Skip to comments.Prosecutors in Zimmerman Trial Ask Jury to Disregard Comments (Too favorable towards Zimmerman)
Posted on 07/02/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Alright that is fair enough. I am certainly not a lawyer and am just saying my personal preference on the matter, and I do appreciate the information you have provided on this.
I am also of the mind that this entire case has been a mistrial since the moment charges were filed.
Again, your explanation makes a lot of sense, and I do appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me, because it was something that I did not understand.
yup they ended on that yesterday, i thought it was a tremendous win for the defense.
Yep, you’re right. Since it was their witness, I made the jump in logic that they were questioning him. It clearly states he was under cross-examination.
Thanks for the correction. Sorry folks...
Yes. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal. The state has not produced evidence that disproves self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The self defense theory has not been ruled "impossible" by the state's evidence.
The judge should grant it, but she will deny it. This is an issue for appeal, in the highly unlikely case the jury convicts.
-- It seems Judge would have to dismiss at least the 2nd degree murder charge? --
Dismissal is based on justified use of force. That trumps any underlying charge. If it goes to a jury, the jury will get instructions on murder 2 and manslaughter. The difference is defendant's state of mind. he has to have a depraved mind, indifferent to human life in order to be convicted of murder 2. Negligence is enough to sustain a manslaughter conviction. But, again, self defense trumps, and the reason the case should be dismissed after the state rests is because the state did not disprove self defense.
You do raise a point I hadn't considered, judge thinks there is enough evidence to disprove self defense, but not enough evidence to make murder 2 (no depraved mind, ill will, spite). That combination of finding would result in charging the jury with only an manslaughter charge - or, the judge might read the law as only giving the JURY the option for lesser charges, and the judge does not have the option to allow a lesser included charge. I don't know a case on that point.
given thgey asked the officer in terms of evidence, and having discussed that either George was a pathological liar or telling the truth, and having no evidence to indicate iar, if the evidence presented showed George as telling the truth, officer said yes.
based on evidence of george’s beavior and coroborating witness evidence.
not just opinion.
should not have won an objection.
In addition, the State’s line of questioning regarding is off the mark.
The state said his injuries were not serious. How would Zimmerman know at the time that his injuries would not get worse, had he not acted in self-defense. Was Z supposed to wait until his gead was cracked open before he was incapable of saving his own life? I don’t think so.
He defended himself while he still had the ability to do so.
doubt it. the way this judge is goibg she’ll say it’s up to the jury to look at the case presented and determine if they’ve proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
LOL - great comment.
But the same witness was allowed to claim that Zimmerman was motivated by ill will.
It’s up to the state to tell the judge what remedy it wants. The state was entitled to mistrial on the spot, and it did not ask for one. As you point out, this basis for mistrial is lost for good. Use it or lose it.
Is that even legal?
Do you think that the government will bring some kind of charges if he is found (when he is found) not guilty?
I see big big riots ahead for the summer. It will be ugly.
Part of a cop's job is to be able to pick up on non-verbal cues which indicate when a witness is being truthful. Although some cops may claim to perceive such clues because they want to justify a belief a defendant is lying, the presence or absence of such cues would be a bona fide subject of direct observation by the cops.
I guess I would regard a question of "Did you perceive Zimmerman to be truthful" as a short-hand form of "What non-verbal cues, if any, did you notice from Zimmerman which would influence your judgments of his truthfulness"? If a cop were to say a witness was a pathological liar, a proper cross-examination would ask what non-verbal cues led to that opinion. If the cop can't articulate any clear basis for such belief, the defendant should be allowed to argue that the jury should consider it plausible that the cop might have formed an erroneous opinion of the defendant which was not based upon any real evidence, and the imagined the defendant as acting in such fashion as to justify that opinion.
so everyone who kills someone they believe is a mortal threat to them are in trouble if they don’t let themselves get assaulted severely enough to satisfy the state?
that is not the standard for the use of up to lethal force. you don’thave to allow yourself to be injured,you have to hgave fear of death or grave injury, and if thge guy is bigger and on top and beating you and grabbing for your gun that’s enough for me to use of up to lethal force.
It's not. But O'Mara didn't object because he didn't mind the answers.
It's okay to ask about defendant's tone, demeanor and other indicia. The issue comes when assigning ultimate conclusion. E.g., "(I think) He had or showed ill will" or "(I think) He was lying" or "(I think) He was telling the truth." Those issues are for the jury.
I do agree that in this case, the state has lost it's right to ask for mistrial. It was given an opportunity to state the remedy it sought, and it stated the remedy it sought.
Manslaughter is a necessarily inlcuded lesser offense, and MUST be given to the jury.
This is a gross abuse of the power of the state against an innocent person. Corey and de la Rionda are despicable. Bondi knows what is happening, and by now the governor and quite a few judges have it figured out. None of them are saying squat, content to let Zimmerman squirm.
Incidents like this make my blood boil. Anybody that has any respect for the legal system ought to reconsider their position. It deserves respect for the same reason the mafia does.
Cboldt...you are one of the reasons FR is so popular. Informed,knowledable information from someone who has been there and done that, and without a hidden agenda.
Thank you for all your comments, I have learned quite a bit.
Don't they always? Even if the Prosecution's case was good?
Didn’t Z pass 2 lie detector tests? Can the defense tell the jury that?
I totally agree with that. That's why Nelson is bending over so far for the persecution...she doesn't want to "be responsible" for the riots that may (heh) occur if Zimmerman gets off. She's passing the buck to let an appeals court do the dirty work, while Zimmerman has to pay his bucks out through the nose defending himself.
Your analysis, as usual, is spot on IMO.
I’m reminded of that scene with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.
“I asked GRAVE danger, and you replied ‘Is there any other kind of danger’”.
“I know what I said....”
Looked at the other way, assume Nelson rules against O'Mara on everything, and gives him 1,000 SOLID grounds for appeal. How many of those will come back to her if O'Mara wins at trial?
Nelson is acting rationally, and biased as all get out. She can afford to. The state is going to lose. None of her foul rulings against O'Mara will see the inside of the DCA.
If she thought the state was going to win, she'd be more favorable to the defense at trial.
She looks like Meatloaf wearing glasses!
If a prosecutor deliberately forces a mistrial, the Double-Jeopardy rule in conjunction with the Dirty Hands doctrine generally precludes retrial. That doesn't happen often, though, because most prosecutors would rather dismiss charges than force the judge to throw out a case via mistrial.
He was asked the question in a roundabout way. Paraphrased:
Serino: “He was either being truthful or he’s a pathological liar.”
MoM: “Was Zimmerman a ‘pathological liar?’”
True that. But there was no force by the prosecutor on this one, just asleep at the switch.
Okay, and that’s where the pathological reference came from I heard the tail end of on the radio this afternoon.
Thanks for the clarification.
I can’t wade through this trail transcript. It would drive me batty. :^)
Yup. The State may have a million reasons to ask for a mistrial, but they can't use this question/answer.
Wait, are you saying thet, after the trial, we’re going to find out Rachel Jeantel was really Marlene Dietrich in disguise?
That’s my worry. Will the girls decide that it’s better to convict Zimmerman of something than to hurt Martin’s parents feelings (and to cause massive rioting).
The fact that she couldn’t read a letter she was supposed to write indicates that someone was manufacturing evidence.
That seems logical enough. But....
This trial has some novelty to it, and risks that don’t belong, like the threats of riots and the like if the Jury doesn’t find “the right way.” That adds a non-judicial dimension that makes me worry about the six wildcards. I’m not sure the usual observations of behavior and results apply.
(And dittos to what Sergio said above, your comments are great!)
Yeah....It seems that trips through the Florida legal system does that to people.
If the prosecution asked that question of a prosecution witness, maybe you might have a case. . . .calls for a conclusion by the witness. OTOH if Im not mistaken, the question was asked by the defense, of a nominally hostile witness for the prosecution. Im at a loss to know why it is reversible error if the prosecution doesnt make a timely objection?
And, BTW, the defense established (or at least I thought it had) that the investigation was headed nowhere until Crump announced that he had "found a witness in the lovely and gracious - and articulate - "Dee Dee. Is the jury not entitled to the information that the prosecutions whole case hinges on the credibility of Dee Dee"?
:^) Guilty as charged...
I am not a sexist person, nor am I a racist person. God made us all races, and He made both sexes.
I can, however, observe human behavior, and what I observe disturbs me.
Take Andrea Yates, for instance. A woman who savagely murdered 5 children.
I remember watching the appeals trial, and the women commentators on television. They basically said she was "Not Guilty By Reason of Ovaries."
And then you took the words right out of my mouth
Oh - it must have been while you were kissing me
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh, joy, oh, rapture. Ive got a brain!"
I definitely agree. I hate what is happening here, and I hate even more that there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it.
I wish I could answer those questions. I will say that if I was on this jury I would be noting how it seems that the deck is being purposely stacked in order to achieve a guilty verdict, and I would not give that to them.
Nor manslaughter. Nothing, he walks.
It's not all that hard to prosecute them. It's pretty hard, though, to prosecute them successfully without any evidence.