Skip to main content

View Diary: Zimmerman Jury Selection Begins (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If so, expect battle of experts. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Demeter Rising

    If that's the issue, then expect the defense to have an expert saying one thing, and the prosecution to have an expert saying the opposite. The jury will decide which expert is more persuasive.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:59:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't mean to be hounding you, but I can't (0+ / 0-)

      help but think of pictures of people in demonstrations that have had their heads smashed against the pavement. There was blood everywhere.

      Could the prosecution use pictures like these?

      Bleeding from a head wound is notoriously profuse.  The tiny little nicks produced way more blood because they were head wounds.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 10:11:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Specifics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I doubt that is something that can be answered by strangers speculating on the internet. The experts will testify about what important facts are resolved and not resolved by the evidence. There are a million possible reasons why the court might choose to allow or not allow this or that evidence. Wait and see what the witnesses to the incident say, what the expert witnesses say, what the lawyers argue. Then the judge will decide what issues are important, and what additional evidence is appropriate to clarify those issues.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:13:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It really just depends. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, stellaluna

        Gory, in-color photographs are a toss-up.  A good rule of thumb is that the proponent (the side that wants to bring the photos) has to prove some reason for bringing them other than just...gore for the sake of gore.  They have to be used to prove something that is in dispute.  Again, this is just a rough rule of thumb.  

        One compromise that courts use with some frequency is to require the photos to be black & white.  Which sounds silly, but it does make them somewhat more tolerable to look at.  

        •  I guess just being around the people is bad (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          I was called for jury duty at the end of the year. They had the whole room full of people but every trial kept settling before the jury was needed. So we sat around a lot.

          Then they started excusing people from the pool to go home. I let other people go first because my time was employer paid.

          I got to talking to a gal who said she had been on a jury for a murder trial years before and that the horror of the trial stayed with her for years and years.

          The next round when they asked if people wanted to be excused, I was the first in line.

          I was thinking the photos show the propensity of a head wound to produce more bleeding than other wounds. That is how the tiny little nicks look like his nose is coming off. A guy who suffered his head being smashed into the pavement would probably look like his head was coming off. Gore.

          give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

          by 88kathy on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've seen some pretty grisly stuff doing violent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            crimes, but the victim's families are always what gets me.  I have a strong stomach - bring on the autopsy photos, the crime scene techs, the ME, whatever.  But put a grieving husband/wife/child/mother/sibling on the stand and...well...that's the tough stuff for me.  

    •  No, jury will rely on their own sensibilities... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, libnewsie, ladybug53

      in a case like this, and focus on how Martin came to be where he was, how Zimmerman came to a situation where he so closely confronted Martin that things escalated to lethal force.  Zimmerman's going to have an impossible task to convincingly construct a scenario where a jury won't conclude that Zimmerman was the one who unnecessarily initiated an aggressively close, hostile confrontation with Martin, regardless of how the physical escalation proceeded from there.  That's exactly why the fact that Martin was in the neighborhood accompanying his father as an invited guest of a resident thereof is a crucial fact; if Martin had been a stranger to the neighborhood with no convincing business being there except potentially casing houses for burglaries, Zimmerman would have far stronger chances of getting the jury to buy that Martin was the one responsible for initiating and escalating the confrontation to the point where "stand your ground" applies.

      •  That all depends. (5+ / 0-)

        The prosecution will urge the jury to do just as you suggest.

        The defense will urge the jury to look at the fact that there's no witness about the critical aspects of those things except Zimmerman; and that if they have some reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman's account might be true, then they have to acquit. (I assume Zimmerman's testimony will set out the elements of a valid self-defense claim under Florida law.)

        It's impossible at this stage to say which way the jury will see it. Both outcomes are plausible. So much depends on whether any witness blurts out something especially stupid or saw/heard something especially probative one way or the other. Remember O.J.'s bloody glove, and "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit?" Who saw that coming, before the trial started? In live court, shit happens.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 01:13:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The OJ case was lost on prosecutorial incompetence (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, alice kleeman

          Christopher Darden should have been fired for that boneheaded move.

        •  It is not true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          libnewsie, Tonedevil

          that there are no witnesses to the critical aspects of the case. There are 5 witnesses that have GZ on top the moment or seconds after the shot was fired.

          DeeDee is an ear witness to the start of the incident. An ear witness backs up the words used according to DeeDee.

          GZ is only a witness if he gets on the stand. His statements do not fit the evidence and he changed his story everytime he told it.

          Trayvon's body was found 45 ft south from the T where GZ said Trayvon hit him to the ground.

          The trajectory of the bullet is directly front to back and not consistent with GZ being on the botom.

          46% of Seminole county voted for Obama. Not every white person there is a racist. The best the defense can get, is a hung jury.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site