Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

In answer to your question, no. Not that I can recall specifically.

To me, it seems like typical plaintiff attorney cosying up to the jury and pushing the boundaries of fact/argument in opening. Never heard of "Reptile". Googling now ...

Yes. I am familiar with "Rules of the Road". I am doing a in-house seminar on damages/negotions in September and am trying to get my office to get a copy of it and David Balls' "Damages3" as references.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw

Yes. Please do read the case. Particularly relevant are the last five paragraphs where the court reviews Florida's laws concerning burden of proof in self-defense.

[over the mountain]

I have attended 3 seminars now and am eligible to participate in the "masters" seminar in somewhere in carribean islands ...

here is a quick snippet from david ball on damages, i spoke with him a bunch of times, even had don keenan "review" a case issue for me . .

6-8
Damages-only case.(16)
With minor adjustments, the same structure for opening – minus whatever won’t be admissible –works well for a damages-only case. Here’s how:

Damages-only case.
Part I. Primary rules. No advocacy.
Focus the rule on money:
When a truck driver’s negligence harms a pedestrian, the pedestrian is entitled to an amount of money equal to the level of the harm. Now let me tell you about the harm in this case.

Damages-only case.
Part II. Story of what the defendant did. No advocacy.
Tell as much of the negligence story as allowed. Argue to get in as much as possible. Explain to the judge that part of the emotional harm is your client’s vivid, painful memory of what happened. The traumatic memory of the defendant’s truck careening at her across the median is causing her emotional harm now, so that memory goes to damages.

Damages-only case.
Part III. Who we are suing and why: the safety rules the defendant(s) violated. Start of advocacy.
Again, include all you can get in. Try to cover each thing the defendant did wrong, why it was wrong, how it caused harm, what the defendant should have done, how easy that would have been, and how that would have prevented the harm. These elements should get in because each of your client’s harms is exacerbated by her knowing about the very simple safety rules the defendant so needlessly violated. Your client will tell you this, as will any psychologist or similar kind of therapist. Knowledge of how easily the defendant could have followed the rules makes the pain harder to bear.
When possible, part of your story of what the defendant did should include the defendant’s denial of negligence until the eve of trial – when they stipulated despite having no information they did not have in the first place.
Last-minute stipulation is relevant to damages because it causes additional harm.
For three years, Jane had to live with the knowledge that she was stopped at a light and hit from behind – yet they denied doing anything wrong and refused to meet any responsibility. That makes things a lot worse for anyone. It increased her worry that she’d never get the money she needs to take care of herself. And they did it just to scare her into walking away from her case. Only when they knew you were coming did they decide to try to look as if they were exercising some responsibility – far too late to do anyone any good but themselves.
Remember: the defense can diminish damages by showing your client’s failure to mitigate them. So you should be allowed to show how the defendant’s last-minute stipulation exacerbated them.

Damages-only case.
Part IV. Undermine. (What is wrong with the negligence defenses?)
This is usually not necessary for a damages-only case. You’ll undermine the causation and damages defense points in the next section.

Damages-only case.
Part V. Causation and damages.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VI. ‘Before’.
Same as with regular case.

Damages-only case.
Part VII. “What can the jury do about it?”
Same as with regular case.
——————————————–
(16) For additional help with damages-only cases, please see Chapter 20 of Reptile.

[Chico23231]

So lets get a roll call of the what you think the jury verdict will be from everyone,

Im saying: guilty manslaughter

[JoeRedskin]

Tough, I am sticky with a not guilty for the moment. I may change to mistrial. Want to see the closings. Hopefully, I will be able to see the instructions.

Solid start to prosecution's closing, playing into all the juries emotional responses and highlighting all the points we've been discussing. Chico, you would be seating in your seat nodding in affirmation to everything he is saying b/c it is, essentially, exactly what you have said in the last view pages of the thread.

Judge: Zimmerman to face manslaughter, too | HLNtv.com

[saden1]

The prosecutor is laying the smack-down.

[Gary84Clark]

manslaughter

[JoeRedskin]

Well, the prosecutor had me right to the point he started askiing a bunch of rhetorical questions...

FWIW: Here's a poll from HLN. Has the defense created enough reasonable doubt to get Zimmerman off? | HLNtv.com

[NOTE: Although I think the title is phrased in a legally incorrect manner, I agree that, from a practical aspect, it's how the jurors will likely judge the evidence].

[Gary84Clark]

It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.

[CultBrennan59]

Here's something to think about, if Trayvon shot Zimmerman, I don't think would of ever heard anything about it.

[Hog1]

A........hush fell over the crowd...

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Here's something to think about, if Trayvon shot Zimmerman, I don't think would of ever heard anything about it.

You are right because Trayvon would have been in jail. This trial got so much press because Trayvon's body lay in a morgue for almost a week and no one notified his parents as to his whereabouts. He had a celphone on his possession but no one called the contacts labeled mom and dad. They were gonna bury him in an unmarked grave. Zimmerman was going to go on happily ever after and never have to face trial for Martin's death. The hoopla was to just get a trial period. The chief last his job because they were not going to even contact Martin;s parents about the incident. He would have just been "missing" to his parents. That's where all the attention comes from.

[JoeRedskin]

Good strong closing for the prosecution. Highlighted the inconsistencies and lies and tied them tightly to the elements. Strong appeal to the emotions but not so much as to be a transparently BS plea. I do think he left a lot unsaid and that the defense has the opportunity to drive a truck through some the prosecution's own gaps and inconsistencies. Regardless, it was an aggressive, unapologetic closing and well done. Certainly, some of their best work to date.

The defense has its work cut out for them.

[JoeRedskin]

Trayvon's father was notified of Trayvon's death approximately 12 hours after the shooting. A longer time period than should have happened but no where close to a week.

[saden1]

The defense has some serious work to do because murder 2 is a certainly attainable after the prosecutor's closing.