Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column ... -case-is-merely-a-distraction/
Published: Jul 20, 2013
Author: Jaz McKay
Post Date: 2013-07-20 23:58:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 61557
Comments: 95
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Lucysmom (#0)
You.
"Gov. Rick Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, state attorney for the Jacksonville area, as special prosecutor to head the state investigation of the Feb. 26 slaying of Trayvon Martin, 17, of South Florida." Tampa Bay Times, March 22, 2012. Republican Governor Rick Scott appointed Republican Angela Corry as Special Prosecutor. As a Republican, Corry was elected to the office of State Attorney for the 4th Judicial Circuit.
He's an ObamaBushbot anti-American globalist, like Boehner, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the real Republicans and Democrats. The D&R crime syndicate hates us because we're free.
Got ya. I thought she was a democrat. Thanks.
This is all about the 2014 elections. Even Nate Sllver agrees that the GOP has a really good chance of gaining control of the Senate next year. The only thing that can prevent this is if blacks vote in record numbers, like they did in 2008 and 2012. What better way to get them to vote than to rile them up about alleged white racism?
While at the same time driving white women away? You know white women are racists don't ya?
As long as the "Life begins at erection" religious loons remain a powerful block in the GOP,white women are not leaving the Dim Party,period. They are mostly single-issue voters,and their single issue is having the option to have a abortion. Right now most think the fundie freaks in the GOP would ban all abortions and even the "morning after pill" if they could,and they are right.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
statelymcdanielmanor.word...7/19/who-is-angela-corey/ Who is Angela Corey and how did she get picked to prosecute George Zimmerman? The best information suggests that Corey was reliable, as in reliably overly-aggressive and unethical. Interestingly enough, Corey ran for her office as a republican and was appointed by republican governor Rick Scott and republican State Attorney General Pam Bondi. One might think that republicans would be less prone to the corruption that became so evident in the prosecution of George Zimmerman–and the continuing prosecution of Shellie Zimmerman–than Democrats. Unfortunately, it appears that Governor Scott and AG Bondi went wobbly on principle and the law in the onslaught of a DOJ sponsored racial firestorm. They needed George Zimmerman to be prosecuted and convicted regardless of the evidence, and Angela Corey–and her handpicked minions–were more than willing to ignore an almost complete lack of evidence in the pursuit of those needs. Ian Tuttle at National Review.com provides insight into Corey’s background and performance. The primary lesson? She’s vindictive and ruthless. Corey, a Jacksonville native, took a degree in marketing from Florida State University before pursuing her J.D. at the University of Florida. She became a Florida prosecutor in 1981 and tried everything from homicides to juvenile cases in the ensuing 26 years. In 2008, Corey was elected state attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, taking over from Harry Shorstein — the five-term state attorney who had fired her from his office a year earlier, citing “long-term issues” regarding her supervisory performance. When Corey came in, she cleaned house. Corey fired half of the office’s investigators, two-fifths of its victim advocates, a quarter of its 35 paralegals, and 48 other support staff — more than one-fifth of the office. Then she sent a letter to Florida’s senators demanding that they oppose Shorstein’s pending nomination as a U.S. attorney. ‘I told them he should not hold a position of authority in his community again, because of his penchant for using the grand jury for personal vendettas,’ she wrote. I’ve written about her bizarre attempt to get Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired for the crime of daring to criticize her terribly unprofessional and arguably illegal affidavit in the Zimmerman case. This was only one incident in a long line of unethical and thin-skinned attacks on anyone daring to criticize her official actions. Corey knows about personal vendettas. They seem to be her specialty. When Ron Littlepage, a journalist for the Florida Times-Union, wrote a column criticizing her handling of the Christian Fernandez case — in which Corey chose to prosecute a twelve-year-old boy for first-degree murder, who wound up locked in solitary confinement in an adult jail prior to his court date — she ‘fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state-attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.’ And that was moderate. When Corey was appointed to handle the Zimmerman case, Talbot ‘Sandy’ D’Alemberte, a former president of both the American Bar Association and Florida State University, criticized the decision: ‘I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.’ Corey responded by making a public-records request of the university for all e-mails, text messages, and phone messages in which D’Alemberte had mentioned Fernandez. Like Littlepage, D’Alemberte had earlier criticized Corey’s handling of the Fernandez case. Not many people are willing to cross Corey. A Florida attorney I spoke with declined to go on record because of ‘concerns about retaliation’ — that attorney has pending cases that will require Corey’s cooperation. The attorney mentioned colleagues who have refused to speak to the media for the same reason. And to think: D’Alemberte crossed Corey twice. He should get a medal. Among the things Dershowitz learned in the aftermath of Corey’s attempt to have him fired was that Corey is infamous in Florida for concealing evidence and overcharging. There is no question she grossly overcharged in the Zimmerman case, in fact, there was virtually no evidence to support any charge, as the jury understood. And I’ve catalogued serial abuses of discovery, including one brought to light by former Corey IT director Ben Kruidbos. In Update 31, I noted Bernie di la Rionda taking Kruidbos to task for not feeling comfortable having a heart to heart chat with Angela Corey about his fears that di la Rionda was illegally withholding evidence from the defense. Kruidbos had more than solid grounds for not trusting Corey–or di la Rionda, for that matter–Corey fired him shortly after the case was given to the jury. Tuttle writes: Meanwhile, those who speak out against her continue to be mistreated. Ben Kruidbos (pronounced CRIED-boss), the IT director at Corey’s state-attorney office, was fired last week — one month after testifying during the Zimmerman trial that Corey had withheld from defense attorneys evidence obtained from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. Corey’s office contends that Kruidbos was fired for poor job performance and for leaking personnel records. The termination notice delivered to Kruidbos last Friday read: ‘You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” Less than two months before this letter, Kruidbos had received a raise for “meritorious performance.’ The records in question — Kruidbos maintains he had nothing to do with leaking them — revealed that Corey used $235,000 in taxpayer money to upgrade her pension and that of her co-prosecutor in the Zimmerman case, Bernie de la Rionda. The upgrade was legal, but Harry Shorstein, Corey’s predecessor, had said previously that using taxpayer funds to upgrade pensions was not ‘proper.’ Meanwhile, while Kruidbos has been forced out of the state attorney’s office, the managing director who wrote his termination letter — one Cheryl Peek — remains. In 1990 Peek was fired from the same state attorney’s office by Harry Shorstein’s predecessor, Ed Austin, for jury manipulation. Now, as managing director for that office, she trains lawyers in professional ethics. Tuttle obviously thinks little of Corey’s ethics: Since her election, Corey seems to be determinedly purging from the ranks any who cross her and surrounding herself with inferiors whose ethical scruples appear to mirror her own. Meanwhile, those she chooses to victimize — most recently, George Zimmerman — far too often have little recourse. Di la Rionda, Mantei and Guy would seem to be confirmation of this. Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker notes that Kruidbos is not taking his termination lying down: A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey’s office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman’s prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday. Ben Kruidbos, Corey’s former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin’s cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws. ‘We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida’s Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court,’ said Kruidbos’ attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days. But surely Angela Corey is a great defender of blacks? Not so much, as Lifson explains: In 2011, she prosecuted a 12 year old boy, Cristian Fernandez, as an adult with every intention of sending him away for life. In a move eerily similar to Corey having George Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, indicted for perjury, Corey has also prosecuted Fernandez’s mother. This case got the attention of those defenders of the Philadelphia polling places, the New Black Panther Party. The next year, Corey’s office charged a 31-year old black woman, Marissa Alexander, with attempted murder when she fired a weapon, during an altercation with her ex-husband who was under a restraining order. Alexander is serving a 20-year sentence. The Florida NAACP was not amused. Beyond these cases, there is the fact that Corey’s office leads the state in prosecuting black juveniles as adults. In fact she prosecutes black juveniles as adults 20% above the statewide average. Redstate.com provides the statistics for FloridaSo when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward.
#3. To: nolu chan, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#2)
(Edited)
Republican Governor Rick Scott appointed Republican Angela Corry
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: nolu chan (#2)
Republican Angela Corry
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
NSA SEARCH TAG: Tea Party, White House, Constitution, Obama, Allahu Akbar, Air Plane, Pressure Cooker, Ruby Ridge, Waco
#6. To: jwpegler (#5)
What better way to get them to vote than to rile them up about alleged white racism?
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
While at the same time driving white women away? You know white women are racists don't ya?
#8. To: nolu chan (#2)
Here are the percentages of black males versus white males transferred into the adult criminal system in Florida as a whole. This includes all judicial circuits, including the 4th judicial circuit:
2006-2007 – 146,950 total juvenile referrals. 4,622 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 53.3% were black. 24.5% were white.
2007-2008 – 145,539 total juvenile referrals. 4, 907 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.1% were black. 25.7% were white.
2008-2009 – 138,218 total juvenile referrals. 4,393 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.8% were black. 23.4% were white.
2009-2010 – 121,642 total juvenile referrals. 3,694 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 52.1% were black. 24.2% were white.
2010-2011 – 109,813 total juvenile referrals. 3,061 transferred to adult court. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 50.8% were black. 26.1% were white.
Here is the data for Angela Corey’s 4th judicial circuit. Note the considerable increase. Angela Corey took office in the beginning of 2009 and did nothing to decrease the number of black males tried as adults – a trend that started before her and has not ceased. The trend has likely increased for 2011-2012 since juvenile crime referrals in her district of Duval went up, while referrals in the majority of other Florida counties actually went down:
2006-2007 – 8125 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 61.7% were black. 31.3% were white.
2007-2008 – 9482 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 79.2% were black. 13.8% were white.
2008-2009 – 8911 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 71.1% were black. 19.6% were white.
2009-2010 – 6877 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 74.4% were black. 16.8% were white.
2010-2011 – 5889 total juvenile referrals. Of the above percentages given in relation to those transferred to adult court, 62.2% were black. 27.8% were white.
Corey pursued George Zimmerman with single-minded zeal. But obviously, she is no champion of what the NAACP and other race-baiting organizations and individuals see as black rights issues. In fact, her judicial district, the 4th, is a majority white district. Redstate offers a possible explanation:
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8) (Edited)
Boy, she's a real piece of work. Maybe we should send Buford T. Justice over to Florida to "Barbecue her ass in Molasses", I'd bet a lot of residents there would approve. BTW you should post the American Thinker article just to watch ming go ballistic about Jews.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Great post, very informative and dovetails nicely with all the other hypocrisy the Zimmerman murder case represents.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#1) (Edited)
I think I will reply in lucy's place and get your guys's dainty little panties in a wad. All they had to do was investigate the incident just like they would if a husband shot a wife and let the chips fall where they will. What are you guys so scared of? BTW I don't ping her because she says she refuses to come here anyway.
You.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#12. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Affirmative Action was written originally to benefit "white women" in our quest for access to the workplace. I don't think we are leaving anytime soon.
While at the same time driving white women away? You know white women are racists don't ya?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#13. To: A K A Stone (#6) (Edited)
Why do you think that this will drive "white women" away? A majority of married white women vote for the GOP. It's single white women who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The government has spent the last 50 years replacing husbands and fathers with government programs. How does this drive single white women away from big government Democrat programs??? It doesn't.
While at the same time driving white women away?
NSA SEARCH TAG: Tea Party, White House, Constitution, Obama, Allahu Akbar, Air Plane, Pressure Cooker, Ruby Ridge, Waco
#14. To: jwpegler (#13)
Because they see lots of blacks acting stupid. Then Obama siding with the stupid blacks. Some of them have enough sense to know Zimmerman is innocent. Maybe many of them. I'm not saying any certain number. But some will.
Why do you think that this will drive "white women" away?
#15. To: mininggold (#12) (Edited)
Affirmative Action was written originally to benefit "white women" in our quest for access to the workplace Hillary, Napalatano, and Suzanne De Barr all quit their jobs when the going got tough. No woman ever grew a pair due to affirmative action. I don't think we are leaving anytime soon.
ICE Chief of Staff Suzanne Barr resigns due to sex harassment allegations
Suzanne De Barr
Dyke
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#16. To: hondo68 (#15)
Life must be tough if you have to offer guys free BJs just to get a second glance or the time of day from them. LOL...
Hillary, Napalatano, and Suzanne De Barr all quit their jobs when the going got tough.
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
#17. To: A K A Stone (#8)
This goes a bit far claiming a near complete lack of evidence. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman committed all the elements of manslaughter. The only question in the case concerned the evidence to support or disprove the Zimmerman claim of self defense. At the time charges were brought, the self defense claim depended almost wholly on the assertions of Zimmerman. This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense. I doubt Governor Scott appointed her because of any purported defense of blacks. Governor Scott desired to ensure there was no possible appearance of state failure to vigorously prosecute the case. For the purpose of saving himself from a potential political headache, Corey was a good choice. I'm not a big fan of the prosecution in this case but it did well serve the political goals of Governor Scott.
Angela Corey–and her handpicked minions–were more than willing to ignore an almost complete lack of evidence in the pursuit of those needs.
There is no question she grossly overcharged in the Zimmerman case, in fact, there was virtually no evidence to support any charge, as the jury understood.
But surely Angela Corey is a great defender of blacks?
#18. To: A K A Stone (#14) (Edited)
So, why do they care? Today, young women are more educated than young men. They also tend to have better careers than men. This is not only true in America, but also in Europe and Japan as well. Young women aren't looking for husbands and providers. They are looking for boy toys -- the dumber the better. If they can f*ck like an animal, they are golden. It's the way the world works today. Nothing about the Zimmerman / Martin circus will repel young women away from the Democrat Party.
Because they see lots of blacks acting stupid.
NSA SEARCH TAG: Tea Party, White House, Constitution, Obama, Allahu Akbar, Air Plane, Pressure Cooker, Ruby Ridge, Waco
#19. To: nolu chan (#17)
The prosecution should be shot. They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense. They lied. They withheld evidence. The jury concurs.
This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#8)
I don't seen any reason to believe that one party any sort of monopoly on corruption. They both seem quite proficient at it. It may be what they do best. As for Shellie Zimmerman, no reason is given to claim prosecutorial corruption by continuing her perjury case. Case facts are neither related nor disputed. Orlando Sentinel, February 19, 2013, excerpt: In truth, they were awash in cash, according to the couple's financial records. During the previous two weeks, more than $130,000 had come flooding in from online donors contributing to George Zimmerman's defense. Recorded phone calls at the Seminole County Jail between Zimmerman, who was locked up at the time, and his wife suggest he was directing her about where to deposit the money, and she was following his orders. Shellie Zimmerman Has No Defense to the Perjury Charge Kelly Simms, the attorney who represents Shellie Zimmerman, predicted yesterday that a jury will find her not guilty of perjury. He said, “It’s all about specificity,” he said. I agree that the issue is all about specificity, but I do not agree with his prediction. Keeping in mind that a witness is only required to truthfully answer the question asked and that any ambiguities or uncertainties in the question must be resolved in favor of the witness answering it, let us take a look at the exchange. Here is Mark O’Mara questioning Shellie Zimmerman after she was duly sworn: Are you working presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: No, I’m not. O’MARA: And how do you — what do you do with your time? S. ZIMMERMAN: I am a nursing student. O’MARA: OK. Is that a full-time endeavor presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is. O’MARA: OK. How long have you been doing that? S. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I am four weeks away from my graduation. O’MARA: OK. So you’re not earning any income presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: Correct. O’MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in? S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. O’MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond? S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of. O’MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not? S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have. O’MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs? S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I’m aware of. Shellie Zimmerman transferred money from Paypal into the defendant’s account and then from his account into her account where she parked it for awhile until he bonded out and moved it back into his account. I believe she had $67 K in her account when she answered O’Mara’s question. She cannot credibly deny that she knew she had $67 K in her account because she deposited it into her account. I presume Sims will argue that she regarded that money to be the defendant’s property even though it was in her account. Therefore, she believed that she did not have any assets when she answered the question. Good luck with that, Mr. Simms. One might think that republicans would be less prone to the corruption that became so evident in the prosecution of George Zimmerman–and the continuing prosecution of Shellie Zimmerman–than Democrats.
According to prosecutors, Shellie Zimmerman lied at her husband's April 20 bond hearing when she testified that the couple had no money.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
If you study carefully the questions she was asked, he said, she answered truthfully.
O’MARA: Another condition or another concern the court would have is a bond amount. I would ask you then realizing that one option is for the court to grant a monetary bond, if you could advise the court of your financial circumstances so I’ll ask you a couple of questions.
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
I believe she said she had no income. There is a difference between income and money that you have.
According to prosecutors, Shellie Zimmerman lied at her husband's April 20 bond hearing when she testified that the couple had no money.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19)
To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman? The evidence must show that Zimmerman, at the time of the shooting, held a reasonable belief that he faced imminent death or serious bodily injury. It concerns Zimmerman's state of mind, whether he held a belief and whether that belief was reasonable. None of the eyewitnesses saw the moment of shooting. The testimony of Dr. Vincent DiMaio did not yet exist at the time of charging.
They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
His claims matched all of the evidence. He was guilty until proven innocent. The prosecution is guilty of proprietorial misconduct. They should be tried and hung.
To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman?
#24. To: nolu chan (#22)
The prosecutions witnesses made the defenses case. They had no evidence zero nada. Can you name one piece of evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's claims? Child Abuse? What the fuck was that all about?
#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)
67K appears to be an asset. She was giving sworn statements to support a motion to declare George Zimmerman indigent, unable to pay bail. Here is the relevant part of the transcript again, with the followup question and answer added. The family was having discussion to scrape up anything they possibly could. Possibly they could have scraped up $67K of donated funds that Shellie was playing a shell game with. Her story may have a problem in court. S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have. O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs? S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of. O'MARA: I understand that you do have other family members present with you and I'll ask them questions of them but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pool together some funds to accomplish a bond? S. ZIMMERMAN: We have discussed that, trying to pull together the numbers of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can. I believe she said she had no income. There is a difference between income and money that you have.
O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
[A K A Stone] His claims matched all of the evidence. What evidence? You still have not identified it. The self defense claim is posited on the state of mind of George Zimmerman at the moment of shooting. What evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind existed at the time of charging? His story was full of doubtful claims about other things. Had the jury found the credibility of Zimmerman lacking to a sufficient extent to disregard all of his assertions, it may have found against his claim of self defense.
[nc] To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman?
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
He said he was beat up. He had injuries to back it up. He said he dropped his flash light. They found it where he said it was. He said he was yelling for help. S Several people heard him. He called the police ahead of time as someone on the neighborhood watch would. He said he was on his back. The injuries are to the back of his head and his back was wet. Trayvons knees were wet. The bullet was at close range. You don't walk up on someone with a gun you want to be further away so you can get good shot and not worry about being grabbed, stopped or whatever. He cooperated with the police fully without a lawyer. They had to fire the original police chief because he wouldn't go along with their bullshit. They withheld evidence and fired the guy who exposed them. It was prosecutorial misconduct and the prosecution should be shot. After a trial for attempted kidnapping. With 6 people on the jury that Zimmerman gets to pick after reading their NSA info. The list goes on and on. They are corrupt.
What evidence? You still have not identified it.
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
They tried and are trying to get Zimmerman murdered. The prosecution should be locked up. The charges should be attempted murder, perjury, attempted kidnapping and much more. www.sodahead.com/united-s...32501&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False by CAPISCE Posted July 11, 2013 Related Topics: Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Trial, Police, Guilty, Sat, Facts +10 Rave 10 Share Embed 57 votes Read all 116 opinions Lightning Report View Results and Demographics TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty False---they didn't need to lie False---they didn't need to lie You! Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions! Gretawire: This is important because this case is largely about credibility: is George Zimmerman a liar or not? Trayvon Martin can’t testify so the focus is on the credibility of the defendant. In the closing argument today the prosecutor called George Zimmerman a liar about a statement at the police station and the prosecutor was just plain wrong. Zimmerman did not lie about it. The prosecutor exaggerated or mislead the jury (intentionally or inadvertently.) The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman lied when he acted surprised that night, at the police station, when Officer Singleton told Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin died because, per the prosecutor, Zimmerman already knew Martin was dead. The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks. Below is what Zimmerman told Manalo per Manalo — that he “shot” someone. He did not say “killed.” The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Florida Stat 782.07(1) There was proof that George Zimmerman killed another human being by the act of shooting his gun while aiming it at Trayvon Martin's chest. I was unaware that the defense even tried to deny it. There was a dead body. There was the weapon used in the killing on the person of George Zimmerman, registered to George Zimmerman. That is not zero, nada. The only thing remaining is the question of lawful justification, claimed by George Zimmerman as self defense. The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable, of loss of life or serious bodily injury. Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. The others apparently persuaded them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted out of self defense was lacking, requiring a finding of lawful justification. This provides a useful defense for gang bangers. I feared that if I didn't shoot him, he would shoot me. It is a reasonable belief and legalizes gang banger shootings.
They had no evidence zero nada.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
#30. To: nolu chan (#29)
They need to go to planned parenthood. They will find them in the act. They should send the swat team with guns drawn. If the butcher has his hands on a cutting instrument. He should be shot dead. It is the police's job. Why aren't they doing it? Oh back to Zimmerman. The evidence was self defense. Zimmerman had no bruises on his hands. The prosecution had that evidence too. They ignored it and prosecuted an obviously innocent man. Because abortion candidate Al Sharpton opened his mouth and everone smelled his bad breath.
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
#31. To: nolu chan (#29)
They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred. They had the same evidence. My kids are smarter then they are. We need some hemp rope.
The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable,
#32. To: nolu chan (#29)
Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. They over reached and if it was a just world they should swing from rope or receive the sentence they tried to get Zimmerman to serve.
Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
The evidence was self defense.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible claims canot be shown to have been believed by the prosecutors. As for the jurors, five of them have said nothing more than "not guilty," except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. Until they speak, if they speak, we cannot know what they agreed to beyond the failure of the prosecution to disprove the claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal jury decides on the presence or absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
[AKA Stone] Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. The prosecution must convince 100% to obtain a conviction. If any juror does not find guilt, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict (except in military trials). There was enough information to let a jury decide. Re B37, here is an interesting comment of said juror: B37: "It did. It made a BIG impression on me." The testimony that B37 says made a BIG impression on her was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer." [nc] Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
COOPER: "So, when he testified that George Zimmerman to be, more or less, overall thruthful, did that make an impression on you?"
SANFORD, Fla. -
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
The evidence overwhelmingly supported self defense and it matched up with Zimmermans unwavering and unchanging descriptions of the vents that night. It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is?
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
You are still yet to document one inconsistency, conflict or change in what Zimmerman said. Why are you spinning Nolu?
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible
#38. To: nolu chan (#34)
Nonsense. The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. Juror B37 said as much. Irrelevant.
except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#39. To: nolu chan (#35)
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence. That is the bottom line indisputable conclusion drawn from your remarks on this thread.
#40. To: nolu chan (#35)
Are you going to watch this? Robin would pee her pants if this was posted at her site. She doesn't like the truth.
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? Because they didn't want the truth they wanted to lynch Zimmerman.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)
nolu chan likes fake birth certificates - presidents - evidence too ! 666 must be a skin color reality - logic - agenda - disease !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
#43. To: BorisY (#42)
666 must be a kin Mark of the Boris !!!
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#44. To: hondo68 (#43)
The real boris would ... kick your gay ass - God hating mind all the way back to Hollywood --- where you belong !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
#45. To: A K A Stone (#36)
[nc] Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved. [AKA Stone] It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is? What I said was, "Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved." Obviously, the prosecution task is to disprove the claim. The claim is not evidence. In the face of such evidence as the prosecution may present to show the claim to be without merit, the defense may present evidence that it has merit or has not been disproved. A claim of self defense is not evidence. It is decided by the evidence, or lack thereof, pertaining to the state of mind of the accused. The presence or absence of an actual threat does not determine the outcome. If A pulls out a water pistol and points it at B, there is no real threat. If B perceives a threat and forms a reasonable fear for his life and pulls out a real gun and shoots A dead, no crime was committed as A had the requisite state of mind. The burden is on the prosecution. The jury found they failed to meet their burden.
[AKA Stone] The evidence was self defense.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38)
[A K A Stone] The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. "The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," the statement said. The statements of B37 were "not in any way representative of the jurors listed below."
[nc] four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#47. To: nolu chan (#33)
Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited)
Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? I don't know of the "Lean." Only the Court can keep things out. I'm not familiar with what they found on Trayvon's computer, but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. You surely can't show that Zimmerman knew about it. It could not have been considered by Zimmerman in forming his state of mind and deciding to shoot. I believe there was a Court finding that the prosecutors committed a Brady violation regarding not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence and ordered it turned over. The matter was held over until the criminal trial was over and I believe a hearing on it is pending to consider sanctions against the prosecution team. I know there were photos involved and they were not entered into evidence because the defense chose not to submit them into evidence. Edit: I just watched the video and now know of "lean." Evidence of lean is speculative and irrelevant. I don't believe the court could allow it into the trial as admissible evidence.
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#39)
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence. The entire defense case rested on a claim about Zimmerman's state of mind, what he believed at the time of the shooting, and whether said belief was reasonable.
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt.
#50. To: Thunderbird (#47)
The burden to prove or disprove varies depending on the jurisdiction. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Trials-Who-Has-the-Burden-of-Proof.html Ordinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. If the defense raised is an affirmative defense (self-defense, entrapment, duress, etc.), the burden is on the defendant to present supporting evidence. An affirmative defense is one that doesn't challenge the facts presented by the prosecution but rather excuses conduct that is otherwise deemed unlawful. The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. For example, in New York, the defendant has to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Compare this with Massachusetts where, after the defendant has satisfactorily raised an affirmative defense, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Burden of Proving Defenses
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39)
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence.
#52. To: nolu chan (#45)
He made the claim. It matched up with the evidence. You know the head wounds. Wet back. Trayvons wet knees. No evidence Zimmerman threw any punches by lack of bruises on hands. Bruises on Trayvons hands. You know the evidence matched up with Zimmermans claim. Also it is common sense he wouldn't call the cops then attack someone. The cops could have come at any minute. I've seen cops arrive in 10 seconds literally.
The claim is not evidence.
#53. To: nolu chan (#49)
That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence.
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
No the police and prosecutor originally didn't charge him with anything. Only when professional asshole Sharpton and company came on the scene and started protesting did something happen. They had to fire the original police chief because he knew it was bullshit. They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal. I'm sure you probably have an answer on that one.
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
#55. To: nolu chan (#48)
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. It is relevant because he was found in posessoin of 2/3 of the ingredients to make this drug drink called "lean". That drug makes you paranoid. Zimmerman said he was acting weird. So it certainly is relevant.
but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53)
It provides the elements of manslaughter. Self defense is not an element of the crime. It is an affirmative defense.
It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#50)
Note for Stone. FYI, Ohio follows the common law rule that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court is Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987)
The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#54)
Yes.
They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#53)
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for dismissal. That was rejected. The judge found sufficient evidence had been presented in the case to continue to a jury verdict. George Zimmerman Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss the Case By SENI TIENABESO (@seniABC) and MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) [excerpt] The judge swiftly rejected the argument, but not before both sides made emotional legal arguments that are usually reserved for summations at the end of a trial. In an impassioned plea, Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara stated that the state did not produce direct or circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman acted with "ill-will or spite," the Florida requirements for second degree murder. "There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that," O'Mara said referring to the implication that Zimmerman acted out of "ill will and spite." That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
SANFORD, Fla. July 5, 2013 The prosecution rested their second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman today and his legal team immediately asked the judge throw out all charges, arguing that the state had failed to present evidence he murdered Trayvon Martin.
#61. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#57)
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever. They're perfectly free to judge whether the law is fair or constitutional, regardless of what the judge's spin is. Jury nullification of bad law has long been popular, especially during prohibition when speakeasy's and moonshiners were frequently deemed not guilty. As a president once said of a supreme court decision..."They've made their decision, now let them enforce it". The decision was ignored. The people are the top tier of government, not elected or appointed gov officials. They're our servants, not our masters.
The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#62. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#61)
When the judge upholds an objection on the grounds of irrelevance, the evidence does not come in and the jury does not hear it or see it. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell. If the irrelevant evidence is brought in after an instruction to attorneys that it is excluded, that could result in sanctions or a mistrial. Once the case is given to the jury, they can do as they please. They only have to return their decision and need not tell anyone how they decided it. Jury nullification is a solution to bad law.
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
t. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell.
#64. To: nolu chan (#62)
Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record.
#65. To: Thunderbird (#64)
Judge Nelson did that when she struck the comment from the record and instructed the jury to ignore it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html The following morning, after hearing arguments from the prosecution, the judge instructed the jury to ignore Serino's comment that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. The judge's instruction to the jury to disregard Serino's comment was clearly correct. It is a well-established rule of courtroom testimony that a witness is forbidden from commenting on the credibility of another witness, or as in this case, the credibility of Zimmerman. It is the exclusive function of the jury to make determinations of credibility, and a lawyer subverts this principle when he or she invites a witness to endorse the credibility of someone else. Indeed, convictions in child sexual abuse, domestic violence, rape, and drug prosecutions have been reversed when prosecutors asked experts to give opinions that validate a victim's or a witness's truthfulness, or even assert that a victim has in fact been abused. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer."Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
During his cross-examination of Officer Chris Serino last Monday, Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman's lawyer, asked Serino a highly improper question. After establishing that there were no significant discrepancies between Zimmerman's description of his encounter with Trayvon Martin and the physical evidence and statements from neighbors, O'Mara asked Serino: "Do you think he was telling the truth?" Without any objection from the prosecution, Serino answered "Yes." The judge then recessed for the day.
SANFORD, Fla. -
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
On the law, the judge was correct. The solicitation of the comment, and the comment, are clearly disallowed.
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
#67. To: nolu chan (#65)
Lol..this is a great bit of courtroom questioning by the defense, obviously meant to lead to an objection from the prosecution. When they didn't object, and even though O'Mara was clearly waiting for them to do so, the judge adjourns for the day.
#68. To: nolu chan (#66)
No. I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
On the law, the judge was correct.
#69. To: nolu chan (#66)
Lets cut to the chase. Bottom line. All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
I can quote the judge. You can only parrot the name John Jay.
I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law. There was enough to proceed to trial and to give the case to the jury. The court so ruled.
All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
You can only parrot the name John Jay.
#73. To: nolu chan (#71)
Courts are corrupt. They rule incorrectly all the time. So just the fact that they rule a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct ruling. Here is what I was trying to get. Your opinion. You seem to not give your opinion very often. You quote laws and stuff like that, which you are quite good at. If you were on the jury. Knowing what you know. Would you have found Zimmerman guilty? You seem to be trying to make the case that he is in fact guilty and the jury got it wrong. You obviously accept the juries decision.
The court so ruled.
#74. To: nolu chan (#71)
Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around. Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he would have had the lawful right to use deadly force once fight reached a certain level of intensity.
The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.
#75. To: nolu chan (#71)
Nonsense. Have you read the probable cause affidavit for this case? A poorly constructed pack of lies, bound together with prosecutorial malfeasance and rubber stamped by a corrupt judge.
There was enough to proceed to trial and to give the case to the jury.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#73)
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense. Zimmerman said he reasonably feared for his life. I do not believe him. That is not to say that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertion was false. That was the judgment call that the jury had to make after hearing all the evidence.
You seem to be trying to make the case that he is in fact guilty and the jury got it wrong. You obviously accept the juries decision.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#72)
The cited Jay comment was not a court opinion but reportedly a comment in a charge to a civil case jury in 1794. The U.S. Supreme Court dispatched Jay's comment into retirement in 1895. These days judge's may and do prohibit attorneys from arguing jury nullification and, upon learning of a juror intent to nullify, can remove such juror for good cause before the verdict. From the final instructions to the Zimmerman jury: U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) Paragraph 24: Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) [...] In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case. [...] 156 U.S. 52 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. [...] 156 U. S. 64 The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this Court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority, and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established. If this be true, this Court should not announce a different rule unless impelled to do so by reasons so cogent and controlling that they cannot properly be overlooked or disregarded. Some of the members of this Court, after much consideration, and upon an extended review of the authorities, are of opinion that the conclusion reached by this Court is erroneous both upon principle and authority. For this reason, and because the question is of great importance in the administration of justice, and also involves human life, we deem it appropriate to state with more fullness than under other circumstances would be necessary the grounds upon which our judgment will rest, looking first to cases determined in the courts of the United States. In Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, 3 U. S. 4, a case in this Court tried by a special jury upon an amicable issue, Chief Justice Jay is reported to have said: "It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take Page 156 U. S. 65 upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court, for as on the one hand it is presumed that juries are best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision." Of the correctness of this report, Mr. Justice Curtis in United States v. Morris, 1 Curtis 23, 58, expressed much doubt, for the reason that the Chief Justice is reported as saying that, in civil cases -- and that was a civil case -- the jury had the right to decide the law, and because also the different parts of the charge conflict with each other, the Chief Justice, according to the report, saying at the outset that it is the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, and of the court to decide questions of law, and in the succeeding sentence informing the jury that they had the right to take upon themselves the determination of both law and fact. If the Chief Justice said that it was the province of the court to decide questions of law, and the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, he could not have said that the jury had the right, in a civil case, to judge of and determine both law and fact. "The whole case," Mr. Justice Curtis said, "was an anomaly. It purports to be a trial by jury in the Supreme Court of the United States of certain issues out of chancery, and the Chief Justice begins by telling the jury that the facts are all agreed, and the only question is a matter of law, and upon that the whole court were agreed. If it be correctly reported, I can only say it is not in accordance with the views of any other court, so far as I know, in this country or in England, and is certainly not in accordance with the course of the Supreme Court for many years." t is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case.
To determine whether the court erred in dismissing Juror No. 5, we must first decide whether the district court's primary basis for the dismissal--the juror's intention to disregard the applicable criminal laws--constitutes "just cause" for his removal under Rule 23(b). In holding that a presiding judge has a duty to dismiss a juror who purposefully disregards the court's instructions on the law, we briefly review the factors that courts have traditionally considered to be "just cause" for dismissal pursuant to Rule 23(b), and discuss the dangers inherent in so-called "nullification." Having concluded that a deliberating juror's intent to nullify constitutes "just cause" for dismissal, we next consider whether the district court in this case had a sufficient evidentiary basis for concluding that Juror No. 5 was purposefully disregarding the court's instructions on the law.
Syllabus
#78. To: Thunderbird (#75)
That's an affidavit of probable cause. Get over it.
Nonsense. Have you read the probable cause affidavit for this case?
#79. To: Thunderbird (#74)
[Thunderbird] Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around. There was no such burden on the prosecution regarding self-defense before Zimmerman met his initial burden re self-defense. My statement was correct as stated. Lol. That would depend if fearful George had his weapon drawn when he went down the dark alley to find and possibly confront the scary suspect. If George was mounted and Trayvon was holding his head down, it is difficult to explain just how George unholstered his weapon. It was claimed by the prosecution to be impossible to have happened as described. No explanation was offered by the defense. It just "happened."
[nc] The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.
[Thunderbird] Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he would have had the lawful right to use deadly force once fight reached a certain level of intensity.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#73)
That's why they have appellate courts.
Courts are corrupt. They rule incorrectly all the time. So just the fact that they rule a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct ruling.
#81. To: nolu chan (#78)
Lol..no you get over it, you fucking twit. The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth, not a pack of lies, withheld evidence, and malicious supposition.
That's an affidavit of probable cause. Get over it.
#82. To: nolu chan (#79)
The defense provided a use of force expert to explain how it could have happened, and the prosecution had ample opportunity to cross examine the expert. Did you even follow the trial or are you just pulling this stuff out of your backside?
No explanation was offered by the defense.
#83. To: nolu chan (#76)
Enough what? Bullshit? No evidence of mens rea was presented by the prosecution. Prosecution witnesses provided evidence of self defense. The prosecution presented no physical evidence that disputed Zimmerman's claim. The prosecution went to extraordinary lengths to hide exculpatory evidence from the court and from the jury. Pfft.
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense.
#84. To: Thunderbird (#83)
Mens rea was not a required element for conviction.
No evidence of mens rea was presented by the prosecution.
#85. To: Thunderbird (#82)
Did you even follow the trial or are you just pulling this stuff out of your backside? I watched that. He offered no explanation of how Zimmerman got the gun. You are invited to quote the testimony of force expert Dennis Root.
The defense provided a use of force expert to explain how it could have happened, and the prosecution had ample opportunity to cross examine the expert.
#86. To: Thunderbird (#81)
You are legally insane. A PCA never states the whole case. It states enough for probable cause.
The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth....
#87. To: Thunderbird (#74)
[Thunderbird] Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around. Re the initial burden on the defendant when asserting self-defense. Mosansky v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida, Case 1D09-3312, (20 Apr 2010). - - - - - Fallwell v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, State of Florida, Case 5D10-2011 (27 Apr 2011).
[nc] The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.
The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279 (explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force).
#88. To: nolu chan (#80)
They get it wong too. Only I am right all the time. ;)
That's why they have appellate courts.
#89. To: nolu chan (#76)
Fair enough. One thing though. If your head is being pounded into the concrete you fear for your life. Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life.
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense. Zimmerman said he reasonably feared for his life. I do not believe him. That is not to say that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertion was false. That was the judgment call that the jury had to make after hearing all the evidence.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#89)
Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life. His head wasn't pounded into no concrete. He had no gross injuries, bruising or swelling. He had a couple of long scratches on the back of his head that could be caused by coming in contact with branches while trying to hide in the bushes with his hat off. Ditto with his nose. Small wounds on the face and back of head tend to bleed a lot, ESPECIALLY if they are superficial. But we will never know for sure because he refused timely medical treatment.
If your head is being pounded into the concrete you fear for your life.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#91. To: A K A Stone (#89)
That will teach you to stay on your side of the river.
Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life.
#92. To: mininggold (#90)
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
he refused timely medical treatment
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#93. To: hondo68 (#92)
Then he couldn't have refused medical treatment in the ICU even if he wanted to.
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#94. To: hondo68 (#92)
He could have just been eating punches, was about to go out at a point and thought his head was being pounded into the concrete. I say that because I've been in that position, not on the street but in the gym. I had no idea how many punches I ate, I only remembered one before I escaped. Later I was told it was 4 or 5 and I didn't believe it until I watched it on video.
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
#95. To: nolu chan (#86)
Nolu Chan: A PCA never states the whole case. I see what you did there no-luck, nice try. The PCA is NEVER supposed to omit exculpatory evidence, like the fact that Zimmerman's head was beaten and nose broken. Nor is it supposed to include misstatement of fact or outright LIES as the Zimmerman affidavit did. Its against the law to do this, and Angela Corey should be criminally indicted.
Thunderbird: The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth....
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]