Stood appears to have successfully shown that benefit of the doubt attaches to criminal defendants through the entire trial, and is a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt. Which is what we all told her…
Why would you be telling me things that I am completely aware of? Other than to hear yourself talk, so to speak?
Hey, if you can show me where the phrase “benefit of the doubt” is a legal a rule in any other area of law, cool! Especially if you can show me where it is a legal rule that means the same thing as “reasonable doubt” vs. “presumption of innocence”.
Unless, of course, you suffer from the same confused belief that the three terms are interchangeable in meaning?
Good luck with that.
It was a quip.
They look a fair bit different from an argument. 
Because your claim was that criminal defendants do not get the benefit of the doubt and you, as you so often do, attempted to back it up with a cite that literally says the complete opposite. An amusing habit of yours, that I will continue to point out when I see it. If you were and are completely aware that defendants get all the benefit of the doubt at trial, why attack people who say that?
Buzz! Nope! Deduct another 10,000 points!
His response was "what part of** “reasonable doubt” **do you not understand?
My cite:
My cite says what I said at the start: benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence are similar enough that Terr confused them…but then Terr denied that he was confusing presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt by saying (essentially) that he was equating benefit of the doubt and reasonable doubt, rejecting my perception of his confusion.
I said the same thing at the end that I said at the beginning, and my cite said the same thing I was saying all along.
I know you were very excited about what you believed was a big score, sorry to disappoint you with the facts.
(and that doesn’t even address Terr’s assertion about how reasonable doubt means that in the absence of evidence for or against we acquit! Criminy…)
While it certainly doesn’t hurt his case, I guess, I don’t really know why the defense would call Di Maio. According to the state of Texas,
Anatomical pathology is concerned with the diagnosis of disease through the examination of organs, tissue, or the entire body (such as during an autopsy). Clinical pathology is concerned with the diagnosis of disease based on lab analysis of body fluids. Forensic pathology is concerned with determining the cause of death. He’s widely held to be an expert in gun-shot wounds.
We know the cause of death in Martin’s case - I don’t think anyone disputes that Martin died of a gunshot, and that Zimmerman fired the gun, and I don’t see how Di Maio’s expertise helps Zimmernan’s self-defense claim.
I suppose Di Maio could testify to Zimmerman’s injuries, but he’d only be doing so based on…photographs, which I thought was the reason why Team Zimmerman thought we shouldn’t give any credence to Dr. Rao’s testimony.
I’d also note that the jury will also only be basing their opinions of Zimmerman’s injuries based on the photographs…
My guess would be he’s there to testify that Martin’s wounds are consistent with having been shot at close range from below.
The judge will have to decide if George’s school records come in.
I find this wanna be cop strategy very troubling. Theres nothing wrong with aspiring to work as a police office, correction officer, or even a crime tech. Criminal Justice is the recommend major to enter those fields of work. George was studying just like other CJ students all over the US. The school where I work has a very large Criminal Justice program. Hundreds of students are working towards degrees. A lot of police officers take night classes so that they can earn a degree and move up in the Dept.
To imply that wanting to be a cop makes you a potential vigilante is just offensive and insulting. I’m going to hate this tactic of the prosecution.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/school-records-issue-zimmerman-murder-trial/nYcY3/
The autopsy report which has been out there for some time indicates the angle of the shot was straight from front to back. The report details the portions of the anatomy which were damaged.
There has been testimony that one person was straddling the other. Whether it was Martin on top or Zimmerman on top is a point of dispute.
I suspect that Vincent Di Maio will be called upon to attempt to explain how each person’s body would have had to be positioned to account for the known angle of entry of the shot.
My thinking about it is that the straight front to back angle of the shot doesn’t make sense if the person on top is sitting with his torso essentially perpendicular to the person on the bottom. I think that would result in an upward angle for the shot.
I think one person must have been bending over at the waist so to account for the angle of shot. And I think it would be much easier for the person on top to do that rather than the person on bottom.
But my thinking is just a WAG. We’ll probably have to wait at least until next week for this testimony.
how many degrees is the average wrist capable of moving through? The angle of the shot is meaningless in this respect.
Was my WAG. There is a reason I am not an expert witness!
I doubt the defence will call him if they don’t think he’ll back up their story.
I would have thought the same about the prosecution, but this trial has certainly offered surprises in that regard.
Well, yes, although the defence do actually seem to be trying. The whole thing does seem to be a bit of a farce, and a rather unpleasant one at that. It’s disrespectful to Martin and his family, it’s disrespectful to Zimmerman as his future is on the line, and it’s disrespectful to the people of Florida, as they should be able to have faith in their justice system, and one that appears to be prosecuting unwinable cases is not one worth believing in.
Talk about unintended consequences. Prosecution tried to play “gotcha” with Zimmerman’s remark on Hannity that he didn’t hear about SYG by putting up his law professor from college. Defense turned around and is using the witness to educate the jury about Florida self-defense laws. Prosecution is objecting furiously but in vain.
I’m watching the trial, the interview with the criminal procedure teacher. Oh my fucking God… Please shoot me. This is unbelievable… If I was a juror I would recommend the death penalty for everybody.
This is hilarious. Prosecution just filed an “in limine” motion to prohibit a defense expert witness that would have educated the jury on the self-defense laws in Florida. The motion has not been ruled on yet, but defense instead is using the prosecution witness for the same purpose. And very effectively too, imparting all kinds of things about the law to the jury that they tried to impart before and couldn’t because of prosecution’s objections.
Yes, that Jag Lawyer did a really good job explaining self defense. Much to the prosecutions dismay. I was laughing my butt off as the judge kept reminding the jury that she would instruct them on self defense guidelines.
I’m sure the jury is wondering why theres multiple definitions. 
What a clusterfuck.
Would you say this was a net positive moment for the state, for the defense, or neither?