• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

if you were zimmerman's attorney, would you have him testify?

I think GZ will want to testify. There is no way to know if he should or should not until the prosecution rests its case. Then and only then can a skilled attorney try to size up the risks of putting his client on the stand.

If GZ was rich, such as the OJ case, a specialist would be a spectator solely to watch the jurors reactions to make risk analysis. Then, with it all, after the prosecution rests the decision is made whether to put the defendant on the stand or not - and what issues to pursue, to derail or ignore depending on each juror's actions. However, GZ isn't rich and most of what was contributed was taken away. There is no way to answer the OP question until the prosecution rests its case in the trial.
 
Last edited:
That's not really accurate and he has told his story in many, many recorded and videoed interviews with the police.

Good Luck with that. It is really stupid to think that not testifying in a sensational trial with an affirmative defense that the jury is not going to think you have something to hide or you were lying if you do not take the stand IMO. It does not matter what the jury is instructed, it is a bad move. The reason lawyers do not want to is because they do not want open their client up to impeachment. The prosecution could just present evidence that Martin was shot, Zimmerman admitted to doing it to the responding officer, and Martin died. That is the only burden they have to carry which can be done without the videos. What would Zimmerman's lawyers do then if the prosecution does not put the videos into evidence? Getting their evidence in on your behalf is not always the easiest thing to do in some courts.
 
It's much more than that. It's the trial case for the Stand Your Ground Law. This was a clear case of stalking and no, there is no way I'd have Zimmerman on the stand.

No it's not a clear case of stalking. It has nothing at all to do with being stalked. To be stalking there has to be repeated attempts at following the subject. This was not the case.

You mite want to look up the law before assuming.
 
Good Luck with that. It is really stupid to think that not testifying in a sensational trial with an affirmative defense that the jury is not going to think you have something to hide or you were lying if you do not take the stand IMO. It does not matter what the jury is instructed, it is a bad move. The reason lawyers do not want to is because they do not want open their client up to impeachment. The prosecution could just present evidence that Martin was shot, Zimmerman admitted to doing it to the responding officer, and Martin died. That is the only burden they have to carry which can be done without the videos. What would Zimmerman's lawyers do then if the prosecution does not put the videos into evidence? Getting their evidence in on your behalf is not always the easiest thing to do in some courts.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defense. All the defense has to do is provide a reason for reasonable doubt. So there is nothing stupid about not putting Zimmerman on the stand. As it stands from what we the public know, there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt already. You only need 1 person on the jury to disagree and you have a hung jury.

So with the limited information we have. I see absolutely no reason to put Zimmerman on the stand.
 
The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defense. All the defense has to do is provide a reason for reasonable doubt. So there is nothing stupid about not putting Zimmerman on the stand. As it stands from what we the public know, there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt already. You only need 1 person on the jury to disagree and you have a hung jury.

So with the limited information we have. I see absolutely no reason to put Zimmerman on the stand.

Zimmerman pulled the trigger--Martin died. What do you think the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond that in their case in chief? They have no duty to refute defenses not offered. They have no obligation to put forth all the evidence they have against Zimmerman to the jury. Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died. That's it. It then becomes the burden of the defense to create that affirmative defense. I am not sure how you come to believe that the public knows a lot but also has limited information, but we disagree and that is fine. If I were sitting on that jury and the prosecution proved that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died as a result, nothing short of a surveillance video or Zimmerman's testimony would sway me. The battle of voice analysts and ballistics experts about angles and distance would not matter to me. If the defense is he was being attacked, then Zimmerman would need to say in person to me as a juror "I was being attacked and feared for my life".
 
Zimmerman pulled the trigger--Martin died. What do you think the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond that in their case in chief? They have no duty to refute defenses not offered. They have no obligation to put forth all the evidence they have against Zimmerman to the jury. Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died. That's it. It then becomes the burden of the defense to create that affirmative defense. I am not sure how you come to believe that the public knows a lot but also has limited information, but we disagree and that is fine. If I were sitting on that jury and the prosecution proved that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died as a result, nothing short of a surveillance video or Zimmerman's testimony would sway me. The battle of voice analysts and ballistics experts about angles and distance would not matter to me. If the defense is he was being attacked, then Zimmerman would need to say in person to me as a juror "I was being attacked and feared for my life".

All that means if in potential juror questioning you would be stuck for cause - and that would be that.

However, since the tapes of GZ telling his side to the police are evidence, that does tell his side. If the prosecution puts into evidence GZ saying he shot TM, then EVERYTHING GZ said goes into evidence.
 
Zimmerman pulled the trigger--Martin died. What do you think the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond that in their case in chief?

Murder 2. An intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

If you do not even understand the basic concept of law. Why am I talking to you?

They have no duty to refute defenses not offered.

Zimmerman's Lawyers have offered a defense, Where have you been hiding? The state has to prove Zimmerman was being reckless and did intentionally kill Martin in other than self defense.

They have no obligation to put forth all the evidence they have against Zimmerman to the jury. Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died. That's it. It then becomes the burden of the defense to create that affirmative defense. I am not sure how you come to believe that the public knows a lot but also has limited information, but we disagree and that is fine. If I were sitting on that jury and the prosecution proved that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and Martin died as a result, nothing short of a surveillance video or Zimmerman's testimony would sway me. The battle of voice analysts and ballistics experts about angles and distance would not matter to me. If the defense is he was being attacked, then Zimmerman would need to say in person to me as a juror "I was being attacked and feared for my life".

The rest of this is just opinion that is not based on anything even close to reality in the courtroom. I mean hell I was a cop, what the hell do I know? :roll:
 
Murder 2. An intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

If you do not even understand the basic concept of law. Why am I talking to you?



Zimmerman's Lawyers have offered a defense, Where have you been hiding? The state has to prove Zimmerman was being reckless and did intentionally kill Martin in other than self defense.



The rest of this is just opinion that is not based on anything even close to reality in the courtroom. I mean hell I was a cop, what the hell do I know? :roll:

actually, i believe he is anticipating a possible strategy of the prosecution, to put into evidence as little as possible that benefits zimmerman. which means they would present the weapon, the autopsy report showing cause of death to be zimmerman's weapon and would assert that zimmerman acknowledged he shot martin
that way they would hit the ball back into zimmerman's court, requiring his defense to have to demonstrate self defense to the jurors
 
All that means if in potential juror questioning you would be stuck for cause - and that would be that.

However, since the tapes of GZ telling his side to the police are evidence, that does tell his side. If the prosecution puts into evidence GZ saying he shot TM, then EVERYTHING GZ said goes into evidence.

What would be the cause? Just because I believe that people should be required to do their job is hardly cause. In what courtroom ever have they ever asked in voire dire, "If the prosecution proves that my client killed somebody, would you still find him guilty if my client refuses to testify and just assume everything everybody says good about him is true and everything the prosecution says is bad about him is true?" I am not saying Zimmerman shouldn't win based on the reports I have seen, just that it is a huge roll of the dice and bigger than most think to not have your client testify in an affirmative defense.
 
actually, i believe he is anticipating a possible strategy of the prosecution, to put into evidence as little as possible that benefits zimmerman. which means they would present the weapon, the autopsy report showing cause of death to be zimmerman's weapon and would assert that zimmerman acknowledged he shot martin
that way they would hit the ball back into zimmerman's court, requiring his defense to have to demonstrate self defense to the jurors

Which is exactly what I am saying. Just because Nancy Grace may have shown a video, the prosecution does not have to introduce it. They have to establish a prima facie case for murder. The intent is presumed in the act. The prosecution rests; the defense moves to strike; the Judge says no they have met their burden to go forward, and then everything is in the defenses' court to prove or disprove. Unless the defendant refuses of his own accord to testify, then the lawyers may have a tough time getting things in that the prosecution did not put in unless FL, unlike most states, will allow hearsay that isn't an excited utterances, statements against interest, etc. If the defense does put those things in, then it all comes in for the prosecution too and the defense has cut off possible arguments on appeal in the case of a conviction because they were the ones who opened the door to it, not the prosecution.
 
actually, i believe he is anticipating a possible strategy of the prosecution, to put into evidence as little as possible that benefits zimmerman. which means they would present the weapon, the autopsy report showing cause of death to be zimmerman's weapon and would assert that zimmerman acknowledged he shot martin
that way they would hit the ball back into zimmerman's court, requiring his defense to have to demonstrate self defense to the jurors

That does not prove murder 2, nor does it erase reasonable doubt. So that would in all honesty be ridicules at best.

Just because someone was killed does not prove anything other than someone was killed, period. If I was a defense attorney, I would love for the state to try something that ridicules.
 
t
actually, i believe he is anticipating a possible strategy of the prosecution, to put into evidence as little as possible that benefits zimmerman. which means they would present the weapon, the autopsy report showing cause of death to be zimmerman's weapon and would assert that zimmerman acknowledged he shot martin
that way they would hit the ball back into zimmerman's court, requiring his defense to have to demonstrate self defense to the jurors

Its too late for that. There are too many ways the defense can backdoor in the tapes of Zimmerman talking.
 
Facts do trouble you so. It is irrefutable fact that no Grand Jury was allowed to hear. It is irrefutable fact that the Chief of Police was fired and lead investigator demoted for refusing to support prosecution.

It is irrefutable fact GZ shot and killed TM. Kind of easy to throw out facts with no context. Why are we here again...oh right joko:spin:
 
It is irrefutable fact GZ shot and killed TM. Kind of easy to throw out facts with no context. Why are we here again...oh right joko:spin:

So many times on these threads people search desperately for some diversion to the topic, then hysterically laugh at or boast of their success. You message is a 100% fail. There is exactly no one disputing that GZ shot and killed TM.

That has nothing to do with that the prosecutor refused to allow a Grand Jury to evaluate this, hear any witnesses, question any witnesses or to hear and question GZ. It does not change that the Chief of Police was fired and lead investigator (saying he saw no case against GZ) being demoted.

Do you even remember what this thread is about?:roll:
 
Last edited:
It is irrefutable fact GZ shot and killed TM. Kind of easy to throw out facts with no context. Why are we here again...oh right joko:spin:

Your correct about context. Both sides are doing it.
Yes GZ shot TM. What is in question is why?
 
t

Its too late for that. There are too many ways the defense can backdoor in the tapes of Zimmerman talking.

Which totally disregards that the defense will have just deep-sixed its own appeal if they do and he is convicted. The same jurors can presume X based on the totality of the evidence, means they can also presume Y which may not be in your client's favor. Would you be willing not to testify if you knew that it might cost you an appeal argument if you are convicted knowing that the prosecution can now cherry pick its way through the videos and only show the parts they want the jury to see because your lawyer opened that door for them?
 
So many times on these threads people search desperately for some diversion to the topic, then hysterically laugh at or boast of their success. You message is a 100% fail. There is exactly no one disputing that GZ shot and killed TM.

That has nothing to do with that the prosecutor refused to allow a Grand Jury to evaluate this, hear any witnesses, question any witnesses or to hear and question GZ. It does not change that the Chief of Police was fired and lead investigator (saying he say no case against GZ) being demoted.

Do you even remember what this thread is about?:roll:

I used it as an example of a fact with no context...:roll:
 
Which totally disregards that the defense will have just deep-sixed its own appeal if they do and he is convicted. The same jurors can presume X based on the totality of the evidence, means they can also presume Y which may not be in your client's favor. Would you be willing not to testify if you knew that it might cost you an appeal argument if you are convicted knowing that the prosecution can now cherry pick its way through the videos and only show the parts they want the jury to see because your lawyer opened that door for them?

What I said is that the prosecution can not cherry pick thru the videos legitimately. Virtually off of them have to go into evidence.
 
I used it as an example of a fact with no context...:roll:


The context was clear. This is a highly political case because of the unique aspect of politicians including the President, two previous Democratic presidential candidates (African-American Democrats) and the previous Florida governor all injecting themselves into it. This included calls for riots if GZ was not immediately arrested.

The only way to immediately arrest him was to bypass the Grand Jury process and the only possible way to get a warrant was to have some officer willing to sign one - which none would do until the Chief was fired and the lead investigator demoted for not doing so. That is the politics and that is the importance of the case.

The TOPIC is why is this case so vastly important - more important even than the mass murderer cases - in terms of volume and endurance of interest in it. The politicians created the interest. Because the politicians created extremes of how it is done in the middle of presidential and state election politics - thus artificially creating the interests - and thus by the extremes of how it done also created the backwash.

Police corruption, ineptness etc (as GZ-haters claim) is not unique. Murders happen every day. Racial killings happen often. The difference is in this case, the president, National level and top state level politicians involving in a shooting is - as is firing/demoting officers and bypassing the grand jury to get someone arrested ASAP beyond both the initial prosecutor and police investigators opposition.

If a grand jury had indicted GZ upon witnesses and evidence there would not be nearly as much opposition to this going to trial as that's how it is SUPPOSED to work - including as a guarentee in the US Constitutions' Bill of Rights that assures no one can be prosecuted for an infamous crime (such as murder) unless FIRST indicted by a Grand Jury - to INSURE the government can NEVER do to GZ exactly what it has done - put someone on trial for murder without a panel of citizens first agreeing there is good reason to do so. The "founding fathers" did not trust government having total power to just throw someone in jail charged with murder unless private citizens of the community first agreed. That core civil right guarenteed in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights was trashed totally and his arrest 100% an internal government decision.

(But, then, Shiek has stressed thousands of times that George Zimmerman isn't a white American like he is as what is most important, just a Hispanic anyway.)
 
Last edited:
What I said is that the prosecution can not cherry pick thru the videos legitimately. Virtually off of them have to go into evidence.

Why must they? If the prosecution were to not introduce them and the defense were to not introduce them they they would not have to put into evidence. If the prosecution does not and the defense does, then the defense has cut off some objections it could make at trial and some grounds of appeals it could mount on any conviction. To me that is an unnecessary risk when you have an affirmative defense. Suppose a different situation--your client is accused of robbing somebody based off a bystander recognizing them. A witness then comes forward that says she saw your client at the mall and talked to them for a period of time which was the same time that the robbery was committed. Would you want the fate of your client decided upon who the jury believes is telling the truth between the two, or would you want your client to testify affirmatively "I was at the mall"? Do you not think it reasonable that your client's refusal to testify could be interpreted as evidence that your witness was maybe lying for a friend and therefore your client is guilty when you client may have been at the mall and the witness just misidentified them?
 
Why must they? If the prosecution were to not introduce them and the defense were to not introduce them they they would not have to put into evidence. If the prosecution does not and the defense does, then the defense has cut off some objections it could make at trial and some grounds of appeals it could mount on any conviction. To me that is an unnecessary risk when you have an affirmative defense.

Suppose a different situation--your client is accused of robbing somebody based off a bystander recognizing them. A witness then comes forward that says she saw your client at the mall and talked to them for a period of time which was the same time that the robbery was committed. Would you want the fate of your client decided upon who the jury believes is telling the truth between the two, or would you want your client to testify affirmatively "I was at the mall"? Do you not think it reasonable that your client's refusal to testify could be interpreted as evidence that your witness was maybe lying for a friend and therefore your client is guilty when you client may have been at the mall and the witness just misidentified them?

Two entirely different sets of questions.
You are correct the defense can not object to evidence it offers generally. The defense COULD object to a tape, but then if the prosecution cherry picks it object to it not all being shown - without thereby waiving the initial objection to the tape or tapes themselves. The reality is the prosecution is going to put on the tape(s) of GZ acknowledging his shooting TM - and ultimately will try to use various inconsistencies among all the tapes to impeach GZ.

GZ's case is different in that it is very rare to have SO much footage of a Defendant telling his side - to the police, on video, in police interrogations and even to the media.

As for your second question? Whether a defendant goes on the stand or not is very complex given how truly bizarre the US legal system is in allowing attorneys on both sides to make any accusations, essentially state any lies in the form of a question, and overall abuse and harass the hell out of a witness - with it so strictly held to Q&A on behalf of the legaleze of the lawyers as if it all only exists for them that most judges will rage at a witness or defendant on the stand trying to tell their side outright.

The other problem is the EXTREME imbalance between prosecution and defense - favoring prosecution. The prosecution is on record of wanting to put witnesses negative to GZ's character on the stand. Yet if so, 100% of anyone who ever heard or saw GZ do anything in his life should also be witnesses for the defense. If ONE witness of the prosecution testified that GZ used a racial slur, the defense should be able to put on 1,000 people to testify that they never heard him do so. If one woman testifies he was abusing, any woman he ever dated should be then testifying also whether or not he was. Of course, only the very wealthy can put up an equal fight - particularly since in this case the prosecution had and essentially has unlimited budget and staff - and GZ is just a poor below average intelligence ordinary person.

Whether or not to put a defendant on the stand is likely often a very difficult question.

Since I do not agree to many of the tenants jurors have to swear they would follow, I will never be on a jury. I would absolutely willing to totally disregard any law I felt wrong or wrongly being applied nor care how a judge told me to consider the case. I think the core purpose of a jury originally was to be a check against government excesses or injustices - not the employees of the government court as jurors are now required to swear they will be.

I also have VERY strong views about violent conflicts between men. If both proactively got into it - and both TM and GZ did - however it ends is however it ends. To often trials get into unreal and contrary to human nature trying to micro analyse what happened to some standards of perfection, rather than the extremely limited intelligence, intensely emotionals and highly instinctive natures humans really are.

FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS...
If it happened this way coming from TM's perspective, if some guy was coming threateningly and I saw he had a gun and was going for it, I absolutely would beat that person into the ground regardless of what or who "started it" (and in all likelihood could given all the men I did beat into the ground in the past).
OR, from GZ's perspective, if it were to happen that some guy got me on the ground and was beating the crap out of me, again regardless of who or what started it, if I had a gun or could get my hand on one I would definitely shoot that person.
Therefore, once the forensics showed the shot fired at essentially point-blank range (wasn't a distance execution or shooting while TM fled), I'm ok with what happens as just what happens between men/males who get into a violent conflict they both walked into. If, instead, it was GZ dead, my opinion would be exactly the same.

I've seen so many truly innocent people hurt during my early life nor did anyone ever feel sorry for me or come to my rescue, that ever since if two fools or aggressive acting men/males get into a violent conflict then however it turns out is however it turns out. Don't go crying to the government, cops and taxpayers to do anything about how it turned out. BOTH TM and GZ 100% could have avoided this. They didn't. They BOTH walked right into it.

So... asking what I think maybe will not produce "normal" answers.
 
Last edited:
Well part of my thinking when I lept into this hornet's nest was to emphasize that prosecutors usually have a much less burden of proof than people think and jurors may have an even lower burden of proof that they want met from prosecutors. In this case the jurors may very well hold prosecutors to a higher standard than the law because there won't be a juror sitting there not thinking, "If we find him guilty, will there be riots?"

On a day to day basis, people go to jail/prison on some pretty flimsy evidence. They may very well have been guilty mind you, but it is a dangerous practice for society to short-cut through these things. I do believe that poor, less attractive, or minority defendants don't get quite the same level of presumption of innocence as pretty, white, or rich folks. Just the way I see it.
 
Well part of my thinking when I lept into this hornet's nest was to emphasize that prosecutors usually have a much less burden of proof than people think and jurors may have an even lower burden of proof that they want met from prosecutors. In this case the jurors may very well hold prosecutors to a higher standard than the law because there won't be a juror sitting there not thinking, "If we find him guilty, will there be riots?"

On a day to day basis, people go to jail/prison on some pretty flimsy evidence. They may very well have been guilty mind you, but it is a dangerous practice for society to short-cut through these things. I do believe that poor, less attractive, or minority defendants don't get quite the same level of presumption of innocence as pretty, white, or rich folks. Just the way I see it.

I think everything you wrote is accurate - unfortunately.

This is not what trials used to be. Basically each person told the jury what they know very directly and maybe the defendant spoke or not - and the jury decided. There actually is NO rule in most states against jurors asking questions - rather it is just a made up rule somewhere along the way.
 
Back
Top Bottom