oneshot Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:29 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:29 PM I think things are looking good, the jury wants to carefully go over the evidence. If they were making their decision based on the emotional plea that the State made, they'd be done by now. There's really only one conclusion to make if you really go over all the evidence. The Defense made a fantastic case, the State was grasping at straws and straining to pluck heart strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chidiver Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:38 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:38 PM I think things are looking good, the jury wants to carefully go over the evidence. If they were making their decision based on the emotional plea that the State made, they'd be done by now. There's really only one conclusion to make if you really go over all the evidence. The Defense made a fantastic case, the State was grasping at straws and straining to pluck heart strings. Meh. I've heard this argument used both ways. Not Guilty can be quick as well. If they are "going through the evidence" they may be looking for a reason to convict, rather than acquit, just as easily. Or maybe they are split and can't agree. Hasn't really been much time yet. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:39 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:39 PM I read in some news story that both sides in this trial agreed to a 5-1 majority decision. I am sorry I can't find it, but I read it somewhere. This seemed odd to me, too, because I was always of the understanding that jury trials required unanimous verdicts.That is correct, both sides agreed to allow 5. I posted that earlier in the thread and it was said by the commentators. I can't even fathom this. If it is 5-1 against then clearly one person had reasonable doubt. Sorry, but I'm not buying this.I can't find anything else about it, and unless I misheard that is what the commentators said. It sounded strange to me also. They made it sound like if was long and drawn out deliberation they would accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:40 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:40 PM Any case where politicians and the media are trying to manipulate the outcome is of interest to me. They should broadcast more trials, so the public has the opportunity to see how much of this crap really goes on. I was on Branca's blog this morning and it looks like the state has fired a whistle blower over this case: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who ...straight as an arrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Pucker Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:43 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:43 PM When I first heard of this incident shortly after it happened, my first reaction (based on how it had been reported) was that this guy (Zimmerman) was toast. His reported behavior seemed to exemplify the worst of "concealed carry gone wrong." Beyond that, I had no particular interest. That changed as it gradually came out how the mainstream media had intentionally skewed their reporting, including doctoring audio tapes and releasing only selected photographs in an attempt to portray Z as the villian. That's when I got interested. Clearly some other dynamic was at work with nothing less than the integrity of the justice system at stake when principals in the case began to resign or be replaced. Realizing that the media can not be trusted as a reliable source of factual information I intentionally formed no opinion of Z's guilt or innocence until facts began to come out at the trial. Then it became apparent that the prosecution's narrative was wildly speculative and completely unsubstantiated by the facts. IMO, charges should never have been brought. Lately it has come out that the Justice Department sent people and money to help organize protests after Z was not initially charged. That fact, combined with Obama's "If I had a son..." comment indicate that the O administration is up to it's hips in this. The police were pressured to bring charges. The judge has acted strangely. The whole thing has been fishy since day one. The implications go way beyond the trial itself. And Z could be any one of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:55 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:55 PM I think things are looking good, the jury wants to carefully go over the evidence. If they were making their decision based on the emotional plea that the State made, they'd be done by now. There's really only one conclusion to make if you really go over all the evidence. The Defense made a fantastic case, the State was grasping at straws and straining to pluck heart strings. Meh. I've heard this argument used both ways. Not Guilty can be quick as well. If they are "going through the evidence" they may be looking for a reason to convict, rather than acquit, just as easily. Or maybe they are split and can't agree. Hasn't really been much time yet. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2 The lead defense attorney, Mark O'Mara spoke of and demonstrated with some charts that the tables are kind of turned in self-defense cases where the burden of proof is concerned and I think it's similar in this case. Usually it's the defense putting on the emotional pleas and the prosecution piling on the evidence, but it's completely the other way around in this case. Yes, I've been following the whole thing and it would be easy for me to have my decision ready walking into the deliberation room, but I think jurors feel an extra burden to make sure things are done right, especially since two of the jurors are wives of lawyers. I think the more they push in that direction, the more the emotion will wear off and the clarity of the amount of evidence in Zimmerman's favor will grow. It doesn't take long to go in there and say, "Oh that poor boy, his mother will never see him again, we need to [as the state closer said] listen to our hearts" (gag) There is no evidence that was presented that convicts Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt, that was made clear by the state's closing arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getzapped Posted July 13, 2013 at 03:04 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 03:04 PM I think I figured it out! It has to be a unanimous decision for a verdict. I think they agreed on if it was hung at 5-1 (5 being not guilty) they would move for acquittal. Does that make sense to anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 13, 2013 at 07:14 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 07:14 PM I think I figured it out! It has to be a unanimous decision for a verdict. I think they agreed on if it was hung at 5-1 (5 being not guilty) they would move for acquittal. Does that make sense to anyone? That does make more sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted July 13, 2013 at 09:55 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 09:55 PM Not looking good. Court has convened to respond to a question from the jury, heard the judge say they want a clarification on the charge of manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM Maybe that's good for GZ? They must not be looking at murder 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom28 Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:21 PM Maybe that's good for GZ? They must not be looking at murder 2. Still 30 years for manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM For sure, but if they're eliminating options, maybe it bodes well for him. I didn't listen real close to the manslaughter instruction, but it sounded pretty close to the murder 2 minus the ill-will/depraved mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom28 Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM Watching the live news feed now. Looks like both sides want a more specific question from the jury. Both sides are now crafting a question back to the jury to ask what specifics they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom28 Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:13 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:13 PM that one analyst is saying verdict might come tonight. The jury just ordered dinner so just a little bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:20 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:20 PM It sounds like the jury has already decided he wasn't guilty of murder. I'm guessing there are some on the jury who want to convict on manslaughter but there is at least one holdout for GZ arguing that there isn't evidence for that either. The prosecution wanted the jury to ignore the self-defense argument. The prosecution made it out that when two people get into a fist fight and the loser pulls a gun and shoots the other person - that's manslaughter. If the jury is buying that and ignoring that GZ was in fear for his life - they may find for manslaughter. If they asked for clarification on what constitutes self-defense I'd feel better about GZ's chances right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:58 PM Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 11:58 PM It sounds like the jury has already decided he wasn't guilty of murder. I'm guessing there are some on the jury who want to convict on manslaughter but there is at least one holdout for GZ arguing that there isn't evidence for that either. The prosecution wanted the jury to ignore the self-defense argument. The prosecution made it out that when two people get into a fist fight and the loser pulls a gun and shoots the other person - that's manslaughter. If the jury is buying that and ignoring that GZ was in fear for his life - they may find for manslaughter. If they asked for clarification on what constitutes self-defense I'd feel better about GZ's chances right now... If that's the case (I'm not watching), they just flat out lied. Their statute says that self defense can be claimed in cases of instantaneous combat. I hope the defense was screaming the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjon77 Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:21 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:21 AM Correct me if I am wrong, but if convicted of manslaughter, isn't the minimum sentence 9 1/4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom28 Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:26 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:26 AM Correct me if I am wrong, but if convicted of manslaughter, isn't the minimum sentence 9 1/4 years? Because a gun was involved they said it could be up to 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjon77 Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM Correct me if I am wrong, but if convicted of manslaughter, isn't the minimum sentence 9 1/4 years? Because a gun was involved they said it could be up to 30 years Yep. The one source I could find said that the minimum was 9 1/4 years and the max was 30. Also, in trying to get confirmation on this, I stumbled across information stating that in Florida you have to serve 85% of your sentence before being eligible for parole. That is a lot of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:39 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:39 AM I take it as a good sign. Murder is probably off the table, and now they will tackle manslaughter, which I guess they will find him not guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:39 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:39 AM are they still in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjon77 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:42 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:42 AM They have a verdict. We should have the results in 15 minutes or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:42 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:42 AM They have a verdict. We should have the results in 15 minutes or so.what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanSi Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:43 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:43 AM Unfortunately I am watching CNN, verdict reached supposedly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:45 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:45 AM http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-trial-defenses-closing-argument-live/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajduenas1 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:46 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:46 AM gotta feeling mans slaughter ... hope not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:51 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:51 AM Not guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajduenas1 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:51 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:51 AM omg !! yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjon77 Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:52 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:52 AM NOT GUILTY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanSi Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:52 AM Share Posted July 14, 2013 at 01:52 AM Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.