Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 191

On June 29 2013 01:19 PCloadletter wrote:
Jonathan Good, thanks, got it.

On June 29 2013 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, I just watched the CNN-HLN coverage of this trial for a few minutes. It is horrific beyond description.

On June 29 2013 01:15 bonifaceviii wrote:
Opinion question: Will Zimmerman really need to testify if the witnesses are torpedoing the State's case so much?

On June 29 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote:

No.

Regardless of how the case has gone so far, there was no chance that Zimmerman was going to testify at trial. He has given too many statements about what happened. Even under the best of circumstances, it is almost impossible to be entirely consistent when giving so many statements. He would get killed on cross examination. Hell, it would be malpractice for his attorneys to even let him on the stand.

On June 29 2013 01:23 LaughingTulkas wrote:


Legal insurrections has a defense attorney following the case and blogging, I've found it really insightful. Here's his take on teh testimony:

Here

On June 29 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote:

No.

Regardless of how the case has gone so far, there was no chance that Zimmerman was going to testify at trial. He has given too many statements about what happened. Even under the best of circumstances, it is almost impossible to be entirely consistent when giving so many statements. He would get killed on cross examination. Hell, it would be malpractice for his attorneys to even let him on the stand.

On June 29 2013 01:42 Fulla wrote:
So to clarify for someone who hasn't been watching. This witness alone pretty much just ended the entire trial?

On June 29 2013 01:47 Sufficiency wrote:


What did he say?


Seriously guys. We need LR for this.

On June 29 2013 01:23 LaughingTulkas wrote:


Legal insurrections has a defense attorney following the case and blogging, I've found it really insightful. Here's his take on teh testimony:

Here

On June 29 2013 01:47 Sufficiency wrote:


What did he say?


Seriously guys. We need LR for this.

A former neighbor of George Zimmerman testified he saw two men in a "tussle" outside his home the night of Feb. 26, 2012, and said he now believes the person on top in the altercation - which would moments later turn fatal - was Trayvon Martin.

In key testimony, he also said he believes George Zimmerman was the person yelling for help.

PICTURES: George Zimmerman on trial in death of Fla. teen

VIDEO: Zimmerman trial: Prosecutor opens with profanity

John Good took the stand Friday in the fifth day of testimony in the Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial. The former neighborhood watch captain is charged with shooting the unarmed teen as he was walking back to his father's fiancee's home through a Sanford, Fla. gated community.

John Good testified he saw a man in dark clothing on top of a man who was wearing red or light-colored clothing with lighter skin. Zimmerman, 29, was wearing a red jacket the night of the altercation, and Martin was wearing a dark hoodie. However, Good testified that he didn't see the person on top smashing the other person's head into the sidewalk, as Zimmerman claims Martin did before he fatally shot the teen.

READ: Trayvon Martin Shooting: A timeline of events

Taking the stand Thursday, John Good said he was at home watching television with his wife when he heard a "faint noise" that seemed to be getting closer. Outside, he said he saw the person on top of another man.

The man on the bottom, who he said he now believes is George Zimmerman, yelled for help.

"At first it was "What's going on," and no one answered,' " Good said, describing calling out for the men. "And then at that point the person on the bottom, I could finally see, I heard a 'help.' Then at some point I said 'Cut it out.' And then, 'I'm calling 911.' That's when I thought it was getting really serious."

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"

"That's what it looked like," Good answered.

Good said he then went back inside to call 911. As he was dialing the phone, he heard a gunshot. His 911 call was played in court as the jury listened.

"I just heard a shot right behind my house. They're wrestling right in back of my porch," Good said on the recording. "...I'm pretty sure the guy's dead out here. Holy sh--."

Later, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term "ground and pound" before he did.

"It's possible," Good said.

De la Rionda honed in on Good's earlier statement that he couldn't confirm the person on top was hitting the other person.

"Correct," Good said.

Later, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked whether it was possible a police officer could have used the term "ground and pound" before he did.

On June 29 2013 02:03 Kaitlin wrote:
Legal experts, considering the lesser-included manslaughter charge: Would it be improper for a juror to look at it from the perspective that if the State had thought he was guilty of manslaughter, they wouldn't have pursued this ridiculous murder charge, and therefore use that as a factor in their determination that Zimmerman is also not guilty of manslaughter ? In other words, as part of the basis for their verdict, they drew a conclusion from the theory of the prosecution's case being ridiculous instead of consistent with a manslaughter charge ? Does that make sense ?

On June 29 2013 02:03 Kaitlin wrote:
Legal experts, considering the lesser-included manslaughter charge: Would it be improper for a juror to look at it from the perspective that if the State had thought he was guilty of manslaughter, they wouldn't have pursued this ridiculous murder charge, and therefore use that as a factor in their determination that Zimmerman is also not guilty of manslaughter ? In other words, as part of the basis for their verdict, they drew a conclusion from the theory of the prosecution's case being ridiculous instead of consistent with a manslaughter charge ? Does that make sense ?

On June 29 2013 02:07 dAPhREAk wrote:

doubt that. usually with lesser included, the jury can say "i dont think you met second degree, but it was enough for manslaughter so i will go there." they also like to split the baby: i will convict, but the punishment will be less. just to be clear, i am not sure whether they can go for lesser included offenses in Florida since they indicted on second degree murder. I am not familiar enough with the Florida system.

On June 29 2013 00:46 dAPhREAk wrote:

they werent allowed to testify because the court found them unreliable. i think you should think twice before relying on them.

On June 29 2013 02:03 Kaitlin wrote:
Legal experts, considering the lesser-included manslaughter charge: Would it be improper for a juror to look at it from the perspective that if the State had thought he was guilty of manslaughter, they wouldn't have pursued this ridiculous murder charge, and therefore use that as a factor in their determination that Zimmerman is also not guilty of manslaughter ? In other words, as part of the basis for their verdict, they drew a conclusion from the theory of the prosecution's case being ridiculous instead of consistent with a manslaughter charge ? Does that make sense ?