Zimmerman Trial

#1,626
#1,626
There are in all jurisdictions going to be a set of pattern jury instructions. For most claims or, in this case criminal charges, there are going to be a set of instructions which the highest court in the jurisdiction has adopted as patterns.

However, any party or the Court on its own motion can seek a modification of them in order to meet the individual facts of the case. So long as the instruction that is read is supported by the facts and is a fair representation of the law, they are rarely going to be the subject of reversal by the appellate court, especially because the appellate court realizes that it is reading a transcript whereas the trial judge has the better vantage point from which to make judgments about what the instructions need to contemplate.

It is not an exact science.
 
#1,627
#1,627
VOLinthaNATI said:
You keep wanting to hammer on the judge. How about all the clowns that have ginned up all this hate and vitriol?

I guarantee you this judge never thought in a million years she'd be on the bench for a case with this much national attention and ideological implications such as this when she signed up. No way.

This whole thing is an absolute joke and was make racial by the likes of Al Sharpton because without things like this Al Sharpton is a nobody. Al Sharpton makes money playing the race card in any and every situation.

He is the problem. The judge is not.
Click to expand...

They're both the damn problem. Stop sucking up to a judge that has no business in that seat. It's pathetic, and excusing this kind of abuse is the damn problem with the country anyway.
 
#1,629
#1,629
lawgator1 said:
There are in all jurisdictions going to be a set of pattern jury instructions. For most claims or, in this case criminal charges, there are going to be a set of instructions which the highest court in the jurisdiction has adopted as patterns.

However, any party or the Court on its own motion can seek a modification of them in order to meet the individual facts of the case. So long as the instruction that is read is supported by the facts and is a fair representation of the law, they are rarely going to be the subject of reversal by the appellate court, especially because the appellate court realizes that it is reading a transcript whereas the trial judge has the better vantage point from which to make judgments about what the instructions need to contemplate.

It is not an exact science.
Click to expand...

Should the instructions include what the law says? Because Nelson just basically said the prosecution can make the jury think that following is illegal.
 
#1,630
#1,630
rockytop9808 said:
They're both the damn problem. Stop sucking up to a judge that has no business in that seat. It's pathetic, and excusing this kind of abuse is the damn problem with the country anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not sucking up to the judge. Don't be so ridiculous. All I'm saying is I completely understand why she is ruling like she is and I believe 95% of the judges in her position would do the same.

Without all the ridiculous antics of Sharpton and the like this trial and thus this judge are never a story. They caused this trial and sideshow to happen the way it is.
 
#1,632
#1,632
bamawriter said:
This is the last I'm saying on the subject. If you aren't capable of inderstanding then it won't matter how long we hash it out.

The numbers 11-19 are > 10, but are not 10s of any measure.

Any number greater than or equal to 20 can be called 10s, as 20 is the first multiple of 10.

Just because a number is greater than 10 or 100 or 1000 does not mean it can accurately be described as 10s, 100s, or 1000s.
Click to expand...

So you would just say teens?
 
#1,633
#1,633
VOLinthaNATI said:
I'm not sucking up to the judge. Don't be so ridiculous. All I'm saying is I completely understand why she is ruling like she is and I believe 95% of the judges in her position would do the same.
Click to expand...

So you argued that she wasn't corrupt, but now are telling us that her rulings have indeed been corrupted because of outside factors?
 
#1,634
#1,634
VOLinthaNATI said:
The judge is not corrupt. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are corrupt for their actions that are directly related to the way she has handled this whole trial.
Click to expand...

Since she is allowing outside forces to corrupt he decisions and actions she is therefor corrupt herself!
 
#1,636
#1,636
VOLinthaNATI said:
I'm not sucking up to the judge. Don't be so ridiculous. All I'm saying is I completely understand why she is ruling like she is and I believe 95% of the judges in her position would do the same.
Click to expand...

And how is that not corruption?

Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for his or her own personal gain.
Click to expand...

She's acting to keep herself safe without considering the fact that she's screwing over an innocent man. That's acting for her own gain.
 
#1,637
#1,637
lawgator1 said:
There are in all jurisdictions going to be a set of pattern jury instructions. For most claims or, in this case criminal charges, there are going to be a set of instructions which the highest court in the jurisdiction has adopted as patterns.

However, any party or the Court on its own motion can seek a modification of them in order to meet the individual facts of the case. So long as the instruction that is read is supported by the facts and is a fair representation of the law, they are rarely going to be the subject of reversal by the appellate court, especially because the appellate court realizes that it is reading a transcript whereas the trial judge has the better vantage point from which to make judgments about what the instructions need to contemplate.

It is not an exact science.
Click to expand...

Somehow I'm betting the judge don't tell them to just weigh the facts & that if there's any reasonable doubt on any possible charge they can throw at him then they have vote not guilty.
 
#1,643
#1,643
rockytop9808 said:
And how is that not corruption?



She's acting to keep herself safe without considering the fact that she's screwing over an innocent man. That's acting for her own gain.
Click to expand...

She isn't screwing over anyone. The jury decides GZ's fate, not the judge. The jury will decide if they think manslaughter is appropriate. Are they not the the ultimate rulers of GZ's guilt or innocence?
 
#1,645
#1,645
VOLinthaNATI said:
She isn't screwing over anyone. The jury decides GZ's fate, not the judge. The jury will decide if they think manslaughter is appropriate. Are they not the the ultimate rulers of GZ's guilt or innocence?
Click to expand...

How is she not screwing him over?

The jury's been sequestered. They're only getting the information the judge is letting through. She's intentionally blocking relevant evidence that is damaging to the state's case. Have you been paying attention at all?
 
#1,648
#1,648
govols/cc said:
Somehow I'm betting the judge don't tell them to just weigh the facts & that if there's any reasonable doubt on any possible charge they can throw at him then they have vote not guilty.
Click to expand...


Yes she will. She will instruct them on what reasonable doubt means. That's standard.
 
#1,649
#1,649
VOLinthaNATI said:
If you want to call her corrupt for protecting her well being and also that of her family then go right ahead.
Click to expand...

If she is putting that above he sworn duty to uphold the law she should resign! That is absolutely no excuse for making a decision from the bench.
 
#1,650
#1,650
VOLinthaNATI said:
Whatever you say. All I'm saying is I understand it and nobody including you would want this mob coming after them forever. Easy to sit back and hammer on when you're just a fool behind a keyboard.
Click to expand...

Really?

The fool is the guy who thinks this is all hunky-dory. No wonder we're f***ed as a country. Embarrassing.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top