Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[maiforpeace]

http://forum.freeadvice.com/other-crime ... 80585.html

[Coito ergo sum]

If Zimmerman doesn't testify, he doesn't stand a chance.

That isn't true. I doubt it highly that he would testify. The default position is that defendants do not testify.

I don't see how he can claim he was acting in self defence, without testifying.

Happens all the time. You go by the other evidence. He doesn't have to testify. It's not his burden of proof.

Can he write it down, and submit that?

He's already raised the defense when he answered the indictment or charge.

I don't see how you can testify in any form, without being cross-examined.

He doesn't have to testify. A plea and raising self defense is not testimony. The other evidence supports his defense.

Maybe that's another weird thing in US law? I haven't heard of it.

If he testifies, he is subject to cross-examination. It's not a "weird thing about US law" -- and dial back the solipsism. Just because you grew up in one legal system doesn't make your legal system proper and some others "weird." The US system is one of the more emulated systems around, and much of US criminal law principles have been adopted by European and world court processes.

Anyway, if I was on the jury, and he didn't testify, he wouldn't stand a chance.

They'd probably figure that out in voir dire and boot you from the jury before it started.

You kill an innocent kid, you claim self-defence, and decline to say why?
He's fucked if he does that.

Not if other people take the stand and testify to him getting the living shit beat out of him, not necessarily anyway.

Remember, there only has to be reasonable doubt relative to the prosecutions case. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove shit.

Anyway, legal analysts and Zimmerman's own Lawyer seem to think that Zimmerman's credibility is a major issue because of this :
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/zimmerm ... e-16489107

Sure is. But, credibility won't be an issue at trial unless Zimmerman testifies and claims that he should be believed because he is such an honest person. The prosecution can't put evidence of other bad acts to prove action in conformity therewith (i.e. - don't believe his claim of self-defense, because he's a liar) -- that's inadmissible. The prosecution has to prove, an unjustified intentional killing of a human being by Zimmerman, with malice aforethought. Whether Zimmerman is a liar, thief, fraudster, or general bad guy are all irrelevant.

[Tyrannical]

Well, Seth is right. It is non-admissible in court for the reason he gives. It may be admissible if he is found guilty for sentencing.

In which case, his statement, all the statements of witnesses, the finding of material evidence, and any admissions he might make after caution, all happened after the offence he is charged with, and can't be used.

And doesn't it seem odd to you that his OWN LAWYER said that his credibility is seriously damaged and needs to be rebuilt?

And I seem to remember OJ Simpsons car chase after the alleged murder of his wife being minutely explored in the trial.

You're right. I distinctly remember hearing in the trial that OJ must be guilty since he went on that white bronco chase

[mistermack]

You're right. I distinctly remember hearing in the trial that OJ must be guilty since he went on that white bronco chase

It's too long ago, and I don't remember for certain. It was shown over and over on tv, maybe that's what I remember.
Maybe they didn't use it, but they definitely should have.

In the Bronco the police found "$8,000 in cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .357 Magnum, a passport, family pictures, and a fake goatee and mustache."[16]:88

And he was threatening suicide for most of the chase.
Not relevant I suppose.

[Tyrannical]

You're right. I distinctly remember hearing in the trial that OJ must be guilty since he went on that white bronco chase

It's too long ago, and I don't remember for certain. It was shown over and over on tv, maybe that's what I remember.
Maybe they didn't use it, but they definitely should have.

In the Bronco the police found "$8,000 in cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .357 Magnum, a passport, family pictures, and a fake goatee and mustache."[16]:88

And he was threatening suicide for most of the chase.
Not relevant I suppose.

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

[laklak]

I was on a jury once that convicted a guy of armed robbery. Pretty much open and shut, they had pics and video, took us about 20 minutes to convict. After we delivered the verdict the judge told us he had been previously convicted, twice, for the same offense. That was never mentioned during the trial.

[Tyrannical]

I was on a jury once that convicted a guy of armed robbery. Pretty much open and shut, they had pics and video, took us about 20 minutes to convict. After we delivered the verdict the judge told us he had been previously convicted, twice, for the same offense. That was never mentioned during the trial.

Did that surprise you? It surprised me when I learned that concept in my constitutional law class twenty years ago.

[mistermack]

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

And your point is ?

[Tyrannical]

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

And your point is ?

That you are ignorant of the law and it's proceedings.

[mistermack]

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

And your point is ?

That you are ignorant of the law and it's proceedings.

That you're ignorant of what you're replying to, more like. I never said one word about previous convictions.
You must have dream't it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're right. I distinctly remember hearing in the trial that OJ must be guilty since he went on that white bronco chase

It's too long ago, and I don't remember for certain. It was shown over and over on tv, maybe that's what I remember.
Maybe they didn't use it, but they definitely should have.

In the Bronco the police found "$8,000 in cash, a change of clothing, a loaded .357 Magnum, a passport, family pictures, and a fake goatee and mustache."[16]:88

And he was threatening suicide for most of the chase.
Not relevant I suppose.

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

That is true, except that with a series of events like that, depending on the circumstances, it's possible that the prosecution might get them in under the "common plan or scheme" exception. The prior bad acts could be admitted to prove action in conformity therewith if all the acts could be argued to be aggregated into one common plan or scheme, such as a plan to rob a bunch of banks.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was on a jury once that convicted a guy of armed robbery. Pretty much open and shut, they had pics and video, took us about 20 minutes to convict. After we delivered the verdict the judge told us he had been previously convicted, twice, for the same offense. That was never mentioned during the trial.

Did that surprise you? It surprised me when I learned that concept in my constitutional law class twenty years ago.

Doesn't surprise me, but it's notreally a constitutional thing. It's an evidence thing. Such evidence is unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant because people are apt to say "he did it once, so he probably did it again" or "he's a bad guy, so if he didn't do this he did something else," and convictions need to be based on evidence that the crime charged was committed, not evidence that some other crime was committed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your ignorance of legal proceedings is astounding
Just so you know, even if someone was convicted five times of bank robbery, those prior convictions are inadmissible as evidence for his sixth bank robbery charge. Sentencing is another matter.

And your point is ?

That you are ignorant of the law and it's proceedings.

That you're ignorant of what you're replying to, more like. I never said one word about previous convictions.
You must have dream't it.

Yours is even more tenuous, because right now the allegation is of lying to the judge, but until Zimmerman either admits it or is convicted, then the act is merely an allegation. A court isn't going to hold a trial on the perjury charge within the murder case.

[laklak]

I was on a jury once that convicted a guy of armed robbery. Pretty much open and shut, they had pics and video, took us about 20 minutes to convict. After we delivered the verdict the judge told us he had been previously convicted, twice, for the same offense. That was never mentioned during the trial.

Did that surprise you? It surprised me when I learned that concept in my constitutional law class twenty years ago.

No, I knew prior convictions were generally not mentioned, comes from having so many lawyers in the family (3 of 'em). I later read he got life without parole, because it was his 3rd strike. Dumbass. If you've got TWO fucking felony convictions the last thing you want to do is hold up a 7-11 for $50. A 7-11 almost across the street from your house, where you go every day to buy smokes and the clerks all know you. Without a mask. Holding a cigarette lighter that looks like a pistol. Make that "fucking dumbass".

[Tero]

Boy that Zimmerman is an idiot. Having such a small penis, he'll have to carry that gun. But the next evildoer will be a 30 year old and will shoot Z with his own gun.