I am watching prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda tortuously trying to suggest or submit to the jury this or that conclusion based on a thousand pieces of evidence, none of which can shake that 800-pound gorilla called reasonable doubt. Rather than put the pieces together into something the jury could decide beyond a reasonable doubt, he is reaching for straws and reading his talking points off of a power point presentation. Hardly impressive,
That follows a bizarre state request to allow a consideration of a third degree murder that involves death while in the commission of a crime-in this case-child abuse!
Wow.
What it comes down to is this. Even though the judge will allow the jury to come to a compromise verdict of guilty of manslaughter-which is exactly what it would be-the state's case in no way has refuted George Zimmerman's version of events to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt-whether as to 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. They have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the moment Zimmerman fired his weapon he was not in reasonable fear for his life.
De la Rionda has just finished. Not even by the civil standard-preponderance of evidence- has he established that standard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
No witness EVER says the exact same thing twice. If they do it, then you know it is memorized. First there are different levels of stress when the statements are given and second, there are different ways to say the same thing. That doesn't make him a liar.
I don't happen to know the name of the street that is three over from mine... that does not give a basis for assuming I am lying and have an ulterior motive for this representation. The prosecution summary made a big point of this instead of presenting evidence supporting their case, whatever it is.
Once I was testifying about 3 copies of a document I had xeroxed and the attorney kept badgering me about there being a difference in them... intimating I was lying about them all being the same. I finally realized he was talking about my signature, which was slightly different on each because I signed each copy. I then acknowledged that there was a difference but he cut me off before I could explain and say that the body of the documents were the same, with "No further questions!"
So the presumption was left with the jury that I had been lying about them being the same.
The fact that the president and the Dept of JUSTICE has interjected itself into this case is reprehensible and is indicative of their race based obsession.
Attorneys have earned their reputations and the jokes about them.
.
They have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the moment Zimmerman fired his weapon he was not in reasonable fear for his life.
Not true. They have to establish that Zimmerman acted in a reckless manner which created whatever hazard he then thought he had to defend himself from, and is therefore responsible for the resulting death.
Siarlys,
"They have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the moment Zimmerman fired his weapon he was not in reasonable fear for his life.
Not true. They have to establish that Zimmerman acted in a reckless manner which created whatever hazard he then thought he had to defend himself from, and is therefore responsible for the resulting death."
Wow.
Question. What do you think was the first illegal act committed by either man that night?
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz says the prosecutors in the George Zimmerman murder trial should be charged with "prosecutorial misconduct" for suggesting the defendant planned the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
"That is something no prosecutor should be allowed to get away with … to make up a story from whole cloth," Dershowitz told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"These prosecutors should be disbarred. They have acted absolutely irresponsibly in an utterly un-American fashion."
Dershowitz praised the closing argument of defense lawyer Mark O'Mara.
"He did the right thing by being methodical and factual because this is a case where the prosecution's case is all emotion and the defense case is all factual," the famed civil-rights lawyer said.
"Emotionally, obviously everybody can identify with a young, unarmed 17-year-old who ends up dead, and emotionally, as President [Barack] Obama said, he's all of our children."
Dershowitz said the case has "reasonable doubt" written all over it.
"Nobody knows who started the initial physical encounter, who threw the first blow — and if you don't know that you have to have a reasonable doubt," he said.
Here, nobody knows for sure who screamed, 'Help me, help me.' You have to have a reasonable doubt about that. Nobody knows for sure who was on top and who was on bottom, though the overwhelming forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head banged by a younger, stronger man. You have to have reasonable doubt there."
----
Actually, nothing else matters besides did Zimmerman fear for his life or great bodily harm.
Nobody can put themselves in his mind definitively. The prosecution can speculate on it but in our system people are only convicted on proof and evidence. The prosecution presented no proof or evidence. They are the ones who are supposed to come up with a theory of the case and supply evidence to support that theory. The Defense undertook that role here because of all the emotional race baiting.
.
Post a Comment