Skip to comments.ABC's Dan Abrams On Zimmerman: 'I Don't See How A Jury Convicts'
Posted on 07/06/2013 5:16:59 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
No wonder Dan Abrams left MSNBC . . . The former legal analyst at the "Lean Forward" network, now at ABC, expressed an opinion this morning that would surely be unwelcome at his former shop.
Guest-hosting on Good Morning America, Abrams opined that as a legal matter "I don't see how a jury convicts" George Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter. Abrams sees too much reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case to warrant a guilty verdict.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
No wonder Dan Abrams left MSNBC! Ping to Today show list.
He is about see how a kangaroo court operates.
Abram needs to understand this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It is the annual Sacrificial Lamb to the God of Black Racism.
And that was done with the prosecution's own witnesses.
I cant remember the make up of the whole jury but there is at least one that should be smart enough to wonder why the Prosecution and the Judge would not allow the toxicology report AND why the Judge had to keep reminding the Lawyers of that as Defense asked if a toxicology report was drawn.
It actually does more harm because the jury is free to wonder if he was on crack, crank, purple juice, meth or what
Might want to ping a few here
I sure hope you're right.
Was the subject of the toxicology report mentioned when the jury was present?
Yeh — I heard him this morning. For 16 months he has led the charge for a guilty verdict and now he reads the tea leaves in his hot chocolate. He is pathetic —
After watching another day of this kangeroo court I’ve come to the conclusion anyone who believes Zimmerman will be found not guilty is using facts to cloud their opinion. This trial with a hell bent for guilty judge has one, and only one, mission....find Zimmerman guilty. Even if it is manslaughter, which carries a 15 year sentense enhanced because of the age of St. Trademark, plus time for using a firearm. The earliest an appeal will be rendered is just under two years during which time Zimmerman will be gone from the planet if he begins serving any prison time. The railroading express driven by Judge Nelson will see to that.
Although I'm not 100% certain I'm pretty sure that it wasn't.Having watched a good portion of the proceedings since late last week (6/27) it's crystal clear to me that this judge is in the hip pocket of the prosecution.I wouldn't even be surprised if Attorney Corporal Holder (from whom the state is taking its marching orders) has something on her...if ya catch my drift.She doesn't even try to *hide* her contempt for the defense.
From what has been presented in court just thus far a juror would have to have carried into the jury her previous prejudices and biases to vote for anything except acquittal thus violating her oath as a juror and making her subject to dismissal.
His previous decision was based on news releases. The latter on the evidence presented at trial. Liberals know how to create news. Conservatives lawyer up and shut up. Look at the critism Z got for being on Hannity
Even folks on fr find pertinent material and bury it in a thread , neglecting to pass it on or create a new thread to bring it to media attention.
We don’t act and then expect actions by others
Yes the liberals seem to be in control but basically theyre lazy or rushed to meet a deadline. They use the news releases they are fed
I don't see how any reasonably intelligent Jury gets to a finding of guilty, but this is FloriDUH we're talking about. Stupid bastards couldn't vote properly in 2000 then insisted on counting, re-counting, and re-counting again the ballots until they could find a way for AlGore to win the election. Thankfully that failed.
For sake of argument, let's assume this jury is reasonably intelligent, or has at least ONE reasonably intelligent person willing to stand their ground and find Zimmerman rightfully not-guilty.
After witnessing this judge's statements, the number of sustained objections ruled in favor of the Prosecution and against the Defense which flew in the face of the facts and testimony being presented, I personally wouldn't put it past this "judge" to set the Jury's verdict aside and issue a bench finding of Guilty against George Zimmerman.
Wouldn't put it past that corrupt dingbat b*tch of a judge to do it. I think the fix is already in, which explains her rulings in favor of the Prosecution time and time again.
There's simply no way this corrupt dingbat b*tch of a Judge in the Zimmerman trial is going to dismiss any juror who carries their own prejudices against Zimmerman. She's as biased against him and the defense as she could possibly be.
If we ever needed an example of a biased, corrupt to the core judge, Judge Debra Nelson is it. Her reputation is one of being harder on the defense than on the prosecution - indicating to me the Fed's (who are ultimately behind this case being tried) went "Judge shopping" until they got her. To me, that means the fix is in.
i agree with you... it’s like during the election and following the polls... the writing is on the wall for our guys, and we don’t want to believe it, so we contort reasons for the dismal showing, insisting we are going to win... then we lose...
People are hung up on the word “reasonable”. There’s nothing reasonable about any of this. I hope I’m wrong but I believe he will be found guilty. It will be a “Roberts” type decision.
It is as you say, I would not put it pass the judge. This POS was told during MOM’s motion hearing on dismissal she not only had all the info the jury had but also had info which the jury did not hear (some of which we heard during court arguments with the Jury out) which rendered a murder II at the least not sustained. She listened to his arguments feining interest and as soon as the state responded, issued her ruling in favor of the prosecution, no dismissal. I hope she chokes on her food this weekend so we can get a new judge. She, the prosecutor, and the DA are all guilty of conspiracy to murder Zimmerman if he goes to jail and is killed there IMO.
Exactly how does Dan Abram's have any credibility here? IMO, he's done nothing more than demonstrate a willingness to cater to his audience, whether on MSNBC or on ABC now.
The fact that Abram's may have finally spoken some truth on ABC doesn't make him a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. He's still a media whore shilling for whichever network he works for (just like all the rest of 'em. Lying, corrupt bastards all, and they should be the first casualties in the revolution, IMO.)
The Judge, just like the Prosecutor in Jacksonville, is covering her a$$. She doesn’t want to be known as the judge that let Zimmerman off the hook and caused the riots, that are already gearing up.
She, surely, has set up an appellant court win if Zimmerman is convicted.
GZ says the kid is high.
TM wasn't in his right mind and the following was like goading him.....as he explained to his chick....who was probably his fence.
If this judge gets to the appellate level, there should be riots about that.
I am beginning to think that Zimmerman was charged and prosecuted just to appease the racial outrage. They put forth a case they knew they could not win but they can now say, ‘We tried’. Unless the jurors are instinctively frightened should they not render a guilty...justice will be served.
The ME was asked more than once about the toxicology report and the Judge had to warn more than once IN FRONT OF THE JURY about her ruling on the toxicology report
Meaning...you can’t discuss the contents. Defense was just getting in there that one was drawn and some specifics about where you would want to draw the blood etc.
It’s enough for them to wonder about the missing report.
I would have to agree although you never know. Jury’s can make some pretty irrational decisions.
Click the right path
DONATE TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY!
“I am beginning to think that Zimmerman was charged and prosecuted just to appease the racial outrage.”
No bout adoubt it!
Is it possible that the prosecution had access to the Obozo Universal Database to jury select?
Think about that.
The important question needs to be raised in city governments around the US: “If, after the Zimmerman verdict, there are efforts to riot in this city, do you have contingency plans to deal with it?”
Basically, they need to know that if there is a riot, and they are caught unprepared in dealing with it, they are going to pay a hard political price for that failure.
The same question needs to go to chiefs of police. That they need to respond swiftly and forcibly in the event of riot.
Fair warning. If they fail, it is *their* fault, and they need to lose *their* job. So get your act together, and do not fail.
Wasn’t it ABC that placed a huge logo across the screen and jiggled the sally port video so the viewers couldn’t see Zimmerman’s wounds? Abrams may not last long at ABC.
If one juror holds out, then there can’t be a conviction. But, look at the jury. Is it easier to get unanimity from a jury of six or of twelve? Obviously, it’s from a jury of six. Is it easier to get unanimity from a mixed jury of men and women, or from a jury of all women? Again, it’s easier from a jury of all women. People are bags of emotions walking around. Remember, we’re the nation where the majority of our voters elected Obama.....twice. Don’t think that all Americans, or even a majority of Americans, behave in a rational manner.
IMO, that's what it's been about since the very beginning.
Can a Florida judge toss the jury’s verdict and issue her own?
Is that a screen shot? The reporterette looks like she’s about to pass out from shock!
I'll double down on that. This judge seems quite frightened about riots, and it seems to be influencing her judgement.
I can understand why. With this emotional powderkeg, black riots may bring on serious white backlash.
Que' sera, sera... whatever will be, will be.
Hope he walks.... Hope they burn down their own neighborhoods in faked anger. Hope they get promised new wicker baskets full of snakes from Erkel Mugabes regime of lies.... Hope I never have to use a weapon in self defense in this era of political bullshit.
Hope yer having a good day....:o)
I see lots of ways.
1.-A bunch of stupid cows comprise the Jury
2.-The judge is biased.
3.-Obama wants a conviction.
4.- There is no such thing as laws and justice, the law and justice is whatever the guys with the power say it is, this is true at every level and at all times throughout human history.
I could go on.
Creepy leftest don’t like folks who break rank. Dan Abrams’ brave for standing up for what’s right as opposed to what’s politically correct. He’s in my prayers...
That is the one thing she can’t do. She can only overturn a guilty verdict, she can’t overturn a not guilty verdict.
OTOH since things are going so bad for the prosecution, she might decide to declare a mistrial and force Zimmerman to go through this whole thing again.
She’ll be looking for some response by a defense witness to claim prejudice to the state and just declare a mistrial and save her own butt and that of the prosecution.
That is because the elements of the right to self defense, if found, apply equally to second-degree murder charges as to manslaughter charges. The difference in these charges go to the mental capacity of the defendant. If the defendant used deadly force because he "reasonably" apprehended that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, he exercised a right to self-defense that has nothing to do with the mens rea or mental processes which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict for manslaughter or murder II.
It seems me the right of self-defense is available to someone who reasonably apprehends immediate serious bodily harm even if one has a depraved mind and even wishes to kill his attacker. The right to self-defense legalizes the use of "deadly" force.
When the prosecutor argued that to shoot someone in the heart is prima facie evidence of a depraved mind and evil intent, his argument technically had to be limited to the charge of murder II, to prove an evil intent, and could not have been logically directed to the legitimacy of the argument of self-defense. I think counsel for the defendant should have made this clearer. By definition, self-defense explicitly legitimatizes the use of "deadly" force which I presume embraces within it the shooting of an attacker through the heart.
I have no doubt that if the judge fails to instruct the jury in this manner that will only increase the danger for Zimmerman of a compromise verdict in which the jury confuses the "reasonableness" of determining whether he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm (to substantiate self-defense) with the mental elements necessary to prove manslaughter (elements which the prosecutor must prove to establish other manslaughter or murder II). It is worth noting here that the prosecutor must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's hypothesis justifying self-defense. Nevertheless, a jury is likely to decide that Zimmerman, while entitled to defend himself, overreacted and should not have shot Martin and they therefore will split the baby and find him guilty of a lesser included charge, manslaughter. This is a logical inconsistency and this is why Zimmerman is entitled to the charge I suggest.
When the judge declines, as I predict, to instruct the jury in this manner, at least the predicate has been laid for an appeal.
——>”Its enough for them to wonder about the missing report.”
I’d be surprised if MoM doesn’t bring up the dirty tox screen in front of the jury. Otherwise the jury might assume the reason it wasn’t entered into evidence is because it was clean.
Any rational person would assume such an obvious contributing factor would NOT be excluded....
Can the jury convict him of manslaughter, or just the murder charge?
Thanks for that clarification. With that in mind, I suspect as you state there's likely a very good chance that she'll find some reason to declare a mis-trial to make Zimmerman go through this whole thing again given the Prosecution's complete and total ineptness. This IMO is a trial that never should've occurred with the evidence that was (a) available at the time and (b) available now.
You know a trial's going bad for the prosecution when the Judge has to (seemingly) coach the prosecution from the bench, and especially when the prosecution's witnesses actually validate the Defense!
Making matters even worse, the Prosecution has had to on several occasions impeach their own witnesses!
Why is this trial even occurring? Oh, that's right: Obama blew the racial dogwhistle with his "If I had a son..." statement.
This is not the America I know and love where everything is completely bass-ackwards and all logic, sound judgment and common sense are completely GONE.
“I don’t see how a jury convicts”
I'm not a lawyer but I think that,at least in some states,a judge has the power to strike down or overrule a jury's *guilty* verdict but not a "not guilty" verdict.
They keep trying to save the recipe of far left nitwits and get it to garner viewers.
I get your drift, but as a native Illinoisan now retired in FloriDUH let me tell you that the problem here is the transplants from New York City and its environs that put the DUH in FloriDUH.
They are everywhere, loud, pushy and aggressive Democrats....seemingly all of them retired from the NYC street and sewer departments .....and now moled into every town board, homeowners association board, election commission and parade committee in the state.
They surround me....and they all still love Obama.
The native southern-type Floridians are conservative and vote GOP and are in a constant state of fright and retreat from the perpetual onslaught of the busy, intrusive, hyper, irritatingly-accented, noisy, pushy, condo-commando, socialist-gimme NYCers that never seem to sleep or to lie back in this paradise to smell the hibiscus, LOL.
The fact that blood was drawn for the purposes of a toxicology screen was mentioned in front of the jury.