Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

JoJo -- Stay down, man.

 

[financewonk]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with the intellectual bullying of JoJo.

 

[The Commish]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with the intellectual bullying of JoJo.

Not a chance in hell Jo Jo's a lawyer is he?!?!?!?!?!

ETA: Sorry, I read that incorrectly. I don't think it's "intellectual bullying" to point out when someone is wrong and why they are wrong.....ESPECIALLY when that individual is so confident in his perception that everyone else is biased and he himself is correct.

 

[ATC1]

Someone earlier mentioned a theory where they thought that the whole thing "started" because Martin punched Zimmerman because he was reaching into his pocket. I can see that after rewatching Zimmerman's re-enactment. I had missed that potential scenario before.

This is my position.

People saying TM maybe acting in self defense, this is the closest I would say that is true. When someone in the neighborhood comes out and tells TM to stop and does not, it is not self defense anymore.

GZ is yelling and screaming for a while according to the facts of the 911 calls and Jon's testimony. I don't recall him saying he could not reach for his gun at some point before then while yelling for help, but if he feared for his life at that point, I'm not trying to gather attention to myself, I'm trying to get to my gun. He wanted someone to come out an intervene. When someone came out and it was clear that TM was not going to stop, at this point I would start worrying about great bodily harm to myself. Jon goes inside. I don't personally see how GZ gets the upper hand here to the point TM starts yelling for help on the 911 call. Then, I don't think Zimmerman feared for his life until TM saw the gun where he got to it and shot TM.

 

[Slapdash]

I really hope JoJo gets a part in the Saul Goodman spin-off.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

 

[Joe McGee]

I really hope JoJo gets a part in the Saul Goodman spin-off.

As who?

 

[The Commish]

I feel really bad for Zimmerman's parents having to listen to this. It has to be brutal.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

intellectual bullying of JoJo.

I remember in 3rd grade when my homeroom teacher intellectually bullied me for two weeks, until I finally conceded that 12 x 9 was 108.

 

[financewonk]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with their intellectual bullying of JoJo.

Not a chance in hell Jo Jo's a lawyer is he?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry for the confusion. I corrected it. I got annoyed when I saw that some of our lawyer friends were calling him a nimrod, etc.

 

[The Commish]

Someone earlier mentioned a theory where they thought that the whole thing "started" because Martin punched Zimmerman because he was reaching into his pocket. I can see that after rewatching Zimmerman's re-enactment. I had missed that potential scenario before.

This is my position.

People saying TM maybe acting in self defense, this is the closest I would say that is true. When someone in the neighborhood comes out and tells TM to stop and does not, it is not self defense anymore.

GZ is yelling and screaming for a while according to the facts of the 911 calls and Jon's testimony. I don't recall him saying he could not reach for his gun at some point before then while yelling for help, but if he feared for his life at that point, I'm not trying to gather attention to myself, I'm trying to get to my gun. He wanted someone to come out an intervene. When someone came out and it was clear that TM was not going to stop, at this point I would start worrying about great bodily harm to myself. Jon goes inside. I don't personally see how GZ gets the upper hand here to the point TM starts yelling for help on the 911 call. Then, I don't think Zimmerman feared for his life until TM saw the gun where he got to it and shot TM.

As we talk about the hypothetical....do you acknowledge that in this scenario it's also possible that Martin could have gotten a glimpse of the gun prior to rolling around on the ground causing him to go on the offensive as well? If I'm unarmed and I see a gun on the guy following me, I'm going to stay on top of him until he's unconscious, i have control of him, or the police get there. Just another "possibility" that will never be proven. Heck for all we know, Zimmerman could have said he was reaching for his phone, but he was really reaching for his gun....who knows?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Man, we need a Klingon opera draft.

Anyone here like to start drafts?

 

[The Commish]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with their intellectual bullying of JoJo.

Not a chance in hell Jo Jo's a lawyer is he?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry for the confusion. I corrected it. I got annoyed when I saw that some of our lawyer friends were calling him a nimrod, etc.

Is that really over the top based on Jo Jo's body of work in this thread?

 

[kentric]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

 

[The Commish]

I feel really bad for Zimmerman's parents having to listen to this. It has to be brutal.

Was that the older guy rolling his eyes earlier?

I'm not sure. I saw some old folks in the background and it triggered the thought

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or Martin didn't know where he was. This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

 

[Slapdash]

I really hope JoJo gets a part in the Saul Goodman spin-off.

As who?

Walt Jr's former partner suing him for divorce.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with their intellectual bullying of JoJo.

Not a chance in hell Jo Jo's a lawyer is he?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry for the confusion. I corrected it. I got annoyed when I saw that some of our lawyer friends were calling him a nimrod, etc.

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

 

[timschochet]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

Until you get sued. Then we all suck again. We know.

Two lawyers are walking down the beach, see a beautiful woman. The first one says, "Man, I'd like to #### her!" The second one asks, "Out of what?"

 

[The Commish]

Jo Jo....your boy jon bailed on you and started his own thread once the lawyers arrived. Looks like you're here to fight all by yourself.

 

[Joe McGee]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or Martin didn't know where he was. This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

For a supposed "neutral" bystander, you sure insult the pro-Zimmerman side an awful lot. You sound like one of the posters who says they're a centrist and then proceed to bash one political party endlessly. Which is ok, but you are hardly neutral.

I don't know how anyone could believe anything DiDi said. She couldn't remember one of of the most important parts of her coached testimony. She said Zimmerman might be a rapist instead of a racist shocking the prosecutor more than she shocked the defense. Not credible in any way, shape or form no matter what side her testimony helps.

 

[The Commish]

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

Classic coming from the guy who had little nicknames for others

 

[T Bell]

This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

Interesting rule(s) of evidence and jury instructions that tend to get misinterpreted.

The jury is instructed that if they conclude a witness has lied, they may also choose to disregard all of that witness's testimony. The key word is "may".

The jury can also appropriately conclude that while a witness like Didi testified with a clear agenda to defend Trayvon, if she happened to unintentionally "slip up" and say something that happens to implicate Trayvon (for hypothetical example, "Trayvon always told me that the best way to deal with a guy with a gun in his pocket is to punch him before he can pull it out") the jury might figure that that was actually reliable (given that it flies in the face of her agenda) and deem that particular admission to be reliable.

In short, the jury is given the option here and can actually "cherry pick" the testimony of a dishonest witness.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or Martin didn't know where he was. This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

For a supposed "neutral" bystander, you sure insult the pro-Zimmerman side an awful lot. You sound like one of the posters who says they're a centrist and then proceed to bash one political party endlessly. Which is ok, but you are hardly neutral.

I don't know how anyone could believe anything DiDi said. She couldn't remember one of of the most important parts of her coached testimony. She said Zimmerman might be a rapist instead of a racist shocking the prosecutor more than she shocked the defense. Not credible in any way, shape or form no matter what side her testimony helps.

Insult? Bagging on Jo Jo at this point really has nothing to do with the case. It has everything to do with his willful ignorance to everything anyone else is saying that doesn't fit his specific narrative. I've had very good discussion with others in this thread who think Zimmerman isn't at fault. Heck, I don't think there's a shot in hell that murder 2 sticks. What insults are you talking about outside of Jo Jo?? Even then I'm not sure there's been much insulting. I concede a lot of laughing though.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

Bingo. I wouldn't say that modesty is one their obvious character traits. In fact, it seems that we are seeing a bit of that here with their intellectual bullying of JoJo.

Not a chance in hell Jo Jo's a lawyer is he?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry for the confusion. I corrected it. I got annoyed when I saw that some of our lawyer friends were calling him a nimrod, etc.

It's not uncommon when someone is losing an argument to resort to name calling such as nimrod, Klingon opera, etc...

Dude, the Klingon Opera thing was a compliment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lcUwPmI5Y

 

[Rohn Jambo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed. The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored. That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on. But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

I am not sure about her ability as a judge but she's not so attractive.

 

[The Commish]

This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

Interesting rule(s) of evidence and jury instructions that tend to get misinterpreted.

The jury is instructed that if they conclude a witness has lied, they may also choose to disregard all of that witness's testimony. The key word is "may".

The jury can also appropriately conclude that while a witness like Didi testified with a clear agenda to defend Trayvon, if she happened to unintentionally "slip up" and say something that happens to implicate Trayvon (for hypothetical example, "Trayvon always told me that the best way to deal with a guy with a gun in his pocket is to punch him before he can pull it out") the jury might figure that that was actually reliable (given that it flies in the face of her agenda) and deem that particular admission to be reliable.

In short, the jury is given the option here and can actually "cherry pick" the testimony of a dishonest witness.

No, I get what they can do. My comment was more about the actions of those in this thread and how predictable that "line" is here.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I am not sure about her ability as a judge but she's not so attractive.

Here's a picture of her without the wig

 

[The Commish]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or Martin didn't know where he was. This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

For a supposed "neutral" bystander, you sure insult the pro-Zimmerman side an awful lot. You sound like one of the posters who says they're a centrist and then proceed to bash one political party endlessly. Which is ok, but you are hardly neutral.

I don't know how anyone could believe anything DiDi said. She couldn't remember one of of the most important parts of her coached testimony. She said Zimmerman might be a rapist instead of a racist shocking the prosecutor more than she shocked the defense. Not credible in any way, shape or form no matter what side her testimony helps.

Insult? Bagging on Jo Jo at this point really has nothing to do with the case. It has everything to do with his willful ignorance to everything anyone else is saying that doesn't fit his specific narrative. I've had very good discussion with others in this thread who think Zimmerman isn't at fault. Heck, I don't think there's a shot in hell that murder 2 sticks. What insults are you talking about outside of Jo Jo?? Even then I'm not sure there's been much insulting. I concede a lot of laughing though.

And I never claimed to have an unbiased approach. I've frequently admitted I am a "you got yourself into this mess" or "if he hadn't made the decisions he made" person when it comes to stuff like this and admitted it would be hard for me to overcome that position.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

FWIW, I'm in the minority among the pundit class is thinking that the State's close wasn't very effective. Good closing arguments have themes and this was particularly scatter-shot. I don't think that pointing out every potential inconsistency (both relevant and seemingly irrelevant) is very effective tactic. I also think it's irrelevant because I don't even think the State's narrative reaches Murder Two.

Even if I assume that Zimmerman profiled Martin, and initiated a confrontation, I don't see facts to support depraved mind murder.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

FWIW, I'm in the minority among the pundit class is thinking that the State's close wasn't very effective.

Glad I'm not the only one. Seemed like it was all detail/tactics and zero narrative/strategy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

To your first question, no I wouldn't consider that impartial in the manner in which you make it - i.e. bad. I know what I am getting into with some judges, and I know how to push other judges buttons. They are all human. I don't find anything inherently wrong with one judge being a hard ### for certain things, and another for other things.

To your second paragraph, again, I just don't see an inherent problem with that. I really don't. Is she a judge that is always pro state? Maybe. I don't practice in Florida in her county. But I will tell you what I did watch with a lot of interest and that was the jury instruction part of the case. You cannot minimize how important that part of a trial is; it might just be the most important. Because for all the testimony and facts and evidence and bias, perceived or real, if the jury gets a charge that is worded in such a way that the only possible conclusion is acquittal, then the defense won. And the defense did win many of those arguments. So, when you get down to it, as an attorney, what do I care more about? Losing a chance at some side bars, getting my opening interrupted or getting the jury instructions I want - I will take the jury instructions 10 times out of 10.

 

[Slapdash]

I am not sure about her ability as a judge but she's not so attractive.

Here's a picture of her without the wig

Must suck when that image comes up on HLN while you are mid-climax.

 

[GDogg]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or (and I know we've gone over this before), you (and I) don't know what Trayvon and/or Didi meant by "very close" to his father's house.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

To your first question, no I wouldn't consider that impartial in the manner in which you make it - i.e. bad. I know what I am getting into with some judges, and I know how to push other judges buttons. They are all human. I don't find anything inherently wrong with one judge being a hard ### for certain things, and another for other things.To your second paragraph, again, I just don't see an inherent problem with that. I really don't. Is she a judge that is always pro state? Maybe. I don't practice in Florida in her county. But I will tell you what I did watch with a lot of interest and that was the jury instruction part of the case. You cannot minimize how important that part of a trial is; it might just be the most important. Because for all the testimony and facts and evidence and bias, perceived or real, if the jury gets a charge that is worded in such a way that the only possible conclusion is acquittal, then the defense won. And the defense did win many of those arguments. So, when you get down to it, as an attorney, what do I care more about? Losing a chance at some side bars, getting my opening interrupted or getting the jury instructions I want - I will take the jury instructions 10 times out of 10.

From what I understand her background was as a state prosecutor before she got "promoted" to judge so she has a lot of ex-coworkers and friends "on that side" and from the Miami Herald article I linked previously:

“I don’t think they did themselves any favors,” said attorney Jose Baez, best known for defending “tot mom” Casey Anthony. “She has a reputation of being more pro-prosecution than the previous judge. We have an expression: ‘The devil you know is much better than the devil you don’t.’ ”

Going for 3rd Degree Murder w/ Child Abuse clause at the last minute was a reach even for State so she would really be sticking her neck out to let them get away with that. A judge can be biased and not rule 100% in one direction.

 

[T Bell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

The problem is that you're attempting to apply a 1:1 relationship between equal percentage of requests to sidebar allowed and anti-defense bias.

Maybe you're right, maybe this judge tends to favor prosecutors, or doesn't like this defendant or the defense counsel. I can't rule that or some other similar bias out. What I and others reject, however, is your insistance on that 1:1 relationship when there are so many other potential factors at work, such as:

- the greater duty of care on the part of the prosecutor to avoid overstepping bounds that infringe on the accused's right to a fair trial, and which might mean the prosecution needs to ask for more clarification about where those bounds are than does the defense;

- a defense trial strategy that might involve making spurious requests to the judge so that the jury can see them get rejected and perhaps be sympathetic towards the defendant as a result;

- defense attorneys who, more than the prosecutors, are attempting to use side bars as opportunities to re-argue matters that the court has already decided in prior argument;

- defense attorneys who are using the side bar requests as ways to break up the prosecutors' examinations and make them less effective;

- etc.

You have to remember that judges hate side bars as a general matter. HATE them. They are both interruptions to the proceedings that keep the jury waiting, and they're also "proceedings outside the presence of the jury" which aren't really outside the presence of the jury. The jury hates feeling like important information is being kept from them, and of course it's the judge who is the one preventing that information so the judge often feels like the bad guy here.

Most requests for side bars involve matters which either have been, can be, or should have been handled during a regular break when the jury wasn't in the court room. They're appropriate for unforseen "emergencies", or in more limited cases for clarification of some nuance to a prior ruling which might not have accounted for the evidence a witness has just given. Otherwise, you are supposed to take care of your #### beforehand, or make your record afterwards.

 

[ATC1]

Someone earlier mentioned a theory where they thought that the whole thing "started" because Martin punched Zimmerman because he was reaching into his pocket. I can see that after rewatching Zimmerman's re-enactment. I had missed that potential scenario before.

This is my position.

People saying TM maybe acting in self defense, this is the closest I would say that is true. When someone in the neighborhood comes out and tells TM to stop and does not, it is not self defense anymore.

GZ is yelling and screaming for a while according to the facts of the 911 calls and Jon's testimony. I don't recall him saying he could not reach for his gun at some point before then while yelling for help, but if he feared for his life at that point, I'm not trying to gather attention to myself, I'm trying to get to my gun. He wanted someone to come out an intervene. When someone came out and it was clear that TM was not going to stop, at this point I would start worrying about great bodily harm to myself. Jon goes inside. I don't personally see how GZ gets the upper hand here to the point TM starts yelling for help on the 911 call. Then, I don't think Zimmerman feared for his life until TM saw the gun where he got to it and shot TM.

As we talk about the hypothetical....do you acknowledge that in this scenario it's also possible that Martin could have gotten a glimpse of the gun prior to rolling around on the ground causing him to go on the offensive as well? If I'm unarmed and I see a gun on the guy following me, I'm going to stay on top of him until he's unconscious, i have control of him, or the police get there. Just another "possibility" that will never be proven. Heck for all we know, Zimmerman could have said he was reaching for his phone, but he was really reaching for his gun....who knows?

Possible, but in my eyes as a jury member, I don't see that as the probably scenario.

 

[Joe McGee]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

Didi's testimony also included a statement that Trayvon told her he was very close to his father's house but the altercation happened at the "T", well away from the father's house. Based on the time he inititally felt he was being followed and the time he said he was near his father's house, it is safe to assume that very close to his father's house wouldn't be at the "T". Therefore, he was either lying to Didi or, Didi was lying in her testimony.

Or Martin didn't know where he was. This Didi character is an interesting aspect of this case. It's fascinating to watch those rushing to discredit her do a 180 and use her testimony when it fits their narrative. Personally, I don't trust a thing she said.

For a supposed "neutral" bystander, you sure insult the pro-Zimmerman side an awful lot. You sound like one of the posters who says they're a centrist and then proceed to bash one political party endlessly. Which is ok, but you are hardly neutral.

I don't know how anyone could believe anything DiDi said. She couldn't remember one of of the most important parts of her coached testimony. She said Zimmerman might be a rapist instead of a racist shocking the prosecutor more than she shocked the defense. Not credible in any way, shape or form no matter what side her testimony helps.

Insult? Bagging on Jo Jo at this point really has nothing to do with the case. It has everything to do with his willful ignorance to everything anyone else is saying that doesn't fit his specific narrative. I've had very good discussion with others in this thread who think Zimmerman isn't at fault. Heck, I don't think there's a shot in hell that murder 2 sticks. What insults are you talking about outside of Jo Jo?? Even then I'm not sure there's been much insulting. I concede a lot of laughing though.

And I never claimed to have an unbiased approach. I've frequently admitted I am a "you got yourself into this mess" or "if he hadn't made the decisions he made" person when it comes to stuff like this and admitted it would be hard for me to overcome that position.

Fair enough.

 

[pantherclub]

holy #### did Jojo go off the rails here or what?

Its pretty telling when Jon and Hustler both check out of the conversation

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Good lord dude

I pray to God JoJo hasn't reproduced.

Jesus Christ, seriously guy?

sweet baby Jesus

Good God Man

holy #### did Jojo go off the rails here or what?

Its pretty telling when Jon and Hustler both check out of the conversation

Hey it's my number 1 fan. WAVE

How's the altar treating you preacher?

 

[drummer]

Good God Man

sweet baby Jesus

Jesus Christ, seriously guy?

I pray to God JoJo hasn't reproduced.

Good lord dude

holy #### did Jojo go off the rails here or what?

Its pretty telling when Jon and Hustler both check out of the conversation

Hey it's my number 1 fan. WAVE

How's the altar treating you preacher?

 

[pantherclub]

its like you guys have your own secret language

 

[BustedKnuckles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

To your first question, no I wouldn't consider that impartial in the manner in which you make it - i.e. bad. I know what I am getting into with some judges, and I know how to push other judges buttons. They are all human. I don't find anything inherently wrong with one judge being a hard ### for certain things, and another for other things.To your second paragraph, again, I just don't see an inherent problem with that. I really don't. Is she a judge that is always pro state? Maybe. I don't practice in Florida in her county. But I will tell you what I did watch with a lot of interest and that was the jury instruction part of the case. You cannot minimize how important that part of a trial is; it might just be the most important. Because for all the testimony and facts and evidence and bias, perceived or real, if the jury gets a charge that is worded in such a way that the only possible conclusion is acquittal, then the defense won. And the defense did win many of those arguments. So, when you get down to it, as an attorney, what do I care more about? Losing a chance at some side bars, getting my opening interrupted or getting the jury instructions I want - I will take the jury instructions 10 times out of 10.

From what I understand her background was as a state prosecutor before she got "promoted" to judge so she has a lot of ex-coworkers and friends "on that side" and from the Miami Herald article I linked previously:

“I don’t think they did themselves any favors,” said attorney Jose Baez, best known for defending “tot mom” Casey Anthony. “She has a reputation of being more pro-prosecution than the previous judge. We have an expression: ‘The devil you know is much better than the devil you don’t.’ ”

Going for 3rd Degree Murder w/ Child Abuse clause at the last minute was a reach even for State so she would really be sticking her neck out to let them get away with that. A judge can be biased and not rule 100% in one direction.

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.

You know, maybe in a way being a lawyer is a problem in a conversation like this. We are trained to respect the bench and many of us have to bite our lips bloody when we do it because it is required of our profession. But people who aren't lawyers don't necessarily have that in their psyche. So, I understand why you would feel the way you do about the judge. Even though it's clear you don't know anything about the rules of evidence and rely way way too much on watching it on TV. But again, as Ramsey has said, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't understand a lot of what is going on.

But I will tell you this, the best family judge in my courthouse has bloodied me several times in divorce proceedings. From outright making me look bad in front of a client to denying me every courtesy that I though I deserved. I still consider her a great judge because truthfully, I deserved most of it. By the same token, she also goes out of her way to compliment attorneys to their clients at the end of a hearing. It's part of the job. We don't win every argument. We make every argument we possibly can and know that many of them have no shot but we have to make the anyway.

So you agree that a judge is being fair and unbiased when she at least allows you the opportunity to make an argument (i.e. objection), and conversely if she denies you the opportunity to make an argument (via sidebar) then wouldn't you consider that as impartial treatment?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time, nearly every direct and cross Don West has made including his opening statement when the state received an unheard of 7 sustained objections during his opening statement alone. Judge Nelson shutdown Don West at every opportunity when he requested to approach the bench while court was in session and the jury was present and there was a witness on the stand. That struck me as unusually biased specifically since the state was given free reign to approach the bench whenever they made the request.

The problem is that you're attempting to apply a 1:1 relationship between equal percentage of requests to sidebar allowed and anti-defense bias.

Maybe you're right, maybe this judge tends to favor prosecutors, or doesn't like this defendant or the defense counsel. I can't rule that or some other similar bias out. What I and others reject, however, is your insistance on that 1:1 relationship when there are so many other potential factors at work, such as:

- the greater duty of care on the part of the prosecutor to avoid overstepping bounds that infringe on the accused's right to a fair trial, and which might mean the prosecution needs to ask for more clarification about where those bounds are than does the defense;

- a defense trial strategy that might involve making spurious requests to the judge so that the jury can see them get rejected and perhaps be sympathetic towards the defendant as a result;

- defense attorneys who, more than the prosecutors, are attempting to use side bars as opportunities to re-argue matters that the court has already decided in prior argument;

- defense attorneys who are using the side bar requests as ways to break up the prosecutors' examinations and make them less effective;

- etc.

You have to remember that judges hate side bars as a general matter. HATE them. They are both interruptions to the proceedings that keep the jury waiting, and they're also "proceedings outside the presence of the jury" which aren't really outside the presence of the jury. The jury hates feeling like important information is being kept from them, and of course it's the judge who is the one preventing that information so the judge often feels like the bad guy here.

Most requests for side bars involve matters which either have been, can be, or should have been handled during a regular break when the jury wasn't in the court room. They're appropriate for unforseen "emergencies", or in more limited cases for clarification of some nuance to a prior ruling which might not have accounted for the evidence a witness has just given. Otherwise, you are supposed to take care of your #### beforehand, or make your record afterwards.

I'm trying to give just 1 example of the bias that has been on display at trial for the past 45 days through observation. I chose side bar so that the lawyers in this thread cannot get all "lawyerish" to nitpick my examples by pointing at my lack of law degrees hanging on my wall. How can you claim the judge NOT giving prosecutors equal access to approach the bench as being fair and impartial? So much so that it is not only NOT 1:1 but it isn't even 50:1?

You can claim I lack the education to make informed legal decisions and that is fine, but you don't need a ####### law degree to see the bias that has been on display in court for the past 300+ hours that court has been in session. As I pointed out State objected NINE times (I originally said 7) during Don West's opening statement and were sustained each time. When was the last time you or any other lawyer here was objected to 9 times in your opening statement where the judge sided with opposing counsel each time?

If you watch his Opening Statement you will see that West asks a few times to approach the bench and the judge denies him. This is to set the stage for the rest of the trial where she continues to deny him to approach the bench. These aren't attempts to disrupt the prosecution's direct or cross as you suggest, this is during his own direct or cross.

 

[3C's]

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

200+ hours! In real time! That's dedication right there.

 

[Joe McGee]

This thread is coming back around. I'm entertained again.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

200+ hours! In real time! That's dedication right there.

When you work for yourself you can work and have it play in the background.

 

[financewonk]

“I had a dream … that today, a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality, but the content of her testimony,” Mr. Rionda told the jury.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

JO JO you need to step away from this case ...you`re obsessed ...its not healthy

200+ hours! In real time! That's dedication right there.

i know ive been one of the top posters in this thread over the last year,but i couldnt imagine watching every minute of this case on tv and googling every little detail of every little point made . Who cares what the judge looks like without a wig ...just stuff like that seems crazy to me. I watch the highlights at night if i have time ...i get most of my info in this thread.