Posted on 06/12/2013 8:35:54 AM PDT by EveningStar
... The State of Florida v. George Zimmerman, which started jury selection this week in Sanford, Fla., has the makings of another high-profile cliffhanger ...
Presiding over the case is Debra S. Nelson, described by defense attorneys and others as a no-nonsense jurist.
"She doesn't play games," Orlando criminal defense attorney Luis F. Calderon told Yahoo News. "She doesn't come across as mean, but she’s pretty firm in her rulings." ...
Nelson ... has been on the bench for 14 years, having been appointed by then-Gov. Jeb Bush in 1999 ...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Interesting notes about questioning of individual prospective jurors.
Day 2:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-two-wrap-up-2/
Day 3:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-live-jury-selection-day-3-all-day-coverage/
And you think that this judge would have dismissed the charges at that point???
Get Real --
I believe there was some discussion on this already....
The notion was Z’s lawyers were expecting a RR trial and there was no way they’d win that hearing, AND ALSO this wasn’t/isn’t a “stand your ground” case and that’s not how they were going to try it.
Sorry, don’t have a link, except to my personal recollections.
As the saying goes, any half decent DA can indict a ham sandwich.
Nelson is quite obviously corrupt to the core. The fix is in - - Zimmerman must be convicted. Nelson has been told the fix is in and to make sure the outcome is the outcome desired by the corrupt forces of political correctness. Her “rulings” are ludicrously one-sided (for “the state”).
Nelson is just another Jeb Bush success story.
/facepalm
That's actually a common misconception. Florida's stand your ground law contains (in essence) two parts. First is the part your'e referring to, clarifying that there is no duty to retreat before defending oneself.
The other part grants immunity from prosecution to people who act in self defense, and allows for pre-trial hearings to determine whether a defendant is immune from prosecution. While these hearings are commonly referred to as "stand your ground" hearings, they can happen in any self-defense case, regardless of whether the classic duty-to-retreat "stand your ground" issue is present. Zimmerman waived his right to such a hearing (or, more precisely, deferred such a hearing until the trial itself).
Because if he had the hearing and they denied it then he couldn’t use it during the trial.
They probably feared Federal Civil Rights charges if they got the state charges dismissed on “Stand Your Ground.” They’ve got a difficult needle to thread.
But even without those elements, oversampling blacks and under-sampling Hispanics in the jury pool seems to be in evidence already. That's an invitation to appeal in itself. Plus all the c*** Her Judgeship has dished out so far—such as refusing to force Crump to testify. The question is whether she can keep the prosecution's case from imploding before she's humiliated on appeal.
What planet are you on? A "stand your ground" defense would have been even a political circus. Brushing off the "stand your ground" defense was the smartest move Zimmerman's lawyers ever made. That move alone had the prosecutor gnashing her teeth - - a "stand your ground" case was what she and the rest of the scumbag politicians wanted more than anything. It would have made the fix that much easier for them. The prosecutor was as upset by that decision as the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms were. They wanted a juicy, high profile political issue they could wrap their arms around and they were denied. Their disappointment was palpable.
I don't believe that's the case. All the hearing does is determine whether the person is immune from prosecution. Even if he lost the hearing, he could have still raised self defense as a defense during the trial.
Excellent summary.
Again, a “stand your ground” hearing is different from a “stand your ground” defense. A “stand your ground” hearing can take place in ANY case where the defense is asserting an affirmative defense of self defense (as Zimmerman is here).
It figures that this backwards propaganda came from Yahoo, the internet’s official source for Obama’s views and DNC talking points.
Do you believe that this judge would have dismissed this case at an immunity hearing???
Could you clarify?
I have never understood the anti law enforcement stance taken here by “conservatives”...it is embarrassing.
Are you sure of that? My gut tells me that if it meant press coverage (and an opportunity to stick it to "whitey") Sharpton and the New Black Panthers could find their way to Fort Meyers.Didn't the order to prosecute come from Tallahassee (if not DC)?
I remember the Media referring to Lance Ito as some paragon of wisdom from the Bench prior to the OJ Trial. Remember how that turned out? Pretty much ruined his legal reputation. That whole trial was a farce.
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.