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.
Did anyone just catch what the judge said? Told the defense basically take it up on appeal. She's thinking Zimmerman's conviction is a foregone conclusion? Odd statement from the judge.
Why do you overlook all the times the judge has ruled in favor of the defense but insist on calling her stupid and other names when she rules for the state? Seems to me she's been pretty even handed and fair. she's doing a tough job Cut her some slack on the name calling.
Did anyone just catch what the judge said? Told the defense basically take it up on appeal. She's thinking Zimmerman's conviction is a foregone conclusion? Odd statement from the judge.
This bimbo is trying to cover her own butt and not be subject to the wrath of the impending mob violence. She is trying to allow the prosecution to do whatever they need to get a conviction on something. She even admitted that her mishandling will probably result in a appeal.
Did anyone just catch what the judge said? Told the defense basically take it up on appeal. She's thinking Zimmerman's conviction is a foregone conclusion? Odd statement from the judge.
I don't know what else she could have said. Defense keeps arguing after the ruling has been made, which they shouldn't.
Having participated in trials over several hundred times myself, I disagree with your assessment. When the Judge rules on an issue, that's it. It is very unlikely that your legal researchers are going to come up with anything that will be brought up after the ruling that will change the ruling.
I agree that this defense team (mostly O'Mara, the lead attorney, has done an excellent job, including great strategy). However, even Mr. O'Mara has had to try to reign in Mr. West SEVERAL TIMES from further antagonizing the Judge. WHY would O'Mara do that if the strategy was to buy time by antagonizing the Judge?
They are coming back to the 10~15 cases regarding child abuse. I bet there is research going on right now on that.
Was he just doing surveillance from an inconspicuous and safe-distance location?
Do you realize that it is NOT illegal for him to follow? The Prosecution is being dishonest making it appear to be illegal. The Judge is arguing that they can bring that up in closing argument. She doesn't care if the Prosecution is bringing this in as being an illegal act.
Having participated in trials over several hundred times myself, I disagree with your assessment. When the Judge rules on an issue, that's it. It is very unlikely that your legal researchers are going to come up with anything that will be brought up after the ruling that will change the ruling.
I agree that this defense team (mostly O'Mara, the lead attorney, has done an excellent job, including great strategy). However, even Mr. O'Mara has had to try to reign in Mr. West SEVERAL TIMES from further antagonizing the Judge. WHY would O'Mara do that if the strategy was to buy time by antagonizing the Judge?
and last I heard their closing is on Friday. The state is up today.
...and not intimidating enough to the point of putting the one being followed on the defensive? Do you actually believe if GZ was wearing identifying gear, which is encouraged in the Neighborhood Watch manuals, or if GZ verbally indentified himslef to TM, this would have turned out the way it has? That is the essence of this "following" thing that you attempt to make so innocuous.
BTW...my question is not rhetorical.
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.