|
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 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote: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.
Not starting a discussion etc, but as a lawyer, honestly, how accurate do you think these cases are judged? Since at least in my imagination, an actual criminal could come free, by having a good lawyer that makes the right decisions, rules the right stuff out etc.?
I guess there are rules in place to prevent that, it's just that it sounds like that sometimes.
|
this woman has watched way too many courtroom dramas. The fact she's in the 12th grade by itself is surprising.
|
I've been in the position that the prosecution is now, where a witness of mine was being examined and destroyed for an extended period of time and I just wanted it to end. I imagine that it is similar to dying of a thousand cuts.
|
I bet Mr. Martin is wondering what the hell his son was thinking hooking up with this girl lol
|
On June 27 2013 05:29 Tewks44 wrote:
this woman has watched way too many courtroom dramas. The fact she's in the 12th grade by itself is surprising.
Maybe she meant 1+2. Sorry. :/
|
On June 27 2013 05:29 xDaunt wrote:
I've been in the position that the prosecution is now, where a witness of mine was being examined and destroyed for an extended period of time and I just wanted it to end. I imagine that it is similar to dying of a thousand cuts.
As a wise man once told me, "men will fuck mud."
|
On June 27 2013 05:28 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:25 SKC wrote: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.
Do you believe if she was really smart she would be telling the truth instead of doing a such a good job as a defense witness? She would still be biased. The DA would just have a better case, wether or not their case is rightfull wouldn't change. It's not like there are fact she is hiding because she is clueless.
|
Here comes the guillotine.
|
"I dun wanna talk about deff."
|
Oh man, she just got frustrated and now is admitting the entire first interview is a big joke to her...
|
On June 27 2013 05:31 xDaunt wrote:
Here comes the guillotine.
So basically, she just admitted that she didn't take the interview seriously.
|
She was in the closet doe.
...
|
Holy shit... LOL.
The prosecution is finished.
This just admitted she doesn't take the Crump interview seriously... Most unreliable witness yet.
|
I don't even know wtf is going on at this point lol. Thought I heard something about being in the closet and did a double-take because I had the audio on in the background, but...wow.
|
Wow...he goes to throw her under the buss for the lie, OBJECTION, SUSTAINED! WHAT THE FUCK. It doesn't end does it?
|
This isn't exactly fair, but on a subconscious level, Trayvon just being associated with this chick doesn't do him any favors with the jury.
|
On June 27 2013 05:29 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2013 05:24 m4inbrain wrote: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. Not starting a discussion etc, but as a lawyer, honestly, how accurate do you think these cases are judged? Since at least in my imagination, an actual criminal could come free, by having a good lawyer that makes the right decisions, rules the right stuff out etc.? I guess there are rules in place to prevent that, it's just that it sounds like that sometimes.
i am not really qualified to answer that. but i believe that juries want to do the right thing usually. what they consider the "right thing" is obviously biased by their personal experiences. as for having a good lawyer, yes, that is very necessary. thats why rich people get better defenses. sad fact of life.
|
On June 27 2013 05:33 Esk23 wrote:
Holy shit... LOL.
The prosecution is finished.
I wonder if the prosecution even prepared her?
|
was zimmerman questioned in this case? I watched monday and today and so far nothing from him.
|
On June 27 2013 05:33 Aerisky wrote:
I don't even know wtf is going on at this point lol.
I know exactly how you feel. Actually pretty impressed that the defense seems to know what he's doing, even though he's getting confusing answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
