Thursday, July 19, 2012

Attorney Anne Bremner Discusses Possible Inconsistencies in Zimmerman's Account

Anne Bremner discusses the Trayvon Martin shooting, Zimmerman's statements with Soledad O'Brien

Criminal defense attorney Anne Bremner appeared on the Starting Point segment on CNN this morning to discuss the conflicts in George Zimmerman’s account of the Trayvon Martin shooting:

Anne Bremner Discusses the Trayvon Martin Shooting
Anne Bremner on CNN's Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien on July 19, 2012 discussing Zimmerman's statements in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

For those that missed it (it was on at 7:00 a.m. this morning), a transcript from the segment:

Soledad O’Brien: To me it seems like right there he’s admitting, he said running to the dispatcher, but he wasn’t running. Is that problematic? I mean, you know, in a court?

Anne Bremner: Absolutely. “I said I was running but I really wasn’t running, I was just kind of next to him” He needs to say that now because of the Stand Your Ground law because you can’t run after somebody and then stand your ground and use deadly force. And you can simply stand your ground when someone’s attacking you, don’t have a duty to retreat, so, and it’s also an issue before the jury trial. A judge can just decide this issue in Florida. So it’s huge. And obviously he’s talked to his lawyer, and he’s got to be careful about what he says, about whether he followed Trayvon Martin because it’s the pivotal issue, pretrial and if it gets to a jury trial.

Soledad O’Brien: But his attorney says they may not use Stand Your Ground, they might just use a basic Self-Defense. He’s another chunk of the interview with Sean Hannity, where they, and he has, before you hear this chunk, he’s described in pretty great detail about the fight and the wrestle for the gun.

[clip plays]

Sean Hannity: Do you remember when you, yourself, reached for your weapon? Do you remember that moment?

George Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Sean Hannity: Tell us about that.

George Zimmerman: Um, at that point, um I realized that it wasn’t my gun. It wasn’t his gun. It was the gun.

[clip ends]

Soledad O’Brien: I felt like there was some point that he was trying to make but I wasn’t sure that I fully understand it. What message was that supposed to be about, “not my gun” but “the gun”.

Anne Bremner: Well, exactly, and keep in mind in his first court appearance he said he didn’t know whether or not Trayvon was armed. I thought that was a statement he should never have made. Um, but that aside, I think he’s trying to talk about that there could have been a gun there, now he’s saying that. I mean, it’s difficult for him to make these inconsistent statements on the air and in court, and then he’ll have to face them in trial again, like I said. But I think he’s trying to say I had to use deadly force, “the gun”, uh, in person, kind of detach it from himself, um, and maybe attach it to Trayvon Martin. But then also to talk about how he feared for his life and he had to use deadly force, and it was, I guess, how it was “God’s plan.”

Soledad O’Brien: Uh, right. Which was his words. He sort of walked that back later a bit later on in the interview. Um, you said Stand Your Ground then he, they talked a little bit self defense, or his attorney Mark Marrow who was in that interview, as well. What’s the difference in terms of, how difficult, or, uh, it will be to convict him of, uh, manslaughter, let’s say?

Anne Bremner: Well self defense basically, and you have a right to self defense in this country, and it basically means that if you’re threatened, with deadly force or what you perceive to be deadly force, you can use deadly force. And Stand Your Ground is part of that, and if I were his lawyer I would definitely use it, if the facts warranted it because it basically says you have no duty to retreat. If someone’s attacking you, you don’t have to run away. You stand your ground and you can use the amount of force you need, whether it’s in your home, whether it’s out in the street, or anywhere else, to defend yourself. And so he’s basically got to use both. We have it all over this country, it’s by statute in Florida, but it’s a strong law that I would use as his lawyer. And self defense, only two people know what happened there, and one of them didn’t live to tell the tale.


  1. Dear Amanda Knox, it’s clear that someone cleaned up after Meredith was murdered. Someone also cut off her bra and repositioned her body – to make it appear, we think, that she’d been raped. We think that person also staged a burglary so it would appear the murderer hadn't been let in by someone who lived there. Even if a burglary actually happened, as you insist, who in his right mind would risk drawing suspicion on himself by cleaning up after the murder, or by moving and covering Meredith’s body? And if he did bother to clean up, why would he ignore his own bloody footprints? Why would he pause to lock Meredith’s door with a key, and yet leave the front door wide open? It's difficult to believe you weren't involved in the clean-up and body-moving, or why you might have done those things for an innocent reason. The killer would have no reason to have done them. Obviously Meredith didn’t. No one suggests your two out-of-town roommates came back and did all this, or that a stranger wandered in off the street and did it. Who does that leave?

    You, with or without Raffaele’s help. We found your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s DNA, in five different places around the cottage – including even Filomena’s bedroom, where you insist a burglary occurred. We didn’t even find Filomena’s own DNA in her bedroom, much less any trace of a burglar or anyone else – just your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s. You’ve also told several different stories about where you were that night. Sometimes you were home, sometimes you weren’t; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you invited Patrick Lumumba into your cottage and he killed Meredith, sometimes you didn’t and Patrick had nothing to do with the murder; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you insist Guede broke Filomena’s window and climbed in; sometimes you say Meredith must have let him in; sometimes you’re not sure. And so on. Maybe you had nothing to do with this gruesome murder, Amanda, but, frankly, we doubt seriously that you’ve told us all you know about what happened that night. Maybe it’s time you did. Better late than never.


  3. Earthly law is a joke... yet, once we git Upstairs... or down-in-the-hole... by OUR lives, all of U.S. shall have the Latin name for 'justice'. trustNjesus, girl, and I'll see you in the Great Beyond. God bless

  4. Thanks for your insight for your fantastic posting. I’m glad I have taken the time to see this. Goldberg, Persky, and White, P.C.

  5. Are you looking for the best criminal attorney in Sacramento? The answer to your question is complicated. In fact, the selection of the best criminal attorney in Sacramento involves a lot of factors. Interested to know more about law corporation? Learn more here.