|
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 28 2013 04:50 SKC wrote:
If there's one things that I feel is very diferent from "TV show courtroom" is how the lawyers asks questions in a specific stand, only aproaching the witness when he has to show her something. In TV they ussually just stand up behind the table and move around kinda randomly. It really kills the "slamming their hands, screaming questions to the witness to force a reaction" effect.
There is far, far less theater in real courtrooms than what you see on TV. Not that it never happens....
|
On June 28 2013 04:50 SKC wrote:
If there's one things that I feel is very diferent from "TV show courtroom" is how the lawyers asks questions in a specific stand, only aproaching the witness when he has to show her something. In TV they ussually just stand up behind the table and move around kinda randomly. It really kills the "slamming their hands, screaming questions to the witness to force a reaction" effect.
This depends heavily on the lawyer and the state, but in general, you are right. Questioning tends to be more demure than television would have you believe.
|
On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux?
I dunno. I have been half paying attention to this witness. I don't think that she has said anything particularly important other than identifying and authenticating her 911 call (the one where you can hear the screams). She didn't see anything and can't identify who was screaming. There just really isn't much there, which is why I don't understand why this witness is taking so long.
|
Yeah, I didn't expect it to be as theatrical as in TV, but I didn't know the fact you wouldn't aproach the witness at all.
|
On June 28 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? I dunno. I have been half paying attention to this witness. I don't think that she has said anything particularly important other than identifying and authenticating her 911 call (the one where you can hear the screams). She didn't see anything and can't identify who was screaming. There just really isn't much there, which is why I don't understand why this witness is taking so long.
Right, but with the overall case?
|
On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux?
they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that.
|
On June 28 2013 04:53 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? I dunno. I have been half paying attention to this witness. I don't think that she has said anything particularly important other than identifying and authenticating her 911 call (the one where you can hear the screams). She didn't see anything and can't identify who was screaming. There just really isn't much there, which is why I don't understand why this witness is taking so long. Right, but with the overall case?
Take a look at the jury instructions that are provided in the OP. Basically, they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman committed an unjustifiable homicide.
|
On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that.
Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense?
|
Lol wow her husband got owned. "he never actually did find a knife, he doesn't know where they are at."
|
On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense?
i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason.
7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death
|
Thread-attorneys, please define what a proffer is ?
|
On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. Show nested quote +7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death
I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground.
|
On June 28 2013 05:04 Kaitlin wrote:
Thread-attorneys, please define what a proffer is ?
present evidence to support something.
|
On June 28 2013 05:04 Kaitlin wrote:
Thread-attorneys, please define what a proffer is ?
Proffer means to offer forth evidence in support of a particular argument.
|
On June 28 2013 05:04 Kaitlin wrote:
Thread-attorneys, please define what a proffer is ?
This is an "offer of proof." If there's a question as to whether evidence is admissible at trial, the judge will hold a mini-hearing like this outside of the view of the jury to see what the evidence is. After seeing it, the judge will then determine the extent to which it may be presented to the jury.
|
On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground.
there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach.
|
wtf, i was on phone. did he just introduce zimmerman's prior criminal history??
|
On June 28 2013 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground. there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach.
What's normally the punishment for manslaughter in a case like this?
|
On June 28 2013 05:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
wtf, i was on phone. did he just introduce zimmerman's prior criminal history??
Yes, I have no idea exactly why.
|
On June 28 2013 05:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 05:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 05:05 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 05:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:56 SKC wrote:On June 28 2013 04:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 04:50 Yorke wrote:On June 28 2013 04:38 xDaunt wrote:
The State spent a lot of time examining a witness who really didn't have that much to say. Can you explain what the prosecutions' goals are? Do they have to prove that the shooting was premeditated? Or that Zimmerman aggressed first? What is the crux? they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman did not shoot trayvon in self defense. they do not have to show premeditation to do so. they do not have to show that zimmerman aggressed first necessarily, but its hard to make a case without that. Don't they need more than that for second degree murder? Couldn't it just be manslaugther even if it wasn't self defense? i was simplifying it. yes, they still need to show the elements of second degree murder, but by winning on self defense they basically establish those elements as the killing is not disputed, just the reason. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death I just found it odd that it jumped so easily from self defense to "a depraved mind without regard for human life". But I guess with way the case is argued, if they don't buy the self defense argument, they will listen to the state's version of a racially motivated murder, where Zimmerman went after Martin specifically to kill him. There's no middle ground. there could be a middle ground. if they find that zimmerman acted in self defense subjectively, but it wasnt objectively reasonable then they could just say that it is criminal negligence (i.e., manslaughter). however, both sides appear to be going for an all or nothing approach. What's normally the punishment for manslaughter in a case like this?
i dont know for florida. i would guess 5-10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
