|
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 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:03 PanzerKing wrote:On July 11 2013 22:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2013 22:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 20:45 LaughingTulkas wrote:On July 11 2013 15:13 dAPhREAk wrote: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.
You're absolutely right. I'm only saying that zealous advocacy and following proper courtroom etiquette don't always comport, and a good attorney always does what's best for his client, within his judgment.
|
On July 11 2013 23:19 DwD wrote:
Haven't followed this case at all just wondering how far into it are they? When can we expect a decision?
Both sides should be done by tomorrow (state today, defense tomorrow). How long the jury decides is unknown, but we could have a decision as soon as tomorrow if they decide quickly.
E: Then again, with the State springing the 'Child Abuse 3rd degree murder' lower charge options, things may be slightly delayed.
|
On July 11 2013 23:21 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 23:03 PanzerKing wrote:On July 11 2013 22:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 11 2013 22:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 20:45 LaughingTulkas wrote:On July 11 2013 15:13 dAPhREAk wrote: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. You're absolutely right. I'm only saying that zealous advocacy and following proper courtroom etiquette don't always comport, and a good attorney always does what's best for his client, within his judgment.
You're not wrong, as long as it does hurt your client. Jury's are fickle beasts and they don't want to be view by the jury as disrespecful or gaming the system. Also, dragging out the process an irritate them as well. I would be suprised if we hear more talking objections today.
|
West is getting crazy, he's PISSED.
|
3rd degree murder based upon "child abuse?" Didn't hear about this before now...
My guess is the prosecution is desperate b/c they want to say Trayvon was "murdered," even if it isn't 2nd degree.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 23:28 crms wrote:
West is getting crazy, he's PISSED.
can you blame him? If they are basing third degree murder on child abuse, it doesn't really relate in this case imo.
|
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though.
he's pissed and ya, definitely not prepared at all. I never saw third degree murder coming, thought manslaughter unless they are the same thing and I'm messing up lol
|
I wish West had a better retort, you could tell he was really taken a back. I don't know enough about law but this 'bamboozle' by the prosecution definitely feels like bullshit.
|
On July 11 2013 23:31 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though. he's pissed and ya, definitely not prepared at all. I never saw third degree murder coming, thought manslaughter unless they are the same thing and I'm messing up lol
3rd degree murder is the weirdest charge, I can see why he would be piss. The prongs for proving it are super nuanced and you can't really argue off the cuff about it.
|
Judge Says "I'm not going to give you hours" Thinks: (just so I can tell you you're wrong again)
Judge Says "We'll come back to this" Thinks: (when were done with these other arguments so I can tell you you're wrong again)
|
On July 11 2013 23:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:31 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though. he's pissed and ya, definitely not prepared at all. I never saw third degree murder coming, thought manslaughter unless they are the same thing and I'm messing up lol 3rd degree murder is the weirdest charge, I can see why he would be piss. The prongs for proving it are super nuanced and you can't really argue off the cuff about it.
He should of saw this coming they got blindsided because they got cocky and thought they had it in the bag.
|
On July 11 2013 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:37 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 23:31 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though. he's pissed and ya, definitely not prepared at all. I never saw third degree murder coming, thought manslaughter unless they are the same thing and I'm messing up lol 3rd degree murder is the weirdest charge, I can see why he would be piss. The prongs for proving it are super nuanced and you can't really argue off the cuff about it. He should of saw this coming they got blindsided because they got cocky and thought they had it in the bag.
Yeah, and fake outrage during a hearing is a classic tactic to avoid the topic. They know the Judge wants to wrap this up, so might as well push for more time the judge isn't going to allow.
|
So 3rd degree on child abuse vs manslaughter. How would that change things for jury instructions? Would they have to weigh deadly force self defense vs a minor?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 11 2013 23:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:31 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 23:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
People brought up the potential for this weeks ago hard to believe they are actually unprepared for this.
Looks like they might be though. he's pissed and ya, definitely not prepared at all. I never saw third degree murder coming, thought manslaughter unless they are the same thing and I'm messing up lol 3rd degree murder is the weirdest charge, I can see why he would be piss. The prongs for proving it are super nuanced and you can't really argue off the cuff about it.
it really taken them offguard.
For anyone not sure what it means:
Voluntary manslaughter (often referred to as third degree murder) sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
|
Pretty great move by the prosecution. They're trying to play on any beliefs the jury may have that Zimmerman should be punished for his actions even if it was self-defense. 2nd degree murder doesn't sound as bad as manslaughter or 3rd degree murder. They're just doing everything in their power to make any sort of conviction possible. Which I feel is a bit ridiculous.
|
Experts. Is it underhanded to spring a change of this magnitude on at the last moment? To me, a relative layman, it seems to have essentially changed the trial and what needed to be presented during it...after it's basically over. Is this typical?
The child aspect just didn't even come up during the trial in this regard, and now they intend to use it as the lynchpin of their case?
|
On July 11 2013 23:46 Krohm wrote:
Pretty great move by the prosecution. They're trying to play on any beliefs the jury may have that Zimmerman should be punished for his actions even if it was self-defense. 2nd degree murder doesn't sound as bad as manslaughter or 3rd degree murder. They're just doing everything in their power to make any sort of conviction possible. Which I feel is a bit ridiculous.
Well the prosecution does believe that Zimmerian was not justified in his use of lethal force, so they are just going for whatever conviction they can get with the evidnce they have. I don't know if 3rd degrees murder will help them overcome the claim of self defense, but that is really up to the jury.
On July 11 2013 23:47 Felnarion wrote:
Experts. Is it underhanded to spring a change of this magnitude on at the last moment? To me, a relative layman, it seems to have essentially changed the trial and what needed to be presented during it...after it's basically over. Is this typical?
The child aspect just didn't even come up during the trial in this regard, and now they intend to use it as the lynchpin of their case?
This is pretty standard and the defense should have expected the prosecution would try to shift gears at some point. 3rd degree murder and manslaughter were always an option and they should never assume they have the case in the bag with a jury.
As my attorney says, "we worry professionally. If you aren't worrying, you are doing your job wrong"
|
On July 11 2013 23:47 Felnarion wrote:
Experts. Is it underhanded to spring a change of this magnitude on at the last moment? To me, a relative layman, it seems to have essentially changed the trial and what needed to be presented during it...after it's basically over. Is this typical?
The child aspect just didn't even come up during the trial in this regard, and now they intend to use it as the lynchpin of their case?
Indeed as a layman this seems wierd. No one is doubting that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. The whole case is about the nature in which it happened. Changing the nature your trying to prove in the "last moments" of a case changes the entire premise.
|
On July 11 2013 23:47 Felnarion wrote:
Experts. Is it underhanded to spring a change of this magnitude on at the last moment? To me, a relative layman, it seems to have essentially changed the trial and what needed to be presented during it...after it's basically over. Is this typical?
The child aspect just didn't even come up during the trial in this regard, and now they intend to use it as the lynchpin of their case?
I can't comment with any specificity on this case (I'm not really following it) but it's not uncommon to ask that different charges be presented to the jury than what was originally discussed in the media. If the prosecution thinks that they've done a better job proving those elements then it's entirely within their rights (and not at all underhanded or abnormal) that they ask those charges to be presented. Sometimes the best strategy is to wait and see how your case plays out and how the witnesses do, then you make your final decision on the charges at the end of the trial.
For example, on a shooting case where you have a great chance of getting a weapons possession conviction but a weak chance of getting an assault conviction, and you're concerned that the jury might be unable to appropriately distinguish and sever their votes on each of the charges, you might ask that only the weapons charges be presented even though you've spent a week presenting evidence of a shooting. The same is true for lesser-included offenses, which is what I assume the prosecution is requesting here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
