Trayvon Martin Case

[over the mountain]

there's enough credible evidence for a jury to find him guilty or not guilty.

imo it comes down to who the jury believes and how much weight they give each piece of evidence.

if reasonable minds can disagree does that mean that reasonable doubt exists?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

there's enough credible evidence for a jury to find him guilty or not guilty.

imo it comes down to who the jury believes and how much weight they give each piece of evidence.

if reasonable minds can disagree does that mean that reasonable doubt exists?

I believe that is the definition of reasonable doubt.

[Chico23231]

Joe you ever practice in Va?

[NC_Skins]

One of the comments from a article about the trial.

The reason the defense is only going to take half the time is because the prosecution did half the work for them.

Reading the stuff Joe has said up here, I think that guy's comment hit the nail on the head.

[JoeRedskin]

Nope. Not licensed to practice there.

[JoeRedskin]

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

Doctor details how Martin bled to death | HLNtv.com

1:51 p.m. ET: Di Maio says he can't say if the gun was pulled out of the holster by Zimmerman, just that there was a shot to Martin's chest.

"You can't tell that by any scientific method," said Di Maio.

1:54 p.m. ET: Di Maio can't say for sure what angle Martin was positioned at on top of Zimmerman, just that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. He doesn't believe the two were standing at the time of the shooting, based on the evidence. He agrees that Martin could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when he was shot.

...

2:25 p.m. ET: "I’m not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts.

2:28 p.m. ET: West is describing the testimony of another witness who said Zimmerman was on top and Martin was face-down when the shot was fired.

"No sir, it's not possible," said Di Maio. West says this is another example of a witness who had good intentions but got it wrong.

2:29 p.m. ET: Di Maio says another eye witness's testimony, John Good, is consistent with the evidence. Good said Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired, in a "ground and pound" type of position, striking Zimmerman.

Solid witness. Based on the responses, he seems a much more credible guy than Bao. Also, prosecution's cross not bad - limited and not going for any big points. Just some helpful puzzle pieces they can use in their closing.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

It's been a fascinating case, I have enjoyed watching the Defense do their thing, except for that opening.

[RedskinRat]

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

The Black Night Fight -Monty Python And The Holy...

[JoeRedskin]

Here's the Florida pattern jury instructions on the issue:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

* * *

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

emphasis mine.

[JoeRedskin]

As an aside, today I was assigned my third tort defense case of the year involving a teenager crossing a major highway at a non-intersection and being struck and killed. Their ages were 14, 16 and the most recent a 17 year old homecoming queen. Each was tragic, each involved bad decision making by several people and each was avoidable by the teen. In each case, criminal charges against the driver were considered and rejected. In the case of the 14 year old, the driver was prosecuted for a DUI and spent 3 months in prison but was not charged with manslaughter b/c the police believed the accident to be unavoidable i.e. even had he not been intoxicated he would have hit the child.

Martin's death was a tragedy, people want someone to blame. Is Zimmerman civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Zimmerman will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

I only bring this out to demonstrate that death and tragedy happen. Often. Too often. Not all result in show trials. You think the mother of the 14 year-old killed by a drunk driver had no problem being told "Sorry ma'am, we know your son was killed by a drunk driver but, unfortunately, it was your son's own fault"? I guarrantee you she did.

Here, the question is do we know enough to imprison an person. As society, we have said that, regardless of the tragic results, we will not compound tragedies by acting out of vengance. Instead, and in order to temper our need for vengance, we have a system that is designed (although it does not always work that way) such that we will allow 99 guilty men to go free rather than subject one innocent man to imprisonment. It often leads to deeply unsatisfying results but it is, to me, the right way for a society to mete out punishment. Otherwise, mob rule, lynchings and vigalantism will become the substitute for "justice".

Further, there is recourse for those harmed by others, we as a society may not punish a suspected criminal but they can be sued by the person they have wronged. Often such suits are pointless b/c the suspected criminal has no assets, but, in a case such as this, there is the opportunity for real recourse through civil action.

Sorry for the rambling. A beautiful young woman was killed b/c several people (including her) made bad decisions. It simply saddens me and gets me all philosophical.

Hug your kids everyday. At least twice.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Is Martin civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Martin will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

You meant Zimmerman, JR?

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Yes. Thanks. Will edit for correction.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.

Fresh Balls, it's a great product:




Not sure why they have to say it's for men on the packaging......