|
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 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby?
In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense.
|
On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense.
Yeah this is why the "Stand your ground" defense never materialized. The defense knew they couldn't meet the burdens for the affirmative so they decided at the beginning they would claim simple self defense.
|
On July 11 2013 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. Yeah this is why the "Stand your ground" defense never materialized. The defense knew they couldn't meet the burdens for the affirmative so they decided at the beginning they would claim simple self defense.
which is still an affirmative defense
|
On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:
In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. But it's not. That's why we have the presumption of innocence. That's why to convict somebody you need proof beyond reasonable doubt.
|
Man, the prosecution really messed up with this witness. They let the witness have lengthy, run on conversations, they used the "doll" (which allowed the defense to then use it to portray the animation in real life) etc
|
Hell, I think the defense has proved self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
|
On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense.
A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims.
This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public)
Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it.
|
On July 11 2013 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
Hell, I think the defense has proved self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
When the prosecution attempts to support their "new" theory of the case with "isn't it possible", I'd say they are in trouble.
In addition, to the statements that this witness has no experience testifying, he's a retired cop. This is his first time testifying as an expert witness on his own, but he has testified many, many times during his law enforcement career, so he is very experienced at testifying. He's presenting himself as a very good witness, despite Guy's attempts to discredit his motives for tv time.
|
On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it.
The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time.
On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack.
|
On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs.
hear hear.
|
On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear.
I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor.
|
On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack.
Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please.
|
On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense.
i thought the same thing. but then i discussed it with my public defender friend, and she said that we have the same rule in California. defendant has to put forth enough evidence to convince the COURT to allow a self defense jury instruction, and then the prosecutor has to convince the JURY that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. i didnt believe her at first because i recall learning differently, but this kind of is her job and i dont want to research it further.
weird, huh? or maybe you think California is insane too, which i would not fight you too hard on. ;-)
|
On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor.
Yeah, I really hate the idea that ethics shouldn't be a primary consideration for either prosecutors or defense attorneys. Maybe I'm jaded by having a family member who is an ethical prosecutor though... who knows.
If the DA really doesn't have a case (and they don't), then bringing this to trial to "leave it up to the jury" is so unbelievably wrong, and such a goddamn mockery of what our justice system is supposed to be about.
|
On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack.
Can they (the jury) just add different charges instead of the murder 2? I remember in the Casey Anthony trial that they couldn't drop from 1st degree to anything
|
On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor.
I still don't understand how you can think the state trying to 'win' rather than seek justice is 'doing a good job'. Maybe in this bizarro world we live in with this current justice system but I don't think the state should ever try to 'win' a case unless they have good reason and evidence to believe the defendant is indeed guilty of the charge.
I can't believe any of these prosecutors could have seen the evidence provided in this case and said, yep, 2nd degree murder, definitely. You are all more knowledgeable on LAW than I am given your profession but if you don't see the corruption and amoral behavior of overcharging (in this case, 2nd degree murder) and then doing your best to try and use 'legal' tactics to 'trick' a jury into sending the person to jail, then I just don't know what to say. Nobody is innocent, you can't just say 'its on the judge and jury to decide!' If you're actively trying to put someone in jail for a charge you yourself can't even believe (given the evidence) you're a bad person.
The mere fact this case went to trial for 2nd degree murder because of outrageous media pressure shows this system is bogus. If this case never made it into the mainstream media, police would have never moved forward after the released Zimmerman the first time. If the media can decide which cases deserve trials, I'm not sure how you can defend this 'system'. It's obviously flawed.
|
On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.
This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin. Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him. Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs. hear hear. I second this statement. The truth is in the hands of the jury and judge, not the prosecutor.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_20_2_ethics.html
Rationales for treating prosecutors differently
The government’s overarching interest in justice. A primary rationale for requiring a prosecutor at times to act differently than a defense lawyer flows from the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not an individual client. All lawyers must under Model Rule 1.2 allow the client to determine the objectives of the representation. Usually, a client charged with a crime directs the lawyer to seek acquittal on any charges and to minimize punishment if convicted, regardless of the client’s guilt or the punishment the client may deserve. When the client is the government, determining the client’s interests is not so simple. In representing the government, a prosecutor represents all of the citizenry—including, in a sense, the accused. In this role of representing the citizenry, a prosecutor must decide what is in the public’s interest and then advance that position. In making these decisions, courts and ethics rules direct a prosecutor to act fairly and impartially, and to seek procedural as well as substantive justice for the accused. For example, in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), the Supreme Court stated that the government’s interest “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger and other court decisions reflect the belief that the citizenry, therefore the government, has an overarching interest in justice.
Ethics rules also assume that a prosecutor’s special interest in justice does not end with simply convicting those legally responsible. Comment [1] to Model Rule 3.8 states that the prosecutor is not simply “an advocate” but also a “minister of justice” who has “specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”
|
On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please.
So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut
Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"?
Either way it sounds ridiculous.
|
On July 11 2013 01:50 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:13 Mindcrime wrote:On July 11 2013 00:50 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 00:30 BigFan wrote:
Since yesterday, they have been trying to show that maybe Zimmerman hit his head and such with tree branches. I think they want to try and raise a point that his injuries were from a struggle and not necessary that Trayvon was punching him to disprove the self-defense claim. The placement of where the gun is and slidding down and such is interesting though. Brings up more points to think about. Injuries front and back from tree branches? There isn't any evidence to support this theory. Why is the prosecution allowed to dream up all these far-fetched theories without the case being thrown out? Is "innocent until proven guilty" to be made subject to the whim of the black lobby? In sane jurisdictions, the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, is on the defense when it puts forth an affirmative defense. A sane legal system assumes innocence at all times in order to protect citizens from needless attacks. Execution is always going to be different, but the intent of the justice system is to protect innocent victims. This legal hooha is what it is because there is a disagreement on who the victim is; Trayvon (murdered by Zimmerman) or Zimmerman (scape-goated by the general public) Legally it is simple. The state is trying to prove that Zimmerman maliciously murdered Trayvon. The defense is trying to claim self defense. The most likely scenario is that the jury will cave to public pressure and simply say that Zimmerman will be charged on lesser acts with very light punishment attached to it. The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time. On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Can they (the jury) just add different charges instead of the murder 2? I remember in the Casey Anthony trial that they couldn't drop from 1st degree to anything
Prosecution requests a jury instruction from the Judge as to what lesser included charges the Jury may consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
