Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.

I would hesitate to say for certain, but I would be shocked if more than a small percentage of defendants took the stand. One wrong word or wrong appearance might just be enough to sway a juror or jury against you. You pay a lawyer to present your case and the smartest defendants shut the hell up and don't say anything unless their lawyer tells them to.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.

Serious question: Why do you think we have the 5th amendment?

[JoeRedskin]

So, instead of "lawyering up", GZ meets and cooperates with police when he was under no legal compulsion to do so (at any point, all he has to say is, "I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" ), giving multiple statements - including a videotaped moment by moment description - all of which he likely knew could be (and ultimately were) used against him. That counts for nothing.

Exercising your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at trial? What a wuss.

[Chico23231]

oh no I agree, lying to cover his ass has worked just fine to this point. "We just gotta make it look like your life was in danger" that's the out in this case. brilliant stuff

Lets give him a gun and send'm back into the neighborhood to get his job as neighbor patrol officer career going again. outstanding country. Anybody let'm patrol their street first? Lets give'm a cape too, he's a super hero by all accounts

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed
Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

No. You're wrong and you're being intentionally ignorant. Read what the Florida caselaw says.

[JoeRedskin]

Also, saden1 ...

The youtube clip is simply the prosecutor's response to GZ's motion for acquittal. In that instance, the standard of review by the judge is just the opposite of that needed for a jury instruction on self defense. In opposing a motion for acquittal the prosecution is the one entitled to having the facts viewed in a light most favorable to them. It's all about generating a question of fact and only tangentially related to the closing. Hell, he argues that in front of the jury, it's a concession speech - Just one example, the prosecutor says forensics concerning the bullet wound "is, at least, as consistent with [the State's] version of the events as it is with the Defendant's". Equally consistent versions comporting with provable forensic evidence? How can that not be reasonable doubt? I am just not getting it.

If there were two plausible stories with TM as the survivor - would you convict him?

[saden1]

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

[724Skinsfan]

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

[JoeRedskin]

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

Go back to your holiday Inn. Take a few courses. Talk to me when you have a clue and aren't talking out your ass about shit of which you clearly are ignorant.

The Smith case relates only to Federal law and, within that body of law, only tothe RICO Act. In Smith, the Court found that, while Congress could have assigned the burden to disprove specific affirmative defenses to the prosecution, it did not do so for the RICO Act and, more specifically, was under no obligation to do so for the specific affirmative defense alleged. At the same time, the SC made clear that Congress was certainly within its authority to do so.

Of course, Congress may choose to assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, even if that is not constitutionally required. It did not do so here. “[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses . . . were matters for the defendant to prove.” Martin, supra, at 235; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 201 (1769). Because Congress did not address in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d) the burden of proof for withdrawal, we presume that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule. Dixon, 548 U. S., at 13–14.

In Florida, for Florida State crimes, guess what law applies --- HINT: It's Florida's. Guess who interprets Florida law? Hint: Their courts and they are located in Florida. Apparently, Florida has modified the common law rule referenced by the Supreme Court:

Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007)

In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Show me were Sipple has been overturned.

You want to quote cases at me, you better start bringing the A game and not some dumbass google search. Why don't you go google "heart surgery" and volunteer at Johns Hopkins tomorrow.

You are approaching G84C levels of ignorance.

[saden1]

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses

Florida Affirmative Defenses - Justification and Excuse
*
Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act forming the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations), but justifies or excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment. *In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the act. However, I am not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.”
*
For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial, the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations. **

[JoeRedskin]

One, you're quoting from an attorney website not the Court itself. The website cites no cases and is saying exactly what I have said.

Your Florida lawyer's website:

The defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations.

The Florida Court:

In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.

If there is any conflict, guess which wins. Here, GZ's statement to the police is in evidence and it clearly establishes prima facia claim of self-defense such that the jury will be instructed as previously stated.

Admit it, you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...... The website sites no cases<SNIP>

'Cites'

The only fault I can find. So far ahead on points you're a lap in front.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2