Could This Be The Beginning Of The New White Panther Party?

[Maury Ballstein]

i guess the audio is no longer valid because it's old? it still plays when i click play over here i don't see your point

 

invalid final straw with the 3rd twist? in 5 years the audio will remain the same FTR.

 

you have your clint eastwood "you have a problem now" take.............and i have my GZ is a freaking weirdo and antagonist who has some culpability here.

 

guess its time to let those sleeping dogs lie.

 

Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to follow Martin on foot, though a dispatcher told him that was not necessary. After that, police say it is unclear what exactly happened

 

Maybe GZ's adderall, Librax, and Temazepam made him do it ? maybe it's normal to take all of these weird drugs? not my bag baby.....GZ is a weirdo IMO. wouldn't want that shmo patrolling my neighborhood.

 

gonna end with this, and the 46 times GZ called 911 and his wannabee cop dreams

 

 

As the watch volunteer at the 260-unit Retreat at Twin Lakes, he became a paranoid pest — peppering 911 with at least 46 calls. They varied in urgency, but in the last year focused mostly on black men or boys.

That included a “suspicious” 7- to 9-year-old boy with a “skinny build” and short black hair.

In November 2006, he called to report a red Toyota pickup truck “driving real slow” around the neighborhood for five minutes.

In September 2009, he called about a “yellow speed bike” weaving in and out of traffic and doing “wheelies.”

A month later, Zimmerman was hot on the scent of an “aggressive white and brown pit bull.”

And last August, he reported a black man he believed was “involved in recent” burglaries.

GZ is GD weirdo, poking his head in everyones buisness with paranoid delusional nonsense. Gotta get those yellow bikes under control......I am GZ I am the law!

Edited March 29, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[3rdnlng]

i guess the audio is no longer valid because it's old? it still plays when i click play over here i don't see your point

 

invalid final straw with the 3rd twist? in 5 years the audio will remain the same FTR.

 

you have your clint eastwood "you have a problem now" i have my GZ is a freaking weirdo and antagonist who has some culpability here.

 

guess its time to let those sleeping dogs lie.

 

Ryan, quit embarrassing yourself and go back and read through the Trayvon thread and see how the old stuff you are claiming now was already debunked. I'll even give you a hint on what else to do. Google George Zimmerman black homeless man. When you are done with that Google George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin weight. At the time of the incident TM weighed 160#'s and GZ weighed 170#'s. Some of us have been with this story from the beginning and are so much more knowledgable than you that we resent you bringing up erroneous crap that was proven wrong a year ago. Get some knowledge about this and we probably won't even have a need to discuss it.

[meazza]

Go away.

 

/end thread.

[Chef Jim]

GZ is a weirdo IMO.

 

 

And you're completely !@#$ing normal.

[Maury Ballstein]

3rd i tried, but 80 pages is just a bit much. Maybe tonite i can bang the rest of it out

 

I don't see anything concrete to force my hand either way. both parties had some skeletons in their closets.

 

whats normal chef? zero arrests/zero medications puts me one step ahead of the game to normalcy i guess.

[3rdnlng]

3rd i tried, but 80 pages is just a bit much. Maybe tonite i can bang the rest of it out

 

I don't see anything concrete to force my hand either way. both parties had some skeletons in their closets.

 

whats normal chef? zero arrests/zero medications puts me one step ahead of the game to normalcy i guess.

 

If you don't follow the links provided in the various posts in the thread you'll be pretty much wasting your time. You see, it was a process getting to where my opinion is now. I followed the poster's links and maybe went a level or two deeper to form an opinion on one little part of the deal. Little parts eventually add up and allow a person to form an over all opinion. You might be able to read that entire thread in a night but you couldn't read all the articles that were linked and also do your own research. Earlier I gave you two things to Google. One debunked the 100# weight differential and the other made it difficult to see him as a racist. If he wasn't a racist I find it pretty difficult to hear "coon" on the tape. How do you feel about the quality of your sources now?

[Maury Ballstein]

i still feel fine with my sources but you have weakened them a bit for sure. i just listened to 4 different 911 calls on CNN.com with basically the same audio. the 46 calls to 911 and the violence in the past is still hard to overlook as this is not normal behavior IMO. This is the act of a paranoid/neurotic person.

 

-you have uber valid points with the GZ backed the Black homeless guy part that is very very strong as is the weight differential

 

theres definetly some grey area stuff on the 911 tapes though. Whose that yelling help right before the gunshot? Trayvon with a gun in his neck? Or Zimmerman while getting his ass beat (to the verge of death though?)pulling a gun out? i still have questions really.

 

you have enlightened me to the other side 3rd, thank you for that.

 

hopefully one day Meazza will follow in your footsteps.

[boyst]

Ryan. You do not have to read the entire thread. I'll catch you up in two sentences.

 

Take everything you understand and think about the case. Realize you're wrong about everything, and then you'll be right.

[meazza]

Ryan. You do not have to read the entire thread. I'll catch you up in two sentences.

 

Take everything you understand and think about life case. Realize you're wrong about everything, and then you'll be right.

 

Fixed it for you

Edited March 29, 2013 by meazza

[DC Tom]

Ryan. You do not have to read the entire thread. I'll catch you up in two sentences.

 

Take everything you understand and think about the case. Realize you're wrong about everything, and then you'll be right.

 

Ryan, you don't even have to read jboyst's entire post. I'll catch you up in three words:

 

You're an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Ryan, you don't even have to read jboyst's entire post. I'll catch you up in three words:

 

You're an idiot.

 

He's also someone that might have seen a little bit of the truth and can be salvaged. His initial comments were more ignorant of the facts, prejudicial and biased than idiotic. Ryan isn't an idiot, and I'll bet you he thinks twice before coming here again without a little better homework. For yourself, you need to decide what you want from this place. Either it's your forum to bully people or a place to discuss and change peoples thinking.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

You're not an attorney

 

Most used car salesmen would consider that a compliment. More fundamentally, attorneys don't have a monopoly on the ability to think clearly and make cogent arguments - - they just think they do, especially if they are self-proclaimed T14. As it happens, I've watched "My Cousin Vinnie" - - twice.

 

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. My oldest brother Darryl had a prior banjo commitment, so I had to discuss the matter with my mentally challenged sister Darlene after picking her up at cosmopolitan school - - she wants to be a hairdresser.

 

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.

 

That's an attempt to shift the argument to one that you might be able to win. It's not a fair characterization of what you actually said, which was:

 

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.

 

I never disputed the idea that a jury should consider the fact, when evaluating the credibility of a defendant's testimony, that the defendant has a motive to lie to avoid conviction. You can cite all the judicial precedents you want for that proposition - - all it does is win you an argument that we weren't actually having. That is what is known as knocking down a straw man, and lawyers are especially good at doing that when the actual dispute is about an issue upon which they expect to lose.

 

Gotta give credit where it's due, though. The magna-animus comments about being "fair" and "not cherry-picking," all made while knocking down the straw man, was a nice touch. Maybe you really did go to a T14 school.

 

But were you actually being "fair" in choosing the parts of the 1895 US Supreme Court decision that you were primarily relying upon? This is where the Internet part comes in, which levels the playing field between self-proclaimed T14s and humans. Here's the full text of that opinion:

 

http://supreme.justi...7/301/case.html

 

After surveying then-existing precedents (in 1895) in other cases involving jury instructions about the credibilty of defendant testimony, the Supreme Court summarized the then-current state of the law (118 years ago) by proclaiming:

 

"The import of these authorities is that the court is not at liberty to charge the jury, directly or indirectly, that the defendant is to be disbelieved because he is a defendant, for that would practically take away the benefit which the law grants when it gives him the privilege of being a witness. On the other hand, the court may, and sometimes ought, to remind the jury that interest creates a motive for false testimony; that the greater the interest, the stronger is the temptation, and that the interest of the defendant in the result of the trial is of a character possessed by no other witness, and is therefore a matter which may seriously affect the credence that shall be given to his testimony."

 

Note that the Supreme Court said that (1) status as a defendant may (not must) seriously affect the credence given to a defendant's testimony, and (2) the trial court sometimes (not always) ought to remind the jury of that fact when giving jury instructions at the end of a trial. Credibility is assessed based on multiple factors, including but not limited to status as a defendant.

 

When a non-defendant witness testifies, the credibility of that witness is likewise assessed based on multiple factors. If the non-defendant witness happens to be "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast" (presumably a hypothetical intended to portray the least credible non-defendant witness you could think of), such a witness is not automatically assumed to be more credible than a defendant merely by virtue of the fact that the defendant is accused of a crime.

 

If you want to argue that a criminal defendant's testimony should be viewed with more suspicion than a neutral third-party witness who cannot be impeached with a prior lie, fine, but that is not even close to the position you originally took in this thread (to which I objected).

 

You respond with some **** about jury instructions.

 

Jury instructions aren't **** . They are statements of applicable law given by the judge at the end of a trial, intended to help the jury follow the applicable law when arriving at a decision.

 

BTW, the 1895 US Supreme Court case involved a federal smuggling statute, and was tried in a federal district court in Texas. Conversely, the Zimmerman case will be tried in Florida state court, and will be governed by Florida law. In the unlikely event that it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court will decide the case based on existing Florida law, as determined by the Florida Supreme Court (in the absence of US constitutional issues).

 

So let's take a look at what the Florida Supreme Court has to say about assessing the credibility of a criminal defendant's testimony - - the following link is to the official website of the Florida Supreme Court today (not 118 years ago):

 

http://www.floridasu...tructions.shtml (you have to click on the hyperlink for 3.9© to open the following):

 

 

 

3.9©; DEFENDANT TESTIFYING

 

The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of [his] [her] testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses.

 

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.

 

Setting aside our differences for the moment about the relative credibility of an accused defendant as compared to a witness with multiple felony convictions, I think that's admirable. I really do. But most people probably don't realize that law firms often encourage their inexperienced, cub lawyers to take on such matters on a Sonny Bono basis so that the cubs can get experience in COURT. A talented cub can get some experience dealing with judges and other courtroom personnel, and may be required to think on his feet, just like a more experienced trial lawyer. It's a win/win situation for the prisoner and the cub. The prisoner typically gets representation by a lawyer with more brains and motivation than the typical public defender to which he is accustomed, and the cub gets experience in COURT without any risk of screwing up the legal matter of one of his law firm's paying clients.

 

This is not my first rodeo, chief.

 

Your prior rodeos may be the problem. All I know about your courtroom experience is what you've chosen to disclose in this thread, but it sounds like the vast majority of your criminal court experience has been representing (or advising) individuals who have already been found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of committing some crime by a jury of their peers. Judges understandably find the claims of such felons, who have already been convicted by a jury despite all the safeguards built into our justice system, to be inherently untrustworthy.

 

I don't claim to be up to speed on all the details of the Zimmerman case, but as far as I know, he is not a convicted felon. That is a distinction with a difference, as compared to the people for whom you've advocated in COURT. The judges who presumably denied most of your clients' habeus petitions (that's not a knock on you, that's just what happens in the vast majority of habeus petitions) are entitled to view the claims and testimony of convicted felons with great skepticism.

 

But rather than seeing this distinction, you attribute judicial skepticism about a defendant's credibility to (1) the status of being merely an accused defendant, rather than (2) the status of being an already convicted defendant.

 

When you realize that the judicial skepticism about defendant credibility that you've actually experienced in COURT is partially attributable to the fact that defendants have a motive to lie, but attributable to a greater extent to the fact that your clients were already convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evaluation of your original statements in this thread radically changes.

 

Our disagreement is about the relative credibility of (1) a defendant accused (but not convicted) of a crime, as compared to (2) "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast." It's more than a little ironic that the judicial skepticism about the credibility of convicted felons that you've undoubtedly experienced in COURT, would actually apply to the "multiple felon" that you suggest would have greater credibility than an accused (but not convicted) defendant like Zimmerman.

 

I can go on...and on....and on....

 

At least we agree on something - - - - although it's hard to be concise when discussing complicated issues, and I can be long-winded myself.

 

It just is. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

 

So you can speak French. I'm impressed.

 

Roll Tide!

Edited March 30, 2013 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Maury Ballstein]

 

 

Ryan, you don't even have to read jboyst's entire post. I'll catch you up in three words:

 

You're an idiot.

 

Thanks for notarizing my idiocy! I prefer the DC Tom brand over meazzas lazy jboyst ripoff life diss all day everyday. I got out of line my self of steam just got too high for a second there.

 

Meazza with the lazy harsh verbal jabs 3x ? Had to call you out as you started your weak ass attack with misinformation. You and your Mexican GZ bs need to go back to the drawing board take a deep breath. You can think of some better zingers then 'retard' hopefully.....the mentally disabled that were born that way would appreciate it.

 

Ryan l billz not be bullied by anyone with a futbol avatar. He cares not for the sport of floppers. This is your yellow card sir. Stand down.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ryan L Billz

[meazza]

Thanks for notarizing my idiocy! I prefer the DC Tom brand over meazzas lazy jboyst ripoff life diss all day everyday. I got out of line my self of steam just got too high for a second there.

 

Meazza with the lazy harsh verbal jabs 3x ? Had to call you out as you started your weak ass attack with misinformation. You and your Mexican GZ bs need to go back to the drawing board take a deep breath. You can think of some better zingers then 'retard' hopefully.....the mentally disabled that were born that way would appreciate it.

 

Ryan l billz not be bullied by anyone with a futbol avatar. He cares not for the sport of floppers. This is your yellow card sir. Stand down.

 

You're not worth the effort.

Edited March 30, 2013 by meazza

[boyst]

Mexican GZ

You've been watching Nancy Grace too much.

[B-Man]

You're not worth the effort.

 

Amen.

 

.

[DC Tom]

He's also someone that might have seen a little bit of the truth and can be salvaged. His initial comments were more ignorant of the facts, prejudicial and biased than idiotic. Ryan isn't an idiot, and I'll bet you he thinks twice before coming here again without a little better homework.

 

And he's got a pretty good sense of humor about it.

 

For yourself, you need to decide what you want from this place. Either it's your forum to bully people or a place to discuss and change peoples thinking.

 

Unlike yourself. Seriously? You really felt compelled to write this? You really are an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

And he's got a pretty good sense of humor about it.

 

 

 

Unlike yourself. Seriously? You really felt compelled to write this? You really are an idiot.

 

I guess Meazza hasn't cornered the market on laziness. Can't you come up with something more original than "idiot"? Besides you gave that license up to Meazza when you last quit the board.

[Juror#8]

Hey........I see what you did there........

 

In the most voluble way possible, you made two points:

 

1. You told me that in my most recent response post to you, I argued a point other than my initial statement.

 

It should be mentioned that you didn't take any exception to any of the subtantive points that I mentioned in that response post, you appear to have just tried to distinguish the issue that I was arguing.

 

2. Believing that you deciphered my original point, and ignoring my response post (because to you it was irrelevant and not applicable to my original thesis), you began arguing around the periphery - substituting your own thoughts where necessary so that you could augment your points (presumably for histrionic value).

 

You then care-package those items with some whimisical asides to give the impression of vacuousness and BAM - you have a little diddy of a contrivance.

 

But let's see what's really there, shall we...

 

Most used car salesmen would consider that a compliment. More fundamentally, attorneys don't have a monopoly on the ability to think clearly and make cogent arguments - - they just think they do, especially if they are self-proclaimed T14. As it happens, I've watched "My Cousin Vinnie" - - twice.

 

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. My oldest brother Darryl had a prior banjo commitment, so I had to discuss the matter with my mentally challenged sister Darlene after picking her up at cosmopolitan school - - she wants to be a hairdresser.

 

See the bolded point above.

 

I never disputed the idea that a jury should consider the fact, when evaluating the credibility of a defendant's testimony, that the defendant has a motive to lie to avoid conviction. You can cite all the judicial precedents you want for that proposition - - all it does is win you an argument that we weren't actually having.

 

Thank you for agreeing with me. You're trying to distinguish my two posts but it's not working. If you agree with my response post, then you agreed with my original one as well.

 

Thank you for that.

 

Read on...

 

 

That is what is known as knocking down a straw man, and lawyers are especially good at doing that when the actual dispute is about an issue upon which they expect to lose.

 

Gotta give credit where it's due, though. The magna-animus comments about being "fair" and "not cherry-picking," all made while knocking down the straw man, was a nice touch. Maybe you really did go to a T14 school.

 

But were you actually being "fair" in choosing the parts of the 1895 US Supreme Court decision that you were primarily relying upon? This is where the Internet part comes in, which levels the playing field between self-proclaimed T14s and humans. Here's the full text of that opinion:

 

http://supreme.justi...7/301/case.html

 

After surveying then-existing precedents (in 1895) in other cases involving jury instructions about the credibilty of defendant testimony, the Supreme Court summarized the then-current state of the law (118 years ago) by proclaiming:

 

"The import of these authorities is that the court is not at liberty to charge the jury, directly or indirectly, that the defendant is to be disbelieved because he is a defendant, for that would practically take away the benefit which the law grants when it gives him the privilege of being a witness. On the other hand, the court may, and sometimes ought, to remind the jury that interest creates a motive for false testimony; that the greater the interest, the stronger is the temptation, and that the interest of the defendant in the result of the trial is of a character possessed by no other witness, and is therefore a matter which may seriously affect the credence that shall be given to his testimony."

 

Note that the Supreme Court said that (1) status as a defendant may (not must) seriously affect the credence given to a defendant's testimony, and (2) the trial court sometimes (not always) ought to remind the jury of that fact when giving jury instructions at the end of a trial. Credibility is assessed based on multiple factors, including but not limited to status as a defendant.

 

When a non-defendant witness testifies, the credibility of that witness is likewise assessed based on multiple factors. If the non-defendant witness happens to be "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast" (presumably a hypothetical intended to portray the least credible non-defendant witness you could think of), such a witness is not automatically assumed to be more credible than a defendant merely by virtue of the fact that the defendant is accused of a crime.

 

If you want to argue that a criminal defendant's testimony should be viewed with more suspicion than a neutral third-party witness who cannot be impeached with a prior lie, fine, but that is not even close to the position you originally took in this thread (to which I objected).

 

Look, I know it's easier to both create and argue a position - because then you always have at least a modicum of creative insight, but it looks bad when you quote my points, and then say that they say what they didn't say.

 

For example, I said:

 

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.

 

And then I supported that statement.

 

I introduced to you support for the proclamation that the statement of a witness who has character challenges has more probative value than the affirmative declarations of the defendant.

 

Probative

 

 

adjective

1.

serving or designed for testing or trial.

2.

affording proof or evidence.

 

It is both a factual and anedotal reality that the statement of a defendant witness is given less evidentiary strength than does the statements of any other witness.

 

The defendant is on trial and endeavoring to successfully allay the charges against him. In order to do this, the defendant rebuts the prosecution's case with evidence tending to make his claim of innocence believeable to the finders of fact. The defendant is not obligated to say or do anything in his defense, as the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the defense decides to offer proof that the defendant didn't do what the prosecution said that the defendant did, the defendant's statement itself can't be the proof - (unless it's an alibi supported by, you guessed it, another witness).

 

There is a logical incongruence to the idea that the defendant's position can be both the plea and the proof. If Zimmerman were relying on "Stand your Ground" defense, Zimmerman doesn't have the luxury of saying that Martin attacked him so he shot him and his proof of that is that Martin attacked him so he shot him.

 

There will have to be some witness testimony to bolster that claim lest it be an affirmative declaration and, therefore, an extension of the plea itself.

 

Conversely, the statement of a non-defendant witness holds more probative weight with respect to their assessment of events. They're tending to prove one side's averments. They are not the averments themselves.

 

So while you were waxing poetic about free property right of horse and carriage from 1798, you were circumnavigating the issue and trying to score points by way of false attribution and argumentum verbosium.

 

You appear to be a smart person, so I'm surprised that you're taking that course.

 

Just for your edification on this "probative value" issue, check out Simeneh Kiros Assefa's treatise on Criminal law and procedure. I became a fan in law school and he speaks to this issue in decidedly clear terms. If you're interested in an edifying discourse, as opposed to scoring points on a football message board, it may be worth the read for you.

 

 

Jury instructions aren't **** . They are statements of applicable law given by the judge at the end of a trial, intended to help the jury follow the applicable law when arriving at a decision.

 

BTW, the 1895 US Supreme Court case involved a federal smuggling statute, and was tried in a federal district court in Texas. Conversely, the Zimmerman case will be tried in Florida state court, and will be governed by Florida law. In the unlikely event that it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court will decide the case based on existing Florida law, as determined by the Florida Supreme Court (in the absence of US constitutional issues).

 

So let's take a look at what the Florida Supreme Court has to say about assessing the credibility of a criminal defendant's testimony - - the following link is to the official website of the Florida Supreme Court today (not 118 years ago):

 

http://www.floridasu...tructions.shtml (you have to click on the hyperlink for 3.9© to open the following):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.9©; DEFENDANT TESTIFYING

The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of [his] [her] testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses.

 

 

 

Setting aside our differences for the moment about the relative credibility of an accused defendant as compared to a witness with multiple felony convictions, I think that's admirable. I really do. But most people probably don't realize that law firms often encourage their inexperienced, cub lawyers to take on such matters on a Sonny Bono basis so that the cubs can get experience in COURT. A talented cub can get some experience dealing with judges and other courtroom personnel, and may be required to think on his feet, just like a more experienced trial lawyer. It's a win/win situation for the prisoner and the cub. The prisoner typically gets representation by a lawyer with more brains and motivation than the typical public defender to which he is accustomed, and the cub gets experience in COURT without any risk of screwing up the legal matter of one of his law firm's paying clients.

 

 

 

Your prior rodeos may be the problem. All I know about your courtroom experience is what you've chosen to disclose in this thread, but it sounds like the vast majority of your criminal court experience has been representing (or advising) individuals who have already been found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of committing some crime by a jury of their peers. Judges understandably find the claims of such felons, who have already been convicted by a jury despite all the safeguards built into our justice system, to be inherently untrustworthy.

 

I don't claim to be up to speed on all the details of the Zimmerman case, but as far as I know, he is not a convicted felon. That is a distinction with a difference, as compared to the people for whom you've advocated in COURT. The judges who presumably denied most of your clients' habeus petitions (that's not a knock on you, that's just what happens in the vast majority of habeus petitions) are entitled to view the claims and testimony of convicted felons with great skepticism.

 

But rather than seeing this distinction, you attribute judicial skepticism about a defendant's credibility to (1) the status of being merely an accused defendant, rather than (2) the status of being an already convicted defendant.

 

When you realize that the judicial skepticism about defendant credibility that you've actually experienced in COURT is partially attributable to the fact that defendants have a motive to lie, but attributable to a greater extent to the fact that your clients were already convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evaluation of your original statements in this thread radically changes.

 

Our disagreement is about the relative credibility of (1) a defendant accused (but not convicted) of a crime, as compared to (2) "a high, meth-mouthed, multiple felon, who just admitted to wholesale confidence schemes up and down the east coast." It's more than a little ironic that the judicial skepticism about the credibility of convicted felons that you've undoubtedly experienced in COURT, would actually apply to the "multiple felon" that you suggest would have greater credibility than an accused (but not convicted) defendant like Zimmerman.

 

 

1. You cite the Florida statue as proof that what you say is true. Let's bring it front and center for the purposes of ease of access:

 

 

3.9©; DEFENDANT TESTIFYING

The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of [his] [her] testimony that you apply to the testimony of the other witnesses.

 

You said that the above is what the Florida Supreme Court has to say about assessing the credibility of defendant witness testimony.

 

Well here are the "Rules" around witness testimony in CT and I believe they're nearly identical in NY (I'm licensed in both locations and North Carolina). I think it's like 2-2.4 but not sure:

 

1) was the witness able to see, or hear, or know the things about which that witness testified? 2) how well was the witness able to recall and describe those things? 3) what was the witness's manner while testifying? 4) did the witness have an interest in the outcome of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case? 5) how reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case? and 6) was the witness's testimony contradicted by what that witness has said or done at another time, or by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other evidence?

 

But all that notwithstanding, what Florida's rules are or what they're not, the issue is what I said it is above - the probative value of a defendant witness statement.

 

2. You bring up my experience as if I was using that to make the point that 'skepticism of defendant's testimony is real.' You're making up a point, attributing it to me, and then arguing it.

 

When did I ever say that I've even heard a witness take the stand in his own defense? You won't hear that because I haven't. My experience has been arguing constitutional issues and, rarely, new evidence.

 

I brought up some background info to establish bona fides...in an effort to show that at least I've been there and have some modicum of insight about the process, what a jury pool is thinking, what a judge is thinking, and what other legal professionals have to deal with during the process.

 

You may too. But instead of debating with some intellectual honesty, you'd rather make this about "Darryl" and a banjo and feign unfamiliarity and pedestrianism as a debate tactic.

 

Don't craft my argument for me and then argue it. I didn't say anything about my former clients being my basis of knowledge on the issue of defendant-witness testimony.

 

3. Yes, they throw the junior associates to do habeas work. No, it's not glamorous legal work.

 

What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

 

At least we agree on something - - - - although it's hard to be concise when discussing complicated issues, and I can be long-winded myself.

 

 

 

So you can speak French. I'm impressed.

 

Roll Tide!

 

"Aviator Crew we're fliest round here..."

 

 

I never disputed the idea that a jury should consider the fact, when evaluating the credibility of a defendant's testimony, that the defendant has a motive to lie to avoid conviction. You can cite all the judicial precedents you want for that proposition - - all it does is win you an argument that we weren't actually having.

 

So I bolded, italicized, and underlined your first point above which is instructive - you agreed with me.

 

You then spent a bunch of time subsequent to that trying to distinguish what you felt was my original point, from my subsequent point (that you're on record as agreeing with).

 

My points were consistent. I've explained how and why.

 

Try again?

Edited April 2, 2013 by Juror#8

[Jauronimo]

My points were consistent. I've explained how and why.

 

Try again?

You're attempting to have a discussion with man who is under the impression that hes fluent in corporate tax law and an experienced trial attorney by virtue of an internet connection and a sibling who in all likelihood doesn't exist.