Zimmerman Trial

#776
#776
I have not cared for West as a defense attorney, but his back and forth on the imperfect self defense was huge for the defense. He gave the hypothetical that if someone pushed someone first and then the next person started being the aggressor to the point of fearing for your life, could it be self defense for the one who instigated it with the push? The guy testified yes. Pretty much hammered what the prosecution wants you to believe.
 
#777
#777
tvols75 said:
I have not cared for West as a defense attorney, but his back and forth on the imperfect self defense was huge for the defense. He gave the hypothetical that if someone pushed someone first and then the next person started being the aggressor to the point of fearing for your life, could it be self defense for the one who instigated it with the push? The guy testified yes. Pretty much hammered what the prosecution wants you to believe.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree. He ultimately got the answer he wanted, but he took a really roundabout way to get there.

He did the same thing with the Stand Your Ground issue. He should have asked one question on that topic: "If one is being physically assaulted, does the Stand Your Ground law even apply, or is it a cut and dried case of self defense?" West ultimately asked that question, but only after asking questions about whether SYG applies outside of the home, and what constitutes a duty to retreat. Those questions were worse than useless; they had the potential to muddy the waters for the jury.

West seems to have the philosophy of "What good is one great question if you don't ask 5 worthless questions first?"
 
#778
#778
bamawriter said:
I'm not sure I agree. He ultimately got the answer he wanted, but he took a really roundabout way to get there.

He did the same thing with the Stand Your Ground issue. He should have asked one question on that topic: "If one is being physically assaulted, does the Stand Your Ground law even apply, or is it a cut and dried case of self defense?" West ultimately asked that question, but only after asking questions about whether SYG applies outside of the home, and what constitutes a duty to retreat. Those questions were worse than useless; they had the potential to muddy the waters for the jury.

West seems to have the philosophy of "What good is one great question if you don't ask 5 worthless questions first?"
Click to expand...

I heard just the meat of the exchange. Didn't hear the rambling before. But I agree, what the heck is he doing when he asks a question 5 different ways and then none of them really even lead into the next question.
 
#779
#779
Whoa,

The State just used DNA evidence to prove that Zimmerman, at some point, was in possession of his own gun! Case closed! Get the needle ready!
 
#780
#780
bamawriter said:
Whoa,

The State just used DNA evidence to prove that Zimmerman, at some point, was in possession of his own gun! Case closed! Get the needle ready!
Click to expand...

:lol:
UmpOi.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#781
#781
Seriously, 35 witnesses. 35.

And the 35th one is presenting evidence of facts that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS DISPUTED!
 
#782
#782
DinkinFlicka said:
I seriously doubt Crush or 8283 are taking anything in this conversation seriously. As categorically incorrect as I may be, your notion here is flat out ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Really the only thing I took exception too was his degrading/mocking BigPapa's kids (I think that was the one). Like I said, there isn't really anything that you can say to me to piss me off to the point of dropping the gloves. However, talking about someone's family (in particular their kids) will send me right over the edge.
 
#784
#784
DinkinFlicka said:
It doesn't take being a keyboard warrior to call out someone for being a petty smartass over the internet.

It might be different if anything you posted was, you know, funny.

If you're the one saying I'm digging myself into an illogical hole, I'm okay with that. You're kind of the pariah on here, and that really takes a special person.
Click to expand...

:good!:
 
#787
#787
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I turn this stuff completely off. I watch later at night to see the days results or what's said at trial. I never watched the Casey Anthony trial either because of all the 24 hour coverage. I find it rather stupid to cover this 24 hours a day.
Click to expand...

Me too, I just read about it here. I would dare say that Houndog, Bama, et. al. do a much better breaking down what is going on than the newscasters (yes, even Nancy Grace - :eek:lol:).
 
#788
#788
BW, I'm learning things from your commentary, appreciate it. You make a better lawyer than that guy from Florida who claims it in his user name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#790
#790
This DNA evidence is not revealing anything that should not have been expected given Zimmerman's version of events.
 
#791
#791
The Reverend Al Sharpton weighs in on the Zimmerman trial. He says:

-TM engaged in no crime (what about pounding someone's head into a sidewalk?)

-GZ had no right to say so much as "good afternoon" to TM (Wait, what happened to the 1st Amendment?)

-"We" have endured insults during this trial (Huh? What insults? Cross examination?)

-GZ had no right to follow TM (But I coulda swore that the lead detective testified that there was nothing legally wrong with following someone).

-We need to have people understand what they are seeing during this trial (Oh, someone needs to interpret what is seen for us, despite our own two eyes and ears).

What a pitiful DIVIDER of our country.


Rev. Al Sharpton on George Zimmerman’s Self Defense Claim & More | Black America Web
 
#792
#792
West is wasting time rehashing some of this DNA evidence. This ground has been covered and it doesn't do anything to hurt his client's case, so it's time to move on.

I feel like the more West beats these dead horses, the more the jury wonders if the State has more of a case than it appears that they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#793
#793
I simply don't understand why West is spending so much time trying to discredit the DNA evidence when none of it is detrimental to his client's innocence. It doesn't discredit GM's story at all.
 
#796
#796
coug said:
35 witnesses to what? Last I checked this was basically a witness less encounter.
Click to expand...

Realizing that Zimmerman would probably never take the stand, the State went with a strategy of getting Zimmerman's words into evidence without him. So they called every cop, friend, neighbor, etc who Zimmerman spoke to about the case. They even played a tape of an interview with Sean Hannity.

The problem with this strategy is that Zimmerman's story has stayed pretty consistent. There are no glaring discrepencies from one telling to the next. So now Zimmerman's side of the story has been told without the risk of cross-examination by the State. The strategy completely backfired and did nothing but help the Defense.
 
#797
#797
As for the DNA guy, my cross would have been the following, then I would have just sat down:

1) There is DNA from GZ on the gun?

2) There is DNA from TM on the hoodie?

3) You know that there is no dispute about any of this and that we are wasting this jury's time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#798
#798
Yall are failing to take 2 HUGE things in consideration when you criticize the defense attorneys approach to this case: 1) the Rules of Evidence and 2) Trial Strategy.

First, with regards to trial strategy, West brilliantly slow walked the cross examination of the DNA witness in order to prevent Trayvon's mom from being called to the stand today. He stalled b/c you don't want that emotional testimony being the last thing the jury hears before getting a full day to think about it. I knew he was going to try and go long enough to prevent the State from resting their case today, but I didn't think he could do it - should have never doubted him. Huge win for the defense by delaying TM's mom emotional testimony until Friday morning.

Second, with regards to the Rules of Evidence, the Defense can't just ask anything and everything on cross-examination. They are limited by the scope of the State's direct. So, that's why he had to ask about Stand your Ground b/c (if I remember correctly) that's what the State attorney asked about on direct. This series of questions was also very smart because West got a chance to give the jurors a lesson on the law of self-defense. Also, you want to lead the witness on cross, not ask him for a narrative response (plus this would be objectionable).

I hope this helps explains some of the things you don't understand. I am by no means an expert in criminal law nor the rules of evidence, but this stuff is tricky even for lawyers/judges to fully understand, much less lay people. So don't be so harsh on the defense or the prosecution because both sides are very experienced and usually have a method to what seems like their madness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#799
#799
Vol4LifeLCA said:
Yall are failing to take 2 HUGE things in consideration when you criticize the defense attorneys approach to this case: 1) the Rules of Evidence and 2) Trial Strategy.

First, with regards to trial strategy, West brilliantly slow walked the cross examination of the DNA witness in order to prevent Trayvon's mom from being called to the stand today. He stalled b/c you don't want that emotional testimony being the last thing the jury hears before getting a full day to think about it. I knew he was going to try and go long enough to prevent the State from resting their case today, but I didn't think he could do it - should have never doubted him. Huge win for the defense by delaying TM's mom emotional testimony until Friday morning.

Second, with regards to the Rules of Evidence, the Defense can't just ask anything and everything on cross-examination. They are limited by the scope of the State's direct. So, that's why he had to ask about Stand your Ground b/c (if I remember correctly) that's what the State attorney asked about on direct. This serious of questions was also very smart because West got a chance to give the jurors a lesson on the law of self-defense. Also, you want to lead the witness on cross, not ask him for a narrative response (plus this would be objectionable).

I hope this helps explains some of the things you don't understand. I am by no means an expert in criminal law nor the rules of evidence, but this stuff is tricky even for lawyers/judges to fully understand, much less lay people. So don't be so harsh on the defense or the prosecution because both sides are very experienced and usually have a method to what seems like their madness.
Click to expand...

Good news for those on Team Z.
 
#800
#800
LCA,

You might be correct about West slow-walking the end of the day to put off Martin's mother's testimony. But West has had a bad habit of going over the same ground throughout the trial.

As for SYG, I could not disagree with you more. Just because the Prosecution introduces the information doesn't mean you have to refute it as if it applies when it doesn't. Just make the point that it doesn't apply and move on. By refuting it, you give the jury cause to think it might apply. And again, West ultimately pointed out that SYG was irrelevant in this case. Which makes his entire line of questioning up to that point so baffling.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top