Rented Tritium wrote:
Exactly.

And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Exactly.

And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.

Unless you're facing an affirmative defense that you have no contrary evidence to disprove.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I'm the prosecutor. I know I don't have enough evidence to get a manslaughter conviction. I know this because the police have told me. I've also looked the entire case over and came to that conclusion myself. Manslaughter's the least I could charge, but I can't win it, and I know this, so I don't.

You know, exactly like what happened. Before the special prosecutor decided that it was actually murder 2.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Exactly.

And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.

Unless you're facing an affirmative defense that you have no contrary evidence to disprove.

You're the prosecutor. You don't know what their defense will be yet. You're just deciding if you need to bring the charges. You're putting the cart before the horse.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that when the special prosecutor took it to a judge, the judge said he had prima facie for murder 2.

So if you want to keep arguing this, you need to establish that the judge was wrong or the prosecutor straight up lied to him. You don't get to keep claiming over and over that they didn't have a case when it was found in a hearing that they did.

And for the record, I think the murder 2 charge was stupid and needlessly difficult even if they did have prima facie. They absolutely should have gone with some flavor of manslaughter, but they had prima facie either way.

 Frazzled wrote:
On the face of it, your statement is correct Seaward.

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the face of it, your statement is correct Seaward.

i c wat you did thar

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that when the special prosecutor took it to a judge, the judge said he had prima facie for murder 2.

So if you want to keep arguing this, you need to establish that the judge was wrong or the prosecutor straight up lied to him. You don't get to keep claiming over and over that they didn't have a case when it was found in a hearing that they did.

And for the record, I think the murder 2 charge was stupid and needlessly difficult even if they did have prima facie. They absolutely should have gone with some flavor of manslaughter, but they had prima facie either way.

You just learned that term, didn't you? It hasn't appeared in your arguments prior to today, so I'm going to assume you hit up a blog.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
And considering I was the first person in the thread to actually spell it correctly, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it from law and order.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
And how on earth is "you just learned it" a valid point? How is that anything but a personal attack?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
And considering I was the first person in the thread to actually spell it correctly, I'm probably the only one who didn't get it from law and order.

So because a few of us spelled it wrong (I always had difficulty remembering how to spell "facie") and didn't use Google to double check it then we only learned it from TV? Picking on spelling is just barely a step above picking on grammar, and it doesn't often show that you have the strongest argument or want to be taken seriously.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
And how on earth is "you just learned it" a valid point? How is that anything but a personal attack?

That's a personal attack now? I mean it's not like saying what someone posted was "dumb"?

 sourclams wrote:
It's almost like there should have never been a trial....

 Rented Tritium wrote:
"You just learned it, let the big boys talk" is a personal attack. That's what one is saying when they make a post claiming that I only just googled Prima Facie.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Saying that what someone posted is dumb is not talking about the person, it's talking about the post. It's blunt, but it's not personal because it's talking about the post, not the person. Might I direct you to the definition of "personal" and the distinct lack of "of or related to the posts one makes" as a definition.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Good thing then that the post wasn't made by the person then, right?

 kronk wrote:
Back to the TM vs Z case. Can a judge, at some point in a trial, say "Enough" and throw it out?

 Hulksmash wrote:
Maybe the defense can ask for a dismissal after the prosecution rests it's case based on no actual evidence of what they are attempting to charge? Don't know enough about legal proceedings to know if this is possible and it's not worth a text to my buddy

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, they're going to play it through to acquittal and most people will go home satisfied.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, they're going to play it through to acquittal and most people will go home satisfied.

 kronk wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, they're going to play it through to acquittal and most people will go home satisfied.

I see. Still a roll of the dice, but for Z, getting an acquittal is probably better than a dismissal. I suppose.

Regular readers know I have been following the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial from the beginning. I wrote an appropriately nerdy analysis of how self-defense law applied to the case entitled Reasonable Beliefs: Prejudice, Myth and Reality in the Trayvon Martin Shooting (Or “Why Han Solo Had the Right to Shoot Greedo First”) that has proven fairly durable, although there might be more evidence besides Zimmerman’s word (and so far that evidence has all collaborated his word). And regular readers know that I also identified strongly with Zimmerman in this situation because 1) I myself had to exercise force in self-defense (though it consisted of taking an electronic device away from a convicted terrorist without harming him), and 2) it seemed like George Zimmerman was being charged with no good reason. The parallels to my life seemed obvious and if you think it colored my analysis, fair enough.
...
So I found one portion on Monday’s warp up and analysis post on the trial to be pretty stunning. To give a little background, Defense Council Mark O’Mara was discussing the practice he described as “challenge interviews” with Lead Investigator Chris Serino (pictured). A challenge interview is when an investigator leans on inconsistencies in the story to put some stress on the witness: “You said X, but the physical evidence says Y, how do you explain that Mr. Z?” The idea is to break down the witness’ story and maybe get at a truth that person is hiding—if they are hiding something. The description Andrew gives is a little inaccurate, but what happened was that Serino suggested to Zimmerman that there might be video of the incident.

... O’Mara pointed out that Mr. Martin’s phone was retrieved. It was dead at the moment, but O’Mara suggested that when they charged it and could start retrieving data from it, that there was a strong probability that there was video footage of the whole thing. The idea was to make it clear to Zimmerman that if there was something he needed to say, that now was the time to say it.

This was a line of questioning designed to panic a guilty man. But that was not what happened in this case. According to Serino, Zimmerman said, “Thank God. I was hoping someone would videotape it.”
...
Of course for George Zimmerman things went another way. They never did find video from the altercation on Martin’s phone (unless it was destroyed). But it is here where, yes, I think my experiences are educational. I understand, just like Investigator Serino, what an innocent man says at the hope that his actions were videoed. He hopes you can see everything. He might even assume it will be his salvation before he learns about the quality of the thing. He will believe the truth shall set him free.
...
And even if we assume he is not a sociopath, this only means that Zimmerman would believe the truth would set him free. But if he misunderstood when force was justified, it might have still indicted him.

Still his reaction, as recounted by Investigator Serino, is extremely powerful evidence presented by a defense witness that is...

Wait, whaaaaa?! This is a witness for the state?

Of course I am joking. I told a similar joke on twitter a few days ago, but there have been so many times when prosecutorial witnesses ended up helping the defense score points that it has given rise to the theory that the state is intentionally bricking the case.

If true, this would seem to be highly unethical. A prosecutor should not bring a case unless 1) they actually think the defendant is guilty and 2) they have a reasonable chance of success. A prosecutor’s job isn’t to convict people, but to do justice, striking their sword ruthlessly at the guilty but sparing the innocent. But I could picture one scenario where I could see a prosecutor rationalizing trying Zimmerman when they feel they will inevitably lose.

There is, after all, some concern that there might be a riot if Zimmerman is acquitted. I am not sure how realistic that fear is, but it definitely exists and the prosecutors in this case might share it. Further, Zimmerman himself probably would have to worry about vigilante violence if he is set free. One has to wonder if he will ever be able to get back to something like normal life at this point. So prosecutors might rationally believe that if they simply announce they are not charging him, that a riot will explode. On the other hand, if the trial drags on for weeks with witness after witness demonstrating that Zimmerman is innocent—or at the very least he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—there can be hope that the anger will be blunted, for two reasons.

First, facts do matter. For instance, it was long alleged that the Birthers—those convinced that Barrack Obama was born in a foreign country and thus ineligible to be president—would always believe their theories. People commonly believed they were immune to facts. And then Obama released his long-form birth certificate, and birtherism was cut in half overnight. So it turned out that a large number of people really were waiting for that piece of evidence. “Facts are stubborn things” as our Second President once said, as a defense attorney, and if most Americans cannot be convinced by facts, then we might as well give up on this democracy concept.

Second, even for that hard core that cannot accept Zimmerman’s innocence, they are going to see the verdict coming a mile away which might blunt the blow when it comes.

So a prosecutor who thinks similarly might believe that a full trial might have a positive effect on public order, otherwise justifying a trial when that person knows they are going to lose.

I will admit I don’t buy the theory I have just outlined, but the incompetence of their presentation so far makes me wonder if it might be true.

Still, unless I am suddenly surprised by some testimony or evidence thus far unheard of, I don’t see how the state can believe for one moment it has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t act in lawful self-defense. This is not to say he is necessarily innocent. Because OJ Simpson was found to be liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman I can write that he was guilty of their murder without fear of a defamation suit. But while the evidence was sufficient to meet the burden of proof in civil suits, it was not enough for criminal law, so he was found not “innocent” but simply “not guilty” which is shorthand for “not guilty beyond a reasonable dount.” Our system is designed to err on the side of letting the guilty go free over the innocent, because we fear government oppression more than criminal conduct by our fellow citizens. So I can believe he should go free, while not being convinced that he is innocent. I don’t know the man and therefore I cannot say what is in his heart.

But unless you believe George Zimmerman is actually a sociopath—and I would have to ask what you would base that assessment on—there can be little doubt today that Zimmerman at least had an “innocent heart.” He genuinely believes he did nothing wrong.