Posted on 07/11/2013 3:02:57 PM PDT by Biggirl
Don’t count on the jury agreeing he is innocent..
Like I said, you can be found not guilty of all those charges because if for some reason or another, the incident does not meet all of the criteria as defined by law specific to those charges. Remember, the defense doesn't bring charges, the state does. The state is charging him with Murder II, they are not charging him with "failure to kill in self-defense". In turn, the state must prove that you committed an act that matches the description of Murder II. ONE of those criteria is that it was NOT self-defense, but it could be any one of a number of things that disqualifies the charges and brings either an acquittal or not guilty verdict. Now, let's say the judge rules for an acquittal and the basis is that the murder was committed during an act of self-defense then yes, no more charges of this type could be brought on those grounds alone because you cannot be tried for the same crime more than once. If one charge is dismissed based on self-defense, then no other charges could be filed against you if they are negated by a self-defense ruling. You would not have to be tried over and over for each little thing the state could think of every time a judge or jury let you go.
Make sense? I know it sounds like hair-splitting, but that's because it IS hair-splitting. That's how dirt-bag lawyers rack up so many hours on something that should be so simple. They sit around arguing over and over about trivial BS for hours and hours.
the reason it is so infuriating to watch trials like this is that the state and the court are SUPPOSED to be in search of truth and justice, not successful prosecution. It's like politics, they have lost track of the true reason they are there. This damned judge is a prime example of what is wrong. I've seen her actually interpret witness statements made on the stand FOR the jury. I've seen her REPEATEDLY overrule defense objections before she even hear the grounds. 9 times out of 10 she interrupts the defense objection before they can even state their grounds. She is biased and viscous. she has denied the introduction of solid evidence that could shine TRUTH on the defendant, but instead denies the motions out of prejudice or technicality, then turns around and allows the prosecution to do the exact same thing during cross.
For instance, it was a well known fact that Martin liked to fight and he liked to START fights, but the judge disallowed evidence of that nature or even bringing it up even though it was the core reason GZ stated that he had to defend himself. Then, she allowed every negative unrelated incident of GZ's past to be introduced, no matter how obscure.
It's made my blood boil this past week. People are supposed to get a FAIR trial in this country and we should err on the side of accuracy, not suppress evidence that could show someone innocent just because of some stupid technical objection from a prosecutor looking to fluff his resume. This woman should be on GZ's list of civil targets when this is all over with... not to mention, I believe she should go to prison for it. She is playing games with someones life here.
The Hispanic juror is not going to break GZ mom’s heart. Hung jury on man
Yes I think not guilty but worst case scenario is hung jury.
You have no idea the irony in that post....lol
Wow! Again, I thank you for taking the time to explain to an obvious non-lawyer some of the nuances of the law- or at least the practice of law as it has evolved.
So much about this trial is a nightmare and because I live just a few miles from the courthouse I am paying close attention. When I compare the conduct and demeanor of this judge to that of Judge Perry (Casey Anthony) it’s as though they’re not even in the same profession.
Thanks again!
Zimmerman is an idiot and should have seen the writing on the wall instead of assuming that being innocent would eventually be the only thing that mattered. I would have taken the public donations and split for Switzerland or something... that would have been an act of self-defense in itself.
Correct, I was being brief. Several possible outcomes. However one of those does NOT include guiltily of manslaughter but not guilty of murder 2 because self defense wasn’t disproved. And the state has the burden I disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
One of the most comical things I've seen was when the witness on the stand was making fun of the prosecutor for "laying on the floor with a mannequin" ( I can't remember his exact words but it was hilarious). I thought I was gonna laugh up my lunch when he said it with that smart-a#$ grin on his face. I wish I could find the video of it, it's a must see... damn funny moment
Stated differently: one factual element of all the charges that must be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt is that Z did not act in self-defense. So of course the state IS trying to prove that very thing among all the other elements of the different charges.
Incidentally, Florida is strange in this regard. In most states self defense is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove (usually by a preponderance of the evidence or the like).
NOT when the "victim" is black; then, it's NEVER okay to defend yourself.....
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.