Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...

[Lucky]

Let's be totally honest here...a defense lawyer, ANY lawyer, is not going to put his client on the stand if there's any way to avoid it. It opens up too many avenues for the prosecution to discredit his case, and in some cases, his person. I would guess that of all the trials that you've adjudicated, less than 10 percent of the accused testified in their own behalf...it's just done that rarely. And when it is done, it's generally as a last resort. Zimmerman not taking the stand was the norm, not the exception.

Being totally honest as you requested...most defense lawyers don't want to put their clients on the stand, but a much larger percentage of the accused do testify. One reason is that they want to. I've seen many, many defendants testify against the advice of counsel. A lot of these guys convince themselves before court that they are actually innocent, while the lawyers know they have no business on the stand.

Some defendants wind up testifying when they are convinced the trial is going badly.

Here's a pretty interesting article on some of the issues. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...ontext=facpubs

Another tidbit...there's a Cornell study which showed that 60% of defendants without prior criminal records testified, while 45% of those with prior records testified.

[Lucky]

Just out of curiosity, what factors made you estimate such a low percentage? Has that been your experience or observation? Perhaps different areas have different statistics.

[umjewman]

My favorite article on the Zimmerman trial:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/zimmerman-found-not-guilty-technically-but-cmon,33124/

[gcstomp]

We have firmed up opinions for sure, is country evenly split on issue of not guilt per law, but of right/wrongness of GZ? GZ drove around as a pseudo lawman, a self appointed authority for as close to the position he wanted in life, a real cop. But he had not the training, nor the makeup per his prior issues, and probably not the mental hard drive needed to hold such authority. Nevertheless, he had his legally obtained firearm on his person, locked and loaded per the unlikely event he encountered an issue.

Is GZ someone you would feel great about driving around at night in your area, with a weapon at the ready, solo patrolling, ready to junp out of his car to better gauge the direction of his elusive prey? GZ thought process was TM looked suspicious, he wanted to keep an eye on him, he is following him in car until poof, TM is out of sight. GZ and his mighty mouse soundtrack playing in his head pops out of his car for a looksy. And is how can we phrase it so TM looks most in the wrong, blindsided, jumped, ambushed, by TM.

What was the TM story that night? A teenager with no history of burglaries, 3 weeks past his 17th birthday, returning from the store with his snacks. Does it seem reasonable to think TM was returning home from the store and he was ready and looking for a victim to out of the blue bash someones head in on concrete with intent to kill, for no particular reason other than tonight was the night? Or wasnt it more likely TM felt vulnerable, scared, he was being watched and followed, he expressed this clearly to the person he was on the cell with 2 minutes prior to the deadly event. A 17 year old does not have great judgement, and fight or flight was at play. TM maybe hid behind a tree and jumped out at his pursuer to lay down a beating on GZ, who at that point had stepped out of his car that he was using to follow TM, stepped out when he lost sight to as this thread has worded it, see where TM had gone, get better street sign directions to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person.

I know I was an angry youth, 17, I had a number of fights for reasons that at this point in my life seem absolutely absurd. If we assign deadly intent to TM, something that I feel is far fetched then all is great with the world. It is not unusual for a troubled 17 year old urban male to get into a scuffle but to decide that on this night TM was to become a murderer when he felt menaced is to me far fetched.

In any case, I do not feel great that GZ was out patrolling solo with a loaded weapon, that he felt it was proper to get out of his vehicle to get better directions to his suspicious person that he lost sight of in his pursuit. I do not feel great that it took 44 days to charge GZ with anything, and that only came about because of an unprecedented public uproar. I do not feel great that any possible trace of physical evidence that prosecution would have pursued had long since faded away. Yes, without evidence gathered in a very timely manner, of course it would be near impossible to convict.

Yes, the GZ verdict of not guilty was correct, it was a hard case. But there is nothing to celebrate here.

[Cobain's Ghost]

i don't think any reasonable person believes what george zimmermen did was good or defensible. his judgment was terrible - he has no business "watching" anybody.

on a happier note, the race riots we were promised never came to pass. that was heartening. maybe we've turned a corner there?

[Fresno Bob]

i don't think any reasonable person believes what george zimmermen did was good or defensible. his judgment was terrible - he has no business "watching" anybody.

on a happier note, the race riots we were promised never came to pass. that was heartening. maybe we've turned a corner there?

downtown Oakland got thrashed, but that happens generally off any excuse, mostly by outside assholes looking to thrash

[chancellor]

Is GZ someone you would feel great about driving around at night in your area, with a weapon at the ready, solo patrolling, ready to junp out of his car to better gauge the direction of his elusive prey?

No. But so what?

GZ thought process was TM looked suspicious, he wanted to keep an eye on him, he is following him in car until poof, TM is out of sight. GZ and his mighty mouse soundtrack playing in his head pops out of his car for a looksy.

And GZ has done absolutely nothing wrong, nothing immoral here.

What was the TM story that night? A teenager with no history of burglaries, 3 weeks past his 17th birthday, returning from the store with his snacks.

Factually incorrect. TM DID have a history of theft. But you know what, it doesn't matter.

Does it seem reasonable to think TM was returning home from the store and he was ready and looking for a victim to out of the blue bash someones head in on concrete with intent to kill, for no particular reason other than tonight was the night? Or wasnt it more likely TM felt vulnerable, scared, he was being watched and followed, he expressed this clearly to the person he was on the cell with 2 minutes prior to the deadly event.

Well, given that Trayvon's the one who engaged in racial profiling, as evidenced by the testimony that he used a racial epithet to describe GZ, I'd say that's speculative at best. But, let's proceed down the path that he wasn't looking for a fight and move on...

A 17 year old does not have great judgement, and fight or flight was at play. TM maybe hid behind a tree and jumped out at his pursuer to lay down a beating on GZ, who at that point had stepped out of his car that he was using to follow TM, stepped out when he lost sight to as this thread has worded it, see where TM had gone, get better street sign directions to report the whereabouts of the suspicious person.

I know I was an angry youth, 17, I had a number of fights for reasons that at this point in my life seem absolutely absurd. If we assign deadly intent to TM, something that I feel is far fetched then all is great with the world. It is not unusual for a troubled 17 year old urban male to get into a scuffle but to decide that on this night TM was to become a murderer when he felt menaced is to me far fetched.

Wow...just frigging wow. You're telling me that a 17 year old should feel justified to attack an adult who hasn't accosted him, is likely from the neighborhood he's walking through, and is a significant distance away...and, to his knowledge, is unarmed. And then, he should beat the tar out of him and START BASHING HIS HEAD INTO THE CONCRETE, but we shouldn't assume any malign intent. He just used bad judgement.

Really? This is normal and acceptable to you and just an example of bad judgement?

[gcstomp]

Wow...just frigging wow. You're telling me that a 17 year old should feel justified to attack an adult who hasn't accosted him, is likely from the neighborhood he's walking through, and is a significant distance away...and, to his knowledge, is unarmed. And then, he should beat the tar out of him and START BASHING HIS HEAD INTO THE CONCRETE, but we shouldn't assume any malign intent. He just used bad judgement.

Really? This is normal and acceptable to you and just an example of bad judgement?

Nope, not saying that at all. What I wrote was clear. And to answer Cobains Ghost that "i don't think any reasonable person believes what george zimmermen did was good or defensible. his judgment was terrible - he has no business "watching" anybody." here is Chance with a take that is bewildering to many of us. Attributing a scenario played out by TM that strains any sort of rational credibility. Every word I wrote to me seems reasonable, and step by step every part of it is misconstrued, whether it intentional or not to fit a storyline.

[Hornsby]

Just out of curiosity, what factors made you estimate such a low percentage? Has that been your experience or observation? Perhaps different areas have different statistics.

I've covered a lot of trials in my 35+ years in the business, and I can literally count on one hand the cases where a defendant has testified. It's rarely done in Minnesota, lawyers here seem to be almost unanimous in their desire to keep their clients off the stand and away from any possibility of the prosecution getting a chance to attack their story. They only seem to put their clients on the stand as a last resort, every other avenue would have to have been exhausted for them to expose their clients. Not to mention that putting a defendant on the stand opens the door to prior criminal history. Even if it's brought up and overruled, something once heard can never be unheard.

[Lucky]

I've covered a lot of trials in my 35+ years in the business, and I can literally count on one hand the cases where a defendant has testified. It's rarely done in Minnesota, lawyers here seem to be almost unanimous in their desire to keep their clients off the stand and away from any possibility of the prosecution getting a chance to attack their story. They only seem to put their clients on the stand as a last resort, every other avenue would have to have been exhausted for them to expose their clients. Not to mention that putting a defendant on the stand opens the door to prior criminal history. Even if it's brought up and overruled, something once heard can never be unheard.

Very interesting. I would guess that the average Minnesota jury would be more intelligent and sophisticated than in some places I've been. I wonder if that has something to do with it...the lawyers being more comfortable that the jury won't hold it against their client if he doesn't testify.

There are so many variables when you talk about different parts of the country. What kind of cases wind up going to trial, how well the police have documented their cases, local rules of criminal procedure, quality of defendant, quality of lawyers, public defenders vs. private counsel, etc. Around here, juries seem to be very tough in drug cases, less so in others.

Arkansas, like many places, has bifurcated trials. If the defendant is found guilty, there is a second hearing on the penalty. That penalty phase is generally where the evidence of prior criminal conduct comes in. And defendants testify in the penalty phase almost always, asking for lenience, etc. I like bifurcation. Guilt/innocence should be a separate issue from penalty.

[chancellor]

[Nope, not saying that at all. What I wrote was clear..

No, it isn't then. You appeared to be clearly rationalizing TM attacking GZ, referencing your youth. So, I'll ask directly: do you consider it acceptable for a 17 year old male to attack an adult because he feels "menaced"?

Per Cobain's note, I disagreed but decided not to reply. GZ has as much right to keep an eye on a stranger in his neighborhood as the stranger does walking through.

[Judge Jude]

Obama now talking about this Martin saga - release the hounds!

[gcstomp]

Very surprised to see POTUS commenting again on this case. And choosing such personal words, comparing TM to himself 35 years ago, comparing how a black person encounters the tensed up reactions, car doors locking as they walk by, purses clutched tight when in an elevator, and the watchful eyes and following around by security when shopping in a store.

Obama displaying empathy, and probably speaking against advice of some in his circle. Sure as the country is very divided on this case, with every word about it being debated, his commenting in this particular way will piss off that segment who in their minds eye see this thru such different lense.

[TopChuckie]

Very surprised to see POTUS commenting again on this case. And choosing such personal words, comparing TM to himself 35 years ago, comparing how a black person encounters the tensed up reactions, car doors locking as they walk by, purses clutched tight when in an elevator, and the watchful eyes and following around by security when shopping in a store.

Obama displaying empathy, and probably speaking against advice of some in his circle. Sure as the country is very divided on this case, with every word about it being debated, his commenting in this particular way will piss off that segment who in their minds eye see this thru such different lense.

Did Obama ever punch that lady on the elevator in the face?

[gcstomp]

TopChuckie, really, Obama addressing this here is what you get from this? Why be proactively disgusting, we get you have a cement solid movie in your head of the actions that happened that fateful night, shaped by how every word has been filtered by your head, shaped by how your every day from birth till now has formed how your thoughts are processed. But snippy wise cracks to diminish the presidents words on this, to what end?