Author Topic: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13  (Read 9993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #60 on: July 05, 2013, 02:12:00 PM »
The fallacy in Mantei's argument is that the burden is on the state.  He's arguing as though Zimmerman has to prove innocence.  One of them dead, the other is a liar.  Cute catch phrase.

O'Mara gets the last word, when ever Mantei runs out of steam.

Offline Meni

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #61 on: July 05, 2013, 02:14:22 PM »
Mantei keeps arguing a false dilemma. If one does not wish another well, then he has ill will toward that person. Beyond that, any action not motivated by desire to do good for another, is motivated by ill will against the other.

I observe that a major strategy of this prosecution is to confuse the jury by skewing.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #62 on: July 05, 2013, 02:15:31 PM »
Is there a standard of proof for the judge deciding to acquit at this point?  Preponderance of evidence?  I found them obscure on this, in fact what I have heard is shear gobbledygook. 

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #63 on: July 05, 2013, 02:15:42 PM »
Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 1m
Why do I want to give this guy a wedgie?!


I concur.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2013, 02:15:49 PM »
You mean he ignored it, or made a dismissive mention? If the latter I missed it.

Ignored it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2013, 02:17:46 PM »
Is there a standard of proof for the judge deciding to acquit at this point?  Preponderance of evidence?  I found them obscure on this, in fact what I have heard is shear gobbledygook.

Yes, there is a standard of proof for the judge deciding to acquit at this point.  O'Mara cited several cases.  Read them and summarize them for the class.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2013, 02:20:50 PM »
Yes, there is a standard of proof for the judge deciding to acquit at this point.  O'Mara cited several cases.  Read them and summarize them for the class.

And Hornsby linked to all of them on his twitter page.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2013, 02:24:15 PM »
Mantei is incorrect.  Capt. Carter never testified that the nickname SYG was used in the class.  I kept asking that during his testimony.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2013, 02:26:30 PM »
Mantei is incorrect.  Capt. Carter never testified that the nickname SYG was used in the class.  I kept asking that during his testimony.

Mantei, de la Rionda, and Cory are all bald faced liars.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2013, 02:30:42 PM »
Quote
"If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction." Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002).

What in the world could the premise (part after If) of this mean?  You assume that every piece of evidence favoring the defendant is a lie and every bit favoring the state is true?  There is no intelligible standard here.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2013, 02:33:09 PM »
4:32 PM

Mantei done.

O'Mara rebutting.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2013, 02:34:51 PM »
Mantei closes by saying that ill will is not necessary to let this go to a jury, that manslaughter is a necessarily included offense, and depraved indifference is not an element of manslaughter.

O'Mara distinguishes the Jenkins case, and the Liesure case.  Heheheh.  Nelson is on the bubble.  I love it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2013, 02:36:21 PM »
Prediction: Nelson will take this into consideration overnight.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2013, 02:36:31 PM »
Mantei says It's"a fair inference from the evidence" that George Zimmerman "started this".

Which evidence would that be?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 4th day, Friday, 7/5/13
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2013, 02:37:28 PM »
Prediction: Nelson will take this into consideration overnight.

Overnight or over weekend?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking