The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
There are links to video segments of today's testimony in this thread: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... row//#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;C-dub wrote:Did anyone see what happened with the "doll" today? I read about it, but would have liked to have seen it when it happened.
Fox is carrying the story now, too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;fickman wrote:BREAKING NEWS (probably deserving of its own thread):
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/10/ne ... -protests/
(CRS = DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service)Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.
March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
It was in part 7. That was pretty good.ELB wrote:There are links to video segments of today's testimony in this thread: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... row//#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;C-dub wrote:Did anyone see what happened with the "doll" today? I read about it, but would have liked to have seen it when it happened.
I suspect you will find in in one of those. You can probably find it directly on Youtube.
If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?ELB wrote:The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?
Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.
Judge also denied another motion to acquit.
My faulty memory says the jury was not present. It wouldn't make sense to do that in front of the jury.baldeagle wrote:If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?ELB wrote:The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?
Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.
Judge also denied another motion to acquit.
Yep... On oil Riley tonight it was said that the jury was not present for that exchange.sjfcontrol wrote:My faulty memory says the jury was not present. It wouldn't make sense to do that in front of the jury.baldeagle wrote:If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?ELB wrote:The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?
Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.
Judge also denied another motion to acquit.
RATS. My comment was supposed to say "the jury was NOT present." sorry about that. flailing fingers I guess.sjfcontrol wrote:My faulty memory says the jury was not present. It wouldn't make sense to do that in front of the jury.baldeagle wrote:If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?ELB wrote:The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?
Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.
Judge also denied another motion to acquit.
See correction just above. sigh.baldeagle wrote:If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?ELB wrote:The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?
Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.
Judge also denied another motion to acquit.
The judge and prosecution are either desperate, or the outcome has somehow been pee-determined --though I can't see how they could get all six jurors to play along.AndyC wrote:Defense: "It's not illegal to follow someone on foot or in a car"
Judge: "Show me where that's codified in the law"
Rumored: Nelson to consolidate jury instructions to read simply: "You must find the defendant, George Zimmerman, guilty"
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/br ... /#commentsIn a surprise move this morning, the prosecution asked the Judge to drop the Aggravated Assault charge and to instruct the jury on Third Degree Murder, which is murder in the course of committing a felony.
The felony the State wanted as the predicate was Aggravated Child Abuse (Jury Instruction) because Trayvon Martin was 17 at the time of the shooting.
According to Don West, the defense was not notified until 7:30 a.m. this morning.
This surprise is important because the defense did not have time to research the law, while the State presented numerous cases.
It was actually worse than that. After that, West asked the judge to ask the prosecution to show a statute that shows that following IS illegal, and the judge replied "You're asking him to prove a negative." Black is white, and up is down.AndyC wrote:Defense: "It's not illegal to follow someone on foot or in a car"
Judge: "Show me where that's codified in the law"
