George Zimmerman Trial

[JAB1985]

I smell some bitterness or something :)

On a serious note. Have you ever been in a car accident? Ever told that story more than once? Ever tell that story that exact same way?

bitterness about what?

its one thing to say something different but be the same thing ultimately. its another to say things that are completely different entirely or outright lie about. I believe he was on FOX when he said something about not having any knowledge of the "stand your ground" law. He clearly lied about that and I guess that just sticks with me because i cant fathom a reason to lie about it that would help or hurt him.

If in the 11th hour, a prosecutor is seeking lesser charges, it means they're not confident they're going to get a conviction on the charges before the court now.

If he's found not guilty, they cannot come back and charge him with anything so they have to try and amend the charge or offer up the lesser charge now.

pretty much grasping at straws at this point. When the prosecution changes their charges and basically admits they dont have a strong case right at the last minute, doesnt that influence the jury negatively? Seems in a case that doesnt have much evidence either way youre better off going light on the charge and building up to a higher one if more comes to light during the trial.

[callahan09]

After all the witness testimonies I think it is abundantly clear that there is significant reasonable doubt as to who was the aggressor in this incident. There is simply no proof of anything the prosecution is saying. The story is being told from two different angles with drastically different implications, and there is no way in hell anywhere near enough evidence to prove without a reasonable doubt that the prosecution's version is the truth. Therefore you must acquit. Any other verdict is a mockery of the whole system.

[NCRAVEN]

bitterness about what?

I' not sure but it definitely came off like you were a little salty.

its one thing to say something different but be the same thing ultimately. its another to say things that are completely different entirely or outright lie about. I believe he was on FOX when he said something about not having any knowledge of the "stand your ground" law. He clearly lied about that and I guess that just sticks with me because i cant fathom a reason to lie about it that would help or hurt him.

Now I may be wrong but I don't think he lied there. I think he knew about the law, but by the slang term "stand your ground". IMO, I think the majority of his story is true (even the lead detective said the same). I think he may have exaggerated some details or told a few white lies, but overall his story seems legit and backed up by evidence.

pretty much grasping at straws at this point. When the prosecution changes their charges and basically admits they dont have a strong case right at the last minute, doesnt that influence the jury negatively? Seems in a case that doesnt have much evidence either way youre better off going light on the charge and building up to a higher one if more comes to light during the trial.

Their whole case has been let's throw it up against the wall and see what sticks. They want the jury to believe Zimmerman was a genius to plan everything and account for Martin's actions beforehand call the police to come out to the scene but would get into a fight and murder Martin just before the police would arrive, as if he knew when they would get there, but then be so stupid to lie about knowledge of stand your ground law on national tv...

And if that's not proof enough they never had shit, just look at the forensic expert when he said how the shooting happened the prosecutor started with "well could it have happened like this?, or like this?, maybe like this?"

[AirFlacco]

A lawyer on CNN said defense atty was smart for not letting Z testify. Of course
the prosecution's main argument is that Z started it by getting out of the car butl like posted above....

Prosecutors are asking judge to consider lesser charges to manslaughter. They
obviously don't like their chances for conviction.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ation/2504917/

[JAB1985]

there is no way in hell anywhere near enough evidence to prove without a reasonable doubt that the prosecution's version is the truth. Therefore you must acquit. Any other verdict is a mockery of the whole system.

I agree with that. Would really put a black eye on our judicial system, imo. Wouldnt be the first time sadly.

I' not sure but it definitely came off like you were a little salty.

I can assure you im not salty about anything. I have no ties, and though i feel theres more to the story, have said from the beginning i dont know one way or the other because there isnt enough information.

Now I may be wrong but I don't think he lied there. I think he knew about the law, but by the slang term "stand your ground". IMO, I think the majority of his story is true (even the lead detective said the same). I think he may have exaggerated some details or told a few white lies, but overall his story seems legit and backed up by evidence.

He took classes on the subject matter and his teacher has said they went over the law extensively he received an A grade on the matter. Its pretty certain he lied about that. Why, i have no idea and certainly because he lied once doesnt mean hes lying about this but it does mean hes capable. for perspective, those exaggerations and "white" lies can be the difference in guilty or not when youre only hearing one side of the story.

Their whole case has been let's throw it up against the wall and see what sticks. They want the jury to believe Zimmerman was a genius to plan everything and account for Martin's actions beforehand call the police to come out to the scene but would get into a fight and murder Martin just before the police would arrive, as if he knew when they would get there, but then be so stupid to lie about knowledge of stand your ground law on national tv...

I dont think their case is that hes a genius and premeditated the act, that would be murder 1. their whole case is that he was fed up with crime and nothing getting done about it and let that fuel him to CONTINUE to follow, confront, and eventually shoot Martin. Lack of evidence to support it is certainly true, but thats not to say its not plausible.

And if that's not proof enough they never had shit, just look at the forensic expert when he said how the shooting happened the prosecutor started with "well could it have happened like this?, or like this?, maybe like this?"

I dont think they did have much, I also dont think the defense has much either though. Its pretty much Zimmermans word against nobody and discrediting/supporting it is all they really have. The Defense did the same tactic to the Prosecutions witnesses in this case. So if youre saying thats proof they had shit, id say that shoe can go on the other foot as well.

I am wondering if they take their time with deliberations solely for the purpose of hopefully avoiding a riot. I heard theyre already putting out commercials asking people to "raise their voice, not their hand". If people riot, I dont think they watched the trial, just the verdict.

[HoustonRaven]

ts one thing to say something different but be the same thing ultimately. its another to say things that are completely different entirely or outright lie about. I believe he was on FOX when he said something about not having any knowledge of the "stand your ground" law. He clearly lied about that and I guess that just sticks with me because i cant fathom a reason to lie about it that would help or hurt him.

His mistake was doing the interview in the first place, not what he said. NC was dead on when he used the car accident analogy. I've done thousands of investigations and you never get the same story twice out of someone. It doesn't mean they're liars.

pretty much grasping at straws at this point. When the prosecution changes their charges and basically admits they dont have a strong case right at the last minute, doesnt that influence the jury negatively? Seems in a case that doesnt have much evidence either way youre better off going light on the charge and building up to a higher one if more comes to light during the trial.

The jury will never know about the request (i.e. who made the request, the arguments behind it, etc) until after the trial. If the judge approves the prosecutions request, they will get instructions after closing arguments that they can find for guilt on murder 2 or manslaughter.

I am wondering if they take their time with deliberations solely for the purpose of hopefully avoiding a riot. I heard theyre already putting out commercials asking people to "raise their voice, not their hand". If people riot, I dont think they watched the trial, just the verdict.

The jury is totally sequestered in a hotel. No TV's, news articles or any information. They have no clue about any of that.

[JAB1985]

The jury will never know about the request (i.e. who made the request, the arguments behind it, etc) until after the trial. If the judge approves the prosecutions request, they will get instructions after closing arguments that they can find for guilt on murder 2 or manslaughter.

Well they do know what hes accused of currently right? so if it were to change, especially to a lesser it would have to be the prosecution thats asking to do so right?

The jury is totally sequestered in a hotel. No TV's, news articles or any information. They have no clue about any of that.

sounds like a nightmare of boredom. Isnt there a mediator or something? somebody that over looks the deliberation thats not under the same circumstances? guess my thought was they could persuade them to look over it longer but thats probably not true.

[HoustonRaven]

Well they do know what hes accused of currently right? so if it were to change, especially to a lesser it would have to be the prosecution thats asking to do so right?

Not sure. If it's anything like Texas, no, they won't know the exact charges until they receive their instructions. Not sure about FL.

And as I write this, it looks like the Judge is going to allow the jury to consider manslaughter.

sounds like a nightmare of boredom. Isnt there a mediator or something? somebody that over looks the deliberation thats not under the same circumstances? guess my thought was they could persuade them to look over it longer but thats probably not true.

Don't know. But given the high profile nature of this case, I'd wager they do have someone from the court that's playing the role of chaperone. CNN showed they are bused ever day to and from the hotel.

When they deliberate, no, there's nobody in their with them.

[NCRAVEN]

Not sure. If it's anything like Texas, no, they won't know the exact charges until they receive their instructions. Not sure about FL.

And as I write this, it looks like the Judge is going to allow the jury to consider manslaughter.

From wha tI understand, in Florida she has no choice but to allow manslaughter.

However, I am thinking she is setting this thing up for an appeal that would be very easy to win. She is not going to instruct the jury not to consider that Zimmerman following Martin is a provocation of justifiable use of force. DO WHAT!?

[HoustonRaven]

I still don't think there's sufficient evidence for manslaughter. If the jury thinks its self defense, it wont matter either way.

But anything can happen with jury's. If he is convicted, he's got a ton of appeal material anyway.

[Haloti92]

He is going to get convicted of manslaughter. It is a split-the-difference cop-out that the jurors will have much incentive to take.

Sure, it won't be a good application of the law, but when has that ever stopped juries in such politically charged cases? Who wants a race riot? Who wants to be accused of being a racist after the identity of the jurors become known? Better just avoid that, right?

[NCRAVEN]

He is going to get convicted of manslaughter. It is a split-the-difference cop-out that the jurors will have much incentive to take.

Sure, it won't be a good application of the law, but when has that ever stopped juries in such politically charged cases? Who wants a race riot? Who wants to be accused of being a racist after the identity of the jurors become known? Better just avoid that, right?

The jurors don't know any of that is going on now.

To me, assuming the jurors don't make some political decision, I don't see how if you find him not guilty of murder you can find him guilty of manslaughter. The only thing I think the prosecution may have been able to get (considering a competent jury) is negligent homicide.