Worthless PR-flacks slimed their way onto shows like "Diane Rehm" to make a point that we couldn't get a thousand yards away from our homes without being ready to pull a pistol and settle disputes. "Kill the other witness" legislation

Fun was listening to the way Diane Rehm said the word "tweet". "Tweet us at the Diane Rehm Show."

wtf?

it worked in the rodney king case tho. don't believe your lying eyes

The Z Team hates common sense.

.....I'm thinking that Mr. O'Mara didn't like the PA using back at them.

And that it's okay to rely on it when assessing evidence.

The jury will be told that their common sense and logic are tools they can use to weight the evidence and make their decisions. They can infer things from what they've seen.

It's just ridiculous that an attorney would say something like that.

imagination. Then he tells them, imagine it the way
Zimmerman said it happened.

My impression by the end (though i missed much
of it) was that John Guy is going to cream him.

But in the end it's the jury.. hope they have
common sense.

will talk down to them and then have them nod out.

Perhaps not so smart. And what's with the sunglasses?

n/t

then the defense, but does the prosecutor get to rebut the defense's closing? (I hope my question makes sense.)

Prosecution has 2 first then 1 rebuttal.

Defense does not get to re-rebut.

when they rebut, and I hope it is John Guy doing the rebuttal. De la Rionda didn't tie up the evidence into a theory of what happened, nor did he push important points to the jury. Maybe the DA was waiting til the rebut to do so, so that the defense couldn't attempt to tear down the theory.

Anyways, the DA needs to come out swinging to get that murderer put behind bars.

Though it may be tricky as "doubt" can be more open to interpretation with a theory.

with their common sense..he is planting doubt in their minds...

Yikes! The rebuttal needs to tear this apart!

Defense has the final word.

It goes state's argument, defense argument, state's rebuttal argument.

Questioning goes the same way, state, defense, state (but in my state, some judges will let defense have another chance). Of course, for the past 20 plus years I've only done bench trials, where things are a little looser.

Thanks for setting me straight.

I must admit, as much as I've watched coverage of various trials, I've never paid that close of attention to closing arguments.

I just assumed the prosecution got the first word so the defense must get the last.

But "the party with the burden of proof" thing makes sense.

which is "A reasonable doubt"

manslaughter at the very least.

The jury will be given a definition of the standard they are to use and probably have it explained in some detail during instructions. Also, juries are given written definitions of "reasonable doubt" and other terms and they're given copies of all the charges.

I know when I served we read the binder we had repeatedly to make sure we followed the law and MSNBC had a juror for some big case on last night and she said the same thing.

Condescending much?

Thanks guys for doing all of the heavy lifting.

Wow. I understand a little bit of this, but to make your entire strategy about calling the jury too dumb to make a proper decision...doesn't sound like a good route to take.

Lets see, o'Mara now talking to jury about cutting corners and not taking it seriously..

iSN'T THAT WHAT Z DID.....cut corners by assuming.....

The rebuttal ought to be a hoot!

Which is utter bullshit stratgey, IMHO.

how wonderful the Defense is and how bad the State was

Even someone who believes GZ is innocent would have a hard time not to believe he was a wannabe cop. He applied to be an officer (application rejected), he took criminal justice courses (on his own I guess because there is no evidence he was enrolled a a degree candidate), he is a "watch captain" in a neighborhood and carries a weapon and took MMA classes for a year, but no, he is no wannabe cop. Really?

bringing in your garbage cans?

Did O'mara sound this out in his head before he started talking?

away at reasonable doubt.

Rene Stutzman@renestutzman

#Trayvon's parents arrive as O'Mara asks jury not to come up w/ a "compromise verdict."
Jurors across the board making eye contact w/ him.

Valerie Boey@vboey

B29, E6, E40 taking notes every once in a while.#fox35

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV

Jurors are taking notes about the defense reminder that the standard is not 51-49 in a criminal case. #Zimmermanon9

Way to make the case for profiling - which he just referenced as "happenstance".

GZ's verbal attacks doesn't really call him an asshole.

Charts telling the jury how significant certain evidence is? Really?

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV

This jury is paying such close attention they didn't flinch over a loud noise from falling tv equipment in the courtroom.

Hopefully theyre just being polite.

If you were on trial, you would want the jury to listen to every word your lawyer says.

I am looking to reinforce my initial impression, put them into context.

Some of the most copious notes I've taken as a juror were to note things I thought were sketchy, i.e., the testimony, coupled with my questions about it.

Defense has 3 hours (to to lunch-ish) then Prosecution has 1 hour to rebut.

I have a feeling it is going to be a long wait for a verdict.

Oops. I meant to reply to the post about watching liars intently.

Under the pretense that the jury has heard enough of "those words" he's paraphrasing Z's comments into a mild mannered commentary. Smart, but I hope they rebut hell out of it.

He is arguing state has not proved case beyond reasonable doubt.....

I guess O'Mara does not like Zimmerman, I do not detect anything in his tone, but he is fighting for him....most likely very well paid as well.

casually going about his business.... O'Mara is a good attorney, make no mistake. He is now telling the jury it would be a mistake to connect the dots that are not there......

now showing animation.

Often used by liars to avoid giving details that would be compromising.

Mike Tyson would have been proud of that punch.

Biased, slanted, visually inaccurate as to the characters.

The brain processes what is seen as truth even when the viewer knows differently.

Jury not impressed

bob kealing ?@bobkealing
E-6 made notes. I don't get the sense other jurors got much out of it. E-40 back to head on hand

by somehow knowing Zimmerman had a gun and should have run faster?

... but not running fast enough, or directly home.

I was switching feed and had to sit through a stupid ad - stream started and they were breaking for 15 WTF?

Then jury instructions, then the jury takes it.

and that Z gets the max he can get.

Hmmmm....didn't Rachel say that he thought he lost Zimmerman? I can't remember? But if he did, I'm thinking that he hung out talking on the phone. Wouldn't one think that maybe Trayvon thought he was letting him imagination get away from him, or that he lost him (him being Zimmerman) and just go back to what they (Trayvon) were doing? Maybe O'Mara would like to ask Trayvon why he didn't get home....oh that's right....he's dead.

Probably, at least one of the mothers on the jury will have had some experience with being stalked. They will know what it's like not to want some nutjob to follow you home.

This move by the defense shows that, even in death, the Martin kid is still being profiled by the Zimmerman team.

He was watching a younger kid wasn't he?

I mean if i was of the belief somebody was following me I'd try to lose them rather then lead them to not only where i was staying, but also the place where the kid i was watching over was.

I think 5 of the 6 jurors have children. I hope the prosecution makes some hay with this when they close.

Woman are raised knowing this. You don't lead someone you believe is creepy or out to get you straight to your door. It's instinctive. Home is a safe haven. And it's not safe anymore when the creepy person or someone you believe is out to do you harm when they know where you live and thus can get to you or your family at any time. You try to lose them so you CAN go home and they won't know where your home is.

whether they've ever been stalked before or not. It's common sense that you don't want someone you think is out to get you to know where you live. That's one thing mothers teach kids, and there's no woman alive who's ever been to a bar that wouldn't want some creep following them home and finding out where they live. The first instinct is to lose them and only go home when you believe that you have whether you're on foot or in your car. Nobody with sense leads a creep right to their door.

...every right to be where he wanted to be

He's trying to show that the state didn't prove anything in that regard, so the benefit of the doubt goes to Zimmerman.

One is dead and one is a liar. Sorry about the snark...not towards you.

I recall that Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon,
who thought he had lost Z. So it's likely he was
just hanging out and talking on the phone to
her, when Z reappeared right behind him as
she testified.

by Zimmerman? Zimmerman even told the person at 911 that he had a visual on him, then he couldn't see where he got to. And Trayvon's friend said that Trayvon told her 'I lost him'. Wouldn't that add on to his time home?

I am just tuning in..

Apparently juror E6 took copious note during animation....was the only juror who did.....

that was not evidence.

n/t