Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman waives right to speedy trial

[janx]

Source: Los Angeles Times

George Zimmerman has waived his right to a speedy trial, arguing to a Florida court that he needs more time to prepare. The move means it could be October at the earliest -- and likely much later -- before the start of his second-degree murder trial.

Zimmerman's intentions were outlined in two brief documents that Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, filed Tuesday in Seminole County, Fla., circuit court. The actions did not come as a surprise to legal experts, who said such moves are common even in less-complex and lower-profile felony cases.

Florida's rules of criminal procedure require that suspects charged with a felony be brought to trial within 175 days of their arrest, unless those defendants ask that the right be waived. Zimmerman turned himself in to authorities on April 11, charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager who was walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and whom Zimmerman considered to be suspicious.

Zimmerman, 28, was released from jail after posting $150,000 bond. He admits he shot Martin, 17, but claims he did so in self-defense. He has pleaded not guilty in court documents, making his appearance unnecessary at a Tuesday arraignment hearing.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zimmerman-waives-speedy-trial-20120508,0,4573513.story

---

More at link.

[teddy51]

1. Hoping that delaying a trial will allow the dust to settle and people to forget.

Probably a smart strategy I suppose, and I hope that it doesn't work.

[janx]

2. That was my guess, too.

And I don't think it will work.

[iandhr]

3. This is a common defense tactic. Not at all surprising.

[janx]

4. Why is it common?

?

[jeff47]

5. Witnesses get lost, memories fade, etc. (nt)

[texshelters]

14. Over prep the witnesses and

prerecord their testimony is what I suspect they will do.

PTxS

[marble falls]

6. the drag it out defense. His lawyers must be worried.

[TBF]

7. That's my take on it too.

Slow it down, press loses interest, etc ...

[hack89]

23. Or they want some of the emotions to subside?

this is not a slam dunk case for the prosecution as long as the defense gets jurors to dispassionately listen to the case. It doesn't take much to undermine "beyond a reasonable doubt" with the right jury.

[janx]

27. You're certainly right about that.

Jury selection for this one should be interesting.

[slackmaster]

28. I don't envy what either side is going to have to go through to find 12 jurors who truly haven't...

...prejudged the case.

[janx]

30. Not only that, but it will be

tough to find jurors who understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, as was pointed out earlier.

[slackmaster]

32. After serving on three trial juries, I find the subject of jury instructions fascinating

It's important to have jurors who are intelligent enough to understand the standardized instructions, and who are willing to abide by them.

[janx]

33. Yes, but some lawyers seem to want

unintelligent jurors.

[slackmaster]

34. I've seen that backfire a few times. Usually its in the best interests of both sides to have...

...jurors who are rational and at least reasonably intelligent.

[jpak]

8. Justice delayed is justice denied - fuck that gun nut vigilante

yup

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. Who is a liar?

[amandabeech]

10. This is going to be a very complicated two stage case.

First will be the hearing before the judge on the validity of Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The standard of proof will be "preponderance of the evidence", which is the same standard for prevailing in a civil law suit.

If Zimmerman wins and survives the State's appeal, then he will walk free and will sue appropriate authorities for malicious prosecution, and will be immune from any civil suits by the Martin family since he will have proved by the civil standard of proof that he acted in self defense. That's the way it goes in Florida.

If Zimmerman does not prevail, he will go to jury trial, but will still be able to assert his claim to self defense. In the trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmrtmsn shot Martin. Mind you, the self defense claim *could* put reasonable doubt in the minds of some or all of the jurors, resulting in acquittal or a hung jury. Jury selection, called "voir dire" IIRC, will be extremely important in this case. Even if acquitted, Zimmerman may face civil suits for wrongful death from the Martin family, however, I doubt that Zimmerman will have much left after he pays his lawyers, who always get the fee off the top.

I fully understand why Zimmerman waived speedy trial, particularly with the pre-trial hearing, and I doubt if the prosecution minds the extra time. This is a major case, obviously, and as an ex-attorney, I believe that both sides need to get their ducks and experts all lined up.

Poorly prepared attorneys do not justice make for either side.

[CommonSenseForChange]

12. I have noticed lately that a lot of people are using Fox tactics

Did you just say the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman?

What's that all about? Could be an innocent error, but I've seen a heck of a lot of those errors in the last 3 days. Please clarify.

[amandabeech]

16. I'm an attorney licensed to practice in New York and DC.

What I wrote is, to the best of my knowledge, a summary of Florida's law.

I stand by my opinion that this is going to be a long and difficult case on both sides.

I also stand by my opinion that justice rushed is often not justice at all, particularly because of the two-stage nature of the proceedings here.

Perhaps you've heard that the wheels of justice sometimes grind slowly but they grind finely. That's because cases sometimes are very complicated, and reputable judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers are all aware of that fact and don't want to screw up.

Judges, in particular, will take pains to get it right and not be overruled by a higher court, which most trial judges really hate. I know that because I spent a year interning with a federal trial judge in Texas. I know of at least one federal trial judge who had a "reversal room" in his courthouse that was filled with his commendations from various and sundry for his early work in desegregating a certain southern state. He would retire to that room if reversed by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. My judge was his best judge friend, FYI, and did plenty for the cause before he passed a few years ago.

AND I most assuredly did not say that the late Trayvon Martin shot at George Zimmerman.

If, after re-reading my post, you still think that I wrote "that the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman," I sincerely suggest that you find a good reading tutor.

What's "Fox"?

[slackmaster]

17. amandabeech, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part, but here is a quote from your preceding...

...Reply, copied on my Blackberry:

...the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin shot Zimmerman...

HTH, and thanks for your contribution.

[amandabeech]

20. I hate being wrong, but thank you.

[24601]

50. That Zimmermen shot Martin likely will be stipulated by the defense. But to convict for 2nd

Degree Murder, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman also had formed the prerequisite criminal specific intent. Without proving specific intent (not to be confused with motive or even general intent) there cannot be a conviction.

[CommonSenseForChange]

43. you edited your comment before bashing me, misleading commenter #42

---
amandabeech
10. This is going to be a very complicated two stage case.
Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:38 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
---
/begin OT

Lawyer meets Techie..

You edited your post to correct your original erroneous statement which was that Trayvon Martin shot George Zimmerman.

I gave you a civilized "out" because I know that humans make errors in typing. However, you edited your response before accusing me of needing a reading tutor. So now I conclude that in addition to your original errorneous claim that Trayvon shot Zimmerman, you are proven to be a dishonest, unethical cover up type of person that's more interested in being "right" or modifying the facts behind the scenes hoping not to be exposed. To add insult to injury, you then claim the other party bringing YOUR MISTAKE to your attention is the stupid one -- a Fox/Murdoch tactic.

Rather than getting to the truth, you've demonstrated that you will unlease verbal violence on otherrs to confuse and save face. Is that why you no longer practice law? (rhetorical)

Here's what you said to detract from YOUR MISTAKE:

"If, after re-reading my post, you still think thaat I wrote "that the dead Trayvon shot at the Murderer Zimmerman," I sincerely suggest that you find a good reading tutor."

But you wrote that before another DU poster (slackmaster) posted your edit history and reposted your previous comment. Recopied here:

"Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 09:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
...Reply, copied on my Blackberry:
...the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin shot Zimmerman...
HTH, and thanks for your contribution."


You may have been a lawyer once, but I was once the person that fixed up and clarified what the attorneys attempted to write. That's why I gave you an out. I'm sure our egos will clash again.

/end OT

Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin for no legal reason. Deal with it!
The prosecutors are kicking Zimmerman's arse despite the media's biased claims that the state overcharged. Deal with it!

[24601]

42. He/she did not say what you questioned. Those words are nowhere in post #10. Were you

reading "self defense" and inferring that it necessarily meant that Mr. Martin shot at Mr. Zimmerman? Because that's not what was said.

[CommonSenseForChange]

45. the comment was edited before pontificating that the person who responded (me) couldn't read

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I originally thought she made a mistake. her response was full of venom, so i think she's just annoyed that i caught another right-winger posing as a dem. I could be wrong on her political affiliations, but i've seen this fox tactic of transposing names far too often. If it was a legitimate mistake, no problem.

[24601]

51. OK, I think I understand that - but the Cherry Vodka could have me confused.

[CommonSenseForChange]

53. Haha!

Don't know what you mean, but on first reading, I too had ta LOL.

[csziggy]

18. So far O'Mara has not said he would even try for SYG immunity.

I wonder if he will. Zimmerman was a mess on the stand during his bond hearing and the prosecutor was not even hammering him hard. On the simple question of whether or not Zimmerman had said he was sorry for shooting Martin the night of the killing, Zimmerman answers, "No", "Yes", and "I believe I did" in very short order:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to
the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never stated that, did you?
ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told that to the police?
ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that would be recorded because all those conversations were recorded, right?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you're sure you said that?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm fairly certain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

I can't imagine trying to untangle a longer statement from someone who can't keep this little detail straight!

Of course, O'Mara could use things like this to claim diminished capacity.

If Zimmerman does get immunity with a SYG hearing, he is also immune from law suits - that is the only advantage to him at this point in trying for it. Well, that and the amount of money his "defense fund" is raising online.

[groundloop]

35. Question for the legal experts - "...after you committed this crime...."

If he'd have answered in the affirmative would he be admitting guilt? (I used to watch a lot of Perry Mason.)

That sounds like a trick question and I'd have probably been unsure how to answer.

[csziggy]

36. Zimmerman has never denied killing Trayvon Martin

The first thing he did when the police arrived was to tell the officer that he had shot the man on the ground and that he was still armed.

Zimmerman was safe in his vehicle. He knew the cops were on the way. He had no reason to pursue Trayvon Martin while carrying a gun. He should have stayed in his SUV and waited for the cops.

The only issue is whether Zimmerman is protected by the SYG law. The legislator who sponsored the bill for it in 2005 said that Zimmerman should not be covered since he pursued Martin. Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law and who supported its passage also has said Zimmerman is not covered.

But legal experts have said that whether or not Zimmerman pursued Martin, if Zimmerman felt that his life was in danger, Zimmerman is covered by SYG. Apparently the law is so badly written even if someone leaves a position of safety and provokes a confrontation, as long as they feel threatened, they can safely kill someone and get off with no consequences.

This is a very bad law and it needs to be gotten rid of one way or another.

[groundloop]

37. I agree with everything you said... however I think that was still a poorly worded question

that the prosecutors asked him

[csziggy]

40. It could be

And you could be right that the prosecutor was trying to trip him up.

I see that neither Mr. O'Mara or his client appeared at the arraignment today. It made for a short session:
http://jacs.flcourts18.org/temp/CJC-1A_20120508-1400_01cd2d22f0cf0710.wmv

[CommonSenseForChange]

46. SYG cannot apply here

I do not believe Zimmerman can get immunity since he followed/pursued Martin.

[CommonSenseForChange]

13. What did the judge decide about the lie told by Zimmerman as to him being indigent while owning 204K

That's what I want to know. We already knew that Zimmerman's attorney was asking for more time. How did the judge rule regarding Zimmerman's very low bail considering he lied on the stand at the bond hearing about being indigent? He had $204K in the bank and O'Mara had every means available to him to make himself aware of it even if George Zimmerman didn't disclose it. The information was reported in the media and later admitted by O'mara to the judge. What did the judge decide about these actions on the part of O'mara and his lying client George Zimmerman?

Did the judge really ok O'mara and Zimmerman's mockery of the entire U.S. justice system by not addressing this issue or taking action on this issue? Say it ain't so.

[csziggy]

41. I don't see any information about that in the court documents

http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

[CommonSenseForChange]

52. thank you for the link

I don't see any info on it either. That's why I'm asking about it. I don't want the court or the media to sweep this particular issue under the rug.

At the bond hearing, Zimmerman's wife, mother and father all indicated they had no knowledge of the amount of money raised by the website (which turned out to be $204K) and that they were poor. It was later discovered that over $50K of that money had already been used by Zimmerman so Zimmerman *did* know something about it. The judge stated at 2:09:00 onward in the bond hearing video that he took into consideration the Zimmerman's financial circumstances.

Listen to the vid for yourself: http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815


Zimmerman is thumbing his nose at the judicial system and O'Mara and the judge seems to be letting him do it. Early on, Zimmerman's grand release showed him exiting jail in a BMW. His prior MySpace pages mentioned something about thanks to whoever loaned him a suit to look good in court when he bragged that he was still free for beating the charges against him.

[texshelters]

15. I know this is non-partisan, in a way

but the closer this gets to November, the more it might help Obama.

PTxS

[Jerry Frey]

19. Z trial

This incident has become a national tragedy, no matter what the outcome. Trayvon Martin was no angel while George Zimmerman, a cop wannabe, walked along a thin line and stumbled, or perhaps was knocked down.



http://napoleonlive.info/what-you-think/facts-about-trayvon-martin-killing/

[Boabab]

21. Trayvon was no angel? Who is? And what does it have to do with this case?

In case you're unaware, Trayvon didn't kill anyone. The moral "rectitude" of his murderer is going to be examined during the trial, and rightly so.

This disgusting dirtying of a child's name who was shot in cold blood is just sub-human.

The trial is a tragedy, for sure. It proves that someone can ignore orders, improperly chase an innocent person while armed, kill that person, then be protected by the judicial system by not being charged for more than a month after the incident.

Then, on top of everything, the killer gets "contributions" in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars to "support" him.

The message has already been delivered on this travesty, no matter how the trial ends.

[cstanleytech]

22. Umm none of us know if it was in cold blood Boabab, thats why there is going to be a trial

to decide if hes guilty or innocent.

[slackmaster]

24. There are many among us who are quite sure

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

- Bertrand Russell

[24601]

55. If I'm reading you right, you are pointing out that being "quite sure" isn't really such a good

thing when they weren't even there and are relying on press reports. Along the lines of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

If so, I'm supporting your position. Far better to avoid trying these cases in the media.

It's tragic enough with a young man dead and pre-judging the second just makes it worse.

[fascisthunter]

25. um... yes we do.... one person had a gun, the other didn't

There's enough evidence, knock off the BS.

[cstanleytech]

38. Even though he had a gun unless you witnessed it you do not "know" at all

if he did it.
Do I doubt his story myself? Hell ya but even though I doubt it and believe he may be guilty my belief doesnt matter just as yours doesn't as the jury is the one that will decide this case unless of course the guy enters a plea deal.

[CommonSenseForChange]

54. And he gets protection in another state if he choses

Talk about a mockery of justice! How are Trayvon Martin's parents protected while the murderer gets to visit a taxpayer paid for courthouse in a bullet proof vest and is living in a secured resort some where? How ridiculous is that?!

[marble falls]

29. So you think the "he was asking for it defense" is legitimate? .....

The abuse being heaped on Trayvon is unbeleievable. Pot residue is the worst thing that's come up. BFD.

[CommonSenseForChange]

48. The U.S. has gone crazy since Fox/Murdoch was unleashed

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

All progress since the '60s is being rolled back by Murdoch and crew. That's why Canada won't allow Fox in their country and the British seem to be on a path to shut him down. It is NOT ok to distort the truth and attempt defamation of a young black male attempting to go home after making purchases from the neighborhood convenience store just because you are "suspicious" of him and got a call through to Hannity before raising funds for murder. Sick, sick, sick!

[janx]

31. Your link takes me to some information that claims to be factual,

but it's just more speculation. Facts will come out at trial.

[fascisthunter]

26. he did it in self-defense... defense of what? Liar!

[CommonSenseForChange]

57. That's the $20M question

I think that's where profiling kicks in.

[onenote]

39. The right to a speedy trial serves a variety of interests

First and foremost, the right to a speedy trial is a right that is intended to protect the accused in a criminal case from being left in legal limbo for extended period of time. Violation of the right to a speedy trial can result in the dismissal of charges against a defendant.

There are other reasons for encouraging speedy trials: for example, it is in the interest of the victim of a crime as well as of society as a whole to have criminal charges addressed as promptly as possible in order to give some closure to victims and to avoid evidence growing stale, witnesses becoming unavailable, etc. etc.

However, it is because the right to a speedy trial is intended principally as a protection for those accused of a crime, it is left to the accused to decide whether or not to waive that right. As the article in the OP explains, waiving speedy trial right is very common -- most defendants want as much time as possible to prepare their defense and, as noted, delay can often be the defendants' friend.

That being said, I wouldn't read anything into Zimmermann's lawyer making this move beyond the fact that the same move probably is made multiple times every day by those accused of crimes.

[JonLP24]

44. How I view this

Waiving your right to a speedy-trial gives both the defense & prosecution more time. If the defense feels more time is beneficial to their case, they will waive it. It is as simple to that IMO.

I don't think there is anything here to over-analyze(meaning this is a good or bad thing for whichever side or either side is in "trouble&quot .

[CommonSenseForChange]

56. It's bad; O'mara grand standed when the media was present pushing for speedy delivery of evidence

And now he's asking for a delay. He first made it seem that the state was holding him back, but now he wants to buy himself some time. It's dishonest. It's like Zimmerman's [non]apology in the court -- for show in the media. Nothing more to it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Massive irony.

He was all for a speedy trial earlier...

[CommonSenseForChange]

49. Grand standing

O'mara is grand standing and buying time for Zimmerman. I found it to be major grand standing by O'marra when he offered the medical records to Gilbrath at the bond hearing and then renigs on the offer after Gilbratheh says he wants them. He had no intention of turning over those medical records (if they even exist and aren't faked).

It is no wonder to me that O'mara wants to postpone/delay evidence being made public. He's in over his head.

I also find it odd that since day one, O'mara claims to have no evidence or any knowledge of what transpired. I find it even odder that weeks later as well as at the bond hearing, he was allowed to pretend certain questions could not be allowed because he doesn't yet know the facts of the case. He objected to having certain facts admitted to the record at the bond hearing by claiming he has no knowledge just like he claimed he didn't know Zimmerman website had collected 204K while he claimed his client was indigent.