Random Thoughts Thread

[Luke]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution hasn't proved that.

The defense has done quite well (at least today) at showing inconsistencies and speculation.

edit* Good Lord, more paula deen crap news. Her advisers are morons.

Instead of going on a media tour of crocodile tears and begging for forgiveness, she should have straight up said "Yes, I have called African Americans "Niggers". My parents did the same, some of my family uses that word, and I would imagine many others do as well. That doesn't make it right, but I didn't expect such a backlash for uttering a slur. I apologize, and will never use that word again as I honestly didn't think it would upset so many people".

Or something that sounds honest and heartfelt. Anything other than a community college theater performance could have helped her out a ton.

[Retrodude]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution hasn't proved that.

No offense Luke (and Dave), but let's be honest. There is no possible way it could have happened the way Zimmerman said it did. The prosecution proved that quite well, despite not having a "smoking gun" as it were. That's why he told the jury to use their common sense. If they acquit, it will prove that they have none.

[dsheinem]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution hasn't proved that.

No offense Luke (and Dave), but let's be honest. There is no possible way it could have happened the way Zimmerman said it did. The prosecution proved that quite well, despite not having a "smoking gun" as it were. That's why he told the jury to use their common sense. If they acquit, it will prove that they have none.

If they follow THE LAW, Zimmerman should walk. I don't personally think he's completely innocent in any of this or being entirely truthful, but the fact remains that there's no evidence to convict him of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

[prfsnl_gmr]

...it almost sounds like he's arguing jury nullification. As far as I know, that's not allowed, so he needs to tread carefully.

Juries are allowed to nullify the law, and jury nullification is one of the reasons that there is a right to a trial by jury in criminal proceedings. That said, an attorney cannot ask a jury to ignore the law, but he or she can tell them to do what is "justice".

In the end, there is and always was a LOT of doubt in this case. NO ONE other than Zimmerman KNOWS what happened. He's reinforcing that. Smart.

Not really...His client did not take the stand. The prosecution will not be able to mention this fact, but if I were on the jury it would raise some red flags. Basically, I would be thinking..."If Zimmerman is the only person who really knows what happened theat night, then why didn't he get on the stand and tell me about it?" (There are lots of good reasons to keep a criminal defendant off the stand - prior convictions, etc. - but it never looks good when you do it. Also, in my experience, very few defendants who refuse to take the stand are acquitted. Juries expect someone accused of a crime to defend himself.)

"Beyond a reasonable doubt". The prosecution hasn't proved that.

Although that is technically the legal standard, juries tend to apply something a bit less stringent in my experience.

[dsheinem]

In the end, there is and always was a LOT of doubt in this case. NO ONE other than Zimmerman KNOWS what happened. He's reinforcing that. Smart.

Not really...His client did not take the stand. The prosecution will not be able to mention this fact, but if I were on the jury it would raise some red flags. Basically, I would be thinking..."If Zimmerman is the only person who really knows what happened theat night, then why didn't he get on the stand and tell me about it?" (There are lots of good reasons to keep a criminal defendant off the stand - prior convictions, etc. - but it never looks good when you do it. Also, in my experience, very few defendants who refuse to take the stand are acquitted. Juries expect someone accused of a crime to defend himself.)

I'll absolutely defer to your judgement on this as it's your profession, but I wonder if the length of the trial, the amount of witnesses, and audio/video clips of Zimmerman might not make up for the lack of Zimmerman taking the stand. I can't imagine him taking the stand going well at all, so I think it was wise to not have him there.

But yes: juries are certainly unpredictable, which is a big part of what makes this whole thing interesting.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I'll absolutely defer to your judgement on this as it's your profession, but I wonder if the length of the trial, the amount of witnesses, and audio/video clips of Zimmerman might not make up for the lack of Zimmerman taking the stand. I can't imagine him taking the stand going well at all, so I think it was wise to not have him there.

But yes: juries are certainly unpredictable, which is a big part of what makes this whole thing interesting.

I don't have that much experience with criminal trials - and juries are incredibly unpredictable - so I would not give my opinions too much deference.

That said, during the time I spent at a PD's office we had some cases where - in my opinion - the prosecution clearly did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, they received a conviction for a lesser included offense or a hung jury. We had perfectly good reasons not to put the defendants on the stand in each case (i.e., they were being charged with drug crimes, robberies, etc. and had convictions for each of those things in their criminal records), but when we talked to jurors after the trials, they told us that - if the person was really innocent - they expected him or her to take the stand in his or her defense. (Again...juries are not suppossed to consider that fact, but - for better or for worse - they do.)

In any event, my point was, it may have been a very good idea to keep him off the stand. If you are going to do that, however, you should not highlight the fact that the defendant is the only person who really knows what happened on the night in question in your closing arguments. If this had been a civil trial - where you can highlight someone's refusal to testify - I would have hammered this point.

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the defense has stated that George Zimmerman is the only person who really knows what happened on the night in question. But, George Zimmerman refused to get up on the stand and tell you about it! If the defense is correct, and George Zimmerman is the only person who really knows what happened that night, then why didn't he get up there? I think you and I both know the answer to that question..."

There are constitutional restrictions on the prosecution making that argument, but if I were on the jury - which I am not - it is what I would be thinking about (espeically since the defense raised the issue in its closing arguments).

[dsheinem]

The prosecutor giving the rebuttal is about 10X better spoken and better at making the case for conviction than the guy who presented yesterday. I can see why he's the anchor.

[Luke]

This prosecutor has me totally lost with all his tv references.

He may as be telling teenagers "Zimmerman is no Dudley Do-Right and Marvin was no Snidely Whiplash".

And on both sides: Enough with the terrible terrible power point slides.

[dsheinem]

This prosecutor has me totally lost with all his tv references.

He may as be telling teenagers "Zimmerman is no Dudley Do-Right and Marvin was no Snidely Whiplash".

And on both sides: Enough with the terrible terrible power point slides.

agreed on all points

[Retrodude]

I thought the prosecutor's final point was the strongest one: if they would convict Martin of killing Zimmerman under the same circumstances (and we all know they would), they must convict Zimmerman of killing Martin. Well played, good sir, well played.