Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman/Archive 1

Missing evidence of one of the Defense's main arguments
"Martin was not an unarmed teenager when he allegedly hit Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk"

So where are any signs of abrasions to his nose, forehead or anywhere? It can't be someone claims things and any evidence is not only missing, but the evidence, fractured nose with some minor blood stains from within, strongly contradict the Defense's account. When your head is hit against the sidewalk your nose's skin is sure to be affected by abrasions, any medicinist will tell you that, and I am mystified how the Defense even dared to make such a point.

But let's find articles concerning this matter and integrate them to do justice to the truth and make a better article.--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Here we go, I knew I was right:

http://www.businessinsider.com/valerie-raos-george-zimmerman-testimony-2013-7

In the Defense's "Expert witness testimony section" there's ample description, but the Prosecution's pathologist version is completely concealed? If this is true, it is one big joke of an article. How can you conceal such important information? That'd be utter bogus!--Commissioner Gregor (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that this testimony should be included. It is however not concealment, but misfortune. I wrote the bulk of this article "live" during the trial, and was forced to be absent for most of that day's testimony for personal reasons. I however, should have come back to complete it.


 * Per earlier discussion about the length of these testimony section, it is probalby a decent time to start trimming back the un-needed detail from each person's testimony down to just the core points. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I added Shiping Bao (ME), Valerie Rao (ME) and Anthony Gorgone (DNA), testimony. I too would like to reiterate that there was no intention of concealing anything whatsoever, but as Gaijin42 noted, it was inadvertently left out. When I started on the defense section, it was already 2 or 3 days into witness testimony and we were already behind on that portion, so it was nothing more than a complete oversight, which has now been corrected.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of jurors
In this case, there were only six jurors. Most people are surprised by that fact, given that most criminal trials typically have twelve jurors. Should this article mention why this case only had six? If it's in the article already, I missed it. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. It's actually already in there.  Just found it.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias view
The public response section is very bias. Why present the response from Zimmerman's family and supporters and not present the response from Martin's family and supporters? There are tweets from Zimmerman's father in the section, but no tweets from Martin's parents in the section? Seriously? And why only mention the little scuffles occurring in the protests in Los Angeles that were a response to the verdict? The protests across the U.S. were overwhelmingly peaceful, but the presentation makes it seem it was all violent. This has to be changed. It's obvious the editor was on the side of Zimmerman. B-Machine (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is happening right now. Add it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help improve the article by adding it, instead of making accusations against editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding references to prosecution's case
I've started adding references to the prosecution's case section. Any thoughts on in-line citations vs. at the end of the paragraph? My thought was that nothing in that section is that contentious. I also moved the audio files (911 calls) and re-formatted them, they can be moved accordingly, up or down a couple lines if needed.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Fix typo: Witness Jonathan Manalo's name was typoed "Johnathan", with an extra "h". (I couldn't fix it since the page is locked.) James Dunlap
 * ✅ - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Vs or V?
I'm not certain, but aren't American court cases named as "Plaintiff v. Defendant"? Such as the articles about the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Brown v. Board of Education, and Miranda v. Arizona. Should the page be moved to State of Florida v. George Zimmerman? Paris1127 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. According to the 18th Judicial Circuit Courts website, it is listed as State v. Zimmerman and just for comparison on another high profile case in Florida, the 9th Judicial Circuit Court listed Casey Anthony's case as State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony. If you read the many motions filed in Zimmerman's case, they all seem to say State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. If we were to change it to State v. Zimmerman, then it may be confusing as to "which" state and "what" Zimmerman. I think Florida and his first name (George) should be mentioned in the article title, but I'm not sure on vs. or v.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should keep the "State of Florida" and "George Zimmerman" for sure, at least for now. My only question is v or vs. Or we could circumvent the issue entirely and call the page "Trial of George Zimmerman" Paris1127 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

At this time, this is the Zimmerman Trial. It will forever be referred to as the Zimmerman Trial. This case is not Marbury v. Madison. To label this article State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman is rather foolish at best. No one but no one is referring to it as such.True Observer (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aboslutely fine with any of the above as a redirect, but we know the official name of the case. The title of the article should be tht title of the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

These are all taken from Wikipedia:

Trial of Michael Jackson O. J. Simpson murder case Sacco and Vanzetti The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes

Notice how they don't say State of California v. Michael Jackson, State of California v. OJ Simpson, State of New York v. Sacco and Banzetti. The Scopes Trial article goes out of its way to say what the official name was and decides not to use it.

To repeat, it is idiotic to refer to this case as State of Florida v. George Zimmerman.

Otherwise, since in every state, every criminal case is the State of XXXX v. Defendant, that's how the case would appear in Wikipedia but never does.

To keep the title shows a POV to dilute the Zimmerman name.75.21.106.30 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "Dilute the zimmerman name" or why one would have a POV to do so. Here are a few hundred articles using the case name. do an RFC if you want it to happen. As stated, I do not object to a redirect for that title. List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases List_of_notable_United_States_state_supreme_court_cases List_of_notable_United_States_courts_of_appeals_cases Gaijin42 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable that you would cite an official directory (list) of cases which are designed for lawyers to cite and research. Cite anywhere where it says State of California v. OJ Simpson. Cite anywhere where it says State of California v. Michael Jackson. Of course, you can't except in some obscure legal directory for lawyers and judges. And yes, coming up with a title is a reflection on the person who came up with it.True Observer (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And I think we can both agree that the reflection on the person who came up with it is that he acted in good faith when naming the article. I clicked on several of the links on the list and they all took me to Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, lawyers and judges do not use Wikipedia to research case law or to cite precedents. Case citation's are a reference to where a case is printed in a book. The citation can also be used to retrieve cases from Westlaw and Lexis. -- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "foolish" and "idiotic" are a little harsh to describe the title of this article. I think the editor acted in good faith when he named the article and harsh descriptive terms like that are not representative of a valid argument for a title change. I see no POV in the current title whatsoever. I do think his name - George Zimmerman - should be in the title, regardless of whether it is The trial of... or State of Florida vs.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, the public decides how things are referenced.

From Google: State of Florida v. George Zimmerman  25,400,000; George Zimmerman Trial 249,000,000; Zimmerman Trial 435,000,000.True Observer (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want to do it the lazy, "popular" way, or perhaps help teach people the "correct" way?198.161.2.241 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

google search results are not a source. The name is officially known. There is no single WP:COMMONNAME which all sources use (Zimmerman Trial, George Zimmerman Trial, TM murder case, etc) Any and all of those are valid redirects though. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The original question, which seems to have gotten lost in the sauce, was whether the term versus should be abbreviated as "vs." or as "v." in the article title. Does anyone know the standard for court case names?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that maybe we should consider just rendering the argument moot and moving the page to Trial of George Zimmerman... Paris1127 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct way to title a case caption is with the letter "v" and a period between the parties. This is a point I remember from early on in law school, where my professors would use "vs." when talking about one concept versus another concept, but would always use only the "v." when separating parties in a case caption. To find the official rule on this subject, see the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (https://www.legalbluebook.com/). It requires a subscription, unfortunately, but I can tell you that the rule in there is to use a "v." between parties, not a "vs.". morrissinger (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article is essentially an abbreviated citation of the case (to the extent it only includes the names of the parties). I am not a source, but I can say that using "vs." instead of "v." for purposes of citation or reference to any legal proceeding in any common law system is absolutely wrong. I see that article titles should be premised on some reliable source [, see the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.800. If you are still in doubt, glance at Rule 9.800(o), which incorporates the rules of the Bluebook and, if not covered by the Bluebook, the Florida Style Manual published by the FSU Law Review. Bluebook Rule 10.2.1 governs case citations and Rule 10.8.1 governs unpublished cases. As someone mentioned, the Bluebook requires a subscription, so I cannot link to it. Suffice it to say that no matter what type of case one is citing or referencing, the use of "v." and not "vs." is so well-settled that the Bluebook simply implies it through its various examples of case citations. The Florida Manual of Style Rule 2.1 incorporates by reference Bluebook Rule 10.2.1. Additionally, the Florida Manual of Style Section 10 et seq should truly leave one without doubt that "v." - not "vs." - is the proper abbreviation. In the end, I think Wikipedia has also settled the "v." for "vs." debate in the legal context. In sum, I propose changing the "vs." in the title to "v.". 108.88.85.147 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 *   Ron h jones  (Talk) 21:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, please change the name of this article from State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman to State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. That is, please change the abbreviation for "versus" between the party names from "vs." to simply "v." in accordance with legal convention and Wikipedia convention. In particular, please see the posting of User 108.88.85.147 directly above for specific citations. I myself cannot rename the page, presumably because the article is locked. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The title of the case is vs. EVERY document from the court on this case uses this standard. Clearly the "legal convention" mentioned above is not universal. Wikipedia convention cannot rename a case, any more than it could rename a movie. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not about the name of the case. This is about the name of the article.  Under the Wikipedia MOS, the word "versus" is to be abbreviated as "v." in legal case names.  The issue is specifically and explicitly addressed in the Wikipedia MOS.  See here: Manual of Style/Abbreviations.  Again, this is not about the official legal name of the legal case.  It's about the name of the article for a Wikipedia article.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I just clicked on the first link under "External links" at the bottom of the article. (See this: State v. Zimmerman public documents released by the 18th Circuit Court.)  The very first link there connects to the official website of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Courts (of Florida).  All of the listings there use a "v." in the case name.  And this is coming from the official website of the court overseeing this case.  Also, by the way, the "official" name of the case is probably more accurately (in a legal sense) "The People of the State of Florida versus George Zimmerman".  But, even if that’s the official legal name, that would not be the name of the article.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * and in every single link of the actual documents, its vs.        Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, it's about the name of the article, not the name of the case . Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * State of Florida vs. (or v) George Zimmerman, seems to be referring to the transcript and other legal documents regarding the trial. A more appropriate title may be along the lines of what some have already mentioned here, like "Trial of George Zimmerman", "George Zimmerman trial", etc., since this article is about more than just the legal documents. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

May 5th section
I changed the date to May 28th. Was the 5th the day the motions were filed? I was a little confused as to the mention of May 5th. If I'm wrong in my timeline, forgive me.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * your change is correct, I am just an idiot :) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Move
I beleive the move should be reverted. The title of the case is not V George Michael zimmerman. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The wording used in the charging document is "George Zimmerman", and the article should reflect that.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. In all the documents pertaining to this case that I have read, they all say George Zimmerman. In addition, RS have been consistent throughout this incident as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin's "Marijuana Use" excluded
The article currently reads with the wording that his "marijuana use" would be excluded, and I would like to suggest that there is a difference between marijuana he may or may not have used before he was shot, and the marijuana that was in his system at the time he was shot. "Past" marijuana use and "current" use are 2 different things, and I think the article ought to spell out that both were excluded.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have sourcing that both will be excluded? I know the school incident was, but the "current" use is part of the autopsy report. In any case, the exclusion is not absolute, dependin gon what is raised at trial, the Judge said it could be allowed under some circumstances, so I don't think there is a big rush, unless there are sources that show we are obviously wrong in what we said. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The autopsy report didn't offer an opinion on whether the trace levels of THC were from past or current use. According to the toxicology report, Martin had 1.5 nanograms/ml of THC and 7.3 nanograms/ml of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after marijuana has been smoked. I think the difference between past and current use can only be considered as a timeframe reference (age) in his life, because if he was a steady (recreational smoker as it appears), he would have trace levels of THC at any given time.


 * If you are strictly referring to the night of the shooting as current use, as in was he high at the tme of the encounter, then I think there could be varying expert opinions offered by both the prosecution and defense, if his "marijuana use" is ruled relevant by the judge.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And there we go. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note: This is an encyclopedia entry
This is an article in an encyclopedia. It is completely unnecessary to provide every single detail of what was said by people on the stand. Please summarize succinctly. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue was addressed in an earlier discussion - When its fresh, the level of detail is useful, but lots can be trimmed and summaraized over time.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gap in time
Trayvon was killed on February 26, 2012. But Zimmerman didn't get charged until On April 11, 2012. There's no statement of that in the case... what happened in that time? Why did it take so long? Did the state know they had no case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal242 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They just didn't care. In the South, no one has ever been much bothered by a white man shooting an unarmed black man, and the verdict shows that they're still not bothered by it. Pais (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, the local SA knew they didnt have a case. A special prosecutor was appointed to appease the activists and its like the saying goes, you could indict a ham sandwich. WeldNeck (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"All female" jury
Is it really necessary to repeatedly mention that the jury is composed entirely of females? How is that relevant in any way? Rikeus (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was statistically very unlikely (0.015), The demographic makeup of the jury is almost always relevant (also relevant no blacks in this jury, but needs better sourcing as race was not official released). many analysts suggested it could swing the jury in sympathy, as many (all?) of them are mothers. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding insult to injury--the fact that the jury was all female has no relevance. The fact that it was all the media could find to talk about has no relevance.  The oft-repeated assertion that some or all of them were mothers was obviously irrelevant, as it did not appear to affect the jury.  As for it being statistically unlikely, I'd like to see the assumptions in that calculation.  Unless you are reporting on statistically unlikely events in juries, it is irrelevant.  75.73.50.232 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Jury questions
The article states, in the lead: After sixteen hours of deliberations over the course of two days, and after a number of questions to the judge, on July 13, 2013, the six-person jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts (bold print added by me). Is this accurate? I thought that the jury asked only one question of the judge (i.e., they asked for a clarification of the manslaughter charge). Does anyone know? Were there several other questions, as well? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There earlier asked for some inventory/index information about the evidence as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. I forgot about that.  The current wording makes it seem like they asked a lot of questions.  In fact, they only asked very few (perhaps two).  (Not like the Jodi Arias trial, where the jury asked literally hundreds of questions.)  Do people think that the current wording is misleading?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Admissibility of Evidence
As a lawyer who consults with litigators on issues of expert opinion evidence, I am concerned about the section on Admissibility of Evidence. There is a statement in that section that says "The Daubert standard is generally considered more stringent, and requires more scrutiny before admission of expert testimony." A footnote is dropped citing to a Politico article.

The reason for my concern is that the statement is misleading, if not inaccurate. Although it it true that the judge's role as a gatekeeper of expert opinion evidence is affirmed in the Daubert trilogy, focusing on this to determine issues of stringency with respect to whether audio analysis should be admitted is erroneous. The Daubert standard actually opens the door to new kinds of expert opinion evidence that would otherwise be barred under Frye's "general acceptance" test.

A look at Wikipedia's own page on the Frye standard, which in my professional opinion is accurate, indicates the distinction between the Frye and the Daubert standards for admissibility of expert opinion evidence. As the page summarizes from the Frye case:


 * "The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community."

On the other hand, the Daubert standard opens up the standard of admissibility of expert opinion evidence to a multi-factorial test in which general acceptance in the scientific community is just one of many factors that a judge, acting as gatekeeper, can consider. As the Wikipedia page on the Daubert standard (also accurate in my professional opinion) indicates, the following factors should be considered in a Daubert jurisdiction:


 * Empirical testing: whether the theory or technique is falsifiable, refutable, and/or testable.
 * Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication.
 * The known or potential error rate.
 * The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
 * The degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

So, in actuality, while the judge will play a role as gatekeeper under the Daubert standard, it is for the purpose of performing a more broad inquiry into whether evidence is admissible. This broadened inquiry opens the door to opinions formed through the application of more cutting-edge techniques (which have not yet gained general acceptance) under some circumstances. This distinction would appear to be more pertinent to the question of admissibility of audio analysis in the Zimmerman case than the distinction that the judge serves as a gatekeeper.

I would recommend either removing from the article the sentence quoted above, or modifying it to reflect that the shift in approach to admissibility in the Florida courts entailed the possibility that the audio analysis previously thought to be inadmissible under Frye might be admissible notwithstanding the judge's expanded role as gatekeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrissinger (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Intrepid  (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Seminole county courthouse
I thought this article was of some interest in how they are preparing for this trial. . It may be trivial, but maybe worth a mention in a sentence or two. There was a considerable amount of attention and detail that went into planning for this trial. I found it interesting that four of the courthouse seats are going to local ministers, part of a larger group of area religious leaders who've been working with the DOJ since the shooting to minimize racial tensions.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, particularly since they did the exact same thing at the OJ Simpson trial, a fact that should also be mentioned.Jonny Quick (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)