I just can’t see this...She was reversed recently on a Self Defense instruction issue.
I don’t think she “threw” the case.
I wasn’t paying close enough attention to when Judge Nelson went after GZ about testifying. Did she , in fact, swear him in...and if so, anyone in Florida know if that is a problem.
It appears to be "harassment".
Suppose he said no??
Don’t know about the swearing in......but I have a question. The first time, she “quizzed” Z about testifying, it seemed to come out of no where. As I recall, it was after a break and he was just walking up to the defense table, I don’t even think the lawyers were at the table......very casual. Am I remembering this right?
Fox News just replayed the video where Judge Debra browbeats GZ about testifying, and gets snotty (again and as usual) with West. Greta weighed in and called it....the judge was completely out of line with her timing. I would go a step further and say that she was out of line with her pissy attitude and demeanor, as well. She really has a “thing” against West for ‘some’ reason. And I suspect that the feeling is mutual.
Her squabble over Zimmerman testifying, if done before the jury, is also highly questionable. There are a number of concerns in this trial that should get a retrial at a minimum.
The reason I think the judge might actually be throwing the case is based on the needs of “liberaldom”, i.e., the “state”. What the state needs is for Zimmerman to be guilty of something or for the jury to be hung. They need that right now, so they can do a song and dance in the media about justice being upheld and America being color-blind, yada, yada. A hung jury wouldn’t be quite as good, but they could say, “Yep, many saw Zimmerman as the monster he was, but ‘you know juries’.”
An appeal and acquittal or dismissal a few years down the road, quietly, and without fanfare would be just fine with them.
So, she could intentionally be ruining the future for a short-term win.
The same with lesser charges: I would bet money that she’ll allow lesser charges to be considered.
My sense is that self-defense is self-defense, and it’d be hard to convict Zimmerman on a misdemeanor based on the evidence. What a mountain of instruction could do, though, is confuse a low info, know-nothing jury.
Aggravated assault is probably negligence that causes harm to someone. I’m not sure what they’d argue that negligence would be unless it’s that Zim had an already-chambered round.
Since he was getting his brains beat in, that doesn’t seem negligent to me. It seems necessary. I don’t really see how he should be convicted of anything, but ‘you know juries’.
Besides the timing issue (i.e. interrupting the defense before their case was completed), I was most take back by Nelson's words reminding Zimmerman that he did not have to say anything, and then in the next sentence demanding answers from him. If he really had the right to remain silent, then she should not have asked him a thing, but instead directed the question towards counsel. And when counsel objected, she overruled them without even listening to what their objection was. So in essence, she didn't overrule their objection. She simply refused to acknowledge it.
I’m just being open minded and trying to consider all possibilities.
Someone else said, “she’s just dumb as a box of rocks.”
Anything is possible, at this point. Maybe it’s all of the above.
Maybe she was told to throw the case to the prosecution, but leave wiggle room for mistrial or dismissal, and she is just going about it idiotically.