Trayvon Case Investigation

[TXgolfer]

COREY: We have to have a reasonable certainty of conviction before we file charges. Anytime, there is an affirmative defense that there are numerous affirmative defenses that`s can be asserted before the arrest, immediately after the arrest, during the trial. We have had them come up in the middle of trial, haven`t we? My fellow prosecutors that his here we have all faced this before.
For example, alibi is an affirmative defense. Sometimes that gets put on us in the middle of a trial. So, when affirmative defense always next to criminal prosecution more difficult. We do everything within our power to take the facts we have at hand and prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

 

[TXgolfer]

BTW....Angela Corey is an active Republican...... So you know she is a bad seed now.

 

[Jiro]

LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

ah

that's little better since that paragraph contains grammatical error so I'm guessing it's an erroneous transcribing job. but I still don't understand your posts below. She's just explaining.

Apparently she didn't even know the definition of affirmative defense.

Pretty funny that the greatness of Angela Corey claimed "alibi" was an affirmative defense in her speech today.... She must have missed a day or 2 in law school

 

[TXgolfer]

ah

that's little better since that paragraph contains grammatical error so I'm guessing it's an erroneous transcribing job. but I still don't understand your posts below. She's just explaining.

"Alibi" is pretty much the antithesis of "affirmative defense" Has nothing to do with this case. Just an incorrect statement.

 

[kokonut]

You are absolutely incorrect. First of all I am not "pro-Zimmerman" I am pro-truth.

Second I have never said "stand your ground" WOULD apply in this case.

TXgolfer made it very clear in this thread that he's for the truth. And get to the facts at hand produced in court with all of the evidence first rather than make assumptions based on little evidence available now.

 

[Jiro]

"Alibi" is pretty much the antithesis of "affirmative defense" Has nothing to do with this case. Just an incorrect statement.

well - I'm assuming that in her 26+ years as prosecutor with extensive experiences in homicide cases, she knows exactly what she's talking about so it's probably not a great idea to correct her statement unless you know exactly what you're talking about.

just to double-check, my quick google search shows that her statement is correct.

Using Affirmative Defense in a Criminal Case | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com

Alibi, which as the Latin translation approximates, states a defendant was “elsewhere” at the time of the alleged crime. Coupled with sufficient proof of whereabouts away from a crime scene, an alibi is a solid affirmative defense strategy.

Colorado Criminal Affirmative Defenses - Colorado Springs Gustafson Law Office

Alibi is an affirmative defense to certain crimes or their lesser included offenses - that the defendant was in another location at the time of commission of the alleged offense(s). Defendant must allege where he / she was located, and offer evidence thereof. If any credible alibi evidence is presented that the defendant was in a location other than that alleged at the time of commission of the alleged offenses, the prosecution has the burden of proving was not present in the location claimed, but present at the location of the alleged crime at the relevant date and time.

SOURCE: McGregor v. People, 490 P.2d 287, 176 Colo. 309 (1971)
Hampton v. People, 465 P.2d 112, 171 Colo. 101 (1970)
People v. Villa, 605 P.2d 481, 43 Colo. App. 284 (1979)
CRS 16-7-102 and CRS 18-1-407

Florida Criminal Law: Defenses - Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney

Affirmative Defenses
Under certain circumstances, Florida law allows a person to raise an Affirmative Defense, which does not deny that an offense occurred, but that the conduct was legally justified.

The most common Affirmative Defenses are:

Alibi
Duress
Entrapment
Insanity
Necessity
Self Defense
When an Affirmative Defense is raised, the defendant must present some evidence to support the defense. If such evidence is presented, the burden shift back to the State to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

Definitions of Terms Relating to Law and Social Change

affirmative defense

affirmative defense - A defense which the accused could raise in support of his/her innocence, such as an alibi. It is called affirmative because it requires positive action on the part of the defendant, who must proffer the alibi. If the defendant fails to proffer the alibit, or other defense, at the appropriate moment in the legal proceedings it is lost. The prosecution is under no obligation to bring up the defendant's alibi.

 

[TXgolfer]

well - I'm assuming that in her 26+ years as prosecutor with extensive experiences in homicide cases, she knows exactly what she's talking about so it's probably not a great idea to correct her statement unless you know exactly what you're talking about.

just to double-check, my quick google search shows that her statement is correct.

Using Affirmative Defense in a Criminal Case | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com


Colorado Criminal Affirmative Defenses - Colorado Springs Gustafson Law Office


Florida Criminal Law: Defenses - Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney


Definitions of Terms Relating to Law and Social Change

Yup.....there is that....

 

[TXgolfer]

Then there is this...

An Alibi is Not an Affirmative Defense
State v. Lynch, 2011 UT App 1 (Utah Court of Appeals January 6, 2011).
Lynch was convicted of 1st degree murder and asserted an alibi of not being able to commit the murder because he was at Costco. Defendant was convicted and appealed. Defendant argued that his alibi was an affirmative defense and therefore the jury should have been instructed that the State must disprove his alibi. The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that an alibi is not an affirmative defense, but is a refutation of the allegation itself because an alibi presents the defense that the Defendant did not actually commit the crime. An affirmative defense is one in which the Defendant admits the act, but disputes the criminal nature of the act. The State is not required to disprove an alibi defense. Affirmed.

Utah Criminal Blawg: An Alibi is Not an Affirmative Defense

An alibi is not an affirmative defense. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974). Unlike an affirmative defense (where the accused admits to the essential act, but attempts to excuse or justify the act) the alibi operates to deny that the accused was the person who committed the offense in the first place. In effect, a defendant raising an alibi defenses says: “Perhaps a criminal act occurred. However, I wasn’t there at the time of the incident, so I could not be the person who committed the act. I therefore deny your allegations.”

Alibi Defense Under Florida Law : Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer

The following are some of the defenses to a crime in Oregon, divided by type of defense:

Affirmative Defenses (Defendant has burden)

insanity

medical need for marijuana

extreme emotional disturbance as a defense to murder

peyote use in religious ceremony



Case-in-chief defenses (State has burden)

alibi

intoxication

self-defense/defense of others

duress

choice of evils

entrapment



Here is a little more information about some common affirmative and case-in-chief defenses.

Alibi. The defendant must give the State written notice ahead of time of his intent to use this defense. This is to allow the State to prepare to counter the alibi. If the defendant gives written notice, the State has the burden of proof to show that the alibi is false.

Defenses to Crimes | Helpful Legal Advice from Portland Oregon Attorney Kevin Lucey

ALIBI DEFENSE

An alibi means that a defendant was at a place at the time of an offense where he or she could not have participated in the offense. Although an alibi defense is not an affirmative defense, it does involve the negation of an element of the prosecution's case against a defendant. The defendant does not have the burden of proving his or her alibi. The prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the offense. The alibi defense contradicts the allegations of an indictment or an information against the defendant and casts doubt about whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof.

Some courts have held that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on an alibi defense when the defendant presents evidence that he or she was at a place at the time of an offense that made it impossible for him or her to commit the offense. Other courts have held that jury instructions on the presumption of the innocence of the defendant and on the prosecution's burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt encompass the alibi defense and that the defendant is not entitled to a separate jury instruction on the alibi defense.

If a defendant produces evidence of an alibi, a jury is entitled to reject the defendant's alibi evidence and to find the defendant guilty of an offense. Even if the prosecution fails to rebut the defendant's alibi evidence, the jury is not required to find the defendant's alibi evidence credible or to find the defendant not guilty of the offense. The jury is entitled to weigh the credibility of the defendant's alibi evidence.

If a defendant's alibi evidence raises the issue of a perpetrator's identity, the prosecution may introduce extraneous evidence that connects the defendant with an offense in order to negate the defendant's alibi evidence. However, the extraneous evidence must connect the defendant with the alleged offense in order to be admissible.

ALIBI DEFENSE

Or this...

In support of his due process argument, Huckleberry suggests that the Colorado Supreme Court misinterpreted its century-old McNamara decision in its Huckleberry opinion. He also cites to several Colorado Supreme Court cases that have referred to the alibi defense as an affirmative defense. We decline to consider the status of Colorado law after McNamara and prior to this case when the Colorado Supreme Court already has done so. In deciding that the defense of alibi is not an affirmative defense, the Colorado Supreme Court clearly stated that it was reaffirming its conclusion in McNamara and that the two intervening Court of Appeals decisions--decided "without stating ... reasons or making any reference to ... McNamara"--are in conflict with the long-standing rule that the defense of alibi is not an affirmative defense. People v. Huckleberry, 768 P.2d 1235, 1239 (Colo.1989). The interpretation of the Colorado Supreme Court with respect to the meaning of its previous state law decisions is binding on this court. Wainright v. Goode, 464 U.S. 78, 84 (1983).

946 F.2d 901: John Francis Huckleberry, Petitioner-appellant, v. Frank Gunter, Executive Director, Colorado Department Ofcorrections, Canon City, Colorado, Respondent-appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

 

[Jiro]

Then there is this...

well - since I've shown you proof that alibi can be and is legally recognized as an affirmative defense and you've shown me that alibi cannot be an affirmative action... then you should know that in every legal case, it would depends on legal interpretation, circumstance, state laws, etc whether or not if it is applicable. so in Zimmerman's case, it may possibly be applicable. She merely said "for example....." because I'm sure that in her years of extensive experience with hundreds of homicide and Stand Your Ground cases, she has seen all kinds of tricks in defense lawyer's playbook and she's ready for it.

Bottom Line - "alibi is an affirmative defense" is not an incorrect statement. Here's a full Q/A transcript -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Ms. Corey, are you confident that you have the evidence for conviction.

COREY: We have to have a reasonable certainty of conviction before we file charges. Anytime, there is an affirmative defense that there are numerous affirmative defenses that`s can be asserted before the arrest, immediately after the arrest, during the trial. We have had them come up in the middle of trial, haven`t we? My fellow prosecutors that his here we have all faced this before.

For example, alibi is an affirmative defense. Sometimes that gets put on us in the middle of a trial. So, when affirmative defense always next to criminal prosecution more difficult. We do everything within our power to take the facts we have at hand and prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

in fact, your post just proved you wrong.

If a defendant produces evidence of an alibi, a jury is entitled to reject the defendant's alibi evidence and to find the defendant guilty of an offense. Even if the prosecution fails to rebut the defendant's alibi evidence, the jury is not required to find the defendant's alibi evidence credible or to find the defendant not guilty of the offense. The jury is entitled to weigh the credibility of the defendant's alibi evidence.

So I think it's best if we..... let it be since these professionals know exactly what they're doing and what they're talking about. After all... there is not a single article that question or refute Corey's "incorrect" statement.

 

[airportcop]

you do realize that Zimmerman is facing 2 legal cases? the state and federal (well not yet but it's still under investigation).

Only if they can prove it was a hate crime! Not yet! I doubt they can prove that he hates blacks and targeted Travon and that it was premeditated.

 

[airportcop]

I am not Black and I had not quiet down ! I want Zimmerman in jail for a long time! The cops told people on neighborhood watch not to carry a gun and not to follow a person . Zimmerman did that anyway! I wanted to go to Floria and protest too.

By the way, the cops can't tell anyone who has a concealed carry permit to not carry their gun.

 

[airportcop]

HUH?? this has nothing to do Obama being Black.

Just keep convincing yourself about that! That is why he made the comment that if he had a son he would look like Travon. Also why Holder is involved. Election time!!!!

 

[Jiro]

Only if they can prove it was a hate crime! Not yet! I doubt they can prove that he hates blacks and targeted Travon and that it was premeditated.

then you do understand that the feds are needed to be involved in order to investigate whether or not if it's a hate crime?

 

[kokonut]

It's just crazy....all these people with the lynch mob mentality.

Yeah, pretty much what I said a month ago.

 

[CrazyPaul]

As for now, GZ is charged for 2nd degree murder but he's innocent until proven guilty under the court law. We have to wait and see how he will plead when he first appears in the court. If he pleads not guilty, then a DA must prove that he didn't kill TM in self-defense.

I am curious what evidences they have to show in court. It reminds me of OJ's murder case. It must be thrilling to watch if the court will allow it in public hopefully.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Hey, Jiro, I have a question for you since you know alot about stuffs. Is a licensed gun owner allowed to carry a gun or leave it in a car for protection anywhere?

 

[VacationGuy234]

OJ's case was more about a lack of established chain-of-command with investigative protocol in the past. This has changed greatly in the many years since then.

Depending on the jury, this case is going to ultimately be about individual experiences. The jury is going to vote largely with the guidance of personal experience. If they have been harassed by police and profiled in the past, it could be verdict of guilty of second degree murder. If they have not, it could range from not guilty to other options given by the judge. In the O.J. verdict, it was not based on the evidence so much as the fact that the jurors hated the police. The same will be true in this case, I believe.

The jury is going to be made up of the same people who are arguing about this case today.

 

[airportcop]

Hey, Jiro, I have a question for you since you know alot about stuffs. Is a licensed gun owner allowed to carry a gun or leave it in a car for protection anywhere?

Depends on what state you are in and where you go literally. Some buildings prohibit it such as schools and courthouses, lots of government buildings and some private businesses. Laws vary from state to state and even some in certain cities. So the basic answer to your question is no or it depends!

 

[Jiro]

As for now, GZ is charged for 2nd degree murder but he's innocent until proven guilty under the court law. We have to wait and see how he will plead when he first appears in the court. If he pleads not guilty, then a DA must prove that he didn't kill TM in self-defense.

of COURSE he's going to plead not guilty. everybody does.

I am curious what evidences they have to show in court. It reminds me of OJ's murder case. It must be thrilling to watch if the court will allow it in public hopefully.

how does this share any similarity to OJ Simpson case?

 

[CrazyPaul]

Depends on what state you are in and where you go literally. Some buildings prohibit it such as schools and courthouses, lots of government buildings and some private businesses. Laws vary from state to state and even some in certain cities. So the basic answer to your question is no or it depends!

Thanks for the answer. I know any weapons are not allowed in those places but I was asking if it allows the owners to carry their gun outside of their homes like on the streets. However you said it depends on their states. The point is that Jiro said GZ shouldn't carry a licensed gun like that. Correct me if I am wrong.