Florida is a disaster. The affidavit that the prosecution relies on is total crap. It's thin, and it does nothing to support a murder 2 charge. Had this affidavit been filed in New York, a judge would would toss the case. The whole thing smells like misconduct there is no mention of the photos of Zimmerman's bloody head that ABC has. So either the prosecution is incompetent for not having them or the prosecution is motivated by something other then justice for not mentioning them. The aff. is three pages long and says absolutely nothing. It's an absolute joke and in most states (short list being NY, CA, VA, IL, TX, MA, PA, OH, MI, etc.) this three page piece of nonsense could in no way shape or form lead to grounds for a murder 2 charge.
The aff. that was filed is called a probable cause aff. Like the name suggests, it seeks to establish the probable cause of an action in a criminal case, whether that action is the filing of charges, the granting of a search warrant, or whatever else. There is a general rule that these affs. must stand on their own, or between their four corners. What that means is that all that is necessary to prove the case must be in the aff. and not located in other places. As was already mention, this is a three page aff. that fails to mention what ABC was nice enough to splash all over. The crime scene photos of Zimmerman's bloody skull.
The aff. is pretty standard until paragraph five, which is the first one to deal with any actual facts of the case. However, after explaining why Martin was there the aff. says that Zimmerman "profiled" him. That's all fine and good when one is talking to the media or blustering on a blog or standing around a water cooler. However, for lawyers and judges that is not fine and good. if you make a claim like that it can't be unsubstantiated. However, in the aff., which is supposed to be able to stand on its own without bits and pieces of stuff everywhere, there is no animus for the claim.
Without any animus the profiling alleged would be legal, since animus (things like race, religion, sex) is what makes it illegal. In addition, the aff. does not say where it gets this idea of profiling from. Fine if you are a lay person, but a conclusory statement if you are a lawyer (those are bad). So paragraph five, while being rhetorically charged for lay persons, actually does nothing to show probable cause for the crime charged.
Paragraph six also fails the four corners test. When you include a statement like "assumed he was a criminal" and fail to back it up, especially when there is a rule saying the document has to stand on its own, are judge's to assume this information was obtained from witnesses, through a psychic perhaps? Paragraph six also mentions Zimmerman was driving his car. It fails to mention from where to where (things like this, while boring and not important to the public are both interesting and very important to people like lawyers and judges because they help, sometimes, to prove or disprove the required elements of a crime). All in all paragraph six also fails to establish probable cause for the charge.
Paragraph seven; the state finally manages to attribute a statement to a source (in an aff. every sentence needs to be attributable to a source). However, we are now seven paragraphs into a three page aff. and the state has yet to outline or mention ANY legal wrongdoing. As in, in the first seven paragraphs of a VERY short aff. everything that has been done by both parties has been legal.
Paragraph 8; starts with a phone call Zimmerman was on. However, the rules for aff. writing are again ignored by the state. The aff. does not tell us to whom the call was made, how long it was, the exact time of the call, nor are we told how this information is known (again, not important to those watching the news on the couch or writing in newspapers but critical facts for lawyers and judges). The rest of paragraph eight, with the exception of the 911 tape, is full of conclusory statements that do not explain the why, what, when, where, how of the things claimed by the affiants. And, at the conclusion of paragraph eight in a three page aff. there is still no evidence of criminal or illegal activity.
Paragraph 9; starting with the first sentence "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." the problems begin. Who saw it? Was there video? Is it based on Zimmerman's testimony? Another witness? Who started it? These are all critical questions that should have been answered in the aff. itself yet they are not. One reasons why they are all so important is that a charge of murder two in Florida means that the state must prove the defendant acted with a "depraved mind". It's quite impossible to act with a depraved mind if you are not the one who starts the physical fight. Paragraph nine still contains no criminal activity.
Paragraph 10; Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Ok, this establishes that there was a homicide (legal term for for the killing of one human by another, different from murder which is the legal term for the unlawful killing of one human by another). Paragraph 10 fails to establish any criminality, or a depraved mind.
Paragraph 11; Martin dies from his wounds. No criminality or depraved min information.
Paragraph 12; cops have more evidence. Well? Where is it? More importantly, why are prosecutors and cops in Florida allowed to violate the rules of criminal procedure? The aff. brief, full of conclusory statements, and fails to establish the basic requirements for murder two. Florida has been a legal joke for the last two decades and it's good to see that they are continuing that fine tradition.