|
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 23:54 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of changing charges. The issue is the charges that were put forward; 3rd degree murder on the basis of CHILD ABUSE; is something that's completely out of left field that has never been brought up previously. If they changed the charge to manslaughter or even aggravated assault (as they were intending to do) I don't think anyone would care.
|
On July 11 2013 23:54 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It should also be pointed out that it is really hard to know how all the evidnce is going to shake out at trial. A lot of people seem to think otherwises, but I have worked on cases that we thought were slam dunks that turned out to be nail biters when we got to trial. It seems like it would be so easy to predict well before the trial, but how that evidence looks on paper and how it comes out at trial are rarely the same. Switching to a lesser charge is pretty standard because of this, since no one can really know until its all out there and no one wants to run a brand new trial.
Edit: The child abuse part is a bit far fetched, but I would need to read the exact case they are citing.
|
I agree with West, she needs to allow that in as jury instruction.
The "he was following, he is guilty" is hugely prevalent, and the jury should be made aware of the fact that it's not illegal to follow someone.
|
On July 12 2013 00:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I agree with West, she needs to allow that in as jury instruction.
The "he was following, he is guilty" is hugely prevalent, and the jury should be made aware of the fact that it's not illegal to follow someone.
I totally agree with West but I have a feeling the judge is going to own him.
|
This just in from the judge of the Trayvon case:
Following people in Florida is illegal.
>.<
edit: And apparently it's okay for the state to intentionally confuse the jury as to the nature of the law.
|
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao.
|
this judge is completely biased. good thing it seems that GZ has a solid case for him
|
On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao.
This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction.
Still 3rd degree murder does have the prong that the person's judgment must have been impaired. Its a weird issue and the Judge is going to have to decide how far the DA can take it.
|
West brings it on himself but my god this judge is insufferable. I'm not questioning if she's doing a good or bad job but the way she presents herself is so gross.
|
If this trial were later in the day, I would propose a drinking game, in which every time the judge denies or overrules Don West, take a drink. Everyone would be totally wasted.
|
On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction.
Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following.
A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action.
|
On July 12 2013 00:14 crms wrote:
West brings it on himself but my god this judge is insufferable. I'm not questioning if she's doing a good or bad job but the way she presents herself is so gross.
Judges are not paid to be nice or present themselves, they are paid to get shit done.
I remember this time when a girl(18 years old) was being charged with pulbic intoxication(well above anything reasonable, like blind drunk) and she started to sniffle while the judge read the charges. The Judge paused, looked up and said "Miss? Miss! There is no crying in court, get it together or you will be sorry"
|
On July 12 2013 00:14 crms wrote:
West brings it on himself but my god this judge is insufferable. I'm not questioning if she's doing a good or bad job but the way she presents herself is so gross.
If the judge is doing a good game, and isn't naked or something extremely gross, then there are more important matters at stake. Or are we discussing fashion in this thread now?
|
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening.
|
I guess West doesn't want to catch charges himself... His tone and demeanor has changed dramatically we'll see how long he can hold it up.
|
On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action.
A police dispatcher is not given the right to tell people what to do to protect them from being sued. But they are still part of the police force and a great many citizens out there don't like the idea of going against what the police ask you to do and you end up shooting someone because of it.
Police dispatchers covering their asses from being sued is a lousy reason to say it was okay for Zimmerman to follow Martin that night. Events like this is the REASON police dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders.
|
On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action.
You are correct, but clearly they are attempting to make the argument that any reasonable person would have listened and Zimmerman was not acting like reasonable person. 3rd degree murder requires some level of impaired judgment. I can see where they are going, saying that Zimmerman was caught up in his dream of being a cop and it impaired his ability to act reasonable.
To be clear, I don't think its a great arguement.
|
On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening.
The criminal justice system would become unworkable if lesser included offenses couldn't be presented at the end of a trial or during plea negotiations.
The way lesser-included offenses work is like this: you're charged with possessing a loaded firearm. At the end of the trial, the prosecution believes that they've convincingly proven that you possessed a firearm, but not necessarily that it was loaded. So they ask the judge to present the lesser, included charge of unlawfully possessing a firearm (not necessarily loaded.)
It's called lesser-included because you're already charged with that offense. Because you were charged with possessing a loaded firearm, you're also charged with possessing a firearm (not necessarily loaded.) So it's not really a bait-and-switch if you're already charged with the offense.
|
On July 12 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action. A police dispatcher is not given the right to tell people what to do to protect them from being sued. But they are still part of the police force and a great many citizens out there don't like the idea of going against what the police ask you to do and you end up shooting someone because of it.
Regardless of why the police dispatcher does not have the right to tell people what to do, the fact remains that they do not have the right to tell you what to do and Zimmerman was in no way required to follow any suggestions they may or may not have given.
Police dispatchers covering their asses from being sued is a lousy reason to say it was okay for Zimmerman to follow Martin that night. Events like this is the REASON police dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders.
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin.
|
On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening.
But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
