Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[JLCrab]

Well whilst you all thrash out the US legal system here on ThaiVisa (the real world?), I had a comment of mine included in a US Circuit Court of Appeals brief filed by the lead Plaintiff-Appellant attorneys in a case.

Other than that, you can have the real world; I prefer to live in the movies -- pass the popcorn, OK?

BTW I had a comment posted on an article in The New York Times (one of 1000+ comments to that article) on the Martin - Zimmerman case that received 12 'Recommends' and got 6 reply comments; One support comment and five saying (basically) I am a total idiot.

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[Scott]

Mods Please delete the duplicate post, I am having system problems trouble with posting.

Thank you

There are a number of people having the same problem and they are being deleted as we find them. Hopefully, the problem will be fixed shortly.

[F430murci]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

Actually, it says a lot more about internal struggles and personal failures of individuals using this as a victim card and has very little to do with the American justice system.

I wonder how many if the people on that are so angry about American are really just frustrated with their own failures and l

I am talking about race and class matters.

Why does the USA have such a shockingly high rate of citizens in prison?

Why such a high percentage of black people?

Why is it so hard to convict a non-black person of crimes but so easy to convict accused black people?

Also, guns. It's out of hand.

There are more whites than blacks on death row without including Hispanic, Asian and etc.

It is not more difficult to convict nonblacks. You are buying into rhetoric that is simply based on victim card mentality and fostered by reverse racist groups with agendas.

I guess the larger question is why blacks commit such a disproportionate amount of the crimes. If you are unwilling to accept this fact, therein lies the problem.

Nothing I can say will change your mind. Stupid of me to even care. I, however, have devoted my life to the law, I take pride in the legal system, and I believe in it. When I see something wrong with it, I am one if those that yell loudest about it.

There are problems with the legal system, as with any system, and I would gladly acknowledge those. This case, however, is not illustrative of any of those problems. The system actually worked in this case.

[beechguy]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

Actually, it says a lot more about internal struggles and personal failures of individuals using this as a victim card and has very little to do with the American justice system.

I wonder how many if the people on that are so angry about American are really just frustrated with their own failures and l

I am talking about race and class matters.

Why does the USA have such a shockingly high rate of citizens in prison?

Why such a high percentage of black people?

Why is it so hard to convict a non-black person of crimes but so easy to convict accused black people?

Also, guns. It's out of hand.

You're mistake is buying into the racist rhetoric by Sharpton, Jackson, and the hip hop gansta rappa mfkrs. They have a lot more innocent black blood on their hands than Zimmerman, but that would be asking too much for them accept responsibility, instead of believing the victimization BS.

[Publicus]

-- No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

No Fifth Amendment in UK but same lawful right to not incriminate oneself.

The right goes back to mid 16th century England.

It however had its origin in the opposite concept and practice as we've come to know it. "From the middle of the sixteenth century, when sources first allow us to glimpse the conduct of early modern criminal trials,2 until late in the eighteenth century, the fundamental safeguard for the defendant in common law criminal procedure was not the right to remain silent, but rather the opportunity to speak." (emphasis added)

The Historical Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=fss_papers

So to reiterate, in cases of murder or manslaughter, when the victim witness is deceased, and there aren't any other witnesses to the alleged wrongful death, the prosecution should be able to call the only surviving witness, which would be the criminal defendant. The criminal defendant thus would be obligated but not required to speak. The criminal defendant could continue to have the option not to speak, but the presumption of neutrality in the extant law in such instances would be vacated, voided.

In this way, society would instead prefer the criminal defendant to explain himself under the rules of procedure of a court of law, which would necessarily include having the prosecution test the criminal defendant's story.

I and some others have come to advocate this limited exception to the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Such an exemption would require a ruling by the Supreme Court. The process would require several years of moving through the US judicial system, from the US District Court level to the higher level of a US Circuit Court of Appeals - probably more than one challenge in each judicial forum - ultimately to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court says the Fifth Amendment allows it, then that's all there is to it. A written legal opinion would of course be required and desirable.

That would be the final word in the matter. Any such Supreme Court ruling would apply only in instances of murder or manslaughter in a court of law when there isn't any other witness(es). The Supreme Court would need to be narrow in its ruling and highly specific, necessarily highly restrictive in any such exception to the Fifth.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Juror B37 stated that she disregarded the lady that was on the phone with Trayvon because she was inadequate , uneducated with no communication skills, not on the evidence she testified to, The only part of the testimony she consider was the statement attributed to Trayvon "Creepy ass Cracka" She considered it because it was the truth! This was stated in the TV interview with CNN's. Anderson Cooper.

Also Juror B37 when asked did the answer Detective Serino gave if it influenced her, she answered "Yes Greatly", the host then showed the Judge ordering the answer stricken and for the Jury to disregard the answer, Juror B37 failed to disregard it as ordered by the Judge ( Same interview).

On May 10, 2013, in the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman filed "State's Motion To Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence"

"The State of Florida, by and thought the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, hereby files the Motion in the above-Captioned proceeding.

The Defendant has indicated via questioning in pre-trial proceedings that he apparently intends to attempt to argue or introduce opinion testimony from one or more witnesses as to their opinion, prior to and/or after Defendant's arrest, as to his guilt or the propriety of being criminal charged.

Such testimony (be it from Defendant's family members, civilians, or even law enforcement personnel) is improper."

Judge Debra Nelson granted the State's Motion. No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged) was allowed during the trial.

Juror B37 has reportedly signed with a "literary agent" and announced that she intends to write a book.,Sharlene Martin, President of Martin Literary Management, represents Juror B37 in obtaining a book deal.In her news release, Sharlene Martin has stated that the jury in the George Zimmerman case decided he was not guilty.... due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions,"

The jury based it decision on information not presented at Trial

Juror B37, or another juror able to persuade her, had already formed an opinion that George Zimmerman should not have been charged and therefore, the evidence presented by State prosecutors at trial was never going to be considered in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence.

By the jury deciding that George Zimmerman should not have been charged, he effectively did not stand trial to determine guilt or innocence. A decision of not guilty by a jury cannot be reversed. However, with the release of this information by Juror B37's literary agent. There should be an investigation that fraud was committed on the court to, and that, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

Cheers: alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Yes, you should give credit to were you get your information.

Your lack of understanding of American jurisprudence in appalling.

As the trial begins, the judge instructs the jury on the law. The jury may form opinions about the charges, legally, from that.

Again just before the jury deliberates, the judge again gives the jury instructions on how to deliberate and on what the law is.

These are the things you are quoting, especially in bold, showing your lack of understanding of how things work.

Get over it. The trial is over, the jury has ruled, and Zimmerman is not guilty.

This aspect of American jurisprudence is appalling, wrong, and leads to the miscarriage of justice. It needs to be changed, radically changed in the way I and some others advocate.

[Publicus]

I did read your long winded post. And the prosecution DID present a theory when they went to trial. The jury didn't accept that theory, hence the not guilty verdict. Duh.

Once again, you're whining and crying about George Zimmerman being the only 'witness'. Child, in many murder cases, that's the way it goes. The prosecution has to find and present evidence, without and eyewitness and convince the jury. They failed in this case.

Bottom line is. Zimmerman won. He's alive and walking the streets. Your fake facts with no evidence to back it up won't change that. Why don't you entertain us with one of your ROTC combat stories in the White House you used to work instead? Sure beats your whining. Boohoo Trayvon is dead and the big white man is free. Hana pathetic.

A sound and plausible THEORY. You just said it yourself. THEORY. Not fact.

The jury didn't buy the theory.

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

@gl555

Read my quotes above.

Given that you are both reading and attention challenged in this matter, I restate my quote above, taken from a previous post I'd made: "However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence."

That is, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked the evidence. Yet you say "the jury didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory, and neither did we until after the trial had concluded. You don't know the basic facts presented in my original post and re-presented in the quote above. That's oh for two in your reading of my statement concerning the prosecution's theory relative to the jury. You're oh for two, both times on called third strikes against you.

The evidence the prosecution "lacked" was a witness.

There is a surviving witness, however. He is George Zimmerman, the ruthless gunman murderer. The prosecution should have had the constitutional authority to call Zimmerman as a witness to test his story, because a story it was and remains, and because the only other witness is deceased. The innocent youth Trayvon had been a witness - up to a point. Trayvon ceased to be a witness after Zimmerman walked up to him, gun in hand, put the muzzle up to Trayvon's chest at his heart, pulled the trigger.

Your post is gang banger sloppy, inattentive to the statements I made in my post, erroneous.

Strike three, y're out! Grab some bench.

@gl555

The prosecution did not present the theory of the case you said it presented and, moreover, that you erroneously said the jury rejected. Again, the jury never heard the particular theory because the prosecution did not present the theory in court or during the trial.

You are just plain wrong when you say the jury "didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory during the trial. The jury did hear two opposing theories of the case. But the jury never heard the theory you said it rejected. How can a jury reject a theory it never heard during the trial?

You made a sloppy gang banger claim. It is a reckless claim pounded out quickly on the keyboard for the sake of making a post that is contrary. You struck out again, and again on a called strike three.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[JLCrab]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[samran]

Despite being a big fan of the place, threads like this always make me think that as a country, you blokes have some pretty farked up and dysfunctional undercurrents.

[JLCrab]

Despite being a big fan of the place, threads like this always make me think that as a country, you blokes have some pretty farked up and dysfunctional undercurrents.

Maybe the biggest problem we have is basing a lot of this stuff on English common law and the Magna Carta. Throw in a little David Hume as well.

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[Publicus]

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

This is the only part of your post with any importance. As far as theories go, it is pretty obvious that the guy who was getting the heck beaten out of him would be the one who was screaming. It stopped when the attacker was neutralized.

Prosecutors vary in their competence but they are professionals who deal in crime and punishment, the law, each and every day. This is their stock and trade. It is their responsibility to devise a theory of a case, motive, who likely did what and when, to whom, etc.

Yes, there weren't any witnesses. However, there is a sound and plausible theory as developed by the prosecutors concerning the crime. Their theory is based on their best analysis of events, principals, witnesses of any nature (aural in this instance) and everything else. Prosecutors have to decide the viability of the theory and whether or not proving the theory is possible.

The only missing piece is an eyewitness. The only eyewitness is the defendant, the murderer himself. You know, the gunman murderer who can say anything that gets him off the hook on the charge of 2nd degree murder.

In short; They made it up! Yes, the prosecution made that story up. The jury, after hearing the all the testimony and evidence presented during the entire trial, did not buy their story. The jury determined that Mr. Zimmerman was not guilty of 2nd degree murder, nor manslaughter.

This is the theory I'm talking about. This theory of the case was never presented during the trial. The jury never heard this theory until after the trial and after the verdict. So it was impossible for the jury to reject this theory because the jury never heard the theory until after the trial, until after the jury had delivered its verdict and been dismissed.

Prosecutors did not present the theory until after the trial had concluded, the verdict issued.

You gang bangers need to stop gang bang posting to instead pay attention to the posts of others to know what the posters on this side are actually saying and talking about. All you do most of the time is to gang bang your keyboard to produce something, anything, contrary.

George Zimmerman Prosecutors Reveal What They Think REALLY Happened The Night Trayvon Died

George Zimmerman's prosecutors revealed for the first time to ABC News on Sunday that they believe he reached for his gun shortly after he and Trayvon Martin confronted each other.

While Zimmerman says he reached for his gun after the 17-year-old started beating him up, prosecutors believe Zimmerman pointed his gun sooner and that Martin was shouting for help because he saw it.

However, they never presented this theory in court because they lacked evidence.

"I think [Zimmerman] had the gun out earlier … but we didn't have the eyewitnesses," prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda told ABC News.

After Zimmerman pointed his gun at Martin, the prosecutors' theory goes, the teenager began screaming for help. When a neighbor called 911, screams were heard in the background. Martin's mother and brother testified that it was him screaming for help, while his killer's friends and family seemed certain it was Zimmerman.

To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

Read more: http://www.businessi...7#ixzz2ZJ7B3ud4

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[JLCrab]

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

[gl555]

They didn't present the theory to court because they didn't have strong evidence. So they presented another theory, which unfortunately for them was just as weak. That's how the criminal justice system works. Perhaps in the Kingdom of ROTC Pubicus, you can just throw in 10 different theories and ask the jury to pick one and declare someone guilty. This is the real world. Likewise, I can say aliens shot Trayvon Martin and that George Zimmerman is innocent. That's a THEORY but I don't have evidence. Understand?

@gl555

The prosecution did not present the theory of the case you said it presented and, moreover, that you erroneously said the jury rejected. Again, the jury never heard the particular theory because the prosecution did not present the theory in court or during the trial.

You are just plain wrong when you say the jury "didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory during the trial. The jury did hear two opposing theories of the case. But the jury never heard the theory you said it rejected. How can a jury reject a theory it never heard during the trial?

You made a sloppy gang banger claim. It is a reckless claim pounded out quickly on the keyboard for the sake of making a post that is contrary. You struck out again, and again on a called strike three.

[Publicus]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

[Publicus]

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

[gl555]

It's that your THEORY? Or do you have irrefutable evidence?

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

[JLCrab]

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

Then why do you quote the word "theory" further above in the Prosecutors explanation and now you state it as undisputed fact?

[gl555]

Rebut what I just said. But you can't, can you? You get to only argue one version of what you THINK happen. That's that.

They didn't present the theory to court because they didn't have strong evidence. So they presented another theory, which unfortunately for them was just as weak. That's how the criminal justice system works. Perhaps in the Kingdom of ROTC Pubicus, you can just throw in 10 different theories and ask the jury to pick one and declare someone guilty. This is the real world. Likewise, I can say aliens shot Trayvon Martin and that George Zimmerman is innocent. That's a THEORY but I don't have evidence. Understand?

@gl555

The prosecution did not present the theory of the case you said it presented and, moreover, that you erroneously said the jury rejected. Again, the jury never heard the particular theory because the prosecution did not present the theory in court or during the trial.

You are just plain wrong when you say the jury "didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory during the trial. The jury did hear two opposing theories of the case. But the jury never heard the theory you said it rejected. How can a jury reject a theory it never heard during the trial?

You made a sloppy gang banger claim. It is a reckless claim pounded out quickly on the keyboard for the sake of making a post that is contrary. You struck out again, and again on a called strike three.

The tone and temperament of your posts has improved, as admonished.

However, the content continues to be vacuous.

[JLCrab]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

Well you seem to overlook this: The Supreme Court has to be presented with a case from a lower Court and agree to take it. I can see how a prosecutor would want some variance or exception on self-incrimination but not a defendant. And the defendant in a criminal case is the only one who can appeal an adverse decision. So the scenario you present would never make it into the appeals system in the first place.

That's why.

[Publicus]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

[KarenBravo]

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

Put the shovel down Publicus. Resorting to fantasy isn't helping your cause.

[Publicus]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

Well you seem to overlook this: The Supreme Court has to be presented with a case from a lower Court and agree to take it. I can see how a prosecutor would want some variance or exception on self-incrimination but not a defendant. And the defendant in a criminal case is the only one who can appeal an adverse decision. So the scenario you present would never make it into the appeals system in the first place.

That's why.

Of course it would if a defendant appealed an adverse decision.

In the Jody Arias trial the jury under state law was allowed to ask the defendant Arias specific questions. Many questions. The only other witness in the murder trial (which concluded with her conviction) was the deceased.

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds, to include the state law that allows jurors to become the equivalent of lawyers, the judge too. Is this function within the constitutional remit of a jury? Has the question been joined, tested, on appeal?

One could argue the state law violates the Fifth Amendment. Arias as I understand it was compelled by the state law to respond meaningfully to the questions of the jurors (presented via the judge), which might provide the basis of a challenge, or a basis among others of an appeal.

While Arias waived her Fifth Amendment rights, there would be many grounds on which to object to the state law in this respect, to include the Fifth Amendment.

There would be other cases in which the defendant invoked the Fifth but was convicted anyway. I know of several. What if in a trial for murder or manslaughter a convicted defendant who invoked the Fifth appealed and the appeal lawyers used an alleged violation of the Fifth as a basis of the appeal and lost at the level of the Supreme Court? Lost in the way I describe?

[JLCrab]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

Well you seem to overlook this: The Supreme Court has to be presented with a case from a lower Court and agree to take it. I can see how a prosecutor would want some variance or exception on self-incrimination but not a defendant. And the defendant in a criminal case is the only one who can appeal an adverse decision. So the scenario you present would never make it into the appeals system in the first place.

That's why.

Of course it would if a defendant appealed an adverse decision.

In the Jody Arias trial the jury under state law was allowed to ask the defendant Arias specific questions. Many questions. The only other witness in the murder trial (which concluded with her conviction) was the deceased.

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds, to include the state law that allows jurors to become the equivalent of lawyers, the judge too. Is this function within the constitutional remit of a jury? Has the question been joined, tested, on appeal?

One could argue the state law violates the Fifth Amendment. Arias as I understand it was compelled by the state law to respond meaningfully to the questions of the jurors (presented via the judge), which might provide the basis of a challenge, or a basis among others of an appeal.

While Arias waived her Fifth Amendment rights, there would be many grounds on which to object to the state law in this respect, to include the Fifth Amendment.

There would be other cases in which the defendant invoked the Fifth but was convicted anyway. I know of several. What if in a trial for murder or manslaughter a convicted defendant who invoked the Fifth appealed and the appeal lawyers used an alleged violation of the Fifth as a basis of the appeal and lost at the level of the Supreme Court? Lost in the way I describe?

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds ... I see. And are Ms. Arias' lawyers aware of all this or is this just supposition on your part?

BTW You haven't yet introduced into any of your arguments including future decisions of the US Supreme Court and possible Constitutional Amendments, the UN Arms Trade Treaty of 2013 on International Trade in Conventional Weapons. -That one's a real hum-dinger as well.

BTW2 way up above you were talking about circumstances where someone who was the only witness to the capital crime for which he/she is on trial could be compelled to testify regardless of invoking right to non-self incrimination. Now you are talking about an appeal in a case where someone refused to say something and they were convicted because what they said was held against them. Say what?

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[Publicus]

Despite being a big fan of the place, threads like this always make me think that as a country, you blokes have some pretty farked up and dysfunctional undercurrents.

Maybe the biggest problem we have is basing a lot of this stuff on English common law and the Magna Carta. Throw in a little David Hume as well.

Yes, there are many provisions of the Constitution which were written as specific reactions to abuses by the government of Great Britain that eventually led to the revolutionary war.

In the matter of the Bill or Rights, many of the articles adopted in respect to prosecutions, prosecutors, judges, the laws, rules of evidence and procedure respectively; of defendants and their rights are reactions to the Crown prosecutors and the arbitrary methods and means they utilized to muzzle, abuse and imprison colonists, or 'colonials; as many Brits prefer to call the Americans of the time. The consequences are that prosecutions throughout the United States are more difficult than they should be to pursue.

In more recent times, the difficulties of criminal prosecutors and prosecutions have produced an industry of criminal defense lawyers who need only to raise some sort of reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials usually are menial doubts. The criminal defense attorneys, aided by the mass media, love to present themselves as legal geniuses, but the simple matter of a little reasonable doubt is all that's necessary to defeat a prosecution and its case.

The government of Great Britain didn't write or approve of the US Constitution - the founders did. But London effectively guided their hands on the parchment.

[Publicus]

Well I'm not Constitutional Lawyer but I don't see the wording of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution allows for any wiggle-room as to how anybody -- presumably the prosecution in a criminal case -- could declare through the Courts and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the US that there might be one or more exceptions to that self-incrimination component of the Bill of Rights even if the defendant is the only witness to a capital crime. Generally, TTBOMK, a failed criminal prosecution cannot be appealed; only the defense. Why would the defense make such an appeal?

Then, even in the current case, you would have to prove there were no other witnesses and maybe there was a witness to this case in the row of town houses who lied about not seeing the altercation or who just decided not to come forward.

I would presume that would require an Amendment to the Constitution itself. But Yea -- the 16th was a great century. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm not talking about applying the proposed changes to the Fifth Amendment to this case. That would be impossible or at the least unlikely for a number of reasons, to include but not be limited to probably ex post facto and/or double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court says what the Constitution says, precisely what the Constitution means - it always has done this. The Supreme Court has the final and ultimate word in this respect.

To cite one highly visible instance, the First Amendment, the First says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting.......or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Well, the Supreme Court decided long ago that "no law" means no law except for the dozens of laws "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press that the Supreme Court said are constitutional for Congress to enact and implement. The "prohibition" or "abridging" include laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to requiring a reporter/news organization to reveal its sources or information involved in the committing of a crime.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can say the Fifth Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

You seem to overlook the fact the nine justices of the Court are lawyers.

[JLCrab]

Just for those who get a headache trying to decipher all those nested quotes, what we have here is a pro forma argument that would entail a majority opinion US Supreme Court decision after several lower court decisions, a possible US constitutional amendment, revocation in at least 30 states of some variation of the stand your-ground-law, a wholesale revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and possibly similar Procedural guidelines at the state level.

But as US supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has put it: “I do not think … the avoidance of unhappy consequences is adequate basis for interpreting a text.”

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[SteeleJoe]

Despite being a big fan of the place, threads like this always make me think that as a country, you blokes have some pretty farked up and dysfunctional undercurrents.

I am FAR from being a self-loathing anti-American American (such people exist, LOTS of them) and I think the US is mostly a great place with a lot of good to be said about it...I also think that outsiders very often are very unfair and inaccurate in their judgements of the place and their pronouncements about it...

But I think your post is very astute: both as a description of this thread (and others) and what it signifies.

[kikoman]

Once again, if someone does not posses the mental capacity to specify their specific disagreement with any item I post, does not allow one an option to answer and respond to the specific points on which they disagree.

The Perry Mason (s) classic response of "your grasp of the legal process" is only BS because of their inability to rebut the posted information and go yelling and screaming at another poster and post to hide that inability to rebut. Example Sir Smart buffalo.reply to the Issue of the "States Motion To Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence" was a lack of the understanding about the U.S. jurisprudence process, which he stated is appalling, then he goes on to the Judges instructions to the jury. Showing that he himself is not the sharpest pencil, on the desk. The states motion to exclude any mention of the excluded evidence at the trial., Yet Juror B37 agent announced that the jury had decided to 'not guilty'...due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the of the jury instructions..

"The Honorable Judge Debra Nelson granted the State's motion. No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged" was allowed during the trial.

​He was found not guilty on evidence not testified to at the trial!!

Perry Mason if you do not understand the serious implications of Jurors misconduct, then no one can explain anything to you guys.

Also the notsobright gang questioned my statement that Serino signed an affidavit that he recommended Zimmerman to be charged for manslaughter. In the information published by the Orlando Sentinel, Again no response.

Like most Trolls they will get the ignore button.

Cheers:

[F430murci]

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

Eye witness corroborates Zimmerma's story. There is no evidence corroborating this alleged standing up story. Police, expert, ballistic angle, and common sense.

He called cops and asked them for help, Martin ran off and was gone and out of sight for 90 to 120 seconds. Martin obviously doubled back perhaps to teach a gay guy a lesson (according to girl on phone).

So did Martin shoot him and then break his own nose and lie on his back and pound his head against the ground?

[F430murci]

Once again, if someone does not posses the mental capacity to specify their specific disagreement with any item I post, does not allow one an option to answer and respond to the specific points on which they disagree.

The Perry Mason (s) classic response of "your grasp of the legal process" is only BS because of their inability to rebut the posted information and go yelling and screaming at another poster and post to hide that inability to rebut. Example Sir Smart buffalo.reply to the Issue of the "States Motion To Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence" was a lack of the understanding about the U.S. jurisprudence process, which he stated is appalling, then he goes on to the Judges instructions to the jury. Showing that he himself is not the sharpest pencil, on the desk. The states motion to exclude any mention of the excluded evidence at the trial., Yet Juror B37 agent announced that the jury had decided to 'not guilty'...due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the of the jury instructions..

"The Honorable Judge Debra Nelson granted the State's motion. No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged" was allowed during the trial.

​He was found not guilty on evidence not testified to at the trial!!

Perry Mason if you do not understand the serious implications of Jurors misconduct, then no one can explain anything to you guys.

Also the notsobright gang questioned my statement that Serino signed an affidavit that he recommended Zimmerman to be charged for manslaughter. In the information published by the Orlando Sentinel, Again no response.

Like most Trolls they will get the ignore button.

Cheers:

This is jibber. You make no sense. You are either very old, drunk or English is not your first language.

To bash the legal system, jury instructions or constitutional rights, you at first need a basic grasp of such concepts which you cannot get from Google.

Jury instructions are pattern, uniform and applied evenly in every case. Not discretionary about content of instruction or which instruction are read. I clerked for a State Supreme Court justice and part of my job was to review pattern jury instructions in capital murder cases.

Jury's job is to follow pattern uniform instructions. That shows system worked, but somehow you see that as a negative. Jury must follow uniform and non discretionary jury instructions so law dictates a person's freedom and not a juror's personal belief system unrelated to the law.

This is the whole point of picking a jury is finding people willing to set aside personal beliefs or prejudices and apply the law as written.

5th Amendment stuff is equally humorous. Okay, let's do away with the 5th. This will have a greater impact on minorities going forward so to protect minorities in one case, you would harm minorities in perhaps a 100,000 cases a year.

I doubt you even understand the primary reason 5th is invoked. Incidentally, the primary reason that 5th is in ones was not applicable to Zimmerman.