Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BenLurkin

She kept asking him if he wanted to testify over the objections of Zimmerman’s attorney. It’s not the judge’s place to ask such a question. It is up to the defense whether the defendant takes the stand, and no one else.


5 posted on 07/10/2013 1:53:01 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Who could have guessed that one day pro wrestling would be less fake than mainstream journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: E. Pluribus Unum
Is it normal for the judge to be openly partisan on behalf of the prosecution? I would have thought the judge was supposed to come across as impartial...but fortunately I have had very little experience with the court system (served on two juries but simple cases that did not go beyond one day).

We know that "vengeance for Trayvon" types tried to get themselves included in the jury...we just don't know if any managed to elude O'Mara's vigilance. One or two diehard "death to Zimmerman" types could try to badger the other jurors into agreeing to find him guilty of a lesser charge to avoid a hung jury.

52 posted on 07/10/2013 2:16:44 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
She kept asking him if he wanted to testify over the objections of Zimmerman’s attorney. It’s not the judge’s place to ask such a question. It is up to the defense whether the defendant takes the stand, and no one else.

Yes it is the judge's place to ask such a question, and the question is actually posed in order to protect the defendant (and, of course, to protect the judge from being overturned on appeal). Per a Supreme Court decision from the 70's (I believe, can't remember the case off the top of my head), there is a Constitutionally-protected right to testify. While a Defendant may of course waive that right (under the corresponding 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination), under Florida law, "[t]he record must support a finding that such a waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made." Reynolds v. State, 99 So. 3d 459 (Fl. 2012).

Indeed, contrary to your assertion that it is improper for a judge to ask, the Florida Supreme Court has written that "[a]lthough a trial court does not have an affirmative duty to make a record inquiry concerning a defendant's waiver of the right to testify, it would be advisable for the trial court to make a record inquiry as to whether the defendant understands he has a right to testify." Id.

61 posted on 07/10/2013 2:24:45 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

She was totally bizarre and out of line. I have never seen a judge try to go around an attorney and ask the defendant something like that directly. Unbelievable!!!


103 posted on 07/10/2013 4:14:02 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson