Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial LIVE – Jury Selection Day 8 All-Day Coverage

Zimmerman Trial LIVE – Jury Selection Day 8 All-Day Coverage

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial Jury Selection live, all day. At day’s end I will post a separate wrap-up discussing major events of the day, and their implications for the case moving forward. Thanks for joining us! To catch up on the lastest events in State of Florida v. Zimmerman, take a look at our previous posts.

If you’d like to have our notes on each prospective juror on hand while you follow today’s voir dire go to Zimmerman Jury Selection Profiles- “Top 40″ Advanced to Next Round

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense.)


Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Wednesday, June 19 Commentary

Today we anticipate the start of full voir dire of the "top 40" prospective jurors who were selected yesterday to advance to the next round of jury selection (full voir dire). The "lucky winners" are:

B7, B12, B29, B35, B37, B51, B61, B72, B76, B86, E6, E13, E22, E28, E40, E54, E73, G14, G29, G47, G63, G66, G81, H6, H7, H18, H29, H35, H69, H81, H86, I5, I19, I24, I33, I44, K80, K95, M75, P67

We've pulled together a compilation of our notes on these prospective jurors here: Zimmerman Jury Selection Profiles- “Top 40″ Advanced to Next Round. Incidentally, if you've never had the opportunity to see an juror questionnaire, as referenced so many times in voir dire during the last week, I've made a sample questionnaire available at my Law of Self Defense blog post:  Zimmerman Trial: Never seen a juror questionnaire? Here you go . . . We also anticipate the return of State expert witness Tom Owens Thursday at 2:00PM, to present additional testimony on the issue of speaker identification and speech recognition with respect to the background screams in the Witness #11 911 call.
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense” which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves (second edition shipping in June – save 30% and pre-order TODAY!).  Many thanks to the Professor for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

As I have been following the trial day after day I find myself liking the prosecutor more and more despite my belief that George Zimmerman should never have been put on trial in the first place.

I find it hard to believe this likable prosecutor who knows the evidence can bear putting Mr. Zimmerman through this agony. Is this man just ambitious and/or just doing this so that riots could be avoided?

    Having read the petulant tone of several of his briefs to the Court, I’m leaning towards the former.

    It also must be said that there has been considerable conduct on the State’s part–like the laughable affidavit, the testimony of the perjurious Witness #8 (interviewed personally by de la Rionda), the slow-roll/denial of discovery (overseen personally by de la Rionda)–that could only have been committed by a State attorney with, shall we say, certain degree of moral and ethical flexibility.

I did not see the video of this, but I have seen tweets saying that BDLR questioned the jurors on the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Considering that there is no question about who shot whom, and the only real issue is whether the shot was fired in self-defense – AND – considering the fact that self defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida (i.e. the burden is on the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was NOT in self-defense), how exactly could the state in this case show that using only circumstantial evidence? From what I understand, all of the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman’s claim – the grass stains on his back, the back of his clothes being wet, GZ’s lacerations on the back of his head, GZ’s broken nose, etc.

How on earth does the prosecution get to guilty from here?

Could somebody explain to me why the State in sworn statements (Probable Cause, Disclosures), states Martin was carrying “Skittles and Ice Tea” or “Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea”. The evidence photos clearly show he was carrying Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail made by Arizona Beverage. I am surprised they are swearing to an important detail that is obviously incorrect. Is this on purpose? Is it part of the alleged cover-up perpetrated by the State and Martin family? What is the relevance if it is Ice Tea or Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail? Why can’t they get this detail correct? If this detail is wrong, then how can you rely on any other fact the State puts forward?.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend