Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Professor Baxter said:
Not at all. I have yet to do so. I am saying the defense's evidence is inconclusive.

Meanwhile, what you are doing is bit more than speculating. You are imagining things for which there is no proof.
Click to expand...

And now you admit you're speculating.
Thanks for participating and better luck, next time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just watched the whole walk through, and the first interview with Zim after the murder. He's screwed. None of it is believable.

He claims at the walk through that he called the non em. number to let them know that he lost Martin. This, after he walked past the spot where the attack supposedly took place. Seconds later, when Martin approaches him, he can't find his phone?

According to Zimmerman, Martin was covering his mouth/nose, shoving him, and reaching for the gun all at the same time.

How can you see a gun in the pitch dark, when you're straddling a guy near his chest?
 
Professor Baxter said:
There is no need to prove he's lying. There are many inconsistencies in his story, though.
Click to expand...
No way to prove he's lying? The Hannity interview is pretty damning, when coupled with Zim's professor's testimony. You'll note the ease at which he looks right at Hannity, and lies through his teeth. The jury can certainly assume that he's lying about all of his perfectly crafted scenario.
 
Althea said:
Just watched the whole walk through, and the first interview with Zim after the murder. He's screwed. None of it is believable.

He claims at the walk through that he called the non em. number to let them know that he lost Martin. This, after he walked past the spot where the attack supposedly took place. Seconds later, when Martin approaches him, he can't find his phone?

According to Zimmerman, Martin was covering his mouth/nose, shoving him, and reaching for the gun all at the same time.

How can you see a gun in the pitch dark, when you're straddling a guy near his chest?
Click to expand...

open offer of a 3 month ban bet for anyone that thinks he is going to get a 2nd degree conviction.

If I lose, I will temp demod myself and ban myself from JPP. The same will happen to the other party if they lose.. 3 month ban. Let me know. Imagine 3 months with NO GRIND!!!!
 
Pete Campbell said:
open offer of a 3 month ban bet for anyone that thinks he is going to get a 2nd degree conviction.

If I lose, I will temp demod myself and ban myself from JPP. The same will happen to the other party if they lose.. 3 month ban. Let me know. Imagine 3 months with NO GRIND!!!!
Click to expand...
What about a manslaughter conviction?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What about a manslaughter conviction?
Click to expand...

nah that's riskier. I am afraid there could be some jury members that want not guilty, some that want 2nd degree, and they "compromise" on manslaughter even though they shouldn't. that could be just as bad as a 2nd degree. Less confident about manslaughter.
 
Althea said:
No way to prove he's lying? The Hannity interview is pretty damning, when coupled with Zim's professor's testimony. You'll note the ease at which he looks right at Hannity, and lies through his teeth. The jury can certainly assume that he's lying about all of his perfectly crafted scenario.
Click to expand...

I said there is no need to not that there is no way to. I expect the prosecution is going to list his many lies, discrepancies and falsehoods in closing and if done well, it could be enough to secure the conviction.
 
Pete Campbell said:
open offer of a 3 month ban bet for anyone that thinks he is going to get a 2nd degree conviction.

If I lose, I will temp demod myself and ban myself from JPP. The same will happen to the other party if they lose.. 3 month ban. Let me know. Imagine 3 months with NO GRIND!!!!
Click to expand...
They can't prove depraved indifference. They'll get manslaughter, if they get anything.

Zimmerman either ends up in jail, or ends up with a bullet in the brain.

Unless he tours the world w/Snowden.
 
Abatis said:
Wrong.

There is no comparable, significant burden of proof on Zimmerman's claim of self defense.

Zimmerman's burden really just comes down to plausibility; whether his claims MIGHT be true . . .

Zimmerman has offered his account and that has been shown to the jury. The re-enactment / walk-though video is the most significant.

Since Zimmerman claims that he acted in self-defense the jury must consider that affirmative defense against the prosecution's evidence and witnesses.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida has said:



"[D]id [the defendant] also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)​




In light of Murry (and Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011)*) standard jury instructions now include:



"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."​



So, just not believing Zimmerman isn't enough; the state must still make its burden proving all the elements of the charges.



*In Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated, "The inclusion of the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse."
Click to expand...
I know that the state still must meet it's burden to prove all the elements of the charged offensive you dolt, but they don't have ANY burden to disprove the defense of self defense. That is why it is called a shifting burden, affirmative defenses require nothing of the state. And I have already much earlier pointed out that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But his defense MUST be reasonable. He couldn't say Martin was a big black kid so he shot him, that is not reasonable.
 
i imagine zimmerman winning his lawsuit against nbc, winning millions, and chilling in the bahamas for the rest of his life.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OK; so is it reasonable to think that your life is in imminent danger, while someone is sitting on your chest and pounding your head into the sidewalk?
Click to expand...
The only testimony we have that his head was "pounded" into the sidewalk is Zimmerman's. Medical evidence does not comport with a repeated pounding, and whatever happened to Zimmerman's head it was not severe enough to cause a concussion. Being afraid that a black kid was sitting on your chest giving you an ass whooping is not the same as being in fear of your life.
 
Pete Campbell said:
i imagine zimmerman winning his lawsuit against nbc, winning millions, and chilling in the bahamas for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

the two of you running arm in arm down the beach, you with a fetus necklace, him with his fond memories of the punk that didn't get away...
 
Socrtease said:
The only testimony we have that his head was "pounded" into the sidewalk is Zimmerman's. Medical evidence does not comport with a repeated pounding, and whatever happened to Zimmerman's head it was not severe enough to cause a concussion. Being afraid that a black kid was sitting on your chest giving you an ass whooping is not the same as being in fear of your life.
Click to expand...

I see; so you believe that either Martin told him, or Zimmerman all ready knew, that Martin's assualt wasn't going to be that serious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top