Actual lawyers focus on the date they passed the bar and were admitted to practice.
Going through the rigors of law school without taking and passing the bar is what perpetual students do with their dad's money.
I thought they were called Politicians
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Bob, just curious but why on Gods Earth would the defense Att. Open with a joke? Do you have any speculations?
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
There are always faux pas' which occur during a trial and one shouldn't read too much into it. As you know, there are always ebbs and flows and we don't really know how the jury perceived it. Remember, jurors are a bit intimidated and feeling their way around themselves. They'll get to know each other well over the next 10 days.
Focus on what comes from the witness stand, not the words of lawyers.
I think they have a serious, attentive jury who will fairly weigh the evidence.
Last edited by isaac; 06/25/13.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
Remind me some day to remind you of a closing argument I made in a rape trial where I spoke of a boy's vagina. It was my 2nd rape trial in a month after having received a acquittal in my first and I think they only acquitted in this trial because they weren't going to convict a guy because his lawyer was a dumb [bleep].
If I can't WOW them with some brilliance, I'm fine with baffling them with some bullschit.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
Remind me some day to remind you of a closing argument I made in a rape trial where I spoke of a boy's vagina. It was my 2nd rape trial in a month after having received a acquittal in my first and I think they only acquitted in this trial because they weren't going to convict a guy because his lawyer was a dumb [bleep].
If I can't WOW them with some brilliance, I'm fine with baffling them with some bullschit.
we that in practice from you on here most every day
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
Remind me some day to remind you of a closing argument I made in a rape trial where I spoke of a boy's vagina. It was my 2nd rape trial in a month after having received a acquittal in my first and I think they only acquitted in this trial because they weren't going to convict a guy because his lawyer was a dumb [bleep].
If I can't WOW them with some brilliance, I'm fine with baffling them with some bullschit.
we that in practice from you on here most every day
==============
I guess that made sense to you. Now I guess you can understand why your thinking processes quickly kills threads. You'll learn someday, son.
Last edited by isaac; 06/25/13.
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. William Arthur Ward
From what I remember of the incident, Martin said something to Zimmerman to the affect, "you're going to die tonight". This was after he caught up with Zimmerman and prior to striking him in the face the first time.
When selecting jurors, don't lawyers on both side pick the jurors? I'm wondering if selecting all women to the jury was a good move on their part.
There is a jury pool, and both prosecution and defense get to exclude a certain number without explanation, and possibly others for cause. Then the first six to twelve (depending on the number for that jury) of those remaining after this process are the jury. Neither side can select anyone to be included; only to be excluded.
The Defense has to make its case beyond a shadow of a doubt and the facts as I've seen them wouldn't even allow a conviction on the lower burden of the preponderance of evidence, let alone the required burden.
If I'm walking down the street and some one wants to know who I am and what my business is I would probably tell them it's none of theirs. I think nearly any here would. I just don't see where it OK to arm yourself, leave your home and then your car to confront someone for no real valid reason except you don't like the way they look. Ask Zimmerman after it's over if it was worth it
valid reason I guess is the issue - Zimmerman lived in a neighborhood where crime was out of control, he was in charge of the neighborhood watch (with the blessing of the local police) and his valid reason was a kid that he wasn't familiar with as a resident was cutting across at night.
I've seen no solid proof that Zimmerman ever confronted Travon. If he did, it was because there had been a ton of break-ins in the area and Martin had no valid reason to be there that Zimmerman could discern. As a private citizen, Zimmerman is not bound by some Departmental Policy to not "profile". Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong in any of the scenarios I've seen presented, save for the possibility that he himself assaulted Martin and then pulled his gun and shot him when he started getting an ass whuppin'. This latter is unbelievable as the facts as known do not point to it. So it is possible but not probable. The Prosecution has to make its case beyond a shadow of a doubt and the facts as I've seen them wouldn't even allow a conviction on the lower burden of the preponderance of evidence, let alone the required burden.
The Judge should throw out the charges and declare Zimmerman innocent of all charge after the prosecution rests.
He has to wait for the verdict, but judges are empowered to do that in the direction of acquittal.
=============
Wrong again! Did someone ever cover Motions To Dismiss or Motions To Strike at the law school you say you attended?
Were you absent the day they taught "judgment non obstante veredicto, abbreviated JNOV, in law school?" No motion is needed. Conrad's scenario suggested an action on the part of the judge, absent motion.
I didn't say anything about motions. I expect that Zimmerman's attorney will ask the judge to find Zimmerman innocent after the persecution rests.
That's hilarious. I love the last one. 
![[Linked Image from ]]( https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Trump-Tweet-Image-Im-Just-in-the-Way-e1577149651503.jpg)