Lion of the Blogosphere

Today at the Zimmerman trial

Commenter Robert wrote:

From what I’ve heard and read, this is a jury that avoids taking recesses when they’re asked if they’d like to. If they’re breaking for the night after 3.5 hours of deliberation and they’ve asked the court for a detailed copy of the evidence that was presented, the jury is obviously split somehow. One or more of them was swayed by the prosecution’s overly emotional non-evidence based closing. The jurors who weren’t swayed by the prosecution have asked for a copy of the evidence because they accept the defense’s airtight case and think the evidence will help them convince the jurors who were swayed to come to their side. If the jury is slanted in Zimmerman’s favor, the pro-Zimmerman jurors will likely be able to pressure the anti-Zimmerman jurors to come to their side. If the jury is slanted in the prosecution’s favor, we’re looking at manslaughter or a hung jury, at best,

“McDreamy” actually paraphrased Matthew McConaughey’s closing argument from ‘A Time to Kill’ in his rebuttal to O’Mara’s closing. I know you like to keep the comments on your blog clean, Lion, but my God, what a ****ing a******.

Yes, I think this is a likely interpretation.

I suggested yesterday that the jury might decide this very quickly given how the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the defense. I thought OJ was obviously guilty, yet that jury decided in less than 4 hours that he was not guilty.

I also remember what a big deal the OJ trial was. Everyone was following it, and when the jury was going to announce its decision, my employer had a television set up in the conference room and everyone crowded in to watch it. This trial is being practically ignored by the MSM in comparison to OJ. Clearly the MSM mostly realizes now that Zimmerman isn’t the racist KKK member jacked up on ‘roids hunting down a 12-year-old kid, pistol in hand, but more likely a victim of being beat up by a thug from a bad neighborhood. But of course they don’t apologize or admit any wrongdoing.

And the judge doesn’t allow in evidence from Martin’s phone showing his involvement in street fighting. That’s pretty powerful evidence, I think, that Martin is someone who is likely to start a fight with someone he perceives to have dissed him. I’m sure it’s one of those things that will be brought up on appeal of Zimmerman is convicted; the Constitution does guarantee defendants a right to present exculpatory evidence to the jury. It’s certainly a lot more relevant to the Zimmerman trial than whether one of many police officers investigating the OJ murders used the “n” word when he thought he was having a private conversation that took place in the past and had nothing to do with the OJ investigation. That’s en example of evidence that has no purpose except to be prejudicial to the other party, but Judge Ito allowed it under the normal principle that judges are a lot more lenient with the defense than with the prosecution.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 13, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Posted in Law

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “And the judge doesn’t allow in evidence from Martin’s phone showing his involvement in street fighting. ”
    I watched that part of the trial, basically under Florida law, text messages just being on somebody’s phone aren’t automatic proof that they were sent by them and require corroborating evidence to be admissable. Since the prosecution lied about having the phone, the defense didn’t have time to get the evidence. The judge still refused to postpone the trial despite the prosecution lying though.

    bob

    July 13, 2013 at 1:13 AM

    • That rule was developed protect the rights of the accused, because normally the police confiscate the cell phones of the criminals they arrest and then want to use that as evidence against them.

      I doubt there have ever been any rulings about defendants trying to introduce text messages of third parties to prove their innocence.

      Once again, remember that defendants have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to present evidence. In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that technical rules of hearsay cannot be used to prevent defendants from presenting evidence that common sense would say is reliable. (And here, common sense says who else would have been sending text messages from Martin’s phone?)

      Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986), is another case where the Supreme Court ruled that state rules of evidence could not be used to prevent a defendant from presenting “reliable” evidence that was meaningful to the case.

      Who started the fight is essential to the case, and I predict this decision will be overruled by higher courts if Zimmerman is convicted.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 13, 2013 at 2:05 AM

      • (And here, common sense says who else would have been sending text messages from Martin’s phone?)

        One of his friends? What did the text say? I thought I remember someone found his youtube page which included videos of fights and the voice of someone that may be Martin cheering them on. What kind of evidence is there that Martin actually got into any fights prior to the one with Zimmerman?

        reynald

        July 13, 2013 at 2:36 AM

      • ”A former Seminole State College instructor on Wednesday told jurors in the George Zimmerman murder case that in Florida, you can start a fight with someone, and if he fights back violently, you can use deadly force if you fear grave injury or death.”

        More: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-day-18-20130703,0,665387.story

        Keep in mind we do not know who started the fight.

        Shawn

        July 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM

      • “One of his friends? What did the text say?”

        “Yea cause he got mo hits cause in da first round he had me on da ground nd I couldn’t do ntn.”

        And the darkly ironic incoming text: “Boy don’t get one planted in ya chest.”

        islandmommy

        July 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM

  2. Whether Zimmerman is convicted or not, and its highly likely that he will be, there will be violent attacks around the country seeking retribution from whites (and latinos) for the death of Trayvon Martin. In the case of a conviction, some blacks will see a guilty verdict as license to exact violent revenge.

    James McKeane

    July 13, 2013 at 3:28 AM

  3. I wouldn’t read too much into it. They probably just wanted to have dinner and start fresh in the morning. It may have taken an hour to select a foreman, another hour to reread the instructions, and another hour was probably wasted chit chatting. Probably some of the dumber women on the jury are confused by the instructions so that alone will take time and explanation from the sharper jury members.

    The instructions are quite clear, if they believe Zimmerman was not engaged in unlawful activity and was attacked, and that he then feared for his life and physical safety, they cannot find him guilty of either charge. (on or around page 12 below)

    Click to access Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

    islandmommy

    July 13, 2013 at 6:56 AM

  4. Re Zimmerman trial:
    I have a feeling that the suggestion by the prosecution to add third variant of charge (3rd degree murder based on child abuse) was an excellent trick.
    That variant was vigorously objected against by defense, and eventually dropped by the presiding judge.
    But after that, the defense had no energy to argue against the “compromise” variant of manslaughter charge, and judge could not be blamed for not making a step towards defense.
    Brilliant trick.

    It reminds me a (politically incorrect) joke about
    adulterous wife, who, in the course of her pregnancy, tells repeatedly her husband that she has dreams. The recurring theme of the dreams is giving birth to a child with visual characteristics of surrounding population (different from the husband’s), and with two heads.
    At the day of birth of the child the nurse from maternity ward comes out very grim-faced.
    Husband (with increasing concern in his voice):
    – What, a child was born ?
    Nurse:
    – Yes.
    H:
    – With local visual characteristics ???
    Nurse:
    – Yes.
    H:
    – With two heads ?!?!?
    Nurse:
    – Why, no, with one head.
    H:
    Oh, thank You, thank You, thank You, dear God !

    Florida resident

    July 13, 2013 at 7:03 AM

  5. Judge Jewdy is quite clearly biased in favor of the prosecution. This entire affair is appalling.

    Delarge

    July 13, 2013 at 9:40 AM

  6. For Christ’s sakes, there is no evidence that Martin was “involved in streetfighting.” His “Thug 4 Life” image was nothing but childish posturing that had no bearing whatsoever on his fight with Zimmerman. The fact remains that Zimmerman should have fought back without using his pistol, but for some reason did not.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    July 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    • According to GZ, he had to shoot when his gun was exposed and TM went for it (and said, “you’re gonna die tonight, M*****F*****R). A lot of people seem to forget that part. BTW, the police asked GZ about that when he was given the lie detector test and he passed. People also seem to forget that. Finally, legally, a victim is entitled to use deadly force if they reasonably fear bodily injury – anyone getting their head bashed into the concrete sidewalk would have such a fear.

      Jimbo

      July 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

  7. I imagine at least some of the jurors are going through big cognitive dissonance right now. The Narrative is pervasive in America now and they are contradicting it suddenly messes with your worldview. If you are a hardened liberal, would this represent a betrayal?

    Its too bad all the Trayvon character evidence was blocked. They think, ‘I just can’t believe this sweet child would ever do such a thing.’

    Dan

    July 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM

  8. islandmommy

    July 13, 2013 at 12:45 PM

  9. “One or more of them was swayed by the prosecution’s overly emotional non-evidence based closing.”

    Yes, very good point. And… emotions eventually run out. If one or two jurors were swayed by the emotional closing, then it’s no surprise a day later without any actual evidence to point to, they’d relent to the other jurors in the group.

    Portlander

    July 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: