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

Steelplate said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what you call "wanna-be" cop.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'd like Jarod or Soc to tell the reasons why a lawyer wouldn't want his client to testify. As far as I know, GZ could have taken the stand earlier in the trial before the lawyers heard all the other testimony.
Click to expand...

Generally I would discourage my client from testifying, especially if I thought I had won, or found a way to sneak his testimony in some other way. In the GZ case, I would have urged my client not to testify for those two reasons... if it looks like you are winning, leave well enough alone and second what would GZ add that he did not already get in via his statements to the police.
 
Jarod said:
Generally I would discourage my client from testifying, especially if I thought I had won, or found a way to sneak his testimony in some other way. In the GZ case, I would have urged my client not to testify for those two reasons... if it looks like you are winning, leave well enough alone and second what would GZ add that he did not already get in via his statements to the police.
Click to expand...

I haven't been following the case that closely but I was thinking exactly your last sentence as well. If you already had a chance to state your side (through the police statements and videos) why put yourself on the stand for cross examination?
 
cawacko said:
I haven't been following the case that closely but I was thinking exactly your last sentence as well. If you already had a chance to state your side (through the police statements and videos) why put yourself on the stand for cross examination?
Click to expand...

There could be thousands of other reasons, generally people not practiced in public speaking will not come across well to a jury under tough cross-examination. The other witnesses did not experience tough cross-examination because they were not accused of murder, but I guarantee if GZ took the stand they would have hit him hard. If the jury saw him being treated like a criminal, it might change their perspective.
 
Jarod said:
There could be thousands of other reasons, generally people not practiced in public speaking will not come across well to a jury under tough cross-examination. The other witnesses did not experience tough cross-examination because they were not accused of murder, but I guarantee if GZ took the stand they would have hit him hard. If the jury saw him being treated like a criminal, it might change their perspective.
Click to expand...

In the sense of being one or earning jury sympathy?
 
ge Zimmerman Verdict And The Radically Changed American Justice System

Rune said:
The facts disagree.
Click to expand...

Rune buddy....the facts don't disagree...in fact, it would require a Walt Disney level of imagination to go that route.

Look...you can believe what you want about that night...but only two.people really know.....and one of them is dead.

Zimmerman was a dumb fuck....no doubt about it. According to his testimony, Martin was.circling his vehicle. That was his cue to get the fuck out of dodge....but instead, he got out of his car knowing that he was packing. THAT suggests malice....which is STILL not premeditation(the requirement for.Murder 1.

I wasn't impressed with the Prisecutions' job on this...I am sure they did the best they could....but it seemed Paine they were waiting for somethingn to happen.
 
People are saying TM initiated the assault. I think his last phone call casts doubt on that scenario.

"[Rachel Jeantel] testified that Martin told her that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him but that he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later, Martin let out a profanity.

Martin said the man was behind him, and Jeantel heard Martin ask: “What are you following me for?”

She then heard what sounded like Martin’s phone drop into the grass and she heard him say, “Get off! Get off!”

The phone then went dead, she said."

Why would Martin say "get off, get off", right after speaking with GZ, if TM was the one who initiated?
 
christiefan915 said:
People are saying TM initiated the assault. I think his last phone call casts doubt on that scenario.

"[Rachel Jeantel] testified that Martin told her that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him but that he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later, Martin let out a profanity.

Martin said the man was behind him, and Jeantel heard Martin ask: “What are you following me for?”

She then heard what sounded like Martin’s phone drop into the grass and she heard him say, “Get off! Get off!”

The phone then went dead, she said."

Why would Martin say "get off, get off", right after speaking with GZ, if TM was the one who initiated?
Click to expand...

You forget that she lied and her testimony changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top