or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 263

post #3931 of 6250
Here's my logic: the entire case hinges on the SD claim. If you don't buy the SD claim, then there's really no reason to ask. Without SD it's a clear homicide. But someone might have the idea, not an entirely novel one, that Zimmerman might have committed a crime by approaching Trayvon. it's not an unreasonable one. So they ask, "does this fall into the definition of manslaughter." It doesn't, but the judge isn't going to say that.

Pure speculation, of course. That's just my first thought.
post #3932 of 6250
It will be interesting to hear what the jurors have to say about how they came to their conclusion and how much fidelity their decision has to the applicable law.
post #3933 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't know for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a juror's question about the law or the facts of the case answered with anything other than "You have all the instructions you will get. Please continue your deliberations."

Thanks, that makes sense.

But have you ever seen a Judge force a defendant to declare that they would not testify before the defense case in chief, was over?
post #3934 of 6250
How does z's legal team get paid?
post #3935 of 6250
Not like that, no.

Here is an interesting perspective: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/13/182758/285/crimenews/Zimmerman-Jury-Has-Question-on-Manslaughter
Quote:
If the jurors are following instructions, it means they have rejected Murder 2 because the instructions tell them not to consider manslaughter unless they have rejected Murder 2.

...

The talking heads are wrong that the question means they have rejected self-defense. That's one possibility. But they also may have rejected Murder 2 on the state of mind element alone, without having to reach self-defense. If so, they would move on to a consideration of manslaughter before getting to self-defense. [More...]

Just because O’Mara told them to work on self-defense first, they aren't bound by what he tells them. The way the instructions are written, the jury may think it first should decide whether the elements of Murder 2 or Manslaughter were met before moving to self-defense.

Because if they have rejected both murder and self-defense, could they really have a question about manslaughter?
post #3936 of 6250
This is the actual question:

“May we please have clarification on instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Ugh.
post #3937 of 6250
OK I think these bishes are just fucking with us. Well played, jury. Well played.
post #3938 of 6250
The talking heads on CNN think this is a sign the majority is going murder 2 and there are one or two holdouts for manslaughter.
post #3939 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

This is the actual question:

“May we please have clarification on instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Ugh.
Quote:
Nelson said the answer sent back to the jury will say the court can not engage in a general discussion about the manslaughter instructor, but if they have a specific question they should ask it.
post #3940 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

The talking heads on CNN think this is a sign the majority is going murder 2 and there are one or two holdouts for manslaughter.

Would that be some THs like Sunny Hostin and Piers Morgan.

They are in the camp that thinks Z was a racist mad-dog wanna be cop that murdered the boy in cold blood and was lucky to only be charged with M2 instead of M1 ( though they think Z should be executed probably ).
post #3941 of 6250
So the answer was "If you have a specific question, ask it."?
post #3942 of 6250
If even one person was firmly convinced that he acted in self defense, why would they waste time asking for clarification on manslaughter? I guess that potential juror could just not want to reveal the fact that they're ruling in Zimmerman's favor no matter what, and pretend as though they're going to give manslaughter consideration.
post #3943 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

If even one person was firmly convinced that he acted in self defense, why would they waste time asking for clarification on manslaughter? I guess that potential juror could just not want to reveal the fact that they're ruling in Zimmerman's favor no matter what, and pretend as though they're going to give manslaughter consideration.

They might do this to appear to be doing a thorough and conscientious job, even if the 6 are already decided for manslaughter.

Right now, time is Z's best friend. If they deliberate through the weekend and into Monday, I see a chance for a hung jury or even an acquittal.

If there is a verdict this weekend ( and I think they will choose to deliberate Sunday if needed ), then Z will be convicted of Manslaughter.
post #3944 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Apparently the jury has asked for some input on what manslaughter is. Zimmerman is getting 30 years.

edit, never mind, found the jury instructions online.
post #3945 of 6250
Are certain foods banned from the dinner list? For example, it seems that burritos and fried chicken could possibly lead to a bias. If I were the judge I'd demand they're served falafel, hummus or kabobs, because even pizza might swing things one way or another.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon