Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial: Verdict Watch LIVE

Zimmerman Trial: Verdict Watch LIVE

Well, here we are: Verdict Watch.

The jury has been charged in Florida v. Zimmerman, and have begun their deliberations. The verdict form is here. Final Jury Instructions here.

Last night they asked for an inventory list of the evidence–which makes sense given the dozens of witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. Now, we here at Legal Insurrection (and Law of Self Defense) are on stand-by ready to jump into action as soon as news emerges, whether that is the verdict itself or some lesser item. The video feeds located below the fold will be active when the broadcasters that control them feel there is something worth streaming.)

In a breaking development, the Special Prosecutor’s Office of Angela Corey has fired the IT specialist who blew the whistle on the prosecution’s concealment of evidence:

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter is here.

(WAJ adds) This has been a dirty prosecution in so many ways, so no one should be surprised that as soon as the jury went into deliberations the retaliation began.

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)




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

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Saturday, July 13 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.)


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


txantimedia | July 13, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Looks like the judge may be returning shortly.

Round 2.

MOM and the prosecution at the podium. Both will offer info on MS.

Those who say you cannot read into jury questions or notes are generally correct. In over 40 years of waiting on juries there was only one note from a jury that was an absolute tell. On the 4th day of deliberations after a 3-week jury trial there was a note from a juror. The judge called the attorneys into his chambers, with the court reporter and the juror. The note said: “Judge, I want to get off this jury because all the others claim that [the plaintiff, my opponent] is lying.”
That was a wonderful moment and was a true tell.
That juror was not excused, and the next day we got our defense verdict.

Mantei is going to argue for the State. That means that the State wants to argue something really, really, really freakin’ slimy and repugnant. Any other State prosecutor would physically need to pinch his nose during this particular argument.

not_surprised | July 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Are they looking up case law regarding being able to answer the question, or case law regarding MS?

    txantimedia in reply to not_surprised. | July 13, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    The cases that they referenced have to do with judicial discretion regarding answering jury questions. I suspect they’re haggling over how much and what type of clarification the judge should give the jury.

KrazyCrackaEsq | July 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Here is my 2 cents on what’s going on. They may be going through the elements of each crime. For all we know, they started with murder 2 and have dismissed it. Now, they are going through the elements of manslaughter. After they determine if he qualifies for manslaughter then they look at self-defense and see if he qualifies.

The jurors on this jury seem to be very detail oriented. Even though they could have just started with self-defense and found him not guilty of murder or mansalughter based off just this analysis, I have a feeling they could be going through each element of murder 2 and manslaughter before looking to self-defense. If I was a lay person and on the jury, I feel like this would be what I would do even if the defense attorney told me to start with self-defense.

Again I am just speculating and have no clue what they are doing – just like everyone else commenting and reporting on this deliberation.

    That’s exactly what Nelson instructed them to do. And, hey, I’m no lawyer (clearly) but that IS what the judge said and wrote in the 27 page instructions.

    I would do it the other way b/c if you decide on self-defense no need to do anything else.

      KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to styro1. | July 13, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      My mother called me and asked about this yesterday because I told her I thought they would give a quick verdict. After, I thought through it and looked at the instructions, I said they probably are going to look at each element of each crime before even looking at self-defense. We all know that self-defense means not guilty automatically, but if I was a lay person I would be thinking we need to see if they even proved he committed murder 2 or manslaughter before I even consider whether this was self-defense. These are jurors that took tons of notes and seems to have actually paid attention to the attorneys, so I bet they are going to look to see if they even proved manslaughter before looking to self-defense.

Here we go.

Mantei up first.

They have 27 pages of freaking jury instructions. Are these juror(s) simpletons?

Of course Nelson allows Mantei’s remarks with no comment but immediately interrupts O’Mara.

Judge tells state and prosecution to work it out and come up with a coordinated and agreed on response to the jury.

Nelson just has to be a bitch to the defense one more time. Sad.

Oh snap!

Ferrar says lawyer response will probably be can you provide clarification about the clarification you require?

not_surprised | July 13, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Guy is awfully nervous 😉

In the 27 pages of instructions, if you haven’t read them, there is a lot of white-space, i.e., they could have been written out in three or four pages of a thesis or technical document. Not too overwhelming…

How much you want to bet the clarification won’t be a help to the juror(s). I just read it and it is not at all lawyerly language.

Dear GOD I pray these six women will not be so stupid as to think if it isn’t 2nd degree murder it has to be manslaugher and that the state only has to prove 2nd degree murder

The way George claims it went down from the first interview matches exactly the fighting style TM learned, practiced, and bragged about to brother. Punch in nose to stun, get on ground and stun again. Ground and pound until opponent rendered defenseless. This time there is no referee to declare victor except Mr. Good, but he didn’t have his uniform on, so Trayvon was perfectly justified to continue. Guilty of murder is obvious? The clock for the defense should start when they have ALL the evidence in hand and have reasonable time to prepare. This very relevant line of defense was blocked, because of the State’s unethical, dishonest and incompetent performance. Makes me ashamed to be a Republican. I can’t believe what I am witnessing. I am reviewing Twilight Zone episodes from the sixties looking for some guidance in this matter from Rod Serling.

    xlr8 in reply to xlr8. | July 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

‘If you have a specific question please submit it.’

That’s what the lawyers agreed on as response to jury.

txantimedia | July 13, 2013 at 6:56 pm

Talk about an anti-climax. Sheesh!

None of them seem real pleased with the question IMHO anyway they all look like it could go one way or the other from the attorney looks anyway

BTW, not that this case is really all that dear to people on the right but when is the last time the left did not get something it really wanted in this country?

They really want this.

BTW, what would the judge have done if Zimmerman had said he didn’t agree with the jury note when she asked him about it? Not sure what the point was of asking him since he really has no say in the matter and no legal training. That seemed to be for show unless I am missing something.

    DriveBy in reply to Voluble. | July 13, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    By Agreeing, George was waiving his right to use the question as grounds for appeal. I too am surprised that the judge is allowed to question him. And yes, it would have been interesting if he had refused to answer her.

Making the sausage as Greg Sergeant says.

Or watching paint dry.

the talking heads on myfoxorlando believe there are one or two who want MS, and the others want the clarification to convince them to acquit

The prosecution looks like they are suppressing glee, the defense looks miserable. 🙁

    Dr Stiffy in reply to MegK. | July 13, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    The prosecution being happy may be a good sign. I don’t have any faith in those assclowns.

    Ragspierre in reply to MegK. | July 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    I try always to thank the judge and look like the catbird when I turn away from a bench conference…even if the judge is picking my stringy ass out his/her teeth.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to MegK. | July 13, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    I was thinking a little more about the moods of the attorneys and I came to two conclusions.

    1. What doe the prosecution lose if Zimmerman is found not guilty? While many of us would like to see them punished for this sham, they likely will not be. They’ll just go back to work next week and go after someone else full bore whether they deserve it or not.

    2. I think O’Mara and West believe in this case. I think that they don’t want George to go to jail. If they were only concerned about themselves would it matter as much? I think all of us have recognized the outstanding jobs they have done. Our opinions of them, or the opinions of anyone who has watched this trial, are not going to change based on the verdict.

I am guessing there is one juror that’s saying Zimmerman killed someone and must be guilty of manslaughter. They probably don’t understand self defense or the length of a manslaughter sentence.

Also, am I the only one concerned about the length of the manslaughter sentence in FL when it involves a firearm? It sounds like Zimmerman would be facing a lesser sentence if he had been illegally carrying a knife and used that.

    DavidC2120 in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    I opined the same: that women do NOT understand the concept of self-defense. SOME women that is. I got skewered for that! LOL

      wyntre in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 7:23 pm

      I did not skewer you but I do not agree women don’t understand the concept of self defense.

      That really is a stereotype.

      I have a Ruger, a Beretta, a cc and I’m on the verge of getting a Dobie coz I’m moving to a more secluded area..

      Where I now live (rural area) most women have firearms and know how to use them.

        I think “Some people” is more appropriate.”
        But this is America, and we not only bought the pet rock, but elected Obama twice….

        Hope these jurors are capable of following the law….

    DriveBy in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    It is not just the gun, it is the fact that Trayvon was a minor. If this had played out the way that the law was written to address, an adult would have used a gun against a minor that was not beating the crap out of the adult at the time. Only in Floriduh…

      Most of the perps committing burglaries in the area were minor African Americans. Is it racist to try to stop them when it appears to be happening yet again?
      Is there evidence not in the record to suggest Trayvon was casing for a possible burglary? Should his school suspension have been considered? (still not known by most Americans)

I would not want to have 6 women holding my life in their hands. What were MOM and West thinking. The dreaded Monday morning quarterbacking.

Oh god, no. Not manslaughter.

I’m going to revoke my woman card if they do this.

Ahh..they’re ordering dinner so maybe it means they are going in the order the judge instructed them to do.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to PhillyGuy. | July 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    If they’re ordering dinner I guess they think they will a reach a decision soon. I think that may be a good sign because I can’t imagine all six women on the jury dismissing self defense.

If you read the manslaughter blurb in isolation, I can see it being more than a little confusing to laypeople.

    Voluble in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Exactly. IIRC there were several flavors of it and they were all open to interpretation more so than other crimes seem to be.

    MegK in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    One thing that confused me at first is the negligence vs. culpable negligence. I could see them thinking “well, he was negligent to follow this kid and that caused his death”. But if they delve further into the definition of “culpable negligence” which is required, the evidence doesn’t support it.

    wyntre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Is that because Nelson did not consider that charge until Thursday or Friday at the request of the prosecution?

      Ragspierre in reply to wyntre. | July 13, 2013 at 7:53 pm

      Standard pattern jury charge stuff, I assume. Would have benefited by some deletion, shooting off the hip here…

    amwick in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:29 pm

    This lay person has read and read the instructions and find them absolutely convoluted..

    Accident and misfortune?? What’s with that??..

    Time for some single malt myself.

    And as always thanks to Andrew, and the other professionals that take the time to post here.

    My respect for lawyers has skyrocketed.. along with my blood pressure..

      MrE in reply to amwick. | July 13, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      The verdict form might be confusing … on page 2, there are two choices presented for a finding of Manslaughter, the first of which is:

      “We find that George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use OR attempted to use a firearm during the commission of the offense”

      Obviously, GZ carried and used a firearm.

      It would have been more clear had it said “the offense of manslaughter” and not just “the offense” …

      Could the jurists be looking at page 2 as a kind of “decision tree” for whether or not GZ committed manslaughter?

      Obviously, page 2 is not to be completed unless the jury finds for manslaughter … I just wonder if they’re reading the form backwards …

      i.e., since GZ carried and used a gun in committing the offense of (killing TM), does the form mean to suggest he committed MS?

      The form should have been more specific, to name the offense and to state that 2DM and MS are as defined in separate instruction / the law.

it sure looks like everyone there in courtroom, even gz, wants to put this one to bed. i don’t like the fact it took so long to discard murder 2. could it be one woman dragging her feet?
that would be my guess.

    styro1 in reply to dms. | July 13, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    Juror B-29 with the 8 kids at home enjoying here time eating out and not being woken up at ungodly hours from 3 yr old twins.

      mwsomerset in reply to styro1. | July 13, 2013 at 7:59 pm

      That’s been my take on it….for some of those women serving on this jury is a vacation…especially for the woman with 8 kids who also works outside the home.

If I was GZ I might think about taking off. Hitting the highway and not looking back until I was in Guatemala.

    George don’t fly that way.
    I donated to GZ in spite of being in my own difficult $$ situation.
    He politely emailed his thanks to every donor and continues to personally respond to emails
    He ain’t that kind of guy!

    Harperman in reply to styro1. | July 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    George won’t do that. he’s a stand up guy, which of course is why he’s here.

Did the Judge print that or did she write it in cursive?

Juror: “But he KILLED someone!!!! He can’t just get off scot free!!!!” If it IS a recalcitrant juror, should she not have considered her ability to acquit when she was being vetted for the jury!!??? This is infuriating if this is the case!

Virginia NAACP Chief Dares To Question Trayvon’s Innocence… Liberal Rage Promptly Ensues Including Demands For His Resignation http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/virginia-naacp-chief-dared-to-question-trayvons-innocence-liberal-rage-prompted/

I just heard this was the jury’s 2nd question what was the 1st?

Has anyone ever proposed putting cameras in the jury room while deliberations are happening? I know that sounds like a terrible idea but at one time so did putting cameras in the court room.

I wouldn’t support it but damned if it wouldn’t be illuminating as to whether we really have a functioning legal system. Whatever this jury is doing in there it is nothing like what most of the people commenting here would be doing. It would be fascinating to see what they are hung up on and how they handle it.

    Ragspierre in reply to Voluble. | July 13, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    In REALLY big civil cases where the cost is justified, they put on entire trials, including taped jury deliberations, to test themes and find flaws.

    It can be very enlightening…in a face-palm sort of way…

      Voluble in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 7:31 pm

      Do they ever get really useful information that way or is each jury too different from the others? If it helps is it only at the margins or does it often help in a big way?

      And thanks for not assuming I was advocating any such thing. Just a hypothetical and wondering if someone had ever proposed it.

        Ragspierre in reply to Voluble. | July 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm

        Actually, yes, you do sometimes get great information. Some litigation is extremely complex, and you have to see where you might leave your jury in the dust, or where you have an opposing idea that is going to eat your lunch.

        Focus grouping is also very useful, and might have been used in this trial.

    dms in reply to Voluble. | July 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    i wonder if the rooms have been swept for bugs?

    kringeesmom in reply to Voluble. | July 13, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Many, many years ago, I saw a documentary on PBS, where they filmed jury deliberations. It was quite interesting to watch. In the alternative, you could watch 12 Angry Men.

the juror after hearing the judge declare a hung jury, “wait!, I know I can sway the others”.

DINNER. Telling you they like the food. If home who cooks? They love being served, don’t have to pay. Probably a vacation for some of them.

I am sorry.

What was the question they asked?

Do we get to know that?

    wyntre in reply to Exiliado. | July 13, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    We don’t know yet. The lawyers responded to the jurors inquiry by asking for clarification which is exactly what the jury asked for.

    Who’s on first?

    Now they’re at dinner.

Hmm, has anyone noticed that most of the trolls from last week don’t log in at all on Saturdays?

Recalcitrant Juror: “Once I get my ruling and lobster tail I’ll vote with the rest of you all.”

    Fabi in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    And a bottle of DRC Montrachet. Slightly chilled, please.

    Parfait!

    Not guilty!

      Matt in FL in reply to Fabi. | July 13, 2013 at 8:00 pm

      I would hold my verdict hostage for some really good Belgian ale. Y’know, the bottle-conditioned high-gravity ceramic bottle stuff.

        Fabi in reply to Matt in FL. | July 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm

        Had a few of them one time. I was amazed that the high gravity made that much difference. Of course, my memory of that event is, somehow, very fuzzy…

I don’t consider my tall 13 year old daughter a “child”

How the hell do these cretins consider a 6’3″ black kid who slams people’s heads into cement and breaks their nose to be a “child”?

    DavidC2120 in reply to TexasJew. | July 13, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    That was no “child” I saw in the 7-11.

      Fabi in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm

      In my opinion, the single best piece of evidence that the defense was allowed to present. And while I think he was a somewhat skinny kid – no SEC defensive back, that’s for sure – the clothes and his height, of at least six feet tall, made him appear to be a threat.

        robbi in reply to Fabi. | July 13, 2013 at 8:12 pm

        I agree with you. The cardboard cutout of Martin makes him look like the Ghost of Christmas Past from A Christmas Carol. That ghost scared the crap out of me.

[…] Anthony Branca at Legal Insurrection says this was such a “dirty prosecution” that there… And therefore, maybe kind of a win-win: Conviction on manslaughter, so no riots, and then sometime next year the verdict is overturned on appeal. Nobody’s going to riot about that. […]

For the legal experts here, if the jury finds for 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter, are they required to elaborate on their decision? Specifically, the evidence and their interpretation thereof, that persuaded them to render their verdict?

The question occurs to me in response to Nelson’s comment “there is still substantial evidence, both circumstantial and direct, to bring the charge to the jury” following her denial of MOM’s 2nd request for a JOA. Nelson didn’t cite any specific piece of evidence as requested by MOM.

While not in the legal profession, I still appreciate the rulings from the Supreme court, et al, that explain the basis for the decision.

So I’m just wondering if the same standard applies to a jury trial? I wouldn’t think a “not guilty” verdict would require explanation.

    Ragspierre in reply to MrE. | July 13, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    In Texas, generally no. Juries don’t have to provide any rationale. Statements they make voluntarily after a trial CAN constitute grounds for an appeal on jury misconduct, however.

    Judges CAN be very terse in their rulings. Some of us think that is to provide very little to take up on appeal. In summary judgment practice, they will almost never tell you anything outside of GRANT or DENY. A lot of them will not even rule, and making them rule is sometimes next to impossible. Which I always found curious. Kinda their job, one would think…

I have been following this case on LI and really appreciate everyone’s insight. Curious how long before the judge tells them to brake for evening?

    Matt in FL in reply to lamasioux. | July 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    The judge doesn’t tell them. They take breaks when they want, they stop when they want. If they want to go all night, they can.

      lamasioux in reply to Matt in FL. | July 13, 2013 at 8:07 pm

      Thanks, Did not know that. Of course a persons life hangs in the balance so I hope they come to decision soon.

The wife and I were just discussing this over dinner. She mentioned the “fear factor” that the jurors might have. My answer to her was they knew that this was a high profile trial, so they accepted the responsibility when they didn’t say something to disqualify themselves.

For the last 20 years I have tossed those postcard jury summons into the trash. I would never sit on a jury, ever. The system is way to broken for me to give it a moment of validation.

    northcross in reply to gregm. | July 13, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Yeah. We’ve been looking for you down here at the County Clerk’s Office. Summons just issued.

    kringeesmom in reply to gregm. | July 13, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Last time I was on jury duty, they sent us to lunch. After lunch they called roll. There were about 15 people missing. The judge issued bench warrants for every one of them. I always wondered if any of them ever got pulled over for a minor traffic violation and got hauled off to jail. Those of us that returned to the courthouse after lunch were excused in a few hours.

    Harperman in reply to gregm. | July 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    I have been called for jury duty but never selected. I always figure it was all those NRA and Libertarian bumper stickers on my car.

Frank Taaffe is saying 5-1 for acquittal if that means anything at all.

😳

There’s a hot new thread up in case anyone wants to know.

    Matt in FL in reply to wyntre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    Yeah, there’s a new thread, but it’s full of trolls and people generally acting antisocially. This is still the cool kids’ table.

    DavidC2120 in reply to wyntre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:09 pm

    It’s infested with trolls. They can have it.

    Fabi in reply to wyntre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    I’m into my third single-malt. May wade into the turd bowl. But, I’m such a nice guy, I probably won’t even stir the pot…

      Dr Stiffy in reply to Fabi. | July 13, 2013 at 8:27 pm

      That’s what they want you to do. You can’t win against trolls by giving them attention. My 2 cents.

        Fabi in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 8:34 pm

        Yeah, I know. Heck, I dissented about one part of this case on a few pro-GZ blogs and got accused of being a troll. So bad that I ended up here. Which is good. I can’t handle either side of the whole troll thing, but sometimes I like to watch…

      steffmckee in reply to Fabi. | July 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm

      Talisker? Laphroaig? Lagavulin?

Midwest Rhino | July 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm

The news channels should pitch in for Zimmerman’s defense, given the ratings (I assume) his public torture trial has given them.

    franker01 in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 13, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Evidently the Law does not matter when there is a Racially Charged Show Trial going on.

    It only matters that the metrics fit.

    Victim: Black (check)

    Perp: White (regardless of other designation) (check)

    Looks Good!

    Convict the Creepy Ass Cracker!

Did anyone hear that FBI profiler Candace on FNC a while ago? What a wack, She said she and her colleagues believe GZ had his gun out and went after TM. So who’s on top during the fight doesn’t matter. Really!!? She was totally bizarre, scarey what people believe.

The BFF jury

Just too stupid to understand Self Defense

Facts, reasoning and critical thinking skills don’t matter anymore b/c schools no longer teach them. They tell students what to think.

Hey Matt, Rags, all you guys,
First time checking in today.

I must say, I am losing some of my optimism.
This long deliberation, coupled with my wife repeatedly telling me these women are going to vote for manslaughter, is degrading my faith.

I keep telling myself that none of this really means anything, but I don’t know how convinced I am anymore.

I still think hung is more likely than a guilty verdict. I just can’t wrap my mind around six people listening to that trial and voting guilty. They truly would have to blatantly ignore the law in my opinion.

Well, here’s hoping things still work out!

    Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 13, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    What is said over yonder…

    If you read the manslaughter blub, you will see why they are confused.

    Juries do what they are instructed by their judges. She gave them a cookbook, and they are following it.

    The are just moving through the instructions.

      fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      I was just getting ready to go read the manslaughter instruction to see if I could find any vague wording that might be confusing.

      Thanks!

        rotate in reply to fogflyer. | July 13, 2013 at 8:45 pm

        Why does your wife believe it’s manslaughter?

          fogflyer in reply to rotate. | July 13, 2013 at 8:53 pm

          She doesn’t.
          She just thinks that six women are more likely to do a compromise verdict as they will think George did “something” wrong and should get some punishment.

          As this goes DIRECTLY against the law and the judges explicit instructions, I am hoping her assessment in wrong.

      fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm

      Ok, after reading the manslaughter jury instructions, I am now more worried than before.

      That is a pretty simple few paragraphs. Nothing confusing in there at all. What the heck do they need clarified??? Now I am worried about the intelligence of the jury 🙁

        Dr Stiffy in reply to fogflyer. | July 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm

        I just don’t think it’s stressed enough that self defense means the charge doesn’t apply. You’re not the only one worried.

    seeing_eye in reply to fogflyer. | July 13, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    If these women are anything like me (and most are around my age), they will have enough of life’s experiences to understand self defense. And just because they are mothers doesn’t necessarily cause them to all emotionally throw a protective blanket over Trayvon. They will know there are 2 suffering mothers in this case. I recall hearing them speak during the jury selection. From my memory, they all appeared to be quite intelligent, law abiding, and constructive people. I hope I’m right.

Jury must be close no? or they would have knocked off and took dinner at the hotel?

    styro1 in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Unless there going to work late. Worked on Murder 2 1st, manslaughter 2nd, and finish up with Self-Defense. No one knows, which is killing us, but imagine GZ. Pray for him.

      robbi in reply to styro1. | July 13, 2013 at 8:44 pm

      I have been praying. Hopefully the poor bastard is getting some Xanax. Hell, I feel like I need a drink or a Xanax myself.

    RickMarch in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    I spent several years as a daily newspaper reporter, and then I transitioned into novels and nonfiction books — 20 of them since 1979.

    And I still can’t understand a paragraph or two of the manslaughter instructions. Why can’t juries be provided clearly written instructions?

      fogflyer in reply to RickMarch. | July 13, 2013 at 9:01 pm

      Not trying to be insulting, but I am just wondering what you find confusing about the instruction?

      There is certainly some extraneous information that perhaps should just be stipulated to and removed from the documents ie. we know Travon is dead, we know a firearm was used, we know it was intentional, etc.

      But it still seems quite clear to me.

        Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 13, 2013 at 9:12 pm

        Start on page 10 with, “The killing of a human being is…”

        Go from there.

        Do you know the entire catalog of Florida felonies? I don’t. I bet the jury REALLY does not.

          fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm

          OK, I’ll give you that.
          Actually, I wondered why the defense didn’t touch on the fact that Trayvon was committing felony battery on George at the time. I just don’t think they wanted to cloud the water with it.

          I also concede that it doesn’t explain what “justifiable homicide” is in the manslaughter instructions, but that is discussed one or two pages later.

          I suppose if you were just reading page by page, sequentially, it might be confusing until you turned the page.

All this the women will vote for manslaughter cause they’re mothers is BS. These women, IMO, are taking their responsibility seriously. If they had come back in an hour so with a guilty verdict, then yes, I’d say they voted with their emotions however this has not been the case.
They may well come back with manslaughter but I don’t think it will have been a flip decision based on settling or satisfying those who are Martin supporter.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to robbi. | July 13, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Agreed, for some reason those of us that have been logged in here have a special interest in this. I’ve never followed a high profile case before, but this one got my attention. I think some folks are making too many assumptions based on the sex of the jury out of frustration. Most of us would have found George not guilty in 15 minutes, but we wouldn’t have made it past jury selection.

      Fabi in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 9:31 pm

      Here’s a theory:

      They’ve probably not been on a jury before. They know it’s an extraordinarily high-profile case. They’ve seen almost irreconcilable presentations from the two sides. They’ve seen bizzaro witnesses. They’ve seen a judge who appears to be on crack. They’ve not heard from the defendant. They’ve heard ‘assholes’ and ‘fucking’ more than they’ve heard their whole lives.

      So, they’re probably saying: ‘What in the hell are we supposed to do? We don’t know how to make sausage!’

I know this was posted earlier but it should be headlines in every major newspaper and lead on every newscast: “Alan Dershowitz believes prosecutors in Zimmerman case deserve disbarment” They are a disgrace to the justice system.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847

The natives are getting restless. Chanting outside the court house!

(As I said last night)

Burn, baby, burn! Hip-hop inferno!

Trayvon supporters chanting, “WE DON’T WANT NO MANSLAUGHTER, NO, NO, NO!!!! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!” These people have NO CLUE how LUCKY they would be……..what an absolute PERVERSION of justice it would be……..if Zimmerman were to even get Manslaughter! Their ignorance would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    And the retards saying that don’t understand that George will essentially go to jail for the rest of his life. Screw them.

      Dr Stiffy in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 9:22 pm

      Sorry, I should have said would go to jail for essentially the rest of his life if convicted of manslaughter. Those guys piss me off a little and I should have been more clear.

    Fabi in reply to DavidC2120. | July 13, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    And they wonder why race relations are so poor in this country? The behavior is atrocious. Perversion captures it well. Gonna be ugly.

    Not guilty on a hot Saturday night. There will be blood. Very, very sad. How in the Hell can this country ever get past this? I’m not encouraged – seems to be only getting worse.

I know I’ve decried people making baseless predictions, but I’m going to make an observation, fully realizing that it’s about 70/30 that I’m wrong.

Simple human nature tells me they wouldn’t go this late if they didn’t think they were reasonably close to a decision. If they knew they were miles apart still, I’d think they’d want to get out of there and sleep on it and see where they were in the morning.

I’m probably thoroughly wrong.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to Matt in FL. | July 13, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    That’s what I’m thinking Matt. I’m hoping there is one juror that that just doesn’t understand how serious manslaughter is and that self defense excuses it.

    Fabi in reply to Matt in FL. | July 13, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    I think we’ll know by 10:15 Eastern…

    they may be going late to wear the holdout down. if i were the one and i thought it was self defense, nobody could move me off that dime. if i thought he was guilty…same thing

      Dr Stiffy in reply to dms. | July 13, 2013 at 9:46 pm

      The holdout has to be considering manslaughter. I just don’t see the majority of the jury wanting to convict based on the evidence the prosecution presented.

    Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | July 13, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    Is this where I get to say I was right? They were close, apparently.

MANSLAUGHTER(Exact excerpts)

George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman.

((NOTE—while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman.))

——-

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
————————

Heck, I’m getting confused. Poor women. I bet they feel the weight of the world right now.

Some woman just tweeted a pic of the Trayvon memorial. I’m sure someone is going to make a full size statue of him made out of skittles.

    Ragspierre in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    They can use O’Mara’s cut-out as their armature…

    Dr Stiffy in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 13, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    It’s going to happen. He’ll be wearing a rainbow colored hoodie.

    I don’t want to see anyone killed unnecessarily. Skin color should not be an issue. It’s unfortunate that the majority of those wanting to convict George Zimmerman are blinded by it.

    I have no doubt that if Zimmerman had seen a white, hispanic, or asian kid acting like Martin he would have behaved the same way. He wasn’t looking to hunt anyone down. He was tired of criminals preying on his neighborhood.

Now they’re chanting ‘Louder! Louder! Guilty! Guilty!’

Tribal. Nothing else to say…

    rotate in reply to Fabi. | July 13, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    The cops should get them away from the court house. If the jurors hear or see a mob it could freak them out. Like electioneering at a polling place.

      Fabi in reply to rotate. | July 13, 2013 at 9:46 pm

      I think they’re already (rightfully) freaked out. I mean, don’t you think their neighbors know? ‘Where’s Susan? She’s been gone for weeks now. Still in Hawai’i?’

      I fear for their well-being…

‘Trayvon was visiting his Father.’

{ { { { vomit } } } }

if the jury doesn’t fully understand this law and they didn’t hand in a specific question, and the judge isn’t going to be all to helpful, well what do they do? If they are iffy they cannot find him guilty. The default must be not guilty.

I read that to mean that “negligence” does not equate to being guilty. They may think he was negligent but that act alone does not mean he is guilty of manslaughter. That’s my take anyway ( shrug)

The next time I see someone sketchy in my neighborhood, I’ll do the logical thing and track them within a few feet of where they walk, ask a lot of demanding questions like they owe me, and just keep provoking them until they throw a few punches my way. Then, when they got me on the ground and rubbing my head into it while I continue to punch back, I’ll pull out my gun and shoot the person, claiming self defense, while the dude begins to beg for his life. I mean, it’s self defense….just sayin’.

It feels so good bonding with ALL of you like this…awesome!

VERDICT!

No follow up jury query on manslaughter, am holding out here for announcement of acquittal.

Good Lord, I hope this is an acquittal. Just for George’s sake. My heart is literally pounding.

VERDICT!

VERDICT IS IN!

VERDICT

I CAN’T STAND THIS! TELL US!

I picked a bad week to give up heroin…

Verdict baby!

Here we go!

NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!

YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

Thank the Lord for his tender mercies

There is a GOD. They bought the shirt. Told you.

Okay, all you guys who questions a woman’s ability to judge – you own womenkind an apology!!!

YESSS!!!!!

Oh Thank God! We DO Have a Functional Jury System in the USA!!!

whew…………

God, I’m just sobbing right now. Can’t believe how together those guys in the courtroom are 😉

Not guilty! Awesome!

(Hey, I’d like a 50″ Sony flatscreen…)

He gets his gun back!!!!

Oh, thank God.

To Quote Monty Python,
Not Gil-Cup!!!!!!

Sharpton calls it an atrocity!

FUCK YOU, AL! FUCK YOU!

(Sorry, LI, Andrew…)

Thanks Goodness this is the such a redeeming thing for so many people. I am glad for he & his family and Mr O’Mara and the whole legal team.

Thank goodness!

We women do let logic rule.

Time to turn on MSNBC for a few and watch the heads explode!

HRPuffingstuff | July 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Justice has been served

He got away with it!!!!!

j/k

No really the system worked!!!!

Next, law suit against NBC so he can pay his legal team.

HRPuffingstuff | July 13, 2013 at 10:12 pm

I am a law and order guy and have served on a number of juries, the conduct of the prosecution was disgraceful and the lowest I have ever seen.

BDLR is coming to speak soon! Should be funny and sicking at the same time!

Lucien Cordier | July 13, 2013 at 10:14 pm

O’MARA O’MARA O’MARA WEST WEST WEST!

And now for the finger-pointing and recriminations to begin.

Obama is in hot hot water because of his pronouncements re: sexual abuse in the military, he’s already messed up lots of cases due to undue “command influence.”

This is all obama’s fault.

PUtz.


Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend