Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015052]To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it [I]the only [/I]reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?[/quote]

Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015058]Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.[/quote]

I strongly disagree that there is "no doubt" or that the aggressor is "clear as day". Merely following someone and verbally confronting them, despite anyone's instruction not to, does not make someone a physical aggressor or prove, under any standard of proof except speculation, that the person they were following was in imminent fear of physical harm. While it may have caused TM to be so, based on the testimony of Jeantel, it is just as reasonable for me to believe that Martin held a belief similar to G84C and saden1 that "you follow me, I'ma gonna whoop your ass" particularly as to this "creepy ass cracker".

There is a complete lack of any eyewitnesses of the fight's initiation and only one who had a clear view of the fight in progress - who testified that Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Even though Good "couldn't tell" if the flailing arms he saw were Martin striking Zimmerman, I believe that, based on the photos at the scene and shortly thereafter, and Zimmerman's cries for help, Martin had Zimmerman pinned on he ground and was beating the sh** out of him. The injuries to Zimmerman look significant to me and a neutral medical professional at the scene stated they could cause someone to reasonalby fear for their medical safety. Also, the fact that Martin exhibited almost no physical indications of being in a fight while Zimmerman was screaming for help and - according to an eyewitness and the photos at the scene - "looked like he had gotten his butt whooped" indicates to me that this was a vicious beat down and not a physical contest in any sense of the word. Zimmerman was not "simply losing a fist fight" as some have asserted - he was being beaten with a reckless abandon as to the injuries being caused.

Your belief as to how the events occurred, while one presenting reasonable scenario, ignores and disregards what I believe to be credible evidence that supports an entirely different and equally plausible description of the events of that evening. Clearly, if you and I were on the jury it would result in a mistrial, because nothing you have said erases the doubts I have as to the events and, obviously, nothing I could say at this point will convince you that it could have happened in any way other than as you have described it.

While I respect your opinion of the events as one sincerely and honestly held, I strongly disagree with it and I believe it to be supported, at least in part, by certain opinions you have held since this case initially hit the news - opinions held based on your own life's experiences rather than the evidence in this case. With that said, I confess that my opinion is likely to be influenced by the same. That's why we have juries - Different people bring different experiences to the discussion.

It's also why we have the law, so that all these differing experiences are held to the same standard. In this case, based on the evidence submitted, I firmly believe no one can state with any reasonable degree of certainty (1)exactly what happened that night or (2) without a doubt, Zimmerman's actions were unreasonable. Because of that, I firmly believe the law [I]requires[/I] Zimmerman to found innocent. You disagree.

Finally, while we strongly disagree, I thank you for your (mostly ;) ) respectful approach to the discussion.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

For sure Joe. It will be interesting how the jury finds the case, my hunch is guilty manslaughter, but think its close at 50-50. I just hope no riots breakout to add to Zim's bodycount.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015009]Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.


So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.[/quote]

this is an interesting case. i think everyone here is being "reasonable" in their approach and thoughts but yet we have a split of opinion on the warpath ..


im not a crim def atty, and it appears this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread since you posted .. but after spending 10 seconds i believe what has already been said in here ... the burden is on the defendant to establish a prima facie case of justified self-defense, then the burden swings back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reas doubt that the amount of force used in self defense was unjustified ....

and sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case can come from any where and anyone, it doesnt have to come from the defendant's own mouth or even from the defendant's witnesses . . just as long as the admitted evid at trial supports it . .

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Given that it's a jury of 6 women, It's a shame we only have DRave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(No knock on you DRave, I appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

DRave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. lol

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015045]Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. [I]Sipple v. State[/I], 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):


Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the [I]Sipple[/I] case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the [I]Peterka[/I] cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, [I]in this case[/I], GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a [I]prima facia[/I] showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, [I]if[/I] the prosecution's case [I]had not[/I] provided the [I]prima facia [/I]evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns [I]Sipple[/I], [I]Jenkins[/I] and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.[/quote]


You're muddling the water and you god damn well know it. The Sipple case is all about whether the defendant raised a self-defense claim not that there isn't a greater burden on him once he raised self-defense than a normal defendant. What the court said in the Snipple case is that the defendant raised the a self-defense argument through his police testimony and that his attorney should have done a better job in representing him,


If Zimmerman's defense does not actively provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his self-defense claim the prosecutor can petition the court to force the defense to provide material to support a self-defense claim. If the defense does not then the affirmative defense claim can be thrown out all together. In the Snipple case the court said the defendants statement constitute supporting material.

If Zimmerman doesn't call EMT or any other witnesses and simply used his statements to the police he will most certainly be found guilty. [URL="http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm"]"The word 'affirmative' in 'affirmative defense' refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.[/URL]

As a lawyer you should know all of this! A lowly software engineer should have to fcking explain this shit to you.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=joeredskin;1015092]given that it's a jury of 6 women, it's a shame we only have drave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(no knock on you drave, i appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

Drave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. Lol[/quote]


ha since when do we care about a woman's opinion......................

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015048]LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

[url=http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html]Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force[/url]

[URL="http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html"]What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.
[/URL]

Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden. :)[/quote]

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015095]You're muddling the water and you god damn well know it. The Sipple case is all about whether the defendant raised a self-defense claim not that there isn't a greater burden on him once he raised self-defense than a normal defendant. What the court said in the Snipple case is that the defendant raised the a self-defense argument through his police testimony and that his attorney should have done a better job in representing,


If Zimmerman's defense does not actively provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his self-defense claim the prosecutor can petition the court to force the defense to provide material to support a self-defense claim. If the defense does not then the affirmative defense claim can be thrown out all together. In the Snipple case the court said the defendants statement constitute supporting material.

If Zimmerman doesn't call EMT or any other witnesses and simply used his statements to the police he will most certainly be found guilty. [URL="http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm"]"The word 'affirmative' in 'affirmative defense' refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.[/URL]

As a lawyer you should know all of this! A lowly software engineer should have to fcking explain this shit to you.[/quote]

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Shephardize [I]Sipple[/I] and see what the cases say. I am tired of quoting it for you.

In the matter at hand, a [I]prima facia[/I] claim of self-defense has been made and, as such, Zimmerman does not need to prove the existence of a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense because it is presumed such as a matter of law. It is now up the State to disprove one or more of the elements of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt to invalidate the defense. If they fail to do so, the jury must acquit. In arguing the State failed to meet its burden, Zimmerman can rely on any admitted evidence regardless of who elicited or submitted it.

It is just that simple.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015098]I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.[/quote]

Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


[url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1150907.html]SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015103]Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).[/quote]


You should consult your supervising associate/partner on this matter...perhaps they will be able to enlighten you.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zimmerman is also being charged with Manslaughter as it is a lesser included charge of murder 2 (Meaning: All the elements necessary to prove manslaughter are included in the original charge or murder 2 and, conversely, all the defenses applicable to Manslaughter are equally applicable to murder 2. As such, the prosecutors is not bringing any "new" charges that must be defended by Zimmerman).

Attorneys are arguing the instructions now (well, this morning). The self-defense instruction will be given. It will not include an instruction that following Martin was a lawful act but the defense is free to tell the jury that in its closing.

I would love to see the final version of the jury instructions. It sounds as if the judge is following the pattern instructions with some modifications. In my experience, most judges don't like to vary from the pattern instructions as they are generally developed by the appellate courts with existing caselaw in mind and, as such, their language is generally considered "appeal proof".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

joe - have you ever had a plaintiff attorney start/do their opening in this way ..

1. "this case is about one rule.

all (doctors, cities, drivers, etc) have a duty to not needless harm others."

blah blah blah

"when a person causes another harm, they are responsible for the harm that they caused ..."

2. "Now let me tell you a story . . . (tells facts of case in a story narrative focusing on the defendant's conduct)

3. "who we are and why we are here ... my name is blah blah blah and I represent blah blah blah .."

4. explain burden of proof, what the witnesses will say, what the defense expert will say and why he is a paid-for opinion favorable to the person paying him ....

5. "the american justice system in the finest and fairest in the world . . . you took an oath to not allow any bias or undue influence on your verdict .. the word verdict means 'to speak the truth' and at the end of this case this is what you are going to be asked to do, to speak the truth and to be the conscientious of the community .. i promise to not waste your time and i will do my best to only put on the witnesses and evidence i think you need to hear and consider for you to make an informed decision and in return I ask that you listen to what the people have to say when they take the stand ... "

this trial approach is called "reptile" developed by don keenan and david ball. ive been flown around the country to their various seminars and million dollar club plaintiff attorneys are eating it up ... the DRI has seminars on how to combat reptile

i assume you know about pat malone and rick friedman "rules of the road" . .

link to a pat malone closing, not his greatest that ive read but he is the best imo. [url=http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reporters-official-transcript-of-procee-26473/]Reporter's Official Transcript Of Proceedings (Mr. Malone's Closing Argument) | Jones v. Prince George’s County, Maryland | Patrick Malone & Associates P.C. | DC Injury Lawyers - JDSupra[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

In answer to your question, no. Not that I can recall specifically.

To me, it seems like typical plaintiff attorney cosying up to the jury and pushing the boundaries of fact/argument in opening. Never heard of "Reptile". Googling now ... ;)

Yes. I am familiar with "Rules of the Road". I am doing a in-house seminar on damages/negotions in September and am trying to get my office to get a copy of it and David Balls' "Damages3" as references.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015104]Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


[url=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1150907.html]SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw[/url][/quote]

Yes. Please do read the case. Particularly relevant are the last five paragraphs where the court reviews Florida's laws concerning burden of proof in self-defense.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I have attended 3 seminars now and am eligible to participate in the "masters" seminar in somewhere in carribean islands ...

here is a quick snippet from david ball on damages, i spoke with him a bunch of times, even had don keenan "review" a case issue for me . .

6-8
Damages-only case.(16)
With minor adjustments, the same structure for opening – minus whatever won’t be admissible –works well for a damages-only case. Here’s how:

Damages-only case.
Part I. Primary rules. No advocacy.
Focus the rule on money:
When a truck driver’s negligence harms a pedestrian, the pedestrian is entitled to an amount of money equal to the level of the harm. Now let me tell you about the harm in this case.

Damages-only case.
Part II. Story of what the defendant did. No advocacy.
Tell as much of the negligence story as allowed. Argue to get in as much as possible. Explain to the judge that part of the emotional harm is your client’s vivid, painful memory of what happened. The traumatic memory of the defendant’s truck careening at her across the median is causing her emotional harm now, so that memory goes to damages.

Damages-only case.
Part III. Who we are suing and why: the safety rules the defendant(s) violated. Start of advocacy.
Again, include all you can get in. Try to cover each thing the defendant did wrong, why it was wrong, how it caused harm, what the defendant should have done, how easy that would have been, and how that would have prevented the harm. These elements should get in because each of your client’s harms is exacerbated by her knowing about the very simple safety rules the defendant so needlessly violated. Your client will tell you this, as will any psychologist or similar kind of therapist. Knowledge of how easily the defendant could have followed the rules makes the pain harder to bear.
When possible, part of your story of what the defendant did should include the defendant’s denial of negligence until the eve of trial – when they stipulated despite having no information they did not have in the first place.
Last-minute stipulation is relevant to damages because it causes additional harm.
For three years, Jane had to live with the knowledge that she was stopped at a light and hit from behind – yet they denied doing anything wrong and refused to meet any responsibility. That makes things a lot worse for anyone. It increased her worry that she’d never get the money she needs to take care of herself. And they did it just to scare her into walking away from her case. Only when they knew you were coming did they decide to try to look as if they were exercising some responsibility – far too late to do anyone any good but themselves.
Remember: the defense can diminish damages by showing your client’s failure to mitigate them. So you should be allowed to show how the defendant’s last-minute stipulation exacerbated them.

Damages-only case.
Part IV. Undermine. (What is wrong with the negligence defenses?)
This is usually not necessary for a damages-only case. You’ll undermine the causation and damages defense points in the next section.

Damages-only case.
Part V. Causation and damages.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VI. ‘Before’.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VII. “What can the jury do about it?”
Same as with regular case.
——————————————–
(16) For additional help with damages-only cases, please see Chapter 20 of Reptile.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

So lets get a roll call of the what you think the jury verdict will be from everyone,

Im saying: guilty manslaughter

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Tough, I am sticky with a not guilty for the moment. I may change to mistrial. Want to see the closings. Hopefully, I will be able to see the instructions.

Solid start to prosecution's closing, playing into all the juries emotional responses and highlighting all the points we've been discussing. Chico, you would be seating in your seat nodding in affirmation to everything he is saying b/c it is, essentially, exactly what you have said in the last view pages of the thread.

[url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/11/george-zimmerman-trial-more-charges-possible]Judge: Zimmerman to face manslaughter, too | HLNtv.com[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The prosecutor is laying the smack-down.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

manslaughter

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Well, the prosecutor had me right to the point he started askiing a bunch of rhetorical questions...

FWIW: Here's a poll from HLN. [url=http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/07/09/has-defense-created-enough-reasonable-doubt-get-zimmerman]Has the defense created enough reasonable doubt to get Zimmerman off? | HLNtv.com[/url]

[NOTE: Although I think the title is phrased in a legally incorrect manner, I agree that, from a practical aspect, it's how the jurors will likely judge the evidence].

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Here's something to think about, if Trayvon shot Zimmerman, I don't think would of ever heard anything about it.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

A........hush fell over the crowd...

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;1015125]Here's something to think about, if Trayvon shot Zimmerman, I don't think would of ever heard anything about it.[/quote]

You are right because Trayvon would have been in jail. This trial got so much press because Trayvon's body lay in a morgue for almost a week and no one notified his parents as to his whereabouts. He had a celphone on his possession but no one called the contacts labeled mom and dad. They were gonna bury him in an unmarked grave. Zimmerman was going to go on happily ever after and never have to face trial for Martin's death. The hoopla was to just get a trial period. The chief last his job because they were not going to even contact Martin;s parents about the incident. He would have just been "missing" to his parents. That's where all the attention comes from.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Good strong closing for the prosecution. Highlighted the inconsistencies and lies and tied them tightly to the elements. Strong appeal to the emotions but not so much as to be a transparently BS plea. I do think he left a lot unsaid and that the defense has the opportunity to drive a truck through some the prosecution's own gaps and inconsistencies. Regardless, it was an aggressive, unapologetic closing and well done. Certainly, some of their best work to date.

The defense has its work cut out for them.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Trayvon's father was notified of Trayvon's death approximately 12 hours after the shooting. A longer time period than should have happened but no where close to a week.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The defense has some serious work to do because murder 2 is a certainly attainable after the prosecutor's closing.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1015122]It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.[/quote]

Well it may come down to things like circumstances being different, execution style shooting(though I guess Oden may have ninja talents), one of the guys in the car saying that Hernandez said he shot him (not in a self defense kinda way).

But I guess it's his right to try.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015098]I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.[/quote]lol, I'm just quoting websites you brought up yourself, thinking they would support your side. Guess what, they don't. :laughing-

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1015086]this is an interesting case. i think everyone here is being "reasonable" in their approach and thoughts but yet we have a split of opinion on the warpath ..


im not a crim def atty, and it appears this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread since you posted .. but after spending 10 seconds i believe what has already been said in here ... the burden is on the defendant to establish a prima facie case of justified self-defense, then the burden swings back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reas doubt that the amount of force used in self defense was unjustified ....

and sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case can come from any where and anyone, it doesnt have to come from the defendant's own mouth or even from the defendant's witnesses . . just as long as the admitted evid at trial supports it . .[/quote]Agree with everything you said. I just think that since it's been established that Martin had pinned and was beating Zimmerman up, and there's certainly the possibility that either one started it, the low standard for prima facie self defence has been exceeded by a wide margin. It doesn't prove Zimmerman's innocent, but certainly puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

I wonder if this trial will be decided by the facts (maybe manslaughter, not murder2), by fear of riots (guilty on something), or something like the Golden Mean Fallacy (manslaughter) with the composition of the jury.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1015122]It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.[/quote]

Hernandez looks premeditated, but that for another thread. you go with guys to pick him up and drive to an empty lot? I mean thats straight from a Sopranos episode.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015142]Hernandez looks premeditated, but that for another thread. you go with guys to pick him up and drive to an empty lot? I mean thats straight from a Sopranos episode.[/quote]

true

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

As I expected, Defense is driving a truck through the gaps. Highlighting the requirement that, if jury makes assumptions about evidence, they must make them in favor of defendant.

Good use of photos and physical evidence.

The crux of it for me:

[quote]8:47 a.m. ET: O'Mara tells jurors they can't fill the gaps or connect the dots for the prosecutors.

"Assumptions presume a lack of evidence," O'Mara said.

8:49 a.m. ET: "Do not give anybody the benefit of the doubt except for George Zimmerman," O'Mara said.

8:51 a.m. ET: “You’ve heard from him, time and time and time again, you’ve heard from him, telling you what happened that night,” said O'Mara, who also asked jurors to not presume why Zimmerman didn't testify.

...

8:57 a.m. ET: "How many ‘coulda- beens’ have you heard from the state in this case? How many ‘what ifs’ have you heard from the state in this case? They don’t get to ask you that. No, no, no," O'Mara said. He also says prosecutors are supposed to show "what I have proven to you."[/quote]

At the same time, IMO, the narrative seems less emotionally compelling than that of prosecutor's and much less aggressive in attacking the evidence - it's almost like he is apologizing for telling them that the prosecution is wrong. So far, not the best work from them.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The jury instructions:

[url]http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf[/url]

Closing remarks of the instructions, something often forgotten and ignored by most people:

[quote]In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case.

Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.[/quote]

I haven't watched today, what are the odds looking like now for GZ?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

The instruction relating to self-defense:

[quote]An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven.[/quote]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Strong rebuttal. IMO, not enough to put murder 2 on the table, but solid.

Really, really going to be a tough call.