Posted on 07/09/2013 4:51:37 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 9th, is DAY #21 (of 5th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday was the first full day of defense witnesses. Perhaps the most significant of the first set were the two police officers who stated Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father, said on 2/28/12 the cries for help on the 911 calls were NOT Trayvon. Later in the day Tracy Martin took the stand and essentially said the two detectives were lying. A great analysis of the events from yesterday is available HERE.
What additionally strikes as important to us is the first signs of desperation from the original nucleus of the Scheme Team construct, Benjamin Crump and Daryl Parks – attorneys for the Martin family. Parks appeared on Piers Morgan show last night and the video should be watched by anyone who knows how the scheme was constructed.
We accept that Mark O’Mara is conflicted in this case, and he is trying to walk a fine line between presenting a defense to a case built on political pressure and outright fraud; Yet simultaneously avoiding exposition of both the politics and the fraud itself.
The intentionally avoided open doors exposing the fraud creates anxiety for those of us who know what is inside the room he is avoiding. Our prayers are that his passing those wide open doors is based on prudence [within an unknown strategy]. However, our fear is the hasty and politically correct avoidance might cause him to pass by the room holding the key to George Zimmerman’s ultimate ‘long-term’ freedom.
It should be noted the NAACP Annual National Convention starts in Orlando on Friday; Additionally, preparations are being made in/around Miami-Dade for a Wednesday defense wrap up with a community/LEO preparation meeting today.
(Excerpt) Read more at wftv.com ...
No worries — I understood. Interesting childhood!
IMHO, a jury should be allowed to come back with an verdict and sentencing range which is not one of the specific ones offered, but if either the prosecutor or defense objects, the jury should be informed of which party (or both) objected to the verdict and instructed to deliberate further. If the jury finds that the defendant is guilty, but specifies a maximum sentence that it would deem reasonable and such a proposed verdict is accepted, the judge should be forbidden from imposing any sentence beyond that. If the prosecutor objects to such a verdict, the jury would be instructed to decide whether it would rather issue a guilty verdict without such a sentencing restriction, or if--forced to make such a choice--it would rather acquit the defendant outright.
While it is true that judges are in many cases better qualified to decide sentences in a fair and consistent fashion, if the members of a jury would find that any sentence beyond a certain level would constitute cruel and unusual punishment for the particular acts of the defendant in the case before them, then no sentence beyond that level could be legitimate under the Constitution.
So based upon what the judge just read there was a lot of scuffling on the grass before Jenna Lauer decided to make the call, then it took 30 seconds to connect and then the 45 seconds of screaming.
So how long was the scuffling —
Wonderful childhood! Going to office with dad and mom his secretary
“The jury’s still out on that one”
Used that one, unfortunately it was after my wife asked me: “How is the meat loaf?”
Were those 14 screams all derived from the 45 second 911 call??????
HUH! State’s timeline is a graphic representation of their choice in facts...........direct hit. Why can’t the defense do the same.
Compare it to DD s call and when she heard the wet grass!
Surprised to learn he was gay.
Excellent post, Cyber. I’d not thought of West and MOM playing to the family for the time when they testified.
I noticed none of them sang the praises of Trayvon the choir boy. Wouldn’t that have opened up an opportunity for MOM to go after the school suspension for burglary tools, aggression, and dope?
PermaWrinkle Forehead is up...
rofl
I sympathize... he DOES need brains
Yes, I have that same question. The state could have done an animation. Problem is, with their case, the animation would have hurt the prosecution.
Mantei steals a line from Churchill
Call it a supposition enclosed by a riddle wrapped in an enigma - something like that.
I believe Churchill used such referring to the Soviet Union - maybe
Good grief. This attorney drones on and on. A little squeaky on the voice when he gets excited. I guess the winner of this arguement will be the last man standing.
“Surprised to learn he was gay.”
Who are you talking about, if I may be so bold.
Is that a “soul patch” misplaced? (on pros. forehead)
The problem with being a full-of-yourself arrogant little jerk like Mantei is that eventually you’ll encounter a point in your monologue where you get lost and say Ummmm... and fumble in your notes...
...and you get no slack from the audience because you ARE an arrogant little jerk.
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.