On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
Risk hedging. My understanding is that Florida is very plaintiff-friendly in terms of how much plaintiffs can get in a judgment at trial. By paying $1 million now, they avoided having to spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending themselves in a wrongful death case and the possibility of eating a very large judgment (in the millions depending upon damage caps and the availability of exemplary damages).
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
Risk hedging. My understanding is that Florida is very plaintiff-friendly in terms of how much plaintiffs can get in a judgment at trial. By paying $1 million now, they avoided having to spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees defending themselves in a wrongful death case and the possibility of eating a very large judgment (in the millions depending upon damage caps and the availability of exemplary damages).
If he's convicted, it makes sense that the family receives damages. But if Zimmerman is found not-guilty, I can't be the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that the family just wins the lottery because their kid died. I'm very sorry about the child, even if it turns out he attacked Zimmerman I don't think he deserved to die, and no one deserves to lose a child. But simply awarding people money to prevent maybe paying more money later only advances the suit-happy society we live in.
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
civil liability and criminal liability are two different beasts. even if zimmerman is acquitted, there is still the potential of civil liability. i am pretty sure the SYG does not give third parties immunity like it gives zimmerman.
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
civil liability and criminal liability are two different beasts. even if zimmerman is acquitted, there is still the potential of civil liability. i am pretty sure the SYG does not give third parties immunity like it gives zimmerman.
The claim against the HOA probably would be a vicarious liability claim. In other words, the HOA can only be liable to the extent that Zimmerman is liable, with the additional requirement that Zimmerman be found to have been an agent of the HOA who was operating within the scope of his agency at the time that he killed Martin. The underlying claim would be one of battery/assault, to which standard defenses - notably self-defense - apply. The outcomes of criminal trials have no effect upon civil trials on the same set of events. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he and the HOA could still be sued civilly.
The old bald guy who is talking right now is the defense lawyer?
Yeah. His opening statement is way too long.
But I assume this is a pretty famous defense lawyer? I am sure with the fundings he got he can afford such a person.
I am not sure whether he is famous. All I know is that this particular opening statement sucks.
EDIT: Just listen to the guy. He's rambling. He's disorganized. He's drawing a ton of objections that are being sustained. It's like amateur hour. The only thing that I like about his opening statement is that his presentation is unflappable and understated. It's a good tone.
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
civil liability and criminal liability are two different beasts. even if zimmerman is acquitted, there is still the potential of civil liability. i am pretty sure the SYG does not give third parties immunity like it gives zimmerman.
The claim against the HOA probably would be a vicarious liability claim. In other words, the HOA can only be liable to the extent that Zimmerman is liable, with additional requirement that Zimmerman be found to have been an agent of the HOA who was operating within the scope of his agency at the time that he killed Martin. The underlying claim would be one of battery/assault, to which standard defenses - notable self-defense - apply. The outcomes of criminal trials have no effect upon civil trials on the same set of events. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he and the HOA could still be sued civilly.
they can be sued directly for negligence based on retention, control, etc. i dont think respondeat superior or vicarious liability is the only basis for the suit.
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote: See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
civil liability and criminal liability are two different beasts. even if zimmerman is acquitted, there is still the potential of civil liability. i am pretty sure the SYG does not give third parties immunity like it gives zimmerman.
The claim against the HOA probably would be a vicarious liability claim. In other words, the HOA can only be liable to the extent that Zimmerman is liable, with additional requirement that Zimmerman be found to have been an agent of the HOA who was operating within the scope of his agency at the time that he killed Martin. The underlying claim would be one of battery/assault, to which standard defenses - notable self-defense - apply. The outcomes of criminal trials have no effect upon civil trials on the same set of events. Even if Zimmerman is acquitted, he and the HOA could still be sued civilly.
they can be sued directly for negligence based on retention, control, etc. i dont think respondeat superior or vicarious liability is the only basis for the suit.
Yeah, negligent hiring/retention is a separate, possible claim. I don't know enough about the relationship between Zimmerman and the HOA to comment on whether it would apply.
The old bald guy who is talking right now is the defense lawyer?
Yeah. His opening statement is way too long.
But I assume this is a pretty famous defense lawyer? I am sure with the fundings he got he can afford such a person.
I am not sure whether he is famous. All I know is that this particular opening statement sucks.
EDIT: Just listen to the guy. He's rambling. He's disorganized. He's drawing a ton of objections that are being sustained. It's like amateur hour. The only thing that I like about his opening statement is that his presentation is unflappable and understated. It's a good tone.
Yeah I feel that he isn't prepared. Zimmerman could use a better lawyer lol.
On June 25 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote: Lol this opening is just further proof that, contrary to popular belief, there are far more bad lawyers than good ones.
It's actually a decent tactic.
He knew the State was going to drop some heavy heavy feels on people and make the air as ominous and tense as possible. Making Zim look like a cold blooded murder. The joke got people laughing and instantly broke that thought cloud of negativity. It was a terrible joke, but people on the jury gave a small laugh. By saying something like that, that was wholly inappropriate and would create a backlash, broke the tension of the prosecutors story, but not the way you think.Its like throwing food to an animal that is trying to attack you so you can escape. And now, as soon as he did that, he started hitting them with facts and got the ball rolling.
On June 25 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote: Lol this opening is just further proof that, contrary to popular belief, there are far more bad lawyers than good ones.
On June 25 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote: Lol this opening is just further proof that, contrary to popular belief, there are far more bad lawyers than good ones.
It's actually a decent tactic.
He knew the State was going to drop some heavy heavy feels on people and make the air as ominous and tense as possible. Making Zim look like a cold blooded murder. The joke got people laughing and instantly broke that thought cloud of negativity. It was a terrible joke, but people on the jury gave a small laugh. By saying something like that, that was wholly inappropriate and would create a backlash, broke the tension of the prosecutors story, but not the way you think.Its like throwing food to an animal that is trying to attack you so you can escape. And now, as soon as he did that, he started hitting them with facts and got the ball rolling.
EPT
