|
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 12 2013 17:56 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 17:50 Danglars wrote:
I'm so incensed about this judge. She confronts the witness about whether or not he wants to testify (wtf) before the defense rested. Defense objects and she just rattles on, doesn't let him explain the objection. Who the hell attacks the witness for a decisions his counsel should have in conference with him before the defense rests his case. Judge is just way out there. I understand if the defense rests and she wants to make sure Zimmerman knew he could take the stand to defend himself if he chooses, but all that is just way out there. She's giving judges a bad name with the way she conducts herself. It was the accused that she asked, not the witness. Apparently it's a common practice in some jurisdictions for the judge to make sure that the accused knows that he has the right to testify on his own behalf, and that he has made the informed decision to not exercise that right. It was a formality that wasn't done in front of the jury and shouldn't have any affect on the trial's outcome.
Sorry for the mental swapping, it was the defendant I meant. She did not wait until the defense had finished its defense. She just plopped that down in the middle of it.
Judge: And have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case.
Defense Attorney Don West: Your honor I object to that question.
Judge: Okay, overruled.
What on earth was she doing interrogating the defendant midway through the defense whether he had made the decision to testify? A judge has no place interrupting the defense in that manner. I applaud his defense attorney for objecting to that statementHear the exchange (again). Judges sometimes do ask after the defense is done if the defendant still wishes to testify (aka. the defense is about to not be able to call the defendant to the stand). Some appeals are made on the basis that the defendant wished to testify, was advised against it, and now thinks his testimony in his defense is necessary. This judge is shocking lawyers and prosecutors all over that she questions personally in front of the jury during the defense whether or not he will testify and how much time he needs.
Defense Attorney Don West: I object to the court inquiring of Mr. Zimmerman as to his decision whether or not to testify[JUDGE INTERRUPTS]
Judge: Your objection is Over Ruled.
She is so beyond out of line. Appellate courts need the rationale for objections explained (knowing defense analysis and why it was rejected) and this interruption to silence the attorneys is outrageous. If you can't raise and explain your objections, what kind of defense is allowed in this woman's courtroom? She is literally stopping the ability of the defense to have a fair trial and to be able to have a fair appeal. It has just been a poorly conducted case. Let the damn defense make their case and then clear up issues like if the defendant knows their rights.
|
She asked that in front of the jury?!? WTF? If that's true that's beyond fucked up.
|
On July 12 2013 18:50 Danglars wrote:What on earth was she doing interrogating the defendant midway through the defense whether he had made the decision to testify? A judge has no place interrupting the defense in that manner. I applaud his defense attorney for objecting to that statement Hear the exchange (again). Judges sometimes do ask after the defense is done if the defendant still wishes to testify (aka. the defense is about to not be able to call the defendant to the stand). Some appeals are made on the basis that the defendant wished to testify, was advised against it, and now thinks his testimony in his defense is necessary. This judge is shocking lawyers and prosecutors all over that she questions personally in front of the jury during the defense whether or not he will testify and how much time he needs. Show nested quote +
Defense Attorney Don West: I object to the court inquiring of Mr. Zimmerman as to his decision whether or not to testify[JUDGE INTERRUPTS]
Judge: Your objection is Over Ruled.
She is so beyond out of line. Appellate courts need the rationale for objections explained (knowing defense analysis and why it was rejected) and this interruption to silence the attorneys is outrageous. If you can't raise and explain your objections, what kind of defense is allowed in this woman's courtroom? She is literally stopping the ability of the defense to have a fair trial and to be able to have a fair appeal. It has just been a poorly conducted case. Let the damn defense make their case and then clear up issues like if the defendant knows their rights.
You're right, I was mistaken. I only saw the second exchange, at the conclusion of the defense's case. Thanks for linking me this clip.
|
On July 12 2013 18:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
She asked that in front of the jury?!? WTF? If that's true that's beyond fucked up.
its all over youtube
|
On July 12 2013 19:44 Trizz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 18:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
She asked that in front of the jury?!? WTF? If that's true that's beyond fucked up. its all over youtube
You mean this one? The judge gave the defense enough opportunities to tell Zimmerman on what he should answer her, in my opinion. If they don't tell him, it's not her fault.
|
On July 12 2013 20:44 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 19:44 Trizz wrote:On July 12 2013 18:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
She asked that in front of the jury?!? WTF? If that's true that's beyond fucked up. its all over youtube You mean this one? The judge gave the defense enough opportunities to tell Zimmerman on what he should answer her, in my opinion. If they don't tell him, it's not her fault.
Zimmerman probably hadn't made the choice yet ( I have the feeling he wanted to testify and his lawyers were like: "No way in fuck are you doing that"). I have no problems with her asking the question at the beginning and the end of the defense's case. That's her job to do that (to prevent later improper council appeals). Asking him out of the blue, in the middle of the defense's case, and then hammering it home over and over in front of a jury? That's horrible.
Now, Zimmerman should have acted way better and just said:
"I cannot answer any questions about that until I've consulted the matter with my attorney's."
And repeated that every single time she asked until he came to his decision. But I don't blame Zimmerman for being wary, he doesn't want to appear standoffish or afraid to testify in front of the people who will decide his guilt or non-guilt. Her asking the question in that way, and not allowing the defense to speak their full objection... that was out of line.
|
I think we'd be dead of alcohol-poisoning already if we followed my suggestion of drinking every time O'Mara mentioned the burden of proof.
|
On July 12 2013 20:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 20:44 Junichi wrote:On July 12 2013 19:44 Trizz wrote:On July 12 2013 18:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:
She asked that in front of the jury?!? WTF? If that's true that's beyond fucked up. its all over youtube You mean this one? The judge gave the defense enough opportunities to tell Zimmerman on what he should answer her, in my opinion. If they don't tell him, it's not her fault. Zimmerman probably hadn't made the choice yet ( I have the feeling he wanted to testify and his lawyers were like: "No way in fuck are you doing that"). I have no problems with her asking the question at the beginning and the end of the defense's case. That's her job to do that (to prevent later improper council appeals). Asking him out of the blue, in the middle of the defense's case, and then hammering it home over and over in front of a jury? That's horrible. Now, Zimmerman should have acted way better and just said: "I cannot answer any questions about that until I've consulted the matter with my attorney's." And repeated that every single time she asked until he came to his decision. But I don't blame Zimmerman for being wary, he doesn't want to appear standoffish or afraid to testify in front of the people who will decide his guilt or non-guilt. Her asking the question in that way, and not allowing the defense to speak their full objection... that was out of line.
That is super weird that she would do that, but I get the feeling she is feed up with the Defense and their stalling. With all the talking objections, which are a basic court rule, the Defense may have crossed the line with the Judge. At some point the Defendant has to say "I am not going to testify," and it is does to be done infront of the jury. Its not like they aren't going to notice he didnt' take the stand. I don't think it did any real damage and the Defense did earn a little slapping around with their improper objections.
|
Good points, good points. I'm just a little biased here I guess.
I think this is a good move by O'Mara.
|
I really like how O'Mara took control of the language at the outset of closing argument and used it to show how uncertain the prosecution is of their case. He's doing an excellent job teaching the jury about the burden of proof and framing the narrative that he is about to give about what happened.
|
I like O'Mara. By far my favorite attny. in this trial. Likability goes a long way in jury trials.
|
Four minutes to run, huh? That's a pretty nice fact for the defense.
|
Wow... using the break to actually highlight how long Trayvon had to run. I love that type of strategy so much. Both viscerally effective and good tv drama lol.
|
Those 4 minutes took forever lol
|
On July 12 2013 22:51 On_Slaught wrote:
I like O'Mara. By far my favorite attny. in this trial. Likability goes a long way in jury trials.
I agree. I have no idea who's the best lawyer there but he's definitely the one that gives you the most confidence listening to.
|
So the point that the O'Mara just made is that Trayvon had 4 minutes to go maybe 30 yards or so to the house.... and he didn't. That's pretty damning.
|
On July 12 2013 15:41 Kaitlin wrote:Here's what we know: + Show Spoiler +1. Trayvon told Rachel that "creepy ass cracker" was following him for no reason. At some point she told him to run, and he said "Nah, I'm almost home". (This does not equate to I'm in my fucking backyard...)
2. Zimmerman was parked in his car (at its final parking place) when Trayvon "started running" and Zimmerman lost sight of him as Trayvon went down the "dog walk".
3. Zimmerman got out of his car after this and started heading across the top of the "T" part of the sidewalk.
4. Some "unexplained" time passed. I am unclear on exactly how much time and how they figured it, as it seems they are using Rachel's conversation with Trayvon in conjunction with the 911 calls, but they don't necessarily follow the same baseline. We know the 911 calls will all match up, but the Rachel / Trayvon call was different.
5. There was a confrontation, keys, flashlights, phones, miscellaneous other shit ended up strewn about the scene and George shot Trayvon.
Here's what I think happened:
1. Trayvon noticed Zimmerman following him, relayed his displeasure about it to Rachel, circled Zimmerman's car at one point to check him out, walked across the top of the "T".
2. Trayvon knew George was in the car watching him, so just before he went of Zimmerman's sight, he started to run, as if to bait Zimmerman to get out to follow him so Trayvon could ambush him. Trayvon wanted to beat this "creepy ass cracker's" ass because Trayvon was being profiled simply because he was black, and he likes that about as much as Rachel likes to testify.
3. Trayvon likely stopped running after he got out of Zimmerman's sight and found a nice place to hide in the pitch black, so he could ambush George as he came looking for him. Trayvon likely told Rachel what he was about to do, as this explains why she thought it was "just a fight" and didn't call anyone when texts and phone calls to Trayvon's phone went unanswered. Trayvon probably was waiting for George to come down the "T" where it was nice and dark for a better ambush, but George probably went directly across to check for an address. On George's way back to his car, Trayvon noticed George wasn't coming down the "T" as he had hoped for, so after George had passed, Trayvon came out to confront George.
4. The best I can think of to explain any "unexplained" gaps of time is George may have come down the "T" to see if he could find Trayvon, but not far enough down the "T" for Trayvon to successfully ambush him. It also might be that Rachel's timeline is fucked up because she either heard the entire incident through the phone, or Trayvon disconnected the call beforehand. Rachel's reaction to this is just too fishy to be as she explains it.
5. The confrontation probably went similar to how George described it, as far as dialog. It's entirely possible the confrontation didn't originate at the "T", but down closer to where they were seen by John Good. I have a feeling George just fudged that little distance to remove the "following" aspect of having gone down the "T". In either case, it seems it was a planned ambush by Trayvon and he got shot for it. Pretty sure that's consistent with all evidence and also matches with the "left to right" movement heard by the one witness in the beginning of the trial, although I think she's full of shit because who remembers people walking outside when there is no reason to remember ?
Reads like a decent second hand store thriller but laughable as to the events that night.
|
On July 12 2013 23:03 xDaunt wrote:
So the point that the O'Mara just made is that Trayvon had 4 minutes to go maybe 30 yards or so to the house.... and he didn't. That's pretty damning.
Yeah GZ's account for his actions during that time are more suspicious in my eyes...
|
I disagree with the Fox News commentator who said O'Mara wasn't being emotional enough. I think he's giving the situation the gravity it deserves and generally exuding an aura of sober reflection. He's being very analytical and logical, but I think it's working out well. The prosecutor (to me and I am biased) came off as blustery and melodramatic. I don't think it's necessarily gonna be a problem for O'Mara.
On July 12 2013 23:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 23:03 xDaunt wrote:
So the point that the O'Mara just made is that Trayvon had 4 minutes to go maybe 30 yards or so to the house.... and he didn't. That's pretty damning. Yeah GZ's account for his actions during that time are more suspicious in my eyes...
You have to admit that the idea that Trayvon was trying to get home is pretty much destroyed by this 4 minutes. He clearly wasn't trying to get away, or he would have.
|
i admit, i fell for the hype when the newstory broke out. i called for zimmerman's head.
but daphreak was right. wait for the evidence, it mostly backs zimmerman. should be not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
