Skip to comments.All-women jury chosen for George Zimmerman's trial
Posted on 06/20/2013 1:34:23 PM PDT by k4gypsyrose
click here to read article
I take your point about P.C., though. Maybe “beverage” is the answer. It's neutral, and doesn't encourage the jury to make character judgments.
If the prosecutor uses the term "iced tea" in his opening statement, I think the defense should regard it as a demonstration that the prosecutor isn't interested in the truth. Don't get into the reasons of why the prosecutor might have wanted to avoid mentioning watermelon drink--merely observe that a prosecutor who can't be trusted to get little facts right shouldn't be trusted with big ones.
On a more general note, I wonder how many opening statements the defense is going to have prepared? What the defense says should depend upon what the prosecutor says. If the defense opening statement includes information which could only be supported by having Zimmerman testify, then unless Zimmerman testifies and subjects himself to cross-examination the prosecutor would be entitled to call attention to Zimmerman's failure to testify to back up his counsel's claims. On the other hand, if the prosecutor includes statements regarding Martin's supposed whereabouts, defense counsel could use those statements as justification for why Martin could easily have gone home had that been his intention.
Fundamentally, I think the primary focus of the defense should be that Trayvon Martin is dead because he decided to viciously attack George Zimmerman in an apparent effort to kill him [GZ's injuries would constitute prima facie evidence of TM's intent]. If the prosecutor uses the highly prejudicial term "victim" to describe TM, the defense should note that GZ the victim of TM's unprovoked attack. It may also be good to note that GZ volunteered to assist the police as a neighborhood watch captain not because the police or anyone else told him they needed to do so, but because he wanted to be a good citizen [key point being to set up the distinction between ordering someone not to do something, versus saying that it is not required, so as to refute the prosecutor's claim that GZ was ordered to stay in the truck].
BTW, I would posit that if the defense didn’t do so, it should have filed a motion to require that the prosecutor use the term “decedent” rather than “victim”, since the latter term presupposes GZ’s guilt. Decedent does not imply any sort of value judgment as to why TM is dead—it merely says that he was alive once and is no longer, and I don’t think anyone could argue with that.
There's a defense response that went up on the GZlegalcase site a few hours ago. I presume they'll push hard for a decision on that issue prior to opening statements. Whether Nelson will accommodate them is an open question.
Apparently, we'll be hearing the word “profiling” in opening, though “racial profiling” is excluded. It's kind of like banning the mention of a religious holiday but permitting the phrase “I'm dreaming of a white...”
I try to avoid speculating about trial tactics in open forums.
George Zimmerman was clearly battered severely; the testimony of the on-scene first responders should establish that--nothing even remotely resembling hearsay required. The basic facts of the case are that a GZ was battered severely for a significant length of time before a shot was fired, and someone was screaming for help. I'm surprised that the prosecutor seems to be focusing on a claim that the audio shows TM was the one screaming, since it would be hard to even imagine a plausible scenario where that would make sense, much less prove such a scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt the prosecutor actually believes such a claim, but perhaps they want to trick the defense into undermining its ability to use the audio to show that the person screaming was the one who was being attacked. Comparisons between the audio of the screams to non-frightened recordings of individuals aren't meaningful, but the fact that GZ was badly beaten and TM wasn't implies that as the one who was attacked, GZ was also the one screaming.
I try to avoid speculating about trial tactics in open forums.
If I were privy to any privileged information, I would certainly avoid any speculation, since it would be hard to avoid giving anything away unless I was someone who could entertain theories which contradicted my knowledge just as well as those which didn't; I'm not such a person, but since I don't have any privileged information I don't have to worry about divulging any.
My main goal with mentioning possible strategies and such is not to influence anyone's actions in this case, but rather to solicit feedback as to whether my instincts about such things are accurate. There are some cases where I've thought defense attorneys' strategy was flawed. For example, in the Ryan Frederick case, in which Mr. Frederick shot police who were breaking down his door, I would not have claimed that Mr. Frederick had no idea who was breaking down his door (which got him a manslaughter conviction), but rather that while he didn't know the particular identity of the people breaking down his door, he could tell that they were trying to break into his house and were making no apparent effort to identify themselves. The defense attorney did a good job of cross-examining the police, who admitted that they'd deliberately avoided having any marked vehicles in sight of the house, and the only announcement of "police" was uttered sufficiently softly that a cop who was outdoors listening for it as a signal didn't hear it. I would ask the jury whether someone whose home is being broken into should assume that the person breaking in is a robber who has a plan to deal with any occupants he encounters, or should figure that it might be a bunch of cops who are misfortune enough to choose someone with a very feeble voice to lead their raid?
As to whether that would have worked any better, who knows. My instincts are that it would have, but such instincts aren't always right.
They say second marriages are a triumph of hope over experiences. Second divorces are therefore the triumph of experience over hope.
I hope you are right re: female jurors. I further hope I am wrong.
I hope his lawyer knows what he is doing. He has a good reputation. Let us hope he is not trying to set up an appeal as a primary goal (though he should consider it as a secondary objective).
Yes, they can, in some cases. The prosecutor can appeal based on law, but not based on fact.
Yep and coming from a jackass that also generalizes white southerners are bad seed lynch crazy hicks and so forth
One of the forums premier turds
Check homepage.....pagan weirdo ambivalent on abortion
He should a rode the bolt long ago
I love women but using PC terms here that end in ISM
Will raise flags.....at least you didn’t say misogyny
Generalizing about women is no less or more awful than generalizing about men
I think race matters more than sex in this case though I do think men are less emotive....indeed
Or at least in my generation....55
Daniel Trejo rocks
My favorite Mexican
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.