Juror#8

Jury instructions direct the jury on what they should and should not consider within the context of that recently concluded proceeding. It gives them guidelines and parameters that they should adhere to. You're not an attorney and your brother, Darryl is destined to be an incompetent one. That notwithstanding, there are things that I would expect you and he to know philosophically, even common-sensically. I discussed with you the understanding that a witness testimony is going to be considered more reliable (all things considered) than the defendant's testimony. I mentioned this to you as a technical and practical reality. You respond with some **** about jury instructions. I've advocated for clients IN COURT. When I was at a little boutique firm in DC, I represented clients in their habeas petitions (2254 and 2255), and sentence reconsiderations, etc. I never represented a client in a criminal case and I never represented a client on direct appeal. But I've been present as advising counsel for clients under those circumstances. I've also been counsel of record for their habeas petitions. In those instances I had to read through VOLUMES of transcripts from the earlier stages of the court proceedings. That was necessary to find a constitutional basis (usually ineffective assistance of counsel, or excessive sentencing) upon which to predicate a firm consitutional argument. I also had to technically review jury instructions, sentencing guidelines, opening and closing statements, and objections in order to substantiate claims. This is not my first rodeo, chief. In Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 304, the trial court directed that: "The law permits the defendant at his own request, to testify in his own behalf. The defendant here has availed himself of this privilege. His testimony is before you, and you must determine how far it is credible. The deep personal interest which he may have in the result of the suit should be considered by the jury in weighing his evidence and in determining how far or to what extent, if at all, it is worthy of credit..." The Supreme Court determined that the instruction of the trial court was entirely appropriate, in fact calling it "prefectly reasonable." They furthered opined: "It is within the province of the court to call the attention of the jury to any matters which legitimately affect his testimony and his credibility. This does not imply that the court may arbitrarily single out his testimony and denounce it as false. The fact that he is a defendant does not condemn him as unworthy of belief, but at the same time it creates an interest greater than that of any other witness, and to that extent affects the question of credibility. It is therefore a matter properly to be suggested by the court to the jury." To be fair, the court goes on to say that witness testimony should all be looked at equally and considered squarely along the same parameters. But the underlined portion here is instructive. The defendant has a greater interest in the outcome of the proceeding and that IMMEDIATELY affects his credibility - more so than that of any other witness. Without going into as much detail on these (you're welcome to peruse them yourself), the court determined in: Portuondo v. Agard That a jury instruction that asked the jury to consider that the defendant was crafting his story based on previous witness testimonies was perfectly fine. They site to Reagan and specifically the language that: "The deep personal interest which he may have in the result of the suit should be considered by the jury in weighing his evidence and in determining how far or to what extent, if at all, it is worthy of credit..." People v. Cronin (to be fair...not controlling, simply jurisdictional) "The defendant has offered himself as a witness on his own behalf on this trial, and in considering the weight and effect to be given his evidence, in addition to noticing his manner and the probability of his statements, taken in connection with the evidence in the cause, you should consider his relation and situation under which he gives his testimony, the consequences to him relating from the result of this trial, and all the inducements and temptations which would ordinarily influence a person in his situation. You should carefully determine the amount of credibility to which his evidence is entitled. If convincing and carrying with it a belief in its truth, act upon it. If not, you have a right to reject it." I can go on...and on....and on.... Non-defendant witnesses don't have the same potential consequences that a defendant does. Therefore, even though the court's have been uniform in saying that you take all witness testimony fairly and consider them the same as a starting point, the probative value of a defendant's testimony, who is on trial for murder, is less INDEPENDENTLY RELIABLE than someone who is a more disinterested party - even one with character challenges. I've underlined and bolded the above point because I don't want to cherry pick. That's why I'll mention: U.S. v. Brutus specifically states that you can't presume that a defendant is lying, or that their testimony is necessarily untruthful. They opined that: “an instruction that the defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case creates a motive to testify falsely impermissibly undermines the presumption of innocence because it presupposes the defendant’s guilt,” I want to bold the above to be fair and clear. But see Brutus doesn't prohibit the considerations that arise from defendant testimony vis-a-vis other witness testimony. It doesn't prohibit the reality and acknowledgment of the reality that non-defendant witnesses don't have the same inducements and interests that the defendant has and that should be taken into consideration in any analysis and witness comparison. No other witnesses are saddled with the same inherent interests. That has to be taken into consideration. The worse the potential outcome, the more compelling the interest. The meth mouth confidence schemer and the girlfriend don't have to deal with that. IF the character testimony is even allowed (and I can't think of a lot of ways that the girlfriend's statement will be allowed as impeachment evidence), and not thrown out as being highly prejudicial or in some Rule 403 test, then the jury will get a pattern jury instruction talking about considering the whole picture...blah blah blah... The defendant has to deal with a very real presumption that their circumstances, and status as a "defendant," and the crime for which they're being accused, are inducements. No considerations on whether items are admissible because of "bias," "prior inconsistent statement," character," etc. It just is. Res Ipsa Loquitur. And the court is "ok" with this. Not so for non-defendant witness statements. Apples and Oranges, chief. Run tell "Darryl" dat. But I suppose that you and "Darryl," considering his Excel High School pedigree, already knew that. Us T14s are still trying to catch up. Your move.

Dammit! I thought that I had a good ruse going. lol! Anyway, it didn't work so let's just close the thread and start a new one. Mine will be the last post, I guess.

I recall that in Florida, it does. I believe that it is possible for an initial aggressor to act in such a way so as to "cool off" the confrontation making a subsequent escalation a separate and distinct circumstance for consideration. Not licensed in Florida though so I can't be sure. I guess you'd have to look at the extent of the initial "attack" and if Zimmerman indicated affirmatively that he was removing himself from the confrontation.

GG, seriously man...read what you're saying. Even with the lie about a separate matter, her testimony is presumed to be CONSIDERABLY more reliable, and more substantive, BECAUSE SHE IS NOT ON TRIAL FOR MURDER. Yes, she lost her high school boyfriend. But that is not considered NEARLY as probatively challenging as someone who is trying to avoid being in prison for the next 40 years. Zimmerman is not going to implicate himself. She doesn't have that consideration. She has less to lose that he does. By the very nature of the process, her witness testimony carries MORE PROBATIVE VALUE. Period. End of story. Heck, the witness testimony of a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast would have slightly more probative value THAN THE AFFIRMATIVE DECLARATIONS OF THE ACTUAL PERSON ON TRIAL. Notice that I didn't say that it shouldn't be challenged or that it should be believed ipso facto. I said that it carries more probative weight, if we're taking both persons - the girlfriend and Zimmerman - exactly where we find them AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. Tell me you know this. You don't have to go to a T14 law school (like me) to know this. Just watch Matlock and save a hundred stacks. Rob knows I'm right. He drinks the same kool aid that I do. Maybe it will mean more coming from him...

Yep. I sure am talking about this girlfriend's testimony: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/ The same one who lied under oath about being at the hospital and so forth. The same one who has been proven to have been on the phone with Martin based on phone records. And, despite your efforts at a gotcha moment, the same girlfriend that I said the court would need to determine the veracity of in the post above: "This, of course, assumes that the court accepts the veracity of the witness' statement about what Trayvon said..." Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? I sure don't think that. The court is obliged to weigh evidence, and testimony (including al the Rule 608 ****) and determine the weight of her testimony on the disposition of the case. But back to my original question: Do you think that because someone lies about one thing, they lie about everything? You probably do...at least in the case of this witness. But that's only because you've already adjudged Zimmerman's actions as justifiable. So you're finding the things to support the conclusion that you've already arrived at. It's a little backwards and not very scientific but you're entitled to your opinion. But at least you're not pretending to be objective and dispassionate. Because if you were, you'd take my stance of "we don't know."

I don't think that you understood my point. I was wondering if, at the point of confrontation and Zimmerman getting his ass kicked, Martin having a 'Stand Your Ground' defense could ameliorate his actions and be dispositive when considering it's applicability in Zimmerman's case. It's theoretical and fun to query. I'd even bet that the attorneys are looking at it contrapositively.

What are you talking about?

Just wondering. I enjoyed it. Didn't like the Dark Phoenix angle, but 70% of the movie, in my mind, was entertaining.

What didn't you like about the third X-Men and the first Wolverine movie?

The problem with where they ended up is that there are a million different permutations that could have lead to them being there. Where they ended up wouldn't even create a rebuttable presumption in favor of Zimmerman because of the actual evidence supporting the fact that, AT ONE POINT at least, Zimmerman was persuing Martin. This, of course, assumes that the court accepts the veracity of the witness' statement about what Trayvon said and if the court doesn't find a hearsay issue or a hearsay within hearsay issue (if she is saying what Trayvon was saying that Zimmerman said). I would think that 803(1) and (2) should clear up hearsay issues though. I think that an intrepid prosecutor can easily make the case that at night, raining, scared, and confused, and in a place that he is relatively unfamiliar with, Trayvon could have easily lost his way and ran in a circle back to where he started and then the confrontation occurred there. So where they fought is somewhat inconsequential. The fight itself is instructive only inasmuch as after someone was chasing someone else, Trayvon ended up kicking Zimmerman's butt. If the prosecution can successfully show that Zimmerman pursued Martin and then Martin kicked his butt because Zimmerman wouldn't leave him alone, defense is gonna have a tough time showing that Zimmerman can both escalate (by persuing and presumably approaching in an offensive way) and conclude the altercation. I'm not licensed in FL, but I would think that ZImmerman would have to communicate some type of affirmative indication to de-escalate, before things went to blows, evidencing that he was done and didn't desire to persue the matter further. Otherwise the pursuit by Zimmerman, and any subsequent apprehension of danger that Martin may have felt, gives Martin the right to stand his ground too. If the court finds that Trayvon flipped the script and pursued Zimmerman back to his vehicle, and that Zimmerman had no desire to pick a fight, but Trayvon wanted to exact some type of revenge for the initial profiling, which led to him whooping on up Zimmerman something fierce, then Zimmerman will be acquitted and the incident will be considered justifiable. It think that this will depend on whether or not the court will fill in the blanks with continuity in Zimmerman's actions, or a subsequent escalation by Martin. Edit: Somthing that I just thought about when typing this - I wonder if they contemplated Stand your Ground Defenses for the victim. Because if Trayvon was being chased, and he decided to stop running and fight, then he kicks Zimmerman's ass, leading to Zimmerman using deadly force, it begs the question whether or not Trayvon has an expectation of not getting shot while standing his ground against an intial aggressor. Is Stand Your Ground pliable and can it commute back and forth based on the extent of the altercation. Can both people be eligible for a Stand your Ground defense?

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/91598-last-post-wins/

Can't wait to see this. They're doing good things with the series and the entire X-Men progeny. I'm really excited about "X-Men: First Class 2" coming out next summer.

[This is an automated response] This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. Please consider using the "search" function before starting new topics. Thread locked.

I know that "irregardless" is part of the joke too. But that word is one of my pet peeves. Either "regardless" or "irrespective," please.

This guy has the right to create a White Panther Party, a White Student Union, a _________ Association for the Advancement of White People, and whatever other transparent, non-violent organization aimed at advancing the interests of the group that he is a member of or is a strong advocate for. I think it's awesome actually. Anyone giving him ****, should look in the mirror or ask why is it then fair to have similar minority organizations with the same racially dedicated aims. As for Zimmerman, no one knows what happened on that evening except for him. Because he is knee deep in an adversarial process, you can't characterize him as a disinterested party and caretaker of unbiased facts. The only on-point witness statement points to a fleeing Trayvon and a pursuing Zimmerman. That is supported, at least initially, by the audio evidence available (initial conversation with dispatcher). Everything that happened in between is conjecture. No one knows what happened THAT LED to Trayvon and ZImmerman scuffling. All attempts to do so is opinion. Stating that Trayvon stalked Zimmerman back to the area where the incident occurred belies the only on point factual/testimonial data that is available. Having opinions are fine. I certainly have mine. They may be wrong. But right now, the limited data that we have, unencumbered by passionate opinion, doesn't tell us much more than at one point, Zimmerman was following Trayvon and Trayvon intimated wanting to get away from him. There is nothing anywhere, anyhow that demonstrates, at any point, the converse - Trayvon following Zimmerman. Any attempts to demonstrate that relies on an assumption that Zimmerman and Trayvon wouldn't have ended up where they did otherwise. If it's opinion, then fine. But I don't need to tell you why that is bad logic. Anyway... The unfortunate thing is that someone is gonna go h.a.m. on Zimmerman.

I agree with you 100% I think that Clinton should have resigned because he became a distraction to the country. But in general, and solely in a vaccuum, do you think that moral indiscretions should be a disqualifier for public office (taking the his lie under oath out of the equation)? Edit: My 1000th post fully agreed with OC. This portends great things to come. There was a time that I may have still worn it out. That could have made for an interesting role playing scenario.

He initially very clearly looked at me - almost furtively. He noticed me and very quickly looked away so as not to make eye contact. Then he made it a point to stare directly ahead, not looking over again. You know what I'm talking about. That is less about proper driving mechanics and more about apprehension because he likely assumed that I took some exception to his bumpers sticker. What does that have to do with me and how I think of myself? I'm not taking any credit here. I'm not saying that he was scared of me. I'm saying that he made it a point to distance himself from any reaction, that someone likely to be the most intimately affected by the substance of the speech, could have had. I support his 1st Amendment right to articulate his political speech - even in that kind of backwards, under-developed,counter-intellectual and bigoted fashion. I think that those contrarian viewpoints are necessary for a robust, uninhibited, and wide open "marketplace of ideas." I'm all kinds of John Stuart Mill when it comes to speech. I wanted to give the guy a sardonic thumbs up - let him know that he had support from those of the negro persuasion. I wasn't gonna go H.A.M. on him. But he probably thought that I was. But what do anti-Bush bumper stickers have to do with racist, anti-Obama bumper stickers? Were bumper stickers about Bush calculated to be offensive to an entire race and class of people? Your answer to the above question notwithstanding, is one ok, because the other exists? Are your ethics that situational?

Heyyyyyyyy I think I know that guy. I voted for him. His name....itttttwas..........Huntsman...........Jon Huntsman.

It's not just you. Racism is a strange thing. It doesn't really abide any traditional notions of "hate." People try to simplify it, but it's so much more complex than that. A few years ago I would drive to Morgantown where my friend attended graduate school. There was a guy there that would talk my ear off about politics. He was a good dude. He knew what he was talking about. I appreciated the conversation. Then during one party, he told me that his girlfriend left him "for some ni99er rooster." He was dejected and I don't think he realized what he said. I continued talking with him about "more fish in the sea," and random political stuff. I just acted as if the comment was never made. A few days later, I mentioned it to my friend Danielle. She told me that he said those things often and that she was surprised that he and I got along so well. Anyway, I think that "racism" relies on varying degrees of ignorance of and unfamiliarity with specific individuals within that racial classification. That way, the "racist" can rely on stereotypes and anecdotes as their archetype for that entire group. My first roomate at UVA was the same way. He admitted to me that he felt uncomfortable around minorities - he was from Flinstone, MD and their were no black people there. His apprehension was due to lack of familiarity. He would make comments that were very stereotypical. But he, too, is a good guy. We email weekly. He's published and has done talking head stuff on History Channel. He is also a History professor at a well known state university. Because of his admitted apprehension, that kinda makes me worry.

Good point. Driving on I-68 around Frostburg last weekend I saw a bumper sticker that said "Don't Renig in 2012." And to think that there are people who really believe that all disagreements with the President is entirely race-neutral. I tried to make eye contact with the driver. He glanced at me and quickly looked forward. What's the point of having such an offensive bumper sticker if you're not going to display it confidently?

Yea, it gets kind of old hearing about the President and his "blackness." It has a ring of "special." He is the competent guy running the country, trying to make good things happen, for all U.S. citizens, irrespective of race. As an aside I recently had a conversation with someone where I was advocating that it makes complete sense that there should be a comparable organization for white folks that endeavors to promote their advancement. And if such a public, non-secretive, transparent organization was created, there should be NO outrage from the left (or minorities in general). He told me that it already exists - it's called the government. I would have called him an "idiot" except that it was a family member.

We're not all monolithic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKSkb1bEqc Any points worth discussing?

I don't know how and why this keeps happening. I watch "American Greed" on CNBC often and it seems like the corporate world is replete with these stories. And then the fu(kers invariably abscond to some tropical country.

It's like you're being purposefully obtuse. I'm not sure how to say this sensitively so that you understand. I have said over, and over, and over again that "we don't know." Any "hypotheticals" that I've thrown out has been in the context of "either this, or that could have happened; we don't know." I've mentioned 5-10 times in the last 10 pages that WE DON'T KNOW. Would you like support for that? Specific posts? Interestingly enough, the only ones conjecturing (albeit matter-of-factly - as if they do know and as if they're confident of the happenings on that evening), are some of the ones that I've been arguing against. You ignore them, but troll me. You shouldn't take this so personally. Would you like support for that? Specific posts? And as you try to find ways to refute what I said, please don't forget my underlined point above. Lastly, I guarantee that you wouldn't tell me to STFU to my face. Not saying that you wouldn't want to - but you wouldn't. You and I both know that. In fact, I'm 100% sure of it. With that said, I plan to be at every Bills home game next year. PM me. I'll give you my iteniary sun up to sun down, chief. I'd love to sit down for a beer with you - my treat. I'll gladly reiterate everything that I said above, in person. Maybe there would be less chutzpah and more understanding and conciliation if we were having the discussion face to face. I'd prefer that. And if not, I can't think of a better time for you to test your "stfu" theory. Just pm me and let me know.

Hold on....people look at porn stars faces? Before the money shot even?