Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Joe McGee]

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.

I'd be interested to know if Jojo would be ok if his lawyer charged him full fees for review of a video of court proceedings related to his case all while he was working on another case on his desk.

He strikes me as one of those clients who'd flip if he got wind of that.

Leave JoJo alone.

 

[timschochet]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

You really, really need to stop the "I've watched the entire trial and you haven't," trail of thought.

You're not allowed to respond to JoJo. Have you read all of JoJo's 753 posts in this thread? I have. Only those who have read him can respond to him.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

MOM putting me to sleep with the way he talks

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

SWEET!

Mark O'Mara just dropped a piece of the sidewalk in the courtroom! To show the weapon Martin used.

 

[timschochet]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

Eh, I take this as legal strategy by the defense attorney to cover all potential angles to hammer home that legally the defendant is not guilty. This is often done when the defendant's credibility may be at issue, yet there's still a good defense to the state's case in chief. Lines like "even if you do decide that the [defendant's] story is entirely believable and you lean more towards believing the state witnesses, you still should find [defendant] not guilty because...."

It's essentially hedging your bets and I like to do it with juries to show that I'm not some paid mouthpiece who is forcefeeding them some trumped up story and instead can sympathize with factual discrepancies and objectively analyze the case. If I have picked the right jury for this strategy, it usually works well - especially in like DUI cases.

That makes sense.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

You really, really need to stop the "I've watched the entire trial and you haven't," trail of thought.

You're not allowed to respond to JoJo. Have you read all of JoJo's 753 posts in this thread? I have. Only those who have read him can respond to him.

Right... been here since the very beginning...JO JO joined WAY later and was asking all kinds of questions haha

 

[jon_mx]

"He doesn't have to think he was going to die."

But if Zimmerman didn't think he was going to die, then he is a liar, because he told the police he thought he was going to die. That is the point I made to jon mx earlier in this thread. We'll see if the jury catches it.

He's talking about the interpretation of the law, not what GZ felt. So, if you don't believe GZ when he said he thought he was going to die, it could still be self defense.

That's true, but as I've stated before, IMO if the jury comes to regard GZ as a liar, he will be convicted (despite the fact that the law says something very differently.)

Tim, it is impossible to predict how a jury will behave. I was saying how the jury should behave if they follow the law. You can propose the jury will behave in any irrational way you wish, but you implied a lot more in your statements that the jury can't even consider that Zimmerman could have a reasonable fear of severe injury.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

SWEET!

Mark O'Mara just dropped a piece of the sidewalk in the courtroom! To show the weapon Martin used.

maybe they should have brought in a sprinkler head also lol

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What happened to the cartoon? JoJo said I was gonna see a cartoon.

Animation - you missed it, they showed it.

 

[financewonk]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Jon is either an attorney or is in law school. If I'm correct, then I think it's reasonable to assume that he's less likely to inject his personal morality into a legal interpretation/decision than the average juror.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You guys don't know my ex. I know her. She's amazing and this can't possibly end badly, despite all of your vast experience of dealing with the same issues I am.

Yes this is the same thing.

So you haven't watched the trial at all, you are just here to give us your expert opinion on relationships errr on 300 hours of a murder trial since you have a lot of experience with murder trials, right?

You really, really need to stop the "I've watched the entire trial and you haven't," trail of thought.

You really need to stop extrapolating "watching any of the trial to watching the whole thing," trail of thought.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think O'Mara has really convinced the jury they really don't like hearing "really".

 

[timschochet]

What happened to the cartoon? JoJo said I was gonna see a cartoon.

Animation - you missed it, they showed it.

Dammit. I guess I did.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

 

[jon_mx]

I find it ironic that the prosecution case is based mostly on profiling Zimmerman as a wannabe cop.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't been impressed with O'Meara, but at the very end he makes a compelling argument, the one that all along has caused me to believe that if I were on the jury, I would acquit. The prosecution has failed to remove reasonable doubt, IMO.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I find it ironic that the prosecution case is based mostly on profiling Zimmerman as a wannabe cop.

Why is that ironic?

 

[jon_mx]

The Joel Osteen stuff is bad.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

I like it.

 

[timschochet]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

this

 

[The Commish]

Did John Good testify that he shouted that he was going to call 911 before heading back inside? Is it reasonable to assume that both Trayvon and Zimmerman heard that announcement?

There's no way they didn't know the police were on their way. Goes for both Trayvon and George.

If true, seems like it would have been a good time for Trayvon to have tried to get away before the police arrived.

Agreed if he didn't think getting up and running would mean him getting shot in the back or some such. I've struggled with this very point for a while now. It speaks to Martin's discretion as well as Zimmerman's discretion and the feasibility of him being genuinely scared for his life. He called the cops and knows others did to. Martin knew that others called the cops...not sure he knew Zimmerman had called the cops though.

 

[jon_mx]

I find it ironic that the prosecution case is based mostly on profiling Zimmerman as a wannabe cop.

Why is that ironic?

Because prosecution a main theme raised against Zimmerman is that he profiled.

 

[Joe McGee]

The Joel Osteen stuff is bad.

?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

I thought he said after that he couldnt say for sure if trey was hitting zimmy...that he only saw his arms moving but wasnt sure?

 

[timschochet]

I suppose one advantage to a 6 person jury is less chance of a hung jury, right?

 

[jon_mx]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

And the 911 screams and the injuries. The preponderance of evidence supports the defense. Pointing to the lack of evidence by the defense is a tactic to try to hide the fact that the case against Zimmerman is even less void (I know...) of evidence.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Not sure this was the right case to present the "totally innocent" concept to the jury. Z is not totally innocent but i feel he is "not guilty" due to the lack of evidence form the state and self-defense.

 

[The Commish]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Jon is either an attorney or is in law school. If I'm correct, then I think it's reasonable to assume that he's less likely to inject his personal morality into a legal interpretation/decision than the average juror.

I don't know if he's a lawyer or not. But there is post after post during the SYG fiasco suggesting he has no idea what he's talking about from lawyers and non lawyers who can paste the law into the thread.

 

[jon_mx]

The Joel Osteen stuff is bad.

?

For some reason MoM was taking offense to being characterized as looking like Joel Osteen. It did not belong in the closing.

 

[timschochet]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

I thought he said after that he couldnt say for sure if trey was hitting zimmy...that he only saw his arms moving but wasnt sure?

It's the on top part that's important. It's always been the most important aspect.

If Martin was on top, how can you dismiss reasonable doubt? I don't see it. Keep in mind I really believe GZ is guilty here. But how can we eliminate the possibility that he feared for his life?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

And the 911 screams and the injuries. The preponderance of evidence supports the defense. Pointing to the lack of evidence by the defense is a tactic to try to hide the fact that the case against Zimmerman is even less void (I know...) of evidence.

IF the jury believes it was zimmy yelling and not trey...i think the fact that its not certain who was yelling makes this a non issue

 

[jonessed]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

I would consider a broken nose a serious injury.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I'm on the fence with defense's closing. I think they brought up a lot of good points, it was coherent, I understand their story. But even though he kept saying he was proving that GZ was INNOCENT beyond a reasonable doubt, with that NOT being the obligation, doing so really could backfire subliminally or otherwise in a juror's mind where they think he failed to prove his innocence and therefore he is guilty.

 

[The Commish]

Not sure this was the right case to present the "totally innocent" concept to the jury. Z is not totally innocent but i feel he is "not guilty" due to the lack of evidence form the state and self-defense.

This was my exact thought when he said it. There's a dead kid here. "Totally innocent" is completely inappropriate IMO. Wouldn't have a problem with "legally innocent" but that doesn't move the hyperbole meter enough. It may even be considered a slap in the face to Zimmerman.

 

[Doug B]

Animation - you missed it, they showed it.

You talking about the "animation" referred to earlier in the week in this thread? I thought that was ruled inadmissable? Or is it OK to show that kind of thing during close?

 

[timschochet]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

You're very good. However, that argument wouldn't fly with me because I'm a coward and wouldn't have broken up the fight either. I'm not even sure I would have told them to stop- I probably would have run away and called 911.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

I thought he said after that he couldnt say for sure if trey was hitting zimmy...that he only saw his arms moving but wasnt sure?

It's the on top part that's important. It's always been the most important aspect.

If Martin was on top, how can you dismiss reasonable doubt? I don't see it. Keep in mind I really believe GZ is guilty here. But how can we eliminate the possibility that he feared for his life?

If i was in fear during a struggle i would hope i ended up on top....it works both ways

 

[Johnny Bing]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

I would consider a broken nose a serious injury.

I agree. if TM had the injuries that GZ had, then we have a different story. State did not present a strong case, and did a horrible closing yesterday. They presented more questions than statements, talk about a defense reasonable doubt closing.

 

[jon_mx]

I agree with Tim. I think there's a good chance that he's convicted on the manslaughter charge. An unarmed teenager was killed by an armed man, and many people don't think that's okay despite what Florida's self-defense laws may permit. Moreover, most jurors will not understand the law as well as you do, will not be as analytically minded as you are, and so on.

This made me spit out my orange juice.....I see we're starting to get the "well, the jury was a bunch of morons" ball rolling early in case they go guilty.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that Jon is either an attorney or is in law school. If I'm correct, then I think it's reasonable to assume that he's less likely to inject his personal morality into a legal interpretation/decision than the average juror.

I don't know if he's a lawyer or not. But there is post after post during the SYG fiasco suggesting he has no idea what he's talking about from lawyers and non lawyers who can paste the law into the thread.

Oh pul-leeze. No, I am not a lawyer. But the SYG stuff is all over the place. Not one uses the terminology in a consistent way. You can listen to three different people and get three totally different answers on what SYG entices. Believe me, you have more than your share of blunders. BTW, are you still maintaining you have no bias in this case?

 

[The Commish]

Really? Come on! Really?

Hmmmm....turns out this was the best part of his statement.

 

[ATC1]

Not sure this was the right case to present the "totally innocent" concept to the jury. Z is not totally innocent but i feel he is "not guilty" due to the lack of evidence form the state and self-defense.

Perhaps he sorta pulled a Prosecution tactic there. We asked for Murder, but will accept Manslaughter as a lesser charge. Defense: I believe he is completely innocent, but we'll take not guilty.

 

[jon_mx]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

And the 911 screams and the injuries. The preponderance of evidence supports the defense. Pointing to the lack of evidence by the defense is a tactic to try to hide the fact that the case against Zimmerman is even less void (I know...) of evidence.

IF the jury believes it was zimmy yelling and not trey...i think the fact that its not certain who was yelling makes this a non issue

There is a zero percent chance that it was Martin screaming throughout the 911 tape. Zero.

 

[Rayderr]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

Not necessarily. Not everyone is CHuck Norris. Maybe Good doesn't want to risk injury or death to himself and would rather leave it to the police.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

I would consider a broken nose a serious injury.

Not one that qualifies as "great bodily harm" (this is actually a jury issue, but I think it's the only coherent way to understand the law) and my closing would hammer that point, with emphasis on the jury instruction.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Animation - you missed it, they showed it.

You talking about the "animation" referred to earlier in the week in this thread? I thought that was ruled inadmissable? Or is it OK to show that kind of thing during close?

They were allowed to show it during the close (and it was shown), but the jury could not bring it back with them when they deliberate.

 

[ArbyMelt]

I haven't been impressed with O'Meara, but at the very end he makes a compelling argument, the one that all along has caused me to believe that if I were on the jury, I would acquit. The prosecution has failed to remove reasonable doubt, IMO.

Not sure this was the right case to present the "totally innocent" concept to the jury. Z is not totally innocent but i feel he is "not guilty" due to the lack of evidence form the state and self-defense.

This was my exact thought when he said it. There's a dead kid here. "Totally innocent" is completely inappropriate IMO. Wouldn't have a problem with "legally innocent" but that doesn't move the hyperbole meter enough. It may even be considered a slap in the face to Zimmerman.

Totally agree with this, I think he could have made his point without going to the "totally innocent".

I think both sides went way too long. Why do these lawyers think they have to ramble on and repeat stuff for hours. Both could have done 45 min presentations and not put the jury to sleep.

I'm going with 25% chance of Manslaughter, and 0% chance of 2nd degree.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

And the 911 screams and the injuries. The preponderance of evidence supports the defense. Pointing to the lack of evidence by the defense is a tactic to try to hide the fact that the case against Zimmerman is even less void (I know...) of evidence.

IF the jury believes it was zimmy yelling and not trey...i think the fact that its not certain who was yelling makes this a non issue

There is a zero percent chance that it was Martin screaming throughout the 911 tape. Zero.

Its still a judgment call....who do you believe more...treyvons parents or Zimmys?

 

[timschochet]

Here is how I would rebut MOM's close (which has been pretty good when I've watched it).

"There were only two witnesses to the totality of this incident. One of them is George Zimmerman. The only other possible witness, unfortunately, is Trayvon Martin. He can't tell you what happened. But you are not obligated to accept the self-serving, unsworn, characterization of this confrontation offered by George Zimmerman. We have presented ample evidence that his account is simply not credible.

And absent any credible, unbiased account of this entire confrontation, we are left with the same facts we have had at the beginning. A trained, armed, larger defendant fatally shot an unarmed, smaller teenage victim. Reasonable doubt is not the absence of all doubt. And the defense has offered no credible evidence that Mr. Zimmerman feared death or great bodily harm, much less that reasonably cautious and prudent person in his situation would have."

And as a juror, back in deliberations, this argument would work for me, except for John Good's testimony. Good testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him. In the final analysis, that should raise the absence of all doubt to reasonable doubt, and I would still be forced to acquit.

"Good saw 7-8 seconds of Martin punching Zimmerman. We know those punches did not seriously injure Zimmerman (who refused medical attention). And we know that Good, upon seeing that, called for the two to stop and went to call 911. If Good perceived Zimmerman to be in real danger of death or great bodily harm, wouldn't he have done more? Wouldn't he have broken up the fight?"

I would consider a broken nose a serious injury.

Did you notice how O'Meara said, "a broken nose or something close to it?" That's nearly an admission from the defense that the injuries weren't as serious as Zimmerman claimed.