To: CivilWarBrewing
BUT she told the jury they could rule on a lesser charge of manslaughter, which he is not charged with. He should be a free man.
9 posted on
07/11/2013 10:10:56 AM PDT by
DonkeyBonker
(Hard to paddle against the flow of sewage coming out of the White House.)
To: DonkeyBonker
BUT she told the jury they could rule on a lesser charge of manslaughter, which he is not charged with. Don't know if it's true, but I read somewhere that in Florida, manslaughter is automatically a lesser included charge for any murder charge.
15 posted on
07/11/2013 10:13:40 AM PDT by
kevkrom
(It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
To: DonkeyBonker
“BUT she told the jury they could rule on a lesser charge of manslaughter”
That appears to be required by state law, and was expected.
To: DonkeyBonker
BUT she told the jury they could rule on a lesser charge of manslaughter, which he is not charged with.
Meh. In florida it comes with the murder 2 charge. And I wouldn’t worry. Though it lowers the bar, the bar would have to drop to the floor for them to get a conviction. Not only is their reasonable doubt, but anyone watching this trial would just naturally assume taht Z simply defended himself from a serious physical attacker. Case closed.
65 posted on
07/11/2013 10:35:05 AM PDT by
cuban leaf
(Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
To: DonkeyBonker
"BUT she told the jury they could rule on a lesser charge of manslaughter, which he is not charged with. He should be a free man."
I don't know if murder 2 is considered a capital offense, but if it is, the Supreme Court has ruled that a jury MUST have the option of ruling for a lesser charge (manslaughter). The reason is that the court did not want juries to have to choose between a guilty verdict that they were unsure of and simply setting someone free, so it gives them a middle ground. The judge probably threw out the child abuse thing because it is a different type of crime than murder and not simply a lesser charge.
To: DonkeyBonker
The verdict should be acquittal of course, but it will be interesting if there is one jury holdout leading to a hung jury.
Since we all know that the DOJ and rabble-rousers wanted an arrest for show purposes, will the prosecution re-try the case?
Or will the shameful Zimmerman show trial satisfy the Holders and Sharptons.
If it’s a hung jury I do not see a re-prosecution of the case. It will be on to the federalista civil suit and more mad fun for the LSM.
100 posted on
07/11/2013 11:01:40 AM PDT by
A'elian' nation
("Political Correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred." Jacques Barzun)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson