Sig1Hunter Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 If your IT guys are leaking or going on about the existence of info your attorney's have decided doesn't have to be disclosed then you s-can him. In the alternative, you agree and discipline or s-can the attorney. But you don't just do nothing. And they sure as hell weren't going to basically admit the prosecution was hiding evidence. But, as state attorneys office you have an ethical obligation to disclose all evidence in your possession - to include exculpatory evidence. The State cannot just say, "ah, forget we saw that and throw it away". And, when someone comes forward and calls you out on your ethical obligation - you cannot s-can him. This whole situation stinks to high heaven.
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 But, as state attorneys office you have an ethical obligation to disclose all evidence in your possession - to include exculpatory evidence. The State cannot just say, "ah, forget we saw that and throw it away". And, when someone comes forward and calls you out on your ethical obligation - you cannot s-can him. This whole situation stinks to high heaven. You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call.
Sig1Hunter Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call. You're right. I was assuming that the defense was worth its salt and had filed a demand for evidence in the state's possession that is favorable to their client. IF this demand was filed, they are obligated to turn it over. Hence, the discovery violation. Edited July 13, 2013 by Sig1Hunter
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) You're right. I was assuming that the defense was worth its salt and had filed a demand for evidence in the state's possession that is favorable to their client. IF this demand was filed, they are obligated to turn it over. Hence, the discovery violation. I honestly don't even know exactly what the evidence is...something about texts. All I'm saying is, of course they fire this guy. Of course. I don't have the info as to if there was a Brady issue or something similar or if it was just jackassery in discovery that isn't on that level...so I have no opinion. But the firing...standard stuff. Edited July 13, 2013 by SameOldBills
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Some reading while you wait... http://bcclist.com/tag/sanford-florida/page/2/
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Some reading while you wait... http://bcclist.com/t...florida/page/2/ This is from March.
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 This is from March. updated a little but a different view. And something well wrote if still wrong You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call. the information. If I had to bet was on kik or snapchat. Encrypted messengers that kids, mostly, use to keep messages hidden and private. They encrypt files and pics etc. And snap chat, for example, only let's you view it so long before destroying it. Of course, its not destroyed. You can still pull it. Imam just guessing nbut I am betting the prosecution didn't even understand this evidence when the CSI folks presented it.
....lybob Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Don't try and use the cleaned-up photos, we all know how slanted the media was about these. Remember, at first they proclaimed that GZ didn't even show any signs of injuries, until after they enhanced the photos. (ie: avoid anything endorsed by Nancy Grace) Here's one of GZ the night of the fight. http://www.11alive.c...Martin-shooting and not of him after he had been treated (and cleaned up by the doctors). Bloody and broken nose; not something you can attribute to a can of iced tea. I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/18/new-bloody-photos-details-more-of-george-zimmermans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592031-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-jacksonville-medical-examiner-says-zimmermans-injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree.
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 go look at the picture of trayvon back down in the grass, though. you can see for yourself where the arms are underneath him.
....lybob Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 go look at the picture of trayvon back down in the grass, though. you can see for yourself where the arms are underneath him. yeah even though GZ says he spread TM's arms out to the side while he was on top of TM's back ( my guess is GZ says this to explain what he was actually doing which was looking for a gun on TM in the front of his pants)
NoSaint Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/18/new-bloody-photos-details-more-of-george-zimmermans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592031-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-jacksonville-medical-examiner-says-zimmermans-injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree. I wish people would stop calling a medical examiner that looked at pictures "the medical examiner" "The" implies she was the one to do the actual examination in my head
unbillievable Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze....rmans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.c...-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree. You're still refusing to see the photos of the night of the fight? This is not disagreeing, it's closing your eyes to only evidence that fits your point of view. What I find interesting is that it always comes down to every single conviction supporter are only willing to look at facts that support their "theory." Does it bother you that the people calling for an acquittal are shouting for you to just read the facts, get informed about the case, or to simply look at the evidence; While the ones who want a conviction have to cherry-pick bits and peices of events together and play the what-if game. (to add: Did GZ keep the gun around his forehead during the struggle? Why did trayvon concentrate on his face and not the gun)
NoSaint Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Jury asking for manslaughter instructions again. I'd guess that's final debates between manslaughter and not guilty. Perhaps a few holdouts that they are trying to convince
PearlHowardman Posted July 13, 2013 Posted July 13, 2013 Jury asking for manslaughter instructions again. I'd guess that's final debates between manslaughter and not guilty. Perhaps a few holdouts that they are trying to convince In order for the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove the following three things, beyond a reasonable doubt: Trayvon Martin is dead. The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Jurors are also asked in the instructions to consider the less included charge of manslaughter. In order for the jurors to return a guilty verdict of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove two things, beyond a reasonable doubt: 1..Trayvon Martin is dead. 2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. The instructions say that "a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
/dev/null Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The fix is in. He'll be found guilty of manslaugter to placate the masses Forward!
4merper4mer Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 The fix is in. He'll be found guilty of manslaugter to placate the masses Forward! Totally true. That is why they packed the jury with broads; so they can all feel like they "compromised".
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Posted July 14, 2013 here we go... fasten seatbelts, load the gun, grab the tissues.
Recommended Posts