Lots of new evidence, including photos, video, audio, and 200 pages of documents, have been released in the Trayvon Martin case, some helpful to George Zimmerman‘s defense and some not.
First, according to photos and police reports, Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts to the back of his head. Martin had only a cut on his finger in addition to the fatal gunshot wound to his chest. Zimmerman’s injuries seem to support his claim of self-defense…but the relative lack of injuries to Martin could argue against that theory that they were engaged in a violent physical fight before the shooting.
Released earlier by ABC News, medical records from Zimmerman’s doctor go into more detail about his injuries. He had a “closed fracture” of his nose, two black eyes, two cuts to the back of his head, a bruise to his lip, and a back injury the day after the shooting.
Continue reading…
Appeals have been winding their way through the court system in two high-profile Massachusetts federal cases that The Freedom Bulletin has been following:
In the Gary Sampson case, prosecutors today got the right to appeal the ruling that granted the convicted murderer a new sentencing hearing. Sampson killed Jonathan Rizzo, Philip McCloskey, and Robert “Eli” Whitney during a 2001 spree, and he pleaded guilty to federal charges, making him eligible for the death penalty. In 2003, a jury voted to give him the ultimate punishment, a first in more than 50 years in Massachusetts. Today, Judge Mark Wolf issued a certificate of appealability, allowing the U.S. Attorney’s Office to lodge an appeal against his ruling last year to give Sampson a new penalty phase of his trial because a juror had lied about domestic violence in her past. This is called an interlocutory appeal because it is taking place before the sentencing re-trial, putting that proceeding on hold. The First Circuit Court of Appeals now gets to decide whether to hear the government’s appeal and, if yes, whether to grant it.
Source: Boston.com
Yesterday, oral arguments took place in the appeal of former Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner, who was convicted in 2010 of extortion under the color of official right (AKA taking a bribe). The main issue of debate before the First Circuit was the instructions that Judge Douglas Woodlock gave to the jury. Turner’s defense lawyer, Charles Rankin, argued that Judge Woodlock should have fully explained the difference between a “gratuity payment” and a bribe. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Lawrence argued that the jury instructions were fine and that Turner was clearly taking a bribe and not just a gratuity payment because he said to the FBI informant, ”You take care of me, I’ll take care of you. I’ll see you again.” A ruling will likely not be issued for a few months.
Source: Metro
The Internet is a great thing. It allows people to find information about almost anything without having to go to a library or bookstore, and allows people (like me!) to express their views who otherwise would not be able to. But that can actually be a bad thing, as many recent tweets about George Zimmerman illustrate.
Unsurprisingly, when Zimmerman was released on bail last night, hordes of angry, often not very intelligent people took to Twitter to proclaim things like, “Ima kill zimmerman myself,” and “I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS ASSS,” and “Start Writing Your Will! Justices Has Not Been Served.” *
And those are among the milder ones.
Continue reading…
Norwegian right-wing radical and self-proclaimed resistance fighter Anders Behring Breivik went on trial today for the shooting spree and bombing last summer that killed 77 people. “I admit to the acts, but not criminal guilt and I claim self-defense,” Breivik said in an Oslo courtroom. He refused to stand as the judge entered the room, saying that he does not recognize her authority. According to news reports, he showed no emotion or remorse as prosecutors outlined the deaths and the evidence against him. But he burst into tears as a nationalistic video that he had posted on YouTube was played.
Breivik has never denied that he carried out the bombing of a government building and shooting spree at a summer camp for teenagers organized by Norway’s Labor Party. He claims that he acted in self-defense, as part of a war against communism, multiculturalism, and immigration, which he believes are destroying Europe. And he plans to call fellow right-wing extremists and, from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, radical Muslims, to provide support for his views. Not surprisingly, although Norway has a legal principle of preventative self-defense, experts are skeptical of Breivik’s arguments.
Whether Breivik is competent to stand trial has been a matter of debate. One psychological evaluation concluded that he was insane, while a more recent one found him competent. Breivik himself strenuously objected to the initial findings, saying that spending the rest of his life in a mental institution would be worse than death and that deeming him mentally ill would destroy the political message that he is trying to give voice to. If Breivik’s competence is upheld, he faces up to 21 years in prison, but the sentence could be extended as long as authorities consider him a danger to society.
I actually agree with Breivik on this. If he chose to do what he did, and wants to be judged accordingly, then he should be. To treat someone as “sick” when they break the law implies that they lack freedom of choice, and treats them as less than a person. Instead, criminals should be treated as people who have free will and chose to do wrong. In every legal case, defendants should receive whatever punishment, if any, is determined to fit their actions. To overrule Breivik’s expressed beliefs about his own mental state and his desire to be held accountable for his actions is not only disrespectful to him, but is unjust for the victims and the general public.
Sources: AP, Telegraph
As almost the whole world knows, George Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin and is now in jail awaiting trial.
No matter what you think of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, Mike Tyson’s comments were just a bit excessive. This is what he said in an interview with Yahoo News:
“Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages. It’s a majority versus a minority. That’s the way God planned it. He didn’t want to do something about it, He wanted us to do something about it. And if we don’t, it’s gonna stay this way. We have to continue tweeting, we have to continue marching, we have to continue fighting for Trayvon Martin. If that’s not the case, he was killed in vain, and we’re just waiting for it to happen to our children. He’ll have gotten away with impunity. It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That’s the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It’s a disgrace that man hasn’t been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested–the fact that he hasn’t been shot yet is a disgrace. That’s how I feel personally about it.”
Yikes. How about letting the justice system run its course?
Appellate arguments took place before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Neil Entwistle, the British man who was convicted of murdering his wife, Rachel, and baby, Lillian, in 2008.
Entwistle’s appellate lawyer, Stephen Paul Maidman, argues that police violated the Fourth Amendment by searching Entwistle’s Hopkinton, MA home two times without warrants after Rachel’s family and friends became worried that she had not been in contact with them and had not answered the door for a planned dinner. Cops did not find the bodies of Rachel and Lillian, hidden under a blanket in their bed, until the second search. Maidman also claims that extensive, sensationalized, and biased publicity tainted the jury pool. Read Neil Entwistle’s appellate brief here, read the state’s brief here, and read my opinion here.
Entwistle himself was not present at today’s arguments, and neither was I, but here’s a recap of what went on according to news reports:
Continue reading…
The case of Neil Entwistle, the British man convicted in 2008 of the murders of his wife, Rachel, and 9-month-old daughter, Lillian, is heading to the Supreme Judicial Court. Entwistle and his appellate lawyer, Stephen Paul Maidman, are arguing that much of the evidence in the case should be thrown out and a new trial granted because police illegally searched his home twice, without a warrant, after family members and friends became concerned that they couldn’t get in touch with the Entwistles. Prosecutors argue that the police were justified in entering the home because of their function as community caretakers.
According to the Associated Press,
Police are allowed to enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis” to believe there may be someone inside who is injured or in immediate danger, said Suffolk University Law School professor Christopher Dearborn. Dearborn said he believes Entwistle has made a strong argument that police did not have enough evidence in this case to believe an emergency existed.
“The set of facts here may have given rise to concerns, but it also seems equally susceptible to innocuous explanations” as to what had happened to the Entwistles, Dearborn said.
“There is a very compelling argument that this was an illegal search,” he said.
Arguments are scheduled for April 6.
