Trayvon Martin case: All female jury picked---Verdict Not Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Seaward wrote:
A defense motion filed earlier today that I think shows how desperate the prosecution's getting:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0713/reply_mot_inquiry.pdf

Hahahahahahah. Hah. Is this seriously happening?

**Rented Tritium**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With all this evidence stacking up in Zimmerman's favour it's looking like charging him, much less prosecuting him, was the wrong decision.

You're watching too much law and order if you think DAs should drop cases just because they're weak. You drop them when they are impossible. A lot of these witnesses are falling apart just now from the looks of it.

**Seaward**

DAs drop cases when they don't believe it's possible to get a conviction.

That is initially what happened here.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Great for the Defense though.

"Your honor, thanks to the prosecution's excellent summary of our arguments over the last week, I don't think we need to go through this again. The defense rests"

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
A defense motion filed earlier today that I think shows how desperate the prosecution's getting:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0713/reply_mot_inquiry.pdf

That is just pathetic. So the Prosecution is trying to smear the Defense Attorney for something that his daughter did, the day before a certain witness testified. I hope the Defense Attorney makes a formal complaint to the State Bar Council about that sort of conduct by the DA.

Seaward wrote:
Prosecution just had its first witness hostile to Zimmerman in a long time. A medical examiner. Not the medical examiner who actually did Martin's autopsy, but one who saw photographs of it.

The moneyshot takeaways:

It looks to her like Zimmerman was "punched once." His head wounds were consistent with striking concrete, but again, "only once." Zimmerman's injuries "not life-threatening."

Defense is now mauling her over her close ties to Corey (special prosecutor) and past problems as ME in other districts.

Edit: And pretty effortlessly getting her to admit that yeah, sure, she supposes it could've been more than one blow.

Second Edit: Abrasions on Martin's hands consistent with striking someone. No other injuries on Martin aside from gunshot.

So a potentially biased witness, giving evidence in her field, contrary to what the ME who carried out the autopsy concluded, working off photographs only, who then admits that part of her own testimony many be incorrect.

Rented Tritium wrote:
You're watching too much law and order if you think DAs should drop cases just because they're weak. You drop them when they are impossible. A lot of these witnesses are falling apart just now from the looks of it.

Really? "[T]oo much [L]aw and [O]rder" was the best you could come up with? I've seen (note that word, as in first hand seen) much stronger cases get dropped for being unlikely to get a conviction.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Great for the Defense though.

"Your honor, thanks to the prosecution's excellent summary of our arguments over the last week, I don't think we need to go through this again. The defense rests"

**Kilkrazy**

The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.

Agreed. I hope that the jury remains as objective as possible when examining the evidence as they deliberate. Regardless of verdict, an impartial examination of the evidence does not require the examiners to possess testicles. If I were George Zimmerman, I would be praying to god that I had a fair and impartial jury - regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, or orientation.

**Rented Tritium**

It's a good jury and he's got a solid defense. He'll be fine.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

Solid defense or weak prosecution case? Both?

**sourclams**

It's almost like there should have never been a trial....

**Frazzled**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The Florida jury is six people. That increases the possibility of it being all male or female. I don't see a problem with an all male or an all female jury. A jury of your peers doesn't mean the people selected should be similar race and gender to the defendant. I think it is pretty insulting to jurors everywhere to assume their deliberations will be swayed by emotion.

Agreed. I hope that the jury remains as objective as possible when examining the evidence as they deliberate. Regardless of verdict, an impartial examination of the evidence does not require the examiners to possess testicles. If I were George Zimmerman, I would be praying to god that I had a fair and impartial jury - regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, or orientation.

As a defendant there's no way I would want an impartial jury. I want a jury that leans my way.

**Rented Tritium**

sourclams wrote:
It's almost like there should have never been a trial....

Only if you think DAs have perfect knowledge of the future.

**Monster Rain**

They have a working knowledge of whether or not a given case has a decent chance of conviction, though.

That's the salient point here

**Dreadclaw69**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Only if you think DAs have perfect knowledge of the future.

Nope. But I do know that they are legally trained to know when they have strong evidence that is likely to convict, and weak evidence that is likely to result in an acquittal (like the first DA who was replaced)

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Only if you think DAs have perfect knowledge of the future.

Nope. But I do know that they are legally trained to know when they have strong evidence that is likely to convict, and weak evidence that is likely to result in an acquittal (like the first DA who was replaced)

And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.

You understand that there has to be a prima fascia case for an accused to answer right? As well as a reasonable prospect for a conviction. Because based on the evidence presented at trial both these seem to be missing, and just serves to highlight why the first DA did not prosecute.

**Rented Tritium**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And if there is a change that there will be a conviction then you can, and should, still push for a trial. If you are not convinced that there is no case, then let 6 people decide.

You understand that there has to be a prima fascia case for an accused to answer right? As well as a reasonable prospect for a conviction. Because based on the evidence presented at trial both these seem to be missing, and just serves to highlight why the first DA did not prosecute.

The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.

**Jihadin**

DA got screwed when the race card got played and Obama making that silly ass comment. I wonder what would happen if neither have happen....better yet...if Obama had not made that comment. Now I wonder if the race card would have been played if Zimmerman was not named Zimmerman but instead named say Hinjosa or something Hispanic sounding....

**Dreadclaw69**

Rented Tritium wrote:
The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.

Like those witnesses who said Martin was on top?
Or the Medical Examiner who also confirmed that Martin was on top when he was shot? And that Martin has bruising on his hands? And that Zimmerman had injuries to his face and head?
Or the interviewing officer who testified that Zimmerman was relieved to hear the lie that they had CCTV footage of the entire incident?

All that evidence that the previous leading investigator, and previous DA, had available and decided not to prosecute? All that evidence that the Prosecution is relying on that is strengthening the Defense's position?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Now I wonder if the race card would have been played if Zimmerman was not named Zimmerman but instead named say Hinjosa or something Hispanic sounding....

Remember how Zimmerman went from "White", to "White Hispanic"?

**Seaward**

Rented Tritium wrote:
The bolded part is the problem. Cross examined witnesses who appear to have waited until the actual trial to fall apart and lose credibility are not the right thing to determine prima facie with. You are still looking at this with advance knowledge of the trial.

I think it would be wrong to assume that because we haven't heard about them through the media that these accounts were not known by the police/prosecution.

**Rented Tritium**

You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.

**Kilkrazy**

This case has an extra political dimension, however, which is the whole "black kid shot by white policeman" thing.

I know Zimmerman is not white as American people count it, and that he was a community watch person not a badged officer. Even so, the impression given to the black community was that a white authority figure got away with shooting dead a black kid who had gone out to buy sweets, probably due to racism on behalf of Zimmerman and the police who arrested him.

Under such circumstances a trial may be justified to prove the issue in open court, even if the evidence is weak. Otherwise it risks giving an extra push to the conspiracy theory.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.

HAHAHAHAHA Where they even brave enough to take it to a grand jury? I don't think so.

**Rented Tritium**

Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.

HAHAHAHAHA

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
This case has an extra political dimension, however, which is the whole "black kid shot by white policeman" thing.

I know Zimmerman is not white as American people count it, and that he was a community watch person not a badged officer. Even so, the impression given to the black community was that a white authority figure got away with shooting dead a black kid who had gone out to buy sweets, probably due to racism on behalf of Zimmerman and the police who arrested him.

Under such circumstances a trial may be justified to prove the issue in open court, even if the evidence is weak. Otherwise it risks giving an extra push to the conspiracy theory.

Oh, that's undoubtedly why people are riled up. But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.

**Rented Tritium**

Seaward wrote:
But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.

Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.

**Seaward**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Seaward wrote:
But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.

Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.

Neither of us are lawyers, but my understanding is that, given self defense cases require affirmative defenses, the prima facie bar is remarkably low. Was Trayvon Martin killed? Yes. Did George Zimmerman shoot him? Yes.

Boom. Prima facie evidence barrier hurdled

**Rented Tritium**

Seaward wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Seaward wrote:
But the notion that we should prosecute someone merely because it makes us feel better, despite the evidence not supporting it, is incredibly dangerous.

Except they had prima facie. You cannot base "did they have prima facie" on things you see in the trial.

Neither of us are lawyers, but my understanding is that, given self defense cases require affirmative defenses, the prima facie bar is remarkably low. Was Trayvon Martin killed? Yes. Did George Zimmerman shoot him? Yes.

Boom. Prima facie evidence barrier hurdled

Exactly.

And when someone is dead and you have Prima Facie, you should go ahead and make the charge.

**Frazzled**

Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys are aware that the prosecution had to go through a hearing to establish prima facie before moving forward with this, right? It's not just a matter of what we saw in the media. They showed their evidence to a judge and the judge said they had prima facie and could go to trial.

HAHAHAHAHA

See above. Hit enter before finishing. I don't think they even convened a grand jury on this one.
We all know the initial hearing is irrelevant here.

**Rented Tritium**

Well grand juries are a whole different animal. We could have a whole different thread about that.