Some new evidence in the Zimmerman case

[iceberg]

I recently watched the conclusion of a case that occurred in Texas. A18yoa girl was shot and killed in her home. The reporting witness was her 14 yoa brother. After several weeks of getting all their work done and their case straight ,the brother was arrested. The Law enforcement agency knew from the first day who done it. But they took their time. The neighbors were all complaining to the press about law enforcement not doing their job. The comments in the paper read like the comments on this thread...People who's only background was a few classes in law school, watching tv or their on liberal views of the police...The law enforcement was hammered for not finding someone and then hammered for arresting the brother and for not looking for the bad guy......They took their time ,had it right from the beginning and nearly a year later the brother confessed. I have seen this many times from both sides of the fence.
The "witness" accounts are rarely %100 accurate and can be a down right lie. You don't just grab someone up and throw them in jail while you put the case together...Both sides have jobs to lose if they handle a high profile case wrong and Things are often left out of arrest affidavits. more later

we get our fast food through a drive thru.
we put dinner in a microwave to get it faster.
we use twitter to instantly pass on gossip and useless facts/trivia.

we are in fact an instant gratification society and "justice" is far from being able to go nearly as fast.

so the justice system must be doing something wrong, not people being impatient while their dinner heats up.

 

[justbob]

we get our fast food through a drive thru.
we put dinner in a microwave to get it faster.
we use twitter to instantly pass on gossip and useless facts/trivia.

we are in fact an instant gratification society and "justice" is far from being able to go nearly as fast.

so the justice system must be doing something wrong, not people being impatient while their dinner heats up.

Exactly --to heck with the nutritional value --as long as its fast

 

[Cajuncowboy]

we get our fast food through a drive thru.
we put dinner in a microwave to get it faster.
we use twitter to instantly pass on gossip and useless facts/trivia.

we are in fact an instant gratification society and "justice" is far from being able to go nearly as fast.

so the justice system must be doing something wrong, not people being impatient while their dinner heats up.

That is what a lot of people in thread suffer from. The truth is I don't care one way or the other that he is guilty or not. I just care that which ever it is, it is discovered and then he is treated fairly. That is why I try to look at all the angles. If it takes six months then fine. As long as justice is done. Some how ever want to skip the evidence gathering, skip the arraignment, skip the trial and the sentencing and go right to the execution.

Pop it in and ding! It's done. Great analogy to some of the people's perspective.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Come on. That's just a gross mischaracterization and you know it.

From what has been reported, there was no toxicology tests, no seizing of the care, multiple witnesses were ignored for a good amount of time and the head honcho of the department stepped down.

If there's one thing that can be certain, it's that the police didn't do enough initially to avoid criticism.

That's for certain.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'm pretty sure that would have to be included in the original charge. A jury can convict someone of a "lesser charge" if it is included in the original indictment. I believe, in this case, there is no such lesser charge.

If the jury could take a murder charge and reduce it to manslaughter on their own, then the prosecution would always charge people with murder because they'd essentially have nothing to lose. But instead, in this case, a lot of people are calling the prosecution's charge of murder-2 to be a mistake.

NOTE: Of course, the defense can plea bargain down to a lesser charge. And if the judge throws this case out during the pre-trial phase, the prosecutor can come back with a lesser charge. But I believe that if it goes to trial with a charge of murder-2, then that's all the jury can decide. They can't "compromise".

The judge may deny a plea bargain. I forget in felony cases they do that all the time.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

That's for certain.

No it's not.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

No it's not.

Yes it is. The police should have arrested him from the beginning if they were to treat it like almost any other case.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes it is. The police should have arrested him from the beginning if they were to treat it like almost any other case.

On what charge? Murder? Murder 2? Manslaughter? Involuntary Manslaughter? Reckless discharge of a gun? What? the fact is they didn't have enough to charge him with to make the case stick. You HAVE to wait for the evidence. Geez. Didn't you read Justbob's post above about the kid who shot his sister? They knew from the start he did it but had to wait on evidence. That is how its done. Not like in the cop shows.

 

[Rogah]

The judge may deny a plea bargain. I forget in felony cases they do that all the time.

It's true the judge may deny a plea bargain but I'm not so sure it happens "all the time.". And while I don't expect a plea bargain in this case, I seriously doubt it would be denied if there was one.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

On what charge? Murder? Murder 2? Manslaughter? Involuntary Manslaughter? Reckless discharge of a gun? What? the fact is they didn't have enough to charge him with to make the case stick. You HAVE to wait for the evidence. Geez. Didn't you read Justbob's post above about the kid who shot his sister? They knew from the start he did it but had to wait on evidence. That is how its done. Not like in the cop shows.

Most of the time cops would stack all of the above. What they do is stack the highest charges, then from there most cases plea out.

Iceberg is wrong. Our system of justice is very much an assembly line process. Most cases don't sniff the courtroom, unless (1) you find a good trial lawyer or (2) you pay a lot of money for a bad trial lawyer

Either way, you wouldn't have a good grasp on the realism aspect of our legal system if you don't see the drive thru justice system we have today.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

There wasnt enough to charge him with murder 2 to begin with. The prosecution caved to public pressure and went for it all when they should have just gone with manslaughter.

manslaughter is an included offence isn't it so even if not get him on murder, could be convicted of the lesser included offence

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

It's true the judge may deny a plea bargain but I'm not so sure it happens "all the time.". And while I don't expect a plea bargain in this case, I seriously doubt it would be denied if there was one.

It happens. I didn't mean to say "all the time". But in high profile cases, even local ones, they do it a lot. I've also seen this more in cases where there is a severely injured/dead victim like we have here.

The judge could very much throw out a plea for manslaughter. I still have a feeling that's what his defense lawyer will go for--manslaughter. Just my hunch, and I could be totally wrong. It's a process that hasn't been played out, but at least it has begun.

 

[Rogah]

manslaughter is an included offence isn't it so even if not get him on murder, could be convicted of the lesser included offence

Do you have any link or something to support that? I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that I've been wondering about that very same issue and haven't seen anything saying he was charged with a lesser included offense.

I'm pretty sure that, as currently constituted, there is no lesser included offense.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The was a book written a long time a go called " The Evidence Never Lies".
People do, lawyers do, witnesses do and even judges do and law enforcement does. But the evidence doesn't lie.

I rarely write alot in the fanzone because I love cowboy football, but I am not an expert at it. Quit playing as a high school freshman ,because I had to make a choice between the rodeo team and football.

I don't like getting into these discussions because they are not discussed on fact. Like the book says everyone can lie....Make you opinions on what you actually know and this a short and sweet thread. There many reasons for everything that has been said and done ---and most of it will never be known.

I don't mind telling you my background by pm if you want to know ..

We lawyers do not lie, our clients do, we are just their mouthpiece. We might spin the evidence before the court, ask rhetorical questions re evidence, etc but we don't lie.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

We lawyers do not lie, our clients do, we are just their mouthpiece. We might spin the evidence before the court, ask rhetorical questions re evidence, etc but we don't lie.

Well, well, well. Didn't know you were a lawyer. That explains so much.

 

[The30YardSlant]

I'm pretty sure that would violate double jeopardy. You can't go all the way to trial, have a "not guilty" verdict, and then decide to try again on a lesser charge. You can't even appeal "not guilty" (whereas "guilty" can be appealed). It would be like if Martha Clark lost the OJ case and then said "OK let's try again but this time with manslaughter." OJ can come out and admit he did it (which he kinda did now that I think about it) and they can't bring him to criminal court again.

He could, theoretically, be taken to a civil court of law (like OJ was). And the feds could file certain hate crime charges, though I doubt they would do that if he was found not guilty.

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder 2. Again, the difference is that now the prosecution will spend all this effort to convict him of murder 2 when they simply cannot.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

We lawyers do not lie, our clients do, we are just their mouthpiece. We might spin the evidence before the court, ask rhetorical questions re evidence, etc but we don't lie.

Lawyers are human. Judges are human. This is like a judge saying he's never lied. He just interprets the law. Judges essentially lie any time they make a decision. Most do it without even knowing it--but they do do it.

If you haven't delved into this psychological aspect of law, you're missing out IMO.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Do you have any link or something to support that? I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that I've been wondering about that very same issue and haven't seen anything saying he was charged with a lesser included offense.

I'm pretty sure that, as currently constituted, there is no lesser included offense.

By the way, I didn't mean to say "a lot". I meant to say a lot more. Most judges accept most plea bargains. And it's the drive thru justice system we have that grants them this luxury.

 

[Rogah]

Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder 2. Again, the difference is that now the prosecution will spend all this effort to convict him of murder 2 when they simply cannot.

I'm going to retract my statement because I think you're right. I did some google searching and there are plenty of people on both sides of that matter, but the "lesser included offense" people tend to outnumber the non "lesser included offense" people.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'm going to retract my statement because I think you're right. I did some google searching and there are plenty of people on both sides of that matter, but the "lesser included offense" people tend to outnumber the non "lesser included offense" people.

Yep..