|
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 July 09 2013 06:01 dAPhREAk wrote:
of course the drugs are in. defense has said that they have an expert saying there are significant amounts of drugs in his system, and the drugs would have an impact on the victim's behavior. not allowing that in is asking for a court of appeal to reverse any decision by the jury.
i am surprised she rejected the prosecutor's request for a "proffer," although really they should have asked for a Frye/Daubert hearing.
Yes, that's exactly correct.
|
On July 09 2013 06:01 dAPhREAk wrote:
of course the drugs are in. defense has said that they have an expert saying there are significant amounts of drugs in his system, and the drugs would have an impact on the victim's behavior. not allowing that in is asking for a court of appeal to reverse any decision by the jury.
i am surprised she rejected the prosecutor's request for a "proffer," although really they should have asked for a Frye/Daubert hearing.
She basically said that there wasn't anything in the case law, as far as determining factors, that a proffer would provide. Decision was basically that the evidence needs to come in, and it doesn't depend on something gained from a proffer. I guess.
|
On July 09 2013 06:05 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:01 dAPhREAk wrote:
of course the drugs are in. defense has said that they have an expert saying there are significant amounts of drugs in his system, and the drugs would have an impact on the victim's behavior. not allowing that in is asking for a court of appeal to reverse any decision by the jury.
i am surprised she rejected the prosecutor's request for a "proffer," although really they should have asked for a Frye/Daubert hearing. She basically said that there wasn't anything in the case law, as far as determining factors, that a proffer would provide. Decision was basically that the evidence needs to come in, and it doesn't depend on something gained from a proffer. I guess.
and that was correct on her part. thats why they should have asked for a Frye/Daubert hearing on the question of whether the drugs would in fact have any effect on trayvon, and what scientific evidence supports that. that is where the real weakness of the evidence can be attacked.
|
On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out.
That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA)
As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression.
I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out.
But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test....
|
On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test....
Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility.
|
I'm interested in seeing this animation. I'm also interested in seeing a Daubert hearing.
|
what's a Frye/Daubert hearing?
|
I'm interested to know what a Daubert hearing is. Also, we get to see cartoons ? yay !!! So, I'm guessing it's a computer animation of what happened ?
|
John Good's testimony for the Jury's brains, talking about a drugged up TM for the Jury's prejudices.
Even if the State still had an argument, I can't see a recovery from this. Jurors that argue with their heads will bring up John and Jurors who argue with their gut will bring up drugged up delinquent.
|
On July 09 2013 06:11 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm interested to know what a Daubert hearing is. Also, we get to see cartoons ? yay !!! So, I'm guessing it's a computer animation of what happened ?
Get some Bones stuff up in this shit.
|
A Daubert hearing is a hearing held away from the jury to see whether expert testimony is admissible.
|
On July 09 2013 06:11 woody60707 wrote:
what's a Frye/Daubert hearing?
court acts as a gatekeeper to keep unscientific expert opinions away from the ears of a jury. if the expert opinion is not supported by credible scientific background, it will be excluded from evidence.
|
So is Rout (sp?) completely out, or is it just the portion of his testimony related to self-defense law in Florida?
|
On July 09 2013 06:17 FatChicksUnited wrote:
So is Rout (sp?) completely out, or is it just the portion of his testimony related to self-defense law in Florida?
it is partially out, they are determining whether to allow some other testimony of his in.
|
On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility.
Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]).
This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow.
The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case (and too many others) gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests.
|
On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests.
There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in.
Design wise its pretty good.
|
On July 09 2013 06:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:17 FatChicksUnited wrote:
So is Rout (sp?) completely out, or is it just the portion of his testimony related to self-defense law in Florida? it is partially out, they are determining whether to allow some other testimony of his in.
Oh, this animation relates to his testimony?
|
On July 09 2013 06:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. Yeah not arguing the legality on this one just that it is totally being brought in to prejudice the jury against the prosecution and is no way relevant to the events of that night (as the defense is presenting it[not to mention it further besmirches Cannabis which, if it were not for the GOV propaganda to reinforce racist policies, would be considered one of the most amazing plant families we have ever discovered]). This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests. There is no better way to find truth than to have two people arguing incessantly while a third party parses out which one is the most convincing. One side brings all the facts he believes in, the other side brings all the facts they believe in. Design wise its pretty good.
Yeah I agree it's the best we got but the idea that they "believe in these facts" is a somewhat laughable notion. They believe the facts that gives their client the best chance at success. Regardless of how ridiculous and implausible. Unless your talking about public defenders in which case their client is lucky if they read the case before their day in court. (In defense of PD's [haha] they are overworked and underpaid so it's not exactly their fault they tend to do a piss poor job of doing anything other than asking the prosecutor for a reasonably fair plea.
|
On July 09 2013 06:26 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2013 06:17 FatChicksUnited wrote:
So is Rout (sp?) completely out, or is it just the portion of his testimony related to self-defense law in Florida? it is partially out, they are determining whether to allow some other testimony of his in. Oh, this animation relates to his testimony?
i believe so. not really clear to me.
|
On July 09 2013 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2013 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2013 05:57 xDaunt wrote:
Given how low the amount of THC is, the judge probably should keep this drug evidence out. That would presume that anyone there has any idea about marijuana and it's effects. (think this is like MMA) As for the paranoia It is rarely associated with aggression. I wasn't referring to his ability to perform in a fight but the likelihood of someone who is "stoned" to seek one out. But again the impact of such trace amounts is totally irrelevant. For perspective TM had 1.5ng per ml you can have up to 24ng (49 in some places) per ml and pass a drug test.... Well, what the judge said is that these are issues of weight (ie credibility) as opposed to admissibility. This is my problem with where the justice system has ended up. It has nothing to do with the "truth" it has everything to do with fabricating the best case you can, manipulating the facts to construct the best "legal" "story" the "facts" you can't keep out of the courtroom will allow. The idea that at the end of a trial "justice" has been served to me is a joke. I don't have a better system but it is still disappointing neither side in this case (and too many others) gives 2 shits about what actually happened that night just what serves their personal interests.
I sympathize with this, but there are two arguments for our system:
A lot of times, justice is served. There are some cases where it's clear what happened and putting the motherfucker away or letting the innocent go is justice served. Other times, it's hard because "what really happened that night" is a lot of times, indeterminable. We can get a reasonable picture, but every single fact, every single facet of every involved party's mind? It's just impossible. At that point, we have to go off of setting up reasonable doubts and using "tricks" of the courtroom to get the best possible result. Innocent people may go to prison, guilty people may go free, but there really isn't a better way of doing it.
It sucks, but it's what it has to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
