Justice department wanting to charge Zimmerman with a hate crime? WTF?

[CosmicCowboy]

More Obama/Holder grandstanding and pandering to their base...stupid

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/

SANFORD, Fla. — WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.
State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.
Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin in February during a confrontation. However, he claims the shooting was in self-defense. He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.
FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.
Martin was unarmed when he was shot to death, police said, and some accuse Zimmerman of targeting the teenager solely because of the color of his skin.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said federal prosecutors would have to prove the hate crime to charge Zimmerman, though.
“What the government would have to prove is that Mr. Zimmerman acted out of hatred toward African-Americans. That's why he came into contact with him. That's why he shot and killed him," Sheaffer said.
Sheaffer said a federal hate crime murder charge could bring more serious consequences than the second-degree murder charge Zimmerman faces now.
“Mr. Zimmerman could be punished by up to life in prison or even the death penalty,” said Sheaffer.
Zimmerman said he used deadly force in self-defense after Martin punched him, knocked him to the ground and repeatedly slammed his head against a sidewalk.
As of late Monday, Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, told WFTV that he's gotten the first prosecution documents containing the evidence against his client. O’Mara said he's gotten a redacted witness list with 22 witnesses listed only as numbers.
O’Mara said he believes there are recorded interviews and some documents, but he said he hasn't even opened it yet.
Prosecutors are required to release information to the defense and the public
However, O'Mara, wants Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to keep some of the key evidence, especially witness statements, out of the public eye by writing a motion to keep it sealed.
O'Mara posted a statement on Zimmerman's website that said, "We doubt any of them (witnesses) enjoy the scrutiny they are under due to the coincidence of their involvement in such a high-profile matter."
In the meantime, a photograph recently surfaced which is said to show Zimmerman's mother in the arms of her grandfather, who is black.
Zimmerman's mother testified at his bond hearing that she has met the black child whom he mentored and even risked his safety in a dangerous neighborhood to do it, because he didn't want to abandon the child.
State prosecutors said Zimmerman gave several inconsistent statements to Sanford police, which is, in part, their basis for charging him with second-degree murder.

[Winehole23]

handing over a numbered list without names surely can't count as fair disclosure to the defense. that struck me as a little weird, but it I was also impressed by O'Mara's zeal to bid for even more things to be sealed. it looks inequitable for one side to be protected by court ordered secrecy and the other not.

[Winehole23]

most particularly when the other party is the US Government

[coyotes_geek]

handing over a numbered list without names surely can't count as fair disclosure to the defense. that struck me as a little weird, but it I was also impressed by O'Mara's zeal to bid for even more things to be sealed. it looks inequitable for one side to be protected by court ordered secrecy and the other not.

Is that really all that big a big deal before the decision whether or not to file charges has been made? Seems like the judge doesn't want witnesses to get harrassed which IMO is a legit concern. Granted those concerns shouldn't trump Zimmerman's right to full and fair disclosure, but doesn't it make some sense to wait and see if there are going to be charges first?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is that really all that big a big deal before the decision whether or not to file charges has been made? Seems like the judge doesn't want witnesses to get harrassed which IMO is a legit concern. Granted those concerns shouldn't trump Zimmerman's right to full and fair disclosure, but doesn't it make some sense to wait and see if there are going to be charges first?

I'm confused by your response. There is already a charge of 2nd Degree Murder.

They are doing discovery in preparation for trial.

I agree with Winehole...it seems that the defense would need to know who said what in order to fully understand the context of the witness statements.

[coyotes_geek]

[/U][/B]

I'm confused by your response. There is already a charge of 2nd Degree Murder.

They are doing discovery in preparation for trial.

I agree with Winehole...it seems that the defense would need to know who said what in order to fully understand the context of the witness statements.

I thought the statements in question were related to the feds investigation for the hate crime?

[Winehole23]

Is that really all that big a big deal before the decision whether or not to file charges has been made? Seems like the judge doesn't want witnesses to get harrassed which IMO is a legit concern. Granted those concerns shouldn't trump Zimmerman's right to full and fair disclosure, but doesn't it make some sense to wait and see if there are going to be charges first?good point.


(meekly withdraws)

[clambake]

22 witnesses? he must have shared his true feelings with several different people.

[coyotes_geek]

good point.


(meekly withdraws)

CC has me second guessing myself.

[clambake]

CC has me second guessing myself.

why?

[Winehole23]

about what?

[coyotes_geek]

why?


about what?

Whether or not the info the judge is keeping under wraps is related to the federal hate crime case or the state's murder case.

[clambake]

o'mara wasn't exactly specific about things he wants hidden.

[Winehole23]

Whether or not the info the judge is keeping under wraps is related to the federal hate crime case or the state's murder case.hmm. at first I was confused about that, then I had myself convinced that the sealing related to information disclosed prior to the possible filing of federal civil rights charges.

did something make you doubt that? just curious.

[clambake]

the FBI is "looking-in" to charging him with a hate crime. why should they give o'mara this discovery before making the decision?

[coyotes_geek]

hmm. at first I was confused about that, then I had myself convinced that the sealing related to information disclosed prior to the possible filing of federal civil rights charges.

did something make you doubt that? just curious.

I had the same first impression that you did, but CC's comment left me wondering whether the feds were mulling over the same stuff the state had or whether they had gathered their own.

[CosmicCowboy]

Y'all are confused. The discovery in question is related to the states charges. It had already been scheduled to be released to the defense yesterday before the news about the FBI hate crime investigation.

[clambake]

Y'all are confused. The discovery in question is related to the states charges. It had already been scheduled to be released to the defense yesterday before the news about the FBI hate crime investigation.

he wants much of it hidden. how do you know he's not getting all the discovery from the state charge?

[clambake]

lol about the picture being released.

[CosmicCowboy]

he wants much of it hidden. how do you know he's not getting all the discovery from the state charge?

I suspect he wants it hidden just to avoid the next wave of media frenzy when it's released. It's gonna be hard enough to get a jury picked as it is...

[clambake]

sure, but he's already complaining publicly about it, and he said he hasn't even opened some of the evidence yet.

[clambake]

releasing that picture was pure bush league.

[CosmicCowboy]

sure, but he's already complaining publicly about it, and he said he hasn't even opened some of the evidence yet.

Look...the way it normally works is that when the prosecutor releases it's evidence to the defense attorney it becomes "public knowledge" that same evidence becomes available for access and use by the news media. In some high profile cases the judges have used their discretion and kept the evidence sealed (from the public) until trial. That is what Zimmerman's attorney is asking for and all the major media outlets are petitioning for their release. There is no doubt that this is a high profile case and that the judge is within his right to keep the evidence sealed (from the public) until the trial.

[clambake]

sure, i get that.

on another front, i don't think he should have waived his rights to a speedy trial.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I suspect he wants it hidden just to avoid the next wave of media frenzy when it's released. It's gonna be hard enough to get a jury picked as it is...

Yeah. the last time a crime with this type of profile happened the outcome resulted in race riots around the country. I can understand the desire to tread lightly and not make a spectacle of this afterward for all manner of reasons.

[Winehole23]

Yeah. the last time a crime with this type of profile happened the outcome resulted in race riots around the country.Rodney King?

[CosmicCowboy]

he wants much of it hidden. how do you know he's not getting all the discovery from the state charge?

I don't understand your question.

The prosecutor is required to give all his information to the defense.

The defense is requesting that the same information not be given to the press to avoid his client being tried in the media before ever getting to court.

Kind of like we are doing in here...:lol

[TheSkeptic]

Rodney King?

Didn't a crime actually take place there though? Bad verdict or something like that right?

For the record, I didn't think the Justice Department would try to nab him for a hate crime. I assume though that they have some evidence leaning in that direction though I have no idea what. So does this mean Zimmerman would be standing trial twice or what happens if there's a hate crime charge on top of Murder 2?

As for witness harassment, they could just release the info while blacking out stuff like the names and addresses. Unless O'Mara isn't looking to protect witnesses so much as stall for time I would think something like that would be a compromise everyone could live with.

[clambake]

I don't understand your question.

The prosecutor is required to give all his information to the defense.

The defense is requesting that the same information not be given to the press to avoid his client being tried in the media before ever getting to court.

Kind of like we are doing in here...:lol

nevermind. somewhere i got the idea that some thought they weren't getting all the discovery. if that were true, it'd be suicide for the prosecution.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other than the accusation of rape in NC I cannot really think of another one that was a violent crime with racial overtones that was pimped like King was. Did i miss one?

[CosmicCowboy]

nevermind. somewhere i got the idea that some thought they weren't getting all the discovery. if that were true, it'd be suicide for the prosecution.

The only thing it appears they aren't getting is names of witnesses matched to their statements. To a certain extent IMHO this is holding back pertinent evidence because it puts the statements in context when you know who made them and when they made them.

[Wild Cobra]

The only thing it appears they aren't getting is names of witnesses matched to their statements. To a certain extent IMHO this is holding back pertinent evidence because it puts the statements in context when you know who made them and when they made them.

It seems to me it would be illegal to do this.

[clambake]

The only thing it appears they aren't getting is names of witnesses matched to their statements. To a certain extent IMHO this is holding back pertinent evidence because it puts the statements in context when you know who made them and when they made them.

i'm sure they get that in the back room. it just won't be published.