic injunction also inadmissible as the standards in a civil case are less than a criminal case, so unless the injunction had to do with Trayvon Martin, that also inadmissible. Very corrupt by the State Attorney.

Moreover, setting bail is NEVER for the purpose of punishment, but rather only to assure appearance.