Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think its a matter of bowing to public pressure so much as a matter of being in the hands of someone outside of the department thats actually aware of how the law works.

[draggar]

Some places allow for juries to find a defendant not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser offence, even if they weren't charged with it. I don't know if Florida is one of them.

This may be the case in Florida. When I was on jury duty the state was pressing robbery charges but we had the option to either:
- Find the defendant guilty of robbery
- Find the defendant guilty of resisting a merchant
- Find the defendant guilty of theft
- Find the defendant not guilty

From what I've learned from other people who had jury duty they had the same options.

[Andara Bledin]

I haven't confirmed it, but I read that his father is a (possibly retired?) judge. If so, then he really should be getting advice on listening to his lawyers.

From memory, his father was a judge, his mother worked for the courts, and his grandfather was a police officer.

You'd think with a pedigree like that he wouldn't be so foolish in the way he's handling himself, here.

The question for me now, since the trial has been declared, is what's going to happen to the police department that tried to ignore this?

The department is under investigation for allegations of, well, quite a number of things.

Here's yet another article at the Huffington Post.

The article includes a lot of information about other cases that have either stalled, been mis-handled, or that only moved forward due to video evidence causing public outcry. Several names come up frequently, most notably Stg Raimondo (responsible for overruling subordinates and freeing a man who was caught on camera knocking out a homeless man and then shouting racial slurs around him due to the man in question being the son of a cop) and State Attorney Wolfinger, who apparently has a history of ignoring cases involving black victims as opposed to actually doing his job and bringing indictments (a previous case had three distinct witnesses against a suspect who turned himself in the day after the shooting, but was then released without charges ever being filed).

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

This may be the case in Florida. When I was on jury duty the state was pressing robbery charges but we had the option to either:
- Find the defendant guilty of robbery
- Find the defendant guilty of resisting a merchant
- Find the defendant guilty of theft
- Find the defendant not guilty

From what I've learned from other people who had jury duty they had the same options.

From what I've read on another forum (and the one detailing it does work in criminal law no less) such options MUST be presented by either side during opening arguments or they will not be permitted to exercise the option. It's why in the Casey Anthony case the defendant was only found guilt of willfully misleading police. The Jury was not presented with the option to find her guilty of a lesser charge, so the jury was not able to do so.

[fireheart17]

The article includes a lot of information about other cases that have either stalled, been mis-handled, or that only moved forward due to video evidence causing public outcry. Several names come up frequently, most notably Stg Raimondo (responsible for overruling subordinates and freeing a man who was caught on camera knocking out a homeless man and then shouting racial slurs around him due to the man in question being the son of a cop) and State Attorney Wolfinger, who apparently has a history of ignoring cases involving black victims as opposed to actually doing his job and bringing indictments (a previous case had three distinct witnesses against a suspect who turned himself in the day after the shooting, but was then released without charges ever being filed).

^-.-^

That is somewhat startling, but unsurprising.

This may seem a bit off-topic, but it is a bit relevant. I was reading a book at uni the other day about zero tolerance policies in the US. One thing that cropped up frequently was the absolute bias shown towards black students in a lot of the zero tolerance cases. I'm referring to the school, not to the author.
There were a lot of statistics showing that black people were more likely to end up being expelled for zero-tolerance policies, which in turn breeds more crime. The shootings are occurring OUTSIDE the school doors, not in them. So this idea of a 'safe harbour' is completely stupid.

[draggar]

From what I've read on another forum (and the one detailing it does work in criminal law no less) such options MUST be presented by either side during opening arguments or they will not be permitted to exercise the option. It's why in the Casey Anthony case the defendant was only found guilt of willfully misleading police. The Jury was not presented with the option to find her guilty of a lesser charge, so the jury was not able to do so.

Thank you for clarifying that - they did present us those four options but I thought it was to educate us, not the law.

[lordlundar]

Thank you for clarifying that - they did present us those four options but I thought it was to educate us, not the law.

It follows in line with standard law. The jury can only use any information brought up in the trial itself and cannot use any outside information. Legally, if it isn't brought up in trial, it doesn't exist as far as the jury is considered.

[draggar]

It follows in line with standard law. The jury can only use any information brought up in the trial itself and cannot use any outside information. Legally, if it isn't brought up in trial, it doesn't exist as far as the jury is considered.

.. and many times the jury has to sift though tons of irrelevant information to get to what is relevant to the trial.

(Honestly, I think that's a tactic to confuse the jury).

[s_stabeler]

it is. remember, if there's reasonable doubt in the jury's mind that the person committed the offense, they must aquit. Technically, reasonable doubt because they can't remember the evidence counts.

[HYHYBT]

How reasonable is "I don't remember" when, if I understand rightly, they can look at the evidence and transcripts if they want?

[Cats]

How reasonable is "I don't remember" when, if I understand rightly, they can look at the evidence and transcripts if they want?

You understand correctly. I've served on a Federal Jury before (though at the state level), and you can have acess to all the evidence, you just have to request it (though they might restrict on what you can have at once, such as not allowing you to have a gun and bullets in the jury room at the same time). Transcripts are not as instant though, since they take time process back into good ol' English for the jury to understand.

Some judges won't allow you to get away with discussing thing related but not relevant to enough the case. The judge I had would stop the lawyers if they sidetracked too much. He was basically a "get to the damn point" kind of guy.

That's not to say that the defense won't still try to make you doubt what you're been shown or told. Testimony does still count as evidence (even though, yes, there are people who do lie under oath), so they do try to catch pepole who don't word their testimony just right so that there's no misunderstandings.

You can submit questions for clarification to the jury foreperson to be handed to the judge (like if you don't know what a certain term means), and you can take your own notes as the trial is going on.


So while you can technically confuse a jury into acquiting someone, it's hardly due to "we couldn't remember".

[Peppergirl]

Update: I'm sitting in a central fl hospital after my dads surgery and news is that Zimmerman's bond was just revoked. He has 48 hrs to turn himself in. Seems he's been hiding defense funding and the judge was unamused. I'm on my phone so tough to post links, but I'm sure there's something on www.wesh.com

[Greenday]

Update: I'm sitting in a central fl hospital after my dads surgery and news is that Zimmerman's bond was just revoked. He has 48 hrs to turn himself in. Seems he's been hiding defense funding and the judge was unamused. I'm on my phone so tough to post links, but I'm sure there's something on www.wesh.com

Yea, my mom was just telling me about it. Supposedly he's been lying about his income so bail would be lower than it should have been.

[Andara Bledin]

It's not just about the hiding of funds. It appears that he was also withholding his second valid passport.

So, the defense rightly asked that his previous bond be revoked and that a new bond hearing be set after he's turned himself in.

Reuters Article

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Update: I'm sitting in a central fl hospital after my dads surgery

I don't think there's a thread for this, so:

I'm sorry to hear he needed surgery. Hope you're doing OK. Did it go well?

As for Zimmerman: sneaky, and not at all the sort of thing that would amuse a judge. Or encourage him to grant bail at all at the new hearing; hiding a passport too strongly suggests intent to use it.