EPTOn July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote:
Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one.
Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one.
In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 354
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. | ||
|
Ldawg
United States328 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:03 LegalLord wrote: Blatant attempt to abuse the human element of a jury if I've ever seen one. I agree. Hopefully the jurors base their decision primarily (hopefully solely?) on the question, "Did the prosecution prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?". | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:05 nihlon wrote: This is more like the movie trials we are used to. except that they have a much stronger argument in a movie trial. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote: In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. One might also call it a good plan. The human element is a key part of the jury. | ||
|
Ldawg
United States328 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:06 xDaunt wrote: In fairness, attorneys do this all of the time. That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote: That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. The Defense is going to do the exact same thing, have no doubt. It is standard practice when dealing with a jury. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:08 Ldawg wrote: Is it too late for someone to create an in-thread Poll? It will be just like the LRs! Actually maybe this wouldn't be a good idea. there was a thread like 10-15 pages back or so. More voted not guilty than guilty. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:08 LegalLord wrote: That doesn't make it any more correct. I'd argue that this is worse because the state, a party that is supposed to be concerned with justice rather than winning a case, is doing this. Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:08 Plansix wrote: One might also call it a good plan. The human element is a key part of the jury. which goes back to our conversation on ethics and morality by the state (not just in this case but in general). :D~ | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote: The Defense is going to do the exact same thing, have no doubt. It is standard practice when dealing with a jury. Sure, but having evidence is standard practice as well. On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote: Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Arguable. I personally doubt a case like this would have passed a normal grand jury. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:09 Plansix wrote: The Defense is going to do the exact same thing, have no doubt. It is standard practice when dealing with a jury. Oh, I have a feeling that the Defense is going to go through the evidence piece by piece, witness by witness, point out that prosecution witnesses didn't see she except for JOHN GOOD, and make sure those mothers on the jury identify George as someone protecting them from being put in the position that that burglary victim was put in in August 2011. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:10 xDaunt wrote: Well, I'm not prepared to say that this is a case where the prosecution has the ethical duty to dismiss the charges. Until that point, the prosecution has a job to do. Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
simmeh
Canada2511 Posts
"can you picture him? i want you to picture the boy. now imagine he's white" lol | ||
|
AllHailTheDead
United States418 Posts
IDK what I'll do if hes found guilty, considering how bad the states arguments have been...... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: Of course they do, they rely on lying to the jury to win their case!! how much more unecthical can you be? if he can't tell the jury the truth to get a conviction, what makes him think the guy is guilty? Pontius Pilate had a job to do too. He has the manslaughter charge in there, so the Jury has that to consider. And the Defense will object if he flat out lies. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:15 AllHailTheDead wrote: IDK what I'll do if hes found guilty, considering how bad the states arguments have been...... Seems like there's a pretty good case for the defense to appeal, if it comes to that. There's been a fair share of funny business in this case. | ||
| ||
