Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

Precisely. So the state’s case cannot survive a trial. The defense does not have to call any witnesses, just leave the prosecution to its burden of proof. But the witnesses that they can and should call, the forensics guys and the eye witnesses who saw him getting beat up, will get him acquitted. The facts are aired publicly, the wind is removed from the hustlers’ sails, and an innocent man is vindicated. Done and done.

If I were prosecutor, I would be doing exactly what Ms. Corey is doing. The end result will be justice.


89 posted on 04/09/2012 4:00:15 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: Eleutheria5
If you allow a criminal trial, then you open the door for Crump to sue in civil court.

My point was that the prosecution doesn't have a case - all its witnesses are for the defendant, none are for the prosecution.

The state doesn't cause innocent people to submit to the ordeal of trial to prove or show their innocence. If Corey finds that all of the evidence augurs for Zimmerman, then that's what she should say and show to the public, without a trial as backdrop. If the evidence cuts for Zimmerman, that is why he not put on trial. The suspicion of guilt is not supportable with evidence.

100 posted on 04/09/2012 4:34:51 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson