Innocent.
Guilty. Damn. In more ways than one.
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
If she asked that in front if the jury this case will get reversed if he gets convicted.
Just alluding to the defendant not testifying can get a case reversed.
Idiotic on her part.
If the state doesn’t prove it’s case then why should the defendant have to do anything? (Rhetorical question)
The fact is that the presumption of innocence alone is enough to acquit should the state not meet its burden of proof.
They clearly did not in this case.
This one was rushed because the “judge” didn’t want Zimmerman to have time to prepare for a proper trial. It’s worked so far, as evidenced by the fact the Jury will never hear about St. Skittles’ proud reputation as a MMA-style street fighter. The Jury may surprise us all and acquit him.
His defense lawyer was dead wrong in one of his statements.
GZ would be completely safe at my house if he needed to.
This "not guilty" verdict will cause more chaos than the original crime or even the Rodney King aftermath.
I wish they were sequestered from that idiot judge.
I keep hearing that, and I saw when she asked him with the jury absent. I understand that's SOP. What I can't get an answer to from the armchair lawyers that could watch the stream (I couldn't) was, what about the first time she asked him? She asked Zimmerman twice, and the first time the Defense was furious. Since West was in the middle of questioning a witness, I think that was in front of the Jury and therefore improper.
But I don't know because the great minds are silent when I ask.
Fixed it for you.
Innocent.
Guilty. Damn. In more ways than one.
I beg to differ. John Goodman looks much more feminine than this judge....lol
Something in my gut feeling tells me the outcome wont have as much impact on the streets as in the left schemed media madness. But we shall see what we shall see.
In an honest world, you are right, but in this one I wouldn't be surprised with either a hung jury or a guilty verdict, perhaps on a lesser charge. The jurors know what will happen if they acquit, including to them and their families and that may effect their thinking.
It's the 'Invasion of the LGBT's!!!', ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
Father & Son?
Why does everyone seem to think this is slam-dunk?
We thought that with CommieCare in the Supreme Court. So much for that.
Looks like Bammy found Ruth Buzzy Ginsburgs eventual SCOTUS replacement. All leftist black-robed drecks float to the top of the pond in BarryWorld.
Zimmerman taking the stand was the last ditch hope of the prosecution as they still have no case at this point. They would have worked him over mercilessly hoping for the slightest slip up to pounce on. The judge knew it as well which is why she tried to goad him onto the stand, or at least help to make him look guilty in the jurors eyes by constantly reminding them that he won’t take the stand.
Picked it off a UK site a couple years ago...Not sure anymore. Might be a UK Hells Angel...
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.