Author Topic: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013  (Read 11372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2013, 08:03:57 AM »
I am pretty certain I know how the defense will argue what happened...not sure how much that speculation would be permitted though.

I would bet though at no pont will it concede any attempt to deceive by George though, and would argue he was as straightforward as possible.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2013, 08:59:39 AM »
Has it been established that Prof. Wayman, the remaining Frye witness will not be heard today?

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2013, 09:19:50 AM »
I don't think I've seen anything where I think GZ attempted to deceive (hide an action/activity from police/investigators).  I do think he wanted to put his best foot forward so to speak.  The biggest point of contention on whether GZ attempted to deceive anyone seems to be the reason he gave for exiting his vehicle.  I think its clear from the NEN call that he exited on TM running from his sight and the operator asking GZ for directions on which way he was running.  I'm all but certain that GZ got out of his vehicle so he could see where TM went, maybe even planning to continue following him.  He told investigators he got out of his vehicle to find a street sign/address.  This could be construed as being deceptive.  I do think at some point he was out of his vehicle looking for an address and its clear from the NEN that he didn't know the address for where his vehicle was located and was struggling with providing accurate directions (I think he likely had been looking for signs while sitting in his SUV).  I also don't think he attempted to hide that he tried to follow/acquire a visual of TM from investigators.  I believe he mentioned the night of the shooting that the dispatcher asked him about following TM and he said he had until the dispatcher told him not to. 

I understand that some would view giving an ancillary reason for exiting his vehicle as being deceptive, but I think making statements (volunteering the information) that the he was following TM and the dispatcher asked him to stop, indicates to me that it wasn't an attempt to deceive or hide these actions. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2013, 09:23:06 AM »
The defense will neither  suggest or concede their client lied. 

If the defense theory is that during highly stressful events, memories may not always be accurate, they can ask a juror if they've every had a highly stressful experience and about their recall of it afterwards.

This is really a question of fallible memory. They can ask jurors if  they have ever changed their minds about something important, made statements that were inconsistent, or said something they did not mean when in a stressful situation.
Jurors who respond in the affirmative may be able to empathize with the witness. Those who do not admit to such behavior may have very little tolerance for error, and will probably not be chosen.

You ask about the juror's life experiences. They may have two kids who come from school telling different stories of the same event. Ask them how they determined which one was telling the truth.

They can then use various techniques to get responses from other jurors, such as looping and mirroring.

Looping: the  attorney asks one potential juror a question, and then repeats that juror's response to a second juror and asks for a reaction to the first juror's response. A third juror is then asked to respond to the the answers by the first two jurors, repeating their words exactly.

Mirroring: Using one juror to find others.  Once a juror has expressed an opinion, whether good or bad, the lawyer asks the rest of the panel if any have a similar opinion. This allows them to identify which jurors share biases and prejudices for or against their case.

Voir Dire is the lawyers' opportunity to present the theme of their case. If their are inconsistencies in GZ's statements, O'Mara will explore them with jurors. Fallibility of memory, particularly in highly stressful situations, may be how he goes about it.

But no way will he say or admit his client "lied."

Generally speaking, prejudgment questions—questions that require a prospective juror to assume facts that are yet to be proved and to prejudge the case based on those assumed facts—are inappropriate. Asking a question that presupposes GZ lied is not going to happen.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2013, 09:25:51 AM »
Has it been established that Prof. Wayman, the remaining Frye witness will not be heard today?

If that's been mentioned I missed it. I don't see it in Cboldt's live-blogging.

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2013, 09:45:03 AM »
Quick question (and forgive if this is not the place for it) - but RZ Jr giving a press conference in the courtroom?

Is that something that has ever been done before??

A press conference In the Courtroom??

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2013, 09:53:13 AM »
There is no doubt that during closing arguments the prosecution will try to make a big deal of their claims that Zimmerman lied.  I gather that I am in the minority here by thinking the defense should try hard to weed out jurors who might buy into its being a big deal.  During the trial the defense can minimize the potential impact by keeping Zimmerman off the stand.  In closing arguments, I think the defense should basically ignore the accusations of lying and concentrate on refuting each of the two or three* possible ways the jury will be instructed that they can reject Zimmerman's self defense claim.

*One of the three ways depends on whether or not the prosecution files an independent forcible felony charge during the trial.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2013, 09:54:30 AM »
Quick question (and forgive if this is not the place for it) - but RZ Jr giving a press conference in the courtroom?

Is that something that has ever been done before??

A press conference In the Courtroom??

Seemed odd to me too.  I read one remark that it was a different courtroom, but still . . . and the Martin's conference, likewise.  I'm surprised the courthouse doesn't have a "media room" or similar where that sort of "outside of court" conference could be presented.

He gave a nice conference.  Judge is back, court is in session.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2013, 10:02:34 AM »
That was in all likelihood the media room alluded to in the earlier status conference. Remember that Nelson stated she had a room reserved for media use which seems to presuppose that a dedicated space does not exist.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2013, 10:23:25 AM »
Somebody on the Wall Street Journal discussion on this case says that the defense can dismiss a juror on racial grounds but the prosecution can't.  Is that true?

« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 10:54:22 AM by TalkLeft »

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2013, 10:28:24 AM »
Seemed odd to me too.  I read one remark that it was a different courtroom, but still . . . and the Martin's conference, likewise.  I'm surprised the courthouse doesn't have a "media room" or similar where that sort of "outside of court" conference could be presented.

He gave a nice conference.  Judge is back, court is in session.
Thank you.  That clears that up.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2013, 10:34:34 AM »
Somebody on the Wall Street Journal discussion on this case says that the defense can dismiss a juror on racial grounds but the prosecution can't.  Is that true?

No.

From an on-line legal dictionary:

Quote
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), prohibited prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race. Under the Batson test, a defendant may object to a prosecutor's peremptory challenge. The prosecutor then must "come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors." If the prosecutor cannot offer a neutral explanation, the court will not excuse the juror.

Quote
In Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S. Ct. 2348, 120 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1992), the Court held that the defense's exercise of peremptory challenges to strike African American jurors on the basis of their race was equally forbidden.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2013, 10:40:21 AM »
I thought peremptory means you don't have to give a reason.  So how would the other side know it was on racial grounds?  I think the comment on the WSJ board referred to challenges for cause and the implication was that race is an allowable cause for defense but not prosecutors. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2013, 10:44:10 AM »
*One of the three ways depends on whether or not the prosecution files an independent forcible felony charge during the trial.

The prosecution can't do that and proceed with the trial. Adding a felony charge would require a long continuance. And there is no forcible felony that fits and if there was, it's not one they couldn't have charged before. Please stop posting this kind of rank (and uninformed) speculation. if you are getting it at some other blog, take the discussion of it there.  You are blog-clogging on this topic.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Day One Thoughts: June 10, 2013
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2013, 10:54:56 AM »
Somebody on the Wall Street Journal discussion on this case says that the defense can dismiss a juror on racial grounds but the prosecution can't.  Is that true?

Of course not. No one can dismiss a juror based on race and there are set procedures that are followed when one side alleges the other has done so.

Essentially, the party being challenged for having excused a juror on racial grounds must provide a race-neutral reason for excusing the juror. The judge makes the decision.

State v. King, Florida 2012:

Quote
However, where a party alleges that a peremptory strike is racially based, a three-part procedure applies to resolve the allegation: A party objecting to the other side's use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike.

At this point, the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If the explanation is facially race-neutral and the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained (step 3).

Ricky, go google Batson challenges. It's not even a close issue.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 10:56:47 AM by TalkLeft »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking