Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And converseley, even if he didn't initiate the confrontation he could well be guilty.
I don't know how you, or anybody else in this thread, can determine with such grea certainty a crime has or hasn't been committed unless you were there or have all of the available evidence at hand. About the best evidence I've seen here is speculation based on tidbits of evidence released in the media, or speculation based on speculation in the media and politically driven websites.
Well, technically, the State of Florida has determined that a crime has been committed and therefore has filed criminal charges against GZ. That is certain.
The trial, of course, will determine whether or not a jury believes, based on the evidence presented, GZ committed a crime.
Evidence has been released by virtue of filing it in the court file, which is public record. Some evidence has been sealed and names of certain witnesses have been redacted for their protection; however, there was a hearing friday to determine whether or not the sealed evidence is to remain sealed or will be unsealed in the court file so that media and the public can read it, as well as the release of the names of all witnesses to the public.
At this point, the reports in the media are being written by journalists who have either read teh court files and listen to the CDs, or have had others read the documents and listen to the CDs for them, and then summarized what they discovered, and, of course, that would leave the interpretation of what evidence is available to those journalists......
So you think the motion may have been mistaken, not knowingly wrong.
Credibility will be the issue for Zimmerman, imo. Now they have at least two instances where, under oath, in a hearing he lied.
I think Judge Lester's comment will be forgotten. The statements themselves will, at a hearing or trial, will prove to be helpful or not helpful. I don't think the bail revocation will be forgotten.
I wasn't clear. What I meant is that if Lester's opinion --- that gz's statements to cops bolster his case --- proves to be an accurate judgement, that is good news for him.
The judge always instructs the jury on what is and is not reasonable doubt because that is the standard of proof in all criminal cases.
Thanks, I do understand that, FancyFeast. However, being human, jurors still make up their own minds. I also do not know if every juror has the intellectual capacity or reasoning power to apply the law as instructed by a judge.
The Judge has not seen Zimmerman's statements and was not opining on the validity or acceptability of the statements. He was referring to whether or not the release of the statements made by Zimmerman to the police to the media would create harm in any way to be released. If Zimmerman had made an incriminating statement, one that did not support his case, his arrest would have come a whole lot quicker. Therefore, it is only logical his statements to the police will be the basis for his defense.
The State's case is based in part on the inconsistency of Zimmerman's statements with the evidence. If the Judge was rendering an opinion about the validity of Zimmerman's statements, the State would have made an immediate oral motion to recuse the Judge or had a motion for recusal on his desk within an hour, and the Judge would himself have stepped down, because that is not something a Judge can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
I wasn't clear. What I meant is that if Lester's opinion --- that gz's statements to cops bolster his case --- proves to be an accurate judgement, that is good news for him.
When you are unable to see that both sides have a political agenda revolving around the Martin case your bias is showing.
Yes, I do not believe trials should be conducted unless there is some rational possibility of a conviction.
Well, State ATtorneys in Florida are elected to make that determination; they decide whether or not an investigation provides enough evidence to support conviction if taken to trial. If so, they file charges. Charges were filed in this case. No offense intended, but unless you are an experienced attorney and part of the State's legal team, your opinion is that of a lay person, and, as someone else said, I'll take the word of experienced attorneys at this time, over your opinion.
From everything I've seen, the goal of bringing attention to this case by the Martin family and their supporters was to have an investigation and a fair trial regarding this incident.
What do you think is the political agenda of the Martin family and their supporters?
You do realize that Zimmerman's attorney could accuse the State of prosecutorial misconduct if they had any evidence of the State filing charges in this case based solely on politics and not on the evidence. We haven't seen that, have we? When the trial is over, we will see if Zimmerman's attorney thinks the charges were prosecutorial misconduct because all of the State's evidence will have been presented to the court and the world at that time.
Thanks, I do understand that, FancyFeast. However, being human, jurors still make up their own minds. I also do not know if every juror has the intellectual capacity or reasoning power to apply the law as instructed by a judge.
I guess I just think it is a fair standard. A standard of beyond all doubt would be too high, except for d.p. cases, IMO.
The courts do as much as possible to help people understand these terms, and we certainly don't want to see "professional juries" in the courtrooms. And we don't want IQ tests...(then there would never be a jury of one's peers...).
Other standards of proof are by a preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing....neither are for criminal cases. Except in for self defense (affirmative defense) that portion is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 06-02-2012 at 03:57 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
The Judge has not seen Zimmerman's statements and was not opining on the validity or acceptability of the statements. He was referring to whether or not the release of the statements made by Zimmerman to the police to the media would create harm in any way to be released. If Zimmerman had made an incriminating statement, one that did not support his case, his arrest would have come a whole lot quicker. Therefore, it is only logical his statements to the police will be the basis for his defense.
The State's case is based in part on the inconsistency of Zimmerman's statements with the evidence. If the Judge was rendering an opinion about the validity of Zimmerman's statements, the State would have made an immediate oral motion to recuse the Judge or had a motion for recusal on his desk within an hour, and the Judge would himself have stepped down, because that is not something a Judge can do.
ty for the clarification. I didn't hear or read what Lester said. Relied on this from the Miami Herald--- "Prosecutors argued that Zimmerman’s statements to police amounted to confessions, which are exempt from public-records law. But the judge said Zimmerman’s statements would likely bolster Zimmerman’s defense."
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 