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.
You're claiming that a jury must find Everything GZ did before the shooting was reasonable to conclude he ultimately acted in self defense ? I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
The jury will decide as the evidence is presented, whether JZ acted reasonable under the circumstances. What a jury will take into consideration as to what was reasonable is up to the jury. We have no way to know this at this time and you would be surprised to find out some of the stuff jurors think is important.
No evidence has been presented so we just do not know. Also, as I pointed out in another post, what evidence that will be admitted will be governed by the Florida Rules of Evidence. Just because we see it on the internet or in a newspaper does not mean that the jury will see it.
Will a jury think that JZ's actions were NOT reasonable b/c he "followed TM" and was the aggressor (again I am not saying it happened like this because nothing has been presented to the jury), I do not know. Will a jury think that it WAS reasonable for JZ to shoot TM because the jury thinks that TM was bashing JZ's head into the sidewalk, and the jury thinks that JZ was in fear of his life so self-defense was justified (again not saying it happened like this because nothing has been presented to the jury), I do not know. Please remember I just picked random examples and in no way am I saying these are the end all be all issues in this case.
I have done this long enough to know that you just cannot predict the outcome of these cases...you just cannot do it.
Last edited by Mike Jones 1999; 12-11-2012 at 06:00 PM..
Reason: add more info
gz would have to testify if he hadn't already given more statements than he should have explaining why he was fearful.
I was being sarcastic. Should have used the emoticon.
However, I don't agree with you that the defense can just sit back and use the various statements which the State will no doubt enter into evidence and hope to win.
All of those many statements do ONE THING. They cast a huge doubt as to Zimmerman's credibility. How does the defense handle that? And, again, WHAT will the defense put on when it comes their turn? Because of the affirmative defense I don't think they can sit back and do nothing. Do you?
I was being sarcastic. Should have used the emoticon.
However, I don't agree with you that the defense can just sit back and use the various statements which the State will no doubt enter into evidence and hope to win.
All of those many statements do ONE THING. They cast a huge doubt as to Zimmerman's credibility. How does the defense handle that? And, again, WHAT will the defense put on when it comes their turn? Because of the affirmative defense I don't think they can sit back and do nothing. Do you?
Were you, or have you been aware that zim's attorney/s have been asking the judge/court to have his ankle monitoring device removed?
In a way, I hope they do allow zim to roam freely about with no monitoring, because I wonder how long he'll last mingling in public before someone who doesn't like him recognizes who he is.
I was being sarcastic. Should have used the emoticon.
However, I don't agree with you that the defense can just sit back and use the various statements which the State will no doubt enter into evidence and hope to win.
All of those many statements do ONE THING. They cast a huge doubt as to Zimmerman's credibility. How does the defense handle that? And, again, WHAT will the defense put on when it comes their turn? Because of the affirmative defense I don't think they can sit back and do nothing. Do you?
Here's the thing. I don't know what gz could say to improve his credibility. I was confused, in shock, recalled things over time ? I suppose there are rare, Rare, RARE ocassions when a defendant can actually improve their credibility by testifying. RARE enough for me to doubt gz is one of those people.
GZ will be served better by O'Mara bringing in a shrink, an expert on traumatic events, crossx, to get the jury to consider their own experiences with high-stress events like car accidents or fights. It's not unusual to confuse things or remember things later.
Here's the thing. I don't know what gz could say to improve his credibility. I was confused, in shock, recalled things over time ? I suppose there are rare, Rare, RARE ocassions when a defendant can actually improve their credibility by testifying. RARE enough for me to doubt gz is one of those people.
GZ will be served better by O'Mara bringing in a shrink, an expert on traumatic events, crossx, to get the jury to consider their own experiences with high-stress events like car accidents or fights. It's not unusual to confuse things or remember things later.
I think it would be suicide for the defense to put Zimmerman on the stand.
Were you, or have you been aware that zim's attorney/s have been asking the judge/court to have his ankle monitoring device removed?
In a way, I hope they do allow zim to roam freely about with no monitoring, because I wonder how long he'll last mingling in public before someone who doesn't like him recognizes who he is.
No, not aware of any motions to have his ankle monitoring device removed. I'd be surprised if the judge allowed that. Zimmerman has certainly made himself look like a flight risk.
I was being sarcastic. Should have used the emoticon.
However, I don't agree with you that the defense can just sit back and use the various statements which the State will no doubt enter into evidence and hope to win.
All of those many statements do ONE THING. They cast a huge doubt as to Zimmerman's credibility. How does the defense handle that? And, again, WHAT will the defense put on when it comes their turn? Because of the affirmative defense I don't think they can sit back and do nothing. Do you?
I try to talk in "general" terms with this stuff because each state's law is different blah blah blah and some of this stuff can be really confusing...but I would think that a defendant could probably just sit back and do nothing and ask for the self-defense instruction. Whether a judge will give it would more than likely depend I guess on the state's case law and the defendant's right to remain silent, which would more than likely carry the day. But back to the point, will a jury actually believe you if you say nothing and "claim you were in fear of your life?" This is anyone's guess but it is a gamble because the jury will probably want to know why you did what you did.
But one thing that we have to remember is that a juror is also determining the credibility of witnesses. Maybe a key witness for the state turns out to be a straight up liar and the jury does not like this. Could this sink the state's case? You bet it could!
As to whether JZ testifies, or any criminal defendant for that matter, is up to the client. At the end of the day it is his/her call as to whether to take the stand.
Zimmerman will not testify, the defense will rely on eyewitnesses, physical evidence (Zimmerman's injuries prominent here) and the 911 tapes.
This is a good point regarding how to get around the defendant not testifying!
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.
