Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Zimmerman declines to testify. Smart move, he would have got his ass tore up.
Without knowing all of the court's rulings prior to trial I don't know what's at stake, although generally speaking I think the jury will want to hear from him and will speculate too much since he has not. It's almost human nature. Regardless of what people say there is an "assumption" of guilt at times when someone refuses to testify or "talk"!
From a tactical point the Court instructs the jury on no weight to his silence, which is his constitutional right and the prosecution is prohibited from asserting any assumption. They dance around it all the time by talking about who knows what happened etc. and it just depends on how far the judge goes with cautioning the government during jury summation.
Unless there is a concern about the communication between client and attorney or a concern about the competency of the attorney, addressing the client (defendant) directly (even without a jury present) about a tactical decision, which it was, in highly inappropriate.
Mr. Zimmerman gave the correct answer as reported: "I don't know."
The judge is pissed it seems and regardless of the jury being in or out of the room, the judge should appear as nonpartisan as possible ... such seemingly small things can be just the "straw" that flips a conviction on appeal and would be supportive of another judge on the retrial, particularly if she refused to recuse herself voluntarily on a 2nd trial.
May be the defense was crowding her hair appointment.
On a more relevant note, the defense rested without Zimmerman taking the stand. Now I think that was a mistake without knowing all the details of the testimony and evidence first hand, which includes the "contingent rulings" we may not have heard about ... like the judge saying .. certain evidence is out unless he takes the stand!
I agree completely, and just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say or insinuate she was trying to sway the jury. Just that she seems pissed and unstable at best.
I disagree. There are a lot of "fouls" when a jury is out of the room.
Having not heard the judge's tone of voice and witnessed the judge's demeanor, then it might make a difference ... as to how she said it and what her facial features are. It would also depend on the Florida rules. If they are similar to Federal rules, Federal judges have and take more leeway.
Unless there is a concern about the communication between client and attorney or a concern about the competency of the attorney, addressing the client (defendant) directly (even without a jury present) about a tactical decision, which it was, in highly inappropriate.
Mr. Zimmerman gave the correct answer as reported: "I don't know."
The judge is pissed it seems and regardless of the jury being in or out of the room, the judge should appear as nonpartisan as possible ... such seemingly small things can be just the "straw" that flips a conviction on appeal and would be supportive of another judge on the retrial, particularly if she refused to recuse herself voluntarily on a 2nd trial.
May be the defense was crowding her hair appointment.
On a more relevant note, the defense rested without Zimmerman taking the stand. Now I think that was a mistake without knowing all the details of the testimony and evidence first hand, which includes the "contingent rulings" we may not have heard about ... like the judge saying .. certain evidence is out unless he takes the stand!
Im inclined to believe the judge knows the boundary .. kinda like I was inclined to believe Zimmerman wouldn't take the stand
since I cant find any buildings being torn down on the news because of the judges actions, well you know.
From my understanding and what the lawyers are saying is that this is standard practice, AFTER the defense rests, not during a trial.
In Florida?
It would not be asked after the defense rests, because unless the Judge "re-opens" the defense side for additional evidence, it would be a useless question at that point. If his lawyers say he is not going to testify, I can imagine a judge for the record clarifying that on the record to assure the defendant cannot later claim he wasn't given the option to testify as a basis for an appeal .. or challenge to the attys competency .. I'll watch the video.
Just watched the video ...(and listened) ...
IMO the judge was ok until she pressed further as to how much time he needed to consult with this attorneys.... The atty's objection is well taken. The judge is inquiring into trial strategy decisions, which under any rules of discovery and/or evidence with which I am familiar that is PROHIBITED. The evidence was not closed for the defense (the defense still had 2 more witnesses) and it was improper for the judge to push that hard and far. She is showing her bias in tone and demeanor.
She's ok with advising him of his rights, but when he needs to talk to his attorneys that's it!
Im inclined to believe the judge knows the boundary .. ...
If that were the case (judge knows boundaries), appellate court's would be unnecessary ...
... or cases would NEVER be reversed on appeal based on a trial judge's ruling or attitude.
You are "inclined" because you have pre-determined his guilt, and ...
.... anything that goes against him is fair game to you.
the judges intentions were to SCHEDULE closing arguments from both sides.. she ask the lawyers what they had planned and how long it would take, then called the jury back in the room and advised them of the schedule and time frame and will give them the option to begin deliberation Thurs pm, or Friday am
the schedule and getting lawyers from either side off their ass with their answers was the only agenda of the judge
...the schedule and getting lawyers from either side off their ass with their answers was the only agenda of the judge
... interesting mind reading there. No wonder you know how the trial is going to result.
I'm not concerned about her needing to schedule .. then ask the lawyers. That's common.
What ISN'T common is for the judge to ask the client about "scheduling" matters .. and
it is also uncommon for a judge to overrule an attorney's objection to the Court asking questions of the Client ... beyond those questions related to the Client's knowledge of his right to testify or not to testify.
Like I said .. when people get pissed they get "unstable"!
After watching the video, I wish there was a statute that allowed the attorney to say, "that's none of your Fuckin business, your honor".
There are codes ... they are just not worded exactly as you quoted. But ....
.......... "that's none of your business" is a perfect response.
The attorney's objection ought to be a little more specific ... like "you are inappropriately inquiring into our trial strategy at this time, because we have not made that decision"
It's the kind of confrontation that can turn a case on appeal. The "last straw"!
... interesting mind reading there. No wonder you know how the trial is going to result.
I'm not concerned about her needing to schedule .. then ask the lawyers. That's common.
What ISN'T common is for the judge to ask the client about "scheduling" matters .. and
it is also uncommon for a judge to overrule an attorney's objection to the Court asking questions of the Client ... beyond those questions related to the Client's knowledge of his right to testify or not to testify.
Like I said .. when people get pissed they get "unstable"!
Like I said , since I cant find any buildings being torn down on the news because of the judges actions, well you know
