The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[Sunshine]

Looks like mana$$ is annoying him, too

Anyone know who the man is next to the one circled in yellow is? He has on a grey tie? (He's cute! Possibly WAT?)

Ummm That's first two rows - cops and support.

Media starts row 3.

Well, that says a lot. If someone is a 'wanna be cop' as the populace has accused Zimmerman of being, the cops don't have much tolerance for them.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

State is tomorrow, defense / rebuttal Friday.

Rat's right.

Now why can't I ever get Mrs Rat to say those last two words???

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm just not convinced of that, Templar. I'm really not.

I think this guy might get sacrificed on the Altar Of Stupidity And Political Correctness.

If not Murder II, Manslaughter or maybe even Assault.

Something. I hope I'm wrong.

I would love to see the left go apoplectic

You are entitled to believe what you wish, Edgetho. He has all the stars aligned in his favor, regardless of the bias coming from the judge. If he is convicted here, it will be overturned on appeal. It will be a miscarriage of justice to convict a man without preponderance of evidence to suggest he committed the crime for which he is accused.

I don't believe Appeals Courts overturn based on evidence. Not even sure they review evidence.

I think they review based on mistakes and objections.

I could be wrong. I'm just a layman with a layman's knowledge. Which is very limited.

Maybe one of Attorney friends could jump in on this.

I was watching coverage today and recordings of yesterday's action. The judge made three potentially damning errors which could possibly sway the jury into a conviction, O'Mara now knows this, and now he is laying grounds for an appeal. She completely disregarded Lamarque and Caldwell, which potentially violates Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights to proper presentment before a jury. The texts were compelling evidence, as were the pictures of the gun and the weed. Her disallowance of the Defense to properly prepare themselves yesterday is another, lastly her overall behavior towards the defense suggests bias.

They are (should) review on the judge's bias. It has been clear for an amount of time that she is pro prosecution.

 

[wharfrat]

Not very likely, but I can flesh out an argument for it. I would imagine his reasoning is this:

(1) As to manslaughter, that requires culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is a much different standard than depraved mind, and to instruct the jury would cause confusion of the issue of the required mindset for M2.

(2) As to aggravated assault, that requires use of a deadly weapon without intent to kill. Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, and that is not in dispute, so therefore to include the charge would only confuse the jury.

Edit: I hope I'm being clear; these are just hypothetical arguments. Technicalities that will not occur.

 

[Foxfyre]

Zimmerman's whole case and everything he has to testify to has already been given to the jury by testimony in the trial. And because it is pretty much an open and shut conclusion now that the Prosecution has failed to make a case for Second Degree Murder or any other form of homicide, the Defense would be insane to put Zimmerman on the stand. Since there is absolutely nothing he can say that hasn't already been entered into the record, why in the world would they give the Prosecution opportunity to bait him into planting any seeds of doubt re that testimony?

 

[Sunshine]

I thought she said state's closing on Thursday, then Defense closing and state's rebuttal on Friday.

Which is even WORSE!!!!!!!!!!

GAH

She is part of the state's team.

I think she is her OWN team. Doesn't want white ass kicked by black boots.

 

[wavingrl]

I'm not saying there was. I'm saying if she had not asked HIM, it would have looked as though his lawyer could not put him on the stand for ethical reasons. Whether the jury heard it or not, I think it was a good thing. She will likely make it known to the jury that HE made the decision. If I were Zimmerman I wouldn't want to testify either. I would be a wreck. I think I have been in some key places to see the kind of emotional turmoil people go through when there is a criminal accusation against them. I have also seen the fools who won't settle for probation but rather want their 'name cleared' and end up in the pen.

I assumed it was standard procedure to ask the defendant if he wanted to testify.

'Someone' opined that she could tell that GZ did want to testify. CNN or HLN commentator with long hair--'yes, I have covered many trials and I could tell GZ really wanted to testify'.

Then another person opined that it could have been a defense strategy--to wait until the end of the day to decide, keeping the prosecution guessing--when they, defendant and counsel knew he would not testify.

I don't have much patience for all the opinions.

A panel member said, 'As a juror I wouldn't be satisfied until I heard from the defendant's own mouth why he chose to leave his vehicle.'

shrug--That is not a burning issue to me after all the testimony.

I'm not sure what Florida's procedural code says. But I do know the ABA Code of Professional Conduct says that an attorney cannot put a person on the stand he KNOWS is going to commit perjury. It also says some things about perpetrating a fraud upon the court. Deep stuff.

I don't even know that much.

Zimmerman just doesn't seem like he would be articulate enough to impress jurors.

I was surprised to learn his father is a magistrate judge? His uncle a sheriff's deputy.

That would impress me or influence me as a juror. He really didn't need to say anything.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

State is tomorrow, defense / rebuttal Friday.

Rat's right.

Now why can't I ever get Mrs Rat to say those last two words???

'Cause she knows you better than you know yourself!

 

[Oldstyle]

Can you be more specific? Wouldn't you agree that GZ is at least a loser? You'd have to be to follow people around to try and feel self-important and spend half of your adult life calling the police on people for any reason.

In a time of apathy and selfishness, someone cares enough about the neighborhood that they live in to volunteer their time to try and keep that neighborhood safe by joining a Neighborhood Watch, but you call him a "loser"? What makes George Zimmerman a loser in your eyes? The fact that he cared? That's the OPPOSITE of a sociopath!

I didn't call him a loser.

Ah, you just did in that post! When you ask someone to agree that GZ is a loser...you're CALLING him a loser. Don't make statements like that and then run from them...that makes YOU a loser!

 

[Sunshine]

Not very likely, but I can flesh out an argument for it. I would imagine his reasoning is this:

(1) As to manslaughter, that requires culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is a much different standard than depraved mind, and to instruct the jury would cause confusion of the issue of the required mindset for M2.

(2) As to aggravated assault, that requires use of a deadly weapon without intent to kill. Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, and that is not in dispute, so therefore to include the charge would only confuse the jury.

I was in and out both weeks. I must have missed the prosecution addressing mindset. ???
I don't recall anything other than the opening 'fucking kids' statement.

 

[Oldstyle]

It takes 12 people that believe he's guilty for a conviction. Let's wait and see.

The jury in this trial is 6 people.

You know so little about this case but you keep flailing away.

That's why I have over 2,000 posts in discussions about Zimmy.

I have been listening to the live feed for two days now and when I glance at it, I mostly look at the prosecution, defense, judge or witnesses. I saw the jury but it wasn't a wide-shot, at least, not one I saw.

Dude, you are one clueless person! The identity of the jurors is not being given out, ostensibly to protect them in this highly charged case. You didn't see the jury because they aren't SHOWING the jury! Duh?

 

[Sunshine]

I assumed it was standard procedure to ask the defendant if he wanted to testify.

'Someone' opined that she could tell that GZ did want to testify. CNN or HLN commentator with long hair--'yes, I have covered many trials and I could tell GZ really wanted to testify'.

Then another person opined that it could have been a defense strategy--to wait until the end of the day to decide, keeping the prosecution guessing--when they, defendant and counsel knew he would not testify.

I don't have much patience for all the opinions.

A panel member said, 'As a juror I wouldn't be satisfied until I heard from the defendant's own mouth why he chose to leave his vehicle.'

shrug--That is not a burning issue to me after all the testimony.

I'm not sure what Florida's procedural code says. But I do know the ABA Code of Professional Conduct says that an attorney cannot put a person on the stand he KNOWS is going to commit perjury. It also says some things about perpetrating a fraud upon the court. Deep stuff.

I don't even know that much.

Zimmerman just doesn't seem like he would be articulate enough to impress jurors.

I was surprised to learn his father is a magistrate judge? His uncle a sheriff's deputy.

That would impress me or influence me as a juror. He really didn't need to say anything.

Well, he's been to school, so he may be more articulate than thought. But I've seen a lot of really articulate people in a state of being an emotional wreck. They don't present well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I'm just not convinced of that, Templar. I'm really not.

I think this guy might get sacrificed on the Altar Of Stupidity And Political Correctness.

If not Murder II, Manslaughter or maybe even Assault.

Something. I hope I'm wrong.

I would love to see the left go apoplectic

You are entitled to believe what you wish, Edgetho. He has all the stars aligned in his favor, regardless of the bias coming from the judge. If he is convicted here, it will be overturned on appeal. It will be a miscarriage of justice to convict a man without preponderance of evidence to suggest he committed the crime for which he is accused.

I don't believe Appeals Courts overturn based on evidence. Not even sure they review evidence.

I think they review based on mistakes and objections.

I could be wrong. I'm just a layman with a layman's knowledge. Which is very limited.

Maybe one of Attorney friends could jump in on this.

I like to watch about a lot of the murder trials on 48 hours and Dateline. From that experience, successful appeals of murder convictions are very rare and IMHO none of it is really taken very seriously by the Appeals courts. Along with all the negative public pressure on GZ, he'd have to be really lucky to win an appeal.

Even mistakes by the prosecution and judges are routinely overlooked.

 

[testarosa]

State is tomorrow, defense / rebuttal Friday.

Rat's right.

Now why can't I ever get Mrs Rat to say those last two words???

Does she know you call her Mrs. Rat?

Just checking

 

[Oldstyle]

You are entitled to believe what you wish, Edgetho. He has all the stars aligned in his favor, regardless of the bias coming from the judge. If he is convicted here, it will be overturned on appeal. It will be a miscarriage of justice to convict a man without preponderance of evidence to suggest he committed the crime for which he is accused.

I don't believe Appeals Courts overturn based on evidence. Not even sure they review evidence.

I think they review based on mistakes and objections.

I could be wrong. I'm just a layman with a layman's knowledge. Which is very limited.

Maybe one of Attorney friends could jump in on this.

I was watching coverage today and recordings of yesterday's action. The judge made three potentially damning errors which could possibly sway the jury into a conviction, O'Mara now knows this, and now he is laying grounds for an appeal. She completely disregarded Lamarque and Caldwell, which potentially violates Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights to proper presentment before a jury. The texts were compelling evidence, as were the pictures of the gun and the weed. Her disallowance of the Defense to properly prepare themselves yesterday is another, lastly her overall behavior towards the defense suggests bias.

They are (should) review on the judge's bias. It has been clear for an amount of time that she is pro prosecution.

What was her rationale for not allowing the text messages? That they had no way of proving Martin was responsible for them even though they were on his phone?

 

[Sunshine]

State is tomorrow, defense / rebuttal Friday.

Rat's right.

Now why can't I ever get Mrs Rat to say those last two words???

Does she know you call her Mrs. Rat?

Just checking

He probably should call her 'the beautiful and sexy Mrs. Rat.'

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Is the trial over for today? My live feed has been unavailable for awhile.

 

[wharfrat]

Not very likely, but I can flesh out an argument for it. I would imagine his reasoning is this:

(1) As to manslaughter, that requires culpable negligence. Culpable negligence is a much different standard than depraved mind, and to instruct the jury would cause confusion of the issue of the required mindset for M2.

(2) As to aggravated assault, that requires use of a deadly weapon without intent to kill. Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, and that is not in dispute, so therefore to include the charge would only confuse the jury.

I was in and out both weeks. I must have missed the prosecution addressing mindset. ???
I don't recall anything other than the opening 'fucking kids' statement.

Yeah, they really didn't use anything other than "assholes" and "fucking punks" to address mindset. Apparently if you curse, you have a depraved mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

I assumed it was standard procedure to ask the defendant if he wanted to testify.

'Someone' opined that she could tell that GZ did want to testify. CNN or HLN commentator with long hair--'yes, I have covered many trials and I could tell GZ really wanted to testify'.

Then another person opined that it could have been a defense strategy--to wait until the end of the day to decide, keeping the prosecution guessing--when they, defendant and counsel knew he would not testify.

I don't have much patience for all the opinions.

A panel member said, 'As a juror I wouldn't be satisfied until I heard from the defendant's own mouth why he chose to leave his vehicle.'

shrug--That is not a burning issue to me after all the testimony.

I'm not sure what Florida's procedural code says. But I do know the ABA Code of Professional Conduct says that an attorney cannot put a person on the stand he KNOWS is going to commit perjury. It also says some things about perpetrating a fraud upon the court. Deep stuff.

I don't even know that much.

Zimmerman just doesn't seem like he would be articulate enough to impress jurors.

I was surprised to learn his father is a magistrate judge? His uncle a sheriff's deputy.

That would impress me or influence me as a juror. He really didn't need to say anything.

I think he is plenty articulate. Apparently he is very well liked and respected and appreciated by his neighbors who know him well, but on camera he is not that sympathetic a person. He is probably very lovable once you get to know him. But on camera, he just isn't somebody who looks adorable either in his appearance or by his demeanor. He just isn't one of those people you are automatically drawn to and feel immediate rapport or sympathy with. And that could go against him under antagonistic interrogation by the Prosecution. I'm sure his defense team knows that too.