By the way, if this article is any indication, we might see more “new” evidence surface before the trial.
And I don’t see what you’re inferring: anyone stating that because guns are bad, he should sent to jail even if he’s proven innocent.
And that pretty much identifies your blinders on this subject. Here I am, “anti-gun” (for lack of better term), fully admitting my biases on the matter. You, on the other hand, see no biases in yourself on the subject. In your world, non-gun owners are just pants-pissing pussies who don’t know shit from shinola, where gun-owners are all responsible, morally right thinkers who understand that, shucks, sometimes you just have to shoot somebody.
I did not get that at all from the article.
It does sound like Serino was pressured in his written statement.
I have no idea “IF” Corey “would” actually withhold evidence. With her time on the job, experience, and winning record, I’m sure she would “know how” to drag her feet turning over evidence “IF” she felt the need to.
I said, “I’m sure she knows how far she can push an issue before she gets her hand officially slapped by the court.” Maybe that wasn’t clear enough?
As an example, Crump has possession of an interview between DeeDee and Crump that was attended by TM’s family and friends. Crump has produced, to Corey, an edited version of that interview. GZ’s legal team is asking for the full interview and access to the original recording device. The defense can not directly force Crump to turn over the full interview or the recording device. The defense can only ask the court to force Crump to surrender the interview and device to the court/SA’s office. The defense can then ask Corey, or ask the court to force Corey, to turn over the evidence to them for examination.
“IF” Corey drags her feet getting the full interview, for whatever reason, the defense can’t examine that interview or the recording device. Not getting that interview could only benefit the prosecution. Getting that interview and the recording device “might” benefit both the prosecution and the defense (depending on what information is contained in the interview.
It’s possible, but I don’t see much indication of it from the article. I don’t see how the fact that the lead investigator spent a lot of time revising his report as evidence of much in particular.
If Serino had access to evidence of second-degree murder, I wonder why he would revise the report to recommend manslaughter instead.
I hope I have repeated “all this is based on the evidence we have to date” for everything I have posted enough. So some new bombshell could come to light that would show Zimmerman’s guilt beyond question. But shouldn’t the defense have access to that evidence already?
Or maybe the defense does know about it already, but the public doesn’t.
If the “new evidence” is something like what the article says - that the lead investigator took a lot of time with his report, and wound up recommending indictment on a lesser charge than second-degree - then I don’t think it clarifies the case any.
We shall see, I guess.
Regards,
Shodan
That really doesn’t sum up my views at all. I guess you’ve not bothered to read my posts, and are projecting here.
There’s several people here who think Zimmerman should be punished for his actions. They’ve been challenged repeatedly to show what laws he broke, and to supply the evidence they use to reach that conclusion, and instead of doing so they resort to stating that he was carrying a gun, which he used to shoot Martin. Which is neither in doubt, nor necessarily illegal. If you’ve missed the numerous posts saying there’s something wrong with him following Martin with a gun OMG then you’re the one with wilful blindness.
On the opposing side you have plenty of people, including several who would prefer that what Zimmerman did wasn’t legal, and including people like me who have never even held a gun, and live somewhere it would be illegal to possess one, who have the ability to research the law of the relevant jurisdiction, and to judge accordingly.
Florida is, legally speaking, pro-gun. The place for anti-gun activism is not on a jury. It’s not an equal situation - someone anti-gun would be more likely to disagree with the law that made Zimmerman’s actions legal than someone pro-gun, and if they were inclined to make the wrong judgement based on that, they should be excluded from the jury. There isn’t the opposing risk with the pro-gun people.
No less an authority than the State of Florida OK’d GZ carrying a firearm in FLA. If you believe that GZ is guilty “BECAUSE” he carried a firearm, then you don’t understand FLA law. GZ is not guilty of violating any FLA law “BECAUSE” he carried a firearm. The firearm is only a tool that GZ used to save his own life.
The legal question that will be decided by the court/jury is whether GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder for using lethal force to stop TM from beating him. Did GZ believe his life was in immediate danger or not? FLA allows the use of lethal force “IF” GZ believed his life was in imminent danger.
How did you reach that conclusion based on that article?
No … I’m sure you’re right, Steophan. No dis-passion on that side of the issue. Don’t what I was thinking.
Florida sunshine laws - what evidence defense receives has to be released to public.
The point being that new “evidence” is still being turned over to the defense, not that the items in the article are of particular significance.
Which OJ jury? OJ was aquitted in 1994, of two murders and one of those jurors had been replaced for spending too much time admiring OJ’s Heisman Trophy during a jury field trip to the OJ residence.
OJ was later found guilty in 2008 of armed robbery and kidnapping someone who was selling OJ memorabilia.
I wasn’t saying the content of the article had any importance. Just that since evidence is still being turned over to the defense as recently as today, it may indicate we’ll see more at a later date.
Sorta, yes.
It’s true that, in general, each side has a certain number of peremptory challenges, by which they can reject a potential venireman without giving a reason.
Except that neither side can use that process for racial reasons. This rule came into effect in the mid-1980s, as a result of a case called Batson v. Kentucky. A prosecutor that seeks to stack the racial deck by using his peremptory challenges is subject to objection by the defense, and if the defense makes a prima facie case for racial criteria, must provide an on-the-record, race-neutral reason for his strikes.
And more fatal to your theory: both the prosecution and the defense have an equal number of peremptory challenges.
So again:
How,specifically, would the prosecution have an easier time in this circumstance?
Except telephone records.
An interesting article. There was a lot of political pressure to charge Zimmerman with a crime. The Sanford Police Department passed the buck to Wolfinger. Wolfinger passed the buck to the Grand Jury. Governor Rick Scott passed the buck to Angela Corey, who actually followed orders and charged Zimmerman. It makes it clearer why Serino hired his own lawyer. I wonder how long before everybody e-mail gets subpoenaed
This.
Aw fuck! Do I really have to agree with Jack?
Gun owner. Gun user. Gun rights supporter. Don’t believe Zimmerman’s tale, but suspect he is going to be the lucky recipient of a verdict based on ill conceived Florida law that neutered the “checks and balances” part of the process.
Please don’t quote my posts like you are actually responding to my posts. It is confusing when Your posts doesn’t actually have a relevant response.
I’ve already addressed this in the very post you quoted, and you seem to be ignoring what I’ve written. Not sure why.
- I’m not talking only of peremptory challenges.
- Real life does not always follow abstract legal theory.
I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and opinion and if you disagree with me I’m interested in hearing why. But it would be helpful if you would acknowledge what I’ve written and address it rather than acting as if I’d not written it.
Except telephone records.
[/QUOTE]
Which I suppose implies that, if there is some smoking gun contained in Zimmerman’s (or Dee Dee’s, or someone else’s) phone records, the prosecution has not released it to the defense.
And if it is truly some dramatic proof of Zimmerman’s guilt, wouldn’t the prosecution be compelled to turn it over already?
Correct me if I am wrong about this, Great Legal Minds of the SDMB[sup]TM[/sup].
Regards,
Shodan