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 ...
He’s said it at least 3 times since I’ve been watching this week. What I love is his total obliviousness to what he’s saying! Unless, of course, he really DOES think she’s a man. Only light moment in this horrible story.
That was the most unfair, and unbelievable thing I have ever witnessed.
It's obvious that the primary goal of the this Judge is to restrict the Defense's ability to communicate the American public how much of a thug Teryvon Martin was and to cover up how badly how badly Zimmerman has been rail roaded and to cover up just how extensive prosecutorial abuses and misconduct were in this case.
If this were to be televised, the media circus aspects of this case would provide an information conduit to inform the low information voters of the true facts of this case to cut through the media and state propaganda lies.
That would have been awesome if he said that..or if he told the prosecutor to go F off LOL..Ok I would have said that
Poor bunny. He’d die of fright.
She’s one repulsive “thing”.
If the jury was not present when she asked, she wasn't out of order. There have been criminal cases where a defendant didn't testify, was convicted, and then argued on appeal that "my lawyer didn't let me testify." So it's not uncommon for the trial judge to ask the defendant personally if he wants to testify, to preclude that kind of later argument.
If the jury was present, on the other hand, this was way out of line and probably reversible error.
he should have said “you honna, dats retarrdid”..
Then, the prosecution will make the most outlandish arguments to the jury that you ever heard, not supported by the evidence or the law, but based only on phony theories that sound good on MSNBC. She will allow all of it, but just let the defense make valid arguments, and she will sustain any and all objections.
It will be ugly to watch, but so is the judge.
I think he will still be acquitted. I am hoping that Zimmerman gets lawyers to go after the prosecutors and this judge, and sues for violation of his civil rights by the DOJ, too. It is disgusting. Imagine if, instead of putting Nifong in jail, the state of North Carolina insisted on pursuing its case? That is what this is like.
“Zimmerman would be an absolute fool to testify, he has already won the case”
Correct. That’s why the defense rest and I think Atty. West et al, immediately knew whose side she was on. Let the bitch stew knowing she couldn’t do a thing about it.
Judge Nelson said “There is substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial to allow this charge to go to the jury”
Ohhhh REALLY? Where? All that I’ve seen supports Zimmerman’s claims 100%.
You should all keep in mind that for the Judge, and many others involved, guilt or innocence doesn’t really matter here.
Keeping Central Florida from burning in Obama/Poverty-pimp induced rioting IS.....
I am not an expert on court proceedings but I have testified in court many many times.
I can’t for the life of me think of any reason why you need to swear in someone to tell you they won’t testify if for no other reason than you are trying to open the door to them testifying.
I think the judge did it so the prosecution can try and say he waived his fifth amendment rights, she can claim she didn’t do it for that reason, then we can watch the ensuing drama unfold when the DoJ charges him with civil rights violations and he is then compelled to testify against himself.
I think this is part of a bigger game plan and she was told to make this move.
Zimmerman with be acquitted and before they can clear the courtroom DoJ will announce he is going to be charged with a civil rights law violation.
You should be banned for not having posted a warning ahead of pictures! I had a late lunch; it is now gone and I now need a new keyboard and bleach for my eyes.
Just watched it...someone tell me if this is unusual, but I have NEVER seen a judge FORCE someone who is ON TRIAL to swear an oath and speak to her in open court.
IIRC, he doesn’t have to say a DAMN word...but she FORCED him to take an oath....and completely STOPPED his attorney from representing him.
This dude needs to be taken OFF the bench.
Looks like Pat, that androgynous character from SNL back in the 90s.
That judge looks like Janet Reno’s main squeeze to me.
MISTRIAL!!!!
WHolly inappropriate for prosecution, much less a Judge to comment on a defendants exercise of the 5th Amendment.
If it’s in front of the jury, the question itself is prejudicial. The jury may wonder why Zimmerman is not testifying, and the judge’s insistance makes that seem more out of the ordinary.
If it’s in the judge’s chambers, that’s a different matter. At least then it’s out of hearing of the jury. It may be annoying, but it’s not prejudicial.
I hope Judge Jeanine rips her a new one on her Saturday night show...
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.