EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 388
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Trizz
Netherlands1323 Posts
On July 13 2013 01:38 Trizz wrote: Even though everyone with a brain and no bias should come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to make a guilty claim I'm still worried about the all wymyn jury. REUTERS:- one juror seen wiping away a tear during guy's closing. ooooooh my sides fucking called it. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 13 2013 01:53 LegalLord wrote: This judge isn't really THAT unfair to the defense. I mean, if she really wanted to screw them over, then she would allow those BS child abuse charges. Yeah but the judge is clearly biased. It's a tug-of-war of conflicting interests at work here. She wants the prosecution to be successful, but she doesn't want there to be a mistrial, and she definitely doesn't want to face penalties. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:01 Trizz wrote: REUTERS:- one juror seen wiping away a tear during guy's closing. ooooooh my sides fucking called it. John Guy is probably the most powerful wizard in history if he gets a conviction for that. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
 | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:01 Trizz wrote: REUTERS:- one juror seen wiping away a tear during guy's closing. ooooooh my sides fucking called it. Or considering how the news have reported the trial it's more likely she scratched her face. But hey, we'll see how it turns out. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:03 Ferrose wrote: John Guy is probably the most powerful wizard in history if he gets a conviction for that. So many wizards in this court room. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:02 Tewks44 wrote: Yeah but the judge is clearly biased. It's a tug-of-war of conflicting interests at work here. She wants the prosecution to be successful, but she doesn't want there to be a mistrial, and she definitely doesn't want to face penalties. The Judge isn't bias. The Defense has been pulling crap the entire trial(nothing huge, but stuff an attorney should know, like talking objections) and she got feed up with them. If you anger the Judge, you get what you get. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:04 On_Slaught wrote: If Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter (won't even consider the possibility of murder), O'Mara and West should just march right down to the appellate court and they can probably get this thing overturned before Tuesday That will be nearly impossible. They didn't object during the closing statements and its a jury ruling. You can't appeal if you don't object and they need to show that the objection would have changed the outcome of the case. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:06 Plansix wrote: The Judge isn't bias. The Defense has been pulling crap the entire trial(nothing huge, but stuff an attorney should know, like talking objections) and she got feed up with them. If you anger the Judge, you get what you get. Every other question West asked was a leading question. I suppose it's fair to be annoyed after having to deal with that many objections. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: maybe she was just so sad for mr guy making an asshat out of himself that it brought her to tears? probably not, but i am only hoping for a single juror with a brain on her shoulders. acquittal would be best, but may be too optimistic considering that this is an opportunity for all these women to prove to they world that "I am not a racist!!!" what i'm hoping for is a hung jury, and my prosecutor father tells me there is almost zero chance of this case going to trial again. Perhaps they were tears of laughter? or perhaps she was so embarrassed for Guy, she was crying for him? | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
boredrex
United States137 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:11 tomatriedes wrote: If you're a juror, how much does it weigh on your mind that a bunch of people may get randomly attacked if you don't convict? I know that juries are kept away from the media during the trial but the talk of rioting and violent reprisals started well before the jury was chosen. I don't think there's any rule for that. Jurors are just individual people. Their names are kept a secret, so they aren't especially vulnerable to mob violence. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:11 tomatriedes wrote: If you're a juror, how much does it weigh on your mind that a bunch of people may get randomly attacked if you don't convict? I know that juries are kept away from the media during the trial but the talk of rioting and violent reprisals started well before the jury was chosen. Would you end one innocent mans life in the off chance that a bunch of idiots would act out and harm people? I know I sure wouldn't | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:11 LegalLord wrote: Every other question West asked was a leading question. I suppose it's fair to be annoyed after having to deal with that many objections. Its not the objection itself, but the way they objected. Its called a "talking" or "speaking" objection: "Many states have rules and statutes that provide that an objection made in court or in a deposition must be made specifically and concisely rather than in an argumentative or suggestive manner. Objections made in violation of these rules are known as "speaking objections". These objections proceed beyond what is necessary to give the grounds on which the objection is based. This is often done by the attorney in order to coach a witness to say a particular thing. " They did it over and over during the trial and even members of this thread called the out on it. That is one sure fire way to piss of a judge, since it is super bush league to do it. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 13 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: dumbass mr guy is lying to the jury what "reasonable doubt" means. this could be hilarious, or infuriating if the judge is a bitch about it. bitch. The graphic explaining reasonable doubt actually said you can't use reasonable doubt to influence you to render a not guilty verdict, or words to that effect. That, I'm fairly certain is what O'Mara objected to, as it seems a blatant misstatement of the law. | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:08 Plansix wrote: That will be nearly impossible. They didn't object during the closing statements and its a jury ruling. You can't appeal if you don't object and they need to show that the objection would have changed the outcome of the case. People like Mark Geragos seem to think otherwise. In his eyes, there are multiple things that the defense could appeal on and could get an appeal easily. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 02:23 MethodSC wrote: People like Mark Geragos seem to think otherwise. In his eyes, there are multiple things that the defense could appeal on and could get an appeal easily. I am just saying, jury rulings are super hard to get over turned. Of course all attorneys are going to have their opinions, but the odds are against an appeal leading to a ruling being reversed. | ||
| ||
