RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option

RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 7:28:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Yep, that's the only hope for a conviction, is if the jury rules by emotion and not by law. But if that happens, Nelson has made so much reversible error that the conviction getting overturned is guaranteed. Could you name one reversible error in this trial that has gone against Zimmerman? Might not be a reversible error that has gone against Zimmerman but it certainly has been unfair to Zimmerman that Martin's parents have been allowed to sit in the gallery during the trial but not Zimmerman's parents. Also not fair to Zimmerman that the prosecution was allowed to use some of his personal background as evidence of his state of mind that night but the defense won't be able to use any of Martin's personal background as evidence of his state of mind that night.

RacerJim -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 7:31:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Yes but I think the prosecution blew it but I am not totally sure. The prosecution's witnesses actually made a better case for the defense.

tj444 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 7:38:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim it certainly has been unfair to Zimmerman it certainly was unfair to Martin that Zimmy had a gun on that night.. [8\|]

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 7:53:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ] Judges have wide discretion on managing their calendar. I doubt you'll find actual appellate precedent saying otherwise. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1108370381153958970 quote: You'll have to be more specific. From all appearances no exculpatory evidence has been withheld. There is the Richardson hearing delayed until after trial in which the State had reports about the info pulled from Trayvon's phone, then lied in court claiming they didn't, then was caught when a state employee became a whistle blower. quote: This is called victim blaming and is pretty much never allowed. Anyway it is irrelevant to the case in question. The judge rightfully ruled all that stuff was prejudicial. Untrue.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 7:56:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Yep, that's the only hope for a conviction, is if the jury rules by emotion and not by law. But if that happens, Nelson has made so much reversible error that the conviction getting overturned is guaranteed. Could you name one reversible error in this trial that has gone against Zimmerman? Might not be a reversible error that has gone against Zimmerman but it certainly has been unfair to Zimmerman that Martin's parents have been allowed to sit in the gallery during the trial but not Zimmerman's parents. Also not fair to Zimmerman that the prosecution was allowed to use some of his personal background as evidence of his state of mind that night but the defense won't be able to use any of Martin's personal background as evidence of his state of mind that night. Diana Tennis mentioned she thinks letting in George's college records is reversible error. And Hornsby has been quite vocal about the number of times the State has opened the door on both Trayvon's drug use that night, and his history fighting.

TheHeretic -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 9:06:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD that sounds like we can't prove anything but let's convict him anyway. I disagree. 2nd degree murder was an over the top charge for this case to begin with. What I find lacking, again and again, among the "Zimmerman did nothing wrong" crowd, is any empathy whatsoever for the victim, and the circumstances he found himself in, prior to jumping the creepy ass cracker who was stalking him. There doesn't seem to be any comprehension that this young man had every right to wander around, and take his time getting back from the store, and that in a "stand your ground" culture he should not have been expected to just run home when some pervert kept staring at him. We will hear that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch, to justify the stalking, but few acknowledgements that neighborhood watch are not supposed to be armed in the first place. I don't think either of the players that night were perfect little angels, or despicable demons. Bad shit happened that night, and bad choices Zimmerman made led to it. Manslaughter/negligent homicide seems to me to most appropriate charge in the case, and I think that option should be there for the jury.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 9:09:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ] Judges have wide discretion on managing their calendar. I doubt you'll find actual appellate precedent saying otherwise. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1108370381153958970 And you think that is comparable? Really? quote: quote: You'll have to be more specific. From all appearances no exculpatory evidence has been withheld. There is the Richardson hearing delayed until after trial in which the State had reports about the info pulled from Trayvon's phone, then lied in court claiming they didn't, then was caught when a state employee became a whistle blower. Not sure how any info on Martin's phone is exculpatory (if you're talking about the defense trying to use his texts and pics to victim blame you are simply going to have to accept judges do not allow that stuff at trial). If the discovery issue is about the phone as well I'll pretty much guarantee that is a sure loser. Defense attorneys simply are not allowed to victim blame as part of their defense without much better evidence than what their is about martin. quote: quote: This is called victim blaming and is pretty much never allowed. Anyway it is irrelevant to the case in question. The judge rightfully ruled all that stuff was prejudicial. Untrue. No. It is very true. Victim blaming is one of those things well known to be prejudicial of a fair trial and is very rarely allowed in trials now a days.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 9:11:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Diana Tennis mentioned she thinks letting in George's college records is reversible error. Well she is full of shit. Zimmerman made claims that directly pertain to those records so they can be used to impeach those claims. quote: And Hornsby has been quite vocal about the number of times the State has opened the door on both Trayvon's drug use that night, and his history fighting. Martin is not on trial. Zimmerman is.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 9:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Manslaughter/negligent homicide seems to me to most appropriate charge in the case, and I think that option should be there for the jury. It is. In Florida a whole bunch of lesser charges are always included with any felony indictment.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 9:29:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And you think that is comparable? Really? Absolutely it is. quote: Not sure how any info on Martin's phone is exculpatory (if you're talking about the defense trying to use his texts and pics to victim blame you are simply going to have to accept judges do not allow that stuff at trial). If the discovery issue is about the phone as well I'll pretty much guarantee that is a sure loser. Again, untrue. Florida rules of evidence explicitly state that evidence of a victim's reputation of violence is admissible, even if the defendant doesn't know the victim, because it goes to likelihood as to the victim being the aggressor. The jury is also allowed to compare physical abilities of the two, so experience fighting directly is on point. O'Mara also gave case law in court showing that impairment of the victim is admissible, so when Bao proffered his opinion that Trayvon was probably impaired from marijuana use, that should have come in.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 10:40:47 AM)
Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact. Since Zimmerman had no way of knowing that information on that night, it falls into the same category as rape victim's prior sexual history. quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And you think that is comparable? Really? Absolutely it is. quote: Not sure how any info on Martin's phone is exculpatory (if you're talking about the defense trying to use his texts and pics to victim blame you are simply going to have to accept judges do not allow that stuff at trial). If the discovery issue is about the phone as well I'll pretty much guarantee that is a sure loser. Again, untrue. Florida rules of evidence explicitly state that evidence of a victim's reputation of violence is admissible, even if the defendant doesn't know the victim, because it goes to likelihood as to the victim being the aggressor. The jury is also allowed to compare physical abilities of the two, so experience fighting directly is on point. O'Mara also gave case law in court showing that impairment of the victim is admissible, so when Bao proffered his opinion that Trayvon was probably impaired from marijuana use, that should have come in.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 10:44:02 AM)
Really? And did they go over Martin being shot from several feet away in the opening too? Or are you simply making all of this up? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's already a lesser-included offense, so the option's always been there. BUT since Zimmerman killed someone under 18, the mandatory minimums are the same, 25 to life, and by charging 2nd degree, they avoid having to prove that Zimmerman's use of deadly force wasn't explicitly justified. ( an element in manslaughter )... This way, the Defense needs to bring it to the table. Subtle, but relevant in the charging phase. They also clearly demonstrated the 'Ill Will' component using Zimmerman's own words on the 911 tape. There IS a case for 2nd. could you please show a link or something that confirms this, not saying you are wrong, but its the first I have heard there were multiple charges Did you see the evidence of Zimmerman going all 'They always get away', and going after Martin after being told that he didn't need to do that? The idea that Zimmerman didn't know what of the THREE STREETS he was 'neighborhood watch captain' for is laughable. The idea that Zimmerman couldn't see the clearly visible house numbers is laughable. Given that Zimmerman's story about WHY he was wandering around that night is laughable, we're just going to have to go with his general frustration and his amphetamine high getting the better of his judgement and he went with his anger. Do try to keep up during the summations. They went over all this in the opening, too.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 10:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact. Which is part of the reason for the rules of evidence, to decide what is probative vs. Prejudicial. And Florida has decided that the defendant need not know of the victim's reputation for violence for it to be admissible, as it does not pertain to the defendant's fear of the victim, but the possibility that the victim was the aggressor.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:05:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Really? And did they go over Martin being shot from several feet away in the opening too? Or are you simply making all of this up? There are a few people on both sides making things up.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:06:25 AM)
In Florida, when the defendant is charged with a violent crime, self defense is a common defense. If it can be established that the victim has a history of violence and the defendant was aware of this violent history, the criminal defense lawyer can bring out that evidence about the alleged victim at the trial for the jury to consider. The idea is that a self defense claim asserts that the defendant had a reason to believe that he/she was in danger based on the violent and/or threatening conduct of the alleged victim. Where the defendant knows that the alleged victim has a history violent conduct, that is relevant to establish that the defendant had reason to believe that the alleged victim was being, or was about to be, similarly violent in this case. Such evidence is relevant to show the state of mind of the defendant and to justify the defendant's reasonable fear of the alleged victim and the defendant's use of violence to defend him/herself from the alleged victim. http://www.jacksonvillecriminallawyerblog.com/2010/06/alleged_victims_prior_violence.html

kdsub -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:11:50 AM)
quote: in a "stand your ground" culture he should not have been expected to just run home when some pervert kept staring at him. To me the above tells the whole story... It is the law that enabled this confrontation under these circumstances. Both had reason to stand their ground and were both equally at fault in the result...And this being the case no charges, which was the first reaction by the police, was the correct one. Again to me it would be compounding the tragedy, for the powers that brought pressure to prosecute, to convict Zimmerman to keep there from being a backlash over their dumb assed law. Butch

Rule -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:14:59 AM)
If only someone had killed Zimmerman the day before, then we could be certain that he was not responsible for the subsequent wave of burglaries...

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:19:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact. Which is part of the reason for the rules of evidence, to decide what is probative vs. Prejudicial. And Florida has decided that the defendant need not know of the victim's reputation for violence for it to be admissible, as it does not pertain to the defendant's fear of the victim, but the possibility that the victim was the aggressor. And just to add a source for that, in Dwyer vs. State, the appellate court wrote: Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987). A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits. And Smith vs. State: Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:43:10 AM)
Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer. “All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?” Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1& Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 11:55:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact. Which is part of the reason for the rules of evidence, to decide what is probative vs. Prejudicial. And Florida has decided that the defendant need not know of the victim's reputation for violence for it to be admissible, as it does not pertain to the defendant's fear of the victim, but the possibility that the victim was the aggressor. And just to add a source for that, in Dwyer vs. State, the appellate court wrote: Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987). A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits. And Smith vs. State: Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980) So the phone is inadmissible. The only way the defense can bring in evidence that Martin has a history of violence is to produce a witness that can be cross examined. Remember the later appellate ruling modifies the earlier.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625