Author Topic: State's First Closing Argument  (Read 13324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2013, 02:46:49 PM »
And in any case, the court's objection was to prosecutor's mocking phrasing of the question: "When you testified to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that he was acting crazy like on cocaine, that's just your assumption; is that correct, Mr. Arias?" A prosecutor's question is no more evidence than is his closing statement.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #91 on: July 11, 2013, 02:48:16 PM »
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.

What Bernie says isn't evidence, but he's talking about evidence. Or in this case flatly saying "there isn't any".

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #92 on: July 11, 2013, 02:52:21 PM »
I decided to watch on TV this afternoon, for the first time, and fell asleep after about an hour of Bernie's poorly modulated shouting.  Did he refute any of the following?  Did he even try?

1.  The relative physical abilities and capabilities of Martin and
Zimmerman were such that Zimmerman could not overcome or escape from
Martin, in the situation in this case, without resorting to deadly
force.

2.  At the time of the shot, Zimmerman believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or
great bodily harm that could only be avoided by shooting Martin.

3.  Zimmerman's belief in the danger he was in was sincere and would
have been shared by any reasonably prudent and cautious person in the
same situation.  (It is unnecessary to consider the actual reality of
the danger.)

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2013, 02:53:55 PM »
Also, see Gonzalez v. State, 774 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where the same issue was analyzed in relation to the closing.

Quote
In closing, defense attempted to summarize the facts that pointed to Cabrera as the C.I. The prosecutor in summation then said, in part:

Quote
Ladies and gentlemen, it's very easy for defense counsel to say that Mr. Cabrera is a C.I. There is no evidence of that. The flip side of that [is that] it's just as easily argued that Mr. Ramillo was the confidential informant. He was arrested and charged. No charges were ever filed against him.

Defense counsel objected and sought a mistrial. Moreover, defense counsel pointed out to the court that the prosecutor had violated a pretrial ruling against commenting on the reason that charges against Alexander Ramillo had been dropped and implying that they were dropped because Ramillo was the C.I.

The prosecutor's use of the privilege of nondisclosure, first as a shield, then as a sword, unfairly prejudiced the defendant. While the State is free to argue to the jury any theory of a crime that is reasonably supported by evidence, it may not subvert the truth-seeking function of a trial by obtaining a conviction or sentence based on the obfuscation of relevant facts.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2013, 02:57:12 PM »
One of the WFTV talking heads said a number of the jurors are gun owners or have family members who are. Getting better acquainted with what is known about the jurors, is one of many things I haven't had time to do since the trial started. I have known for a while that one of the jurors has a concealed carry license. Today I've heard reports from the courtroom that she is one of the more active jurors, and speculation she may be the foreman.

In the closing argument, Bernie tried to make nice about licensed carrying. I think it's way too little, way too late, after the prosecutors employed some of the nastiest of anti-gun memes in their questioning of witnesses. I think this was the most egregious example, but there have been others.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2013, 02:57:56 PM »
I am confused about the schedule tomorrow.  Is it O'Mara up at 8:30AM EDT for 3 hours followed by Guy up for 1 hour rebuttal? 

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2013, 03:00:09 PM »
Also, Garcia v. State, 622 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1993), where the issue occurred in the opening and closing statements.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2013, 03:00:42 PM »
I am confused about the schedule tomorrow.  Is it O'Mara up at 8:30AM EDT for 3 hours followed by Guy up for 1 hour rebuttal? 

Yes. The state presents last to rebut defense arguments and in light of their higher burden.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2013, 03:13:28 PM »
Also, Garcia v. State, 622 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1993), where the issue occurred in the opening and closing statements.

Good cites, thanks.  Maybe I'm so accustomed to hearing the prosecutors make statements in opening and closing that are either unsupported or contradictory to facts, and never get so much as a cross ways look, that I figured the only pressure to be half-honest was to avoid coming off as a bald-faced liar to the jury.  IOW, I figured there was no legal penalty such as creating an appealable issue, or creating basis for finding misconduct.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #99 on: July 11, 2013, 03:17:10 PM »
Also, see Gonzalez v. State, 774 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where the same issue was analyzed in relation to the closing.

Defense counsel objected and sought a mistrial. Moreover, defense counsel pointed out to the court that the prosecutor had violated a pretrial ruling against commenting on the reason that charges against Alexander Ramillo had been dropped and implying that they were dropped because Ramillo was the C.I.

So, does O'Mara have to move for mistrial in order to preserve the issue?  I think he could safely do so, as Nelson isn;t about to grant a motion for mistrial at this point.

Offline ding7777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Rate Post +19/-59
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #100 on: July 11, 2013, 03:17:56 PM »
I have known for a while that one of the jurors has a concealed carry license. Today I've heard reports from the courtroom that she is one of the more active jurors, and speculation she may be the foreman.

That could cut both ways.  Talked to a CCW friend  about the case.  His response was  "...he got out of the truck".  But then again, he gets his news from MSM headlines.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #101 on: July 11, 2013, 03:26:30 PM »
Good cites, thanks.  Maybe I'm so accustomed to hearing the prosecutors make statements in opening and closing that are either unsupported or contradictory to facts, and never get so much as a cross ways look, that I figured the only pressure to be half-honest was to avoid coming off as a bald-faced liar to the jury.  IOW, I figured there was no legal penalty such as creating an appealable issue, or creating basis for finding misconduct.

Thank you. I think what makes this different than the normal misstating of evidence is the brazen sleaziness of excluding evidence then leading the jury to believe that proves it doesn't exist. Normally, the defense at least has a chance to reply, but in this case, the defense's hands are tied.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #102 on: July 11, 2013, 03:33:33 PM »
So, does O'Mara have to move for mistrial in order to preserve the issue?  I think he could safely do so, as Nelson isn;t about to grant a motion for mistrial at this point.

That's a good question. I think that trial went about as well as the defense could have hoped, so I doubt they'd want to risk another one. I wish they'd objected when BDLR made the statement. The sidebar would have thrown BDLR off, I think. Perhaps they could have gotten a curative instruction that would put BDLR in an embarrassing position, and would let the jurors know something was hidden from them. I'm quite curious to see if the defense makes it an issue.

Offline mhorgel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #103 on: July 11, 2013, 03:45:17 PM »
MOM should get GZ's jacket mounted just like TM's hoodie and display them side by side while discussing the testimony of the witnesses who placed the larger figure on top of the struggle.  I've seen several people comment on how large the (in)famous hoodie looks all stretched out in it's frame...betcha it's way bigger than GZ's jacket.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State's First Closing Argument
« Reply #104 on: July 11, 2013, 03:47:01 PM »
Since Judge Nelson allowed a next-day objection to O'Mara's question to Serino,  I'll be annoyed if the defense brings up BDLR's "fighting" comment tomorrow, and she replies they should have objected immediately.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking