Posted on 07/10/2013 12:33:25 PM PDT by Errant
The judge in George Zimmerman’s murder trial had a contentious exchange with one of Zimmerman’s defense attorneys Wednesday when he repeatedly objected to her asking his client whether he planned to testify in his own defense.
Judge Debra Nelson reminded Zimmerman that he was not required to testify, but when she asked whether he would like to, defense attorney Don West cut in, “I object your honor.” Nelson overruled his objection before asking again.
“I object to that question — ” West repeated.
“Overruled! The court is entitled to inquire of Mr. Zimmerman’s determination as to whether or not he wants to testify,” Nelson said.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Or just her and the Energizer Bunny.
The obviously liberal (and therefore sleazy and untrustworthy) judgess is worried that she may have to undergo some Obamadork Chicago “justice” if she doesn’t succeed in throwing this case.
Obama is slime.
And so, for that matter, is she.
She needed GZ to testify so that she could allow the prosecution team to go after him and depict him as the depraved person they had originally promoted him to be at the outset of the trial. Since this is not happening the case is lost for the prosecution despite her best efforts. Therefore no promotion to a federal bench for her.
OK. Thanks for the clarification.
“It’s a type of intimidation.”
More a matter of planting the idea in the jurors’ mind that if he doesn’t testify he must be guilty.
Every defendant has the right not to testify..and since Zimmerman practically already testified, multiple times in this trial, with video testimony and witness testimony, it would have been insane for him to do so..the defense already won and a jury with just an ounce of intelligence will find him Not Guilty..but this judge, I dont know if she is doing it out of fear or what, but she is SO in the tank for the prosecution I dont know if she has been threatened or she is your typical lib
And she asked him about five times if he wanted to testify after he said no, made him say no or affirm not to testify.
Geez I thought she was going to go on forever. She wants to be extremely detailed and thorough so nobody can peg an acquittal to her running the court to favor the defense.
I doubt it. They can only retry on a technicality of he is found guilty. So that would only be ammo for the defense.
The way the judge ran out of the room was hysterical..guess it was her feeding time..somehow I dont think she is on Michelle Obama’s nutritional plan LOL
Her bias has been shown extensively in this trial. I suspect Z’s attorneys are cutting this short to get straight to the appeal. They are not getting a fair trial from that biased lawyer of a judge.
She could not possibly have thought that GZ would be so stupid as to testify, at this point...
If this jury is going to convict him, based on the evidence presented to this point, then there is nothing Zimmerman can do or say to convice them otherwise.
On the other hand, if the jury is not inclined to convict him based on the evidence, he can only hurt himself by taking the stand.
Zimmerman should have just said “I already said I wont testify, do I have to reenact me saying I wont testify using sock puppets, will that convince you”
I thought that’s what he said but then he switched to your honor and I just thought I misheard him the first two times.
Who want’s to visit Florida when they fear race riots might break out at any minute, or that if they do anything to defend themselves, that they might be again victimized by the Florida judicial system?
I’ll never look at the state the same. It’s turning into cali. Let’s see how they see how the rioting goes.
At least he had a "reason" to be such an ass.
He hated Paul Newman's character personally.
With this "judge", what's her motivation?
She is behaving disgracefully.
She doesn’t want mistrial or having an acquittal hung on her own conduct running the court. Nobody can say she did anything to favor the defense. And actually I think that’s a big plus for the defense.
I agree.
It is called intimidation of the court, and harassing the defendant. This woman needs to have her face publicly slapped for this... Besides, his lawyers said their client did not wish to testify.
LOL Good one...
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.