HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Everyone that is congratu...

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:27 PM

Everyone that is congratulating the jurors for following the Judge's instructions... psssst, c'mer

On CNN just now, anonymous juror speaking with Anderson Cooper.

AC asks her whether it made any impact on her when police officer Chris Serino testified that he thought Z was being truthful?

Her response? "It did. It made a BIG impact."

Now, for those paying attention: what part of Serino's testimony did Judge Nelson tell the jurors to disregard?

Anyone?

ETA: verbatim quote from AC360 for those who need it:

AC: "So, when he (Serino) testified that he found George Zimmerman to be more or less overall truthful, did that make an impression on you?

Juror: "It did. It did. It made a BIG impression on me."

80 replies, 10109 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Everyone that is congratulating the jurors for following the Judge's instructions... psssst, c'mer (Original post)
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 OP
Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #1
madaboutharry Jul 2013 #2
movonne Jul 2013 #61
Spazito Jul 2013 #3
bettyellen Jul 2013 #5
Spazito Jul 2013 #16
arcane1 Jul 2013 #7
Whisp Jul 2013 #57
LaydeeBug Jul 2013 #60
YarnAddict Jul 2013 #10
dsc Jul 2013 #14
Doremus Jul 2013 #39
1StrongBlackMan Jul 2013 #65
leftstreet Jul 2013 #15
kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #18
Spazito Jul 2013 #20
YarnAddict Jul 2013 #26
Spazito Jul 2013 #30
YarnAddict Jul 2013 #32
Spazito Jul 2013 #37
DallasNE Jul 2013 #51
Spazito Jul 2013 #54
JVS Jul 2013 #41
Post removed Jul 2013 #4
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #6
ceonupe Jul 2013 #11
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #13
ceonupe Jul 2013 #22
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #21
ceonupe Jul 2013 #24
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #25
arcane1 Jul 2013 #29
BainsBane Jul 2013 #34
MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #31
Apophis Jul 2013 #8
DallasNE Jul 2013 #66
ananda Jul 2013 #9
onenote Jul 2013 #17
ananda Jul 2013 #27
Igel Jul 2013 #46
DallasNE Jul 2013 #67
ReRe Jul 2013 #55
DallasNE Jul 2013 #69
left on green only Jul 2013 #62
SHRED Jul 2013 #48
Spazito Jul 2013 #28
lastone Jul 2013 #43
ReRe Jul 2013 #58
woolldog Jul 2013 #12
TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #68
woolldog Jul 2013 #70
Enrique Jul 2013 #19
Raine Jul 2013 #23
BainsBane Jul 2013 #33
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #35
blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #36
Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #38
totodeinhere Jul 2013 #40
7962 Jul 2013 #63
Ilsa Jul 2013 #42
mountain grammy Jul 2013 #44
Skittles Jul 2013 #50
mountain grammy Jul 2013 #80
gopiscrap Jul 2013 #45
mazzarro Jul 2013 #47
John2 Jul 2013 #49
COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #64
gopiscrap Jul 2013 #74
COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #79
Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #52
VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #53
mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #56
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #72
mstinamotorcity2 Jul 2013 #73
LaydeeBug Jul 2013 #59
Enrique Jul 2013 #71
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #75
Enrique Jul 2013 #77
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #78
KamaAina Jul 2013 #76

Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:29 PM

1. Thank you and god bless you!-NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:32 PM

2. I am so heartsick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:32 PM

61. This whole trial is a joke and a setup...judge, prosecutor and

the whole trial...put on for are amusement...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:32 PM

3. Here it is, in black and white...

"During his cross-examination of Officer Chris Serino last Monday, Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman's lawyer, asked Serino a highly improper question. After establishing that there were no significant discrepancies between Zimmerman's description of his encounter with Trayvon Martin and the physical evidence and statements from neighbors, O'Mara asked Serino: "Do you think he was telling the truth?" Without any objection from the prosecution, Serino answered "Yes." The judge then recessed for the day.

The following morning, after hearing arguments from the prosecution, the judge instructed the jury to ignore Serino's comment that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:34 PM

5. an they also listened to the BS in the closing- NOT to use common sense.

 

Dumbass jury. Big shock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:40 PM

16. It definitely appears they took O'Mara's advice to forgo common sense...

and ignored the Judge's admonishment to disregard Serino's statement and the jury instructions that stated:

"You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:35 PM

7. "Without any objection from the prosecution." there it is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:24 PM

57. lethargic, uninterested fucks, is what I saw.

 

just still steamin' mad as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:31 PM

60. Yup. Lest you forget it was a state's atty who called and said not to charge him. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:36 PM

10. Why was that a highly improper question?

 

I mean, I know the jury was told to disregard that, but I don't unerstand why the detective couldn't testify regarding his own feelings that Z was being truthful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:39 PM

14. because he isn't a lie detector

He is there to testify to what he saw and did, not as an expert on who is telling the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:31 PM

39. Polygraphs aren't allowed as evidence in court either for the same reason

They're not infallible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:40 PM

15. Any shitty incompetent prosecutor would object to that

Any shitty incompetent defense atty would object to that

This case stinks

!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:42 PM

18. His opinion of the truth of that statement is irrelevant and prejudicial.

 

Even I know that it should have been objected to on the spot and struck, and I'm a cat vet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:42 PM

20. Here is why, in a nutshell...

"It is a well-established rule of courtroom testimony that a witness is forbidden from commenting on the credibility of another witness, or as in this case, the credibility of Zimmerman. It is the exclusive function of the jury to make determinations of credibility, and a lawyer subverts this principle when he or she invites a witness to endorse the credibility of someone else."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:53 PM

26. That makes sense, so

 

why didn't one of the prosecutors JUMP up and object before he got a chance to answer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:06 PM

30. A very good question...

It was the last question to Serino by O'Mara before the Judge recessed for the day. The State didn't catch it at the time, why, I don't know. The State did rectify it the next morning, before the jury was brought in and the Judge sustained the objection and made her admonishment to the jury to disregard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:10 PM

32. Once he'd had a chance to answer

 

it was kind of like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. sounds like this whole case could have turned on that one mistake by the prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:23 PM

37. It always is, imo, when the jury is told to disregard something they have already seen...

or heard. It doesn't mean they can't remember it and put it aside as instructed but it makes it much harder than not having 'the bell' rung in the first place.

Given what I have read regarding the juror appearing on 360, she was already in lockstep with the defense before Serino so I don't think it was a key moment for her but it certainly would have helped solidify what she already believed.

If she raised it during deliberations and the jurors discussed it, that could be a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:05 PM

51. O'Mara Asked That Question Knowing Beforehand How Serino Would Answer

Because it came up in discussions between the two before the trial as part of the discovery process. Being a detective Serino probably should have asked the Judge if he should answer it because he had to know it was improper. It was the same with so many of the prosecution witnesses that doubled as defense witnesses. That didn't happen in a vacuum. It was all part of the discovery process. The prosecution only had a small budget for discovery so they got constantly blindsided by their own witnesses. Money is about the only thing that matters in cases like this. Zimmerman had it and the prosecution didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:10 PM

54. Yes, I have no doubt O'Mara knew and also knew the question was completely inappropriate...

His ethics wouldn't register on any scale I would trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:41 PM

41. Each person is supposed to do their own believing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:34 PM

6. BULLSHIT! STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.

After you check your FACTS, please come back and post an apology.

ETA: just in case you return and delete your post, I'm going to copy it here for all to see:

That is not what he asked

Stop lying and adding on.

He asked was who was most believable of the witnesses. He did not aske that specific question and you know it.


STOP IT!

The judge ordered the juror to disregard 1 statement by him not his whole testimony which by the way was hurtful to the states case. Lots of what he said was not thrown out.


Oh and the state waited till the next day to object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:36 PM

11. I watched the interview have it on dvr

 

I reversed it to make sure.


You added and embellished your post.


You stretched the truth to fit your narrative I just called you out on it.

His question was not what you posted I challenge you to post transcript.

But you already know you stretched it or your mind/heart made you belive that's what you heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:38 PM

13. OK I will post it as soon as I can.

Are you prepared to apologize?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:44 PM

22. 100%

 

I am a man of my word I will apologize right here in the thread.

The whole situation is bad. I personally live a daily life of profiling. Driving while black (I have expensive forigen cars and have since about 23 years old) shopping while black and more.

But now as I become more established you get a new form of racisim. Merchants think you are reckless with your $ and stupid or don't have professional advise. But if I drive in a new area I'm prepared to be pulled over. I know the drill I kill the engine roll down all windows stick hands out of car and wait for instruction.

I must say after I got my CCW my encounters with police after the run my tags are much less tense belive it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:43 PM

21. And I quote:

AC: "So, when he (Serino) testified that he found George Zimmerman to be more or less overall truthful, did that make an impression on you?

Juror: "It did. It did. It made a BIG impression on me."

Maybe I get a special CNN broadcast that only comes to my house.

Ready to apologize yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:47 PM

24. Bending over grabbing ankles and taking three of your best sir/mama

 

I have been proven wrong and I admit it.

I replayed and what he said which was most belive able she response him then the next question from AC was your quote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:49 PM

25. Not necessary (the bending over part)

I try not to rush to post before I know what I'm talking about, so it bugs me to be called a liar when I just heard that and I was paying special attention because I wondered if AC would delve into that very question.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ceonupe (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:59 PM

29. That particular quality is in such short supply these days. You just gave me hope for huimanity :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:13 PM

34. I heard it too

Some people cannot hear or read anything without filtering it through their pro-gun lens and completely blocking out info. that doesn't confirm their views. I've noticed a lot of that on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:08 PM

31. Hello there, pro-Zimmerman troll.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:36 PM

8. So...they didn't base the verdict on evidence. The verdict was based on a guy's opinion.

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Apophis (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:53 PM

66. Not Just That But An Opinion They Were Instructed To Ignore

Go check out the CNN website. Jurist B37 just said that Rachel Jeantel was not a credible witness but it is clear that that was not based on what she testified to but because she wasn't smart enough to have standing to be heard. The next step should be to look into the judicial misconduct in this trial and the relationship between Judge Nelson and the defense team as she constantly caved to the demands of the defense. Something else we need to know is which two jurists were struck and then brought back by Judge Nelson and whether B37 was one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:36 PM

9. I just read that this juror said that she thought it was Z's voice ...

... screaming for help on the 911 tapes, and that the other jurors did too.

What!?? How could they think that? The mind boggles....

And she's got this ghost writer getting her to write a book about it.

This whole thing just stinks. People are exploiting this tragedy for profit,
and they've propagandized it to the point that the truth about it has been
twisted into a pretzelized mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:41 PM

17. They never heard Trayvon scream. They never heard Zimmerman scream.

They heard witnesses for each side say it was one or the other screaming. They believed one side more than the other. Personally, if I was on the jury I would probably have considered it a wash-- neither side seemed more or less convincing than the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:55 PM

27. From day one of this case we all knew what was on that 911 tape.

It was Trayvon screaming for help.

How anybody could not know that is beyond me... unless of course
they didn't want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:25 PM

46. No, not really.

If "we" means "DUers". I still don't know. I've heard it. But I have no basis for comparison.

If I had to just ID it, I'd say one of my students. He can make that kind of sound. Did in a music video. Wasn't his finest moment. But he's not an option, wrong state and over a year late.

Nice innuendo, by the way. If you don't conform you must be outcast. Diversity only works if it's merged with perfect uniformity.

Not a good conformist here. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:09 AM

67. Think Logically

Of course you can't tell by voice sound. The scream ends the millisecond the shot is heard. If that was a scared Zimmerman and he has testified that he wasn't sure he hit Martin with his shot, then some screaming would logically be heard after the shot. One cannot turn their emotion off in a millisecond but a shot sure could do the trick. Logic makes it nearly 100% certain that the scream belongs to Martin and that takes it past the reasonable doubt threshold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:14 PM

55. Hear Hear...

GZ is such a lazy-ass wimp, I can't imagine him screaming like Trayvon was screaming. Most women have a sense about screams. You pick it up when you have children. Before toddlers begin to talk, mothers can tell what kind of cry it is. Whether it's a "I'm hungry" cry; whether it's a "change this damn diaper now" cry; whether it's a "the diaper pin is stabbing me" cry; whether it is just a "I'm bored" cry. It has allot to do with the personality of the child, I guess. I have listened to those screams time after time and I can NOT hear GZ in them. GZ is the "whiner" type, not the screaming type. His injuries did not require one stitch. Not ONE stitch. Trayvon didn't hurt him. He overpowered him. And THAT is why GZ shot him. Shame on that male witness that didn't go out and break the fight up. There's another wimp! Had I lived there and that happened at my back door, I would have been in the middle of it in no time and Trayvon would NOT have been killed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:33 AM

69. Good's Testimony Was Overhyped

Not only did he not come out to break it up, he turned his back on it and went back inside his unit. It was a good 10 seconds between when Good turned his back and the shot was fired. That is more than enough time for positions to be reversed. Other witnesses, who did not see the whole thing either, said they thought it was Zimmerman on top. Only two people know what took place in those last several seconds, one is not talking and the other is dead. Even stand your ground says that if someone is clearly attempting to disengage then deadly force cannot be used. The scream is a clear sign of disengagement.

The thing is that Zimmerman has studied the law and that knowledge was very evident in how he crafted his story every step of the way. The police even gave him suggestions on what to say; Serino once said "that would be a problem". Serino was out of line when he said that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:36 PM

62. What I don't understand is.....

Why didn't they just have the Zim do his best imitation of the scream he says he made on that night into TM's cell phone, and then analogize the sound pattern against the sound pattern of the scream that was recorded on that night? Either it matches or it doesn't. Either the Zim is a liar, or he isn't.

I don't think that what I have proposed exceeds the limits of scientific technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:57 PM

48. Why didnt AC ask her...

 

...why she thought the screaming stopped at the moment of the gun shot?

Wouldn't a "Neighborhood Watch" person scream for an ambulance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:57 PM

28. I bet her 'ghost writer' is her lawyer husband...

it seems either he or the juror had a "high ranking producer at one of the morning shows" on speed dial, with immediate access, late Saturday night, after the verdict one assumes, or early Sunday morning, a "high ranking producer" who recommended an agent, Martin, who the juror then contacted sometime on Sunday.

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/george-zimmerman-juror-to-write-book_b74138

Nothing odd going on here, I'm sure of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:06 PM

43. Florida

 

Is a strange place where perception is reality more than anywhere I've ever lived and the need to keep up with the rich neighbors seems like a contact sport.

If you've ever been to fark.com, you'll understand, it's a news of the weird site and the only state to have their own subcategory, you guessed it. FL.

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastone (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:26 PM

58. I know of the "place" you describe...

Perception IS reality, keeping up with the Joneses, and I will add this one: "getting along to get along." Or "getting along to get by." It's called "Wimpville." Where no one speaks out of turn, and most just keep their mouths SHUT. They don't do nothing unless they get paid for it, or unless they get a feather to put in their cap. Where women know their place. I could go on, but I won't. Too depressing, those kinds of "places." Thank God I don't have to live in those places anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:37 PM

12. Another example of the incompetence of the prosecution:

 

They should've objected immediately to that line of questioning. Instead they waited until the next day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woolldog (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:12 AM

68. they didn't object to most things they should have

and never bothered to either deal with it on cross or deal with it the next day with the judge. That was one of my biggest problems with Bernie... he NEVER objected when he should have and allowed the defense to get in all kinds of testimony that should never have been heard in the first place. During Rachel's testimony he might as well have been out of the room entirely. Practically half her testimony was West asking the same questions again and again that were already answered, and the JUDGE had to finally step in at one point and tell him a particular question had many times been asked and answered and she wasn't going to allow him to do it again. At first I thought I knew what Bernie was doing with never objecting - trying to make the jury feel sorry for her and think West was a bully. But watching him further through the trial it became obvious that he wasn't objecting on purpose so that the defense could steam roll all over the prosecution. That also ties in with his not addressing those things he didn't bother to object to on cross with most if not all of the witnesses and not addressing it later with the judge.

There's just no question in my mind that he threw this case on purpose. Never addressing that Zimmerman's story did not mesh with the physical evidence concerning Martin's body being so far from the sidewalk and never addressing even when they could have with the foam dummy that it was not physically possible for either Martin or Zimmerman to have been able to get to the gun if they were in the positions that Zimmerman claimed they were was inexcusable. John Guy also fell off the rails on the latter when he got on top of the dummy in never addressing it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #68)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:47 AM

70. I hear you.

 

It's hard to believe they (especially Bernie De La Rionda) could be that bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:42 PM

19. that sounds like a big problem

not that there's anything that can be done about it, but for the credibility of this verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:46 PM

23. THANKS for posting this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:11 PM

33. I caught that

If Trayvon had been the defendant, that would be grounds for appeal. I don't know why Anderson didn't call her on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:14 PM

35. Plenty of time for that (to call her on it)

For the moment, he did a masterful job of asking the question and eliciting an answer before she could think about what she was admitting to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:22 PM

36. Hmm.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:26 PM

38. K and R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:38 PM

40. And of course this juror is going to try to cash in with a book.

Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to totodeinhere (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:39 PM

63. I just dont see anyone buying the book though

 

I said the same thing when someone mentioned Z writing one. Whats to read? The trial wasnt really that long, there wasnt any riveting testimony, no CSI type scientific evidence. No big names, like the OJ trial.
Write the book. I bet itt wont sell even to those who agree with the verdict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 08:44 PM

42. Not only that, but they punted on the Manslaughter charge.

They decided they didnt understand it, couldn't figure out how to ask a question about it when the court asked them to be specific, so they acquitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:06 PM

44. Like the Rude Pundit said, if they found GZ guilty

they would be finding Trayvon Martin innocent. Guess an all white southern jury isn't ready to do that yet.

They believed the kid was guilty of defending himself and, because the kid was black, if he stands his ground he's the aggressor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #44)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:05 PM

50. as someone else said, Trayvon was essentially tried for his own murder

it smacks of racism all the way around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:22 PM

80. so disgustingly true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:23 PM

45. Like I said, the prosecution

blew the case on purpose. They were told to by higher ups. The law was, is and will always be crooked and stacked for the monied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:51 PM

47. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

K&R x 100

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:04 PM

49. I'll tell

 

you what, if I was leading the prosecution, I would not have made Detective Serino or John Good my witnesses considering the information known in this case. I would have considered him a hostile witness to the prosecution and placed his investigation on trial. The simple fact, is he didn't want to charge Zimmerman at all and he only considered bringing charges of manslaughter because he accused other officers within the Department of pressuring him to bring charges. I would have asked him why did he dismiss himself as the lead investigator to the case.

That is the line of questioning that I would have asked him if the defense bought him up as their witness. Now that I know more information about his questioning of Zimmerman and Good. I understand, that Zimmerman, gave statements to an ex Seminole police officer he stayed with after the shooting. I would have called him instead of Serino as the prosecution witness regarding those statements.

If the information is correct that Zimmerman told this officer, that he made eye contact with two witnesses, when he called for help, assuming one was John Good, those would be inconsistent statements from Zimmerman and it would put John Good's testimony in doubt about what he saw.

Furthermore, I would ask that officer about his friendship with Zimmerman and did he actually attend the investigation with Detective Serino and Zimmerman on the re-enactment of the events.

Then I would question Detective Serino about it, and why he didn't want to bring charges against Zimmerman, including his allegations about pressure from other officers. I would also question him about his testimony to the FBI about why he thought Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was suspicious because of his clothing attire. That is when I would have bought in racial profiling versus his clothing attire and how he came to the conclusion about gangs being associated with Martin's attire. Did Zimmerman mention anything about gangs to him, and how would he know about the clothing attire of gangs in the area? I would also ask Detective Serino what gangs in the Sanford area, that he can identify for wearing hoodies. I would also ask him about the phrase MMA style and did Good offer that description on his own or did he suggest it to him. That is the line of questioning I would have took, and if the defense objected, I would have asked the judge again to make a ruling on racial profiling based on Detective Serino's conclusions it wasn't and why he made those conclusions. I would have set the stage, that detective Serino might had been shoring up the weaknesses in Zimmerman's defense and Zimmerman had more of a relationship with local law enforcement than most ordinary citizens of Sanford. It would have also opened the door, about racial allegations from the Black community in Sanford and police officers covering for friends of the police. I would have also asked him about two other witnesses, concerning a 13 year old boy and his mother that witnessed or had something to add to the events on that night concerning Zimmerman's accounts and why they weren't called for the defense. If Johnny Cochran was the prosecutor, I think he would have won this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 11:02 PM

64. Interesting. Are you a lawyer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #64)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:48 AM

74. I do not have my license as I chose not to practice

but have passed the bar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gopiscrap (Reply #74)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 01:56 PM

79. So basically your whole post in based on

no experience with trial work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:05 PM

52. Also, the defense animation not admitted into evidence.

Along with the O'Mara presser right after the trial, I don't think I could watch this interview. It was bad enough watching the live tweets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:09 PM

53. Randi Rhodes said today....

 

When do the cops testify for the Defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:20 PM

56. Thought no one was supposed to know who

these people were. And its reported that one juror has a book deal already. When were those contracts signed. And one of the jurors is an attorney in Sanford and is suspected of knowing Mr. O Mara.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mstinamotorcity2 (Reply #56)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:12 AM

72. Jurors are free to reveal their own identities.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #72)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:19 AM

73. Hey Winkydink

long time no here from. Thank you. How long after the verdict must they wait?? Because I see sometimes jurors come out and talk after verdicts. But It still is Twisted to me that everybody wants to collect a Payday on Sabrina Fulton and Tracey Martin's dead child. Its just so rethuglican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:29 PM

59. move along. Nothing to see here. the sidewalk is a lethal weapon so it was self defense.

 

Arm yourselves, and slowly follow people in your SUV (while they walk so you have to drive reeeeeeeeeeeeeally, reeeeeeeeeally slow) and when they dart down in another direction, GET OUT OF YOUR CAR AND FOLLOW THEM WITH YOUR LOADED WEAPON.

Nothing wrong with that. nothing at all.

We're law abiding citizens.

With guns.

Too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 10:06 AM

71. has anyone else picked up on this?

this seems like a big deal, did Anderson Cooper catch it? Or anyone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #71)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:22 PM

75. Not that I know of. I hope they come here and see it.

AC did not at all flinch when she said that. But it was clear why he asked. He knew. He was probably just trying to get her on the record without really probing her answers. I understand that. She may have backed out of the rest of the interview or forbid it from being aired if she thought he was trapping her or something.

She enthusiastically volunteered that answer. Shocking and disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #75)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:41 PM

77. if it was deliberate, than i am impressed with Cooper

that is some good interviewing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #77)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:45 PM

78. I am sure it was

That was too pointed of a question, and an incredibly important one, for him to have just randomly thought of it at the moment.

That he held back any confrontation was a great tactic, because he let her continue to reveal her ignorance rather than tamp it back.

Yes, he did well. I just hope the implications are now discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 12:40 PM

76. Pssst! Over here!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html

Because jury deliberations are secret, and no jurors (as of this writing) have spoken publicly about deliberations, it is impossible to know the basis for the jury's acquittal. But let me explain why the verdict might have boiled down to jury instructions.

The state asked the court to instruct the jury not only about the justification of self-defense, which favored Zimmerman in the ways described above, but also about its initial aggressor limitation. (View the state's argument here, beginning at 3:00.) According to the state, the jury might have concluded that Zimmerman provoked any physical response from Martin by following him. If a jury could reasonably find an instruction applicable, the instruction should be given.

The defense objected to the initial aggressor instruction. (See the defense argument here.) As a factual matter, the defense argued that no evidence indicated that Zimmerman physically initiated the confrontation. As a legal matter, the defense relied on Gibbs v. State, a 2001 decision from the Fourth Division of the Florida Court of Appeals, which held that a defendant loses the right to self-defense as an initial aggressor only if he provokes the victim's use of force through either force or "threat of force."

After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread