Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

“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.

I was more entertained when he mimic'd Trayvon skipping across the courtroom.

 

[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.

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.

I couldn't imagine watching every minute either. Of this or any case.

 

[The Commish]

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.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Several of us have been saying this since about 3/4 the way through the State's case.

 

[-fish-]

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.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Several of us have been saying this since about 3/4 the way through the State's case.

He's only talking about the close, not the case.

 

[The Commish]

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.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Several of us have been saying this since about 3/4 the way through the State's case.

He's only talking about the close, not the case.

The dude did lose his track from time to time. I'm not sure why he did the close rather than his partner. Partner was much better during opening. With the comments towards murder 2, I am confident they didn't reach it and I think they attempted to adjust closing accordingly. They didn't go after his state of mind at all. They hammered home all the choices that set the night in motion. It seemed clear to me that they've bailed on murder 2 and are going after lesser charges.

 

[The Commish]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

 

[Joe McGee]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

Knock Knock.

Who's there?

Manslaughter and Murder 3.

 

[jon_mx]

“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.

Dee Dee = MLK!

 

[Zow]

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.

I don't think you're in the minority at all. Several of us have been saying this since about 3/4 the way through the State's case.

He's only talking about the close, not the case.

The dude did lose his track from time to time. I'm not sure why he did the close rather than his partner. Partner was much better during opening. With the comments towards murder 2, I am confident they didn't reach it and I think they attempted to adjust closing accordingly. They didn't go after his state of mind at all. They hammered home all the choices that set the night in motion. It seemed clear to me that they've bailed on murder 2 and are going after lesser charges.

This is just simply a common split between co-counsels on a case for evenly divvying up the workload.

 

[Zow]

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.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Seriously man, you now have had several attorneys, all who seem to essentially side with your position that the defendant is not guilty of the crimes alleged, tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, you have watched more of this trial than anyone else. But, to use Ramsay's dead on surgeon analogy, I could watch 200 hours of open heart surgery and still not have a freaking clue as to why the doctor is doing what or to go out there and do a surgery myself.

ETA: My point here is that you're doing an incredible disservice to yourself every time you argue against everyone else on this. It's akin to trying to tell MIT mathematicians that -5(2) = 25 because you argued about it for hours on a message board. You're killing any credibility you may have on anything with this trial.

 

[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.

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.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Seriously man, you now have had several attorneys, all who seem to essentially side with your position that the defendant is not guilty of the crimes alleged, tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, you have watched more of this trial than anyone else. But, to use Ramsay's dead on surgeon analogy, I could watch 200 hours of open heart surgery and still not have a freaking clue as to why the doctor is doing what or to go out there and do a surgery myself.

ya but JO JO has been watching the trial from a holiday Inn express

 

[Joe McGee]

Is there a tutorial on how to snip quotes so whole pages aren't quoted?

 

[Ballstein]

Is there a tutorial on how to snip quotes so whole pages aren't quoted?

no ####

 

[T Bell]

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.

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

 

[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.

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

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

collecting unemployment can be a lot of work

 

[Christo]

Basing your i-existence on the witness testimony of a criminal trial in Florida in a venue which you clearly have no understanding for (and that's not a dig, I don't understand all the rules in Florida) and posting like you have sense of validity behind your opinion more than just the right to have an opinion comes off as massively childish.

Sorry to say this struck a chord with me, and I'd like to apologize for my part in helping make the thread a cesspool -- especially to Christo.

Apology accepted. So much #### has been slung in this thread, I'm kind of curious to go back and see what it was.

425 pages? F that.

 

[17seconds]

What kind of beer are we drinking tonight?

 

[Christo]

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

It's called making a record. If you don't raise an issue at the trial it's waived on appeal.

 

[Christo]

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?

Because a defendant has a right to know the charges against him and prepare a defense before the trial.

 

[Christo]

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.

One of the first things my first boss out of law school taught me was to read the jury instructions for the claims you want to bring as a plaintiff before you start drafting the complaint.

 

[Christo]

Judge getting ready to charge West with contempt, she just warned him (essentially).

Meh, I had a judge threaten to have me arrested if I kept talking.

 

[Doug B]

Is there a tutorial on how to snip quotes so whole pages aren't quoted?

All you really have to do is select the parts you don't want, and then delete them. However, there are a few ticky ground rules that this new board imposes that can trip you up.

For instance, the board doesn't like it when you cut the blank line of "text" right above the bottom of a quote box. If you do that, it will usually prevent you from typing below the quote box. So generally, you want to leave in any blank lines that the board inserts into quote boxes (excepting any nested quotes you're intending to delete.

Another thing: after deleting out extraneous quotes, if something happens that you don't want (quote boxes fubarred, can't type below the quote box, etc.), you can always his CTRL + Z (multple times, if necessary) to backtrack through your steps and get back to where you were before. Then you can try deleting again in a different way, as needed.

 

[timschochet]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much these prosecutors make? Is it a good career, as opposed to practicing in the private sector?

 

[Christo]

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?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Unless you have proof that Zimmerman wouldn't have followed an unknown, suspicious looking Hispanic male who was lurking around his neighborhood, you're talking out your ###.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Judge getting ready to charge West with contempt, she just warned him (essentially).

Meh, I had a judge threaten to have me arrested if I kept talking.

What was the sentence?

 

[Christo]

Finally the state is bringing up all the points so many of us that believe Zimmerman caused this event to unfold ...its about time

They are bringing up possiblities and casting doubt on the defense theories, no hard affirmative evidence of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

they are poking holes in Zimmys own story...that in itself raises doubt in HIM

How could they poke holes in the story of someone who didn't testify?

 

[Joe McGee]

PROSECUTOR INVOKES MLK TO URGE CREDIBILITY OF STAR WITNESS RACHEL JEANTEL

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a27_1373582395

 

[Christo]

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

Agreed...although Christo could use a little work on his approach lol

If you don't like it, I've done my job.

 

[T Bell]

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.

One of the first things my first boss out of law school taught me was to read the jury instructions for the claims you want to bring as a plaintiff before you start drafting the complaint.

Exactly.

The jury instructions are the law for that jury, at least that's what the judge is telling them, and most of those jury instructions are out of a book of standard and approved instructions that are rarely if ever modified.

 

[T Bell]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much these prosecutors make? Is it a good career, as opposed to practicing in the private sector?

By the standards of the general public and also public sector jobs, it's very good money. In a major jurisdiction, and assuming he's a 15+ year attorney who's handling a major case like this, he's easily pulling down $150k - $200k.

He would have higher earning potential in the private sector though.

 

[Christo]

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.

One of the first things my first boss out of law school taught me was to read the jury instructions for the claims you want to bring as a plaintiff before you start drafting the complaint.

Exactly.

The jury instructions are the law for that jury, at least that's what the judge is telling them, and most of those jury instructions are out of a book of standard and approved instructions that are rarely if ever modified.

Yet it's not mentioned once in law school.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Its called spotting something out of place and suspicious. It happens every day.

Zimmerman isn't quite that "every day" bad.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

I think some give her too much credit thinking that she could devise a believable lie to help anyone. And I don't think she is all that "coachable" either.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

They have overnight to hop in this thread to gain insight for their rebuttal.

ETA: And, to the degree that I could get away with it I think I would be pounding into the jurors heads that Zimmerman's account is a "confession". And that believing Zimmerman's account in and of itself points to a guilty verdict. That Zimmerman's "honesty" isn't so much on trial, but his judgment and motives.

(Woz and other criminal trial lawyers are probably laughing at the foolishness of this post, but I posted a long time ago that my court room expertise is limited to being briefly seated in a jury before the defense used one of its ???? to excuse me.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time ....

Zimmerman hasn't watched this much. But then again he has far less invested in all of this than you seem to do.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

...I have watched over 200 hours of this trial in real time ....

Zimmerman hasn't watched this much. But then again he has far less invested in all of this than you seem to do.

The trial was what, two weeks?

 

[3C's]

What kind of beer are we drinking tonight?

Now we're talking. 8 point IPA at the moment,

 

[avoiding injuries]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

Knock Knock.Who's there?

Manslaughter and Murder 3.

Awesome

 

[3C's]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

not sure it's correct but CNN said O'Meara was doing the close which is why he wasn't in court during the prosecution close. preparing...

 

[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.

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

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

I multitask very well but when I tried to do a concall and listen to the closing argument it got difficult. when I objected to my coworkers statement I knew it was time to mute the TV.

 

[timschochet]

Lots of the legal experts on TV believe there's a very good chance for a manslaughter conviction.

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it- if Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison. That is a mandatory sentence involving the use of a gun, which is on the books in the state of Florida. My understanding is the judge would have no choice in this matter. Someone can correct me if my information is wrong about this.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

Oh. And in my imaginary as the prosecutor my closing arguments would (if I could legally) include how the defense even in these court proceeding didn't demonstrate any evidence that "slaughtering an unarmed kid out on a walk back from the store" mattered all that much. Pointing out the joke and other things in the opening statements (the CNN International article posted a few weeks ago) as well as Zimmerman's brief joking with the witness. That Zimmerman and his team never "gave a " about just another " punk", nor the jury.

(This would be silly nonsense but my goal is a murder 2 conviction and if it works "all's fair". And of course the same "expert" qualifications noted above apply.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Lots of the legal experts on TV believe there's a very good chance for a manslaughter conviction.

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it- if Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison. That is a mandatory sentence involving the use of a gun, which is on the books in the state of Florida. My understanding is the judge would have no choice in this matter. Someone can correct me if my information is wrong about this.

Didn't someone post in this thread that it could be suspended or on probation or something like that?

 

[3C's]

Lots of the legal experts on TV believe there's a very good chance for a manslaughter conviction.

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it- if Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison. That is a mandatory sentence involving the use of a gun, which is on the books in the state of Florida. My understanding is the judge would have no choice in this matter. Someone can correct me if my information is wrong about this.

Found this on a law type site

Manslaughter with a Weapon or FirearmThe crime of Manslaughter with a Weapon or Firearm is classified as a First Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 7 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code.

If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

• Up to 30 years in prison.
• Up to 30 years of probation.
• Up to $10,000 in fines.

 

[timschochet]

Lots of the legal experts on TV believe there's a very good chance for a manslaughter conviction.

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it- if Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison. That is a mandatory sentence involving the use of a gun, which is on the books in the state of Florida. My understanding is the judge would have no choice in this matter. Someone can correct me if my information is wrong about this.

Found this on a law type site

Manslaughter with a Weapon or FirearmThe crime of Manslaughter with a Weapon or Firearm is classified as a First Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 7 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code.

If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

• Up to 30 years in prison.
• Up to 30 years of probation.
• Up to $10,000 in fines.

OK, thanks. That contradicts what CNN reported, but they're not always accurate.

I still think 9 1/2 years is a little long for this crime, but I can swallow that a lot easier than 30 years.

 

[3C's]

Lots of the legal experts on TV believe there's a very good chance for a manslaughter conviction.

Just a reminder in case anyone missed it- if Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter, he faces 30 years in prison. That is a mandatory sentence involving the use of a gun, which is on the books in the state of Florida. My understanding is the judge would have no choice in this matter. Someone can correct me if my information is wrong about this.

Found this on a law type site

Manslaughter with a Weapon or FirearmThe crime of Manslaughter with a Weapon or Firearm is classified as a First Degree Felony and is assigned a Level 7 offense severity ranking under Florida's Criminal Punishment Code.

If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

• Up to 30 years in prison.
• Up to 30 years of probation.
• Up to $10,000 in fines.

OK, thanks. That contradicts what CNN reported, but they're not always accurate.

I still think 9 1/2 years is a little long for this crime, but I can swallow that a lot easier than 30 years.

not sure but even then I think they have a 75% rule, meaning he would have to serve 75% of his sentence and then "could" be released. that could put it closer to 7 years if that's how it played out.

 

[The Commish]

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.

Either your work is very undemanding or you've not really been watching as closely as you've claimed. People don't multitask well. That's been proven.

To be fair.....he's probably been watching as he's working. I can't imagine anyone sitting in front of their television, full attention on the trial going on and coming out with some of the comments he's made during this trial.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

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.

Yes you do. That and trial experience. Also, if the lawyer drew nine objections in opening he was doing something pretty out there, regardless of whether those objections were sustained. But the fact they were sustained every time does not at all suggest bias.

Watch the trial and report back, I'm guessing you didn't even watch opening statements. I find it hard to believe you can make a judgement call on bias without even watching the trial, it's a pretty egotistical position to take. If I was the only one claiming bias then have at it, but I'm hardly alone:

Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.

“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.

 

[The Commish]

Any bets on what West's opening joke is going to be tomorrow? I didn't see that on Jo Jo's wagering list.

not sure it's correct but CNN said O'Meara was doing the close which is why he wasn't in court during the prosecution close. preparing...

 

[The Commish]

So if I'm understanding the 'bias' argument here, the action of overruling is enough to throw that label on someone? Doesn't matter WHY the person overruled? Using this logic, if I strike out the side in a baseball game as an ump, it's because I am bias to the defense....not because the batters suck and have a terrible eye for the strike zone.