...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

[Iamme]

Locally there is this re-trial of a murder case. It is garnering national attention. In the near future there is going to be a national tv show that will air about this particular case; how a guy convicted of murder, and sentenced to prison has won on an appeal due to improper procedure.

Now...do you want to hear the most lame reason that the defense is using as to why it's impossible for Evan Zimmerman to have committed the strangulation murder of his ex-girlfriend Kathleen Thompson? Get ready.......: Due to some condition of Evan, he doesn't have the strength in his hands to have been able to strangle her.

Really!

Now isn't that the lamest.......Just how can anybody prove such a thing?

Imagine this: They bring in a doctor. The doctor says, "...here, I'll show you. Okay...Evan?, step up here please. Okay, go over to the judge and let's see if you can strangle him." So...Evan goes up behind the judge and with all his apparent might, he acts like he is giving it all he has. Maybe he even let's out a fart, to show how hard he is trying.

And we wonder why we have lawyer jokes.

 

[CapelDodger]

To prove it, ask him to demonstrate on his lawyer. Who, with hands around a lawyer's throat and the sanction of the court, is not going to carry through if capable?

 

[Cleopatra]

[
Now...do you want to hear the most lame reason that the defense is using as to why it's impossible for Evan Zimmerman to have committed the strangulation murder of his ex-girlfriend Kathleen Thompson? Get ready.......: Due to some condition of Evan, he doesn't have the strength in his hands to have been able to strangle her.

In a very high profile case in Greece some years ago, a very famous writer was cleared for a case of a really repulsive crime ( the victim had been assassinated with a hammer) exactly because the professor of forensic surgery testified a similar inability in the hands of the accused.
Everybody in the court room knew that he was lying but guess what. They couldn't prove it, so this is what the judge did. He cleared him but he composed the rationale of the verdict in such a stupid way that was dismissd by the Supreme Court.

I don't understand why you accuse the lawyers for trying to do the best for their client. This is the lawyer you would want to represent you if you were in trouble.

 

[Iamme]

CCP:





Search




Law School Home

Information For

Prospective Students

Current Students

Faculty & Staff

Employers

Alumni & Friends

Information About

Faculty & Administration

Career Services

Clinics & Skills Training

Centers & Institutes

Law Library

Continuing Legal Education
Wisconsin Innocence Project
Evan Zimmerman
Home | Case Selection | Requesting Assistance | Press and Publications
Law Student Information | Links | Contact | Donations
Case Profiles | Wisconsin Wrongful Convictions | Innocence Projects

Evan Zimmerman's Conviction Reversed
In 2000, Evan Zimmerman was charged with the first-degree murder of Kathy Thompson. Zimmerman and Thompson had dated, but the relationship ended nine months before the murder. On the night of her murder, Kathy Thompson had gotten married. At the reception at a local tavern, Thompson and her new husband had a fight, and her husband went home alone. Thompson arrived home later, the two fought again, and the police were called. Her husband, who was on probation, was held over night in jail. Thompson was released in the middle of the night and offered a ride home, but she decided to walk. A few hours later, in the early morning hours of February 27th, Thompson’s body was found on Laurel Avenue in Eau Claire. She had been strangled.

At trial, the state theorized that after Thompson was released from jail, Zimmerman found her and strangled her. The state’s case relied on expert medical testimony, hypnotically refreshed eyewitness testimony, and Zimmerman’s statements to police, which the state portrayed as incriminatory. The jury convicted Zimmerman, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

The Wisconsin Innocence Project represented Zimmerman on appeal, alleging six grounds for reversal of his conviction, including insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and newly discovered evidence. (Read the brief.)

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed Zimmerman’s conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (Read the Court's opinion.)

As of this writing, Zimmerman is set to be retried in early 2005.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Top | Home

Last updated: Friday, December 10, 2004
General Law School information or questions: info@law.wisc.edu

 

[Ladewig]

Locally there is this re-trial of a murder case. It is garnering national attention. In the near future there is going to be a national tv show that will air about this particular case; how a guy convicted of murder, and sentenced to prison has won on an appeal due to improper procedure.

Now...do you want to hear the most lame reason that the defense is using as to why it's impossible for Evan Zimmerman to have committed the strangulation murder of his ex-girlfriend Kathleen Thompson? Get ready.......: Due to some condition of Evan, he doesn't have the strength in his hands to have been able to strangle her.

Really!

What if it is true? What if he really is innocent and for the reason stated?

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

What if it is true? What if he really is innocent and for the reason stated?

I don't have a clue about this case but from the Greek case I remember that the Professor testified that the accused was suffering from Parkinson Syndrome that's why he wouldn't hold a hammer and beat with it the victim.

Back then I have heard that only a syndrome like Parkinson makes somebody incapable to commit a crime using his hands.

Of course your question is really valid.

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

What if it is true? What if he really is innocent and for the reason stated?

Having seen more about the case I rather regret my earlier levity. We seem to have chaotic people in a chaotic part of town with a body rather than a beating and a hard case. Too often in these circumstances the police draw up a scenarion and a time-line, convince themselves of it and make everything fit inside the system they live alongside day-to-day. This guy could, perhaps, have done it, but it hardly seems out of bounds that this woman might have pissed off another randomly-encountered chaotic individual enough to strangle her. And if this guy did have his hands repeatedly broken over gambling-debts or crushed under falling Coke-machines, he was very poorly represented.

 

[Iamme]

Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

What if it is true? What if he really is innocent and for the reason stated?

----------------------------------

Ya, but, but, but...at this stage of the game, how would he get someone to believe him he didn't have the strength?

I think he's guilty. Here is why:

He's trying to get off on a technicality. The prosecuting attorney has emphatically emphasized that he is *certain* he has the right man. He has repeatedly said so, when confronted, in the newspaper.

But get this: Evan's own adult children are arguing that the prosecuting attorney promised Evan a 10 year sentence on a plea agreement (as opposed to the life sentence he got). The kids are making it out like the dad (Evan) would have took him up on it!

Huh? Would *you* if you *knew* you didn't do it? I don't think so. By agreeing to leser terms, it apears that you are really guilty, but just trying to do whatever it takes to reduce your sentence. It would appear *more* like you were innocent if you risked everything, to profess your innocence.

I would get up on that stand, whether my lawyer wanted me to or not...if I didn't do it (the killing)...and look the jurors straight in the eye and tell them (plead) that as God be my witness I never even was *around* her (and then say when the last time I *was* with her)...nor had *anything* to do with her murder, whether that be directly or indirectly (such as a 'hit'). I would sit there and say over and over again that I didn't do it. I would say that for whatever 'evidence they 'had' against me that it is false and say how they were mistakem by giving them the reason for how they could have been mistaken, such as when this witness claimed he saw Evan in a van transporting the body) And if they sentenced me for doing it, I would look them straight in the eye and say that they better not sleep good at night because they would be sending an innocent person to jail! They would have to cite me for contempt of court because I would go on a rant that they would never have seen the likes of! to profess my innocence.

But, like in the Scott Peterson case, you can already tell the guy is guilty when all he does is act mum and let his lawyer try to smooth talk for him. Same in this case.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

Everybody in the court room knew that he was lying but guess what. They couldn't prove it, so this is what the judge did. He cleared him but he composed the rationale of the verdict in such a stupid way that was dismissd by the Supreme Court.

No double jeopardy in Greece?

 

[RandFan]

Okay...Evan?, step up here please. Okay, go over to the judge and let's see if you can strangle him." So...Evan goes up behind the judge and with all his apparent might, he acts like he is giving it all he has. Maybe he even let's out a fart, to show how hard he is trying.

If he can't constrict you must aquit. --Johny Cochran (sort of)

 

[SezMe]

Locally there is this re-trial of a murder case. It is garnering national attention.

Ya know, Iamme, I don't really follow the daily news from the Katmandu Daily Tattler. And your national news never seems to seep over the border into my homeland. I know, such a sad fact is not your fault, but there it is.

So would you please not be so chauvanistic from now on and define "local" and "national" and how that is important to your OPs. Recognize that we have participants and lurkers from all over the globe. Either that, or honestly specify your location in your profile so we don't have to guess.

 

[Bjorn]

originally posted by lamme
the state theorized that after Thompson was released from jail, Zimmerman found her and strangled her. The state’s case relied on expert medical testimony, hypnotically refreshed eyewitness testimony, and Zimmerman’s statements to police, which the state portrayed as incriminatory

Doesn't sound too convincing to me ... The 'hypnotically induced witness' was one of the reasons he got a new trial.

The prosecuting attorney has emphatically emphasized that he is *certain* he has the right man. He has repeatedly said so, when confronted, in the newspaper.

Don't they all? Not exactly hard evidence, is it?

And if they sentenced me for doing it, I would look them straight in the eye and say that they better not sleep good at night because they would be sending an innocent person to jail!

He did, too - he said:

"I stand before you and my Lord innocent. I am as shocked as everybody concerned is by the violence of this crime. However, I can hold my head high and say I did not, have not, did not have anything to do with the death of Mrs. Thompson."

Just like you would have said if you were innocent, remember?

you can already tell the guy is guilty when all he does is act mum and let his lawyer try to smooth talk for him

We ought to get rid of the thingy about trial.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

----------------------------------

Ya, but, but, but...at this stage of the game, how would he get someone to believe him he didn't have the strength?

I think he's guilty. Here is why:

He's trying to get off on a technicality. The prosecuting attorney has emphatically emphasized that he is *certain* he has the right man. He has repeatedly said so, when confronted, in the newspaper.

But get this: Evan's own adult children are arguing that the prosecuting attorney promised Evan a 10 year sentence on a plea agreement (as opposed to the life sentence he got). The kids are making it out like the dad (Evan) would have took him up on it!

Huh? Would *you* if you *knew* you didn't do it? I don't think so. By agreeing to leser terms, it apears that you are really guilty, but just trying to do whatever it takes to reduce your sentence. It would appear *more* like you were innocent if you risked everything, to profess your innocence.

I would get up on that stand, whether my lawyer wanted me to or not...if I didn't do it (the killing)...and look the jurors straight in the eye and tell them (plead) that as God be my witness I never even was *around* her (and then say when the last time I *was* with her)...nor had *anything* to do with her murder, whether that be directly or indirectly (such as a 'hit'). I would sit there and say over and over again that I didn't do it. I would say that for whatever 'evidence they 'had' against me that it is false and say how they were mistakem by giving them the reason for how they could have been mistaken, such as when this witness claimed he saw Evan in a van transporting the body) And if they sentenced me for doing it, I would look them straight in the eye and say that they better not sleep good at night because they would be sending an innocent person to jail! They would have to cite me for contempt of court because I would go on a rant that they would never have seen the likes of! to profess my innocence.

But, like in the Scott Peterson case, you can already tell the guy is guilty when all he does is act mum and let his lawyer try to smooth talk for him. Same in this case.

The guy could be guilty as hell, but I don't see how you could convict him on the evidence. A woman walks home in what sounds like the kind of area no sane person would at 2 in the morning.

The DA offers a plea bargain. Even if you are innocent, many would take it, as they would be convinced they are to be found guilty and server life, or take the certainty of the plea. It's happened before.

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

The DA offers a plea bargain. Even if you are innocent, many would take it, as they would be convinced they are to be found guilty and server life, or take the certainty of the plea. It's happened before.

It didn't this time. He has never pleaded guilty.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

No double jeopardy in Greece?

I'm not Greek, but it's my impression that the "get of on a technicality" card is particular to the US.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

But, like in the Scott Peterson case, you can already tell the guy is guilty when all he does is act mum and let his lawyer try to smooth talk for him. Same in this case.

I don't buy that. If my laywer told me that my best chance of getting of was to keep my mouth shut then I'd do it, no matter how innocent I was.

ETA:

Now isn't that the lamest.......Just how can anybody prove such a thing?

I can see several ways. Evidence that he had visited his doctor about the problem before the murder would be fairly convincing. Testimonies from other people saying that they had witnessed his problems, or just heard him complain about it might do the trick too. In the absence of such evidence his claim is unconvincing.

 

[Mephisto]

Lawyers . . .

There is a section in Richard Lederer's book, "Anguished English" that deals specifically with lawyers. In one instance an attorney was questioning a forensic pathologist about a case and (for some reason) brought into question whether or not the deceased was actually dead. The pathologist's response was, "I'm pretty sure he was dead, his brain was in a jar on my desk." The attorney replied with, "but are you POSITIVE he was dead?"

With a deadpan face the pathologist replied, "Well no, I suppose he could be out somewhere practicing law."

THAT's why there are lawyer jokes. Speaking of which, what is the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a scum-sucking bottom dweller, the other is just a fish.

Mephisto

 

[BPSCG]

Solution is obvious:

• Confine him in a shipping crate.
• Pull the pin on a hand grenade.
• Pry open top of crate a couple of inches.
• Drop grenade into crate.
• Quickly nail top of crate back down.

If he grabs said grenade and can hold the spoon down for thirty seconds to keep it from exploding, open the crate and haul him off to death row and his appointment with Ol' Sparky.

If he can't hold the spoon down, well, it'll make a great reality-TV show.*

You're welcome.

* (Anyone remember the old Firesign Theatre game show parody, "Beat the Reaper"?)

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

If he can't hold the spoon down, well, it'll make a great reality-TV show.*

Don't forget to add, if he does get blown up, it'll be god to decide.

Charlie (shamelessly stolen from "kill em all and let god decide") Monoxide

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: ...and we wonder why we have lawyer jokes?

----------------------------------

Ya, but, but, but...at this stage of the game, how would he get someone to believe him he didn't have the strength?

By expert testimony? That whole evidence thing? Plus he doesn't have to prove diddly... all he needs is to establish reasonable doubt.

I think he's guilty. Here is why:

Okay...

He's trying to get off on a technicality.

Claiming to have not done it is a technicality?

The prosecuting attorney has emphatically emphasized that he is *certain* he has the right man. He has repeatedly said so, when confronted, in the newspaper.

Wow!!! A prosecutor claims someone he is prosecuting is guilty!!! It must be true!!

Seriously... did you think about that before you posted it? I mean... you do know that the prosecutor is also a lawyer, right?

But get this: Evan's own adult children are arguing that the prosecuting attorney promised Evan a 10 year sentence on a plea agreement (as opposed to the life sentence he got). The kids are making it out like the dad (Evan) would have took him up on it!

Which is meaningless, as you are not only presenting a heresay account of a hypothetical situation, but past that willingness to take a plea to avoid a larger sentence is not proof of guilt as much as it is a lack of confidence in the evidence...

Huh? Would *you* if you *knew* you didn't do it? I don't think so. By agreeing to leser terms, it apears that you are really guilty, but just trying to do whatever it takes to reduce your sentence. It would appear *more* like you were innocent if you risked everything, to profess your innocence.

Right.

Here's the deal: I have some evidence you are guilty of murder, not a slam dunk, but enough to where it isn't good news for you. If you go to trial and lose you get the chair. However, I'll let you plead guilty and just get a $5 fine.

You going to roll those dice to prove your innocence? Same deal as this guy, just a different magnitude.

I would get up on that stand, whether my lawyer wanted me to or not...if I didn't do it (the killing)...and look the jurors straight in the eye and tell them (plead) that as God be my witness I never even was *around* her (and then say when the last time I *was* with her)...nor had *anything* to do with her murder, whether that be directly or indirectly (such as a 'hit'). I would sit there and say over and over again that I didn't do it. I would say that for whatever 'evidence they 'had' against me that it is false and say how they were mistakem by giving them the reason for how they could have been mistaken, such as when this witness claimed he saw Evan in a van transporting the body) And if they sentenced me for doing it, I would look them straight in the eye and say that they better not sleep good at night because they would be sending an innocent person to jail! They would have to cite me for contempt of court because I would go on a rant that they would never have seen the likes of! to profess my innocence.

Which would be really stupid. The prisons are full of people that do this... If anything, acting like a maniac in this manner will just remove all doubt from those present as to your guilt. People that work in the system have seen everything at least twice... and trust me that there are a lot of guilty people that get this idea... deny, deny, deny...

But, like in the Scott Peterson case, you can already tell the guy is guilty when all he does is act mum and let his lawyer try to smooth talk for him. Same in this case.

It is telling that as to all these points you supply as a basis for your belief of guilt that there is not a single actual piece of evidence. Just conjecture based on collateral matters, and prejudice against someone maintaining his right to have the state prove their charges.

In a case where the state cannot prove guilt, staying silent whether innocent or not is the only rational strategy as it avoids exposing an unsophisticated defendant to the cross-examination of the trained prosecutor. Idiots that have to get up and scream they are innocent tend to get into a lot of trouble. Whether they are telling the truth or not a good prosecutor (remember, another lawyer except often also a politician) will make the defendant look like a liar.

As long as there are people dumb enough to think that "silence = guilt" the state will have more and more power to convict whoever they want, and the right to remain silent and not have to prove your innocence becomes more and more a nullity...