Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

wow State is arguing child abuse as part of their third degree murder motion

I think it is obvious how desperate the State is today.

They really must feel....they are toast.

They should throw in a jaywalking charge too.

 

[The Commish]

What is mind boggling to me is how can you even think it was or was not self defense. Not a single person knows this!!!!!Again passing judgement without one iota of any kind of real proof. Just speculation. You and I don't really know.

All I know is what has been presented in court.

Cases with similar evidence to this seem to return guilty verdicts all the time.

Well if that precedence I has been set over and over and over.....then GZ will be convicted right?

I really don't think there has been any concrete evidence to help either side.

that = a not guilty verdict 99.99% of the time. All they have to do as a defense team is get reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

I think that has been there since the eyewitness who saw TM on top of GZ. That was truly when the case ended for the State.

Both sides seemed to take the "let's try to confuse the ever loving #### out of the jury" position. How anyone here or on that jury is confident they "know" what happened is beyond me.

 

[jon_mx]

wow State is arguing child abuse as part of their third degree murder motion

I think it is obvious how desperate the State is today.

They really must feel....they are toast.

They should throw in a jaywalking charge too.

They did eventually end up off the sidewalk, so that charge could stick.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

No one, except Zimmerman himself, knows who initiated the confrontation.

On the remote outside chance that Zimmerman pushed Martin first

This is the only point I was making. No one knows for sure except Zimmerman.Do you reject that statement?

No I do not, it is also not the focus of this trial. WAY too much weight has been given to this unknown in this thread. It's an unknown, wanting to believe the fight started one way to support your narrative as the brass ring to put Zimmerman away for 30 years is selfish given the mountain of evidence we do know.

I agree.But to me the two things that matter most are who started the confrontation and why did Zimmerman shoot. All these other things like why did Zimmerman get out of his car and why did he follow are minor points. We will never know who started the confrontation. All evidence presented seems to support that Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked. To me, it doesn't justify shooting Trayvon, UNLESS Trayvon went for the gun. Zimmerman says he did, we can't know if that is true. We can't know if GZ feared for his life. There just isn't enough proof to say he didn't. Maybe he's getting away with manslaughter but I think he should be aquitted.

(According to Zimmerman) The reason Zimmerman shot was because the guy on top was suffocating him and injuring him. Zimmerman's cries for help went unanswered other than two neighbors telling them they were calling the cops and to knock it off, given that Martin did not stop from those verbal warnings Zimmerman had no reason to believe that Martin would stop and he feared imminent great bodily harm or worse. I don't think it needs to be proven that Martin was reaching for the gun, but you have that added in to. Remember it does not need to be proven that Zimmerman feared for his life which has been misquoted a number of times in this thread. In fact Zimmerman does not need a single injury in order to qualify for Self Defense.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

That is the wild card. What is jury buying? GZ's mother or Trayvons Mother. It could be as simple as that.

Scary.

You think the jury is going to believe what mothers say over a crappy recording versus what the best eye-witness saw and throw out all logic about why Martin would be screaming for so long. Why are people even debating this point? There is no logic to the Martin-screaming arguement.

Are you seriously questioning the logic used by a jury? Given what we have seen in these ridiculously high profile cases lately, I wouldn't be shocked if they came back with a verdict of guiltoccent at this point.

 

[timschochet]

I have two questions for those who have been watching this case, especially attorneys:

1. As I understand it, most hung juries are considered a victory for the defense. In this case, would such a result be a victory for the defense? Do you believe it's likely that, in the case of a hung jury, there would be another trial?

2. I guess a 6 person jury is not unusual in Florida, but as someone from California, it's new to me and kind of odd. Does a smaller jury favor the defense or prosecution? Does it change anything?

tia

 

[The Commish]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

West:

"Can this case get any more bizarre? Is the court really going to give any attention to the State arguing child abuse, because if so we have a lot of talking to do"

DON'T TEST THE WEST!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have two questions for those who have been watching this case, especially attorneys:

1. As I understand it, most hung juries are considered a victory for the defense. In this case, would such a result be a victory for the defense? Do you believe it's likely that, in the case of a hung jury, there would be another trial?

2. I guess a 6 person jury is not unusual in Florida, but as someone from California, it's new to me and kind of odd. Does a smaller jury favor the defense or prosecution? Does it change anything?

tia

1. It's better than a guilty verdict. I have no idea what the state will do if it happens. I am surprised they charged him with murder to begin with. I could understand manslaughter but just based on what was public it never seemed like murder was possible (but again, jury craziness is inevitable). I don't know if Florida has an Allen Charge rule but I don't know if that would help.

2. I would think it favors the state simple because it's easier to convince 6 people than 12 - or put another way, getting reasonable doubt is easier the more people you have to deal with. But I don't know any hard numbers or research on it.

 

[Phil Elliott]

wow State is arguing child abuse as part of their third degree murder motion

I think it is obvious how desperate the State is today.

They really must feel....they are toast.

Looks like the police department was right in the first place in originally deciding to not charge Z. Seems there is so much conflicting testimony and not a lot of hard evidence, its hard to see how the jury convicts unless they get scared.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

It's pretty rare that I disagree with you on a legal matter (I don't typically know enough to do so) but I have to question this. Under the law as I understand it, I can't see how any reasonable juror could convict George Zimmerman, because there is no way to eliminate reasonable doubt in this case. Even if I believed that Martin was the one screaming, even if I believed that Zimmerman was guilty (actually I do believe that BTW) I couldn't vote to convict him, because the state has failed to remove the possibility that he is not guilty.

This is not to say that juries always follow the law- I recognize that in many cases they don't, and if they think someone is guilty they vote to convict without worrying about reasonable doubt. But they're not supposed to do this, right?

There are two principles involved, which are not necessarily easily reconciled.

Yes, the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But a jury is also entitled to weigh the credibility of evidence as they see fit. Otherwise, every time we had witness A say one thing and witness B say another, the jury would have to acquit. It doesn't work that way.

A jury verdict can be overturned by a judge if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, but that is a very, very high standard. So long as there evidence to support the jury's verdict, the verdict will stand.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support a jury verdict for manslaughter (which is not to say that I'm predicting that's what we'll get). There is decent evidence that Zimmerman was getting beaten up. There is less evidence, IMO, that he was getting beaten to the extent that would justify the use of deadly force under Florida law. There is a difference between evidence that may be a mitigating factor that would lessen criminal culpability and that which would extinguish criminal culpability.

This is why I disagree with so many who believe that ZImmerman had a strong justification defense at the outset. Strong self-defense claims usually involve an armed potential assailant. Or possibly a man who is much larger than a female victim. They do not, IMO. usually involve defense against losing a fistfight. The jury could believe a great deal of ZImmerman's story, but no believe that he was being "slammed against the concrete" or that Martin went for the gun. I believe Zimmerman has a colorable justification defense, and I wouldn't be surprised if the jury came out either way. Much will depend on the strength of the State's closing, IMO.

 

[DaVinci]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

It's pretty rare that I disagree with you on a legal matter (I don't typically know enough to do so) but I have to question this. Under the law as I understand it, I can't see how any reasonable juror could convict George Zimmerman, because there is no way to eliminate reasonable doubt in this case. Even if I believed that Martin was the one screaming, even if I believed that Zimmerman was guilty (actually I do believe that BTW) I couldn't vote to convict him, because the state has failed to remove the possibility that he is not guilty.

This is not to say that juries always follow the law- I recognize that in many cases they don't, and if they think someone is guilty they vote to convict without worrying about reasonable doubt. But they're not supposed to do this, right?

Nothing forces jurors to be reasonable.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

West is saying the State has yet again acted in a deceived manner, by changing their aggravated assault charge to 3rd Degree Murder this very morning giving the Defense no time to prepare against it.

West is claiming the State submitted this motion they have been working on for 15 months based on the amount of materials submitted this morning, he said there is NO WAY they put this together over night and to not allow them hours to research a rebuttal would be unfair.

Judge is not budging, she said we will come back to this one.

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

 

[timschochet]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

It's pretty rare that I disagree with you on a legal matter (I don't typically know enough to do so) but I have to question this. Under the law as I understand it, I can't see how any reasonable juror could convict George Zimmerman, because there is no way to eliminate reasonable doubt in this case. Even if I believed that Martin was the one screaming, even if I believed that Zimmerman was guilty (actually I do believe that BTW) I couldn't vote to convict him, because the state has failed to remove the possibility that he is not guilty.

This is not to say that juries always follow the law- I recognize that in many cases they don't, and if they think someone is guilty they vote to convict without worrying about reasonable doubt. But they're not supposed to do this, right?

There are two principles involved, which are not necessarily easily reconciled.

Yes, the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But a jury is also entitled to weigh the credibility of evidence as they see fit. Otherwise, every time we had witness A say one thing and witness B say another, the jury would have to acquit. It doesn't work that way.

A jury verdict can be overturned by a judge if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence, but that is a very, very high standard. So long as there evidence to support the jury's verdict, the verdict will stand.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support a jury verdict for manslaughter (which is not to say that I'm predicting that's what we'll get). There is decent evidence that Zimmerman was getting beaten up. There is less evidence, IMO, that he was getting beaten to the extent that would justify the use of deadly force under Florida law. There is a difference between evidence that may be a mitigating factor that would lessen criminal culpability and that which would extinguish criminal culpability.

This is why I disagree with so many who believe that ZImmerman had a strong justification defense at the outset. Strong self-defense claims usually involve an armed potential assailant. Or possibly a man who is much larger than a female victim. They do not, IMO. usually involve defense against losing a fistfight. The jury could believe a great deal of ZImmerman's story, but no believe that he was being "slammed against the concrete" or that Martin went for the gun. I believe Zimmerman has a colorable justification defense, and I wouldn't be surprised if the jury came out either way. Much will depend on the strength of the State's closing, IMO.

Wow. This makes a lot of sense, and could even change my perception of what I would do if I was on the jury. Thank you.

 

[Phil Elliott]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

Did the state realize they may not win this so the judge is doing things to cause a potential mis-trial? As I understand it, you only get one chance to decide if you are going to testify on your behalf or not. Wouldn't the judge make this painfully obvious he only gets one chance to make this decision? This seemed very strange.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

I would have been annoyed. I don't know how they do it in Florida though - here I would have been given the opportunity to answer for my client, and I do all the time. If my client doesn't have to speak in a criminal court he/she isn't going to speak if I can help it, for any reason. The pinning him down to a time is rather stupid. The judge was more confrontational than need be. I'm willing to bet we would have sidebarred something like that here well before it got that far.

 

[The Commish]

Lawyers.....is the defense really "surprised" by these added charges or is it just It seemed blatantly obvious to me after half way through the first week of prosecution's witnesses that they shifted focus to lesser charges as they knew murder 2 wasn't going to happen. Wouldn't it be obvious to skilled lawyers also?

 

[jon_mx]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

 

[The Commish]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

Did the state realize they may not win this so the judge is doing things to cause a potential mis-trial? As I understand it, you only get one chance to decide if you are going to testify on your behalf or not. Wouldn't the judge make this painfully obvious he only gets one chance to make this decision? This seemed very strange.

What do you mean by "doing this"?? Asking him if he was ready to answer the question about testifying or not? What would cause a mis-trial by asking that question? Later on when they revisit it, she goes out of her way to make it clear that Zimmerman was making the choice himself so he couldn't come back with an appeal on those grounds, but I don't see what you're seeing in this clip with regards to potential mis-trial

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Why is it unfair? The jury still has to be convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime. If they do believe that, isn't it in the interest of justice to give the jury more choices about what crime to convict him of?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Yep. It is ridiculous. They are throwing in charges that the defense did not argue against...after the defense has rested. Ridiculous.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Lawyers.....is the defense really "surprised" by these added charges or is it just It seemed blatantly obvious to me after half way through the first week of prosecution's witnesses that they shifted focus to lesser charges as they knew murder 2 wasn't going to happen. Wouldn't it be obvious to skilled lawyers also?

I think it's hard to be surprised by any lesser included offense. Child abuse is a bit weird, but I'd have to compare the charges. The standard, as I understand it, is that the gravaman of the lesser offense must be included in what was charged in the indictment. Seems to me that evidence of Martin's status as a juvenile might not have been in there. I don't know.

But I think everyone knew that manslaughter was on the table. The other stuff doesn't really matter as near as I can tell. I think it would be hard to find the evidence to convict for any of those charges without reaching manslaughter.

 

[jamny]

Lawyers.....is the defense really "surprised" by these added charges or is it just It seemed blatantly obvious to me after half way through the first week of prosecution's witnesses that they shifted focus to lesser charges as they knew murder 2 wasn't going to happen. Wouldn't it be obvious to skilled lawyers also?

Again, I have no idea, but it seems like something the defense probably expected and they are acting shocked by the inclusion either as a show or to buy more time. I'm guessing this kinda stuff happens all the time.

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Yep. It is ridiculous. They are throwing in charges that the defense did not argue against...after the defense has rested. Ridiculous.

Not at all. If you believe that Zimmerman acted in self-defense (or even if you believe that there is reasonable doubt regarding this) then it eliminates ALL of these charges.

 

[kentric]

West. The court is looking under the wrong section. Is he intentionally trying to piss the judge off?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't know if the other attorneys will agree with me, and I deal with more civil than criminal, but the jury instructions and charges that create them is really one of the more vital parts of the case. It might just be the most important part.

 

[jon_mx]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Why is it unfair? The jury still has to be convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime. If they do believe that, isn't it in the interest of justice to give the jury more choices about what crime to convict him of?

What not just list the whole Florida code and hope the jury finds something to convict. Tim, you have zero sense of fairness. You only care about the outcome, getting Zimmerman convicted on something. Damn our system of justice.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Why is it unfair? The jury still has to be convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime. If they do believe that, isn't it in the interest of justice to give the jury more choices about what crime to convict him of?

What would be unfair would be to convict Zimmerman of a new crime on the basis of evidence that was not presented to the grand jury. For instance, suppose that somehow it came out in the trial that Zimmerman asked one of the neighbors to hide his gun and the neighbor refused.

If Zimmerman wasn't charged with Attempt to Conceal Evidence, it would violate Due Process to convict him of it based upon evidence uncovered at trial.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Why is it unfair? The jury still has to be convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime. If they do believe that, isn't it in the interest of justice to give the jury more choices about what crime to convict him of?

What not just list the whole Florida code and hope the jury finds something to convict. Tim, you have zero sense of fairness. You only care about the outcome, getting Zimmerman convicted on something. Damn our system of justice.

 

[jon_mx]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Yep. It is ridiculous. They are throwing in charges that the defense did not argue against...after the defense has rested. Ridiculous.

Not at all. If you believe that Zimmerman acted in self-defense (or even if you believe that there is reasonable doubt regarding this) then it eliminates ALL of these charges.

Child abuse?

 

[The Commish]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

I would have been annoyed. I don't know how they do it in Florida though - here I would have been given the opportunity to answer for my client, and I do all the time. If my client doesn't have to speak in a criminal court he/she isn't going to speak if I can help it, for any reason. The pinning him down to a time is rather stupid. The judge was more confrontational than need be. I'm willing to bet we would have sidebarred something like that here well before it got that far.

I get the not speaking part, but this didn't seem to be about who answered the question. It seemed to be about her asking if he was ready to answer or not and if not how much more time he was requesting to be ready to answer. I don't understand what the "objection" was for. Did he object because she was talking to Zimmerman instead of him or was it because of the specific question? Also, while I understand it might have been poor etiquette, some have suggested 'mis-trial' level issues with the incident....what in that incident would be grounds for a mis-trial?

 

[kentric]

Lawyers.....is the defense really "surprised" by these added charges or is it just It seemed blatantly obvious to me after half way through the first week of prosecution's witnesses that they shifted focus to lesser charges as they knew murder 2 wasn't going to happen. Wouldn't it be obvious to skilled lawyers also?

I think it's hard to be surprised by any lesser included offense. Child abuse is a bit weird, but I'd have to compare the charges. The standard, as I understand it, is that the gravaman of the lesser offense must be included in what was charged in the indictment. Seems to me that evidence of Martin's status as a juvenile might not have been in there. I don't know.

But I think everyone knew that manslaughter was on the table. The other stuff doesn't really matter as near as I can tell. I think it would be hard to find the evidence to convict for any of those charges without reaching manslaughter.

The way things are going, the judge either throws out murder 3 or gives the defense ample time to provide counter. She seemed surprised that there were only 3 lawyers on Z's side.

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman's attorney is pretty insulting to the judge- the judge is showing great patience in dealing with his whiny complaints.

The complaint is very legitimate. Throwing a bunch of new charges on top of this case hoping something sticks is an extremely unfair tactic which I would hope would annul any conviction on these new charges.

Why is it unfair? The jury still has to be convinced that Zimmerman committed a crime. If they do believe that, isn't it in the interest of justice to give the jury more choices about what crime to convict him of?

What not just list the whole Florida code and hope the jury finds something to convict. Tim, you have zero sense of fairness. You only care about the outcome, getting Zimmerman convicted on something. Damn our system of justice.

This is all new to me. I'm just listening to the attorneys here and elsewhere. But I don't see it as unfair so long as we're talking about the same crime.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Lawyers.....is the defense really "surprised" by these added charges or is it just It seemed blatantly obvious to me after half way through the first week of prosecution's witnesses that they shifted focus to lesser charges as they knew murder 2 wasn't going to happen. Wouldn't it be obvious to skilled lawyers also?

Again, I have no idea, but it seems like something the defense probably expected and they are acting shocked by the inclusion either as a show or to buy more time. I'm guessing this kinda stuff happens all the time.

There is a timeline issue for Defense (with regards to when opening statements are made). So there's a chance Defense is just trying to buy themselves half a day so that both opening statements can be heard on the same day, instead of State today and Defense tomorrow.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Again, this is a case of "lesser included offenses."

Let's have a hypothetical. Say that JoJo hits Tim over the head with a crowbar.

I'm the DA. I might charge JoJo with attempted second degree murder on the basis that he attempted to kill Tim, without premeditation, but through an act evincing a depraved mind by deliberately hitting him with a crowbar.

In order to prove that charge, I need to prove that JoJo deliberately hit Tim with a crowbar.

That act, would also satisfy other criminal charges. Such as aggravated battery, and simple battery. Those charges are "lesser included offenses" because they contain no other elements of proof that must be shown in order to prove the case. So if the jury finds that JoJo hit deliberately hit Tim with a crowbar, but that this did not evince a depraved mind, the jury could find that JoJo did not commit attempted 2nd degree murder but DID commit aggravated battery.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Why couldn't Zimmerman have pulled out his gun, pointed it at Martin, and yelled "stop!" ? Has anyone considered this?

Because that is illegal. Yes you have mentioned this before and were laughed at.

I really don't care if you laugh at me or not. (Given your complete lack of humor about anything in this thread, it would surprise me though.) I may have asked this question before. Its a long thread. I find it a reasonable question. The response that, "no, his only choice was to use it" is not real convincing to me.

Let me set the stage...

Tim: Why didn't Zimmerman whip out his gun at the first sign of trouble?

JoJo: You mean use his lightning fast reflexes and whipped out the gun before he got sucker punched by Martin?

Tim: yes

Crowd:

What you are suggesting is for Zimmerman to draw his gun unprovoked, you don't see how that is illegal?

That wasn't my question. My question was, when Zimmeman was getting these minor punches from Trayvon Martin, which, according to expert testimony, did no damage to him (and we also know this because after the incident GZ refused medical treatment), why didn't he pull out the gun and scream "back off, mother####er!" There are two plausible answers, of course: the answer you would like us to believe is that Zimmerman feared for his life, Martin also went for the gun, and Zimmerman had no choice but to fire. IMO, the far more plausible answer is that Zimmerman pulled out the gun, and in a fit of rage, with no fear at all for himself, murdered Trayvon Martin. He wasn't going to let any punk ### thug win a fight against him.

This has been covered.

I challenge you to get into a fight, let the other guy break your nose, let him mount you and start ground and pounding you.

THEN, pull out a gun in between the 13-15" separating your bodies and yell for him to STOP and then report back what happens if you are still alive after that.

Btw the example I gave is the EXACT question you asked previously in this thread.

See, you keep going back to the bolded, which has never been proven. Who knows how broken his nose was? He seemed perfectly fine afterward. Yeah, John saw a "ground and pound" for a second, whatever that means, but the ME says Zimmerman was barely bruised. A few cuts to the back of his head. No bleeding. Barely a mark on Trayvon Martin's hands. No medical care. Nothing at all to indicate the type of damage Zimmerman claims. Myself, I think it's total bull####.

All that really matters is if GZ believed his life was in danger. If he were to get knocked out he would have been defenseless so he had a right to defend himself if he thought that was going to happen.

Bingo.

As I mentioned much earlier in this thread... if you and I are fighting, you've punched me in the face several times, you've gotten on top of me, you're trying to suffocate me and are bonking my head against the concrete, saying "you're gonna die tonight mother####er!", and all the while I have a gun in my belt... you sure as hell aren't bonking me a third time.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

I would have been annoyed. I don't know how they do it in Florida though - here I would have been given the opportunity to answer for my client, and I do all the time. If my client doesn't have to speak in a criminal court he/she isn't going to speak if I can help it, for any reason. The pinning him down to a time is rather stupid. The judge was more confrontational than need be. I'm willing to bet we would have sidebarred something like that here well before it got that far.

I get the not speaking part, but this didn't seem to be about who answered the question. It seemed to be about her asking if he was ready to answer or not and if not how much more time he was requesting to be ready to answer. I don't understand what the "objection" was for. Did he object because she was talking to Zimmerman instead of him or was it because of the specific question? Also, while I understand it might have been poor etiquette, some have suggested 'mis-trial' level issues with the incident....what in that incident would be grounds for a mis-trial?

No idea. Forcing a criminal defendant to testify in a criminal proceeding. Because that is what she did - she swore him in to provide testimony - granted it wasn't fact testimony, but it was testimony as defined by that judge. I just don't know the Florida rule when it comes to that.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This trial is less about black vs. white then it is about West vs. Judge Nelson - bitter enemies.

 

[jamny]

Why aren't all the charges submitted before the trial starts?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

I would have been annoyed. I don't know how they do it in Florida though - here I would have been given the opportunity to answer for my client, and I do all the time. If my client doesn't have to speak in a criminal court he/she isn't going to speak if I can help it, for any reason. The pinning him down to a time is rather stupid. The judge was more confrontational than need be. I'm willing to bet we would have sidebarred something like that here well before it got that far.

I get the not speaking part, but this didn't seem to be about who answered the question. It seemed to be about her asking if he was ready to answer or not and if not how much more time he was requesting to be ready to answer. I don't understand what the "objection" was for. Did he object because she was talking to Zimmerman instead of him or was it because of the specific question? Also, while I understand it might have been poor etiquette, some have suggested 'mis-trial' level issues with the incident....what in that incident would be grounds for a mis-trial?

No idea. Forcing a criminal defendant to testify in a criminal proceeding. Because that is what she did - she swore him in to provide testimony - granted it wasn't fact testimony, but it was testimony as defined by that judge. I just don't know the Florida rule when it comes to that.

Again, I don't have a ton of experience, but I've seen Defendants put on record so long as they are not testifying with regard to the actual issue. For instance, I've seen Defendants sworn in to try to validate their status as indigent Defendants entitled to a lawyer provided by the State.

That seems right to me. I'd think you want to make sure that this stuff was on the record.

 

[kentric]

Finally figured it out. West must have gone in for a judge position and he wasn't accepted. That's why he's trying to tell the judge her business.

 

[Todem]

No eyewitness saw the beginning of the confrontation. What we have is indirect evidence from which a jury may draw different inferences.

If the jury believes that Martin was screaming on the 911 call, as some witnesses have testified. They may draw an inference (supported by the fact that Zimmerman set out to follow Martin) that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

The jury may draw a contrary inference from the witnesses testifying it was Zimmerman's voice, that Martin at least at one point had the upper hand, etc.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight of relevant evidence is the province of the jury. And they are entitled to come to either conclusion.

That is the wild card. What is jury buying? GZ's mother or Trayvons Mother. It could be as simple as that.

Scary.

You think the jury is going to believe what mothers say over a crappy recording versus what the best eye-witness saw and throw out all logic about why Martin would be screaming for so long. Why are people even debating this point? There is no logic to the Martin-screaming arguement.

I don't disagree.

But I have a lack of confidence in what any jury may be thinking. I have no idea what rationale they are using.

I agree with you. If you read the last part of my post which you did not quote...the eyewitness is the one I listened to the most. He was pivitol. He saw TM on top of GZ. Reasonable doubt has been established.

 

[timschochet]

Very interesting debate going on now about instruction regarding the legal definition of "provoke"- could be key.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

I would have been annoyed. I don't know how they do it in Florida though - here I would have been given the opportunity to answer for my client, and I do all the time. If my client doesn't have to speak in a criminal court he/she isn't going to speak if I can help it, for any reason. The pinning him down to a time is rather stupid. The judge was more confrontational than need be. I'm willing to bet we would have sidebarred something like that here well before it got that far.

I get the not speaking part, but this didn't seem to be about who answered the question. It seemed to be about her asking if he was ready to answer or not and if not how much more time he was requesting to be ready to answer. I don't understand what the "objection" was for. Did he object because she was talking to Zimmerman instead of him or was it because of the specific question? Also, while I understand it might have been poor etiquette, some have suggested 'mis-trial' level issues with the incident....what in that incident would be grounds for a mis-trial?

No idea. Forcing a criminal defendant to testify in a criminal proceeding. Because that is what she did - she swore him in to provide testimony - granted it wasn't fact testimony, but it was testimony as defined by that judge. I just don't know the Florida rule when it comes to that.

Again, I don't have a ton of experience, but I've seen Defendants put on record so long as they are not testifying with regard to the actual issue. For instance, I've seen Defendants sworn in to try to validate their status as indigent Defendants entitled to a lawyer provided by the State.

That seems right to me. I'd think you want to make sure that this stuff was on the record.

Yeah, I can see that.

 

[Todem]

What is mind boggling to me is how can you even think it was or was not self defense. Not a single person knows this!!!!!Again passing judgement without one iota of any kind of real proof. Just speculation. You and I don't really know.

All I know is what has been presented in court.

Cases with similar evidence to this seem to return guilty verdicts all the time.

Well if that precedence I has been set over and over and over.....then GZ will be convicted right?

I really don't think there has been any concrete evidence to help either side.

that = a not guilty verdict 99.99% of the time. All they have to do as a defense team is get reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.

I think that has been there since the eyewitness who saw TM on top of GZ. That was truly when the case ended for the State.

Both sides seemed to take the "let's try to confuse the ever loving #### out of the jury" position. How anyone here or on that jury is confident they "know" what happened is beyond me.

We are on the same page.

 

[timschochet]

The judge just ruled in favor of the defense that Zimmerman following Martin is not legal provocation. That seems to me to be a huge victory for the defense. Gee, I thought this judge was biased for the prosecution. How do you explain that, JoJo?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

wow Judge, asking West "to cite case law that shows following someone is NOT illegal."

 

[Phil Elliott]

So let me get this straight, the judge forced Zimmerman to go under oath and testify that he wasn't going to testify and worded it in a way that could have produced testimony that the jury could have used against him? And then flipped out on his lawyer when the lawyer objected?

Is it possible that she's actually biased enough to TRY to create a mistrial because she knows how badly the prosecution is doing? Or is she just that incompetent? Seems like something she should possibly be removed from the bench for.

This is the discussion that everyone's up in arms about. I don't get it. She was asking if he had made a decision or if he needed more time. I'm not sure of the wording you are talking about either.

I find the reaction a little mystifying too. Perhaps the timing was a bit weird (although I know of no rule that the Defendant must be allowed to make a decision to testify at any time during the defense's case in chief), but there was literally no "testimony that the jury could have used against him." And in fact, before swearing him in, she clearly instructed Zimmerman that the jury would (properly) be instructed that they could not draw an inference based upon his decision to decline to testify.

Glad I'm not alone...so, all of you that are making a big deal out of this. Can you help me understand your position and why you are so outraged at this incident??

Did the state realize they may not win this so the judge is doing things to cause a potential mis-trial? As I understand it, you only get one chance to decide if you are going to testify on your behalf or not. Wouldn't the judge make this painfully obvious he only gets one chance to make this decision? This seemed very strange.

What do you mean by "doing this"?? Asking him if he was ready to answer the question about testifying or not? What would cause a mis-trial by asking that question? Later on when they revisit it, she goes out of her way to make it clear that Zimmerman was making the choice himself so he couldn't come back with an appeal on those grounds, but I don't see what you're seeing in this clip with regards to potential mis-trial

She wouldn't let the lawyer protect his client...she was asking him directly and, my opinion, badgering the client. Then all of a sudden she drops it and says she will give Z more time to consult with his lawyer. It just seemed very strange. In the limited cases I have seen, the judge usually goes out of their way to be a little more impartial to the client. I understand she wants to know if he is going to testify or not....

 

[timschochet]

wow Judge, asking West "to cite case law that shows following someone is NOT illegal."

You ignore every time the judge rules in favor of the defense (like they just did on a very important issue) and build up every time it seems as if the judge is arguing with the defense. It's absurd.