“To the extent that he had some knowledge of self defense, he would have been able to put together a story that made some sense,” said Frederick Leatherman, a retired Seattle defense lawyer and legal-issues blogger who has reviewed all the Zimmerman case evidence. “As he conjured up this story, he didn’t know that a lot of the forensics would not match.”
the implication of the statement was that Zimmerman “stalked a scary negro” when there is no indication that he either stalked him or considered him scary.
That has nothing to do with SYG which involved self defense after a sustained attack. There has been no justification brought forth as of this date for Martin’s actions. Nothing in the conversation between them as recounted by either Dee Dee or Zimmerman justify the attack.
When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. “He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures,” Martin said.
“I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, ‘OK, let me go to my car and get something.’” The detective returned with a folder.
It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. “From that point, our nightmare,” Martin said.
---- :dubious: Honestly, it’s really hard to believe people are as gullible as they are. You would think I would be used to it by now, but I’m not. People are just incredibly dumb.
At the SYG hearing, Zimmerman will be presented as the victim (accurately, according to the evidence we have), and the State will attempt to discredit him.
Should the judge take a dim view of the State’s actions here?
How do these judges manage to handle self-defense cases?
That line of yours sounds like it came from Law and Order University. In real life, no judge “takes a dim view” of putting the victim’s actions on trial when the claim is self-defense, because that’s a necessary part of self-defense claims.
The tear on his cheek. Many Anti-Zimmerman folks think Trayvon was so scared of Zimmerman that he was not only screaming, but crying his little head off. SobPunchScreamPunchSob
If it’s obvious or can be proven that the judge “ruled against” GZ because of personal hostility or concern for his personal welfare (fear of retribution from the public or his bosses), GZ wins on appeal. The State could then appeal to a higher court, drop the case or retry it.
OK, but GZ will be presenting the same self defence story at the trial as he did at the SYG hearing, and the question is whether and how the fact that the judge has already ruled that the evidence is against that claim impacts the same claim when brought up a second time. Is the jury likely to be completely uninfluenced by the judge’s ruling?
As you can see from these threads and media coverage generally, there are any number of people on either side of the issue. While partisans of each side feel their version is obvious and can be proved, I think the strength of pulbic opinion on each side is such that neither side is likely to tossed out by a court as clearly biased.
At the SYG hearing, the jury must be persuaded by preponderance of the evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
At trial, the jury must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense.
The judge should be making his decisions based on the evidence and his legal training. The jury at trial will be given specific instructions on how to evaluate the evidence. To pick one example, since you mention this thread, you with the face strongly resisted the concept that the state must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, so much so that she still hasn’t conceded the point. A potential jury member that refused to accept the judge’s instructions would likely not be seated.
It’s assy to post crap about another poster without providing cites as justification. You know good and well I never said the state doesn’t have to disprove self-defense.
Wouldn’t a weak case be one that is difficult to prosecute? And a strong case be one that is not difficult to prosecute?
Where does she say that the case against him is strong? I only read some of what she wrote, but she said nothing that makes me think that she thinks the case against Zimmerman is strong. She does say:
I read the rest of her comments on down and, while she points out problems for Zimmerman’s defense, she doesn’t actually say the prosecution’s case is strong and/or easy to prosecute.
I’ll take her off my side of the list, but I don’t think she belongs on your side either. So, in my mind, it’s 10 vs. the nutty professor.
