Author Topic: State's First Closing Argument  (Read 13077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2013, 02:18:49 PM »
Injuries aren't required if he reasonably believes his life is in imminent danger.

BDLR shows powerpoint slides with his argument

Winding down, asking for guilty verdict

"Unfortunately only photos left of TM are ME photos. They cannot take any more photos. Because of this man. O'Mara objects to playing sympathy card."

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2013, 02:19:34 PM »
4:19, Court in recess until 8:30.

Thoughts: He made the case for reasonable doubt rather than eliminate it.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2013, 02:24:07 PM »
Wildabouttrial has cut to a podium with a blue drapery backdrop - maybe a presser coming up.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2013, 02:27:26 PM »
That's an excellent point. The issue came up in Arias v. State.

But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2013, 02:27:36 PM »
Powerpoint slide..."what if?"


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #80 on: July 11, 2013, 02:29:10 PM »
Powerpoint slide..."what if?"

Yes.  That was a list of all the ways Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome.  I notice there is no parallel "what if" for Martin.  Maybe O'Mara will do one (edit to add) to illustrate how Martin could have avoided the outcome, and (hopefully) use it to illustrate that this is an absurd legal test for assigning criminal culpability, or justifying the use of force in self defense.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #81 on: July 11, 2013, 02:30:13 PM »
Yes.  That was a list of all the ways Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome.  I notice there is no parallel "what if" for Martin.  Maybe O'Mara will do one, and (hopefully) use it to illustrate that this is an absurd legal test for assigning criminal culpability, or justifying the use of force in self defense.

Yeah...just doesn't seem like a strong closing to me.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #82 on: July 11, 2013, 02:31:42 PM »
But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.

I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain better?

As I understand it, it doesn't matter--Bernie can't tell a lie about the facts of the case in his closing, just like he couldn't in the trial.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2013, 02:32:44 PM »
I saw part of the prosecution's closing arguments while sitting in a waiting room..most of what I heard was not really an argument at all, more like a raw emotional appeal, and yes, there seemed to be several misstatements of fact.

I got a good laugh out of BDLR's pious claim that the reason so many of the state's witnesses bolstered the defense was that the prosecution team wanted the jurors to hear all of the evidence .

If BDLR landed any telling blows, they concerned GZ's reasons for getting out of his car, but at the same time he had no recourse but to attempt to create confusion regarding how the fight actually got started.

Agree with TalkLeft's assessment that all the prosecution really accomplished was to throw the issue of reasonable doubt into sharp relief, but I suppose much depends on the sophistication of the jury. 

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2013, 02:34:28 PM »
I can't believe that at this point they spelled GZ's name wrong.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2013, 02:37:42 PM »
I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain better?

As I understand it, it doesn't matter--Bernie can't tell a lie about the facts of the case in his closing, just like he couldn't in the trial.

No, it matters.  Lawyers can lie at opening and closing.  The case MJW cited was real evidence, elicited from a live witness, and the defense was prohibited from questioning about the toxicology results in the case in chief.

Bu the jury will be told that everything counsel says at opening and closing is not evidence, and more or less is not to be considered during deliberations.  Opening is just to familiarize the jury with the case, closing is an attempt to put them in a certain biased frame of mind as they begin deliberation.  I mean to use "biased" there in a neutral way, that there is nothing inherently wrong with bias.  Bias is bad when it lacks sufficient basis.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2013, 02:39:28 PM »
I can't believe that at this point they spelled GZ's name wrong.

Spelling was okay, I think, if you don't count capitalization errors.  ZImmerman is what the state had cut and pasted in place of "defendant."  Capital "I" after "Z."

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #87 on: July 11, 2013, 02:40:12 PM »
But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.

I don't see the principle being significantly different. The jury can't compare the evidence of Martin's fighting experience with BDLR's closing statement, because the evidence was excluded.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2013, 02:44:49 PM »
I don't see the principle being significantly different. The jury can't compare the evidence of Marti's fighting experience with BDLR's closing statement, because the evidence was excluded.

I think the way the law looks at it, is as though the closing statement doesn't exist in the deliberation room.  It can't be compared to anything.  Nothing the lawyers say is evidence, and the case must be decided only on the evidence.

Contrast with Arias, where the unfairly prejudicial imbalance was contained within the evidence.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #89 on: July 11, 2013, 02:46:43 PM »
Spelling was okay, I think, if you don't count capitalization errors.  ZImmerman is what the state had cut and pasted in place of "defendant."  Capital "I" after "Z."

LOL. You almost sound like NMNM.

 ;)

 

Site Meter
click
tracking