Iwasn’t proving anything to any one I was just voicing the questions in my mind! Do you not think the jurors do the same thing! There was no clear cut evidence that Z was yelling for help just three or so that said in my mind that sounds like George! No one saw Geroge yelling! Is that solid evidence?!
>> No one saw Geroge yelling!
The state must P.R.O.V.E that it was Martin yelling, beyond a reasonable doubt.
“No one saw George yelling!” doesn’t come anywhere near doing that.
Especially when ALL 100% of the reliable evidence is consistent with George yelling.
no, that is not solid evidence that he was not the one yelling.
Of course, we can’t help how the jurors might think. They can think any weird way they choose. I’m only restating the law and the facts as I understand them. I did get the impression that you feared not enough proof was offered of Z yelling, and don’t take offense, please, I was just sayin’ that is backwards thinking. But if the jurors are thinking that way, then we are lost, lost, lost.
However, it’s possible only one juror tends to think that way and the others are trying to convince otherwise.
I thought from your tone you were invested in the worry yourself as to whether or not Z was proving he yelled. But if you’re only worried the jury might be thinking of that, then what I said still goes: I restated the law and the facts, which are, as jurors they have already been instructed even by this biased judge that the law requires them to believe Z innocent unless the prosecution’s case proves him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I pray the jurors do not ignore that. Because that IS our judicial system in a nutshell
Even if GZ were required to show self-defense by preponderance of the evidence(*), the 911 tape clearly indicates that there was someone yelling in such fashion to indicate that he was in fear for his life, GZ would have had logical reason to yell in such fashion, and no plausible reason has been tendered by the prosecution to believe anyone else would have been yelling in such fashion. When one hears hoofprints, thing horses--not zebras.
(*)Conceptually not unreasonable, actually; a defendant's own testimony, subject to cross-examination, could meet that burden even if there no other witnesses, but not requiring the state to prove a killing couldn't have been self-defense would mean that many murderers committed without witnesses couldn't be prosecuted, since it would be hard to tell that they couldn't possibly have been self-defense.
Bye!