BenL
John Galt Speaking.
Which is not justice, only someone trying to save their ego
That's all this ever was.
Which is not justice, only someone trying to save their ego
I've read the prosecution is going to have their closing argument today while the defense's will be tomorrow, followed by the prosecution's rebuttal. Is this normal? This seems like the prosecution gets an unfair advantage of both having their closing statement and then another shot to poke holes in the defense's statement.
That's the way it is in allcivil and criminal trials. The party with the burden of proof, in this case the state, has the right to open and close.
Q: How many prosecuting attorneys are working the Zimmerman trial?
The prosecutor is trying to have zimmerman charged with Child Abuse (3rd degree murder)?!?!?
Yeah. No 3rd degree allowed.
That's the way it is in allcivil and criminal trials. The party with the burden of proof, in this case the state, has the right to open and close.
I could not believe how she grilled him about weather or not he would take the stand. Do judges usually speak directly to a defendant about that while basically ignoring their lawyers objections? I don't know if that was in front of the jury, but if it was that was just wrong. If the defense does not call the defendant, does that not satisfy the judge/court that he will not testify, without actually having to ask him?Q: How many prosecuting attorneys are working the Zimmerman trial?
A: One too many. The older woman in the black robe needs to go.
I could not believe how she grilled him about weather or not he would take the stand. Do judges usually speak directly to a defendant about that while basically ignoring their lawyers objections? I don't know if that was in front of the jury, but if it was that was just wrong. If the defense does not call the defendant, does that not satisfy the judge/court that he will not testify, without actually having to ask him?
It was almost like she was badgering him as to why he would not take the stand to defend himself.As a layman, I can understand asking him once. Asking him multiple times just reeks of judicial activism (attempting to coerce him to testify from the bench - which is why my non-lawyer backside believes West objected after the second time she asked the question).
They have to make sure he doesn't try to file an appeal for being denied a chance to speak.
As a layman, I can understand asking him once. Asking him multiple times just reeks of judicial activism (attempting to coerce him to testify from the bench - which is why my non-lawyer backside believes West objected after the second time she asked the question).
I could not believe how she grilled him about weather or not he would take the stand. Do judges usually speak directly to a defendant about that while basically ignoring their lawyers objections? I don't know if that was in front of the jury, but if it was that was just wrong. If the defense does not call the defendant, does that not satisfy the judge/court that he will not testify, without actually having to ask him?
IMO. She should have waited until the defense rested. Then Mr Rest wouldn't have objected.
I was thinking the same thing.i have never seen a murder trial where the judge questioned the defendant like that. he will get an appeal off of that alone.
They have to make sure he doesn't try to file an appeal for being denied a chance to speak.