Yahoo News
Lawyers for George Zimmerman rested their case on Wednesday without calling the former neighborhood watch volunteer to testify, setting up the final stages of his closely watched murder trial for the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.
"After consulting with counsel, (I have decided) not to testify, your honor," Zimmerman said in response to questions from Seminole County Judge Debra Nelson.
Curiously, the defense opted against introducing evidence that Martin had a trace amount of marijuana in his system at the time of his death, after fighting hard for the right to admit it. Defense attorney Don West declined to say why.
The refuge of all guilty people who hope to get off on a technical interpretation of the "reasonable doubt" requirement is not taking the stand. Innocent people are unafraid to speak the truth.
Interestingly, the defense understood that trace amounts of marijuana in the blood do not substantiate the absurd claim that Trayvon Martin looked like he was on drugs. That little bit of racial profiling along with the hateful observation that "these fucking punks always get away with it," should be enough to convict Zimmerman, but it probably won't be. The defense threw enough shit on the wall, some of it will stick.
What's your opinion? Guilty or innocent, convicted or acquitted?
Please leave a comment.
"The refuge of all guilty people who hope to get off on a technical interpretation of the "reasonable doubt" requirement is not taking the stand. Innocent people are unafraid to speak the truth."
ReplyDeleteIt is the burden of the prosecution to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cant accomplish that with the evidence at hand, including videos of the defendant describing what happened, then why testify? These days, the criminal court has no belief in honor, as evidenced by the flips it went through to get its trial. The need for a trial was determined by the grand jury of public opinion.
This evidenced by the refusal to press charges by the original prosecutor, and the refusal of the state appointed prosecutor who declined a grand jury. This after the federal government couldn't come up with any civil rights violations or evidence of profiling.
This is what makes the US different from many other countries. The presumption of innocence.
And I'm all for it. But you have to admit it's an imperfect system and some guilty people get off. This is similar to the strict gun control laws I propose. Some worthy people might be disarmed, but that's the price we'd pay for increased safety.
DeleteThis is similar to the strict gun control laws I propose. Some worthy people might be disarmed, but that's the price we'd pay for increased safety.
DeleteBullshit. The presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt protects liberty, at a small cost to safety. Your pet rabidly draconian, oppressive, disgusting gun laws trample the living shit out of liberty for the fantasy of nominally greater safety.
While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:
Delete“ All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.[
Those two aren't similar at all. Our court system has protections for the accused built in, which means that occasionally, a person who committed a crime gets away with it. Your proposals are designed to punish good citizens, while letting the rich and powerful do as they please.
DeleteWell then you're not for it. You're saying it's better to punish the innocent than let the guilty go free. Our system is designed to favor the innocent.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is exactly the opposite of the way Kurt misrepresents me. My version of strict gun laws would inconvenience the truly law abiding and responsible gun onwers only a little and many lives would be saved.
DeleteMikeb, why do you keep asserting that lie? Your proposals would be a serious infringement and burden on legal gun ownership You can only call it a minor inconvenience because you don't believe owning and carrying guns to be a right. You want it to be the privilege of powerful people only.
DeleteWhat other prices are you willing to pay for "increased safety", Mike? Further restrictions on self-expression? What about restrictions on your freedom to go where you will? Perhaps you'd be willing to waive your right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Your right to peaceably assemble? Exactly how far are you willing to go? To ask it another way, are there any rights, any at all, for which you will endorse no further restrictions? Or, to ask it yet another way, at what point did you decide security (or safety, if you prefer) was of greater value than freedom?
DeleteYour proposals would be a serious infringement and burden on legal gun ownership
DeleteExactly. He argues that half of all American gun owners are unfit to own guns. Let me find the evidence he presented to justify that figure . . . hmm--that's odd--there doesn't seem to be any such evidence.
Anyway, he wants laws that inflict a life sentence of forcible disarmament and state-mandated defenselessness on scores of millions of gun owners. He calls lifetime disarmament of people who are no longer mentally ill "the cost of doing business."
The good news is that the draconian laws he lusts after will never leave the arena of his bizarre fantasy world.
It's not a minor inconvenience for the 40-50 million people who you want disqualified from gun ownership.
DeleteGUIULTY
ReplyDeleteBUT, the usual advice from lawyers is that the defendant not testify. The defendant has the right to remain silent and his silence is not to be taken as a sign of guilt. There is a jury instruction to this point. I would add that the client can be the most harmful witness to his case: especially if he is an ignorant and arrogant bastard. Also, it allows for the story to be cross examined ("So, why didn't you do as you were told and not follow Mr. Martin, Mr. Zimmerman?").
On the other hand, this demonstrates the common belief that "The refuge of all guilty people who hope to get off on a technical interpretation of the "reasonable doubt" requirement is not taking the stand. Innocent people are unafraid to speak the truth."
Anyway, juries are the ultimate crap shoot as the OJ case demonstrates.
Just remember that sometimes the trial by a "jury of your peers" doesn't always see things the way you do. Or you want them to see it.
As the joke goes--
Lawyer: would you like to have a bench or jury trial
Client: what's the difference?
Lawyer: A bench trial is where the judge hears your case and the Jury trial is done by your peers.
Client: what's a peer?
Lawyer: People like yourself
Client: by people like myself??? I don't want to be tried by a bunch of criminals.
Don't you claim to be a defense attorney? I pity the fool who gets you for the lawyer.
DeleteI can’t believe that you, as a defense attorney, would say the prosecution has made their case for Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Really, Laci? What did it for you?
DeleteHere we see that once someone sacrifices one right, all others get thrown out. The rights protecting the accused are fundamental to our form of government and society.
ReplyDeleteThat's a bullshit stretch, even for you, Greg.
DeleteYou're the one who is criticizing the protections that our court system gives to defendants.
DeleteDid you miss the part where I said I'm all for them? But, even you must admit some guilty people walk free.
DeleteI can't recall you ever saying that you're "all for" any right, though you may have at some point. You certainly don't defend rights with anywhere near the intensity that you devote to infringing on rights.
DeleteAnd yes, I've said this before, as have others: It's better that a few guilty persons walk free if by doing so we make sure that no innocent person is wrongly punished.
Of course some guilty people walk free. And some people are convicted and punished who should not be. While it would be better to have neither occur, I agree with Adam's interpretation of Blackstone that it's better to protect innocence than to simply punish guilt.
DeleteLaci - is it your opinion that he is guilty or that you think the jury will come back with a verdict of guilty? I don't see how the jury will come back with guilty verdict.
ReplyDeleteNot guilty, and not even close. This is a political trial, not a legal one. Always was.
ReplyDeleteThe cops got it right in the first place. The politicians screwed it up.
And BTW little (guilty) Mikey, it's good to know what disdain you have for due process. Not surprised you have as little regard for other constitutional rights.
I don't know what you're talking about. My belief is Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter and will nevertheless be acquitted.
DeleteYou routinely whine about how there are no charges, even if only a few hours have gone by after a shooting incident. That indicates your vindictive yearning to punish someone, anyone, without regard to due process.
DeleteNot true, I'm all for due process. What I'm not for is delaying bringing charges against the responsible people. Gun owners need to be held accountable for their actions. This is what you don't like.
DeleteWhat I'm for is evidence and due process. You demand a rush to judgement, which is precisely the kind of thing that harms innocent people.
DeleteBut Mike, rushing to charges is the sloppy work that is going to allow for more guilty people to go free.
DeleteThe refuge of all guilty people who hope to get off on a technical interpretation of the "reasonable doubt" requirement is not taking the stand.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is "a technical interpretation of the 'reasonable doubt' requirement"? Either the case is solid enough, the evidence compelling enough, and the prosecution skillful enough, to dispel all reasonable doubt, or they aren't. In this case, there's reasonable doubt by the ton, as any observer with a modicum of integrity will acknowledge.
Innocent people are unafraid to speak the truth.
Oh, and by the way, we all know that declining to testify is in exactly no way an indicator of guilt. We all know that.
We all know that's the instruction to the jury, but that comes with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge. It's like the other instruction to disregard something they've already heard.
DeleteWe all know that's the instruction to the jury, but that comes with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge. It's like the other instruction to disregard something they've already heard.
DeleteHow about a bit of consistency, Mikeb? First you stated, presumably as your position, that not taking the stand is "the last refuge of all guilty people."
Now you're acknowledging what disgusting bullshit that is, but saying that's how it works with juries regardless?
Which is it?
No, choosing not to testify tells us nothing whatsoever.
DeleteThe good news is that if I'm ever on trial, given our arguments over the last many months, you'd be disqualified from serving on my jury. Heaven save the person who would be your victim.
Kurt, your latest attempt at a gotcha was such a stretch I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
DeleteNo "attempt at a gotcha" here--just trying to figure out if it is you who believes the idiotic bullshit that "not taking the stand is "the last refuge of all guilty people," or if you're saying that the unfortunate reality is that juries will believe it.
DeleteIf that's too complicated a question for you to answer, I suppose that tells me something, too.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
ReplyDeleteSee that? It says “militia” somewhere in the text. The right to not be compelled to witness against himself doesn’t apply to Zimmerman because he is not active in the National Guard.
TS, your error in the minds of gun control freaks is that you're quoting an outdated document. Nothing to them in that text is relevant when tyrants want to do as they please.
DeleteAnd now things start to get crazy. It seems that the prosecution is now trying to hedge their bets after the trial is almost over.
ReplyDelete"George Zimmerman's prosecutors want to add lesser charges for the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, including manslaughter and third-degree murder, possibly because they're worried he'll be acquitted."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-zimmermans-prosecutors-want-charge-151900966.html
Laci and Mike, I have a two part question for you:
ReplyDeleteLet’s say Zimmerman’s account is 100% correct. What he says happened in his statement is exactly what happened. Should he go to prison? I suspect our opinions may part right there- so no amount of facts, details, testimony will change that. Maybe you hate self-defense, you hate guns, and you especially hate self-defense with guns. I’ve argued with people about the case in the past and found that they don’t support self-defense period. Martin is dead, Zimmerman should go to jail, end of discussion. There is not much point if quibbling over who started the fight, race, dispatcher “instructions”, how many times his head got knocked into the concrete, self-defense law, etc.
If you say, “no”, Zimmerman’s account is that of valid self-defense, but you believe him to be lying- then what evidence did the prosecution present that disproves his statement?
I’ll also throw out this question one more time, and maybe you can chime in, Laci, since Mike doesn’t seem to have an explanation: What was going on during the 90 seconds of tape AFTER the dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to [follow Martin]”? We got to listen in to what should be a chase down of a scared boy (by your impression), but it certainly doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening.
Just remember that reasonable doubt is highly subjective.
ReplyDeleteIs it really the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it may or may not have been in self-defense?
Couldn't they just prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin and leave it an open question whether or whether not the murderer was defending himself? Seems a fine point of the law to me.
How come all of you gun lovers want Zimmerman to get off? That just seems sick on the surface of things. Right-wing cause celebré/? Pathetic.
In other words, you don't believe in a right to self-defense. We do. That's the difference.
DeleteBecause he would be a murderer if he were defending himself. There is no dispute that Zimmerman *killed* Martin.
Delete