Trayvon Martin

[All-American]

Zimmerman's lawyer maintains that it was self-defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

Zimmerman's attorney said his client was injured on the night of the killing.

"I believe that his nose was broken; he sustained injury to his nose and on the back of his head he sustained a cut that was serious enough, it probably should have had stitches," he said.

It's also important, as noted in the article, whether there was any racial animus which motivated the alleged act. Without it, the US government has no jurisdiction and must leave it to the state to prosecute.

[myboynoah]

Zimmerman's lawyer maintains that it was self-defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1



It's also important, as noted in the article, whether there was any racial animus which motivated the alleged act. Without it, the US government has no jurisdiction and must leave it to the state to prosecute.

In that interview the attorney also said that he had yet to listen to the 911 tape. Does that make sense?

[All-American]

In that interview the attorney also said that he had yet to listen to the 911 tape. Does that make sense?

It does, actually. A defense attorney has to focus on certain facts at certain phases of litigation. It actually doesn't help a client's cause for a defense attorney to learn anything that might affect his ability to treat him like a 100% innocent person.

[UtahDan]

Carrying a gun make you more likely to think others are.

http://scienceblog.com/52883/holding-a-gun-makes-you-think-others-are-too/

[UtahDan]

It does, actually. A defense attorney has to focus on certain facts at certain phases of litigation. It actually doesn't help a client's cause for a defense attorney to learn anything that might affect his ability to treat him like a 100% innocent person.

Not exactly AA. The only thing you might not want to hear is your client's full version of events. This because once they tell you, it is unethical to let them say differently under oath. Most defendants never testify anyway, but I am often in the position of telling clients that I do not want to know what they know until I and they have seen the other evidence.

But it does not shock me that the defense lawyer would not have heard the 911 tapes at this point. Often there is a process for getting that information, and the prosecution may not have to turn it over immediately though they will eventually. Not listening to it at some point before trial is probably malpractice.

[UtahDan]

Not exactly AA. The only thing you might not want to hear is your client's full version of events. This because once they tell you, it is unethical to let them say differently under oath. Most defendants never testify anyway, but I am often in the position of telling clients that I do not want to know what they know until I and they have seen the other evidence.

But it does not shock me that the defense lawyer would not have heard the 911 tapes at this point. Often there is a process for getting that information, and the prosecution may not have to turn it over immediately though they will eventually. Not listening to it at some point before trial is probably malpractice.

Though I'm not sure why CNN has heard it but not him. There is something here I am not understanding.

[myboynoah]

Though I'm not sure why CNN has heard it but not him. There is something here I am not understanding.

The world has heard it. Maybe he was referring to the official tape and not what is out there on the Internet. I still don't know why he hasn't heard that tape. He seemed very ill-informed in that interview, almost incompetent. But what do I know.

[RobinFinderson]

Ox, as more news comes out on this tragedy, I will be curious to see if you still stick by your original points (bafflement as to why this is a national issue).

[oxcoug]

Ox, as more news comes out on this tragedy, I will be curious to see if you still stick by your original points (bafflement as to why this is a national issue).

More news is out and my bafflement abides.

1. The facts of the case (grass on the back of Zimmerman's shirt and blood on his head and face) support his claim that he was attacked

2. New reports suggest that the cries for help were in Zimmerman's voice, not Trayvon's

3. An eyewitness reports that the guy in blue (Trayvon) was on top of the guy in red (Zimmerman) and was striking him

None of this means that Zimmerman isn't an idiot, shouldn't be charged with something and isn't guilty of a horrible crime - it does mean that there's a lot of bullshit rushing to judgment and cheap politicization in the national conversation on this.

And there is still no evidence to suggest that race was a factor in this Latino-Jewish [EDIT: apparently Catholic) man shooting this African American teen.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

[oxcoug]

And I still have no good answer for why this particular death is a national outrage while the teens who get murdered every other week of the year are just paragraphs in local newspapers.

[Viking]

More news is out and my bafflement abides.

1. The facts of the case (grass on the back of Zimmerman's shirt and blood on his head and face) support his claim that he was attacked

2. New reports suggest that the cries for help were in Zimmerman's voice, not Trayvon's

3. An eyewitness reports that the guy in blue (Trayvon) was on top of the guy in red (Zimmerman) and was striking him

None of this means that Zimmerman isn't an idiot, shouldn't be charged with something and isn't guilty of a horrible crime - it does mean that there's a lot of bullshit rushing to judgment and cheap politicization in the national conversation on this.

And there is still no evidence to suggest that race was a factor in this Latino-Jewish [EDIT: apparently Catholic) man shooting this African American teen.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

Fox News Tampa, that hard-hitting journalist organization, claiming a story from a yet-unnamed witness doesn't change much here yet.

[oxcoug]

Fox News Tampa, that hard-hitting journalist organization, claiming a story from a yet-unnamed witness doesn't change much here yet.

The police interviewed the witness the night of the incident so this isn't a new witness, it's just his first public appearance. He is one of the people who called 911. His account is entirely consistent with both Zimmerman's account of being attacked and with the grass on the back of Zimmerman's shirt and the blood on Zimmerman's head and face as well as the fact that police say the voice calling for help in the 911 call is Zimmerman's.

All of this suggests that the narrative of a defenseless poor boy just eating a bag of Skittles when he got gunned down just isn't accurate.

Obviously facts are not entirely clear - but what we do know suggests that the popular narrative is mostly fiction.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The police interviewed the witness the night of the incident so this isn't a new witness, it's just his first public appearance. He is one of the people who called 911. His account is entirely consistent with both Zimmerman's account of being attacked and with the grass on the back of Zimmerman's shirt and the blood on Zimmerman's head and face as well as the fact that police say the voice calling for help in the 911 call is Zimmerman's.

All of this suggests that the narrative of a defenseless poor boy just eating a bag of Skittles when he got gunned down just isn't accurate.

Obviously facts are not entirely clear - but what we do know suggests that the popular narrative is mostly fiction.

This will continue to fascinate as the facts come out, assuming they do. Why does a short, unarmed skinny kid, with no (or so I believe) previous criminal record attack an older much bigger dude with a gun?

[All-American]

Not exactly AA. The only thing you might not want to hear is your client's full version of events. This because once they tell you, it is unethical to let them say differently under oath. Most defendants never testify anyway, but I am often in the position of telling clients that I do not want to know what they know until I and they have seen the other evidence.

But it does not shock me that the defense lawyer would not have heard the 911 tapes at this point. Often there is a process for getting that information, and the prosecution may not have to turn it over immediately though they will eventually. Not listening to it at some point before trial is probably malpractice.

The defense attorneys in our courtroom wouldn't even be asking these questions until after arraignment and preliminary hearings. Of course, that may be why they're public defenders. But your other points are spot on: the defense attorney probably doesn't hear those tapes until after his client has been arrested and arraigned, at which point discovery is tendered over to him.

[All-American]

And I still have no good answer for why this particular death is a national outrage while the teens who get murdered every other week of the year are just paragraphs in local newspapers.

That adds another element of tragedy to me. The kid is now a political football.