Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

canceled.2021.1

#AMERICAISDEAD
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/u...gard-comments.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0

So the judge has told the jurors to disregard the testimony, but can they really forget? Isn't the damage to the prosecution already done?

The sad thing is that despite the weak ass case the prosecution is bringing, I am still not certain Zimmerman will be acquitted. Should he be based on evidence and not raw race fueled emotion? Yes. Any rational, thinking being not clouded by race can see that the evidence does not support 2nd degree murder. But, we aren't dealing with rational people. The flames have been stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, B. Hussein Obama, and on this board Poet and BAC who apparently thinks that by not demanding Zimmerman be hung from a tree means you are defending "racist murder". What a dishonest argument to say the least.

This should have never come to trial.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how the fuck??? what case law to disregard the officers comments?? our court system is a fucking joke anymore.
Click to expand...


The fuck are you babbling about? The testimony should have been excluded in the first instance. The appropriate remedy is a motion to strike the testimony coupled with a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the stricken testimony.

That's, like, how it's worked for quite a while now, yo.
 
Dungheap said:
The fuck are you babbling about? The testimony should have been excluded in the first instance. The appropriate remedy is a motion to strike the testimony coupled with a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the stricken testimony.

That's, like, how it's worked for quite a while now, yo.
Click to expand...

so see if you can set us straight.....the prosecution called a witness ( a cop no less) and found that his testimony scuttled their case, so a motion to strike their own witnesses testimony is made based on prior case law????? again, our court system is a fucking joke and we should just abandon it now.
 
Superfreak said:
I have ILA on ignore... could someone post the link to whatever it is you are referring to? Thanks!
Click to expand...

ILA said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/u...gard-comments.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0

So the judge has told the jurors to disregard the testimony, but can they really forget? Isn't the damage to the prosecution already done?

The sad thing is that despite the weak ass case the prosecution is bringing, I am still not certain Zimmerman will be acquitted. Should he be based on evidence and not raw race fueled emotion? Yes. Any rational, thinking being not clouded by race can see that the evidence does not support 2nd degree murder. But, we aren't dealing with rational people. The flames have been stoked by the likes of Al Sharpton, B. Hussein Obama, and on this board Poet and BAC who apparently thinks that by not demanding Zimmerman be hung from a tree means you are defending "racist murder". What a dishonest argument to say the least.

This should have never come to trial.
Click to expand...

there ya be
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so see if you can set us straight.....the prosecution called a witness ( a cop no less) and found that his testimony scuttled their case, so a motion to strike their own witnesses testimony is made based on prior case law????? again, our court system is a fucking joke and we should just abandon it now.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you believe it is significant that the prosecution called the wintess. I mean, yes, it seems to be unusual for the a lawyer to move to strike the testimony of a witness that the lawyer called, but as I understand it there in nothing in the rules of evidence that turns inadmissible testimony into admissible testimony based on who called the witness to testify.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know why you believe it is significant that the prosecution called the wintess. I mean, yes, it seems to be unusual for the a lawyer to move to strike the testimony of a witness that the lawyer called, but as I understand it there in nothing in the rules of evidence that turns inadmissible testimony into admissible testimony based on who called the witness to testify.
Click to expand...

yet that makes sense to you in the realm of justice?
 
there is a child dead who did NOTHING to deserve being killed.



Only a sociopath would say there should be no trial
 
If your daughter is followed by a man with a gun in the dark Im sure you wouldn't mind if that man shoots her because he thinks shes scary.

stupid prejudiced right just gets EVERYTHING wrong
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know what "realm of justice" means, but, yes, that makes sense to me. Witnesses aren't puppets.
Click to expand...

it makes sense to you to have court rules and case law to instruct jurors to disregard witness testimony, under oath, simply because it is devastating to a particular lawyers case? no wonder our courts are fucked.
 
I would find it very easy to ignore the statements of these lousy cops on whether Zimmerman seemed to be telling the truth.

According to Zimmerman, Martin jumped out of bushes that did not exist but the discrepancies in Zimmerman's story were slight??? What! You watch that walkthrough and it seems obvious the cops were not really looking for holes in his claims.
 
which is why I was banned at the other site.

Idiots hating their idiocy laid bare all day long
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it makes sense to you to have court rules and case law to instruct jurors to disregard witness testimony, under oath, simply because it is devastating to a particular lawyers case? no wonder our courts are fucked.
Click to expand...


No, it makes sense to me to have a court rule that improper testimony should be stricken from the record and to instruct the jury to disregard the improper testimony because the testimony is improper and not admissible evidence.
 
The bell is rung, but it will give jurors who want to ignore it the out to do so.

If a witness gives testimony that is otherwise inadmissible, the fact that the witness was your witness does not then make the testimony relevant.

Now if you intentionally elicited that testimony, you might have a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top