And a judge wanting to get off a case still equates to a judge wanting to get off a case.
I’ve shown were several judges recused themselves.
You disputed it.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
Lester’s actions have tainted this case.
[/QUOTE]
Zimmerman’s actions tainted this case.
O’Mara may very well be trying to put in ducks in a row so he can make an appeal later on. It’s as valid a strategy as anything, i guess. But it’s sign that he’s looking into the future and seeing a conviction possibly waiting for his client.
Exactly.
Any half-way decent attorney looks to the future and considers all possibilities. I wouldn’t read much more into it than that.
Hahahaha. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman bribed Lester or unduly influenced him to issue such an obviously biased peice of trash?
Uh…no. But thanks for the crazy.
No judges left the case because they wanted to.
I have never disputed that judges recused themselves. No judges left the case because they wanted to. If you can quote me saying otherwise, have at it.
Hahaha. Are you suggesting that judges recuse themselves because they DON’T want off of a case?
Lester doesn’t have to recuse himself just because O’Mara asked him to. It’s Lester’s choice. Does he want to or doesn’t he want to? What will Lester chose?
Judges recuse themselves because they are ethically required to when there is a conflict of interest, even if they want to stay on the case.
This is not unusual in any way, happens all the time.
Question for any interested attorney
If I were on the jury, and I reached the conclusion that I have–that GZ is lying about how and why he came to be behind the row of houses–what am I to do?
The bulk of GZ self-defense claim is based solely on his own testimony. If I find that he is not a trust worthy witness, what am I to do?
Do I vote to convict on some count because his sd claim doesn’t pass muster?
Do I make granular judgments about each detail of his sd claim?
Do I discount the entirety of his version of events if I think it can’t be trusted and rely only on the other evidence?
How does that work?
With that motion to recuse I guess all the posters who wondered whether there will be an SYG hearing and how come O’Mara didn’t object to Corey’s ridiculous affidavit of charges are getting their reply.
This is often stated, but I don’t believe it to be true.
- There are screams for help on the 911 tape.
- There is at least one witness that, at least originally, described Trayvon on top of him throwing punches down on Zimmerman MMA style.
- Zimmerman has well-documented injuries.
Add those three things together and that looks an awful lot like self-defense- without Zimmerman even having to say a word.
Even if ignore Zimmerman’s statement and just go by the physical evidence and what Witness 6 said, you still have reasonable doubt and must acquit him. You could ignore Witness 6 and still have reasonable doubt. You could throw in Dede and still have reasonable doubt. All the defense needs is a plausible case that Martin initiated the confrontation and you have reasonable doubt. The defense doesn’t need to prove anything.
I have read some self defense cases in Florida and you would be amazed what a jury would consider reasonable doubt. I was reading one case where a woman shot her husband 4 times in the groin and she was acquitted even though the prosecution produced witnesses that she had sworn to kill him if he cheated on her and produced a women that he had actually got pregnant. Maybe they based their conclusion on the fact that she missed his groin 3 times. That was a pre-SYG case.
In a recent case a man chased a man down who stole a radio out of his truck and stabbed him to death in front of a TV camera and the judge dismissed the charge because the guy swung the bag of radios at the guy before he stabbed him. Keep in mind that the guy lied to the police and denied the whole thing until they showed him the video footage.
Like hell it does. Do you even know any cops?
A judge with that bias would throw this case out the minute it reached his court.
I’d hope so . . . or we’d be back to the “‘I thought my life was in danger’ kill anyone you want ('specially if there aren’t any witnesses)” get out of prison free card.
Shouldn’t the physical evidence, at least, have more weight than a defendant’s testimony?
Funny that you’d leave off the very next paragraph,
However I can understand why you wouldn’t quote this,
Since it completely takes the OMG the judge is being so prejudicial in his statements (that are IMHO reasonably based on the facts before him) wind right out of your sails.
CMC fnord!
Speaking only as an interested observer but I have served on several jurys.
You have been selected as a juror. Your job is to listen to the testimony and observe the evidence that’s being presented in the courtroom. You’re supposed to ignore everything that you may have previously heard about this particular case. You will bring your personal knowledge, experience, prejudice, and common sense with you.
You will be introduced to the prosecution and defense teams, told what the crime/violation is, and what the possible penalties are, plus the rules and regulations of jury duty (don’t discuss the case, etc).
YOU will decide who you think is believeable. YOU will decide who you think is a lying bass turd. YOU will decide if you don’t like one or both of the attorneys. YOU will decide if the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The answer to all three of your “Do I” questions is yes, if that is what you believe.
Once all of the evidence is in and the examinations/cross-examinations are done and the judge has given you their final instructions - you get to deal with the opinions of the other eleven jurors.
Does everyone agree? Should you stick around until after lunch and get a free meal at the taxpayers expense before you tell the court your finding?
What if everyone doesn’t agree? Can you defend your opinion against the others? Can you pursuade the other jurors that they missed something or that they are boneheads and you’re never wrong? You may be convinced that the defendent is guilty of everything including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby but another juror may strongly believe that the lead prosecutor reminds them of an ex-spouse that cheated on them and killed their cat.
The court requires that all the jurors agree that the defendant is guilty as charged before the court can sentence them. Otherwise, there could be a retrial, acquittal, dismissal, etc.
At the SYG hearing, yes, and it will - at that hearing, the burden of proof (to the standard of preponderance of evidence, if I remember correctly) is on Zimmerman.
If it goes to trial, Zimmerman simply has to assert that he defended himself, and the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not, and that he murdered Martin.
I’m not sure how Zimmerman could prove that he didn’t start the fight (if that’s even true), which he would need to for SYG to apply. That won’t matter at trial, though.
These questions are why we have jury instructions: detailed statements of each element that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, you’ll be told that the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you disbelieve every word out of GZ’s mouth, that isn’t enough to reject self-defense. The state must show you evidence from which you can conclude that self-defense did not exist here, AND that evidence must also eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis.
The basis of our court system is that a person is innocent until “proven” guilty in a court of law.
A criminal case is supposed to be built, step-by-step, in court, before a jury (assuming there is a jury). The judge is supposed to see that the case is being handled in a lawful manner. A judge that actually participates in helping the prosecutions case by suggesting the addition of more charges is not impartial.
A judge that suggests the defendent is a lying weasel is not impartial. The judge is not letting the evidence pursuade the jury. The appeal(s) will be based on whether the defendent recieved a fair trial. Was evidence excluded that should have been included or included when it should have been excluded? Was the judge attempting to help the prosecution win a conviction?
If this judge is truely impartial, he won’t care one way or the other if the case is heard by another judge. He should have no personal interest except to see that every defendent recieves A FAIR TRIAL.