Posted on 07/10/2013 12:46:07 PM PDT by Sopater
Edited on 07/10/2013 1:25:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
George Zimmerman’s defense team rested its case Wednesday, after using its final day of testimony to paint the neighborhood watch volunteer as a wimp who was getting pummeled when he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, at one point commandeering a mannequin introduced by prosecutors in order to re-enact its version of the fight. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/10/zimmerman-defense-winding-down-case-wednesday/#ixzz2Yfzctpuu
According to this story, the jury was not present when Judge Nelson asked Zimmerman if he planned to testify. He replied that he needed until "the end of the day" to decide, while overruling Don West's objections to her questions. She then agreed to give Z more time, while maintaining that the court has the right to know if Z will testify.
Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfit-b7FU-U
It's not possible to tell from the videos whether the jury is present or not, unless they happen to mention the fact one way or the other.
The thug was armed.......he used cement as a weapon.
Now that’s what I’m talking about. Thanks!
Sometimes I’ve just felt like giving him a hug cause he’s been through the ringer and seems like a nice guy. I could be wrong of course, but everything I’ve seen/heard by him it appears that way.
Honestly, I haven't been following polling numbers for Rick Scott at all. I'm in agreement with Sarah Palin who states that “Polls are for strippers and cross-country skiers."
Your post got the better of my curiosity and I came across this FR thread. From what I can gather, those who oppose Rick Scott are leftists and RINOs. Since it appears that lamestream media is against him, I presume he must be on the Conservative side of the issues. If I'm mistaken, please correct my misunderstandings.
“The judge got in one last lick asking if George Z was going to testify. The judge is out of order on this item and this shows the prejudice of the judge.”
That’s what I thought. Did she do this in front of the jury?
I haven’t been watching the trial, but I did see this on the news and her prejudice was showing. They are really trying to railroad this guy.
It occurs to me there will be riots regardless the verdict. If Z is acquitted, they'll say it's rage over the injustice; it he's convicted, it'll be a triumphal celebration.
It's just that time, everybody feels entitled to a new pair of Nikes.
I am worried for George! Worried the jury will find him guilty of something, even though he is CLEARLY 100% INNOCENT!!!
Very worried
Yes.
I'm glad he didn't for the same reason to never talk to the police. He'd be cross-examined for five days over any possible perceived inconsistent statement attempted to shatter his credibility.
Most people convict themselves - even if they aren't guilty.
I just saw that on Fox, I couldn’t believe it. His lawyer objects and she don’t want to hear it - OVERRULED OVERRULED. Gee, no bias going on in this court. This is unbelievable, this is the kind of crap Democrats use to do to blacks 50 years ago - railroad an innocent man, now it seems hispanics and Duke university students are the new target.
How do you like this: Four blacks ganged up on a white guy, beat him up and threw him into oncoming traffic where he was killed. I watched ALL the networks tonight, not ONE of them reported it!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3040617/posts
We got bias in the media and bias in the courts. People better wake up in this country and fast.
I did stay at a Holiday Inn, but I heard if GZ is found guilty, there is an automatic immediate appeal.
The attorney at WTF TV said that the judge was improper to ask GZ about whether he would testify prior to all the witnesses for the defense were through. The jury was not present at the time, but this was another indication that she was veering from accepted protocal. She could have, and should have, waited until the defense was through.
Thanks!
:>)
Ritz don’t count! LOL
I should have asked you if the Ritz is where crackers shack up.
Glad to hear at least one legal opinion on this. I’m not a criminal trial attorney, but it just seemed so out of line for her to continue, to swear a represented individual in to ask a question that frankly was irrelevant - has he made up his mind yet? He had every right to wait until all witnesses were done to decide, and from what I’ve read the practice in Florida at least is for the judge to ask this kind of question only at the end of everyone else’s testimony, along with whether they were satisfied with counsel. Asking early and in such an accusatorial way was outrageous, putting on the defensive as if he had to justify not telling her right then.
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.