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.
Quote a post where I ever claimed Crump was "running" as you claimed. You can't. I didn't say that. You put "running" in quotes several times now. So go back and find the post where I used the term running. Or admit you are wrong. I'll be waiting.
Okay. Let me answer this once AGAIN. I put up a link to your post in which you claimed Crump was "refusing" to have his depo taken. IN MY OPINION, "refusing" and "running" mean the same thing in the context of this discussion. You did not specifically say "running," correct, but that just seems like an issue of semantics. The post to which you were responding did in fact describe Crump's not being deposed being the result of Crump "running."
If someone is served with subpoena for a deposition and they do not show up, a bench warrant can be issued. So, you can't just "refuse" to show up to a deposition when you have been subpoenaed. You have to show a really good reason to not show up and you have to go through a process in order to avoid that deposition.
So, let me ask you. Do you know whether or not the Defense subpoenaed Crump? If so, when? If so, how did Crump get out of showing up? One more question which I don't think you answered, and I asked you because you seemed to be very focused on the Appellate document overturning Judge Nelson's decision regarding the depo of Crump, did that Appellate decision say that Judge Nelson was required to attend the Crump deposition. You know there is a difference between a sworn statement and a deposition. This was about taking Crump's deposition.
Here's a hint. If a subpoena had been issued for Crump to take his deposition, that information would be found in the Clerk's file on this case. You will also find all Notices to Take Deposition in the Clerk's file. Did the Defense, after June 3, even file a Notice to Take The Deposition of Crump?
The judge spent months keeping them from deposing Crump. And she got slapped down by the appeals court for it. They've had jury selection and two weeks of trial since June 3rd. Not like they are twiddling their thumbs. Nelson is setting herself up to get slapped down again. This deposition has been an issue since October. This isn't a last minute issue due to the defense.
Besides, they asked for an extension before jury selection was even started (and 3 other times previously) based partly on this issue and the prosecutor hiding evidence. If the judge is unhappy with the scheduling, she has only herself to blame.
Tried to rep you on this and other posts but have to spread the wealth.
I don't think they can bring up what was said in opening because opening is not evidence. However, could be wrong about that particular issue regarding claiming they would put on a witness that they didn't put on.
I've begun to believe that gz is not a "klutz" at all, but knew what to say and do after he shot Martin. I think the State has proven that Zimmerman did, indeed, have knowledge about the law which he claimed he did not have. I don't think gz followed Martin with the intent to kill him, yet I do think when there was the verbal altercation gz lost his temper, which ultimately led to his shooting Martin. No, I don't think the Defense will put Zimmerman on the stand. They would have too much to lose.
However, I think many are underestimating the State's case. I have complained about how bad I thought the State legal team was. Seems to me that this thing is going to come down to who has the best closing argument, who can put all the pieces together in a concise and simple way for the jury. Of course, we still have the Defense side. I read in a post somewhere here that the Defense intends to take 10 to 12 days......so much for all those people who have been screaming that Zimmerman doesn't have to put on any case.
I think gz is a GREAT ACTOR. I think gz was so zealous about a career in law enforcement (police or prosecutor) that he became obsessed, and it led to his extremely unfortunate actions after he had had a couple applications for LEO jobs turned down. Someone also said that the first person he called after he spotted Martin was that friend of his who is in federal law enforcement, not the non-emergency number. I wonder what kind of advice or suggestions that guy gave him. George certainly did not look too happy to see that guy. Maybe George didn't like that the guy wrote that book about him, and rightly so.
I'm also coming around to thinking like you've been thinking. Seems to me it's real possible that the jury will convict, for all the reasons you've stated.
Good points.
My concern about closing arguments is that the prosecution communicates much more briefly and concisely, whereas the defense feeds the jury information in baby spoonfuls.
I'm not sure which is better, but the prosecution better make sure they connect all the dots, and emphasize what they think is significant.
And I hope they remind the jury that they shouldn't be influenced by how much you like or dislike any particular witness, although of course the jurors have the right to judge how credible a witness is.
That's not correct. When the defense objected during opening arguments saying the state couldn't prove some of their allegations, Nelson said if the state didn't prove it, the defense could remind the jury about their claims and failure to prove during the closing statements.
And in closing, neither side can make any claims they didn't prove during the trial.
The above sentence is exactly what I said. During closing the attorneys cannot argue anything that was not brought out as EVIDENCE, (that means testimony from the witness stand and physical evidence), during the testimony portion of the trial. THE JURY DECIDES WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN AND WHAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Each side offers its own "evidence" (meaning testimony by witnesses and physical evidence), and THAT is what they can argue in closing. You're mistaken or maybe your sentence implies something you don't mean specifically when you say "claims they didn't prove during the trial." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE WORD PROVE, and who determines the credibility and veracity of the witnesses, other than the Jury??? Doesn't that mean that we won't know what the jury decides was proven until they return with their verdict? Again, maybe there's a misunderstanding what what these words mean in the context of a trial...."evidence".....and "prove."
Helps because he explained self defense so well. He explained that even if someone starts a fight, they can still use self defense if in fear for their life. He explained disproportionate response. Say, someone follows another person. That person being followed punches the follower and then climbs on top of him and keeps punching while the follower screams help. The original follower has the right to defend himself.
The defense even got him to explain that even if the person started the fight with a push, he could still eventually have the right to defend himself if the other person's reaction was disproportionate.
He also said injuries are not necessary in order to prove self defense. He walked the jury through the self defense law and it is very favorable to Zimmerman.
Here's some quotes from the coverage of that testimony:
This is still confusing because the professor also said that the perception of being in fear for one's life had to be held to the standards of a reasonable person, the concept of equal force---you can't bring a gun to a fist fight. Also, why would Zimmerman be in fear for his life, given that he was armed, and literally did bring a gun to a fist fight?
Someone on this thread said earlier that what's to stop anyone who is losing a fight from shooting to death their opponent? Good question. I mean, most fist fights don't end in death.
>>> He's got a suit against MSNBC and CNN, right? They should have to cough up a mountain of cash for their alteration of the facts and editing video. I think TM's parents will go after that, though.
Helps because he explained self defense so well. He explained that even if someone starts a fight, they can still use self defense if in fear for their life. He explained disproportionate response. Say, someone follows another person. That person being followed punches the follower and then climbs on top of him and keeps punching while the follower screams help. The original follower has the right to defend himself.
The defense even got him to explain that even if the person started the fight with a push, he could still eventually have the right to defend himself if the other person's reaction was disproportionate.
Of all the things said so far, this was probably the best for George. Even if all the Trayvonistas were correct about George following, picking a fight, doing whatever, none of which he did, but let's just assume for a moment that he did, he still had the right to kill Trayvon when Trayvon jumped on his face and pounded his head. George met force with better force, and the force was with him.
Of all the things said so far, this was probably the best for George. Even if all the Trayvonistas were correct about George following, picking a fight, doing whatever, none of which he did, but let's just assume for a moment that he did, he still had the right to kill Trayvon when Trayvon jumped on his face and pounded his head. He met force with better force, and the force was with him.
You're ignoring what he said about reasonable force, and that the fear for one's life is held to the standard of would a reasonable person be in fear for their life in this situation.
My concern about closing arguments is that the prosecution communicates much more briefly and concisely, whereas the defense feeds the jury information in baby spoonfuls.
I'm not sure which is better, but the prosecution better make sure they connect all the dots, and emphasize what they think is significant.
And I hope they remind the jury that they shouldn't be influenced by how much you like or dislike any particular witness, although of course the jurors have the right to judge how credible a witness is.
If the Defense take tooooo long (like West did in opening) they run the risk of losing the jury to boredom. Also a long, confusing closing by Defense usually means smoke screen.
As for the state, I think their closing will be longer because they have to point out specifically the inconsistencies (nice way of saying "lies") Zimmerman made in his various statements. And, the order of closing arguments go like this. The State gives their closing FIRST. Then Defense goes SECOND. THEN the State gets another turn, so they close THIRD and the jury will hear from the state last before they go out to deliberate.
It will be the Judge, during Jury Charge, AFTER closing statements, who will remind the jurors of how to determine the credibility of the witnesses which will in some way include that you are not to judge either side on the basis of who they "like" or do not "like."
I think the Jury Charge in this case is going to shock a lot of people posting in this thread, if they can focus long enough to listen carefully to this long reading of laws and the rules by the Judge which explains to the jury as to HOW the jury is to deliberate. Also, in Florida I know that the Jury Charge by the Court is produced in hard copy form and that hard copy will be sent back to the jury room with the jury while they deliberate so they can consult the laws and rules which were read to them so they know what to do.
Closing arguments are very critical in many felony cases.
You're ignoring what he said about reasonable force, and that the fear for one's life is held to the standard of would a reasonable person be in fear for their life in this situation.
"Reasonable person" is very arbitrary...
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.
