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.
I was thinking the same thing that Crump was. Zimmerman can't seem to keep his story straight when he was being recorded.
"We believe the defense's decision to waive a pretrial hearing and to merge the 'stand your ground' hearing into the trial is to prevent putting George Zimmerman on the stand," Crump said in a press release, "and to preclude the public and the potential jury pool from previewing the many inconsistencies in George Zimmerman's story."
I didn't think of that but it really makes sense. How could Zimmerman have proven he was in fear for his life or seriously bodily harm if he didn't take the stand in a SYG hearing.....
Seriously??? You don't know what the presumption of innocence means legally? LOL
You really need to do some research on this issue.
The Defense DOES NOT HAVE TO PUT ON ONE SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL, and, in fact, the Judge explains that to the jury in the Jury Charge before they retire to decided a verdict!! The jury is not to make any inferences based on the fact that the Defense does not put on witnesses or that the defendant chooses NOT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND!!! Again, what part of the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE do you not understand????
The PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE means that the State has to prove the case BECAUSE the Defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT BY THE JURY when the trial starts.. The Defense cross examining the State's witnesses does not constitute PUTTING ON EVIDENCE.
It also seems you have no clue what an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE is. You have a LOT to learn. I hope you never, ever try to defend yourself if you're ever a defendant in a criminal case. Criminal Court is NOT LIKE civil litigation.
I'm not sure where or if you went to school, however, I would say that your knowledge of just simple basic legal concepts is rather lacking.
Haha, so now your saying what I just said, while you argue with me..
Once again to quote me.
Where the hell did you go to school to learn such garbage so completely wrong.. Defense always has to put on a defense unless the prosecutor hasnt made their case after their completed before the defense gets their turn.
Haha, so now your saying what I just said, while you argue with me..
Once again to quote me.
Where the hell did you go to school to learn such garbage so completely wrong.. Defense always has to put on a defense unless the prosecutor hasnt made their case after their completed before the defense gets their turn.
Liberalism, a metal disorder indeed..
Obviously you are not capable of admitting when you don't know something. And again with the totally off topic, rude, personal attacks. That tells me you know nothing. By the way, it's "after they're completed".....NOT "their." "They're" means "They are"....
CROSS EXAMINATION is NOT PUTTING ON EVIDENCE. Putting on evidence in a trial is putting on YOUR WITNESSES and YOUR evidence in terms of information and exhibits. I am absolutely NOT agreeing with you because you are wrong in so many ways.
I have observed many criminal trials where the defense puts on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. All they did was cross examine the STATE'S WITNESSES and try to cast doubt on what they said. That is not putting on "evidence." In fact, when the State's case is over, the Court asks the Defense if they have anything, and in most cases they say, "No, Your Honor. We rest." Then after both sides have rested, if they think the State did not prove their case (and that's usually all the time) they make a Motion for a Directed Verdict or to throw the case out because the State did not prove their case.
Why don't you google AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE and read up on that and learn WHY defense lawyers file such things. An Affirmative Defense means that the Defense does want to put on their own case/witnesses/evidence......that's why they have to file it.
Obviously you are not capable of admitting when you don't know something. And again with the totally off topic, rude, personal attacks. That tells me you know nothing. By the way, it's "after they're completed".....NOT "their." "They're" means "They are"....
CROSS EXAMINATION is NOT PUTTING ON EVIDENCE. Putting on evidence in a trial is putting on YOUR WITNESSES and YOUR evidence in terms of information and exhibits. I am absolutely NOT agreeing with you because you are wrong in so many ways.
I have observed many criminal trials where the defense puts on NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. All they did was cross examine the STATE'S WITNESSES and try to cast doubt on what they said. That is not putting on "evidence." In fact, when the State's case is over, the Court asks the Defense if they have anything, and in most cases they say, "No, Your Honor. We rest." Then after both sides have rested, if they think the State did not prove their case (and that's usually all the time) they make a Motion for a Directed Verdict or to throw the case out because the State did not prove their case.
Why don't you google AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE and read up on that and learn WHY defense lawyers file such things. An Affirmative Defense means that the Defense does want to put on their own case/witnesses/evidence......that's why they have to file it.
If the prosecution does not prove their case then a defense is not needed. For gods sakes that exactly what the fk I just said, now THREE TIMES..
Where the hell did you go to school to learn such garbage so completely wrong.. Defense always has to put on a defense unless the prosecutor hasnt made their case after their completed before the defense gets their turn.
You want me to stop treating you like your dumb, but then you go and tell me I'm wrong, and then correct me by saying exactly what the hell I just said.. Note the BEFORE THE DEFENSE GETS THEIR TURN.. (and since you cant count, thats now 4 times)
btw, still waiting for you to prove that he called the police in order to delay their arrival.. Are you saying dumb things in order to distract from the other dumb things you've been saying? Its not working.
I didn't think of that but it really makes sense. How could Zimmerman have proven he was in fear for his life or seriously bodily harm if he didn't take the stand in a SYG hearing.....
plus getting out of his truck to track him down doesn't look good.
If the prosecution does not prove their case then a defense is not needed. For gods sakes that exactly what the fk I just said, now THREE TIMES..
Where the hell did you go to school to learn such garbage so completely wrong.. Defense always has to put on a defense unless the prosecutor hasnt made their case after their completed before the defense gets their turn.
You want me to stop treating you like your dumb, but then you go and tell me I'm wrong, and then correct me by saying exactly what the hell I just said.. Note the BEFORE THE DEFENSE GETS THEIR TURN.. (and since you cant count, thats now 4 times)
btw, still waiting for you to prove that he called the police in order to delay their arrival.. Are you saying dumb things in order to distract from the other dumb things you've been saying? Its not working.
Since the jury does not deliver a verdict at the time the State closes, HOW DO YOU KNOW the State didn't prove their case??? If it's that obvious that they did not prove each element, the defense will make an oral motion and if they're correct, the case will be thrown out, therefore NO NEED for a Defense.
People who are reading these posts can see for themselves who is wrong. You're just trying to save face. Not possible after you contended that the defense has to put on a case at trial, thereby proving that you don't understand what Presumption of Innocence means. The JURY Presumes the Defendant is INNOCENT. And the State has to prove otherwise. Cross examination of the State's witnesses is NOT putting on a case. You've made a fool of yourself in this thread. THE END.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 04-30-2013 at 08:33 PM..
"... defense attorney Don West told the judge that signals from Trayvon's cellphone and the towers it "pinged" from shows he traveled "a considerable distance" from the 7-Eleven where he bought Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea and the subdivision where Zimmerman shot him."
And Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said Miami-Dade school officials had investigated an incident involving Trayvon but decided it was not a crime because they concluded a device they found in his possession was not a weapon. Exactly what incident he was referring to was not clear.... It may be related to several pieces of women's jewelry and a screwdriver described as a burglary tool that TheMiami Herald reported school officials found in his backpack."
Besides the author managing to get the Skittles and Iced Tea into the article, this isn't good news for anyone who doesn't think tm's past behavior should be on trial in a murder 2 case.
"... defense attorney Don West told the judge that signals from Trayvon's cellphone and the towers it "pinged" from shows he traveled "a considerable distance" from the 7-Eleven where he bought Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea and the subdivision where Zimmerman shot him."
And Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda said Miami-Dade school officials had investigated an incident involving Trayvon but decided it was not a crime because they concluded a device they found in his possession was not a weapon. Exactly what incident he was referring to was not clear.... It may be related to several pieces of women's jewelry and a screwdriver described as a burglary tool that TheMiami Herald reported school officials found in his backpack."
Besides the author managing to get the Skittles and Iced Tea into the article, this isn't good news for anyone who doesn't think tm's past behavior should be on trial in a murder 2 case.
Trayvon Martin is NOT on trial, no matter how much some of you wish he were!
Am I in the minority thinking that this whole Trayvon-Zimmerman thing was radically and pathetically exploited? Obviously for the gun control issue -which is a laugh if you look to a place like Chicago- but also to create a racist incident where there was none.
You're not alone in thinking that.
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.
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.
