The court system today is not about justice, but persecution and conviction rate.
Anygunanywhere
The judge is still playing the games of the prosecutor, we such misconduct by the prosecutor especially tempering with evidence, should result in mistrial and either the judge drop all charges or ask for new prosecutor and new hearings on all the evidence from the start.
That is getting really stinky!
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
Beiruty wrote:The judge is still playing the games of the prosecutor, we such misconduct by the prosecutor especially tempering with evidence, should result in mistrial and either the judge drop all charges or ask for new prosecutor and new hearings on all the evidence from the start.
That is getting really stinky!
Getting??? This has stunk to high heaven since day one!
The court system today is not about justice, but persecution and conviction rate.
Anygunanywhere
So if this sort of illegal activity occurs on the prosecution side on a high profile case, what happens on your just average case? Somebody needs to go to jail and it is not Zimmerman.
In a banana republic there is a way one works through the court system that is different than a honest system. The problem here is that we are getting to the point where we are a banana republic except that we don't know it yet.
This stinks to high heaven and looks like a show trial.
My only hope in this case is that every bit of evidence from that night, every scrap, is in Zimmerman's favor. That is my only hope here. This makes me very
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
The court system today is not about justice, but persecution and conviction rate.
Anygunanywhere
So if this sort of illegal activity occurs on the prosecution side on a high profile case, what happens on your just average case? Somebody needs to go to jail and it is not Zimmerman.
How am I to trust the GG's on a jury ever again.
Its made the Drudge Reports now. So at least a small part of the US knows about it.
What I find so amazing is that would we have never known about it, if a former prosecutor didn't speak up. Apparently the current DA did not fess up to the cover up, a former prosecutor did. This really stinks. How much does this illegal activity go on? I guess I have been naive my whole life.
mamabearCali wrote:In a banana republic there is a way one works through the court system that is different than a honest system. The problem here is that we are getting to the point where we are a banana republic except that we don't know it yet.
Yes indeed: it's called "normalcy bias."
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
The court system today is not about justice, but persecution and conviction rate.
Anygunanywhere
So if this sort of illegal activity occurs on the prosecution side on a high profile case, what happens on your just average case? Somebody needs to go to jail and it is not Zimmerman.
How am I to trust the GG's on a jury ever again.
Its made the Drudge Reports now. So at least a small part of the US knows about it.
What I find so amazing is that would we have never known about it, if a former prosecutor didn't speak up. Apparently the current DA did not fess up to the cover up, a former prosecutor did. This really stinks. How much does this illegal activity go on? I guess I have been naive my whole life.
Said the friend, “U a hoodlum.” “Naw,” said Martin. “I’m a gangsta.”
It goes on a lot, probably in every politicized high profile trial. There are several books written by former prosecutors about nationwide rampant prosecutorial misconduct, especially at the Federal level.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Said the friend, “U a hoodlum.” “Naw,” said Martin. “I’m a gangsta.”
It goes on a lot, probably in every politicized high profile trial. There are several books written by former prosecutors about nationwide rampant prosecutorial misconduct, especially at the Federal level.
Geez, seeing all this language in the texts, it would be really hard to get a conviction. This Sarcasm on/ "angel" Sarcasm off/ looks like anyone's worst nightmare. He apparently did not get enough blood in his last fight and was upset about it.
Zimmerman is being railroaded. Sorry that's the way I see it. If he is convicted, I may never visit Florida again.
Really hard to flip throught the channels as you may end up seeing a few seconds of CNN. They were polling their "jury" as I flipped by and made the mistake of stopping . They asked them about whether it was fair to prevent the defense from showing pictures of TM and reading his "urban" texts (my son said to say urban from now on instead of gangsta as saying anything else would be considered racist, saying "urban" is apparently non racist)
The majority felt the judges ruling was correct. They didn't ask them if it was ok for the prosecution to forget to provide all the evidence that they had gathered to the defense.
Many people on the "jury" felt that fighting, drug use, pictures of guns, did not change the fact that Zimmerman followed TM after he was told not to and killed him. Many felt that his urban texts were just him trying to impress his friends, and did not show the true TM.
This is what wikipedia has to say about it.
"Character evidence is also admissible in a criminal trial if offered by a defendant as circumstantial evidence—through reputation or opinion evidence—to show an alleged victim's "pertinent" character trait—for example, to support defendant's claim of self-defense to a charge of homicide.[10]
After a criminal defendant introduces evidence of the victim's character, the prosecution may then introduce its own character evidence to rebut the defendant's character evidence by showing its side's impression of the victim's character, or to attack the character of the defendant through evidence that shows that defendant had the same character trait he or she accused the victim of having.[11]
Note that under CEC §1103(a), a defendant may not only introduce evidence of a victim's character or character trait through reputation or opinion evidence, as permitted under FRE 404, but also through evidence of specific acts. [12]
The admissibility of character evidence to allow defendant to prove the character trait of a victim is limited, however, if the lawsuit is for rape or assault with the intent to commit rape. If the reputation or opinion evidence is being offered by the defendant to show the rape victim's past sexual conduct, character evidence is inadmissible. [13] In such sexual misconduct cases, a defendant may offer "evidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior" only to show that someone other than the defendant was the source of "semen, injury, or other physical evidence," or to show that the victim had consented to sexual behavior with the defendant."
This is what I had always thought. A defendant can introduce the evidence, but it allows the prosecution to do the same, where they are normally barred. But only in limited instances can this kind of evidence be allowed in sexual assault cases.
So I am puzzled by the judges ruling. (unless he is being railroaded) I am not puzzled by the CNN "juries" opinion as they probably watch CNN a lot to be picked to be on the "jury".
Attorneys won't be able to mention the teen's drug use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements at the trial, Nelson ruled Tuesday.
It doesn't appear that they are barred from using the evidence during the trial, just during opening statements. IANAL & IDNSAAHIELN.
Attorneys won't be able to mention the teen's drug use, suspension from school and past fighting during opening statements at the trial, Nelson ruled Tuesday.
It doesn't appear that they are barred from using the evidence during the trial, just during opening statements. IANAL & IDNSAAHIELN.
I made the assumption that she will only allow negative evidence presented about TM, if the prosecution first presents evidence he is an angel. To me they are treating things backwards, reversing roles. Hiding the background of the victim, not the defendant. I suspect the prosecution will not even present a photo of TM to avoid Zimmerman's attorney's presenting the "urban" photo.
One part of this (although I am by no means excusing prosecutorial misconduct) that needs to be understood if many of these issues that have been ruled inadmissible are consistent with precedent.
Basically, if it is a fact about TM that GZ could not possibly have known at the moment in time that GZ decided to pull the trigger, then it shouldn't be admissible. The fact had no bearing on GZ's thought process when he decided to use deadly force.
For example, if you feel threatened by someone and shoot them, the fact that he had 8 prior felony robbery convictions was unknown to you at the time of his shooting.
Now, GZ can testify to what he actually saw, observed, and how he reached a conclusion regarding TM. If the prosecution tries to counter with testimony that TM was an alter-boy model child, then GZ can drag all the thug/guns/drugs testimony into the case to impeach the alter-boy testimony.
Jumping Frog wrote:One part of this (although I am by no means excusing prosecutorial misconduct) that needs to be understood if many of these issues that have been ruled inadmissible are consistent with precedent.
Basically, if it is a fact about TM that GZ could not possibly have known at the moment in time that GZ decided to pull the trigger, then it shouldn't be admissible. The fact had no bearing on GZ's thought process when he decided to use deadly force.
For example, if you feel threatened by someone and shoot them, the fact that he had 8 prior felony robbery convictions was unknown to you at the time of his shooting.
Now, GZ can testify to what he actually saw, observed, and how he reached a conclusion regarding TM. If the prosecution tries to counter with testimony that TM was an alter-boy model child, then GZ can drag all the thug/guns/drugs testimony into the case to impeach the alter-boy testimony.
While I see both sides of the argument, the result won't be as objective as the law intends because the media has already contaminated the jury pool with coverage of TM as an sweet little innocent teen trying to avoid a racist predator. The prosecution is pretty safe by just letting that media image stand, but the judgement against Zimmerman will be biased against him. What needs to be not allowed is trial by television.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
I think as long as they permit toxicology reports (showing TM was high). The doctors report ( detailing Zimmermans defensive injuries). The man who said he saw TM on top of Zimmerman. Finally the coroners report detailing TM offensive injuries (scrapes and bruises to hands) and the bullet trajectory. If they do that Zimmerman has a strong case that TM was on top of him, beating his head against the sidewalk and he only defending himself after TM had jumped him and nearly beat him to death.
The state does not dare bring Dee Dee (the only bit of evidence that TM would have in his favor) up because she is up to her ears in perjury if they do. I am curious as to what the state plans to show as evidence that TM was attacked by Zimmerman. I think they wanted to force him to plead and he is not so they are going to have to make it up as they go along.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
