Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately it is true. In the end though, the almighty father will forgive the President of the sins he has committed toward this country and its citizens.
The only way that I can respond to such BS is
Either you need to reread the bible or quit watching faux
Seems to me that the SYG statute is short and basically says you have NO DUTY TO RETREAT.
The statute you posted regarding aggressor is the self defense statute, which says you have to exhaust every reasonable effort to get away (so you have to try to retreat)
They contradict each other actually.
Even though the statutes contradict each other the "Use of Force by Aggressor" states that the SYG provisions are still available to GZ if he can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm and did exhaust every reasonable means to escape the danger. GZ claims he was screaming for help, TM was trying to get his gun, if these statements have been expanded upon by GZ and the "John" witness is deemed to be credible, it is possible that GZ can be found to have exhausted every "reasonable" means to escape and "reasonably" feared death or great bodily harm therefore immune...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Now, as to why I think it's a big risk to go to an immunity hearing, I have never seen any attorney who was willing to show their opponent their case strategy and all their evidence PRIOR to a trial. Even with discovery, there are some things about your case you don't have to reveal prior to trial. It is a very big risk to go to immunity because there is a chance he might lose in this case. I think an attorney would advise his client to go to an immunity hearing ONLY if there was enormous evidence that the client was in fear for his life and the State had very little or weak evidence. So I think if it were really favorable for Zimmerman to go to an immunity, his attorney would ask for one pretty quickly. O'Mara has not. Of course he's still looking at the State's evidence but.....I think in these cases when SYG is really clear they ask for an immunity hearing fairly early on.
Attorneys have taken the risk and requested an immunity hearing, it is not unheard of...O'Mara has just begun discovery, of course requesting an immunity hearing is contingent upon how strong|weak the state's evidence is and vice versa, of course he won't jump right in and request the hearing, it's still early...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
If Zimmerman went to immunity hearing and LOST, it could be months before the case went to a jury trial, giving the State that much more time to investigate every detail of the defendant's case from the hearing, order transcripts with which to impeach Zimmerman as well as his witnesses at a trial, etc., etc. Also, putting Zimmerman on the witness stand ONE time is going to be traumatic, but to have to put him on TWICE, with transcripts which could impeach him before a jury sounds to me like a nightmare. An immunity hearing provides that much more testimony in which Zimmerman could be inconsistent and/or contradict himself.There is STRATEGY involved in putting on a case at trial.
So if you basically "pre-try" your case at such a hearing and LOSE, you're in trouble.
I'm sure O'Mara won't take the chance if he has a weak case, but IMO the same could be said if there is a mistrial...it also can work in GZ's favor as the defense can work this as well...scrutinize every detail of the state's case, and take the time to "polish" their case or GZ's testimony, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
When you say "either way he will have to put on his case/evidence to prove that affirmative defense".......he doesn't have to put on his case but ONE time if he chooses a trial over immunity hearing, so I don't really understand that statement.
O'Mara and GZ may be willing to take this chance if the state has a weak case and the evidence supports SYG. Even if this is the case the judge can still deny immunity and move to have a trial. I doubt O'Mara would request a hearing if his case is weak...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Only one time does he have to get on the witness stand if he chooses a trial. If he chooses immunity, there is a CHANCE then he will have to put on his case TWICE and get on the witness stand TWICE. Zimmerman is not going to be a good witness. He talks too much, it is easy to get him unsettled, he contradicts himself, he seems to be stubborn, does things his attorneys advise him not to do, and those state attorneys are very experienced in throwing witnesses off balance. ALL BAD FOR ZIMMERMAN.
I'm not so sure in this case having a judge decide the immunity case is all that much better for Zimmerman either. Judges understand impeachment better than a jury does. I'm pretty sure that the judge who has now been assigned the case would also preside at the immunity hearing. Not positive, but usually any case assigned to a judge stays with that judge for all the proceedings because that judge learns the case as they go through pre-trial hearings etc. But I could be wrong; it has happened before.
It will be interesting to see what O'Mara does with this. I think I've repeated myself here, so my apologies; I'm kinda tired.
LOL...No problem, I appreciate, value and respect your expert opinions...
Now, as to why I think it's a big risk to go to an immunity hearing, I have never seen any attorney who was willing to show their opponent their case strategy and all their evidence PRIOR to a trial. Even with discovery, there are some things about your case you don't have to reveal prior to trial. It is a very big risk to go to immunity because there is a chance he might lose in this case. I think an attorney would advise his client to go to an immunity hearing ONLY if there was enormous evidence that the client was in fear for his life and the State had very little or weak evidence. So I think if it were really favorable for Zimmerman to go to an immunity, his attorney would ask for one pretty quickly. O'Mara has not. Of course he's still looking at the State's evidence but.....I think in these cases when SYG is really clear they ask for an immunity hearing fairly early on
The article below note cases where an attorney was willing to take a chance on an immunity hearing... in this article 1 lost, 3 won immunity in South Florida
"Since the Legislature did not specify how or when immunity from prosecution is granted, a series of court battles ensued. Finally, in December 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that judges should be the ones to weigh the evidence under a looser standard than the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard used in jury trials.
Since that ruling, South Florida judges have dismissed several high-profile murder cases based on self-defense claims."
Even though the statutes contradict each other the "Use of Force by Aggressor" states that the SYG provisions are still available to GZ if he can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm and did exhaust every reasonable means to escape the danger. GZ claims he was screaming for help, TM was trying to get his gun, if these statements have been expanded upon by GZ and the "John" witness is deemed to be credible, it is possible that GZ can be found to have exhausted every "reasonable" means to escape and "reasonably" feared death or great bodily harm therefore immune...
Attorneys have taken the risk and requested an immunity hearing, it is not unheard of...O'Mara has just begun discovery, of course requesting an immunity hearing is contingent upon how strong|weak the state's evidence is and vice versa, of course he won't jump right in and request the hearing, it's still early...
I'm sure O'Mara won't take the chance if he has a weak case, but IMO the same could be said if there is a mistrial...it also can work in GZ's favor as the defense can work this as well...scrutinize every detail of the state's case, and take the time to "polish" their case or GZ's testimony, etc...
O'Mara and GZ may be willing to take this chance if the state has a weak case and the evidence supports SYG. Even if this is the case the judge can still deny immunity and move to have a trial. I doubt O'Mara would request a hearing if his case is weak...
LOL...No problem, I appreciate, value and respect your expert opinions...
I'm just brainstorming all possibilities...
Tiluha, I agree, it will be a strategic decision on the part of the defense whether or not to request an immunity hearing, and I was looking at the reasons why doing so may not be a good route for Zimmerman to take.
It's my understanding that if the case goes to trial, the Judge will read both the SYG statute and the self defense statute in the jury instructions to the jury at the end of the trial. I'm not so sure that SYG is contingent upon the defense proving that every reasonable effort was exhausted to retreat; in a trial Zimmerman would put on evidence to prove he did everything reasonable to get away but could not, therefore, it was self defense.
Also, agree, the judge can deny immunity at the end of the hearing, and then automatically the case goes to criminal trial at some later date. If he's denied immunity he has to stand trial in the criminal case.
I'm not so sure that things work in the favor of the defense by going to an immunity hearing if he loses because the burden of proof in a trial, of course, is on the state. It wouldn't help the defense as much to know the strategy and all the evidence the state has via an immunity as it would help the state, IMO. Once the cat is out of the bag, if the defense lost at immunity, everything the defense has is out there not only for the State to see but the public as well. I think that could be much more harmful for the defense than the state.
I agree that it's very early in discovery and O'Mara is still looking at the evidence, and that if he determines the State has a strong case he may very well advise his client not to request an immunity hearing. It will take time of course to make that determination. I was just saying that in lots of these SYG cases, the evidence is so strong in favor of the defendant and weak for the State, that an immunity hearing is requested fairly early on in order to bring the whole thing to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Seems that may not be the situation here in this case though.
The article below note cases where an attorney was willing to take a chance on an immunity hearing... in this article 1 lost, 3 won immunity in South Florida
"Since the Legislature did not specify how or when immunity from prosecution is granted, a series of court battles ensued. Finally, in December 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that judges should be the ones to weigh the evidence under a looser standard than the "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard used in jury trials.
Since that ruling, South Florida judges have dismissed several high-profile murder cases based on self-defense claims."
Absolutely defendants have and do choose to go to immunity hearings. I'm just pointing out how that may not be a good choice for Zimmerman. Yes, I know that in a good number of cases defendants have been found immune.
The standard of a preponderance of the evidence is a much "looser" (or easier standard to reach) than beyond a reasonable doubt. But that brings us back to it being a strategic decision on the part of Zimmerman and his attorney regarding whether or not to ask for an immunity hearing. I'm examining the possible negative effects of an immunity hearing for a defendant. The huge word involved here is IF.....IF Zimmerman should lose.....and that's the strategic problem for the defense. Do they decide that Zimmerman has a better chance of winning at an immunity hearing or a trial, and what are the disadvantages for him if he loses at immunity.
IMO, a really big risk in an immunity hearing for Zimmerman is the fact that he would have to take the witness stand. I think he would be a very bad witness and I think the state could easily destroy his credibility. After all, HE would have to testify about his state of mind at the time of the incident. And, yes, he would most likely take the stand to testify at a jury trial, but I think he might have a better chance with a jury than just a judge. Other defendants in other cases may be much better witnesses on their own behalf than I think Zimmerman would be. Just my thoughts.
Ultimately, if Zimmerman wants an immunity hearing, he has the last say. His attorney can advise him regarding this matter, but Zimmerman has the last say. Seems Zimmerman in the past has ignored the advice of his attorneys in this case. IMO that "quality" he has is what would make him a bad witness, he seems to be stubborn and strong willed to the point of doing what he wants regardless of his attorney's advice. He would be entering a boxing ring with a formidable foe and not even be prepared with boxing gloves.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 05-04-2012 at 10:37 AM..
Tiluha, I agree, it will be a strategic decision on the part of the defense whether or not to request an immunity hearing, and I was looking at the reasons why doing so may not be a good route for Zimmerman to take.
It's my understanding that if the case goes to trial, the Judge will read both the SYG statute and the self defense statute in the jury instructions to the jury at the end of the trial. I'm not so sure that SYG is contingent upon the defense proving that every reasonable effort was exhausted to retreat; in a trial Zimmerman would put on evidence to prove he did everything reasonable to get away but could not, therefore, it was self defense.
This is what I heard as well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Also, agree, the judge can deny immunity at the end of the hearing, and then automatically the case goes to criminal trial at some later date. If he's denied immunity he has to stand trial in the criminal case.
I'm not so sure that things work in the favor of the defense by going to an immunity hearing if he loses because the burden of proof in a trial, of course, is on the state. It wouldn't help the defense as much to know the strategy and all the evidence the state has via an immunity as it would help the state, IMO. Once the cat is out of the bag, if the defense lost at immunity, everything the defense has is out there not only for the State to see but the public as well. I think that could be much more harmful for the defense than the state.
I agree that it's very early in discovery and O'Mara is still looking at the evidence, and that if he determines the State has a strong case he may very well advise his client not to request an immunity hearing. It will take time of course to make that determination. I was just saying that in lots of these SYG cases, the evidence is so strong in favor of the defendant and weak for the State, that an immunity hearing is requested fairly early on in order to bring the whole thing to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Seems that may not be the situation here in this case though.
Thanks for brainstorming........this is Fun!
For me it's fun and educational!
I do have this feeling that Zimmerman may be stubborn, cocky and believe himself well versed in the law and may against his lawyer's advice request the immunity hearing...If this is the case it's possible O'Mara may drop him at a later date, if the judge allows, because GZ is refusing to listen to reason therefore it's impossible to properly defend him We have seen that this is what may have happened with his ex attorneys...
EDIT: I posted this before I read your post, it would seem we both agree about GZ's stubbornness LOL...
Yes, the ignorance is he pushed an ABC office who didn't identify himself. Some "violent" assault there!
Why would he shove the guy? For what exactly? Accounts of the incident ALL say that Zimmerman initiated the contact.
LMAO....it's amazing how you guys cheer on the cops as long as they're clunking some black dude over the head, but if a white guy is the culprit, then there is NO WAY that he's at fault.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....this is Fun! 
We have seen that this is what may have happened with his ex attorneys...
