Happened today already. Was denied.
Is that a trick question? I can’t determine. On one hand, I would wager “Yes” as he was tried among a jury of his peers (hopefully, not they weren’t all white females, but I digress), however, one could say “No” because the case shouldn’t have went to trial. I consider the latter a technicality, like the police inexplicably not giving a defendant his Miranda’s rights prior to questioning.
Here’s a shocker for you: if Zimmerman was convicted and later found innocent by a District Court. I’d be OK with that and call it something between a draw and a Pyrrhic victory. I guess it because it fits into my (subconscious?) viewpoint of how justice works against black people in this country. Zimmerman is going to walk one way or another, it’s the how our “unbiased” justice system will mete that out and makes this spectacle fascinating (if not mildly entertaining) to observe.
- Honesty
Zimmerman is part black.
You missed a post. No real surprise that he’s not taking the stand though.
What’s the reasoning behind this? It sounds like something that goes way back to common law?
Sorry, missed that.
Is a vacated conviction due to an appeal court handing down a judgment of acquittal a “Not Guilty” or a mistrial? IOW, can the state retry?
Manslaughter will almost certainly be in. They are also asking for aggravated assault, but I think the defense has a good argument against including it.
It’s “Not Guilty.” No retrial.
Why? Because in that particular case, the court is saying that the state never proved their case at the trial. They didn’t offer enough evidence for any reasonable jury to convict. So the fact that a jury did so anyway was error, and the legally correct result is to declare that the trial ended in an acquittal.
This is different than an appeals court ruling, for example, that the jury heard something they shouldn’t. Imagine a trial in which the jury heard about the defendant’s prior arrest record, and the prosecutor argued that they should compare that arrest to the present crime and find that he did the same thing again.
That’s improper, of course. But if the state also put up a sufficient case with other evidence, we’re left with two possibilities: the jury would have convicted anyway, or the jury would not have convicted except for the bad evidence.
When an appellate court sees that, they ask themselves: is there a reasonable probability that the jury might have acquitted without the bad evidence? If there is, they send the case back for retrial.
The idea is that the Fifth Amendment gives you an absolute right not to be forced to testify against yourself. But that’s counter-intuitive for many members of the public, who may say, “If he has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he get on the stand and tell his story?”
To lessen the chance of that happening, various prophylactic safeguards have been constructed. Any discussion about the accused not testifying must take place outside the hearing of the jury. The prosecutor is not permitted to argue that the accused hasn’t told the jury “his side.” He can’t call the accused to the stand or do anything to call attention to the accused’s failure to testify. All of these rules are intended to counter the natural feeling of, “Why doesn’t he just tell us what happened?”
Well, I did say “almost estopped.”
If they argue at the close of the prosecution’s case that the jury should hear only manslaughter, they are conceding that the prosecution made a legally sufficient case for manslaughter. It seems to me at least arguable that they are now equitably estopped from arguing that the prosecution did NOT make a case for manslaughter.
As may come as a surprise to few, the former Sanford Police Chief says they were pressured by city officials to make an arrest before the investigation was completed.
Also that he didn’t want the 911 tapes released before the end of the investigation. They were and that cocked up the voice identification.
Nothing good happens when the mayor gets involved in an active investigation.
Not to mention the governor of Florida personally intervening. The U.S. is supposed to be better than this. Politicians aren’t supposed to influence the criminal justice system. But, when the public gets angry, the politicians will sacrifice anyone.
I’m just so thankful the public provided the donations for Zimmerman to hire a quality lawyer and mount a good defense. I think he’d have a one way ticket to prison with a public defender.
Now it’s up to the jury.
I didn’t say Z wasn’t legally guilty I said “But this thread is about THE TRIAL, and as far as The Trial goes, it doesn’t look as if Z is legally guilty.”
You know, I simply based my post on what every single legal expert commentator has been saying- to wit the Prosecution has been weak and losing badly. In fact if you go back and read my last post I linked to their very comments.
So, altho I very very worried when the Prosecutor didn’t want to bring her case before a Grand Jury, I was still open for a conviction. Now? It seems very doubtful, since the States case is so very weak. Mind you, juries are funny things and you never know.
Still, no matter the verdict, the State’s case has been very weak.
Yes, and it should have gone to the Grand Jury. That was a bad move by the Prosecutor and appears political.
(Since I sat on the Grand Jury for a year, i think they are a great part of the American Justice system.)
So, a man is arrested, lucky to make bond, put on trial with a possible life sentence, hears a jury and judge pronounce him guilty and sentence him to life imprisonment, then spends the next few months to a year in jail when he finds out from a higher court that based upon the evidence the state had, he never should have been brought to trial to begin with.
That’s a technicality? I contend that it absolutely isn’t. Can you imagine the psychological torment of facing life in prison? That’s why we have a system that broke down here. The investigators didn’t think a crime happened, and the state’s attorney agreed, so it should have stopped there. A grand jury might have shut it down and it should have stopped there. When the state put on a case that even posters in this thread agree doesn’t prove no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge should have shut it down there.
Three to four different safeguards against this were bypassed because of political pressure, yet you contend that this is a 1950s style Emmett Till-type let a guy walk for murder?
I’m curious to finally hear the state’s theory in closing arguments. I’m not exactly sure what they are even trying to prove. They’ve made a big deal out of George targeting Trayvon, following him. Are they going to allege George confronted Trayon? Got in his face? They have to come up with some story for the jury to swallow. It’ll be interesting to find out what that is. Because the evidence doesn’t say very much.
I think the defense will portray George as a concerned citizen, that saw Trayvon in front of a house that George had called about a couple weeks earlier. He gets attacked and shoots in defense of his life. At least I think that’s the narrative the defense will use in closing. We’ll have to wait and see.
Jury instructions will be interesting. And truthfully you never know what will happen when a jury gets behind closed doors. I’m just glad there hasn’t been any jury drama. These high profile cases always seem to have some juror go kooky and have to be replaced by an alternate.
If Zimmerman walks it won’t be because Martin was black. It’ll have everything to do with Florida self defense statutes seriously stacking the deck against the prosecution.
I realize that he’s not testifying. I was more curious about the judge’s behavior. She seemed entitled to know ahead of time if he were testifying and it seemed that GZ’s attorneys were surprised by her request.