State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[UltraVires]

Seems like the judge has already disallowed the testimony from the BATFE agent. If she hasn’t why did she schedule closing in the morning, then lunch, closing in the afternoon, and then leave it up to the jury to deliberate tomorrow night or Friday morning?

If she DOES let the guy testify, it will open a new mini-trial over that incident with the defense calling many witnesses, probably spilling into late next week.

Why create a schedule, if she is legitimately unsure about admitting the testimony?*

*I think it’s clear that she shouldn’t: 403 more prejudicial that probative, not relevant to lethal violence, does not rebut anything the defense has said.

[pohjonen]

@Sateryn76

Could the state call Zimmerman as a rebuttal? Of would it be pointless, since he could just plead the 5th?

It’s starting to appear there will be no rebuttal at all.

[doorhinge]

@Stoid

Actually, I was very puzzled about this thread being in IMHO - when we discussed having a “data only” Zimmerman Trial thread, I suggested putting it in GQ to keep it focused and fact-based around what was happening in the trial.

This thread got into opinions, arguments and tangents (not to mention “hey, watch me make fun of people!” ugliness) pretty much immediately.What a shock.

I still think that if there are people who just want to… I guess it’s to discuss/learn about actual events of the trial itself, without venturing into the facts and evidence that the trial is about, then there should be a GQ thread: Zimmerman Trial Updates:Hold The Opinions - Factual reporting of the trial activities only, no discussion that isn’t exclusively about the trial itself, no discussion of content except as it is about the way that content is being handled and presented in the trial itself.

Seems simple enough. Then just merge this with the old ZimArtin thread.

Or you could just make the effort to speculate in the other thread and discuss the actual trial in this thread. That seems so much simpler.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@simster

No idea - the point is only that it calls into question the honesty of the witness OR (as the prosecution said they were trying to do) call into the question the testimoney of the other expert as to his skills -

They (the prosecution) should have brought this up during initial -

Here’s the page -
http://www.kogym.com/zimmerman.htm

I don’t see this. It’s just PR. No potential member knew how well Zimmerman did and no one was trying to sign anyone up on that basis. It’s sort of like a celebrity endorsement, nothing more.

@Bricker

They may as well try, but since they argued at the trial’s midpoint that the jury should hear manslaughter but not second-degree murder, they’re almost estopped from now arguing that the evidence does not constitute manslaughter.

Perhaps you can clarify this a bit more.

I had thought the basis for such objections was that they tailored their defense to the charges in front of them. Had the charges been downgraded to manslaughter in mid-trial they would have defended against that, but it’s too late now.

Which is not to say that such an argument will be accepted - the judge could say that their self-defense argument works for both. (I’m not sure if that’s true, if manslaughter could be based on his actions prior to the actual altercation.) But I don’t see where estoppel comes into play - it’s a completely different situation.

[Terr]

Defense tried (yet again) to have Donnelly’s testimony (Vietnam vet testifying on Zimmerman’s screams) stricken, this time on sequestration violation. Nelson ruled that the sequestration was in fact violated, but Donnely’s being in the courtroom on those days didn’t change his testimony, and the violation was accidental (although the fault of the defense counsel). Testimony is not stricken and stands. No sanctions.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@simster

also just realized - all that arguing to get the MJ use in - and then not used - was it a distraction tactic by the defense?

I was wondering about this myself. I can think of two possibilities.

[ol]
[li]They were only going to introduce this evidence if they also won on the violent text messages, but once these were not permitted, they rejected that approach.[/li][li]They were never planning to introduce it, but fought it in the hope of losing and using it as grounds for an appeal in case of a guilty verdict.[/li][/ol]

Perhaps a litigator can comment on this angle.

[simster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t see this. It’s just PR. No potential member knew how well Zimmerman did and no one was trying to sign anyone up on that basis. It’s sort of like a celebrity endorsement, nothing more.Perhaps you can clarify this a bit more.

I don’t disagree - I think thats what the prosecution was arguing (or attempting to).

[Iggy]

@Terr

Defense tried (yet again) to have Donnelly’s testimony (Vietnam vet testifying on Zimmerman’s screams) stricken, this time on sequestration violation. Nelson ruled that the sequestration was in fact violated, but Donnely’s being in the courtroom on those days didn’t change his testimony, and the violation was accidental (although the fault of the defense counsel). Testimony is not stricken and stands. No sanctions.

<nitpick>
It was the prosecution trying to strike Donnelly’s testimony, not the defense.
</nitpick>

[doorhinge]

@Terr

Defense tried (yet again) to have Donnelly’s testimony (Vietnam vet testifying on Zimmerman’s screams) stricken, this time on sequestration violation. Nelson ruled that the sequestration was in fact violated, but Donnely’s being in the courtroom on those days didn’t change his testimony, and the violation was accidental (although the fault of the defense counsel). Testimony is not stricken and stands. No sanctions.

It’s the prosecution that has been trying to strike Donnelly’s testimony. The defense has been explaining to the judge why Donnelly’s testimony should be left in.

The prosecution was asking for sanctions against the defense team because they’re responsible for Donnelly’s actions.

[Terr]

@Iggy

<nitpick>
It was the prosecution trying to strike Donnelly’s testimony, not the defense.
</nitpick>

Oops.

[Terr]

Rebuttal phase is over (almost before it began). Jury instructions arguments, mostly about lesser included charges, start tomorrow 8:30. State closing tomorrow 1pm. Defense closing Friday morning.

[Loach]

@Honesty

Further, there’s not one single post here that refutes what the prosecution said, just a bunch of belly-aching how Zimmerman is a victim of the justice system.

You are really showing your bias. In this particular thread many, but not all, are looking at this like a sporting event with teams that we don’t have a rooting interest in. There are tons of posts which show that the prosecution is doing a bad job meeting their burden of proof. That you can’t see it shows your bias. I guarantee you have no idea what my opinion of Zimmerman is.

@Stoid

Actually, I was very puzzled about this thread being in IMHO - when we discussed having a “data only” Zimmerman Trial thread, I suggested putting it in GQ to keep it focused and fact-based around what was happening in the trial.

This thread got into opinions, arguments and tangents (not to mention “hey, watch me make fun of people!” ugliness) pretty much immediately.What a shock.

I still think that if there are people who just want to… I guess it’s to discuss/learn about actual events of the trial itself, without venturing into the facts and evidence that the trial is about, then there should be a GQ thread: Zimmerman Trial Updates:Hold The Opinions - Factual reporting of the trial activities only, no discussion that isn’t exclusively about the trial itself, no discussion of content except as it is about the way that content is being handled and presented in the trial itself.

Seems simple enough. Then just merge this with the old ZimArtin thread.

What is not to get? You think it should just be a reciting of what happened during the trial? Try CNN.com for that. This thread is to discuss things that happened during the trial, and then give opinions on what was happening* during the trial. * You certainly aren’t the only one who has drifted from that (on both sides of the issue) but you are the most vocal. I for one am not interested in the endless rehashing of the original two threads. The actual court proceedings and maneuvers are interesting.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

Here’s a question. It needs a bit of background, though.

In 2004, the State of Florida charged one Mark Fowler with murder based on his shooting of Samuel Dunbar, who was unarmed. Fowler claimed it was self-defense.

At the close of the prosecution’s case, the defense moved for a judgement of acquittal. They told Judge Morris Silberman that the prosecution had failed to make a legally sufficient case, since the prosecution had not disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge Silberman denied the motion. The defense put on their case, and renewed their motion at the end of their witnesses. Judge Silberman again denied it. The jury convicted Fowler, and Judge Silberman entered a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder.

On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed the record and found that no reasonable jury could have convicted Fowler, because the state did not disprove self-defense. They vacated his conviction and ordered him released.

Now the question: was Fowler legally guilty?

(I don’t know if Fowler ever molested his cousin.)

For shame, Bricker, this isn’t about this trial!

By the way, is this the question you were going to ask ME? And you have to read the case, not a summary.

[Loach]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I was wondering about this myself. I can think of two possibilities.

[ol]
[li]They were only going to introduce this evidence if they also won on the violent text messages, but once these were not permitted, they rejected that approach.[/li][li]They were never planning to introduce it, but fought it in the hope of losing and using it as grounds for an appeal in case of a guilty verdict.[/li][/ol]

Perhaps a litigator can comment on this angle.

I am certainly no litigator but #1 sounds likely. They may also have felt they made their point well enough and introducing another issue would just muddy up the water.

[Nars_Glinley]

@Nars_Glinley

The judge just asked GZ if he has decided if he will testify or not, over the repeated objection of his attorney. Is this SOP?

Bump. Anybody?

[Loach]

@Stoid

For shame, Bricker, this isn’t about this trial!

By the way, is this the question you were going to ask ME? And you have to read the case, not a summary.

I know you are at least half joking but it certainly is relevant. Its a similar case in Florida that set precedent.

[Iggy]

@Terr

Rebuttal phase is over (almost before it began). Jury instructions arguments, mostly about lesser included charges, start tomorrow 8:30. State closing tomorrow 1pm. Defense closing Friday morning.

So any bets on how fast the jury comes back? Could we have a verdict by end of business Friday?

[Loach]

@Iggy

So any bets on how fast the jury comes back? Could we have a verdict by end of business Friday?

I doubt it. Even if they didn’t follow the case before the trial they certainly know its a high profile case. They will take their time so as not to seem to rush to judgment.

Then again they have been sequestered and they wouldn’t want to be locked in over the weekend.

50/50

First thing tomorrow I bet there will be another request for a directed verdict of not guilty. I also bet it will be denied. No way an elected judge would want their name on that. There are times I’m glad our judges are not elected.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

It’s probably premature to speculate about this before we know whether manslaughter is on the table.

[Iggy]

At the very least I would push to deliberate through the weekend if I was on the jury. I would not want to sit sequestered twiddling my thumbs at some hotel knowing that we the jury already have all the testimony and evidence we are going to get.