State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[Bricker]

@Stoid

Not in Richards account, but my vote goes to the prosecutors emphasis in his opening (which I watched a couple of days ago finally), which is what i was thinking of when i called it for M2 at the start: “these assholes, they always get away.”-frustration, anger,resentment spiteful intention that goddamnit, this is one asshole who is not getting away!

All contained in original intention, which was only to find and prevent him from getting away. When encountered, makes some move to detain, altercation, altercation inflames zimmermans existing frustration-anger-resentment, triggering impulse control issue, add some pain, anger frustration resentment is morphing into genuine rage and all possibility of behaving reasonably has vanished, he sees a perfect opportunity to do some hard core venting of that anger and hell its a fight, an easy self-defense plea trayvon dead.

Murder murder murder murder.

Did you read the case I recommended to you, by chance?

[hmarvin]

@Stoid

Not in Richards account, but my vote goes to the prosecutors emphasis in his opening (which I watched a couple of days ago finally), which is what i was thinking of when i called it for M2 at the start: “these assholes, they always get away.”-frustration, anger,resentment = spiteful intention that goddamnit, this is one asshole who is not getting away!

All contained in original intention, which was only to find and prevent him from getting away. When encountered, makes some move to detain, altercation, altercation inflames zimmermans existing frustration-anger-resentment, triggering impulse control issue, add some pain, anger frustration resentment is morphing into genuine rage and all possibility of behaving reasonably has vanished, he sees a perfect opportunity to do some hard core venting of that anger and hell its a fight, an easy self-defense plea = trayvon dead.

Murder murder murder murder.

There was no fight. Just a one sided attack.

[Stoid]

@Loach

Do you understand that everything after the quote is pure speculation without any evidence? Reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt.

Actually, not at all, it is an inference, which is a critical distinction, as inferences are indispensable to an effective criminal trial.

This is a hugely important thing to understand, both in the trial and in these threads. Which is why I posted about it before. It’s really good stuff, actually, read it. Then, when you are tempted to dismiss something as “speculation”, check the definitions. Or if you are tempted to just make some good guesses about maybes to fill in big blanks, consider the definition of “inference”. For extra credit, consider the definition of “adverse inference”.

I offer the following from all over the place and I invite you to do your own research into the topic. All emphasis is, of course, mine.

Fact, Inference, or Speculation?
Your task today is to determine whether different statements represent fact, inference, or speculation.
fact (făkt) n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact;
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: ex: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

in·fer·ence (ĭn’fər-əns) n.

1. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.
2. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence. Ex: The roads are very icy this morning in town and the interstate is closed so we’ll probably have a snow day today.

spec·u·la·tion (spĕk’yə-lā’shən) n.

1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition; Ex: I think we’ll be let out of school tomorrow after the aliens land.

In other words:
[ul]
[li]Facts are directly supported by the evidence and are widely agreed-upon. [/li][li]Inferences are logical conclusions based on the evidence, but not directly supported by the evidence. [/li][li]Speculations are guesses.[/li][/ul]

Amateur scientists and philosophers often fail to appreciate this. The technique of inference, which is a commonplace in engineering, (And LAW…this was just a great little intro) appears to them as unpardonable speculation. A consequence of this is that both scientific and philosophical conclusions are too often assessed by the wrong criterion. When a conclusion is arrived at by a process of inference, the proper course is to examine the reasoning that has led to the conclusion. This may have been faulty and can then be exposed by better reasoning. But the history of science abounds in occasions when this obvious duty has been neglected. For one critic of Darwin who examined his reasoning in the early days of evolutionary theory, a hundred dismissed the theory by quite different, and far less sound, criteria.

There are sundry reasons for this; one is man’s natural intellectual indolence. The detection of faulty reasoning requires a substantial mental effort, while other criteria can be applied with little or none. One of these false criteria is applied when the result of inference from established knowledge is dismissed as ‘mere speculation’. If this happens more often than one should expect, it is because the difference between inference and speculation tends to be obscured.

Your choice to arbitrarily disregard the information used to draw this conclusion does not actually render that information non-existent. You can certainly draw a different conclusion from the information that’s available, but that’s very much not the same as “baseless” speculation – by definition, spotting a correlation and drawing inference from it is itself a "base.

"

Inference is reasoning applied to real but incomplete evidence, used to draw a conclusion of a possible, perhaps even likely, scenario that we don’t have enough information to completely “prove.”

Baseless speculation is coming to a conclusion without any evidence.

A permissive presumption is one which allows, but does not require the finder of fact to infer the fact which is an element of the crime from the basic fact that has been proven. A permissive presumption will generally be upheld unless there is no rational way that the finder of fact could make the connection permitted by the inference. It is also called as permissive inference

In People v. Hester, 131 Ill. 2d 91 (Ill. 1989), the court observed that “A permissive presumption is one where the fact finder is free to accept or reject the suggested presumption. It places no burden on the defendant and affects the application of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard only if, under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference. The validity of a permissive presumption is subject to a less stringent test: there must be a rational connection between the facts proved and the facts presumed, and the ultimate fact must be “more likely than not to flow” from the basic fact. The inference must be supported by corroborating evidence of guilt; if there is no corroborating evidence, the leap from the proved fact to the presumed element must still be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine whether a presumption contained in a jury instruction is mandatory or permissive, a court must look at the words contained in the instruction. Whether a defendant has been accorded her constitutional rights depends upon the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction.”

The term inference means “to gather in”. Inference refers to the reasoning involved in arriving at a conclusion on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on direct or explicit statement. It is a conclusion based on facts or circumstances by applying reason. In logic, inference refers to the process of gathering data from various sources, and then subsequently drawing conclusions on the basis of evidence. Here, such conclusions are arrived by applying clues of logic and statistics to the gathered data.

Inference are of two types. They are:

(1)reasonable inference that suggests a likely possibility ; and
(2)necessary inference that suggests the inference as irresistible.

The following is an example of a state statute (California) defining the term inference:

According to Cal Evid Code § 600 (b), inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.

INFERENCE. A conclusion drawn by reason from premises established by proof.
It is the province of the judge who is to decide upon the facts to draw the inference. When the facts are submitted to the court, the judges draw the inference; ***
0*** The witness is not permitted as a general rule to draw an inference, and testify that to the court or jury. It is his duty to state the facts simply as they occurred.

In the law of evidence, a truth or proposition drawn from another that is supposed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. A logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which, by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude exists from the established facts. Inferences are deductions or conclusions that with reason and common sense lead the jury to draw from facts which have been established by the evidence in the case.

All of the problems in this section are designed to make one point. The legal concept of “reasoning,” as distinguished from “guessing” or “speculating,” is a functional concept which describes the making of inferences by factfmders to which persons who were not party to the factfinder’s deliberations can defer. An inference which has this character is called “reasonable” or “rational.” An inference which lacks this character is called “speculative.”

This last quote speaks directly to what I mentioned to Richard about appeals, the “deference” to the factfinder’s found facts. In this case, the part about a plausible opposition is obviously self-defense, but it also qualifies as a case with numerous explanations, which may prevent setting aside deference to the factfinders findings:

There are two major categories of inference on which deference can be expected. First, there are inferences which involve the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The litigation process is structured so that the factfinder is placed in an ideal position to assess the credibility of witnesses. The factinder sees the witnesses at close range under testing circumstances telling the story with respect to which the witness’s credibility must be assessed. The factfinder pays close attention, and then deliberates. Those who have not had such a good opportunity are not in a good position to second-guess credibility assessments made by the factfinder. Therefore, it is reasonable (and it is the strategy of the system) to expect deference to determinations by the factfinder which depend on the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Second, there are inferences which involve the assessment of the significance of circumstantial evidence. This category is much trickier because all that is needed to prevent deference to the factfinder’s verdict is a competing plausible explanation for the circumstantial evidence which is inconsistent with the verdict. Such a plausible explanation undermines deference because the factfinder had no way (to which someone not a party to the factfindei s deliberations would defer) to eliminate the plausible inconsistent explanation. This problem tends to abate the more complicated the circumstantial detail, the greater the variance of possible assessments of the significance of the evidence. While more numerous explanations may exist, none of them are as likely to be strong enough to compete with the fact finders’ verdict. This increases the likelihood of deference to the factfinder s verdict: the more evidence to sift, the more one is likely to defer the sifting and evaluation of the factfinder. Statistical evidence, in its pure form and unaided by any circumstantial evidence (see problem X-3, for example) suggests a highly plausible (even certain) competing explanation in an express number of cases.

Other aspects of the litigation process enhance the tendency toward deference, and have been discussed elsewhere; e.g., the secrecy of the factfinder’s deliberations, the generality of most verdicts, the hearsay and confrontation rules.

The bonus round: Adverse Inference:

Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. It is part of evidence codes based on common law in various countries.

According to Lawvibe, “the ‘adverse inference’ can be quite damning at trial. Essentially, when plaintiffs try to present evidence on a point essential to their case and can’t because the document has been destroyed (by the defendant), the jury can infer that the evidence would have been adverse to (the defendant), and adopt the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of what the document would have said…” [1]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pointed out in 2004, in a case involving spoliation (destruction) of evidence, that “…the giving of an adverse inference instruction often terminates the litigation in that it is ‘too difficult a hurdle’ for the spoliating party to overcome. The court therefore concluded that the adverse inference instruction is an ‘extreme’ sanction that should ‘not be given lightly’…”. [2]

This rule applies not only to evidence which is destroyed, but also to evidence which exists but the party refuses to produce, and to evidence which the party has under his control, and which is not produced. See Notice to produce. This adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive of his/her position.

It can also apply to a witness who is known to exist but which the party refuses to identify or produce.

So we can go back and look at all the various theories put forth and see which ones are actually

Fact, inference, adverse inference, or speculation?

Prediction: many assertions that the conclusions drawn are not rational, so they don’t qualify as true inferences and are therefore demoted to being speculation.

POV. It’s a bitch.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

Did you read the case I recommended to you, by chance?

Not yet, but I definitely will. Shouldn’t even be here doing this at all, I have SO much critically important stuff I’m supposed to be doing that I’m using this to avoid…Definitely definitely will, though.

[Steophan]

Good shitting christ learn to summarise.

[Stoid]

@Mgalindo13

They are illogical when combined with previous statements posted by her.

She has stated that she doesn’t think the state has proven it’s case and that the state has messed it up too badly to fix.

Given that AND her statements that she would vote to convict Zimmerman if she were on the jury, what is the differentiating factor that allows her to simultaneously believe that the state hasn’t proven its case and that Zimmerman should be convicted?

**Final clarification: **
From the facts as I understand them from direct examination of evidence made available online I have drawn inferences that lead me to a sincere belief in Zimmerman’s guilt as defined by law and my current understanding of it. If I have doubt, it is so minor as to be undetectable. I would, under that circumstance, vote to convict.

I respect what I’m hearing from a cross section of observers, the overall impression of the prosecution is that they have made many major blunders and done a poor job af articulating their position clearly. I have also observed in some of the evidence, such as interviewer’s questions, what I consider stupid omissions and errors. Taken together with what parts of the trial I have watched, I accept that the prosecution has done a really crappy job of making the case and I believe the jury will likely acquit because of that, and not because it was never possible to make a good case to begin with.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Good shitting christ learn to summarise.

Oh I know how, and I’d love to be able to. But experience has proven that the more that gets left out, assumed as understood, left unexplained, the easier it is for people to ignore, distort and mischaracterize.

In the case of sharing information, well, again, I figure if given the chance to understand it by being offered multiple and varied expressions of it, something is bound to resonate and sink in.

I am a prisoner of eternal hope.

[Loach]

I’ve actually been involved in many criminal cases. No, you were speculating.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

spec·u·la·tion (spĕk’yə-lā’shən) n.

1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence

@Stoid

the problem is the lack of specific evidence that can only point to one answer.

in·con·clu·sive

adjective

1. not conclusive; not resolving fully all doubts or questions: inconclusive evidence.

2. without final results or outcome: inconclusive experiments.

Hmmmm…

[Stoid]

@Steophan

He went to check that the house that Martin had been looking at hadn’t been burgled, and, as it hadn’t, felt it unnecessary to mention it. There, both reasonable and fits the facts.

Thank you very much for making an attempt to answer the question. Much appreciated.

It is in fact a reasonable possibility (if not examined too closely, of course) that this was something he actually did. (Which specific house are you referring to? There was a single house? When did that emerge as a fact? If so, do we know which house it was? I figure it had to be one of the houses in that first section of Twin Trees Lane just inside the entrance, because that’s the only place he could have observed Martin looking at any specific house, and that would mean he was right where the cops would be entering so why didn’t he just tell the operator that: “I’ll be just inside the entrance, have them call if I miss seeing them come in”? Of course there’s also the fact that what he actually did say he did was continue to Retreat View Circle before coming back. He even walked it all out for the cop in the re-enactment, so it’s hard to come up with a reason why he would have left it out. Then considering the shit he got from Serino and Singleton about what he did after the NEN call it becomes pretty much impossible to believe he wouldn’t have simply told them that he did that…unless he’d have to then explain being back at the T later, and why would he have done that…?

Hmmmm. So I am trying to figure out a couple of things. First, this really doesn’t answer the question I asked. You offer your speculation about what he actually did, but if that was what he intended to do, why not tell the operator that, which was my actual question? What prevented him from telling the operator where he would be, especially since he would be right there where the cops came in? “I’m going to check on the neighbor whose house the guy was looking at, right by the entrance. I’ll see them arrive and if I don’t have them call, I’ll be right there.”

Secondly, you say it fits the facts. I can’t figure out which facts you think it fits. In reality, it totally screws up the facts as he has claimed them to be: if he goes back out on Twin Trees to check (which?) house, then…why is he back at the T where Martin purportedly attacks him? He’d have to double back. Why would he do that, other than to look for Martin?

Since this does not answer the question, we are still left with the reasonable inference derived from the facts that does answer the question: he intended to continue to look for Martin, and if he found him he intended to prevent him from “getting away” if he had to, until the cops had a chance to get there.

With that reasonable inference of his likely intentions, derived from the evidence of GZ’s words, it is also reasonable to infer that that he did exactly what he intended to do: found Martin (or perhaps was found by him while he was looking for him, at this point it doesn’t matter, since we have a solid evidence-based inference about GZs intentions and we have no evidence at all from which to infer anything about Martin’s. Inferences must be reasonable and derived from evidence, no speculation allowed ), had the “why are you following/what are you doing” exchange, then made some movement towards preventing Martin from “getting away”. This (unspecified movement intended to delay/detain Martin) was received very poorly by him, and that is what led to the punch that Zimmerman claims, which then became an altercation/fight/pursuit. (And if we find Jeantel’s testimony credible, we have supporting evidence for that as well.) That would mean that Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman’s threat. Making Zimmerman the aggressor. Who deliberately left out the looking for/detaining part of his tale, something which, if he could have left it in without implicating himself in a criminal act, would have given a very reasonable explanation for why Martin would punch him, something this story desperately needed. Instead he had to say that Martin pretty much just punched him out of the blue, and that simply isn’t believable or reasonable. Oh, and this also explains his defense’ scrambling to come up with some kind of evidence to suggest that Martin was an out of control violent kid who would behave in this fundamentally unbelievable and unreasonable manner.

Anyone else want to take a shot?

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

Anyone else want to take a shot?

Post 1390.

[Loach]

@Stoid

In the case of sharing information, well, again, I figure if given the chance to understand it by being offered multiple and varied expressions of it, something is bound to resonate and sink in.

I am a prisoner of eternal hope.

And yet…

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Since this does not answer the question, we are still left with the reasonable inference derived from the facts that does answer the question: he intended to continue to look for Martin, and if he found him he intended to prevent him from “getting away” if he had to, until the cops had a chance to get there.

Even if he intended to do that, he still had the right to defend himself after Martin came and found him, and beat him.

Zimmerman could, in fact, have been hunting down Martin with intent to murder him, and still have been entitled to defend himself. There’s no getting round the fact that Martin did not allow Zimmerman to escape, but was on top of him and beating him. If that beating was sufficient to cause Zimmerman to fear death or serious injury - and a beating that has already caused serious injury would be - he was entitled to shoot Martin even if he was the aggressor.

Not that it’s remotely plausible that Zimmerman was the aggressor, what with knowing the police were on their way, but it means that even the ridiculously implausible theories that nonetheless fit the facts show him to be not guilty.

[Magiver]

@Richard_Parker

What do you understand to be necessary to charge?

In relation to your post, evidence.

[Stoid]

@Loach

I’ve actually been involved in many criminal cases. No, you were speculating.

Really? All you got is “I say so”?

My inference:

Not in Richards account, but my vote goes to the prosecutors emphasis in his opening (which I watched a couple of days ago finally), which is what i was thinking of when i called it for M2 at the start: “these assholes, they always get away.”-frustration, anger,resentment ＝ spiteful intention that goddamnit, this is one asshole who is not getting away!

All contained in original intention, which was only to find and prevent him from getting away. When encountered, makes some move to detain, altercation, altercation inflames zimmermans existing frustration-anger-resentment, triggering impulse control issue, add some pain, **anger frustration resentment is morphing into genuine rage and all possibility of behaving reasonably has vanished, he sees a perfect opportunity to do some hard core venting of that anger **and hell its a fight, an easy self-defense plea ＝ trayvon dead.

The evidence leading to the inference:

[ul]
[li]Evidence: GZ immediately got out of his car to go after Martin when he made the statement about assholes getting away.[/li][li]Evidence: he admitted to the operator that that is precisely what he was doing.[/li][li]Evidence: Jeantel testified she heard Martin say “get off me”[/li][li]Evidence:(which may not have gotten to the jury, but I’m not arguing that this will be the jury’s finding, Bricker asked Richard for the malice element to support his plausible scenario for M2 and this was my offering. You have asserted that my inference is actually speculation so this is proving you are mistaken.) GZ has multiple incidents in his past indicating problems with violence, anger and impulse control.[/ul][/li]
You are certainly free to disregard my inferences, of course. But you are mistaken to call them speculations.

[Loach]

@Stoid

Really? All you got is “I say so”?

My inference:
The evidence leading to the inference:

[ul]
[li]Evidence: GZ immediately got out of his car to go after Martin when he made the statement about assholes getting away.[/li][li]Evidence: he admitted to the operator that that is precisely what he was doing.[/li][li]Evidence: Jeantel testified she heard Martin say “get off me”[/li][li]Evidence:(which may not have gotten to the jury, but I’m not arguing that this will be the jury’s finding, Bricker asked Richard for the malice element to support his plausible scenario for M2 and this was my offering. You have asserted that my inference is actually speculation so this is proving you are mistaken.) GZ has multiple incidents in his past indicating problems with violence, anger and impulse control.[/ul][/li]
You are certainly free to disregard my inferences, of course. But you are mistaken to call them speculations.

The speculation happens when the actual incident took place. You know, the part that actually counts. The evidence as presented in trial supports Zimmerman’s story. The prosecution has done a piss poor job off proving otherwise. The burden of proof is on them. You have speculation due to the “fact” that Zimmerman is a liar liar pants on fire. And so is anyone that the defense might call. I know you try to break google and somehow your wall of text proves something but your inference posts were nothing new. Even ignoring the fact that you used some examples from civil law. How else do you think circumstantial cases are made? But the dots have to be connected. Show how they have been in this trial. And show how the defense has not countered any prosecution argument to the point of reasonable doubt.

[Stoid]

@Human_Action

That’s textbook reasonable doubt to me, which is all I am arguing for. How can your bases overcome reasonable doubt in light of your own remarks?

Because reasonable doubt is an individual’s personally experienced doubt after actually hearing the evidence and deliberating. Reasonable doubt is something which the defense wishes to trigger in the individual juror’s minds, it isn’t something that has to be conceded as existing independently, leading to acquittal even though the jurors don’t really have any:

Foreperson: Well, are we all agreed that the professor did it in the kitchen with the candlestick?

**4 jurors: **Yes!

5th juror: Yes, but what about that theory that the defense brought up, the evidence that could mean that Col. Mustard did it in the conservatory with the knife? I mean, it seems like a reasonable person could possibly believe that it really happened like that.

**Foreperson: **Sure, I can see how someone might believe it, but ***I ***don’t believe it. Just because someone else could doesn’t mean I do, and I don’t. I’m ***absolutely sure ***about the professor in the kitchen. The candlestick part..maybe not. But the professor? 100% certain. And the rest of you?

**Juror 1:**I’m entirely certain it was the professor in the kitchen with the candlestick, no doubt at all. But I do understand how someone else could be uncertain when they consider the Col. Mustard evidence. It just doesn’t sway me one bit.

Juror 2: Juror 1 said it all for me. No questions left in my mind.

**Juror 3: **Are you kidding? Alright, the mustard evidence isn’t as nutty as aliens, but if the professor did NOT do it, I’ll eat my hat. Guilty fucker.

**Juror 4: **The professor is a sick sonofabitch, beating someone to death in a place where people eat…tsk… I WISH it was the Col., I didn’t like him at all…

**Juror 5: **No, I know it was the professor, the evidence convinced me completely. I just thought it was possible for someone to believe the stuff about the Col. is all.

Foreperson: Fuck, you’re right… I guess we have to vote not guilty and let that asshole off the hook. Damn defense and their clever ploys…

No, don’t think so…yikes.

I don’t disagree at all that there are things which some people would find actually do prevent them from feeling comfortable with convicting Zimmerman. Absolutely! But I notice a lot of people talking about reasonable doubt as though it works in the way I showed above, that if some people could be persuaded to doubt, then nobody can convict (which of course is the case within the jury itself, I’m referring to some/ no one generally). You must realize cannot possibly be the standard, or almost no one would ever be convicted at all.

So you don’t have to keep arguing that good arguments can be made which reasonable, intelligent people would find so persuasive that even though they mostly think Zimmerman is guilty, they would have real doubts. I know that perfectly well, I do not need convincing and never did!

MY argument is that there is enough (again, perhaps not in the official evidence, just in the real world evidence…) to convince equally reasonable, intelligent people that as possible as something else might be, they are very comfortable in being certain that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Which is why I have been saying that I would vote to convict, and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that. (Assuming, again, that I got all the information) Almost all of the stuff that has been held up as being “textbook reasonable doubt”, as you put it, is stuff which is entirely within the province of the jury to decide whether it is true or believable. They can look right at the evidence and say “Very nice try, certainly not outside the realm of possibility, but I’m not buying it even a little.” and that doesn’t make them stupid or nuts or unreasonable or anything else inferior.

The one other thing I will say is that there are obviously some nuances here, which is why I asked Richard about appellate review - the judge having denied the motion and finding sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence for a jury to decide, if they convict, what is the argument that it was an erroneous conviction?

Because that’s another thing about appeals and the whole “do-over” assumption people make: the courts of appeal review for errors in the process, not correctness of the verdict. Obviously the appellants goal is a different verdict, but they need to get there by showing how an error in the process led to a wrong verdict in order to get a shot at a different verdict. Nor does the appeals court simply come up with a different verdict; as a rule they reverse and return the case to the lower court to do the process differently.

The appeals court does have the power to bypass all that, but it is very rarely used.

All to say…and ask Richard and the other legal eagles again: what would be the error in the process here if the jury convicts?

I have to go read Bricker’s case, it might shed some light on this question mark.

[Stoid]

@Loach

The speculation happens when the actual incident took place. You know, the part that actually counts. The evidence as presented in trial supports Zimmerman’s story. The prosecution has done a piss poor job off proving otherwise. The burden of proof is on them. You have speculation due to the “fact” that Zimmerman is a liar liar pants on fire. And so is anyone that the defense might call. I know you try to break google and somehow your wall of text proves something but your inference posts were nothing new. Even ignoring the fact that you used some examples from civil law. How else do you think circumstantial cases are made? But the dots have to be connected. Show how they have been in this trial. And show how the defense has not countered any prosecution argument to the point of reasonable doubt.

Yer kinda all over the place with this, and none of it equals my inferences being speculation- you continue to argue as though there must be direct evidence proving every aspect, which just ignores what inference means. (tending to make me think, along with your remark about the wall of text and google, that you didn’t bother to read any of it. Hmmm… I just inferred something about your actions based on the evidence contained in your post!) You also seem to be throwing around reasonable doubt as though it works in the manner I just went over, and it doesn’t. And I say “seem” because your sentence is a little shaky:

And show how the defense has not countered any prosecution argument to the point of reasonable doubt.

The defense has put forth lots of good, juicy stuff that could absolutely cause some or all of the jurors to feel very uncertain about convicting Zimmerman. No question.

But it doesn’t mean that the jury has to doubt. They have no obligation to vote for acquittal in spite of feeling certain of guilt, no matter how impressively the defense has presented facts and evidence which seem as though they should cause the jury to doubt themselves if in the end the jury actually does not doubt. Do you disagree with this? Because if you don’t then we don’t have to continue to argue about it, since I do not disagree that there is plenty on the plate that could cause such doubt.

[Folly]

@Stoid

All to say…and ask Richard and the other legal eagles again: what would be the error in the process here if the jury convicts?

Hate to wade into such a long thread. Are you asking what could the defense base their appeal on?
Assuming there isn’t some other procedural error to glom on to, the defense is sure to ask for a directed verdict. This is where the judge concludes that no reasonable jury could conclude that each element of the prosecution was met beyond a reasonable doubt.
Assuming the judge declines to issue a directed verdict and the jury convicts, the judge could still issue judgment nothwithstanding the verdict. Basically saying the same thing, that no reasonable jury could have come to that conclusion.

The judge’s failure to do these two things would be the procedural error the defense would point to for appeal.

[Stoid]

@Human_Action

Post 1390.

I will be back to that later. WAY too much time already.