Bricker (or any other lawyer who is following the case closely),
In your assessment, do this judge’s rulings during this trial tend to favor the prosecution or the defense or neither?
Note that I’m not suggesting that any of her rulings are incorrect as a matter of law. But obviously there is room within the law for some things to go either way (otherwise there would be no arguments over them) so my question is whether on such issues she has a tendency to favor the prosecution side or the defense or neither.
No. I was asking for you to cite because you were refuting DragonAsh’s assertion about what Zimmerman himself stated. Perhaps you aren’taware that you do it, but you have frequently made arguments to support Zimmerman that he never made, or which counter his own story, or in other ways add/change/subtract from the record and facts.
Here’s DragonASH describing his understanding of what Zimmerman himself said answering Mr. Pookie’s question "did Zimmerman say that Trayvon saw the weapon and then utter “you are going to die tonight”:
Your response was to actually undermine Zimmerman himself by saying
And since you seem to be saying that Zimmerman said something different, I asked you to cite where the testimony/evidence shows that Zimmerman’s gun was not where DA understood it to be, and rather where you say.
Instead of looking to the record of Zimmerman’s claims, you show me a picture of a belt clip holster. Someone else has pointed out that it is not the type of holster Zimmerman was wearing, so aside from avoiding the record, how is that a cite?
So this appears to be a tacit admission that Zimmerman’s story changes, and you seem to be selecting the one version that supports your argument refuting DA’s description of Zimmerman’s claims about how the shooting itself occurred. I assume you chose to try and refute because you see that his story is very difficult to believe.
What part of this are you ignoring:
February 27th:
Seems very clear that the smothering was followed immediately the shirt slide and gun grab.
Two days later he still remembers it the same way, except this time Serino is questioning him in such a way that Zimmerman is starting to realize his story doesn’t make sense, and something has to give: his claim that it’s him yelling, or the shirtsliding, or the smothering…something:
February 29th
Now I confess I cannot put together what you are saying when you say:“This was his testimony before all the evidence of someone yelling was available.” - can you help me with that?
The evidence doesn’t have to reach that standard for the motion to be denied, there merely has to be some evidence for each element of the crime. The prosecution could be argued to have barely reached that standard, but there’s no chance an honest jury could find him guilty.
It’s probably better overall that it goes to the jury, as then no-one can claim he got off on a technicality, no matter how silly that claim would sound to anyone who actually understands what’s happening.
I don’t dispute what you are saying because I’m not familiar with the peculiarities of Florida law, but that would seem to make a Judgment of Acquittal almost a nullity.
The state could inadvertently show that the defendant was a thousand miles away at the time of the murder, confirmed by three priests, a nun, and the victim’s brother, but it also puts on testimony of one insane homeless drunk who says he thought he saw a guy that looked like the defendant two blocks over.
Under your standard, the judge would have to ignore the evidence and simply credit the crazy homeless guy under the theory that a similarly crazy juror might buy the testimony.
That sounds about right, as I understand it. It is solely the job of the jury to decide matters of fact. The judge decides matters of law. If there is, in law, insufficient evidence to find guilt, the judge may act. If it’s a judgement of the quality of the evidence, that’s the job of the jury.
Assuming I remember correctly, she’s got a serious degree in a biology field, and actually makes public policy in her field. I wouldn’t go making light of someone, just because she insists on pontificating outside her field. Law? Ignore her. She’s just as biased as your average internet idiot. Ask her about her field? Prepare to get buried, burned, and your family name wiped from history. Can you show, and are you willing to show your expertise in some field important in public policy?
If so, I have never seen it. I wasn’t making light of her opinion, hell, I even said I understand and value her opinion. But she? attacked a well known legal expert and lawyer …in his field.
My field of expertise is code enforcement and anti-money laundering, which includes terrorist financing . Some would think that’s important in public policy.
That’s why I said you can ignore her, outside of her field. It has been rather sad watching her lose her shit, on legal matters. Nevertheless, as I said, IIRC, she’s not someone to trifle with, when she speaks on matters of animal medicine and the public policy thereof.
I not only don’t dispute that, I agree wholeheartedly. You are useful to society. And someone like me made sure the building you (and YWTF) work in didn’t fall down on top of you, while you were doing your work. We all do our bit. But one cannot rely on our opinions, when they are outside our area of expertise. She’s gotten outside her area of expertise on this one, but how much ‘expertise’ does [redacted]* (for example) have? It’s not like she hasn’t continuously pontificated on this case, despite an incredible lack of knowledge on both this case, and how the law, and even reality actually works. There are far more deserving people to save your contempt for. YWTF doesn’t deserve the contempt you seem to be trying to dish out, here.
[sub]*Eliminate the name. Getting banned will not advance my argument. Won’t be useful to go there.[/sub]
Geez that judge is getting downright abrupt and irritable. Defense calls two witnesses and the judge seemed really curt and pissed off. Totally different from earlier this week.
She better rethink banning the toxicology reports. All the legal analysts are saying that the M.E.'s statement about marijuana effecting Trayvon makes it relevant. The judge risks having the verdict overturned if she doesn’t let it in.
In my experience, it would be unusual for a caller (other than a police officer) to say, “I am calling to report a 10-56” when speaking to 9-1-1 or the NEN dispatcher. It would not be unusual for the call taker to record “10-56” in the notes section to describe an intoxicated pedestrian even if the caller never used that 10-code. Notes are commonly abbreviated. I would have to listen to actual recordings of the calls to know what Zimmerman actually said.
except you keep forgetting that he said this in response to why he wasn’t going to run to his house. Because he was right by his house. Not “near”, RIGHT BY. He’s given a reason for not having to run to the hose. In court she puts Martin at his dad’s house.
She said she heard it a little bit. She was asked to clarify this and she said it again. She heard it a little bit. Logically the person saying this would not whisper this but say it LOUDER. If it was Martin she would have heard it clearly. So it had to be said away from the microphone. The only other person there away from the microphone is the person claiming he was attacked which would coincide with Zimmerman’s account. His account is backed up with witnesses to an attack and physical evidence of an attack. You’re absolutely grasping at straws here.
:dubious: He’s going to drive in a car with a gun over his rear back pocket where it will be extremely uncomfortable and hard to reach on top of wearing a jacket.
There are very few instances where a caller’s words would be taken down verbatim at the time of the call. All 9-1-1 calls are routinely recorded and can be transcribed later, if needed.
You aren’t serious about this, are you? How could you be, no 17-year-old is under the supervised presence of their parents 24 hours a day. It’s a silly thing to say.
Try this on for size: he was struggling to prevent Zimmerman from pointing the gun and shooting him.
What exactly are you trying to say? This is his weapon and holster.
She ought to ban them because, biologically, ~4 ng/mL of THC is not psychoactive. Bao’s testimony is akin to tea leaves: if you stare hard enough, you can see anything. He was too caught up in not perjuring himself to be a witness. The lawyer would be better to recruit a medical doctor to get an expert opinion rather than the guy who performs the autopsy.
Also! Why the long faces everyone? Let’s talk about the defense’s great witnesses today! C’mon guys! Cheer up! Buck up! It’s a beautiful day!
Ms. Zimmerman: Wasn’t she a fabulous witness? She was already saying “That’s my son” before the lawyer opened his mouth. Good grief woman, hush your mouth and allow the guy to ask you the question first.
The Uncle: Wasn’t he a fabulous witness? While I could not help but feel a certain amount of admiration for him, it was clear he’s lying right through his teeth. The defense did a great job by inadvertently highlighting that George’s Uncle is a police captain, as it adds strength to the hypothesis Zimmerman was versed in the law before he donned his Inspector Gadget uniform. The Uncle is there as moral support for his sister, nothing more, nothing less.
When will we see Zimmerman’s white side of the family or is it that only his Hispanic side is willing to go to bat for him?
