|
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 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.”
Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it.
|
On July 11 2013 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:50 ranshaked wrote: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.
How is that legal? Wouldn't that just allow the prosecution to always go after the highest charge possible, knowing that they can just drop it down later?
|
On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it.
So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become.
|
On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it.
Because the prosecutor's job is not just to "win". Prosecutors represent the citizens, which also includes the accused. Their job is to pursue justice, which is very different than "win". It seemed abundantly clear to me why I posted this.
|
On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: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.
Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him.
Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him.
He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why.
|
On July 11 2013 01:54 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:50 ranshaked wrote: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. How is that legal? Wouldn't that just allow the prosecution to always go after the highest charge possible, knowing that they can just drop it down later?
Well, I can only say it's legal because it's the law. As for the second part, technically it's up to the Judge to decide whether to allow the jury instruction on lesser includeds, but it's nearly always done. Yes, it's shitty, and definitely abusable, as demonstrated in this case.
|
On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become.
Come on, we all know the answer to that question. Political pressure to bring the case to trial after the dumb media blitz on the case. I never said that the system was flawless or immune to influence from outside forces.
|
On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why.
Pretty much sums up the scenarios people have to believe to be supporters of "Justice for Trayvon", I suppose.
|
Did i miss anything this morning? Last night things were getting exciting but i just got back and they have everything muted, did i miss anything explosive at the beginning of this morning??
|
On July 11 2013 01:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. Because the prosecutor's job is not just to "win". Prosecutors represent the citizens, which also includes the accused. Their job is to pursue justice, which is very different than "win". It seemed abundantly clear to me why I posted this.
Yes, so they should bring cases to trial where they believe the people are guilty and then try to win them. If evidence is found during trial that proves the party is innocent, then they should drop the case.
We are arguing about semantics, but we all basically agree that prosecutors should use good judgment.
|
On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become.
I'm afraid these evidence withholding issues are more the norm than the exception. It's not like prosecutors decided to do it here for the first time. They simply did what they always do, and only because Zimmerman's defense team is so good that it's an issue. Beyond that, it's only the media attention given to this case that brings the conduct to light. It happens all the time, but there is no media coverage of those other cases so we don't hear about it, and with attorneys that don't have the resources of this defense team, they aren't even able to detect it. Cases like this are when we learn how "justice" is actually carried out in our legal system. We learn about failures in ME offices, investigations, every aspect that simply aren't brought to light and broadcast to the world when a good defense team and media coverage aren't available.
|
On July 11 2013 01:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become. Come on, we all know the answer to that question. Political pressure to bring the case to trial after the dumb media blitz on the case. I never said that the system was flawless or immune to influence from outside forces.
Right, and given what you just said people have a right to criticize the prosecution for what they're doing. They're bowing to political and media pressure to try and convict a man of a charge they can't possibly believe he committed. Yet, you and the other law professionals continue to defend these actions instead of calling it like it is. I think this is why some are getting frustrated and now debating the 'role' of public attorneys.
I believe everything you guys have said in regards to civil matters or from a defense attorneys perspective. I can't agree with state prosecutors trying to get bogus charges to stick using whatever tactics legal or otherwise. That shouldn't be the role of the state and they can't wash their hands of responsibility because 'the jury can decide'. The state should be the first measure in validity of claims and if the evidence isn't good, or the charges are bogus, they shouldn't proceed.
Obviously I'm speaking very black and white and EVERYTHING is always more complicated but it fundamentally rubs me the wrong way that the state (the authority at be) can attempt to 'win' cases and not strictly pursue justice whether it's in the interest of the state or not. That's pretty scary actually.
|
On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why.
You conveniently left out some important details.
I can do that too:
Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows
Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior
Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground.
See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
|
On July 11 2013 02:00 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. Pretty much sums up the scenarios people have to believe to be supporters of "Justice for Trayvon", I suppose.
It comes down to this; the fact that Zimmerman walks around with a gun at night and ending up shooting a kid who was walking home is one of the biggest reasons gun control people hate guns.
They hate them for school shootings
They hate them for crimes
And they hate them for vigilantes who end up shooting people
Zimmerman carried out exactly what people hate about gun owners. He did exactly what the black community fears the non-black community would do. They see burning crosses and a turning back to the Rodney King incident, they see the pre-civil rights ere where lynching was just this thing that happens.
They see a guy who wanted to be a superhero shoot a kid because he was too prideful to stay in his car and drive up to the cross street sign.
|
On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot.
|
On July 11 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:
Yes, so they should bring cases to trial where they believe the people are guilty and then try to win them. If evidence is found during trial that proves the party is innocent, then they should drop the case.
We are arguing about semantics, but we all basically agree that prosecutors should use good judgment.
Not to argue, but I wouldn't say it's a matter of the prosecutor believe the people are guilty. There is a saying within law enforcement, "It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove." A prosecutor needs to believe they have evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, not simply that the person is guilty. Even if they believe it, if they don't have legally admissible evidence sufficient to convince a jury, the case shouldn't be prosecuted, which is exactly how this case was originally handled. It wasn't whether Zimmerman was defending himself or not, it was that they simply didn't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't.
|
On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.
motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury.
|
On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury.
Yeah. If you were that Judge, would you have granted the motion to set Zimmerman free, knowing what we know about public backlash, or would you let 6 anonymous jurors decide ?
|
On July 11 2013 02:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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. motion for acquittal denied. there is sufficient evidence for this case to be presented to the jury.
The fact that you keep on posting the judge's opinion (which given her actions is suspect) as if they prove a fact is telling.
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo:
Poll: Should Zimmerman be Convicted?Not-Guilty (37) 95% Guilty (2) 5% 39 total votes Your vote: Should Zimmerman be Convicted? (Vote): Guilty
(Vote): Not-Guilty
|
On July 11 2013 02:05 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:59 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:55 crms wrote:On July 11 2013 01:53 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 01:51 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 01:42 Plansix wrote: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.htmlRationales 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.” Why did you post this? Of course prosecutor shouldn't do anything illegal or try to convict people when the evidence doesn't support it. So why are they trying to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder? There also seems to be some rumors of a hearing post-trial about the conduct of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense. I wouldn't be surprised if the claims are true with how much of a circus this particular case has become. Come on, we all know the answer to that question. Political pressure to bring the case to trial after the dumb media blitz on the case. I never said that the system was flawless or immune to influence from outside forces. Right, and given what you just said people have a right to criticize the prosecution for what they're doing. They're bowing to political and media pressure to try and convict a man of a charge they can't possibly believe he committed. Yet, you and the other law professionals continue to defend these actions instead of calling it like it is. I think this is why some are getting frustrated and now debating the 'role' of public attorneys. I believe everything you guys have said in regards to civil matters or from a defense attorneys perspective. I can't agree with state prosecutors trying to get bogus charges to stick using whatever tactics legal or otherwise. That shouldn't be the role of the state and they can't wash their hands of responsibility because 'the jury can decide'. The state should be the first measure in validity of claims and if the evidence isn't good, or the charges are bogus, they shouldn't proceed. Obviously I'm speaking very black and white and EVERYTHING is always more complicated but it fundamentally rubs me the wrong way that the state (the authority at be) can attempt to 'win' cases and not strictly pursue justice whether it's in the interest of the state or not. That's pretty scary actually.
The main problem is that people keep switching between general terms and referring to all prosecution and this specific case. If you asked the legal professionals if this case should have been brought, most of us would say "nope, not as 2nd degree murder". But if you asked us if the job of the prosecution is to win at trial, we would all say "yes, always". It is also their job to not bring cases that have terrible evidence to trial either.
What a lot of people don't understand about the legal field is that the trial is the END of the case. The majority of the case is conducted during the discovery process and that is when most of this stuff is figured out and bad cases are dismissed. You don't really "discover" anything new at trial, since the attorneys have had all the evidence for months and months. At that point, it is all about presenting the evidence. That is the reason most cases don't make it to trial, because they resolved during the fact finding sections and one side backs down.
So when people say "He isn't interested in the truth, all he wants is to manipulate the facts to win the case", most people in the legal field say "Yeah, that's what you do at that point in the case" because all the discovery and fact finding has already been done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
