Alan Dershowitz says Zimmerman charge a no-go.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, the baiting continues...

Baiting? Who's baiting who about what?  


I guess I should make my points before this thread is locked, like all the others.

You said "second degree murder was the very first law I cited when challenged to explain what law Zimmerman broke." As for it being a stretch, you repeatedly said that Zimmerman had almost no chance of escaping conviction. You repeatedly said that anyone who doesn't see things your way is "making excuses" for Zimmerman. Since Dershowitz doesn't have any apparent reason for a pro-Zimmerman bias (the opposite, in fact), what is your supposition? That he's sticking up for Zimmerman because of his Jewish surname?

[birdman]

Ah, the baiting continues - but in this case for no reason, as I've already commeneted that murder two seemed a stretch. See previous locked threads where I quoted both statutes and said as much.

 Dershowitz appears not to realise that the charge already got through a judge on a probable cause standard.. The question now is whether the evidence supports the allegations, which he wrote three days ago is certainly possible for manslaughter, although he thinks we need to wait for the facts at trial.  

Dershowitz's comment is here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/alan-dershowitz/the-rorschach-facts-in-th_b_1418441.html. I will quote his statements, which, unlike his prediction that the charges wont get past a judge (they already did), make some sense:
Funny how hard we can scream "not enough facts!" when facing an argument we disagree with, and simultaneously declare "innocent!".

They haven't gotten through a judge YET on the Pre-trial hearing (which is what Dershowitz refers to).  Swearing out an arrest warrant on the indictment is not what he is referring to, but rather the Pre-trial motion hearing, which, to the best of my knowledge, has already occurred.  The arrest warrant signing does not involve any -substantial- argument on evidence or even the discussion (to the level that Dershowitz is describing) of the probable cause, and is likely even more influenced by the outside issues, again, to the best of my lay-person knowledge.

In the Pre-trial motion hearing (before the jury is empaneled) we will see the discussion referred to, and the associated arguments, at which time, a likely motion to dismiss will be filed, as sufficient evidence for probable cause in bringing the specific charges has not been presented.  Additionally, that hearing, I believe, is the first where omitted excupitory evidence will be addressed, as evidence that the charge is invalid--as it is the first adversarial hearing.

[De Selby]

Birdman, dershowitz clearly said the charging document was insufficient and wouldn't get past a judge, butnitndid - what happens next is a hearing about whether the evidence, if judged true, would be sufficient to convict.   Dershowitz was claiming the case wouldn't even get to that.

Lots of things can now happen before trial, but they won't be based on the assertion that the charging instrument hasnt made out the crime - that issue is already settled.   Now the arguments will be about whether the evidence, even in theory, can support the charge.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

someone needs to tell dershowitz hes being surpassed.....   probably worry him

[birdman]

Birdman, dershowitz clearly said the charging document was insufficient and wouldn't get past a judge, butnitndid - what happens next is a hearing about whether the evidence, if judged true, would be sufficient to convict.   Dershowitz was claiming the case wouldn't even get to that.

Lots of things can now happen before trial, but they won't be based on the assertion that the charging instrument hasnt made out the crime - that issue is already settled.   Now the arguments will be about whether the evidence, even in theory, can support the charge.

What judge ruled on this?  As far as I know, no ruling was required.  The prosecutor swore out an indictment, and an arrest warrant, while requiring a judges signature, does not require review of the indictment. 

Dershowitz was specifically referring to the Pre-trial immunity hearing, as he also does in this article:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Trayvon-George-Zimmerman-/2012/04/12/id/435704

So tell me again, what judge ruled on this, and why do you believe that Dershowitz was referring to that, and not the Pre-trial hearings?

[birdman]

Additionally, tell me where on this document:
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

Is a judges signature?  Hmmm?  I can only see the prosecutors and the notary....

As this is the document you state "got past a judge".

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

if you and dershowitz were real lawyers......  oh wait  one of you is

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of last resort,” “America’s most public Jewish defender” and “Israel’s single most visible defender – the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.” He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.

well sorta .... if you think yale law school counts
surprised they let him teach at harvard
probably gave him a special dispensation for this

. AAt Yale Law School, he graduated first in his class and served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal.

and this was affirmative action obviously

fter clerking for Chief Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg, he was appointed to the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 and became a full professor at age 28, the youngest in the school's history. Since that time, he has taught courses in criminal law, psychiatry and law, constitutional litigation, civil liberties and violence, comparative criminal law, legal ethics, human rights, the Bible and justice, great trials, neurobiology and the law, and a collaborative philosophy course called "Thinking About Thinking."



Dershowitz has been called the "winningest appellate criminal defense lawyer in history." Over the course of his 35-year career as a lawyer, Dershowitz has won more than 100 cases—a remarkable record for a part-time litigator who handles primarily criminal appeals, which generally have a very low rate of reversal. Dershowitz takes half of his cases on a pro bono basis and continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and causes. In a series of recent moot courts, he has defended Jesus (hung jury), Abraham (acquitted) and Hamen (convicted but sentence commuted to life imprisonment). In the summer of 2003, he participated in a highly praised televised mock trial of Pete Rose on ESPN. He has been a consultant to several presidential commissions and has testified before congressional committees on numerous occasions, including as a witness against President Clinton's impeachment. He has advised presidents, United Nations officials, prime ministers, governors, senators, and members of Congress as well as business leaders about legal and political issues. He has also represented and consulted with major media companies on free-speech issues. He helped obtain the largest fee in history for lawyers against the cigarette industry.

[Gewehr98]

"Baiting"? Really?

You know, for an ex-pat lawyer you're pretty friggin' thin-skinned, SS...  

Where, exactly, is this anti-Semitism you speak of?

Danged if I can find it...

[Perd Hapley]

In a series of recent moot courts, he has defended Jesus (hung jury), Abraham (acquitted) and Hamen (convicted but sentence commuted to life imprisonment).

Had no idea he was that old.



And Gewehr, "baiting" apparently means "citing people who disagree" now.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

musta busted some chops at harvard to allow someone from "that other school" to be such a big deal there.  and at his age he likely has some idea of what REAL antisemitism is

[Perd Hapley]

Yikes. I didn't mean to provoke such a Dershowitz love-fest. 

And can somebody fill me in on anti-semitism something? Where did that come from?

[Monkeyleg]

I'm amazed that Dershowitz would even say this. He's very liberal, and certainly anti-gun, although he recognizes the SC's decision. Some legal types are in denial about that.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

while a liberal hes also a real lawyer.  doesn't try to alter reality to fit his agenda. that why paying a good lawyer is worth it.   to hear the truth

[Hutch]

Also AD seeks the camera.  In any big case, the media line is "Dershowitz was unavoidable for comment".

[roo_ster]

Also AD seeks the camera.  In any big case, the media line is "Dershowitz was unavoidable for comment".

Though I hear he is not nearly as dangerous as Sen Schumer if you get between him and a camera.

[De Selby]

"Baiting"? Really?

You know, for an ex-pat lawyer you're pretty friggin' thin-skinned, SS...  

Where, exactly, is this anti-Semitism you speak of?

Danged if I can find it...

I don't like the implication that I would think Dershowitz's comments have something to do with his last name, that's what I meant. 

Fistful, baiting is inviting me to "set Dershowitz straight", not your comment.

Ok, so we have Dershowitz in writing saying there seems to be enough evidence for a trial, but we are seizing on his prediction that the charge will not get through a judge.  Well, it's easy to evaluate that one, because the probable cause hearing already happened.

Birdman, the pre-trial immunity hearing will evaluate evidence that the defence is available.   It doesn't have anything to do with whether the charge was made out by that instrument, which, incidentally, only empowers the state to detain Zimmerman if a judge finds there is probable cause to proceed (as Judge Herr did.)

The question of whether the "confrontation" and "profiling" alleged in the Affidavit are sufficiently depraved behaviors to meet the law depends on the evidence; the charge itself is already made out.  Dershowitz is clearly referring to the affidavit of probable cause in that interview, and his prediction was not correct.

[geronimotwo]

"Baiting"? Really?

Perhaps he needs DeSelby to staighten him out ... 

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful, baiting is inviting me to "set Dershowitz straight", not your comment.

I honestly did not know that talking about people was considered baiting.

[AJ Dual]

I honestly did not know that talking about people was considered baiting.

Could explain how much weight he throws on the "confrontation" and the "profiling". (shrug)

[Perd Hapley]

 

[birdman]

I don't like the implication that I would think Dershowitz's comments have something to do with his last name, that's what I meant. 

Fistful, baiting is inviting me to "set Dershowitz straight", not your comment.

Ok, so we have Dershowitz in writing saying there seems to be enough evidence for a trial, but we are seizing on his prediction that the charge will not get through a judge.  Well, it's easy to evaluate that one, because the probable cause hearing already happened.

Birdman, the pre-trial immunity hearing will evaluate evidence that the defence is available.   It doesn't have anything to do with whether the charge was made out by that instrument, which, incidentally, only empowers the state to detain Zimmerman if a judge finds there is probable cause to proceed (as Judge Herr did.)

The question of whether the "confrontation" and "profiling" alleged in the Affidavit are sufficiently depraved behaviors to meet the law depends on the evidence; the charge itself is already made out.  Dershowitz is clearly referring to the affidavit of probable cause in that interview, and his prediction was not correct.

Either You or Dershowitz doesnt have a concept of temporal reality...
Dershowitz said:

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

And you say he is referring to the probable cause hearing?

That would make him a compete moron, since he said it AFTER the probable cause hearing occurred.  (MSNBC hardball is at 7pm, the affidavit and the results of the hearing were released at 6pm (approx).  So why would he make that statement about a hearing THAT HAD ALREADY OCCURED, AND WHICH GENERATED THE DOCUMENT HE WAS REFERRING TO?

So either Dershowitz wasn't following the actual news, for a case he is on live TV to comment on...or he was referring to the later hearing.

Which, if you read the article he wrote THE FOLLOWING DAY, he refers to specifically.

So basically, good job back pedaling, and get your facts right counselor.

[AJ Dual]

  ^^^

My honest gut reaction over it all is this:

1. All the prosecutors who've looked at the Zimmerman case have felt the shooting and the totality of it's circumstances are such that "beyond a reasonable doubt" for manslaughter 1-2-3 or murder 1-2-3 is impossible.

2. Yet they desperately want a trial to avoid unrest.

3. A trial buys them time, maybe even years, for things to calm down.

4. If it's not the opening gambit for a plea deal, they may purposely be overreaching on the charges so the prosecutors can wash their hands of the case, and lay blame on the court and the jury. Or they actually see it as a roundabout way to give Zimmerman justice, seeing as they think it's likely he'd be found not guilty of Murder 2, or of any charges that would placate the segments of the public up in arms about this, and yet create enough of a dog-n-pony show to placate them.

[De Selby]

Birdman, yeah, I think he simply did not remember that it had already gone to a judge.

The pre-trial immunity hearing is not about the charging instrument.  It's about evidence put on by the defense to support an independent claim of self defense..  If that's what Dershowitz meant, it makes no sense whatsoever - the hearings to come will evaluate whether theres enough evidence to support the charge.  Whether the affidavit is sufficient to make out the crime has already been decided and is no longer in issue.

Is it possible a talking head on tv simply didn't consider what he was saying at the moment?  Yeah.

[De Selby]

AJ, no prosecutor in America charges someone with murder as part of a complex scheme to set them free.  That would be insane.

Two prosecutors have looked at this case, one of them agreed with the homicide investigator who recommended charges on the night of the shooting, and the other did not.

Edit:  national review has a very good debate on this going between two experienced lawyers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295942/three-legal-keys-trayvon-martin-affidavit-david-french

Reply 1:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy#more

And 2: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296014/re-martin-case-affidavit-david-french

[gunsmith]

^^^

My honest gut reaction over it all is this:

1. All the prosecutors who've looked at the Zimmerman case have felt the shooting and the totality of it's circumstances are such that "beyond a reasonable doubt" for manslaughter 1-2-3 or murder 1-2-3 is impossible.

2. Yet they desperately want a trial to avoid unrest.

3. A trial buys them time, maybe even years, for things to calm down.

4. If it's not the opening gambit for a plea deal, they may purposely be overreaching on the charges so the prosecutors can wash their hands of the case, and lay blame on the court and the jury. Or they actually see it as a roundabout way to give Zimmerman justice, seeing as they think it's likely he'd be found not guilty of Murder 2, or of any charges that would placate the segments of the public up in arms about this, and yet create enough of a dog-n-pony show to placate them.

Sounds entirely plausible. The D.A talking to the media was going on and on, sounded like she was running for office not announcing charges.

Now that he has been arrested its hardly mentioned anymore, wouldn't it be great if they let him loose with a not guilty during some kind of national meltdown or big news event. ... Sandford cant afford the police overtime of huge protest.