That’s a fine speech, but that’s not what I was asking.
If the DA is going after Joe Horn in front of the grand jury with the aim of prosecuting him, why would he mention anything other than, “Dude ganked them in the back.”
Why would he bring up - they didn’t stop when he told them to; the medical examiner couldn’t tell if they were really shot in the back; and there was a shiny knife in the lawn? That’s a shit load of exculpatory evidence. Why would something like that be presented to a grand jury?
If you haven’t noticed, this thread is over 1100 post longs. Either post the number of the post you think is relevant or quote the parts you think are relevant.
Not that it matters much–especially since I’m only going to be accused of being biased and angry–but I heard “coon” too. How anyone could hear “punk”, I don’t know. And yes, “coon” is still used. As is “jigaboo”, “porch monkey”, “pickaninny”, and “spook”. Some people have amazing vocabularies.
But it only matters what he said if they try to go at this from the hate crime angle. Which I would rather they not do.
(It’s okay for me to express this opinion, right? Or is even this too presumptuous on my part?)
Suppose a prosecutor has a case that he thinks he can’t win or doesn’t believe in? He can present the case as weakly as he chooses; after all, they operate in secrecy. It’s hardly infallible and there are a good reasons they aren’t used in many states or in any other common-law nation. Personally, I think they runn counter to defendants right to due process. Is it really even a jury if it only receives testimony from the prosecution? Beyond that, the “jury” isn’t selected in the same manner of a trial jury. Pretty much any yahoo can sit on a grand jury without their prejudices and biases being challenged.
ETA: Of course, the scenario I mentioned can obviously (and often does) work the other way around, wherein the prosecutor trumps up a weak case to get an indictment.
Sounds like fucking corpse to me (using headphones) so I would interpret that as fucking cops. Also sounds like bleed through from what the dispatcher said but that would mean they’re using magnetic tape.
Yes, there is, but this doesn’t fit it. The dying declaration applies when the declarant is near death, knows he is near death, and is speaking about who wounded or injured him.
Oh and also, the GJ has two other tools: they can say “Ok Jerkwad, so No Bill for you!”. :p(unlikely) or they can simply use their powers of subpeona to get all the witnesses in they want, and grill them as they please, and no “taking the 5th” during a GJ questioning (there are certain exceptions to this, I’ll leave those to our legal beagles to explain). The GJ also doesn’t sit there like so many bobble-heads, they are free to ask whatever questions they want.
So, IF the Grand Jury comes back with no indictment In this Zimmerman case, it means to me that they were presented with evidence that has not been (and likely will not be) presented to the public, and that evidence made it clear the case against Zimmerman was extremely weak. To weak to even bring charges.
Certainly they will get evidence we will not read about.
But it won’t nessesarily mean that SYG had anything to do with their decision.
Nw, if it goes to a trial and then a jury, we will find out how heavily the Defense relies upon SYG. Post-trial interviews may even reveal how convincing that was to the jury.
The fact that we’ve had a trillion page long discussion about this case indicates that something is not right. If it weren’t for SYG, no one but the people involved would even know about this thing.
I’ve learned enough about SYG to feel comfortable condemning it, thankyouverymuch.
No, darling, it does not. All it indicates is that people in general, and Dopers in this specific, are willing to repeat themselves endlessly in an on-line argument. If we cut the repetition and rephrasing, this thread is only a page or two of substantive posts.
It seems to this amateur legal sleuth that Trayvon’s statement to his girlfriend falls under one or all of these categories. Trayvon was describing an event that was happening to him at precisely the time that he was perceiving it.