unanimous.
I haven’t had a chance to watch much of the trial live until today. I just watched the Prosecutions closing statements. That guy came across as unhinged. He spoke with this exacerbated tone that was really off-putting. Was he like this the whole trial?
He was carrying on and on about there nothing being wrong with forming a neighborhood watch but there is NO CRIME, and he means NONE AT ALL about buying skittles and “some kind of tea-drink”. He was carrying on about that and repeating himself forever.
Is this how these things normally go? If I were on the jury I’d have a hard time not rolling my eyes at that clown.
It must be unanimous.
In some other states, a super-majority can convict. But Florida requires unanimity, and even if it didn’t, the Supreme Court does: because Florida uses only a six member jury, the Supreme Court says it must be unanimous.
Okay, my fault. The radio said the judge allowed what I said above, but I just heard she denied the prosecutions request to let the jury consider child abuse charges. I still stand by my thought that the prosecution doesn’t think It can win a murder conviction hence trying to sneak in a lesser charge hoping for any conviction. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The prosecution’s closing argument revisited the claim that not knowing the street names in the neighborhood was somehow suspicious.
In my job as a 9-1-1 operator I look at maps very frequently throughout the day. I’ve been in this same job for 7 years. I know the name of the road I live on and the name of the cross street going one direction from my house.
I just had to look up the name of the nearest cross street to my house going the other direction (the same way I drive going to work). I have driven past that intersection, which does have a street sign, at least twice every work day - well more than a thousand times.
I looked up that road name to provide directions to a police officer who regularly patrols that area. I didn’t know the name of that road. I would not expect any better of Zimmerman.
Yeah, and I just moved into my new house two months ago and I know ever major street within a half-mile of my place. What’s that axiom about anecdotes and evidence again?
The prosecutor in closing keeps asking questions. “Was Martin trying to protect himself from that gun?” “Was there a struggle for the gun?” “Were the two rolling on the ground, one on top at one time and another on top at another?” “Did Martin see the gun?”.
Questions show reasonable doubt. Prosecution in closing has to state how things happened, not ask questions about how things happened. Just shows how tenuous and thin the prosecution case was.
Thanks. Followup questoin then.
Presuming that I’m one juror and DragonAsh is another. Is there a time limit before the jury must be declared hung? Or could the judge keep us sequestered indefinately?
The question is to show that Martin had as much to fear from Zimmerman as anything - there is no ‘doubt’ that Zimmerman killed Martin - the prosecution is trying to blow apart (with reasonable doubt) his ‘self defense’ claim.
In theory, indefinitely. In practice, if the jury says they are hopelessly deadlocked, there isn’t much the judge can do further. Here is a case (or a plea?) you should look at, it is illustrative of these kinds of things:
Very bad tactic. Closing should remind the jury about all of the evidence that was presented (especially in a long trial) and tie it all together with all of the elements of the crime. Questions should be the last thing that should be brought up.
Again, you don’t “blow apart” the self-defense claim with “reasonable doubt”. That is not how it is supposed to work. The “reasonable doubt” works for the defendant, not for the prosecution.
3 prepared meals per day and somebody else makes the bed and does the laundry. What’s not to like? And one of the jurors has 8 kids. :eek: I only raised 3 and had my hands full.
If I was on the jury, I would drag the jury deliberations out for at least a week.
There is no bright line rule.
After several days, if the jury is not close to a verdict, the judge may urge them along with what’s called an Allen charge. The precise wording varies from state to state, but in general the judge says something like:
“You have heard all the evidence in this case. A considerable amount of time and money has been spent on this trial. There is no reason to assume that another trial would involve any different evidence or that another group of jurors would be better equipped to decide this case. I ask you to return to deliberations, giving careful considerations to each others views, and try to reach a verdict.”
You (prosecution) has to ‘prove’ elements for self defense (as claimed by the defendant) did not exist - since that is very hard to prove ‘objectively’ (fear being a very subjective element) - they also have to atleast attempt to show that the other party ‘may have’ been doing the same thing.
I get your point - but I think that is a fair way of stating what the prosecution is attempting to do with that tactic (good or bad) is to disprove the elements of self defense (by GZ) by showing that Martin had just as much to fear as well as painting GZ as the aggressor in the fight.
If the jury does not buy ‘self defense’ by the defense - then they have plenty of reason to convict on M2 or Manslaughter. (I assume the difference between the two from the jury instructions is likely down to ‘ill will’).
Exactly how is “the other party doing the same thing” relevant to the self-defense claim (or fear) of the first party?
See my above question. The two are not relevant to each other.
What do you believe, specifically, is the legal relevance of showing that Martin had just as much to fear?
I’m sure the jurors all have bills to pay. I don’t know how generous the state of Florida is, but if they’re anything like my state (Michigan), the stipend paid to jurors is a joke, little more than a token payment. The financial hardship involved with being on a jury is why so many people try their hardest to stay off one. Your employer can’t fire you for being on a jury, but they don’t have to pay you for the work you aren’t doing.
I’m not going to debate this - I’m simply stating that this is my opinion of what the Prosecution is attempting to do - to cast enough doubt on GZ’s claim of self defense as well as paint him as the aggressor in the confrontation - already possibly armed (gun drawn) and the confrontation was TM defending himself.
Wether or not, as Zimmerman ‘started’ to lose the battle that then gave him the right to ‘self defense’ and ‘kill’ the person he attacked - is a matter for the jury.
I understand that the way the law is written, the loser of the fight that he picked can use ‘deadly force’ to end the confrontation if he then fears for his life.
eta - “right to self defense” is not the correct wording - he clearly has the ‘right’, its wether or not the jury believes his claim given the evidence -the prosecuion is attempting to cast doubt on GZ’s claims.
Not sure I can answer that - see my other response (to Terr) for a possibility.