Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 253

On July 03 2013 05:19 Plansix wrote:


The discussion has been going to for pages about the self defense claim. It is the whole case. If you kill someone by shooting them, admit it and don't have a self defense claim, there is nothing to prove. You have admitted to committing a crime. That is why the prosecution has been poking wholes in the defenses case of self defense. It is the only part they need to "prove".

On July 03 2013 05:22 xDaunt wrote:
The state must discredit the defendant as part of its case. However, discrediting the defendant can't be the entire case. Thus far, the state's case has been the latter (to the extent that the state has even succeeded in discrediting Zimmerman), which simply isn't good enough to get a conviction.

On July 03 2013 05:27 Junichi wrote:
I like how clear this witness is making her answers.

On July 03 2013 05:28 xDaunt wrote:

She's done this many times before. She's well-trained for this type of testimony.

On July 03 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, whats the point of her testimony? to say trayvon's prints werent on the gun?

On July 03 2013 04:49 FatChicksUnited wrote:
Doesn't he have a concealed weapons permit? Don't you take courses teaching you the basics of these laws anyway, when doing your gun safety requirements for the permit?

*edit* I'm mostly ignorant on gun permit laws, this is the impression I get from reading the comments section of the legalinsurrection recaps.

On July 03 2013 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:



That's probably where they are heading as it would not match GZ's account of the events and would indicate that his weapon was drawn for longer than he has previously indicated.

edit: maybe not though

On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty.

On July 03 2013 05:35 Kaitlin wrote:


Having gone back and read this, yeah, this was really terribly worded. I intended to make the point that the prosecution's case seems to have devolved to one of making their case by calling into question the defense's theory. In other words, creating a reasonable doubt that the defense's theory isn't accurate. Obviously, this is backwards, as they have the beyond a reasonable doubt burden.

The second sentence in the quote was intended as a summary of the prosecution's case, instead of my opinion as to the conclusion I draw from the case. Very badly presented. Sorry for the confusion lol.

On July 03 2013 05:38 Jaded. wrote:
I have a question for one of the resident lawyers of the thread. Earlier today the prosecution wanted to put forth some of Zimmerman's school records as evidence, to which the defense objected. They both started a little back and forth and eventually the judge said something like "I haven't seen these exhibits before. Is it normal for the judge to not know about the exhibits that are going to be admitted during the case? I found it a little strange.

On July 03 2013 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:

i thought he said trayvon reached for the gun, not that he actually grabbed the gun. how would latent prints allow you to determine how long the weapon was drawn?

On July 03 2013 05:39 Roxor9999 wrote:
All in all this one of the better days for the prosecution.

On July 03 2013 05:38 Jaded. wrote:
I have a question for one of the resident lawyers of the thread. Earlier today the prosecution wanted to put forth some of Zimmerman's school records as evidence, to which the defense objected. They both started a little back and forth and eventually the judge said something like "I haven't seen these exhibits before. Is it normal for the judge to not know about the exhibits that are going to be admitted during the case? I found it a little strange.

On July 03 2013 05:43 Defacer wrote:


How so? Honest question. I can't follow the live feed at work. It's killing me.

Has the prosecution actually making any points? Because up until yesterday it looked like it was going to be a blowout.

On July 03 2013 05:44 dAPhREAk wrote:

all non-impeachment documents are submitted prior to the case usually (either in an exhibit list, or binders of exhibits). when she said she hadn't seen them yet, it was likely that she didn't know which documents they were referring to and hadnt reviewed them yet since the issue hadnt been briefed to her pre-trial. parties really dropped the ball by not having this issue hashed out pre-trial, and forcing the judge to make the decision without relevant authority and briefing.

this case has been weird in the presentation of evidence though. lawyers using their computer to show documents to witnesses and saying they only have an electronic copy.