Zimmerman stuns court waives stand yo...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#21 Mar 5, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>"Victim"? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!! You mean attacker who paid for his crime.
The only crime being tried is that of murder.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#22 Mar 5, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I think legally there is a question of whether that is/will be possible. The prosecution asked the judge for clarification on whether the immunity hearing would be rolled into the trial. She did not respond directly, saying that no such request has been made--which leads me to believe that she'll deal with that should it come up, but that it would have to be in the form of a motion from defense.
There is a concept known as judicial economy and if the matters are related, it is appropriate for both matters to be rolled into the same trial.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#23 Mar 5, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a concept known as judicial economy and if the matters are related, it is appropriate for both matters to be rolled into the same trial.
"I know what they say about lawyers and opinions, but here is an opinion from another attorney:

"Although O’Mara has previously suggested that the immunity hearing and the trial be combined, I do not believe that makes any sense for the following reasons.

"The purpose of the immunity hearing is to determine whether there is any need for a trial. If the judge grants the defendant’s motion for immunity, there is no trial and no jurors need be summoned to come to court. No time has to be reserved for the trial.

"There is no reason to have an immunity hearing, unless it takes place before the trial.

"The defense goes first in the immunity hearing and has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense, As a practical matter, this means the defendant must testify.

"The defense has no burden of proof in the trial. The defendant and the prosecution must go first and the defendant is presumed innocent.

"Combining the two hearings would, in effect, deny the presumption of innocence to the defendant and that would be a major constitutional error requiring reversal.

"Judge Nelson and BDLR certainly know that."
http://frederickleatherman.com/

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#24 Mar 5, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The only crime being tried is that of murder.
Zimmerman's alive only because Ashtray is dead.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#25 Mar 5, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Zimmerman's alive only because Ashtray is dead.
Never known anyone better at denial than you, George.

Maybe you better go back and review the election results again.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#26 Mar 5, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Never known anyone better at denial than you, George.
Maybe you better go back and review the election results again.
That's right, Reader...nobody ever died from having their head bashed into a concrete sidewalk.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#27 Mar 6, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems to me that if they blow their wad at this hearing and lose, that the prosecutors will have the heads up on what to expect at the second trial. Not to mention the fact that everything that comes out in the first hearing would have been widely disseminated by the media and potentially 1) could have prejudiced the jury pool; but more importantly (at least the way I see it) 2) loses its effect on the jury.
These media cases tend to have some zinger presented by defense counsel that gives jurors pause and leads to a not guilty vote. I think your zingers lose effect if what you're going to argue is widely known by the public.
For that reason, I think it's tactically smart to have both of these issues heard at the same time.
I can't argue with that. I will say that Florida's system is radically different than Ohio's so I couldn't make a good assesment of what strategy would be the best. I don't know enough about it.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#28 Mar 6, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't argue with that. I will say that Florida's system is radically different than Ohio's so I couldn't make a good assesment of what strategy would be the best. I don't know enough about it.
I don't either, but I don't see why both matters couldn't considered at once. You throw all your evidence out and if you pass scrutiny under "stand your ground", it's a done deal and you don't really need to consider any of the other issues.

If they the defense doesn't have enough there to get the matter bounced under "stand your ground", then they consider the evidence under whatever crimes he is charged with.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#30 Mar 6, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>That's right, Reader...nobody ever died from having their head bashed into a concrete sidewalk.
Did somebody have their head bashed into a sidewalk?

The evidence suggests no.

Georgie says yes.

Hmmm, what to believe?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#31 Mar 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Did somebody have their head bashed into a sidewalk?
The evidence suggests no.
Georgie says yes.
Hmmm, what to believe?
A friendly reminder: A verdict has not been returned in this case, nor do you have access to all of the evidence.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#32 Mar 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Did somebody have their head bashed into a sidewalk?
The evidence suggests no.
Georgie says yes.
Hmmm, what to believe?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OkJaskshjEo/T5Fvyxs...

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photo...
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#33 Mar 6, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Here is some advice from someone you respect:
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A friendly reminder: A verdict has not been returned in this case, nor do you have access to all of the evidence.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#34 Mar 6, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
A friendly reminder: A verdict has not been returned in this case, nor do you have access to all of the evidence.
And as I have reminded you back on many occasions, yes, the man will have his trial.

But based on what evidence is currently available to the public, and this being Florida there's a whale of a lot of it, things don't look good for Mr. George Zimmerman.

What we have thus far in support of his story is his word, and he has made a lot of stupid mistakes that tend to besmirch his good word.

And then there is the forensic evidence.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#35 Mar 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
And as I have reminded you back on many occasions, yes, the man will have his trial.
But based on what evidence is currently available to the public, and this being Florida there's a whale of a lot of it, things don't look good for Mr. George Zimmerman.
What we have thus far in support of his story is his word, and he has made a lot of stupid mistakes that tend to besmirch his good word.
And then there is the forensic evidence.
Pure speculation on your part.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#36 Mar 6, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't either, but I don't see why both matters couldn't considered at once. You throw all your evidence out and if you pass scrutiny under "stand your ground", it's a done deal and you don't really need to consider any of the other issues.
If they the defense doesn't have enough there to get the matter bounced under "stand your ground", then they consider the evidence under whatever crimes he is charged with.
As I understand it there are procedural difficulties (in an immunity hearing the burden is on the defense and they present first).

There is also the difficulty of the right of the defendent to a presumption of innocence. In an immunity hearing, again as I understand it, the defense is essentially saying "yeah, I did it, but the following extenuating circumstances make it excuseable." If the two are joined together then the defendent loses the presumption of innocence guaranteed them in a trial.

And just as a practical matter, the considered wisdom is that O'Mara should be doing everything that he can to keep his client off the stand. As soon as he is on the stand then everything that he has said to law enforcement, on television, on his website and so forth and so on come walking in the door, with all of its contradictions. And there have been a lot of pretty massive contradictions (such as Trayvon running--stated to the dispatcher, but to Sean Hannity, he says Trayvon wasn't running--maybe he skipped; such as being knocked immediately to the ground and straddled--changing to maybe he was fighting back; such as the location at which Trayvon approached--at the club house, or where he parked; such as he was in fear for his life, but not scared).

Then when you throw in the way the evidence tells the story (very different timeline, direction of movement, injuries and so forth)--there is no way this guy can help himself out on the stand.

Best they can do--and it seems to be the way that they are going--is to make a case against the victim, through Facebook and Twitter and so forth. All totally irrelevant stuff--not anything Zimmerman could have known about--but it might move a jury, particularly a jury made up of folks like our George (on Topix), hey you, Karl and so forth.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#37 Mar 6, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure speculation on your part.
The forensics or the contradictions?

Like I said, Florida has a wide open public records law so that a lot of information is currently available to the public.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#38 Mar 6, 2013
Bottom line is that I don't know why this would "stun" the court.

If OJ's glove had come out in a hearing like this, it would have lost its shock value to the the jury in the criminal trial.

IOW, this means nothing. It is merely a tactical decision on the part of his attorneys. Zimmerman will get off, either on the merits or on some cute lawyering like in the Casey Anthony case.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#39 Mar 6, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Ah, yes, the pictures.

George has described a scene in which his head was bashed many times against concrete--to the extent that he believed he was going to pass out.

Yet, rather than abrasions, bruising and swelling, he presents with a small laceration (which is best described as a "clean cut"). This MIGHT have resulted from banging into the head on a sprinkler system embedded in the grass, but is not consistent with the kind of head banging Z. describes. A medical expert is certainly available to the prosecution to say something along those lines. They would also be likely to review the records summoned from the PA who saw George the next day. Also call the EMTs who saw no evidence (confusion, unequal pupil dilation, etc) of possible concussion and the cop who rode back with him and asked if he felt in need of further medical attention, or the cops back at the PD who did the same.

They may also bring a forensics expert to point out the direction of blood trails on the back of the head, which is down, but also forward (ending below the ears and into the beard). Not what you would see if the guy were flat on his back. More consistent with being over someone on the ground--leaning forward.

NEXT witness.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#40 Mar 6, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
Bottom line is that I don't know why this would "stun" the court.
If OJ's glove had come out in a hearing like this, it would have lost its shock value to the the jury in the criminal trial.
IOW, this means nothing. It is merely a tactical decision on the part of his attorneys. Zimmerman will get off, either on the merits or on some cute lawyering like in the Casey Anthony case.
Wasn't OJ's glove a stunner from the prosecution?

No doubt it is a tactical decision, but I believe the basis for the tactic is that they cannot afford to put Z. on the stand, and there is no other way to win an immunity hearing.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#41 Mar 6, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The forensics or the contradictions?
Like I said, Florida has a wide open public records law so that a lot of information is currently available to the public.
The facts are for a jury to determine.
And you're not on the jury.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Elderly woman dies as a result of distacted dri... 1 hr Spot for Guvnah 2
Man shot near Ferguson protest….. 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 189
They're Shooting News Reporters On Live TV 2 hr Spot for Guvnah 35
Jimmy Carter! Wow, he is a Democratic Christia... 2 hr Duke for Mayor 6
News Sen. Rob Portman: Cultural-attitude changes nee... 2 hr Big Johnson 1
News Jury says 'guilty' in trial of man accused of d... 2 hr Big Johnson 1
News Students Stuck as Columbus Charter Closes 3 hr Big Johnson 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages