Posted on 07/05/2013 5:55:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
The prosecution rested their second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman today and his legal team immediately asked the judge throw out all charges, arguing that the state had failed to present evidence he murdered Trayvon Martin.
The judge swiftly rejected the argument, but not before both sides made emotional legal arguments that are usually reserved for summations at the end of a trial.
In an impassioned plea, Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara stated that the state did not produce direct or circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman acted with "ill-will or spite," the Florida requirements for second degree murder.
"There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that," O'Mara said referring to the implication that Zimmerman acted out of "ill will and spite."
"He has the undeniable injuries that reference nothing other than an attack by Trayvon Martin," O'Mara said.
"You cannot look at that picture of my client's nose and say he wasn't beaten in the face," he said. O'Mara said the court would draw a similar conclusion by looking at the photos showing the back of Zimmerman's bloody head.....
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I don’t want an interfering judge,but one that ruled properly on a valid point of law would be nice.
Pretty good idea. Make sure the jury hasn’t forgotten what they said.
Apparently there was also a step-mother somewhere along the way. I saw an article a few days back where the step-mother was complaining that after raising him for 14 years she wasn’t allowed to sit in the family pews up front at the memorial service.
His uncle made a great witness on the stand. Very credible.
George Zimmerman’s Uncle Testimony: That is George Screaming for Help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWQZKcTTmxU
The jury don’t really care what is said. They have a job to do and their families to protect. Their job is to return a verdict of guilty. All this talk of riots if Zimmerman is found not guilty is subtle reminders to them.
The best be could put on stand before the weekend
WTF are you talking about? Can't you read or comprehend any thing you read?
St. Travon was staying at his FATHER'S house. His mother was no where around.
She listened to the 911 tape after the fact.
I am so sick of half wits that can't read or won't read an article and then setting up straw men arguments that end up hijacking a thread and taking it off in another direction with the help of other half wits that can't or won't read.
Understand what you're talking about or STFUASD.
(I've long known that the Legal system is quite a distance from a Justice System.)
St. Tray’s biological jomama cut him loose at age 2yr.
I say this while checking one of my (ancient) degrees.
I say this while checking one of my (ancient) degrees.
That decision could have been mailed it.
That puts to rest all the criticism that his defense team took about not filing for a pretrial immunity hearing.
“Whatever happened to the truth?”
It was determined in pre-trial hearings that all of the negative things about Traydmark would be ‘too prejudicial’.
Sybrina Fulton was in Miami, not Sanford, the night Martin died. Martin was staying at Brandy Green’s house, not Fulton’s.
So are you saying that you could care less about your pet peeve?
at my workplace years ago, we made up, “disirregardlessly”. :)
It is exceedingly rare for judges to grant these motions. But if ever there was a case that warranted it, it was this one. The prosecution failed to make ~any~ sort of case that could lead any reasonable person to believe Zimmerman was guilty of Murder 2. For this to go to the jury to decide the facts of the case... what facts might those be? What facts are lying on the table at all? None that have any bearing on guilt. There’s nothing for the jury to decide, unless they come up with a whole new fact set that is neither alleged or in evidence.
I wouldn't rate "unintelligent" as a superlative, since there are varying degrees of the condition. A person with an IQ of 70 might be said to be unintelligent, while one with an IQ of 50 could be said to be less unintelligent than one with an IQ of 70. The former, then, could be said to be unintelligent, while the latter could be said to be very unintelligent.
At least I don't think she can, but I am not a lawyer and don't live in Florida.
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.