Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, parents of the slain teenager Trayvon Martin, recently settled a wrongful death suit.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today that Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, have settled their wrongful death case against the Homeowner’s Association for more than $1 million.

The parties are settling the matter to avoid litigation without admitting responsibility and the terms of the settlement agreement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement:

During an interview in February, Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, said Trayvon’s parents had tried to settle through mediation and the association or its insurer had offered $1 million, but Trayvon’s parents had rejected that amount.

…

‘It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties,’ the settlement said.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and his estate agreed to set aside their wrongful-death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses.

Trayvon’s parents still intend to sue George Zimmerman separately.

The settlement agreement should not have any effect on the criminal case but it does indicate that the HOA has little confidence in the viability of the GZ’s claim of self-defense.

Of course, we already knew that from our review of the evidence and the defense team’s decision to abandon an immunity hearing.

Congratulations to Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin!

This will not bring back Trayvon, but it’s an important achievement and milestone in the long road seeking justice for Trayvon.

H/T to Benjamin Crump: Well done, sir.

Cross Posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Good morning.

I write today to warn everyone regarding a probable defense effort during jury selection to exclude all potential jurors who are black, notwithstanding the recent defense claim that the defendant is Afro-Peruvian, whatever the hell that means.

The simple truth is that this defendant self-identified as white until after he killed Trayvon Martin. When he was accused of racially profiling Trayvon, he rather conveniently decided that calling himself White Hispanic and more recently Afro Peruvian would dispel any suspicions that the killing was racially motivated.

Instead, given the convenient timing of his declarations and his confusion of race with nationality unintentionally showcases his intellectual limitations and the desperate lengths to which he will go to deny that he is a racist.

He doth protest too much, methinks.

Therefore, do not be surprised if the defense attempts to use its peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors from the jury.

Recall, that unlike a challenge for cause, a lawyer does not have to explain the basis for a peremptory challenge. Recall too, that the SCOTUS prohibited the use of peremptory challenges by prosecutors to systematically exclude blacks from serving on juries with black defendants in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), because such systematic exclusion violates a defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection of the laws. See also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005).

We have an interesting wrinkle in this case because, if it happens, the defendant will be the party systematically excluding jurors because they are black or non-white, whereas, in Batson and Miller-El the prosecution systematically excluded blacks violating the defendant’s right to equal protection of the laws.

The issue the prosecution must be ready to argue and Judge Nelson must be ready to decide before jury selection is whether the Batson and Miller-El prohibition against the prosecution’s discriminatory use of peremptory challenges applies equally to a defendant.

I believe the answer is “yes,” because to rule otherwise would constitute official judicial approval of discrimination against black jurors in jury selection, so long as the defendant is doing the discriminating. I do not see that happening, if for no other reason than blacks have just as much right to serve on juries as whites.

Consider this language from Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in JEB v. Alabama ex rel. TB, 511 U.S. 127, 128-129 (1994), in which the Court extended the Batson rule to gender.

In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial. The Court explained that although a defendant has “no right to a `petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race,’ ” id. , at 85, quoting Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 305 (1880), the “defendant does have the right to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory criteria,” 476 U. S., at 85-86. Since Batson, we have reaffirmed repeatedly our commitment to jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory. We have recognized that whether the trial is criminal or civil, potential jurors, as well as litigants, have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures that are free from state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400 (1991); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (1991); Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. 42 (1992).

Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases 129*129 defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Today we are faced with the question whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. We hold that gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality.

(Emphasis added)

White defendants certainly do not have a right to an all white jury. As Justice Blackmun said, they have a right to a jury selected in a non-discriminatory manner.

Therefore, the selection process must be non-discriminatory and that must necessarily apply to all parties and to the Court.

A final thought to consider:

If the defendant is the race-blind Afro-Peruvian that he claims to be, then he ought to submit his case to an all black jury.

What do you think the odds are that he would agree?

Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

A Trayvon Martin "Million Hoodies" rally last year.

Thanks to all who participated in yesterday’s memorial to Trayvon Martin.

I write today to express disgust and dismay regarding this excuse for journalism by Steve Almasy of CNN, Zimmerman’s lawyer works to dispel racial overtones in Trayvon Martin case.

The focus of the piece is Mark O’Mara’s “struggle” to get people to pay attention to the evidence instead of racism.

Whatever the outcome of the Trayvon Martin case, it will be viewed less as a determination of the shooter’s guilt or innocence and more as a victory or loss for civil rights, George Zimmerman’s lawyer fears.

Mark O’Mara said he has been busy trying to dispel the racial overtones in the case by getting out more evidence about his client.

Thereafter, we get the usual he-said-she-said description of the case interspersed with O’Mara’s unchallenged mischaracterizations of the evidence followed up with this description of Benjamin Crump as a rabble rousing troublemaker pushing the race card.

O’Mara indicated at trial he will dissect the recording of Zimmerman’s 911 call and point to evidence of the wounds Zimmerman said he suffered that night.

“I believe, you know, again, the evidence is what it is and that’s for a jury to determine,” O’Mara said. “But a close reading or looking at that tape and all the evidence that followed, particularly George’s injuries and Trayvon’s lack of injuries but for the fatal gunshot, suggest that George did not begin the fight, did not continue the fight and actually was the victim of the attack rather than the other way around.”

But a lawyer for the Martins said the fight against “senseless gun violence” will continue.

“He went home and slept in his bed the night he killed Trayvon,” attorney Benjamin Crump said. “And that wasn’t equal justice.”

Crump then led a chant of “Hoodies up! Hoodies up!” at the vigil.

This false concoction is presented with a cherry on top in the form of the optically distorted and likely photoshopped digital photo of the defendant seated in the back seat of a patrol vehicle with a bump on his nose and blood on his mustache. CNN has no excuse for not knowing that the photo presents a false picture because the police photos taken at the station house a few hours later with a much better camera under good lighting show a barely visible injury with little or no swelling or distortion to the shape of the nose.

As all of us know, despite conceding that his client was the aggressor, O’Mara has been shoving his demonstrably false “bloody” photograph in front of every camera he can find in pursuit of his easy-to-disprove false narrative that the peaceful and nonviolent Trayvon for no apparent reason attacked and attempted to kill the defendant with his bare hands in the middle of his phone conversation with his girlfriend after successfully running away from the defendant who had been stalking him in a vehicle and then on foot contrary to a police dispatcher’s warning.

The simple truth is this defendant has no defense and the only mystery in this case is why anyone believes that the he did not hunt, confront, and murder Trayvon Martin for the heinous crime of walking while Black in the rain with his hoodie up.

I said long ago and I will repeat it today:

Anyone who believes the defendant is innocent is a racist and anyone who contributes money to his defense is a stupid racist.

Let there be no mistake: Although he claims otherwise, Mark O’Mara and his client are deliberately appealing to racial hatred and fear of young Black males to literally get away with murder.

That is what this case is all about and shame on CNN for not reporting the truth.

Cross Posted From Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 (12/12/12)

I received yesterday the following English transcript of an interview of Robert Zimmerman, Jr., and his mother, Gladys Zimmerman. The interview was conducted by Jorge Ramos of Univision and forwarded to me by Elliott, an old friend at Firedoglake. [She's not old; I am] The interview was conducted in Spanish, Gladys Zimmerman’s native language.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Univision Network Public Relations wrote:

Below is the English-language transcript of Univision’s Spanish-language interview with Robert Zimmerman Jr. and Gladys Zimmerman. The Spanish-language transcript can be found following this transcript. If you have any questions, please contact Jose Zamora: josezamora@univision.net.

UNIVISION NEWS TRANSCRIPT

Program: Al Punto with Jorge Ramos
Content: Interview with Robert Zimmerman Jr. and Gladys Zimmerman
Air date: December 9, 2012

Key

JR: Jorge Ramos
RZ: Robert Zimmerman Jr.
GZ: Gladys Zimmerman

JR: In his first conversation with Spanish-language TV, joining us here in the studio is Robert Zimmerman, George’s brother. Robert, thanks for being with us.

RZ: Hello, Jorge.

JR: Thank you very much for being here. Thank you. And via satellite, his mother, Gladys Zimmerman, who for safety reasons does not want her face to be shown. Mrs. Zimmerman, thanks for being with us.

GZ: You’re welcome. Hello, Jorge.

JR: Let me start with you. Of course, you’re Peruvian and speak Spanish very well, and this will make this interview with you much easier. The first question is, where is George at this time?

GZ: George is in Seminole County, under court order.

JR: What were the conditions the court imposed on him? Can he leave his home?

GZ: Oh, yes, he can leave home from 6:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening.

JR: And does he do it or is he afraid he’ll be recognized?

GZ: There are days he has to do it, mostly for his mental health.

JR: Of course, I assume that at this time, beyond coming and going for basic necessities, I guess he’s not working or doing anything to make a living. Right?

GZ: Unfortunately, Jorge, no. And I doubt that in the future or near future he’ll be able to work and make a living.

JR: Let me start by talking about this case, and I understand that due to legal reasons, there are many things you cannot talk about. You tell me what you can and you cannot talk about. But…

GZ: Sure.

JR: … when you first found out that your son had been involved in this incident in which he shot Trayvon Martin, how did you find out?

GZ: I found out from him.

JR: What did he tell you?

GZ: He told me he’d had an incident and that, unfortunately, he’d had to use a weapon to defend himself.

JR: Regarding the weapon, how is it that George has access to weapons? At home, was it customary to be armed? Was that something that the Zimmermans did?

GZ: Look, let me tell you, we have lived in Virginia most of our lives. We’ve lived there for 31 years, and George lived there for 17 years of his life. He was born there, grew up there, he graduated from high school there, and then he came to Florida. It’s in Florida that the law is different in the sense that people can get weapons, get a license and can carry them. The same thing happens in Virginia, but here I’ve noticed that people can get a weapon, what they call a concealed weapon, and carry the weapon, and it’s no big deal.

JR: And did you know that George had a weapon?

GZ. The reality is that I didn’t know that George had a weapon.

JR: And did you know if George was involved in neighborhood watch activities in the area where he lived?

GZ: Yes, I knew he was helping out, he was very worried about the home burglaries that had happened. I’m familiar with those houses, and I couldn’t believe there were so many burglaries, especially in a gated area, you know?

JR: Very well, and now, I want to get to the point. As you know, your son George is accused of Trayvon Martin’s death, and many people in the United States suspect that he did it for racial reasons. However, you and his lawyers insist that it wasn’t because of race, but rather to defend himself from a personal attack. What is your interpretation? What happened?

GZ: George is not a racist. My family is not racist. That will come out in the evidence. What will also come out in the evidence and what has been seen lately is the photo of my son after he was beaten up. My son defended himself for dear life. The young man who attacked him, for reasons we do not know, left a mark behind and thank God there is a photo that can show that mark. If it weren’t for that mark…

JR: Are you referring to the color photo that shows your son with wounds on his face?

GZ: Exactly. That photo that was turned over to the defense in black and white, and now it has been turned over, thank God, in color, shows how my son was attacked. According to young Martin’s autopsy, he had no marks on him, except the bullet that went into his chest, which unfortunately, killed him.

JR: Well, you say that George wasn’t racist. There are many people who assert that if Trayvon Martin hadn’t been wearing a hoodie and hadn’t been African-American, he’d be alive today. That is, they suggest that all this was motivated simply by the fact that Trayvon Martin was African-American.

GZ: No. This happened because Trayvon attacked my son. If Trayvon Martin hadn’t attacked my son in the savage way he did… Look, Mr. Ramos, if somebody punches you in the nose, I can’t imagine the pain it can cause. But to be punched in the nose, to fall down to the ground, to have someone jump on you and hit you fiercely and bust your head open every time you try to get up, and bang your head against the pavement, and for a neighbor to open the door and say, “Stop, because I’m going to call the cops,” and for that neighbor to provide the description of the person who was hitting him, the one who was lying on the ground, using what they call MMA style, mixed martial arts. I had never seen that sport, but I saw it on YouTube and I was shocked at people getting hit so aggressively.

JR: Now, wasn’t your son’s reaction in using a weapon excessive? Couldn’t he have defended himself in some other way?

GZ: Well, I can’t tell you because I’m not in his shoes. But the only thing I can tell you is this: show the photo of my son like that, in color, and play the tape, that tape in which he asks for help, in what many witnesses say is my son’s voice. Even Trayvon Martin’s father, Mr. Tracy Martin, says that it is my son’s voice. Show those two things together.

JR: I emphasize, you have told us in this show that George is not a racist. I understand, of course, that George and your son Robert went to Peru on several occasions, and you well know that in Latin America there is a lot of discrimination, not only against indigenous groups, but also among people who have darker skin. What did you teach your children regarding the discrimination we have in Latin America? How did you raise them?

GZ: Look, Mr. Ramos, in Peru we have a saying that basically says, “If you’re not one thing, you’re another,” which means that if you don’t have Indian blood in you, you probably have some African blood. In my family, we’re proud of our Afro-Peruvian heritage. My kids know their aunts and uncles; they know our roots, and my roots aren’t with non-Hispanic whites. My roots are Afro-Peruvian. So they have been brought up, not just here at home as a family, but in school, not to notice peoples’ skin color. I call them “my kids” because they are part of my family, because skin color doesn’t mean anything to me either.

JR: Mrs. Zimmerman, as you know, President Barack Obama weighed in on the issue when he said that if he had had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. How do you respond to that?

GZ: Well, at the beginning it hurt a lot, but now that I know how things developed, because, honestly, Jorge, at the beginning I barely even watched TV. My husband and my doctors forbade me from watching TV. It has all been really traumatic, but now that I’ve seen how Trayvon Martin’s family’ lawyers have presented this case; I don’t blame the President, because they fooled him, too. All of this has to be set straight: all the lies that have been told by Mr. Crump, by Ms. Nathalie Jackson through Ryan Julison of Julison Communications. It all needs to come out, but they told a lie to the nation, to the whole world, and even the President himself.

JR: Mrs. Zimmerman…

GZ: That’s how I feel about this now.

JR: Mrs. Zimmerman, I’ll come back to you in a moment. Now I’m going to go to your son Robert, who is with us in the studio. Robert, thanks again for joining us on Al Punto. Your brother George Zimmerman’s legal team has filed a lawsuit for defamation against NBC. Why?

RZ: Well, George has explained in his own words how they made up a racial narrative, because the facts of this story just weren’t sensational enough for people who wanted to report more. So words like white, black, and gated community were used from the beginning to speculate about what had happened, which was very, very different from what really happened on that day.

JR: The debate is centered on whether your brother acted out of racism or self-defense. What do you know about that? What has your brother told you?

RZ: Well, as a brother, I know we need to ask why Trayvon Martin punched him. You know? Lots of people are focusing on what George did. He did the same thing he did 40 times in one year: he called the police. What George did is that same thing that was done 400 times over 13 months where he lived, in a neighborhood of less than 200 homes around there. Four hundred calls to the police: why? Because there were a lot of robberies, there was a woman with a baby who was just months old, in her bedroom while her house was being robbed, and people were afraid. So I think that what George…

JR: But is this the first time that George has used a handgun to defend himself this way?

RZ: Oh, yes. In the state of Florida, handguns are licensed, but you have to keep them concealed. Back where we were in Virginia, as my mother started to explain, the law is totally opposite. Even without a license, you can carry a handgun just like I have done when I’ve gone out to shoot at a public range as long as it’s in sight.

JR: Do you know if George had a handgun?

RZ: Yes, yes, I had always known that both George and his wife had a permit for that gun. There was an attack, or, an alleged incident in which they could have been attacked by a dog, but that has nothing to do with our case. But at that time a police officer suggested to him, “Look, if you’re so afraid of that dog and if these people don’t keep it under control, it’s better for you to be armed than to wind up in the hospital.”

JR: Okay. So, what’s the next step? What are you folks emphasizing in the defense the fact that you are a Hispanic family?

RZ: No, Jorge, because I think that would be going, well, going backward on the progress we’ve made about race. We are an American family, and what happened that night was a tragedy. That’s what it has always been for our family, but for us to say, “We’re Latinos, and so Latinos need to take our side rather than someone else’s because that person is of a different color,” that wouldn’t be right, either. Now, what has surprised the public is that we are not non-Hispanic whites. That photo of George where he has very light skin is because it was a photocopy, that photo doesn’t look like him. And if that photo had been published in color, if people had known something more about George than just the word non-Hispanic white like they put on all the posters when they were offering $10,000 for him dead or alive, for turning him in…. Well, if they had known something about what really happened that night, maybe we wouldn’t have gotten to this point, but looking ahead, we need to make it clear that not only are we not racists, but the United States, and the whole world are watching us: as my mother said, “They even fooled the President.” Racism in this country is a game that pays really well. Lots of people are looking to make a buck, and there’s a lot of money to be made by alleging racism. You don’t even have to prove it.

JR: George, thanks for being here with us. I appreciate it a lot.

RZ: Thanks.

JR: Mrs. Gladys, thanks for joining us. Before we go, I just wanted to ask why you decided to talk to us, and why we are concealing your face. Do you fear for your life?

GZ: Yes, I fear for my life. I have to protect it, and I have to protect my family. I have an 88-year-old mother to take care of. If I have to come out in defense of my son, the best way I can do it is by keeping my identity concealed. We’ve come on Univision because we trust that it’s a news organization that will get to the truth, and I would love for it to be a Hispanic news organization that goes all the way in search of the truth.

JR: Gladys Zimmerman, thanks for speaking with us.

GZ: You’re welcome.

JR: Robert Zimmerman, thanks for being here.

RZ: Thanks, Jorge.

JR. Thanks to both of you.

***********************

Fred here.

I think they do quite well telling us who they are as they try to convince us who they are not.

As Ms. Magazine used to say, “No Comment.”

Cross Posted From Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Caricature of George Zimmerman

Lonnie Star, a person who comments regularly at my site, wrote the following comment about George Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin jumped him and was slamming his head repeatedly into the ground:

Once the person on the ground tightens their neck muscles, your only way to lift their head is to lift their entire upper body. Obviously that’s going to be too hard to do, if you’re sitting on their upper body.

If you can’t pick the head up, you can’t slam it back down. Try it with someone, you’ll come away with the impression that it’s just not possible. If you are equal or lighter than the person you are straddling, the mount position is easily defeated if you aren’t trained to maintain it.

GZ has coupled an impossible attack with an unstable perch and tried to make a life threatening event of it. In fact he goes so far as to say that this absurdity actually succeeded many times, taking him to the edge of mortality.

Comparatively it’s as if GZ was saying that TM was standing ten feet away, swinging his fist so fast and hard, that the wind was tearing his head off his shoulders. It only sounds possible in the eye of the imagination. In practice it’s so unworkable it’s silly!

This is one of several comments that Lonnie and I exchanged last night relative to his idea to reenact in the courtroom Martin’s alleged effort to kill Zimmerman by gripping the sides of Zimmerman’s head and repeatedly slamming it into the concrete sidewalk.

I like the idea, but a reenactment is not possible because, as I explained,

Reenactments have to be agreed to by both parties and the judge. They also have to accurately reproduce what happened and here there is no agreement to what that was and the risk of the unpredictable is too high and the stakes are too high for it to happen.

Since a courtroom reenactment is out, how would a prosecutor disprove this part of Zimmerman’s story?

Behold! A teaching moment has appeared.

This was my answer earlier this morning.

The applicable evidentiary rule is Rule 702, which addresses the use of experts.

First, this is a matter where expert testimony would assist the jury to determine a fact in issue.

Second, you need one or or more experts qualified by education, training or experience to testify.

If I were BDLR, I would begin the search for an expert by contacting an expert in kinesiology, I also would check with a sports medicine specialist, someone who designs football and motorcycle helmets and a physical therapist.

Last, but not least, I would contact the reigning MMA World Champion.

This is how lawyers think creatively.

I have previously discussed Rule 702 in, Zimmerman: How Will the Defense Deal with the Terrified Scream?

Cross Posted From Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Sketch of the Mignonette by Tom Dudley

Tom Dudley, Captain of the Mignonette, a 52-foot sailing vessel with a crew of four that capsized five minutes after being struck by a wave in the south Atlantic 1600 miles northwest of the Cape of Good Hope on July 5, 1884, described the scene in the lifeboat three weeks later after Dudley killed Richard Parker, the 17-year-old cabin boy so that he, Edwin Stephens and Edmund Brooks could feed off his uncooked flesh and drink his blood to survive.

“I can assure you I shall never forget the sight of my two unfortunate companions over that ghastly meal we all was like mad wolfs who should get the most and for men fathers of children to commit such a deed we could not have our right reason.”

The three survivors were rescued four or five days later by a passing sailing ship that was en route to Hamburg. After they were dropped off in Cornwall, the three men provided statements describing the decision-making process. The men had only two tins of turnips and no fresh water in the lifeboat.

Wikipedia provides the grisly details.

Dudley managed to improvise a sea anchor to keep the lifeboat headed into the waves and maintain her stability. Over the first night, the crew had to fight off a shark with their oars. They were around 700 miles (1,100 km) from the nearest land, being either St. Helena or Tristan de Cunha. Dudley kept the first tin of turnips until 7 July when its five pieces were shared among the men to last two days. On or around 9 July, Brooks spotted a turtle which Stephens dragged on board. The crew were resolutely avoiding drinking seawater as it was then universally held to be fatal and, though they devoured the turtle, they forewent drinking its blood when it became contaminated with seawater. The turtle yielded about three pounds (1.4 kg) of meat each, though the crew ate even the bones, and, along with the second tin of turnips lasted until 15 or 17 July. The crew consistently failed to catch any rainwater and by 13 July, with no other source of fluid, they began to drink their own urine. It was probably on 20 July that Parker became ill through drinking seawater. Stephens was also unwell, possibly having experimented with seawater.

Drawing lots in order to choose a sacrificial victim who would die to feed the others was possibly first discussed on 16 or 17 July, and debate seems to have intensified on 21 July but without resolution. On 23 or 24 July, with Parker probably in a coma, Dudley told the others that it was better that one of them die so that the others survive and that they should draw lots. Brooks refused. That night, Dudley again raised the matter with Stephens pointing out that Parker was probably dying and that he and Stephens had wives and families. They agreed to leave the matter until the morning. The following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Dudley and Stephens silently signalled to each other that Parker would be killed. Killing Parker before his natural death would better preserve his blood to drink. Brooks, who had not been party to the earlier discussion, claimed to have signalled neither assent nor protest. Dudley always insisted that Brooks had assented. Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth’s legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife into Parker’s jugular vein, killing him.

In some of the varying and confused later accounts of the killing, Parker murmured, “What me?” as he was slain. The three fed on Parker’s body, with Dudley and Brooks consuming the most and Stephens very little. The crew even finally managed to catch some rainwater.

Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder. Brooks was not charged because he claimed not to have participated in the decision to kill Parker.

Dudley and Stephens asserted that they were not guilty by reason of the common law defense of necessity, which was and continues to be a defense to property crimes.

The legal issue in the case was whether necessity should be recognized as a defense to murder.

Cross Posted From Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Papa skewers George Zimmerman’s story one more time.

Take a look at this hilarious video: