On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
cmon, yes, the defense has a habit of talking a lot at times but most of it is trying to explain what they are doing etc... seems reasonable enough.
On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote: You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified.
So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
The only way that the jury convicts Zimmerman on the evidence presented is if the jury ignores the jury instructions. Sometimes juries do ignore the instructions, so it could happen. Still, it shouldn't.
Couldn't be that their interpretation of the evidence is just different than your's and the majority here on TL?
On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote: You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified.
So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
The only way that the jury convicts Zimmerman on the evidence presented is if the jury ignores the jury instructions. Sometimes juries do ignore the instructions, so it could happen. Still, it shouldn't.
Couldn't be that their interpretation of the evidence is just different than your's and the majority here on TL?
If something is up for interpretation, that means there is reasonable doubt.
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote: You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified.
So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
The only way that the jury convicts Zimmerman on the evidence presented is if the jury ignores the jury instructions. Sometimes juries do ignore the instructions, so it could happen. Still, it shouldn't.
Couldn't be that their interpretation of the evidence is just different than your's and the majority here on TL?
If something is up for interpretation, that means there is reasonable doubt.
Room for reasonable doubt but it's not as if during deliberation the reasonable part couldn't fade away
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
The prosecution seemed to do about as good as they could do given the circumstances so far. They were able to prove that Zimmerman has been changing his story and how the version of events he presented does not make sense (more impressive how he did it with basically 2 questions) but while proving that the defense case is a lie you also have to prove that your version of events happened and I have to say they really weren't able to do that due to a mixture of the circumstances of what we know happened and the fact that it didn't seem like it was investigated properly.
On July 11 2013 22:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Haha Just watched the replay of West ready to tackle GZ if he told the judge that he wanted to testify like it was pretty clear he wanted to.
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu.
ROFL... Right after GZ is sworn in, West was so close they could of shared a suit jacket... Looks like O'Mara is actually hesitant to get too close because he knows it might go down (1:35 ish)
On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty?
The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased.
Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty.
I am still very much against Zimmerman but that John Good testimony can't be ignored. Nothing has popped up to counter it.
On July 11 2013 12:41 xDaunt wrote: You'd have to be high to think that the State put on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. This case ended once John Good testified.
So your conclusion is that if the jury convicts on murder 2 or manslaughter they "must be high"? Or that justice was served?
The only way that the jury convicts Zimmerman on the evidence presented is if the jury ignores the jury instructions. Sometimes juries do ignore the instructions, so it could happen. Still, it shouldn't.
Couldn't be that their interpretation of the evidence is just different than your's and the majority here on TL?
If something is up for interpretation, that means there is reasonable doubt.
Assuming that the jury takes the multiple interpretations on equal grounds.
so, the state can charge him with manslaughter or 3rd degree murder charge if his defense wants it otherwise it's all or nothing? never knew that the defense can actually decide on that.
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu.
There are times when you might want to continue talking after objecting, as a strategic matter. If a witness's testimony is damaging and you want to break up their flow or distract the jury's attention, you might want to make as many objections as possible and talk as much as possible while doing so. Against less experienced attorneys, you might even agitate them and disrupt their questioning.
Or you might want to make a clear record so that an issue is preserved for appeal - in that case, you want to err on the side of caution and make your point as explicit as possible.
Also, timing is important - you might want to drag out a witness's testimony so that the more damaging part happens later in the day when people have less energy and are paying less attention, or time it so that their testimony concludes the following day when the jury's memory of the first day's testimony is not as fresh. Also, the longer it takes to get through direct, the more time you have to plan out and prep for your cross.
Generally (and especially as a prosecutor) you don't want to irritate the court and potentially the jury by being verbose in your objections, but there are definitely situations where it is a viable strategy.
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu.
There are times when you might want to continue talking after objecting, as a strategic matter. If a witness's testimony is damaging and you want to break up their flow or distract the jury's attention, you might want to make as many objections as possible and talk as much as possible while doing so. Against less experienced attorneys, you might even agitate them and disrupt their questioning.
Or you might want to make a clear record so that an issue is preserved for appeal - in that case, you want to err on the side of caution and make your point as explicit as possible.
Also, timing is important - you might want to drag out a witness's testimony so that the more damaging part happens later in the day when people have less energy and are paying less attention, or time it so that their testimony concludes the following day when the jury's memory of the first day's testimony is not as fresh.
Generally (and especially as a prosecutor) you don't want to irritate the court and potentially the jury by being verbose in your objections, but there are definitely situations where it is a viable strategy.
On July 11 2013 23:02 BigFan wrote: so, the state can charge him with manslaughter or 3rd degree murder charge if his defense wants it otherwise it's all or nothing? never knew that the defense can actually decide on that.
They sure don't. Manslaughter instructions are going to be read to the jury
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu.
There are times when you might want to continue talking after objecting, as a strategic matter. If a witness's testimony is damaging and you want to break up their flow or distract the jury's attention, you might want to make as many objections as possible and talk as much as possible while doing so. Against less experienced attorneys, you might even agitate them and disrupt their questioning.
Or you might want to make a clear record so that an issue is preserved for appeal - in that case, you want to err on the side of caution and make your point as explicit as possible.
Also, timing is important - you might want to drag out a witness's testimony so that the more damaging part happens later in the day when people have less energy and are paying less attention, or time it so that their testimony concludes the following day when the jury's memory of the first day's testimony is not as fresh.
Generally (and especially as a prosecutor) you don't want to irritate the court and potentially the jury by being verbose in your objections, but there are definitely situations where it is a viable strategy.
interesting, makes sense imo.
Also, I forgot to mention that the longer it takes to get through direct, the more time you have to prep for your cross. Making florid objections while your second seat / co-counsel prepares for cross can give a defense attorney much needed time to formulate a plan of attack on unexpected testimony.
On July 11 2013 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: If she didn't shut down West so quickly, she would have quickly understood that they weren't going to discuss it until the witnesses concluded. Her shutting down West pre-emptively was also exhibited Monday when he was explaining that he needed to proffer the "text message" expert witness for the authentication. She interrupted him repeatedly, preventing him from explaining that, and it ultimately delayed the explanation. She shut him down, and proceeded as if the proffer wasn't necessary, and eventually relented to accept the proffer once she finally allowed West to complete his fucking sentence.
Similarly, in this case about GZ. Had she let his attorney represent his client, and make the point that they weren't going to make that decision until after the witnesses were concluded, she could have avoided the repeated questions and wasted time.
edit:
So, I'm not sure how she saved any time by repeatedly asking the same questions that she would have known weren't going to be answered if she weren't a complete bitch about it.
im sorry, but the defense attorneys have nothing to complain about. they spent this whole trial blabbering and the court has repeatedly told them to stfu, but they continue to blabber. i imagine the court is quite frustrated with them at this point. this isnt some bias thing. they are always yapping their mouths.
So your stated opinion is that the DEFENSE is always yapping their mouths and taking too long? Just wow.
I mean... don't you think... wow. This is one of (definitely not the most, but up there) uniformed and biased thoughts I've seen in a while. I don't even think I can respond because if this is really how you see it, then I'm pretty sure mere facts won't convince you.
they are constantly doing speaking objections, and constantly getting reprimanded by the court for it. it is a procedural no-no and they dont feel compelled to change their habits. a first year law student knows a speaking objection is improper.
I imagine it's largely a result of the national attention. Natural to be more confrontational when in front of an audience in a situation like this (especially if he is as confident in his case as you are)
Edit: probably more accurate to say if he thinks the prosecutors case is as weak as you do
whatever the reasons for them doing it, it is annoying that they feel the need to continue to do it. violating the rules and then constantly getting reprimanded by the court in front of the jury is a disservice to their client. it makes them look like shoddy attorneys, which as far as their trial presentation is actually the case. there is no reason for them to constantly make speaking objections. just say "objection" and state the basis; no need to yap their mouths on and on until the court rightfully tells them to stfu.
There are times when you might want to continue talking after objecting, as a strategic matter. If a witness's testimony is damaging and you want to break up their flow or distract the jury's attention, you might want to make as many objections as possible and talk as much as possible while doing so. Against less experienced attorneys, you might even agitate them and disrupt their questioning.
Or you might want to make a clear record so that an issue is preserved for appeal - in that case, you want to err on the side of caution and make your point as explicit as possible.
Also, timing is important - you might want to drag out a witness's testimony so that the more damaging part happens later in the day when people have less energy and are paying less attention, or time it so that their testimony concludes the following day when the jury's memory of the first day's testimony is not as fresh. Also, the longer it takes to get through direct, the more time you have to plan out and prep for your cross.
Generally (and especially as a prosecutor) you don't want to irritate the court and potentially the jury by being verbose in your objections, but there are definitely situations where it is a viable strategy.
Even if it is with good reason or they are doing it on purpose, the judge is right to shut them down and stop them from making speaking objections. These folks are counsel in open court and they are expected to know the rules. If they willing ignore them or "forget" them, the Judge has is in the right to tell them, "stfu and stop clogging my court with your stupid crap"
After you touch the stove once and get burned, you are expected not to touch it again.
On July 11 2013 23:02 BigFan wrote: so, the state can charge him with manslaughter or 3rd degree murder charge if his defense wants it otherwise it's all or nothing? never knew that the defense can actually decide on that.
They sure don't. Manslaughter instructions are going to be read to the jury
ya, I realized that after I wrote that comment lol
EPT
