Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist

Most times when the DA overcharges - in high profile cases - the result is an acquittal !

Most times when the DA overcharges - in high profile cases - the result is an acquittal ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

link !!

he wont take the stand .. the question marks beside his credibility remain in the mind of the jury Originally Posted by CJ7

#1: His attorney may conclude he doesn't need to take the stand
#2: If his lie about bail funds is admissible if he takes the stand, I would not recommend it.
#3: Ultimately it is his decision ... after a "prayer meeting" with his attorneys.

Jurors can be "strange" ... even if they are instructed otherwise they can & do speculate.

Would a room full of females "understand" if he lied about bail money to make sure there were funds for his wife, if things went bad? May be?

The problem with "negligence" is:

How can he take the position he was intentionally shooting the guy in self-defense, but then claim the firearm that had been holstered was discharged into Martin's chest negligently?

Not to pile on CJ ... but if you were shooting at the knee, the round missed or "bounced," and then struck a small child "down range" ... that might be negligence .. because you weren't "intending" to shoot the child ... but if you caught the knee and the round didn't pass through or pass by (bounce) ... that wouldn't be "negligence" .. and if it traveled up and busted the artery causing the person to bleed out ... it would be murder.... because you intended to shoot the person you hit.

That's the danger of "self-defense" as a plea. One must admit they intended to shoot, which makes it murder ... as opposed to "negligence" ...

same with "entrapment" ... one must admit they committed the crime to benefit from it.

Would a room full of females "understand" if he lied about bail money to make sure there were funds for his wife, if things went bad? May be?

cant say .. but the scenario I just described to Bud will, or should be.

IMO the defense has covered their bases well enough to keep Zim off the stand, but who knows

Most times when the DA overcharges - in high profile cases - the result is an acquittal ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

As a practical matter, I can't imagine how one would obtain that stat .. but on the face of the statement "overcharging" implies that the indictment (or complaint) alleged facts that the State is unable to prove and didn't prove them .. even circumstantially.

The problem the State has is ... (and the defense) is when they make theatrical opening remarks to the jury to hype them up and whip them into a lather, they often have to "eat their words" down the line and the attorneys lose credibility ... which is critical.

There is nothing like the defense being able to remind the jury of what the prosecution said in opening remarks as to what the government is going to prove and then discuss the government's failures to do so ... then point to the "fall back" charge ... ....

... well there is something more exciting ... proving your case with the government's witnesses!!!

IMO the defense has covered their bases well enough to keep Zim off the stand, but who knows Originally Posted by CJ7

.. without calling a witness yet .. last I heard! That is not good for the government.

my opinion was based on several comments made by Marcia Clark

my opinion was based on several comments made by Marcia Clark Originally Posted by CJ7

She should know when the defense is winning.

Another famous lawyer .. she had the displeasure of meeting ... wrote a book .... on the other hand ...

The Defense Never Rests


At this level of play the defense does not sit back on a lead, but pounds until the verdict.

Like Martin was attempting, but failed like Ms. Clark.

At what time of night did this happen?

I have given GZ plenty of leeway. No 2nd degree murder.

Manslaughter for the Zim man.

Had he followed instruction by not carrying a weapon or not following Martin, then this would not have happened. That is a manslaughter conviction in my book. Originally Posted by WTF

Well, according to CJ (see below) he was on an errand and not on patrol (not that I think it matters) so having a weapon on him makes perfect sense. He does have a legal right to carry as long as he has a CHL. Following TM is not a crime. The criminal part of all this started when TM decided to turn to physical violence. Period. At that point it is purely self defense.

he wasn't on patrol Bud, he was returning home from running an errand, he called the cops then he took the cops place before they could get there... so all the reports you have read are incorrect ... did you read the testimony of the witness under oath, that walked out his back door and standing 15 feet away told the two to break it up, then testify he didn't see anyone getting their head slammed into the concrete ???? Originally Posted by CJ7

Again, following TM was not a crime. The witness you love to bring up also stated that he went back inside to call the cops. Just maybe TM started slamming his head into the concrete while the "witness" was inside.

I don't know about the rest of you that have a CHL but I carry 99% of the time. If I was returning home and saw a suspicious person I may decide to follow them as well. I can assure that if I am attacked I would not hesitate to pull my weapon. That is the whole point in having a weapon. To protect yourself and your family.

You may be right that he is convicted of something but IMO he was 100% justified in using deadly force based on the evidence that is currently available.

If I was returning home and saw a suspicious person I may decide to follow them as well. Originally Posted by Budman

Zimmerman following Martin is a non-issue for several reasons ... #1 it's not against the law and #2 ... if Martin is on foot in an apartment complex and Zimmerman does not follow him to see where Martin is going ..

when the police arrive, who the dispatcher was "dispatching" ..... then Zimmerman will be asked something like ... "where is the guy you reported seeing"?

When Zimmerman says .. "I don't know where he went" .. ... "last I saw him he was walking around behind that building over there" ... .... "the dispatcher told me not to follow him" ...... "so I am standing here, because the dispatcher told me not to follow him" ....

Police officer looks around "behind building" and sees no one!

"Back in service ... no contact"!

The next day "Mary Jo" who lives by herself in the next building over doesn't show for work!

That's why Zimmerman follows him ... to keep an eye on where he is going, so he can tell police.

#3. Presence is a deterrent, also.

Good, who had perhaps the best view of the struggle between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, said it appeared one person was striking the other while straddling him "MMA-style."
However, Good also said he did not see anyone's head being slammed into the concrete sidewalk, which Zimmerman has said Martin did to him.
Good initially testified that it appeared "there were strikes being thrown, punches being thrown," but during detailed questioning Friday, he said he saw only "downward" arm movements being made.
Zimmerman has claimed that he fatally shot 17-year-old Martin last year in self-defense as the teen was banging his head into the concrete sidewalk behind the townhomes in a gated community.
But under prosecution questioning, Good said he never saw anyone being attacked that way during the fight between Zimmerman and Martin.
"I couldn't see that," Good said moments later while being cross-examined.


how bout that IB? Originally Posted by CJ7

Gotcha again fucker

Plagiarism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Plagerism)
For other uses, see Plagiarism (disambiguation).
For Wikipedia policies concerning plagiarism, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules.[3][4][5][6] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.
Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion.
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious ethical offense,[7][8] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.

3/4 of the way down at Jonathan Good said.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news...of_testim.html

At what time of night did this happen? Originally Posted by CountryGentleman35

Just after 7 p.m. EST ...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20...-teen-is-shot/

Also, CG, there are a number of documents posted with links here ..

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news...tin_911_c.html

from a lawyer following the trial

Why charge murder 2 on such little evidence of a “depraved mind”? Perhaps the prosecution believed more damning evidence would be found, or they hoped that the murder charge would lead to a plea bargain or compromise jury verdict on manslaughter. In Florida manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder 2, and the jury will certainly have the manslaughter instruction to consider in their deliberations. .
Indeed, unless new and revelatory evidence emerges of Zimmerman’s “depraved mind”, I anticipate the prosecution’s narrative to re-center on manslaughter as their most likely “win” in this case. Originally Posted by CJ7

His name is Andrew Branca. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...depraved-mind/

Another great day for the defense with the prosecutions witnesses, according to the same media that promoted Zimmermans prosecution. For the life of me I cannot figure what the prosecution is attempting to do in this case? Maybe they are waiting to show all the stuff that makes Zimmerman look guilty in the end?