Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial: Jury Charge and Verdict Watch LIVE

Zimmerman Trial: Jury Charge and Verdict Watch LIVE

All the closing arguments are now completed, and in a few moments the jury will be instructed, and then sent into deliberations. We will be covering the jury charge live here on streaming video, along with our usual twitter feed. Once the jury goes into deliberations, we will be prepared to cover any breaking news, and of course both the Professor and I will be active covering the trial conclusion on Twitter.

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, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)



Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Friday, July 12 Commentary

This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)


ALERT: A price increase of ~$10 is imminent for “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” on lawofselfdefense.com due to Amazon having raised their price to $45 yesterday (full explanation here). If you’ve already ordered the book, or don’t care to have one, this obviously isn’t of consequence.

But if you’ve been sitting on the fence, you might consider jumping off today.  I will maintain my price of $33 on  lawofselfdefense.com, until a verdict is delivered in this case. Once the verdict is read — and I hope very much to see that happen today with a verdict of not guilty — the price of the book on my site goes from $33 to $45, to match Amazon .

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. I have also instituted a similar coupon for Legal Insurrection followers LOSD2-LI(Coupons works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.) “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!) on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


As was discussed previously these jurors know better than to come back with a quick verdict, especially if they believe GZ is innocent. They know it is in the national eye. If I were on the jury and we took an initial vote for not guilty I would then go through the evidence to give us something to do and also so they can say afterward we DID go through everything.

I recall earlier in the trial the jurors complained because they weren’t able to hear one video that was being played, but Nelson told them they could listen to it during deliberations.

I thought it was ridiculous that that there were no concessions made for the people who have to decide the case. They should have been allowed to hear the evidence when it was presented or at least have transcripts furnished.

I have a feeling it’s E6, the one taking copious notes. It’s just a feeling that she doesn’t want to end this thing. She’s really lovin this.

I’d be from the jump.. ” I’m with the defense, NO DOUBT”. sign & go.

    swimmerbhs in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    according to the media tweeting in the court room, during bdlr closing she couldnt look at him, e40 had a head ache, but mom went on and b29 shuck her had yes to questions he asked everyone else attentive for the whole 3 hrs

    Hodor in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Nah… B29.

    The theory from the outer fringes of tin foil hat world (another blog that I’m not entirely sure of yet) contends that she’s the ringer. At first I dismissed this out of hand but the more I think about it I wonder if there might be something to it. It’s entertaining, at any rate…

    She’s Hispanic.
    She gave all the “right” answers for both sides, but esp. for the defense- newspapers are for the bird cage, etc…
    She’s the one who was noted not to make eye contact w/BDLR during that yelling flapfest yesterday (overacting? conscience? nausea?)…
    There might be another point or 2 but I’ll lose my place if I go looking for them.

    So goes the “theory,” for what it’s worth… About as circumstantial as the state’s case IMO but, like I said, entertaining anyway…

    Then I wondered…

    How the hell DO you pull jury duty 4 months after relocating (from Chicago)? I’ve lived in the same state all my life- been called up once in 20 years eligibility. I probably wouldn’t even update my license until it was due. OK- in my case I’d have to notify the sheriff due to my CCH, but coming from Chicago that wouldn’t be a concern. Hmmm….

    Discuss (or don’t). Cheers.

      swimmerbhs in reply to Hodor. | July 12, 2013 at 10:12 pm

      true never really though she could be the mole, but which side would she be for? and i moved to tallahassee and 2 weeks after the move got summoned for jury duty, never once when i lived in orlando for 9 years of eligibility

VoiceOfReason | July 12, 2013 at 5:37 pm

It could be that they all want to acquit but want to do it by the book line by line so when they are challenged by the press they can say they went line by line and found his innocence reasonable enough.

Im am encouraged by the glint of hope that the forejuror is a gun owner and presumably a self defense law supporter.

Its criminal what these prosecutors did, their blatant dishonesty. ie saying GZ claimed TM touched the gun. Like jack in the box ashton and the junk science internet searches.

Jury Deliberation Clock 3+ hours – How many here have lost money so far?….

    fogflyer in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    Not me, I said 4-6 hours.
    Full acquittal. Small chance of hung.
    I’m sticking to that.

    If they don’t come up with a verdict tonight though, I will lean moe toward hung.
    If hung, I guess 5-1 for acquittal, and no retrial.

      DollzWize in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 5:50 pm

      Hoping you are right, this feels far longer than 3+ hours. How excruciating for GZ and his legal team.

      So is it true that a hung jury could result in acquittal?

      There does not need to be unanimity for a verdict?

        wyntre in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm

        Not to mention us!

        fogflyer in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 6:00 pm

        It has to be unanimous, but if it hangs with most wanting acquittal, there is a good chance the state will not retry the case.

        txantimedia in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm

        No, that’s incorrect. If the jury is hung, the prosecution has to decide if they want to retry the case. IOW, they start over from square one. I doubt seriously the State would want that, because that would give Zimmerman’s team time to get rulings from the appeals court regarding Trayvon’s phone records and other matters where Judge Nelson shot them down unjustly.

        It’s almost a certainty, IMO, that if his phone records come in, the jury would acquit.

      Fabi in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm

      Small chance of hung.

      But enough about Dr. Bao…

txantimedia | July 12, 2013 at 5:43 pm

That’s an interesting thought. If I were a juror I would have said, let’s get this over with. I want to go home, and I could care less what the race baiters want.

    Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    This is now their time. I’m certain they long to be home. I am also PRETTY certain they want to be responsible, and true to their oaths.

    I’ve read law review stuff where jurors reported they decided a case on one lawyer’s shoes.

    I still firmly believe in juries, just like I believe in democracy.

    inquisitivemind in reply to txantimedia. | July 12, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    I’d guess there is at least 2-4 of those types in there. The forewomen may be the thorough type and/or there is one holdout that somehow can’t see reasonable doubt – how I can’t imagine

Tired of looking at the pics of the protestors….useless, clueless trolls.

Protesters holding up sign with pic of Trayvon:

Hey, did you know your “hero” kinda looks like a younger, affirmative action Grim Reaper?

Fitting.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    Then again there were knuckleheads supporting the Boston bombing suspect outside his arraignment yesterday.

    This is a sad sad place we call the greatest country ever sometimes

      Ragspierre in reply to inquisitivemind. | July 12, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      Just heard a report that DPS officers in Austin have had to take containers of urine, feces, and “lady material” from people in the Capital there to “observe” the late-term abortion legislation.

      But this is not a unique time in history. Just less class, generally.

There’s one thing that’s certain when a jury’s involved: Nobody knows anything until they come back into the courtroom with a signed verdict form.

Off topic but, I cannot stand Dana Perino. She said well they had to have a trial and Sharpton had to gin this up or who would have? JEEEAHHH. Other day she said the DOJ was okay too. Last year dealing with the protests, it wasn’t a lot of money. Lastly, the prosecution gave a very effective summation. Can’t stand her, she’s a Bushie asshat.

    inquisitivemind in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    with due respect she was presenting the Devils advocate position

      No she was supportive of DOJ involvement last year and how great P was. She’s always taking a squish point of view has for a long time. Can’t stand her, she’s just like her old boss.

        bildung in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 6:49 pm

        I never get tired of this Dana Perino story.

        While she was Jorge’s press secretary, and I swear this is not a joke, she was forced to admit that she had no idea what was the Cuban Missle Crisis.

        Can you believe that?

    Browndog in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    I dislike her also.

The first thing the jury has to decide is self-defense since that trumps all. As MOM said in his closing, if the jury decides it was self-defense, then they are done and can go home.. If the government hasn’t proven no self-defense, then it should be a quick verdict. If it is a longer period for the verdict, then I fear that self-defense is off the table, and without self-defense it is a definite conviction. The only question would be whether it’s murder 2 or manslaughter.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to guycocoa. | July 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I would say since they adjourned they probably wanted to give a couple time to think about the decision that the majority want to make. I actually take it as a sign that possibly the majority wants self defense, they just have one or 2 holdouts.

      I take it as a sign that they’re all in agreement and thus ready to knock off for the night as there’s nothing else to do.

      As to why they wouldn’t announce that tonight, at least one good reason would be to give their families enough time to move to undisclosed locations, and to get word to law enforcement as to what time the verdict will be read so they can be fully staffed for trouble.

Justice is blind.
Empathy has one jaundiced eye.

Lots of protesters still wanting “justice for trademark” despite the evidence. Some people just dont care about real justice. They only want “social justice” which is really nothing but a lynching.

They’re coming back.

Is there any correlation between length of time it takes for a jury to deliberate and the verdict? In other words, the longer it takes, the more likely it is one outcome rather than another?

My guess is that if it came back today it’s definitely acquittal. But the longer it goes, the more things it could mean. 1. they’re being thorough 2. they’ve got some dissidence.

I never gave any weight whatsoever to the all “women” jury. Until this afternoon, when every single channel I tune to prefaces the jury with “all women”.

I figured they were human, with a brain. At least the ones I know are.

I guess I’m supposed to think they are somewhat “different”–possibly superior–possibly inferior.

To me, it’s a set up for a backlash against women, no matter how they decide.

“War on Women”…guaranteed. Heads we win, tails you lose.

I think it’s sick.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    Romney picked the jury from his binders?

    MSO in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    You bring up a relatively dormant, but pertinent issue. There are those who credibly argue that America’s decline into socialism began with women’s suffrage. Others would argue that America hasn’t declined, indeed it has improved since women’s suffrage. Still others argue that women’s suffrage has had no effect at all. The news media, after every national election, points out the definite pattern in the women’s vote.

    My granddaughters react much differently than my grandsons in similar circumstances; my mother-in-law votes differently than my father-in-law, my sisters vote differently than I do.

    I expect an all female jury to have a different flavor than one with only males. Personally, I would worry if I had to face an all female jury unless I could present a much warmer personality than I honestly possess.

One lawyer at CH 9 said this:

“the longer the deliberation is usually isn’t good for the defense

So, no verdict today.

ADJOURNED until 9 a.m.

The judge looks happy.

Ugh…..

I still believe a poster a while back who said these jurors will come back in days no matter what simply because of the circumstances. Honestly as innocent as I think GZ is and having watched or read almost all of the trial I would want to go over some items in detail just to confirm what I already think. Also I would imagine that some may want to consider manslaughter as a compromise and if so they have to try to figure out if that is feasible. There was what 27 pages of jury instructions? They may have used first hour to just wade through that. I don’t take them not immediately returning as a bad thing for GZ.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    That is a very good point.

    smokefan in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    IME quick verdicts tend to be for a conviction. Longer deliberations tend to favor the defense. Not always true, of course, but rather common.

    Baker in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    I agree biz bzch. I’m not surprised at all that it would take some time to come to a decision. Even if their position was was essentially the same there might easily be specific issues that an individual might want to discuss or review to satisfy their own curiosity or concerns. That might be through a review of evidence or testimony or perhaps just by asking the opinion or perception of the other jurors. It might be as simple as “Did I hear the ME say XXX?”

    In addition, they just received those 27 pages of instructions from the court detailing the law concerning the charges. They are familiar with it through what they have heard from during the trial, especially the closings. Then it was read to them by the judge. Personally I would want to go through them item by item and make sure I understood them and I was applying them correctly to the best of my ability.

That’s a surprise.

Court recessed until 9AM. Jury instructed not to discuss the case, watch TV, listen to radio, or use “electronic media” to discuss the case.

I believe a quick verdict is usually good for the prosecution. I could be wrong though. I really doubted there was any way they were coming back with anything today just for appearances sake alone.

    archtyrx in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    well, than you are different than most of the posters here as they went into deliberations – they were all saying 2-3 hours, and it would mean a not guilty verdict.

    But now a lot of them are saying they’re just stalling to look good. lol, it’s ridiculous how people backpedal here.

      Akatsukami in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 10:06 pm

      You’ll be disappointed, apteryx; you’re desperately hoping for a jury of six weepy Blanche Duboises, dependent on the kindness of the persecutory strangers. The background information of the jury, though, suggests at least five out of six of the jurors are not your timid little fantasy wymyn.

      As for you: I strongly recommend that you abandon your Chicago Loop penthouse NOW. Don’t try to save your goods: your expensive wines, your fine crystal, your big-screen TV and other electronics. The bruthas want those things too, and the crocodile will not eat you last because you have done its bidding; rather it will eat you — or rather, rob, rape, and murder you — FIRST, because you have shown that you cannot resist it.

        Michiguy in reply to Akatsukami. | July 13, 2013 at 1:41 am

        > apteryx
        Hah! Or a schlogg of foam with no visible means of support. Ah, the days back when Johnny Hart was funny.

    rokiloki in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Because most trials have much more evidence and sometimes more than needed to convict. This trial is an exception with no evidence from the prosecution. It shold have been a slam dunk for the jury. They are either delaying for appearance or there’s a holdout.

Gremlin1974 | July 12, 2013 at 6:09 pm

I am wondering what Andrew thinks of the Jurors wanting to adjourn for the night and come back on Saturday?

Interesting that they’re re-convening the court on a Saturday. Is that normal?

I’m losing my faith in the legal system AND in women’s judgement on important issues, like jury decisions that are effectively life or death, and electing POTUSes.

    Browndog in reply to avwh. | July 12, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    I’m afraid that sentiment will be expound in the coming days.

    Unnecessarily, but somewhat understandable.

    Tired, I am, of the workings of this government dividing it’s citizens unnecessarily.

    This trial should have never happened.

    archtyrx in reply to avwh. | July 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    don’t lose faith – it’s a great country, and you are just becoming more of the minority in your beliefs.

Darn, if I put on a very tight tin foil hat I’d swear that the ringer juror(s) wanted to signal to the racebaiters where they were in status. But of course I am convinced that the powers that foisted this farce on the US Justice system want riots.

That is not a good thing for George, not at all…

I am wondering, again, about the ME photos and Trayvon’s emaciated appearance, as contrasted with George’s huge size in the courtroom. I can understand why he put on the weight (can’t go out in public much, bored at home, Mom’s home cooking, etc…), but I believe that too may be a bad image before these jurors. Sorry, just pondering…

    robbi in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    Seriously? Duh,he’s been in jail. Is your name Rachel Jeantel?

      DriveBy in reply to robbi. | July 12, 2013 at 6:20 pm

      Sorry, my bad! I believed that he has been out of jail on one million dollars bail for maybe a year and a half, almost? I’m so glad that more intelligent people like you are here to correct me and call me Rachel Jeantel, absolutely brilliant! Thank you so much.

      Duh, he’s been in jail. Is your name Rachel Jeantel?

      That’s retarded, sir.

      maestro in reply to robbi. | July 12, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      He’s been out on bond, where have you been?

I suspect that they want the list of evidence so that the person who was filling in the dots with lots of prosecution assumptions and made up evidence would be shown where their “evidence” was not evidence at all.

Damn I would hate to see our justice system further damaged by having another “wrong” verdict come out of a high profile case.

If they had found him guilty ( either charge), my guess is they’d want that relayed as quickly as possible. If they are going to find not guilty, or have, they may want to hold the news overnight out of respect for the process and the Martin/Fulton families.

Kinda like waiting for election results…

Gremlin1974 | July 12, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Well on a happier note today was payday. I took my fee for my Concealed Handgun Permit to the Arkansas State Police today and ordered by copy of Law of Self Defense (2nd). I have the first edition, but its kind of dog eared, lol.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 12, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    OH, Andrew thanks for the coupons for LI members. I have not liked the NRA for years and prefer to support Gun Owners of America.

      AZ_Langer in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 12, 2013 at 6:59 pm

      I have read that GOA is particularly effective. I put off joining the NRA for a long time, but now I don’t limit myself nationally. I spread my support around and frequently contact my Senators and Representative individually because I think our rights are that important.

      (I do exclude that new group you may have read about.)

I don’t know how much I’ll be on here tonight or tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow night. We keep the Sabbath, so we’ll be gone. I sure hope that they judge by the evidence. That’s so important. If they do, they’ll find him not guilty.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to kittycat. | July 12, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    Yea, I am going to finish putting Laminet floors in my sisters place, so I probably won’t know anything until the evening. I expect the verdict before noon.

The NAACP who are holding it’s convention in Orlando right now refuse to allow conservative blacks to speak, even a former president of the NAACP’s Garland, Texas chapter. They have fully sold out to liberalism and forgoten it’s original mission. http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/11/naacp-blackballs-borelli-and-b

Do the jurors get free porn movies at the hotel?
That may explain it.

Well I am female, voted for Obama, don’t own a gun, generally check most every box on racial designation forms, and now thanks to all the utterly offensive race baiting coverage on this trial I now find myself preferring the company of “creepy assed crackers”….. Life is strange…..

    Hodor in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    Welcome, sister.

    txantimedia in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    DollzWize, to what do you attribute this? Do you think it’s the way you were raised? An awakening on your part? Friends?

    I’m inordinately curious.

      DollzWize in reply to txantimedia. | July 12, 2013 at 10:08 pm

      Well Txantimedia, I was putting my position humorously because I did have to laugh today when I saw that Rush Limbaugh and I both like this place…..

      As to my position on the media – I was raised in a time when journalistic ethics of impartiality was held to be the highest standard. I recall Cronkite giving the news each night, and apologizing many years later for times such as the Kennedy assassination when he teared up.

      All my teachers were social justice minded hippies so although all our textbooks were thrown out the window, I had read many books on the Holocaust,, Hiroshima , Slavery and most social justice issues by the time I watched Nixon resign when I was 11, which may well also have been quite formative in my inherently liberal mind frame.

      I was of indeterminate enough race that I pretty much sailed through school busing without really realizing how strained things really were as it was years before I learned my white friends had lived in fear of the gangs of black girls in the bathroom who never gave me a hard time.

      I believe what I believe and am quite tolerant of differing opinions. I watched CNN since its inception until a few years ago when every media seemed hellbent on spinning things and I just Really hate being Told how to think.

      I took no interest in this trial until I just happened to start watching it, and I just found myself utterly repulsed by the spinning of what I had just seen for myself so I sought a site w/out all the media spinning race baiting.

      I grew up in, work in, and live peaceably amidst mixed races and I just find all this black vs. white BS very outdated and not representative of where I live, work or how I think..

      I had not realized that Obama said such a stupid thing regarding if he had had a son, and I can only hope he has by now made a more informed decision and would wish for a son more like George.

      Personally after watching this trial and finally coming to realize what a travesty of justice this entire situation is and has been spun into, I am feeling rather activist on behalf of George Zimmerman.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Alright now all you have to do is vote Republican and your journey back to the light side will be complete. :=)

      DollzWize in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 12, 2013 at 11:17 pm

      Well the anti abortion legislative crap in TX definitely has me hearing that statement in “I AM Your Father” voice, but I do know you meant it friendly 🙂

It’s insane the Nelson didn’t allow Martin’s “fighting” texts to come into evidence, on the grounds of some bogus authentication issue. Essential evidence of great probative value, indicating a propensity to engage in fights on the part of the person whom the State is claiming is a blameless “victim,” in a case in which the instigation of a fistfight is a key issue, and the judge doesn’t allow it in? Just ridiculous, utterly absurd. And, in my opinion, in and of itself grounds for an appeal, if Zimmerman is convicted.

Ironically, after all of the racial histrionics and race-baiting engaged in during this trial by Martin supporters and their political and media allies, it has been revealed that only one of the two actors involved in the incident on that night used racial epithets in a casual and flippant manner to describe the other, befitting a racist outlook: Trayvon Martin. Only one of the two actors had a self-documented history of starting fights with people and then boasting about it afterwards to his friends: Trayvon Martin. Inconvenient facts for the pro-Martin crowd.

This is such a high profile case since either way it means 1) GZ loses the rest of his life in jail or 2) GZ gets away with homicide.

So, at this point, esp. with asking for the evidence inventory, I think they are going to very methodically go over every scrap of evidence before they make their final verdict.

That way, since they will be asked for the rest of their lives about how they decided this, they can truthfully say they put every bit of time and effort into it to be absolutely sure.

Also it will help them each when they try to negotiate their book deals afterwards to be as knowledgable about the evidence as possible.

27 pages of jury instructions? Ok, I feel better about the time of deliberations now…

    DriveBy in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    Thanks Fabi! Although I never really wanted to read that, it was good. Most of the pages contain about 1/4 – 1/2 a page of words and it is spaced out double spacing, so it does not take very long to go through, maybe 10 minutes tops- FYI, so everyone should go read it when they have the time.

    There are tons of “outs” in there for George that people here would love to read, share, and throw at Trolls; sorry by Trolls I mean people that don’t comply with other’s absolute beliefs on any given subject.

    I like this “out”, it is nice:

    “When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.”

    The word “combat” is interesting. But it excludes “a dangerous weapon” so I guess that one is out. Hmm…

    But as you read the document you find the word “justified” and that one word is a bad word in this case. Basically, did someone really need to die that night, given that it was a fist fight?

    Yes, I know, there was concrete in the beginning, but if any one or more of these ladies feels for the loss of Treyvon and cannot understand why that huge man in the courtroom did not, would not, or could not defend himself without taking a life, that is very bad.

    Just talking, but I will go ahead and “thumbs down” my own post for all of you in advance! 😉

I thought I read a tweet in the feed that one of the jurors wiped away tears during the prosecution’s final summation.

    DriveBy in reply to pausebreak. | July 12, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    I saw that Tweet and I read it. But it was only noticed by the one reporter that Tweeted about it, and he happens to be an African American, so it will not fly as fact, here. And frankly, because it was only one reporter that noticed, out of so many in the courtroom that were observing the jurors, it does not fly for me either.

      pausebreak in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 8:06 pm

      Thanks to those who helped clarify – wasn’t sure how to interpret it as that was the only mention of it.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 10:31 pm

      Or she could have just been wiping her eye. I would have been sitter there imagining Guy as William Shatner.

    steffmckee in reply to pausebreak. | July 12, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    I read that the juror was actually just rubbing her eyes. Perhaps some wishful thinking on the part of the journalist?

    txantimedia in reply to pausebreak. | July 12, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    A 17 year old man is dead because he made the wrong choice. It happens all the time. That doesn’t mean that George is guilty of anything, but it’s certainly something that should make one sad, no matter what you think of Trayvon.

      DriveBy in reply to txantimedia. | July 12, 2013 at 8:17 pm

      Happy Friday Tex!

      I am as guilty as anyone here of ranting thatthe judge should throw out this

        DriveBy in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm

        Oops! What I was saying is, I am as guilty as anyone here of ranting over the past two weeks that the judge should stop this charade and throw out the case! In direct opposition to the opinion of my wife I might add; but I did have one of my daughters buying in! 😉 But this is a legal matter, a trial has been conducted, and now the jurors are deliberating and all kinds of crazy things are absolutely possible. A conviction is possible.

        I hate the comments about Trayvon, mostly the ones that definitively state that he could not possible ever even remotely have a chance of a life as something other than a criminal. I did not mind them at first, but over time they have come to grind on me because he was so young, his mother and father are good citizens, and everyone can “grow up” and drop bad teenage behavior as the forces of adulthood place responsibilities on them.

        So I do not say bad things about him anymore, and I no consideration to any wild speculations about what his future might have been.

        Treyvon’s parents are lying about the 911 audio tape screams, but I am willing to give them a pass on that; it is not that egrigious, and O’Mara / West handled it for the trial.

          gospace in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 9:11 pm

          Willing to give them the benefit of a doubt if they’re lying? When the entire justice system is built on the assumption that after people swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that they’re telling the truth?

          Not me. If they’re lying, and they are, they’re trying to throw an innocent man in jail. That’s EVIL. Making them EVIL. Their kid’s dead? Too bad, so sad. But the person responsible for their son’s death is their son. Sucker punching strangers is not a good lifestyle choice.

          DriveBy in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 9:36 pm

          GoSpace, this message is a reply to this post of yours:

          “Willing to give them the benefit of a doubt if they’re lying? When the entire justice system is built on the assumption that after people swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that they’re telling the truth?”

          I gave them a pass on lying, not the benefit of a doubt on lying. Their son is dead and they want George to pay a price for that, prison time; and while I do not agree with them I understand their motivation(s) and their misguided need for this payment.

          Regarding all of that stuff bout “the truth” that you wrote about: you have obviously never participated in this wonderful judicial system (civil and criminal) that we have. It is not what you know the truth to be, it is what you can prove the truth to be. The system in far from perfect or ideal, and lying in court happens every day in this country; hopefully you will remain in your ignorant bliss about this one subject, no offense intended whatsoever, truly.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 10:39 pm

          I believe that they have come to believe that the voice on that tape is Trayvon, because they had to, no parent wants to believe that their child is bad. I work with kids I see this from parents all the time, the “My child wouldn’t do that.”

          I actually wouldn’t have had a problem if this had gone to the Grand Jury, as it should have, I think you can come up with the reason they didn’t send it to the GJ, but if the GJ had charged him I would have had no problems, I still wouldn’t have agreed with it, but that at least is how our legal system is supposed to work.

          Either way, I hope there are some serious investigations into the conduct of those that perpetrated this farce. Because, regardless of the verdict there are some who need to be disbarred.

Question – which may or may not have been asked/answered yet:

If a person gives a deposition but isn’t called as a witness, is their testimony still entered into evidence that can be viewed by the jury?

Wondering if the jury wants to read some info which wasn’t “heard” in court (Crump’s deposition, Ms. Jeantel’s entire deposition, etc.) if they are allowed to see any of that.

    Unless the deposition(s) was actually offered and accepted in to evidence by the judge, it will sit in the respective attorney’s office, and the jurors will never see it.

      not_surprised in reply to DriveBy. | July 12, 2013 at 9:53 pm

      I believe the toxicology report was put into evidence but not referenced by either party.. If they went through all the trouble to depose Crump you would think it was entered into evidence but I didn’t hear that happen.

Okay…need some verification/validation. I was not able to watch all of the trial, but just read that there is some evidence that has been submitted, but not used during the proceedings…example, the state played 5 of the 6 calls Zim made, but the jury can listen to the 6th one if they want.

If this is true, then doesn’t it make sense that they would want to go through the evidence list to take a look at the “evidence” that the state submitted but never used?

I’m a doofus…just saw the same question posted above. Sorry about the duplication.

I’m guessing it is going to take some time to get a verdict, but not more than a day or two. Why? Because O’Mara asked them to look at the evidence. I am thinking he struck a nerve there, and they will look at the evidence.

As to women? Who can know how they are going to think? I’ve never figured it out.

not_surprised | July 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm

Wear your concealed gun tonight in support of George 😉 (lawfully that is). I am!

    AZ_Langer in reply to not_surprised. | July 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm

    I have a special purse so I can carry for my own protection, but yes, I support George Zimmerman too.

    It looks like a hoplophobe came by for a thumbs down. :~( When seconds count, law enforcement officers are only minutes away.

not_surprised | July 12, 2013 at 10:06 pm

oh and don’t forget to OVERLOAD it by putting a bullet in the chamber and adding one to the magazine to spite BLDR.

Had a super busy day at work and didn’t get to watch the closing or rebuttal until just now. I thought there might be a chance for manslaughter but now I’m convinced…full acquittal. O’Mara…..wow, that guy is amazing!

    not_surprised in reply to Dennis23. | July 12, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    That was just an amazing closing! The only thing I would have added would have been a second ask at the end to come back and tell the state to never, ever do this again. 😉

    The 4 min pause with very powerful! and I absolutely loved the challenges to guy.. he will tell you at the end!

the wftv blog was giving mom a virtual standing ovation lol

Wow. 2 weeks? That’s a record as far as I know.

Um… Congrats(?) lol.

Curious- how many records did you change over to your new location when you moved? Obviously you don’t have to answer but you get into the jury pool “raffle” with Driver’s License, property taxes (house is a given if you own it- that’s entered w/Reg. of Deeds) plus 1 “entry” per vehicle, boat, motorcycle, snowmobile, plus any trailers), voter reg., CCH if applicable, vehicle reg. etc… Just curious how many “raffle tickets” you had in the hat, not that I would or could limit my own entries…

    Matt in FL in reply to Hodor. | July 13, 2013 at 1:57 am

    In Florida, you are entered by have a Florida Drivers License. No more, no less. Random is random.

Ummm. ^^^Fail^^^

Thought I was replying to some one. Carry on…

Let’s not forget that Liam Neeson’s wife, Natasha Richardson, died after head trauma that was initially determined to not be serious.

“The resort also issued a statement Tuesday that said Richardson didn’t appear hurt and was walking around shortly after the incident.”

“[V]ictims of head trauma often believe they are fine, a mistake that can cost them their lives.”

Hitting someone in the head indicates an intent to do serious bodily harm!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/ambulance-turned-natasha-richardson-skiing-accident-mont-tremblant-resort-article-1.368103


Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend