|
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 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:29 m4inbrain wrote: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.
Thanks.
Edit: aww.. I want to hear what they talk about. ._.
|
Canada23833 Posts
On June 27 2013 05:34 biology]major wrote:
was zimmerman questioned in this case? I watched monday and today and so far nothing from him.
My understanding is that Zimmerman takes the stand LAST, because he is the accused.
|
On June 27 2013 05:34 biology]major wrote:
was zimmerman questioned in this case? I watched monday and today and so far nothing from him.
fifth amendment. he might not get on the stand at all. but i can guarantee you that they will use his prior statements, including his reenactment, even if he doesnt take the stand.
|
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked.
|
On June 27 2013 05:33 On_Slaught wrote:
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.
Yeah, this is very true. One of the things that good attorneys do at trial is fight subconscious stereotypes by offering evidence that contradicts those stereotypes. This witness, and everything that she said about what Trayvon said on the phone, has reinforced every negative stereotype that a southern white woman (ie the jury) is going to have about lower income black people. That, in and of itself, is a potential disaster for the State.
|
On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked.
Calm down. And try to be a bit more objective, what you describe is not the case.
|
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state?
|
On June 27 2013 05:37 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked. Calm down. And try to be a bit more objective, what you describe is not the case.
How is it not the case? They can use prior history for Zimmerman to show character, but they can't with Trayvon. They keep denying all sorts of things for the defense. Even the news organizations are citing the biased actions so far.
|
On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked.
The defense attorneys simply aren't as good imo. They are a lot sloppier in their routine which results in a lot of objections. They might still win but that's only because they have the facts in their favor.
Also, don't remember there were some HUGE rulings in the pre-trial motions in favor of the defense.
|
On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state?
Prosecution didnt prep her.
If they did, they get a big fat F.
|
On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F.
I'm sure some people are unprepable.
|
On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable.
I would be shocked if the State didn't prep her. Believe me, some witnesses are simply impossible to work with.
|
On June 27 2013 05:39 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked. The defense attorneys simply aren't as good imo. They are a lot sloppier in their routine which results in a lot of objections. They might still win but that's only because they have the facts in their favor. Also, don't remember there were some HUGE rulings in the pre-trial motions in favor of the defense.
There was one huge ruling, which was throwing out the voice experts. Which is a damn good thing because that faulty tech would have destroyed this case.
The state does the same crap the defense does and gets away with it when the defense objects. She talks to the defense like they are children.
|
On June 27 2013 05:38 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:37 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked. Calm down. And try to be a bit more objective, what you describe is not the case. How is it not the case? They can use prior history for Zimmerman to show character, but they can't with Trayvon. They keep denying all sorts of things for the defense. Even the news organizations are citing the biased actions so far.
It's still no reason to A go sensationalist like a dramawhore over B something that isn't the case. Actually the only time i heard the word "overruled" was by an objection from the prosecution. And that's what you said. And that's what i mean if i say "that what you describe right there is bs".
|
On June 27 2013 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable. I would be shocked if the State didn't prep her. Believe me, some witnesses are simply impossible to work with.
Then whose fault is it.
They present her as a witness. And of course they prepped her. Could they not realize that she would crumble like she did today.
Its their fault for going with it anyways.
|
On June 27 2013 05:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable. I would be shocked if the State didn't prep her. Believe me, some witnesses are simply impossible to work with.
Yeah, I meant that some people are just impossible to prepare properly, not that they didn't try because of it. I'm sure the way she remembers dates, for example, comes from preparation, and I don't think it's something she would do on her own.
On June 27 2013 05:42 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable. I would be shocked if the State didn't prep her. Believe me, some witnesses are simply impossible to work with. Then whose fault is it. They present her as a witness. And of course they prepped her. Could they not realize that she would crumble like she did today. Its their fault for going with it anyways.
It's all they got, they may as well hope she doesn't ruins their case. Of course they probally shouldn't even procede with a case such as this, but disregarding that it's not like they have something else to work with.
|
On June 27 2013 05:41 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:38 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 05:37 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked. Calm down. And try to be a bit more objective, what you describe is not the case. How is it not the case? They can use prior history for Zimmerman to show character, but they can't with Trayvon. They keep denying all sorts of things for the defense. Even the news organizations are citing the biased actions so far. It's still no reason to A go sensationalist like a dramawhore over B something that isn't the case. Actually the only time i heard the word "overruled" was by an objection from the prosecution. And that's what you said. And that's what i mean if i say "that what you describe right there is bs".
Then you are simply not watching. They defense is being overruled over and over again. Especially when the state was coaching this witness on her story. He tried 3 times to object to it.
|
On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable.
you dont even know......
edit: that was ambiguous. yes, some people are fucking horrible to prep.
|
On June 27 2013 05:42 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:40 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 SKC wrote:On June 27 2013 05:39 Emnjay808 wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 crms wrote:
So now that this lady admitted she didn't take her original interview seriously (the one I'm assuming the prosecution wanted to use) originally wanted Zimmerman to be arrested because she thought it was a "race thing" and only originally agreed to help because of the mother's request is it safe to say this witness completely exploded in the prosecutions face?
How big of a disaster was this witness on a 1-10 scale for the state? Prosecution didnt prep her. If they did, they get a big fat F. I'm sure some people are unprepable. I would be shocked if the State didn't prep her. Believe me, some witnesses are simply impossible to work with. Then whose fault is it. They present her as a witness. And of course they prepped her. Could they not realize that she would crumble like she did today. Its their fault for going with it anyways.
As I mentioned earlier, they have to put her on because she has their best evidence. She's probably the only one that can rebut Zimmerman's claim of self defense, despite her liabilities. There's no getting around it. So yes, if they are going to try the case, then they have to put her on. The real issue is whether they should have tried this case to begin with as opposed to dropping the charges.
|
On June 27 2013 05:43 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:41 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:38 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 05:37 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 05:36 jeremycafe wrote:
If the judge keeps this up it will be grounds for a mistrial soon. She sustains EVERYTHING the state objects to. But overrules everything from the defense. If they don't let the interview be played to prove lack of credibility this shit is fucked. Calm down. And try to be a bit more objective, what you describe is not the case. How is it not the case? They can use prior history for Zimmerman to show character, but they can't with Trayvon. They keep denying all sorts of things for the defense. Even the news organizations are citing the biased actions so far. It's still no reason to A go sensationalist like a dramawhore over B something that isn't the case. Actually the only time i heard the word "overruled" was by an objection from the prosecution. And that's what you said. And that's what i mean if i say "that what you describe right there is bs". Then you are simply not watching. They defense is being overruled over and over again. Especially when the state was coaching this witness on her story. He tried 3 times to object to it.
You see, sometimes an objection might get overruled because it's worth overruling it. But feel free to put your tinfoil hat back on, sorry to have bothered you, let's stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
