|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry.
They sit in the very same room. But they definitely cannot hear what is discussed when the lawyers go up.
|
On June 27 2013 05:20 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:18 heliusx wrote:
It's unfortunate some very important facts are only known by a person who is literally retarded. The important part is that she is clearly biased. If she was a genius the diference would be that she would be making a far more compelling case, not that we would know the truth. That would be worse.
That's to be expected. Her friend was shot to death.
|
On June 27 2013 05:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry. prosecutor sits right next to jury; witness is also right next to jury. you cant see jury on stream because they have to be anonymous. and, honest to god, i swear the jury can hear lawyers during the private discussions with the judge so i always keep my voice a little up when im discussing damaging but likely inadmissible evidence during bench discussions. ;-)
When will the real work catch up with ESPORTS. Sound booths or at least noise cancelling headphones please.
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 05:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry. prosecutor sits right next to jury; witness is also right next to jury. you cant see jury on stream because they have to be anonymous. and, honest to god, i swear the jury can hear lawyers during the private discussions with the judge so i always keep my voice a little up when im discussing damaging but likely inadmissible evidence during bench discussions. ;-)
Um...
http://legal-malpractice.lawyers.com/Reporting-a-Lawyer-for-Ethics-Violations.html
Name: Daphreak
Address: TL.net
|
She is so bad at clearly answering the questions the prosecution's objections are getting overruled because the only way to get a straight answer is for the defense attorney to ask a question multiple times.
|
This witness is actually hilarious. She has a 3rd grade education at best and in attempting to help her friend is only damning his case.
|
On June 27 2013 05:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry. prosecutor sits right next to jury; witness is also right next to jury. you cant see jury on stream because they have to be anonymous. and, honest to god, i swear the jury can hear lawyers during the private discussions with the judge so i always keep my voice a little up when im discussing damaging but likely inadmissible evidence during bench discussions. ;-)
Ah, okay, makes sense. Thanks, curiousity is a curse. -.-
And yeah, that's what i was thinking, doesn't really make sense if they actually sit right next to the judge (more or less) and can hear stuff anyway. We don't have a jurysystem, so this is actually really interesting to me.
|
This witness is literally giving me a head ache.
|
On June 27 2013 05:21 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:20 Sufficiency wrote:On June 27 2013 05:19 Tewks44 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 Sufficiency wrote:
The stream can't rewind.... can anyone explain how she lied? she lied about her age (said she was 16) for some reason I don't really follow, but that's the only thing I'm aware of. She is over 18? Martin is 17??? I believe she is currently 20 (I think she said that at the beginning of her testimony). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Basically they are in an intimate relationship, but she is over 18 but he is not.... so she lied about her age... why not just admit it in court.
|
I don't think she's going to be much help to the prosecution. Maybe I'm wrong.
|
On June 27 2013 05:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:20 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 heliusx wrote:
It's unfortunate some very important facts are only known by a person who is literally retarded. The important part is that she is clearly biased. If she was a genius the diference would be that she would be making a far more compelling case, not that we would know the truth. That would be worse. That's to be expected. Her friend was shot to death.
Well, yes, I'm just saying that the fact she is a bad witness is only unfortunate to the people that want to see Zimmerman convicted. Being this clueless is kinda bad because it helps the defense, but it's not the kind of thing that would change wether we know the true facts or not.
|
She obviously wanted Trayvon's booty.
|
On June 27 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:20 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:16 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:13 m4inbrain wrote:
Okay, now i'm bothered. Why exactly are they muting the sound when they're summoned to the judge? I don't really understand it, since it's not like any of the sides would have an advantage if "the world" would hear what is discussed there. No one ever gets to hear the side bar discussions between judges and attorneys. A lot of things are discussed back there that aren't to be mentioned to anyone so as to avoid contaminating the trial. Could you give an example? You can't contaminate the jury since they have sworn (or something) to not watch media, news etc. I don't get it, really. Edit: it's fine to "whitenoise" the jury, but observers? they are likely discussing the admissibility of some evidence. if they let the jury hear the evidence before its determined whether its admissible, you cant "unring the bell" so they have discussions outside the hearing of the jury. Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, kinda. Where exactly is the jury sitting, are they in the courtroom or another room next to it, and actually watching it via stream? Might be a stupid question, sorry. prosecutor sits right next to jury; witness is also right next to jury. you cant see jury on stream because they have to be anonymous. and, honest to god, i swear the jury can hear lawyers during the private discussions with the judge so i always keep my voice a little up when im discussing damaging but likely inadmissible evidence during bench discussions. ;-) Ah, okay, makes sense. Thanks, curiousity is a curse. -.- And yeah, that's what i was thinking, doesn't really make sense if they actually sit right next to the judge (more or less) and can hear stuff anyway. We don't have a jurysystem, so this is actually really interesting to me.
the really damaging stuff is usually handled pre-trial by motions in limine (motions to exclude the testimony from being heard at trial). those are handled when the jury is not in the same room. unfortunately, you cant predict everything and sometimes you have to handle in the jury's presence.
|
OK she is just making things up now lol.
|
This wouldn't be so bad if this was only the first prosecution witness to crash and burn. Sadly for them, it's not.
|
lololololol
A lot of texts where not even me. Well 2. They text when im driving. Only 2 from the house, i mean car.
|
This lady... Can a witness be so clearly brainless that a Judge can step in and say enough? I mean this lady is barely coherent.
|
On June 27 2013 05:25 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:22 heliusx wrote:On June 27 2013 05:20 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:18 heliusx wrote:
It's unfortunate some very important facts are only known by a person who is literally retarded. The important part is that she is clearly biased. If she was a genius the diference would be that she would be making a far more compelling case, not that we would know the truth. That would be worse. That's to be expected. Her friend was shot to death. Well, yes, I'm just saying that the fact she is a bad witness is only unfortunate to the people that want to see Zimmerman convicted. Being this clueless is kinda bad because it helps the defense, but it's not the kind of thing that would change wether we know the true facts or not.
It's unfortunate to the people who want the truth. It's not about wanting to imprison someone.
|
"But there are hundreds of texts"
"But not all are me"
"So your friends would text for you"
"Yes, twice"
"But there are hundreds of texts"
"But sometimes my friends would text for me"
Well done witness, confuse the lawyer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
