• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

Lectro said:
You are full of shit.

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for having a bag of jewels (12 or so pieces) and a long handled flat screw driver. Young man casing houses. Period.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter. Just like Zimmerman's lies dont come into evidence neither does this.
 
Les Grossman said:
With no regard to what's relevant? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.

First of all, anything Zimmerman has ever said during his life is potentially admissible under the hearsay exception of statement by party opponent. Of course, it only comes in subject to a relevancy analysis. Even if during the bond hearing, Zimmerman said by the way, I had sex with a prostitute 5 years ago (or something similarly inflammatory)...should that come into evidence? Of course not. Again, the jury is there to answer one question. Was Zimmerman justified in killing Trayvon. State must prove he was not. Anything he said or did that does not directly go towards answering that question, should not come in.
Click to expand...

If you have to believe Zimmerman's account of the events of that evening, anything he said or did during this case should be relevant to his credibility in this case.
 
One thing this thread has confirmed for me is that the last thing in the world I would deciding my guilt or innocence is a jury of my "peers." And also that I'm very glad RJ didn't write the federal or any state rules of evidence.
 
RJKarl said:
I would vote guilty.

Reasons:

No credibility
Went against the rules of the neighborhood watch
Went against the 911 operator
Clearly stalked him said "I lost him" to 911 operator
Trayvon's GF phone call that happened contemporaneously
If he'll lie to the judge twice, there's no reason anything he says
Click to expand...

Is terrifying to me that you would vote guilty for those reasons. Conspicuously absent among the reasons listed is anything about the actual confrontation that led to Trayvon's death.
 
If I don't believe anything Zimmerman says, why would I believe his self-defense claim?
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
One thing this thread has confirmed for me is that the last thing in the world I would deciding my guilt or innocence is a jury of my "peers." And also that I'm very glad RJ didn't write the federal or any state rules of evidence.
Click to expand...

It has also confirmed to me why corporate law is better than crim.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
One thing this thread has confirmed for me is that the last thing in the world I would deciding my guilt or innocence is a jury of my "peers." And also that I'm very glad RJ didn't write the federal or any state rules of evidence.
Click to expand...

If you want to get personal, I've very happy that you would never represent me.

The only thing I said about evidence is that anything the defendant says to anyone involved in the case once he is charged should be admissible. I don't see why that is either bad or radical.
 
RJKarl said:
If you have to believe Zimmerman's account of the events of that evening, anything he said or did during this case should be relevant to his credibility in this case.
Click to expand...


I'm thankful we have a system where our Government is required to bring actual evidence involving the crime in question in order to prove someone's guilt, and that they're not allowed to bring evidence of other bad acts committed by an individual (regardless of when they were done) that have nothing to do with the crime in question in order to prove guilt.

Also, as an aside, the jury does not have to believe Zimmerman's account of anything. If they are uncertain as to his account, he's not guilty.
 
RJKarl said:
If you want to get personal, I've very happy that you would never represent me.

The only thing I said about evidence is that anything the defendant says to anyone involved in the case once he is charged should be admissible. I don't see why that is either bad or radical.
Click to expand...

Don't worry - like bojangle, I want absolutely nothing to do with criminal law. But seriously, after everything Les, bojangle, Kitchin, etc. have posted, you don't see why that would be radical as compared to the current rules of evidence? Why should completely irrelevant statements be admissible just because they were said to anyone involved in the case?
 
RJKarl said:
If you have to believe Zimmerman's account of the events of that evening, anything he said or did during this case should be relevant to his credibility in this case.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe Zimmerman's account. It's up to the prosecution to prove the crime he's charged with. They won't be able to, so he walks.
 
RJKarl said:
If I don't believe anything Zimmerman says, why would I believe his self-defense claim?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Maybe the whole presumption of innocence thing coupled with no evidence to the contrary.
 
If he admits to killing Trayvon and his only out is self-defense, then he is shit out of luck. He's admitted to killing him.
 
they have to prove that zimm is lying in this case, not that he is a habitual liar. there is a big difference.
 
RJKarl said:
If he admits to killing Trayvon and his only out is self-defense, then he is shit out of luck. He's admitted to killing him.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, Zimmerman's admitted to killing Martin...out of self defense. Now the State has to disprove otherwise. If they cannot disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, then the State is shit out of luck.
 
bmoneydeac said:
they have to prove that zimm is lying in this case, not that he is a habitual liar. there is a big difference.
Click to expand...

If he lies to the Judge about his money and his passport in THIS case, why should anything else he says in this case be believed?
 
RJKarl said:
If I don't believe anything Zimmerman says, why would I believe his self-defense claim?
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe the self-defense claim. The state still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of second degree murder.

Second degree murder in Florida has three elements that have to be met; it’s an unlawful killing that:

is characterized by “an act or series of acts that: (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 255-56 (Fla. 2010).
 
RJKarl said:
If he lies to the Judge about his money and his passport in THIS case, why should anything else he says in this case be believed?
Click to expand...

If our criminal justice system was based on that kind of logic, the number of wrongly convicted people would increase exponentially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top