The Coming George Zimmerman Verdict And The Radically Changed American Justice System

of course you would THINK that, you hate rights. The OTHER possibility is as I said. why let a prosecutor dig around your brain pan when his case wasn't made to begin with. remember, we are not a 'guilty until proven innocent' society yet, it's 'innocent until proven guilty'. maybe you should watch the youtube videos about why you should never talk to police.

BS, you're such a zimmerman stooge. You hate cops yet there was GZ assuming the role of cop and shooting someone to death. If it was anybody but GZ you'd be totally outraged. And what's this about innocence or guilt? GZ is guilty of killing a teenager and needs to answer for his actions. I already said the charges of 2nd degree murder were wrong (IMO) and that manslaughter should be the way to go.

You have one person writing the script for this scenario, GZ, and you're swallowing his story hook, line and sinker. Sorry but I'm not that gullible. There are too many questions that haven't been answered and too many conflicting versions of the event from the witnesses.
 
Well sure it could be. Like I said why take that risk if you think you have won already?

And for the "if you just tell the truth you have nothing to fear" well if you are innocent but have made many statements and some hotshot lawyer is able to get you to say something different than before, even on something benign, it can throw your whole case. Again, why risk that?

To be clear, I think the State will lose. But doesn't a lawyer have to actually try a case before he can think he won? What if GZ took the stand right in the beginning, and gave testimony first?
 
Found this as well as to why defendants don't testify and that first sentence says it all.


Even defendants with clean backgrounds, a decent education and of reasonable intelligence tend to testify poorly. Giving testimony is entirely different than engaging in normal conversation, and under the immense pressure of the witness stand, even the best, most innocent defendant can fall apart, get angry or misspeak. When that happens the consequences are disastrous. And most defendants don't fit the bill anyway.

(The article does make reference though to juries wondering why the defendant didn't testify if they are not guilty)


http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/03/07/but-they-defendant-didnt-testify.aspx
 
I repeat, its a free country....you can do whatever you find is necessary and prudent to do.....that is your right and your choice.

And if YOU ever to decide that in person.....choose carefully.

It would just kill you to admit that TM was perfectly free to speak with GZ without fear of repercussion, huh!

You've become the king of weasel words here.
 
To be clear, I think the State will lose. But doesn't a lawyer have to actually try a case before he can think he won? What if GZ took the stand right in the beginning, and gave testimony first?

I may be way off on this but I thought defendants, if they testified, always testified last. I've never heard of a defendant testifying first. And since the prosecution puts on its case first the defense attorney is going to have a pretty good feeling for how things are going.

(And just to be clear I think Zimmerman is a loser. He's a wanna be chump. I'm not arguing for or against him I'm just discussing why defendants don't testify)
 
Also found this on why people don't testify:

Why would an innocent defendant choose not to testify?

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every criminal defendant the right to remain silent. This means that a criminal defendant has no obligation to testify or to call witnesses. When a defendant remains silent, judges instruct jurors that the defendant has exercised a constitutional right and that they cannot infer guilt from the defendant's silence. (To read the 5th Amendment, and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, check out Nolo's list of The Most Important Cases, Speeches, Laws, and Documents, in American History.)

But there are some excellent reasons why even innocent defendants might remain silent at trial:

•If the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, the prosecutor may be able to attack the defendant's credibility as a witness by offering evidence of the conviction. Jurors may infer from a defendant's previous conviction that the defendant has committed the charged crime, though a judge instructs them not to. By choosing not to testify, a defendant can prevent jurors from finding out about previous convictions.

•A defendant may have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.

•By presenting a defense case, defendants run the risk that jurors will find them guilty simply because they are not convinced that the defendant’s evidence is accurate. Yet in reality, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendant’s guilt.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-procedure-faq-29146-6.html


OT, but I wonder why GZ's lawyers had a hissy fit when the judge asked him if he was going to testify.
 
Found this as well as to why defendants don't testify and that first sentence says it all.


Even defendants with clean backgrounds, a decent education and of reasonable intelligence tend to testify poorly. Giving testimony is entirely different than engaging in normal conversation, and under the immense pressure of the witness stand, even the best, most innocent defendant can fall apart, get angry or misspeak. When that happens the consequences are disastrous. And most defendants don't fit the bill anyway.

(The article does make reference though to juries wondering why the defendant didn't testify if they are not guilty)

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/03/07/but-they-defendant-didnt-testify.aspx

Thanks. I think it's human nature to want to hear from both sides.
 
I may be way off on this but I thought defendants, if they testified, always testified last. I've never heard of a defendant testifying first. And since the prosecution puts on its case first the defense attorney is going to have a pretty good feeling for how things are going.

(And just to be clear I think Zimmerman is a loser. He's a wanna be chump. I'm not arguing for or against him I'm just discussing why defendants don't testify)

I don't know either about actual courtroom protocol. I know the prosecutor opens but thought the defendant could be the first "witness" to speak. Need legal advice on this.
 
Walking in the rain is neither abnormal nor unusual except in GZ's paranoid mind, but if he was fearful he should have left it for the cops to sort out. He should not have gotten out of his vehicle, end of story.

And your comment about what libs do is just hilarious, especially given the signature you flaunt.

Martin had 4 minutes to go 100 yards. He was 70 yards from his house when he attacked Zimmerman. Why didn't he go home? He had a history of violence. Admitted getting into fights.

This has been a race baiting case from day one. The left wants Trayvon to be their modern day Emmitt Till. Sick.
 
BS, you're such a zimmerman stooge. You hate cops yet there was GZ assuming the role of cop and shooting someone to death. If it was anybody but GZ you'd be totally outraged. And what's this about innocence or guilt? GZ is guilty of killing a teenager and needs to answer for his actions. I already said the charges of 2nd degree murder were wrong (IMO) and that manslaughter should be the way to go.

You have one person writing the script for this scenario, GZ, and you're swallowing his story hook, line and sinker. Sorry but I'm not that gullible. There are too many questions that haven't been answered and too many conflicting versions of the event from the witnesses.

You are being colored by race and it is sad
 
Choosing not to testify is a form of excercising your 5th Amendment right.....(according to Jarod) and something I was critized for not long ago on this forum
for asking questions about it....

so it seems you think a witness that chooses to exercise their 5th Amend. right is guilty of something....????
even if your not a witness but the defendent.

Is there anything you haven't been criticized for on this forum?
 
ng George Zimmerman Verdict And The Radically Changed American Justice System

Martin had 4 minutes to go 100 yards. He was 70 yards from his house when he attacked Zimmerman. Why didn't he go home? He had a history of violence. Admitted getting into fights.

This has been a race baiting case from day one. The left wants Trayvon to be their modern day Emmitt Till. Sick.

Zimmerman had a huge opportunity to drive away from a potentially dangerous situation, if he was telling the truth about Martin circling his vehicle while he was in it. It's called turn the key, put it D.

But he didn't, did he? No....he got out and followed the kid...why would he do that? Oh yeah....he was armed....sense of security....need to be the hero....whatever. That very act alone could be his undoing. A situation that he could have completely avoided.
 
Zimmerman had a huge opportunity to drive away from a potentially dangerous situation, if he was telling the truth about Martin circling his vehicle while he was in it. It's called turn the key, put it D.

But he didn't, did he? No....he got out and followed the kid...why would he do that? Oh yeah....he was armed....sense of security....need to be the hero....whatever. That very act alone could be his undoing. A situation that he could have completely avoided.

That's why it qualifies for Murder One. When he got out of his car with his gun, there was only one likely outcome.
 
Back
Top