Posted on 07/02/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
She looks like Meatloaf wearing glasses!
If a prosecutor deliberately forces a mistrial, the Double-Jeopardy rule in conjunction with the Dirty Hands doctrine generally precludes retrial. That doesn't happen often, though, because most prosecutors would rather dismiss charges than force the judge to throw out a case via mistrial.
He was asked the question in a roundabout way. Paraphrased:
Serino: “He was either being truthful or he’s a pathological liar.”
MoM: “Was Zimmerman a ‘pathological liar?’”
“No.”
True that. But there was no force by the prosecutor on this one, just asleep at the switch.
Okay, and that’s where the pathological reference came from I heard the tail end of on the radio this afternoon.
Thanks for the clarification.
I can’t wade through this trail transcript. It would drive me batty. :^)
Yup. The State may have a million reasons to ask for a mistrial, but they can't use this question/answer.
Wait, are you saying thet, after the trial, we’re going to find out Rachel Jeantel was really Marlene Dietrich in disguise?
That’s my worry. Will the girls decide that it’s better to convict Zimmerman of something than to hurt Martin’s parents feelings (and to cause massive rioting).
The fact that she couldn’t read a letter she was supposed to write indicates that someone was manufacturing evidence.
That seems logical enough. But....
This trial has some novelty to it, and risks that don’t belong, like the threats of riots and the like if the Jury doesn’t find “the right way.” That adds a non-judicial dimension that makes me worry about the six wildcards. I’m not sure the usual observations of behavior and results apply.
(And dittos to what Sergio said above, your comments are great!)
Yep!
Yeah....It seems that trips through the Florida legal system does that to people.
If the prosecution asked that question of a prosecution witness, maybe you might have a case. . . .calls for a conclusion by the witness. OTOH if Im not mistaken, the question was asked by the defense, of a nominally hostile witness for the prosecution. Im at a loss to know why it is reversible error if the prosecution doesnt make a timely objection?And, BTW, the defense established (or at least I thought it had) that the investigation was headed nowhere until Crump announced that he had "found a witness in the lovely and gracious - and articulate - "Dee Dee. Is the jury not entitled to the information that the prosecutions whole case hinges on the credibility of Dee Dee"?
:^) Guilty as charged...
I am not a sexist person, nor am I a racist person. God made us all races, and He made both sexes.
I can, however, observe human behavior, and what I observe disturbs me.
Take Andrea Yates, for instance. A woman who savagely murdered 5 children.
I remember watching the appeals trial, and the women commentators on television. They basically said she was "Not Guilty By Reason of Ovaries."
And then you took the words right out of my mouth
Oh - it must have been while you were kissing me
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh, joy, oh, rapture. Ive got a brain!"
I definitely agree. I hate what is happening here, and I hate even more that there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it.
I wish I could answer those questions. I will say that if I was on this jury I would be noting how it seems that the deck is being purposely stacked in order to achieve a guilty verdict, and I would not give that to them.
Nor manslaughter. Nothing, he walks.
It's not all that hard to prosecute them. It's pretty hard, though, to prosecute them successfully without any evidence.
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.