|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:02:38 GMT -5
He's not going to try to get the case thrown out claiming self defense. Pretty curious decision by his lawyer. I guess if I had a client I knew was guilty of murder I wouldn't want to put him on the stand either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:08:49 GMT -5
Of course, there are other legal reasons, made by people with law degrees, for making such a decision. Where did you get your law degree?
"But Zimmerman's legal team also risked the possibility that the judge would reject the motion and the hearing would give prosecutors an opportunity to pick apart Zimmerman's testimony.
The defense left open the likelihood that they could ask for a Stand Your Ground hearing before the June trial, but by waiting until the later date his legal team would have more time to prepare their case. "
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:11:22 GMT -5
>>>But Zimmerman's legal team also risked the possibility that the judge would reject the motion and the hearing would give prosecutors an opportunity to pick apart Zimmerman's testimony.<<<
I guess you didn't bother reading what I posted?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:13:29 GMT -5
I did and then I pointed out other reasons other than your assumptions about his guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:18:01 GMT -5
I did and then I pointed out other reasons other than your assumptions about his guilt. If he doesn't have a case for self defense by now he's never going to have it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:21:08 GMT -5
Choosing not to take the hearing now doesn't mean he doesn't have a case for self-defense. That's merely you making more assumptions.
Why would you say he's guilty when you weren't there to witness it and he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Not a fan of due process, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:27:19 GMT -5
Choosing not to take the hearing now doesn't mean he doesn't have a case for self-defense. That's merely you making more assumptions. Why would you say he's guilty when you weren't there to witness it and he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet? Not a fan of due process, eh? Does what I think about his guilt affect his legal rights Skippy? If he has a case for self defense now wouldn't it be in his clients best interest to get the case thrown out as quickly as possible?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:32:54 GMT -5
Does what I think about his guilt affect his legal rights Skippy? If he has a case for self defense now wouldn't it be in his clients best interest to get the case thrown out as quickly as possible? Ah, here we go again. You get called out on something you said and you resort to calling me names. Did I say that your opinion, ignorant as it is, has any bearing on the trial? Nope, that's your straw man. Whether or not he has a case for self-defense now, his lawyers still get to decide what strategy they feel is in their client's best interest. You're legal advice aside, I'm sure they know what they are doing. Where did you get your law degree?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:42:03 GMT -5
>>>Ah, here we go again. You get called out on something you said and you resort to calling me names.<<<
Skippy??? What does "Skippy" mean to you?
>>>Did I say that your opinion, ignorant as it is, has any bearing on the trial? Nope, that's your straw man.<<<
So why did you make an issue of it?
>>>Whether or not he has a case for self-defense now, his lawyers still get to decide what strategy they feel is in their client's best interest. You're legal advice aside, I'm sure they know what they are doing. Where did you get your law degree?<<<
Waiting a few weeks to get a self defense hearing is not going to make a difference. Like I said, if he doesn't have a slam dunk self defense case by now he's never going to have one. It would have to be a slam dunk self defense case because he can't afford put his client on the stand and be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 20:50:19 GMT -5
Why are you calling me "Skippy"?
I pointed out that it is an ignorant opinion and gave you two reasons cited for the decision. Is that what we do heere?
In the court of law there is no such thing as a "slam dunk". His lawyers have their reasons and law degrees. Do have a law degree?
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Mar 5, 2013 21:01:29 GMT -5
His lawyers don't want to give the prosecution and advanced version of what he will testify to at the main trial. That way he can't contradict himself and it will be harder for them to pick his story, whatever it might be, apart.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 21:08:15 GMT -5
His lawyers don't want to give the prosecution and advanced version of what he will testify to at the main trial. That way he can't contradict himself and it will be harder for them to pick his story, whatever it might be, apart. You don't understand. If he wins the "Stand your ground" self defense hearing the case gets thrown out. He'd be a free man.
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Mar 5, 2013 21:13:52 GMT -5
They probably think the judge won't go for it in the preliminary hearing. They only need 1 person to buy it to hang the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 21:16:10 GMT -5
If they get a judge to agree with their defense then it gets dismissed. If that one man is not completely convinced then they have shown their hand and made the prosecution's job easier. Even innocent people have been unable completely make their case.
Also, in this scenario he has to prove his case rather rely on someone else making a case against him. In other words, he has to prove his innocence rather be proven guilty.
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Mar 5, 2013 21:43:23 GMT -5
Ockham's razor yields the suspicion that Zimmerman's lawyers evaded a stand-your-ground hearing because they knew they'd lose. And thereby weaken their eventual defense of self defense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 22:00:36 GMT -5
Ockham's razor yields the suspicion that Zimmerman's lawyers evaded a stand-your-ground hearing because they knew they'd lose. And thereby weaken their eventual defense of self defense. No doubt!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 20:58:09 GMT -5
O'Mara previously stated that he hopes to wrap the "stand your ground" hearing into Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, scheduled for June 10. He said that could still possibly happen and the judge has said she is open to it. A judge would have sole discretion in an immunity hearing to decide if Zimmerman is exempt from culpability in the shooting. A jury would make the determination in the murder trial. O'Mara said after Tuesday's hearing that no decision about when he might file a motion for an immunity hearing is set in stone, though. "I haven't made that decision yet. The real focus is going to be on getting ready for a jury trial," he said. "As you know, I've been counting. We're only at 96 days right now. So that only that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing. And that's going to be a jury trial where he gets acquitted. So that's my plan." "If we're going all the way through a jury trial, I look forward to a jury verdict." Lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declined comment on any specifics of the case, but did say he was "bewildered" about whether or not the defense intended to have a "stand your ground" hearing. O'Mara said their options are still very fluid right now regarding the potential immunity hearing, but the defense team is putting its energy into trial because of finite funds and the judge is holding firm to the June trial date. He said he thinks a jury verdict might also be more calming to the intense fervor around this case. "We decided to focus on the idea that George wants to have a jury of his peers decide his case. And it's gonna be, I think, a more accepted result for everyone who has to accept the result -- that he gets an acquittal at trial," O'Mara said. "More so than an immunity hearing given by a judge." Read more: www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/06/teenage-witness-in-trayvon-martin-case-admits-misrepresented-herself/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2Mob4vKLw
|
|