State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
As to the following, she said that the argument could be made in closing.

As far as reversible, she said specifically that can be argued on appeal.
 
Glenn, she did say that.

However, if she does not so instruct the jury;

and

if the prosecution is allowed to make the argument in its closing (which is AFTER the defense's);

then the jury will go into deliberation having freshly been told by the prosecution that the follow itself constitutes initiating a fight, without instruction from the judge that this is not so under the law.

That is a big genie to put back in a bottle, but I don't believe the defense gets a word after the prosecution's closing.

I don't think setting the jury up to decide whether the defense attorney or the prosecutor is correct on a point of Florida statute is a wise course for the judge.
 
The DA will speak, the Defense will speak their case.

We will see if the DA says explicitly that following is a crime. That was the argument.

If the jury can't understand both sides - then why have juries?

Folks are grasping at straws to show that Zim will go down due to a stupid jury.

None of you know about that or what constitutes reversible error when this is done.
 
The schedule I saw on Andrew Branca's commentary was that the prosecution makes closing statements today, the defense tomorrow, and THEN the prosecution gets a rebuttal of what the defense said. So the prosecutors get the last say for the jury to remember.
 
I'm wondering, if GZ is aquitted can he sue TM parents for expenses and so forth?

Aren't parents of non-emancipated minors financially resposible for their minor child's actions?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
None of you know about that or what constitutes reversible error when this is done.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know more about "what constitutes reversible error when this is done". What have you observed in this trial? Since the judge admitted the tox report, are there any reversible errors remaining wrt the judge? Are there any reversible errors elsewhere?
 
Glenn,

Nobody is saying they know for sure what will happen.

However, it isn't all that hard to look up what things might constitute reversible errors. Instructions relative to crimes charged, or the relevance of applicable statutes and case law, are frequent targets for appeal.
 
I'd like to know more about "what constitutes reversible error when this is done". What have you observed in this trial? Since the judge admitted the tox report, are there any reversible errors remaining wrt the judge? Are there any reversible errors elsewhere?
Click to expand...
The toxicology report evidence wouldn't be "reversible" error since it tended to favor the defense and the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict. In criminal cases, reversible error typically refers to legal errors/wrongs committed by the judge or prosecution which impaired the defendant's right to a fair trial. Minor errors of small consequence don't generally qualify.

In all trials, there are evidentiary rules which determine what can and cannot be admitted as evidence (this applies to both prosecution and defense evidence, although in different ways). The judge has discretion/latitude within those guidelines in what he/she may admit into evidence. It can be reversible error when the judge's use of discretion steps outside those guidelines. It also can be reversible error when the judge or prosecution misapplies the law in front of the jury, such as in jury instructions, closing arguments, etc. There's no cut-and-dried standard for determining that which is reversible error and that which is not - that's why we have appeals courts - at the end of the day if Zimmerman is convicted the Florida Court of Appeals will be asked (and will very likely hear) the defense's appeal. If the Court of Appeals declines to overturn a guilty verdict, then Zimmerman can appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Failing that, he might attempt a federal appeal, though that is a far more difficult proposition since there don't seem to be any federal or constitutional issues here.
 
The judge stated that the third degree with child abuse has to include intent which the state did not include in their information. I believe she was giving them the out.
 
Glenn,

The prosecution wanted the jury instructions to mostly say "defendant" while the defense wanted the instructions to say "George Zimmerman" each time. Is there a behavioral response that people are more sympathetic to a named person than to the impersonal term "defendant?"
 
We often discuss here about how much to say to police after a self defense shooting. In this case GZ reenacted the events for the Sanford police, on camera. This, I believe, proved to be extremely helpful to his case. His video was shown as evidence, giving his side of the story, without him having to take the stand and be cross-examined.

Something to think about if you are ever involved in such a thing.
 
I think amongst the prosecutions many mistakes, showing Zimmerman's interviews during the trial is close to the top.
It allowed Zimmerman to testify without cross examination. It set Zimmerman's version of events as the baseline description.
 
Post #263: SYG hearing/O'Mara

Per post #263, Florida doesn't use DAs or Asst DAs, they elect State's Attys & use Assistant State's Attys as prosecutors.
States Attys are elected like District Attys and have legal powers IAW the Florida Constitution & state laws/statues.
Interesting, unlike some states like CA or VA, State's Attys & Asst State Atty's are not sworn LE officers & have no arrest/police powers.

I disagree with GZ's main atty; Mark O'Mera. He should have allowed Zimmerman to go thru a formal Stand Your Ground hearing first.
If he was cleared by a judge, the dog & pony state trial would be avoided. If he lost, it wouldn't look go in the media but GZ would still have a criminal case.
In the good ole US of A, you are innocent until proven guilty. :D

ClydeFrog
 
csmsss said:
The toxicology report evidence wouldn't be "reversible" error since it tended to favor the defense and the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict....
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

Glenn E. Meyer said:
We will know what is reversible when the next court says so. Thus, claims of surety here are somewhat premature.
Click to expand...
That is correct.

On appeal, a court of appeal can find --

  1. A decision of the trial judge on a matter of law claimed by the appellant to have been in error was not actually in error (i. e., was the correct ruling).

  2. An erroneous decision of the trial judge on a matter of law was harmless error, i. e., while in error it did not affect the outcome. Harmless error will not justify reversal of the result in the trial court.

  3. An erroneous decision of the trial judge on a matter of law was reservible error, i. e., it was significant and material and therefore likely to have affected the outcome. Reversible error will warrant overturning the result in the trial court.
 
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Frank, those sorts of appeals are generally rarer than hens' teeth and successful even more rarely, are they not? And are they not generally only due to gross misconduct by the defense and/or the judge (bribery, for example) such that jeopardy never really applied?
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
We will know what is reversible when the next court says so. Thus, claims of surety here are somewhat premature.
Click to expand...

I don't remember any claims of surety, but here's one: I'm sure you're right.

What I meant was: In your opinion, have you observed errors which you think could reasonably be reversible? If so, what were they?
 
As for reversible error or not, let's don't minimize the cost to GZ of an overturned conviction on a manslaughter charge. By cost, I mean the question "Have you ever been found guilty... "
 
csmsss said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Frank, those sorts of appeals are generally rarer than hens' teeth ...
Click to expand...
No, you miss the point entirely. My point was that your classifying a particular ruling, which you claim was erroneous, as not reversible error, is fatuous. You will not decide, here and now, what sort of ruling, if in error in the first place, is reversible error or harmless error. That will be up to the court of appeals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top