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.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Seems that there is still a lot of controversy about witness 8, the girl who was talking to Trayvon on the phone as the incident started. The trial is four months away and they have not been able to take her deposition yet, so we still don't know what she will say under oath.
For the people who say Zimmerman will be released because this is a clear cut stand your ground case, seems to me that O'Mara would not be wasting all this time if that were true. So WHY do those who believe it's such a clear syg case and that Zimmerman should have been released months ago think Zimmerman's atty has not so far requested an immunity hearing, and gotten his client freed from the GPS monitoring device and relief from the $1 million bail?
Innocent of what? There was enough evidence to charge him with second degree murder. I thought that was the purpose of a trial. Although the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he is guilty of the crime charged, his defense attorney will need to prove that he is innocent.
But since you are making your statement with such certainty and the trial has taken place, I would like to know how you know that he is innocent. If you have proof that he is innocent I'm sure his defense attorney would be happy to see/hear it.
Actually no, the defense needs to convince the jury that burden of proof has not been met and the state has failed to show GZ is guilty under murder 2. It is going to be difficult to show that GZ is guilty under the FL statute for murder 2 and that is not necessarily the case for the other homicide charges available.
Innocent of what? There was enough evidence to charge him with second degree murder. I thought that was the purpose of a trial. Although the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that he is guilty of the crime charged, his defense attorney will need to prove that he is innocent.
But since you are making your statement with such certainty and the trial has taken place, I would like to know how you know that he is innocent. If you have proof that he is innocent I'm sure his defense attorney would be happy to see/hear it.
The presumption of innocence means that the defendant does not have to PROVE ANYTHING.
However, in this particular case BECAUSE the defendant through his attorney filed an affirmative defense, Zimmerman will indeed have to put on evidence of his innocence. Normally, that is not the case.
A defendant and his legal team can just sit through the trial, ONLY CROSS EXAMINING the State's witnesses to try to cast doubt on what they have to say, and do nothing other than that, until both sides rest. THEN the defense can try to convince a jury their client is not guilty in closing arguments.
Zimmerman's case is DIFFERENT. He has to put on evidence/witnesses because he filed the affirmative defense.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Seems that there is still a lot of controversy about witness 8, the girl who was talking to Trayvon on the phone as the incident started. The trial is four months away and they have not been able to take her deposition yet, so we still don't know what she will say under oath.
For the people who say Zimmerman will be released because this is a clear cut stand your ground case, seems to me that O'Mara would not be wasting all this time if that were true. So WHY do those who believe it's such a clear syg case and that Zimmerman should have been released months ago think Zimmerman's atty has not so far requested an immunity hearing, and gotten his client freed from the GPS monitoring device and relief from the $1 million bail?
Because they are still trying to get basic evidence from the prosecution. They had to fight for the phone analysis, and finally got it today, in court, still missing all the chain of custody info. The judge noted today that the prosecution gave her a color copy of Zimmerman's injuries while withholding it from the defense, instead giving them a blurry black and white.
The tape of witness 8 is still missing more than half the recording, despite a ruling 2 months ago that Crump was supposed to turn over the complete tape. Crump was supposed to get deposed today, and instead showed up with his own attorney to fight the deposition.
No defense should go to court without getting all of the discovery and having time to examine it, whether you believe your client is innocent or guilty.
Actually no, the defense needs to convince the jury that burden of proof has not been met and the state has failed to show GZ is guilty under murder 2. It is going to be difficult to show that GZ is guilty under the FL statute for murder 2 and that is not necessarily the case for the other homicide charges available.
So what about the affirmative defense of self defense which was filed by Zimmerman's attorney? That means that Zimmerman has to put on evidence of self defense. If there had been no filing of an affirmative defense, then, under the presumption of innocence the defense could just cross examine the state's witnesses to try to show that the burden of proof had not been met.
How about lesser included offenses? Will that be a possibility in this case?
Because they are still trying to get basic evidence from the prosecution. They had to fight for the phone analysis, and finally got it today, in court, still missing all the chain of custody info. The judge noted today that the prosecution gave her a color copy of Zimmerman's injuries while withholding it from the defense, instead giving them a blurry black and white.
The tape of witness 8 is still missing more than half the recording, despite a ruling 2 months ago that Crump was supposed to turn over the complete tape. Crump was supposed to get deposed today, and instead showed up with his own attorney to fight the deposition.
No defense should go to court without getting all of the discovery and having time to examine it, whether you believe your client is innocent or guilty.
My question was directed to those people who seem to believe this is a clear cut (slam dunk win) case of syg and think that Zimmerman either should never have been arrested or should have been freed long ago.
I am well aware of what has to be done in preparing a case for trial. That's what O'Mara is doing. That indicates to me that O'Mara is not totally confident of a win in an immunity hearing. O'Mara filed an affirmative defense, which means he intends to put on evidence/witnesses at the TRIAL. Of course he has to prepare for that. I never said he didn't.
So what about the affirmative defense of self defense which was filed by Zimmerman's attorney? That means that Zimmerman has to put on evidence of self defense. If there had been no filing of an affirmative defense, then, under the presumption of innocence the defense could just cross examine the state's witnesses to try to show that the burden of proof had not been met.
How about lesser included offenses? Will that be a possibility in this case?
I forgot about the affirmative defense. That does shift the burden from the state's "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the defense's "a preponderance of evidence". The devil is going to be in the details though and it is possible for the prosecutor to ask for a guilty verdict under a lesser charge.
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,888 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Railroaded???
Granted bond, provided with legal council, afforded a trial with a jury of his peers???
If this is a train it must be the local.
The bastard who beat him is portrayed as some kind of martyr because he is black?
Suppression of the whole story with a one-sided dialogue of Zimmerman as a racist who targetted Trayvon randomly for no purpose?
Yea, he's been judged.
Yes he deserves a trial in a neutral area.
I'm sick of black racists and racism getting a free pass and anyone who dares point it out gets labelled a racist. BS! I'm calling BS.
"Prosecutors said Zimmerman got his second passport after claiming he’d lost his original one, which expired at the end of May 2012. It was that original passport which he turned over to the court; the second passport, which is valid until 2014, remained in his possession." Prosecutors Say Zimmerman Hid Second Passport, Lied About Money - The Daily Beast
I forgot about the affirmative defense. That does shift the burden from the state's "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the defense's "a preponderance of evidence". The devil is going to be in the details though and it is possible for the prosecutor to ask for a guilty verdict under a lesser charge.
Do you think O'Mara will put Zimmerman on the stand? Do you have any ideas how he will prove self-defense without Zimmerman testifying? I can't figure that one out. Of course it is almost never a good idea to put a defendant like Zimmerman on the stand, so I'm wondering what else the defense will use to prove self defense. However, seems to me if there is an immunity hearing, how could they prove Zimmerman's state of mind without his testifying. What do you think?
I thought the standard of proof shifted in an immunity hearing to a preponderance of evidence. I didn't know that at the trial an affirmative defense shifted the burden. I thought it remained beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
