Posted on 07/10/2013 12:33:25 PM PDT by Errant
The judge in George Zimmerman’s murder trial had a contentious exchange with one of Zimmerman’s defense attorneys Wednesday when he repeatedly objected to her asking his client whether he planned to testify in his own defense.
Judge Debra Nelson reminded Zimmerman that he was not required to testify, but when she asked whether he would like to, defense attorney Don West cut in, “I object your honor.” Nelson overruled his objection before asking again.
“I object to that question — ” West repeated.
“Overruled! The court is entitled to inquire of Mr. Zimmerman’s determination as to whether or not he wants to testify,” Nelson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
The hairless Energizer Bunny!
Yeah but if they change their original testimony defense can bring it up.
I doubt there will be a mistrial. I suspect she would not get the case again, and if it turns out she could, or would get it back, why would she want to go through all this again? There’s no gain to her reputation and she may turn out looking even more incompentent.
Talk about crossing the line.
Geez I thought she was going to go on forever. She wants to be extremely detailed and thorough so nobody can peg an acquittal to her running the court to favor the defense.
CYA to the max.
I was thinking more like Chris Farley
At best, the judge wants to eliminate the possibility of appeal based upon incomplete or incompetent representation.
At worst, the judge want to taint the jury by making them wonder if GZ is hiding something by not being willing to testify.
Well all the questions were a little different, and focusing on different things so they wanted all of this on record for specific reasons. But jeez.
He’d obviously be treated as a hostile witness and the defense would have extreme lattitude in questioning. One defense could hardly object to.
How do you say “Yuck” in bunny talk?
Good choice and I’m sure she knew what the answer would be before she asked the question. She figures she might win either way. Having him testify would sway the jury and having him say “no” might also sway them.
She’s working for the prosecution.
OIC - well, scratch my previous reply to you. :-)
Having Zimmerman testify would have been the biggest mistake EVER..it would have been like Jodi Arias all over again, 2 weeks on the stand back and forth nonsense..Zimmerman already won the case, the judge wanted him to testify because she knows any jury with the IQ of plant life will come back with a Not Guilty verdict
Really? Contempt of court? You don’t lose it when you’re winning especially against a bias, stacked deck.
yeah, Farley.
Reminds me of when Lance Ito let OJ address the court
I believe she could ask but she should not have started questioning Zimmerman on how much time he needed to make a decision.
I get it. I get it. You can’t blame this hangin’ judge for clutching at a straw, tho. ;-)
I don't know how it's said but I bet I can guess what it looks like.
Think of the "Tums" commercials where the food is fighting to keep from being eaten. Now think of our hairless Energizer Bunny fighting insertion.
Yep I remember that..and OJ said “I did not commit this uh..crime” and he turned his head and never looked at Ito..at least with Ito you had the dancing Itos it was sort of entertaining..with this judge all I see is a big blab of stupid
JUDGE: "Mr. Zimmerman, are you going to testify?"
Zimmerman:: "Your honor, I fully intended to testify and clear my name, but due to the State lying, the prosecutor hiding or hindering evidence, and your rulings that keep me from providing my RIGHT to a vigoous defense, upon the advice from my attorneys, and for my own safety, I will not testify in YOUR court".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.