You are the Juror. George Zimmerman trial

[wayneflorida 0]

Charge: Second degree murder. No lesser charge optional.

Based on what you have heard on the news, either true or false, and personal beliefs.

No discussion.
No copout bullshit. VOTE (please only once)


And for your civic duty I will buy you a beer when we meet up.

[Andy9o8 2]

This is absolutely the wrong time to ask this; and you're also basing it on the wrong factors. The right time is at the end of trial, after all the evidence is in, not before the trial, based on legal-whuffo news reports. Now if you preemptively deem that to be a cop out,that's just too bad.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This is absolutely the wrong time to ask this; and you're also basing it on the wrong factors. The right time is at the end of trial, after all the evidence is in, not before the trial, based on legal-whuffo news reports. Now if you preemptively deem that to be a cop out,that's just too bad.

I agree on that. Except this crowd won't ever get the full evidence that a real juror will.

However, it's an interesting poll in that we can see how the media spin on it is being taken by the average guy. Seems that posters here are pretty suspicious of the PR out there.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 801]

I prefer to understand the self defense meaning of the Stand Your Ground law and would like to know WHY the State of Florida prosecuted in the first place.
I think the law as it is currently written would prevent this from going to trial.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Bullshit. It's a public opinion poll. We are "allowed" to have them at anytime to gauge what people think of this case. We don't need your permission.

[muff528 3]

I wouldn't make it past voir dire with this one. In this hateful climate there's no way I'm exposing myself or my family to potential risk of violence from some revved-up vigilante who would be unhappy with a potential "not guilty" outcome.

[devildog 0]

Quote

I prefer to understand the self defense meaning of the Stand Your Ground law and would like to know WHY the State of Florida prosecuted in the first place.
I think the law as it is currently written would prevent this from going to trial.

to appease the masses and zimmerman IIRC can still have the case tossed under SYG.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[wlsc 0]

You should have put manslaughter up as well.

[Andy9o8 2]

Grrrrr! You're so manly! Whatever floats your boat, Tiger.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bullshit. It's a public opinion poll. We are "allowed" to have them at anytime to gauge what people think of this case. We don't need your permission.

Andy has it right. This isn't a public opinion pool - the question was prefaced with being a juror. It might be somewhat reasonable to ask this question in this manner at the end of the case when it goes to deliberations - most of the evidence will be known to the public. But even then it's filtered by reporting, and not all may be in open court.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I wouldn't make it past voir dire with this one. In this hateful climate there's no way I'm exposing myself or my family to potential risk of violence from some revved-up vigilante who would be unhappy with a potential "not guilty" outcome.

I would probably make it past voir dire, but I wouldn't want to be a juror in this case, if it makes it that far. With this climate, there is going to be an uproar no matter what the outcome.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I would probably make it past voire dire

"Ma'am, do you have any online screennames?"

"Shotgun"

" Thank you. You're excused."

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I would probably make it past voire dire

"Ma'am, do you have any online screennames?"

"Shotgun"

" Thank you. You're excused."

Hmm, yeah, a Texan with a nickname of Shotgun. Maybe the prosecutor wouldn't want me. But I look like an innocent little lady who would want to send that bad man to jail, so who knows...

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

This is absolutely the wrong time to ask this; and you're also basing it on the wrong factors. The right time is at the end of trial, after all the evidence is in, not before the trial, based on legal-whuffo news reports. Now if you preemptively deem that to be a cop out,that's just too bad.

I agree on that. Except this crowd won't ever get the full evidence that a real juror will.

However, it's an interesting poll in that we can see how the media spin on it is being taken by the average guy. Seems that posters here are pretty suspicious of the PR out there.

With all the motions that will be, "motioned", the Jury will not get all the "real" evidence either.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[normiss 801]

Which is of course S.O.P. for trials.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is absolutely the wrong time to ask this; and you're also basing it on the wrong factors. The right time is at the end of trial, after all the evidence is in, not before the trial, based on legal-whuffo news reports. Now if you preemptively deem that to be a cop out,that's just too bad.

I agree on that. Except this crowd won't ever get the full evidence that a real juror will.

However, it's an interesting poll in that we can see how the media spin on it is being taken by the average guy. Seems that posters here are pretty suspicious of the PR out there.

>>With all the motions that will be, "motioned", the Jury will not get all the "real" evidence either.

I'm guessing you're referring to motions to exclude evidence. I frankly doubt there will be much truly relevant evidence excluded. There will be fights over admitting or excluding "past history" evidence showing that each person was a bad guy. If I was the judge, I'd exclude most if not all of that stuff.

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

This is absolutely the wrong time to ask this; and you're also basing it on the wrong factors. The right time is at the end of trial, after all the evidence is in, not before the trial, based on legal-whuffo news reports. Now if you preemptively deem that to be a cop out,that's just too bad.

So did you vote?

[Andy9o8 2]

Nope.

[normiss 801]

I expect the state to try and use Mr. Martin's girlfriend in re: her phone call with Mr. Martin.

I don't expect her to be able to say much in testimony outside of confirming the call and what SHE said.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Andy,

Re: "Ma'am, do you have any online screennames?"

"Shotgun"

Or this:

"Sir, do you have any online screennames?"

"JohnRich"

" Thank you. You're excused."



JerryBaumchen

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

That's easy. Not guilty.

2nd degree murder requires proof of intent to kill.

The jury (which does not yet exist) might conclude that he did, from the totality of the evidence admitted at trial (which has not yet occurred).

But in any event, your definition of 2nd degree murder under Florida law is not correct. It does not require an actual intent to kill.

To convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The victim is dead;
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

That state of mind is slightly less than an actual "intent to kill". In practical effect, in Florida, a person can be convicted of 2nd degree murder even if he did not specifically intend to kill anyone.


As an aside, generally speaking, although there is a great deal of consistency of definitions in criminal laws from state to state these days, there are still some variances from one state to another.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'd lump "intent to kill" in with number three on your list. As a non-legal educated mind that is. Which is what will be sitting on!the GZ jury..

The definition of 2nd degree murder will be slowly and carefully read to the jury by the judge, possibly more than once, at the end of the trial before the jury retires to deliberate. If they ask for clarification during deliberations, he will do so again. After that, it's up to them.

Now suppose the jury asks the judge: "is intent to kill required to convict of 2nd degree murder?" Some judges would simply repeat the definition of 2nd degree murder and instruct the jury to focus on that definition. Other judges might answer "No". However, I don't think any Florida judge, if he's answering correctly, would answer "Yes".

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm calling this now and we'll circle back to this a tear from now. This will be a repeat of Rodney King. The state will pursue elevated charges that they can't prove, the verdict will be NG, and there will be massive public backlash..

I'd say there's a pretty fair chance of just that.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I certainly hope not on the "public backlash" (i.e. Riots) but I dint want someone going to prison for a political reason either. But, if that does happen, and they do "backlash", here's hoping they burn their own neighborhoods first.

So if he's found guilty a lot of trendy 4-bedroom homes in gated communities will go up in flames?

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

.

Involuntary manslaughter, however, would be pretty much a slam dunk.

I agree fully. 2nd degree murder seems like a stretch. I think they have a much better chance of getting a conviction for I.M. If only prosecutors would take politics out of the criminal courtroom.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban