Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

Yes. They would not be the first and they won't be the last to do so. Of course, in doing so, they run the risk of promising more than they can prove and creating an expectation from the jury that they cannot match.

I did not watch the openings. The best indication that this is what they did would be how they approached the issue there. If they did a "soft sell" of the murder 2 "reckless acts" facts at that point while emphasizing the manslaughter "negligent act" facts, then that was likely the plan all along.

[Chico23231]

For sure Joe. It will be interesting how the jury finds the case, my hunch is guilty manslaughter, but think its close at 50-50. I just hope no riots breakout to add to Zim's bodycount.

[JoeRedskin]

Given that it's a jury of 6 women, It's a shame we only have DRave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(No knock on you DRave, I appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

DRave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. lol

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by joeredskin

given that it's a jury of 6 women, it's a shame we only have drave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(no knock on you drave, i appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

Drave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. Lol

ha since when do we care about a woman's opinion......................

[over the mountain]

gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.

[saden1]

Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw

Yes. Please do read the case. Particularly relevant are the last five paragraphs where the court reviews Florida's laws concerning burden of proof in self-defense.

[JoeRedskin]

Zimmerman is also being charged with Manslaughter as it is a lesser included charge of murder 2 (Meaning: All the elements necessary to prove manslaughter are included in the original charge or murder 2 and, conversely, all the defenses applicable to Manslaughter are equally applicable to murder 2. As such, the prosecutors is not bringing any "new" charges that must be defended by Zimmerman).

Attorneys are arguing the instructions now (well, this morning). The self-defense instruction will be given. It will not include an instruction that following Martin was a lawful act but the defense is free to tell the jury that in its closing.

I would love to see the final version of the jury instructions. It sounds as if the judge is following the pattern instructions with some modifications. In my experience, most judges don't like to vary from the pattern instructions as they are generally developed by the appellate courts with existing caselaw in mind and, as such, their language is generally considered "appeal proof".

[over the mountain]

joe - have you ever had a plaintiff attorney start/do their opening in this way ..

1. "this case is about one rule.

all (doctors, cities, drivers, etc) have a duty to not needless harm others."

blah blah blah

"when a person causes another harm, they are responsible for the harm that they caused ..."

2. "Now let me tell you a story . . . (tells facts of case in a story narrative focusing on the defendant's conduct)

3. "who we are and why we are here ... my name is blah blah blah and I represent blah blah blah .."

4. explain burden of proof, what the witnesses will say, what the defense expert will say and why he is a paid-for opinion favorable to the person paying him ....

5. "the american justice system in the finest and fairest in the world . . . you took an oath to not allow any bias or undue influence on your verdict .. the word verdict means 'to speak the truth' and at the end of this case this is what you are going to be asked to do, to speak the truth and to be the conscientious of the community .. i promise to not waste your time and i will do my best to only put on the witnesses and evidence i think you need to hear and consider for you to make an informed decision and in return I ask that you listen to what the people have to say when they take the stand ... "

this trial approach is called "reptile" developed by don keenan and david ball. ive been flown around the country to their various seminars and million dollar club plaintiff attorneys are eating it up ... the DRI has seminars on how to combat reptile

i assume you know about pat malone and rick friedman "rules of the road" . .

link to a pat malone closing, not his greatest that ive read but he is the best imo. Reporter's Official Transcript Of Proceedings (Mr. Malone's Closing Argument) | Jones v. Prince George’s County, Maryland | Patrick Malone & Associates P.C. | DC Injury Lawyers - JDSupra

[JoeRedskin]

In answer to your question, no. Not that I can recall specifically.

To me, it seems like typical plaintiff attorney cosying up to the jury and pushing the boundaries of fact/argument in opening. Never heard of "Reptile". Googling now ...

Yes. I am familiar with "Rules of the Road". I am doing a in-house seminar on damages/negotions in September and am trying to get my office to get a copy of it and David Balls' "Damages3" as references.

[over the mountain]

I have attended 3 seminars now and am eligible to participate in the "masters" seminar in somewhere in carribean islands ...

here is a quick snippet from david ball on damages, i spoke with him a bunch of times, even had don keenan "review" a case issue for me . .

6-8
Damages-only case.(16)
With minor adjustments, the same structure for opening – minus whatever won’t be admissible –works well for a damages-only case. Here’s how:

Damages-only case.
Part I. Primary rules. No advocacy.
Focus the rule on money:
When a truck driver’s negligence harms a pedestrian, the pedestrian is entitled to an amount of money equal to the level of the harm. Now let me tell you about the harm in this case.

Damages-only case.
Part II. Story of what the defendant did. No advocacy.
Tell as much of the negligence story as allowed. Argue to get in as much as possible. Explain to the judge that part of the emotional harm is your client’s vivid, painful memory of what happened. The traumatic memory of the defendant’s truck careening at her across the median is causing her emotional harm now, so that memory goes to damages.

Damages-only case.
Part III. Who we are suing and why: the safety rules the defendant(s) violated. Start of advocacy.
Again, include all you can get in. Try to cover each thing the defendant did wrong, why it was wrong, how it caused harm, what the defendant should have done, how easy that would have been, and how that would have prevented the harm. These elements should get in because each of your client’s harms is exacerbated by her knowing about the very simple safety rules the defendant so needlessly violated. Your client will tell you this, as will any psychologist or similar kind of therapist. Knowledge of how easily the defendant could have followed the rules makes the pain harder to bear.
When possible, part of your story of what the defendant did should include the defendant’s denial of negligence until the eve of trial – when they stipulated despite having no information they did not have in the first place.
Last-minute stipulation is relevant to damages because it causes additional harm.
For three years, Jane had to live with the knowledge that she was stopped at a light and hit from behind – yet they denied doing anything wrong and refused to meet any responsibility. That makes things a lot worse for anyone. It increased her worry that she’d never get the money she needs to take care of herself. And they did it just to scare her into walking away from her case. Only when they knew you were coming did they decide to try to look as if they were exercising some responsibility – far too late to do anyone any good but themselves.
Remember: the defense can diminish damages by showing your client’s failure to mitigate them. So you should be allowed to show how the defendant’s last-minute stipulation exacerbated them.

Damages-only case.
Part IV. Undermine. (What is wrong with the negligence defenses?)
This is usually not necessary for a damages-only case. You’ll undermine the causation and damages defense points in the next section.

Damages-only case.
Part V. Causation and damages.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VI. ‘Before’.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VII. “What can the jury do about it?”
Same as with regular case.
——————————————–
(16) For additional help with damages-only cases, please see Chapter 20 of Reptile.

[Chico23231]

So lets get a roll call of the what you think the jury verdict will be from everyone,

Im saying: guilty manslaughter

[JoeRedskin]

Tough, I am sticky with a not guilty for the moment. I may change to mistrial. Want to see the closings. Hopefully, I will be able to see the instructions.

Solid start to prosecution's closing, playing into all the juries emotional responses and highlighting all the points we've been discussing. Chico, you would be seating in your seat nodding in affirmation to everything he is saying b/c it is, essentially, exactly what you have said in the last view pages of the thread.

Judge: Zimmerman to face manslaughter, too | HLNtv.com

[saden1]

The prosecutor is laying the smack-down.

[Gary84Clark]

manslaughter