Zimmerman Trial: Tired of media bias? See gun-friendly legal coverage

[Inigoes]

Not in court. In court it's called "Objection, speculation, facts not in evidence", and it's less than worthless.

We're not in a research laboratory here, we're in a trial to determine whether a man should be sentenced to 20 years in prison for murder 2.

I would suggest that if you were the defendant in this situation you'd prefer the State argue the facts, and not speculative "hypothesis". That is, after all, your Constitutionally-mandated due process right.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

I agree

If for some legal shakanery or hail mary, the prosecution can "truthfully" substantiate their claim(s), then what you call a "lie" would not be a lie.

What I am trying to say: It's more of a middle of the road presentation, to not project a bias to either side. Saves for eating some crow later on.

 

[Lerlactl]

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zero, that Zimmerman ever followed Martin in any way other than maintaining observation from a distance while simultaneously on the phone with police to talk them into the scene, nor that Zimmerman confronted Martin--indeed, the available evidence says that Martin confronted Zimmerman.

So, sorry, your statement is not a "fact", it's just another of the lies promulgated by the Crump disinformation machine. Endlessly repeating the lie does not transform it into truth, it just makes one look silly and ill-informed--or deliberately biased, take your pick.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

"Maintained observation from a distance", what? The 911 dispatcher asks Zimmerman are you following him, Zimmerman responds with a yes. So what are you talking about? But in all honesty it really does not matter. I dont beleive any amount of evidence would change your position on this matter. Enjoy your thread, have a great day.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

If for some legal shakanery or hail mary, the prosecution can "truthfully" substantiate their claim(s), then what you call a "lie" would not be a lie.

What I am trying to say: It's more of a middle of the road presentation, to not project a bias to either side. Saves for eating some crow later on.

I'm afraid I've taken on the role of commenting on the case in real time, not retrospectively, which inevitably runs the risk of "eating some crow." (I have a vague memory of being mistaken once before . . . I'll ask my wife, she'll remember for certain.)

What I try to do, however, is base my commentary on the actual facts in evidence, not on disinformation or speculation. I have carefully reviewed, numerous times, all the evidence in discovery, and that evidence is the basis for my comments.

Just exactly as the jurors will be instructed to do in making their decisions and coming to a verdict.

If the evidence changes, or new evidence emerges--which, really, should be grounds for a mistrial or at least a continuance at this stage of things--my opinion will change accordingly.

In the meantime, I'll just have to resign myself to making do with the rather enormous body of evidence already developed in this case.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Enjoy your thread, have a great day.

I will, thanks, you too.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Inigoes]

I'm afraid I've taken on the role of commenting on the case in real time, not retrospectively, which inevitably runs the risk of "eating some crow." (I have a vague memory of being mistaken once before . . . I'll ask my wife, she'll remember for certain.)

Yep, the bosses are good for that.

What I try to do, however, is base my commentary on the actual facts in evidence, not on disinformation or speculation. I have carefully reviewed, numerous times, all the evidence in discovery, and that evidence is the basis for my comments.

Just exactly as the jurors will be instructed to do in making their decisions and coming to a verdict.

If the evidence changes, or new evidence emerges--which, really, should be grounds for a mistrial or at least a continuance at this stage of things--my opinion will change accordingly.

In the meantime, I'll just have to resign myself to making do with the rather enormous body of evidence already developed in this case.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

I'm not doubting there is a mountain of evidence.

It all comes down to what the jury truly believes. Albeit, the jury is not a binary lot (true/false), they will perceive what they believe what happened and decide accordingly (within the judge's instruction).

 

[Law of Self Defense]

It all comes down to what the jury truly believes. Albeit, the jury is not a binary lot (true/false), they will perceive what they believe what happened and decide accordingly.

Indeed. All we can reasonably ask is that they base their decisions on facts in evidence, and not on unfounded speculation, as the law requires, and as is their legal duty. We all should be entitled to that much.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Just FYI, Day 4 of jury selection has just kicked into gear. Our live, all-day coverage can be found at Legal Insurrection here, if you're interested in following along.

We'll also be doing our usual end-of-day summary of events. I'll drop a brief note when that's up, for folks who are interested.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[MDFF2008]

Looks like a juror is in trouble for posting "now justice will be done" on a liberal website.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Looks like a juror is in trouble for posting "now justice will be done" on a liberal website.

If you're interested, I cover this in-depth here at Legal Insurrection, including screen-caps of posts on the "Coffee Party Progressive," site (some of which have now been pulled from the site).

Andrew

 

[hvymax]

Looks like a juror is in trouble for posting "now justice will be done" on a liberal website.

I wonder if he can be charged for lying during questioning trying to contaminate the jury?

 

[Inigoes]

This case reminds me of of the Gerald Ung case in PA.

Over-zealous prosecutor succumbing to political pressure. Once the trial started, it was over and Ung was free.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

I wonder if he can be charged for lying during questioning trying to contaminate the jury?

Certainly, he deliberately sought to deceive the court. He would have been sworn (or affirmed) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

He clearly violated that oat (affirmation).

A different judge would have cut off the cameras, chewed his butt off at length, and held him in criminal contempt until the judge had cooled off.

There's nothing the court hates more than liars, they hate them more than even killers. Killers they can throw in jail. Liars make a mockery of the whole system and their individual authority and power as judges.

That's why Martha Stewart did prison time for her "little lie." Get caught lying under oath (or, in Stewart's case, to Federal investigators, essentially the consequences under the law), expect to pay the price.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Once the trial started, it was over and Ung was free.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we saw the same here, once the State is compelled to actually argue based on facts in evidence. They just don't have much substantive to work with.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[eruby]

Is there a smiley that changes this:



to this:

 

[Blackstar65]

After listening to the 911 call and reading the digest and timeline on Wikipedia. This may have been a justifiable shooting. I was wrong in my previous post.

 

[rseymorejr]

This might be a bit off topic, but why is he being tried in the first place?

To put it bluntly... because Trayvon Martin was black and Zimmerman is a white hispanic.

Because, if Obama had a son he would look like travon martin

 

[Law of Self Defense]

After listening to the 911 call and reading the digest and timeline on Wikipedia. This may have been a justifiable shooting. I was wrong in my previous post.

And that, sirs, is the act of a gentleman.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[A. Wayne]

Not sure I understand the hoopla of your article. The perspective jurors were dismissed, and I believe eliminated from further consideration. Juror E7 made a posting to a facebook page that is sympathetic to Martin, but you do not know what post is his or if what he said was sympathetic.
Seems like just another biased media source to me, and the title of your thread speaks of frustration with biased media.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Not sure I understand the hoopla of your article. The perspective jurors were dismissed, and I believe eliminated from further consideration. Juror E7 made a posting to a facebook page that is sympathetic to Martin, but you do not know what post is his or if what he said was sympathetic.
Seems like just another biased media source to me, and the title of your thread speaks of frustration with biased media.

Media sources have identified E7 as Jerry Counelis, based on reporters who personally saw E7 testify and both Counelis' self-described background and the photo attached to his post on "Coffee Party Progressives." Of course the Court and lawyers always knew his name. (He lost his "prospective jurors anonymity" when he was dismissed from the jury pool.)

Counelis testified in Court under oath/affirmation--to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth--that he had not yet formed an opinion of the case, and was prepared to be a fair and impartial juror.

Then the court discovered that he had previously posted comments at the "Coffee Party Progressives," denouncing "this corrupt City Police dept.," "this self-appointed "Neighborhood Watch" Security," and that "the Seminole County "Justice" System needs an ENEMA . . . & they just MIGHT GET one!"

If that sounds to you like someone truthfully prepared to be a fair and impartial juror in the case, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense

 

[A. Wayne]

I agree based on the evidence you've shown here that he shouldn't be on the jury.

But he was dismissed - correct?

Nothing to see here...