quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

And in FLA, you don't have to prove self defense, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. So, not only is the witness dead, but the killer can also hide behind the 5th Amendment and make assertions of self defense before the trial that can't be actively cross examined.

The prosecution made a serious blunder playing all of the police interview with Zimmerman. they should have just shown the excerpts that could be proven to be lies. The defense could not enter those tapes as evidence which would have functionally forced Zimmerman to testify and that would have probably been the end of the case as Zimmerman's many lies and use of psychoactive drugs would have come in during cross examination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

And what part of Zimmerman's unproveable claims should be considered when establishing that Zimmerman lied? You'd need some part of those tapes that could be established to be a proven fact and there weren't any of those.

The prosecution could have shown just the segments where he lied and the defense would have had no recourse unless they put Zimmerman on the stand or if the prosecution had an investigator testify to the wild ass shit he claimed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

FR re: the cost

Just heard this on CNN . . . a major portion of the cost for this trial went to the sequestration of the Jury . . . putting them up in a hotel, paying overtime for their minders, paying for their meals, and taking them on outings . . one to St Augustine for example.

So, that makes sense $$$$$$$$$$$$

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

There's been a lot of talk about racial discrimination in the Zimmerman case. But there's a very serious bias that is not discussed.

Zimmerman is alive. Martin is not. Under the current US justice system of "innocent until proven guilty", the fact that the deceased cannot provide evidence is HUGE.

Is there any way to counter the fact that a survivor has a big advantage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Uh, no. Not the defense's place to prove anything. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. They bore the burden of proof.

Well, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights . . . to give the individual the ability to stand somewhat equally against the enormous power and resource of the state. Why would you wish to change that? The number of wrongfully accused and sentenced to death bears witness to prosecutorial error and in some cases criminal practices. See: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

There's been a lot of talk about racial discrimination in the Zimmerman case. But there's a very serious bias that is not discussed.

Zimmerman is alive. Martin is not. Under the current US justice system of "innocent until proven guilty", the fact that the deceased cannot provide evidence is HUGE.

Is there any way to counter the fact that a survivor has a big advantage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Uh, no. Not the defense's place to prove anything. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. They bore the burden of proof.

Well, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights . . . to give the individual the ability to stand somewhat equally against the enormous power and resource of the state. Why would you wish to change that? The number of wrongfully accused and sentenced to death bears witness to prosecutorial error and in some cases criminal practices. See: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Uh, no. Not the defense's place to prove anything. The prosecution failed to prove his guilt, at least beyond a reasonable doubt. They bore the burden of proof.

Well, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights . . . to give the individual the ability to stand somewhat equally against the enormous power and resource of the state. Why would you wish to change that? The number of wrongfully accused and sentenced to death bears witness to prosecutorial error and in some cases criminal practices. See: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

The majority of those convictions would never hold up today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

And in FLA, you don't have to prove self defense, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. So, not only is the witness dead, but the killer can also hide behind the 5th Amendment and make assertions of self defense before the trial that can't be actively cross examined.

The prosecution made a serious blunder playing all of the police interview with Zimmerman. they should have just shown the excerpts that could be proven to be lies. The defense could not enter those tapes as evidence which would have functionally forced Zimmerman to testify and that would have probably been the end of the case as Zimmerman's many lies and use of psychoactive drugs would have come in during cross examination.

So the prosecution should have edited the recordings to make it look like different than it was, as long as they got Zimmerman. Would you be so positive about the defense doctoring evidence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

And what part of Zimmerman's unproveable claims should be considered when establishing that Zimmerman lied? You'd need some part of those tapes that could be established to be a proven fact and there weren't any of those.

The prosecution could have shown just the segments where he lied and the defense would have had no recourse unless they put Zimmerman on the stand or if the prosecution had an investigator testify to the wild ass shit he claimed.

Except the statute clearly says by playing part of a tape, the adverse party can insist the rest be played. Hence, why the whole statements were played.

And the investigators were largely out, because they both testified that inconsistencies like Zimmerman's were normal, especially after trauma, and didn't strike them as reason for concern.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

And in FLA, you don't have to prove self defense, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. So, not only is the witness dead, but the killer can also hide behind the 5th Amendment and make assertions of self defense before the trial that can't be actively cross examined.

The prosecution made a serious blunder playing all of the police interview with Zimmerman. they should have just shown the excerpts that could be proven to be lies. The defense could not enter those tapes as evidence which would have functionally forced Zimmerman to testify and that would have probably been the end of the case as Zimmerman's many lies and use of psychoactive drugs would have come in during cross examination.

So the prosecution should have edited the recordings to make it look like different than it was, as long as they got Zimmerman. Would you be so positive about the defense doctoring evidence?

Where did I say anything like that?

Zimmerman is on various video tapes telling lies. Those were proven during the trial. How would simply not showing his unproveable assertions be doctoring evidence?

quote:

Probably they would not even be arrested. The point is however that the Justice System is host to a variety of human beings . . on the one hand judges, prosecutors, and police who have their own career agenda or may just be plain venal. On the other hand defense lawyers in private practice or public defenders who are overworked, under-compensated, incompetant, lazy, or don't give a shit. In the midst of this circus of fallible law practitioners stands the defendent whose liberty is at stake. So, let's not talk about taking away the so called advantages of the accused. Please!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

And in FLA, you don't have to prove self defense, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. So, not only is the witness dead, but the killer can also hide behind the 5th Amendment and make assertions of self defense before the trial that can't be actively cross examined.

The prosecution made a serious blunder playing all of the police interview with Zimmerman. they should have just shown the excerpts that could be proven to be lies. The defense could not enter those tapes as evidence which would have functionally forced Zimmerman to testify and that would have probably been the end of the case as Zimmerman's many lies and use of psychoactive drugs would have come in during cross examination.

So the prosecution should have edited the recordings to make it look like different than it was, as long as they got Zimmerman. Would you be so positive about the defense doctoring evidence?

Where did I say anything like that?

Zimmerman is on various video tapes telling lies. Those were proven during the trial. How would simply not showing his unproveable assertions be doctoring evidence?

By editing them to help your case and in case it hasn't occurred to you that is doctoring by changing context, much like NBC did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Probably they would not even be arrested. The point is however that the Justice System is host to a variety of human beings . . on the one hand judges, prosecutors, and police who have their own career agenda or may just be plain venal. On the other hand defense lawyers in private practice or public defenders who are overworked, under-compensated, incompetant, lazy, or don't give a shit. In the midst of this circus of fallible law practitioners stands the defendent whose liberty is at stake. So, let's not talk about taking away the so called advantages of the accused. Please!

What advantages did I say we were taking away?

quote:

Well, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights . . . to give the individual the ability to stand somewhat equally against the enormous power and resource of the state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

And in FLA, you don't have to prove self defense, the state has to prove that it wasn't self defense. So, not only is the witness dead, but the killer can also hide behind the 5th Amendment and make assertions of self defense before the trial that can't be actively cross examined.

The prosecution made a serious blunder playing all of the police interview with Zimmerman. they should have just shown the excerpts that could be proven to be lies. The defense could not enter those tapes as evidence which would have functionally forced Zimmerman to testify and that would have probably been the end of the case as Zimmerman's many lies and use of psychoactive drugs would have come in during cross examination.

So the prosecution should have edited the recordings to make it look like different than it was, as long as they got Zimmerman. Would you be so positive about the defense doctoring evidence?

Where did I say anything like that?

Zimmerman is on various video tapes telling lies. Those were proven during the trial. How would simply not showing his unproveable assertions be doctoring evidence?

By editing them to help your case and in case it hasn't occurred to you that is doctoring by changing context, much like NBC did.

Nope. Showing the statements that are provably false changes no context.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Given enough tape you can edit it to "prove MLK was proslavery.
And if edited bits would "prove" he lied then the complete tape would.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Given enough tape you can edit it to "prove MLK was proslavery.
And if edited bits would "prove" he lied then the complete tape would.

No editing. Simply play specific statements by Zimmerman in their entirety. for instance when he told Hannity he didn't know anything about Florida SYG and self defense law. Then the teacher says he got an A on that part of my course and here's my records proving it. Absolutely no need to show the entire Hannity interview.