If you look at the previous discussion of Ashe v. Swenson and so forth, the state can’t do that. All of the charges–kidnapping, rape, and murder (with manslaughter as a lesser included charge of murder)–would be addressed in one trial. If the jury decides that the defendant kidnapped the victim and killed her (but that rape wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt), then he’s off the hook for that charge, and the state can’t hold another trial on the rape charge. Or maybe the jury decides that the victim wasn’t kidnapped or raped–she willingly went with the defendant back to his place and consented to have sex with him, but then later on they argued and he killed her in a sudden fit of passion–so the defendant is guilty of manslaughter, but the state can’t go back and re-try him for the kidnapping and rape charges with a new jury.
And–still not a lawyer–but it would take a really odd set of facts and circumstances for there to be separate trials for the kidnapping, rape, and murder charges. (“Ladies and gentlement of the jury, the victim was kidnapped by someone–not the defendant there, some other guy–but then she escaped! But then someone else–still not the defendant there, this is perpetrator #2–raped her–but then she escaped again! And then the defendant killed her.”)
Those aren’t elements of either manslaughter or murder per the instructions. Nor second degree murder. It does describe “imminently dangerous act”. Confronting people after following them around with an attitude as demonstrated in the Zimmerman call to the police more than meets that burden. Ill-will was demonstrated when Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin, got out the car with the intent to confront him and followed him around the neighborhood. That and shooting him. To death.
This is a non-sequitur. Zimmerman had the right not to take the witness stand, and so do all accused. From what little I know about criminal law (prior to the Patriot Act etc) I would strongly recommend refusing to talk without my lawyer present and not taking the stand. I have no objection in this case to the accused not taking the stand. I would have advised him to not take the stand.
How is it a non-sequitor? And yet you say he ‘can’t be credible’ because he didn’t? I think you’ve got yourself into a nice little corner there.
Here, again , is your statement - (bolding mine)
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
Or at all credible. It cannot be mentioned by the prosecution that he did not testify. His credibility in such a situation doesn’t even come into play.** A juror with half a brain, which this one clearly did not have, should not have found someone who did not testify to be “credible”.**
[/QUOTE]
So - the only way for a defendant to be credible is to take the stand - yet you just said that you would not -and that you would have advised him not to - seems a bit of a catch 22 there don’t you think? After all - all of Zimmerman’s ‘relevant’ comments were already on record and in front of the jury.
No, the point is that “credibility” is only relevant to judging whether a particular person’s testimony can be relied upon.
And the jury may judge a testifier’s credibility based only on what is shown or seen in court, such as his or her appearance, demeanour, gestures, expressions, emotions, confidence, etc. a jury may weigh the questions asked and the responses, the words and phrasing used, the logic and plausibility of the statements, how it compares to other evidence shown in court, and so on.
If a person has not testified in court, that means he has not made any statements on the record in the view of the jury. The jury has not seen her being questioned. The jury has not observed Any of these things.
So what, exactly, is this juror basing her opinion of Zimmerman’s credibility on? Certainly not evidence presented in court. And for what purpose is this credibility being inferred? Certainly not to weigh whether Zimmerman’s testimony is believable – because he didn’t testify.
So not only has the jury not been given anything with which to judge his testimony, they also have nothing for which his credibility is relevant.
So for this juror to say that she believed Zimmerman was credible and that his credibility influenced his acquittal is a doubly nonsensical statement.
I believe the prosecution entered the video of Zimmerman’s police interrogation into evidence, so the jury saw the video. The effect was testimony by Zimmerman without any cross-examination.
But in this case, the jury saw Zimmerman’s walkthrough, his police interviews, and even his Sean Hannity interview. Those statements became part of the record as evidence introduced by the prosecution. They are the basis for weighing his credibility.
They had his statements - his calls and interviews - they had the other witness statements that ‘corroborated’ his story as set forth in those statements - while they did not have his ‘direct testimoney’ - they did have the rest of his ‘statements’. She found those statements by him to be credible.
Thats not much of a stretch overall - had he testified, she would have had another element to consider - and it may have changed his credibility in her eyes.
Most cases - you do not have statements by the accused at all put on the record - this was a ‘different one’.
Not sure why I’m arguing this - but if our ‘innocent until guilty’ infers some amount of ‘credibility’ on the accused until proven otherwise - and we don’t require the defendant to take the stand - then his not taking the stand has no affect on his ‘credibility’ - the evidence presented does - the evidence this juror saw (and heard) caused her to believe the defendant was credible and that she believed his story.
[QUOTE=it would take a really odd set of facts and circumstances for there to be separate trials for the kidnapping, rape, and murder charges. (“Ladies and gentlement of the jury, the victim was kidnapped by someone–not the defendant there, some other guy–but then she escaped! But then someone else–still not the defendant there, this is perpetrator #2–raped her–but then she escaped again! And then the defendant killed her.”)[/QUOTE]
That’s helpful. Thanks. And that would truly be the bad day to end all bad days.
Yes, they are of second degree murder. An act that is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind must be done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. The jury instructions explicitly say this. Look on page 6, the second line that’s numbered “2.”
No.
If you’re not even reading the damn instructions, why participate in the conversation?
None of the examples you raise are legally sufficient.
I would not make any findings for the credibility of a criminal witness who did not testify. He wasn’t under oath for any of those interviews that were apparently relied on by the jury. Although the prosecution can possibly be criticized for not being careful enough about which ones they put into evidence and how, I don’t buy that the jurors are not responsible for letting the admitted killer go.
But you also wouldn’t read and understand the jury instructions the court gave you, so why should your view of what you’d do as a juror be the slightest bit persuasive?
I see them exactly as you have said. I interpret them differently. The fact that you quoted me quoting them shows that you are insincere in your accusation that I didn’t read them. I don’t read them as you do. This isn’t “great debates” where we take a side for the sake of argument. You’ve shared your opinion that you, as a juror, would find him guilty of manslaughter.
It is legally sufficient that he stalked the man, got out the car, confronted him and shot him. If that isn’t your humble opinion, then it isn’t. It’s murder. And if I am on the same jury as you are on this, I will hold out for a conviction on both charges and hang the jury if there isn’t a conviction on at least manslaughter and at least try to get others to agree on murder. When you walk up to someone with a gun in your pocket intending to start an argument or confrontation with a stranger, and then shoot him, that is malice aforethought. I’d probably have the same opinion if Martin had a gun and it was a Western style quick draw. Going around starting arguments with a gun in your pocket is a recipe for murder. We just disagree on that.