<p>
</p>
<p>I hope that continues to be your position if this jury refuses to convict GZ. </p>
<p>I also think jurors are not stupid and see when they are being asked to stack inferences and “guess” when a person’s freedom is at stake and they have taken an oath that includes following the law which includes the burden of proof and the level of proof. As previously cited, Florida SYG defense cases have resulted in acquittal/dismissal more often than convictions.</p>
<p>I remember when my 18 year old DS was about 4 and he started going over to other friends houses to play. I always asked 2 questions 1. Do you have a pool? Becuase my DS does not know how to swim. 2. Do you have any guns in the house?If so are they locked up in gun cabinet?</p>
<p>I think some of the parents were taken back by my questions But as his mom I needed to know he was going to be “safe”.</p>
<p>Sorry, I missed a lot of yesterday. Didn’t know the Hannity interview had been presented. That does not seem to help GZ today.</p>
<p>Neither do all these DNA exhibits being presented this afternoon…</p>
<p>Here is some helpful information on touch DNA.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf</a></p>
<p>When we used to drive into Canada, the first thing Canadian border guards asked coming in was "do you have any guns?’, when driving back into U.S., American border guards wanted to know “Do you have any fish, or booze”!</p>
<p>I think that one of the lessons of the O.J. trial was “Thou shalt not bore the jury.” Another lesson of that trial was, “Thou shalt not waste the jury’s time.”</p>
<p>Sure, the prosecution could have dug around to find someone who had been in class the day DYG was discussed to testify that Zimmerman was there, and then the defense could have asked whether that witness had knowledge whether Zimmerman had actually been listening, or actually retaining the lesson. There is probably no longer any proof of which questions Zimmerman got correct on class tests. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine too many people on a jury would assume that one of the best students (who earned an A) in a class where the SYG law had been covered during multiple class sessions would have NO knowledge of the topic. Particularly a person who had expressed an interest in law enforcement as a career.</p>
<p>07DAD, it will be. In my experience juries usually get the right answer to the question they’re asked. On the Florida SYG acquittal rate - do you know how many of those acquitted on SYG did not testify in their own defense?</p>
<p>The attorney who taught Zimmerman’s class didn’t know in court today the Florida Statute # for the “Stand your ground law.” Maybe Zimmerman only knew the statute as FS 776 or whatever it is. </p>
<p>It should be a gimme that Zimmerman knew the only time it was lawful to shoot someone was in self-defense. I doubt he had the Florida statutes memorized…he isn’t an attorney.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. You said you’d reviewed over 200 criminal appeal briefs in California. Do criminal defendants testify regularly in California cases?</p>
<p>A number of GZ’s video statements were shown in court with him telling what happened…they were all pretty much consistent. He doesn’t need to go on stand…he told his story already and it was presented in court.</p>
<p>There’s obviously more than one school of thought on how to be safe with guns around children or in general. Poetgrl chooses to never give her children the opportunity to have an accident. Most of the people I know want to completely immerse their children in the proper and safe use of firearms. If they ever run into a gun at a friends house whose parent didn’t lock them up, they have the proper training to handle the situation and could possibly save another child’s life. </p>
<p>I got to walk around with a bb gun when I was 7-8 when my father would drive in the hills to shoot his rifle. I didn’t know it but he was teaching me to be aware of him shooting a rifle and not to walk in front of the firing line, and also teaching me to be aware of where my muzzle was pointed at all times. I would accidentally point the gun in his direction and he would scold me. In a short while I learned the golden rule that if you never point a gun at another human being, you will never shoot someone accidentally. A few years later when my father saw that I was safe, I was allowed to shoot the a 22. </p>
<p>The couple of friends I had who pointed an unloaded bb gun at me in a few different circumstances were always the kids that had a very limited experience with guns. They went shooting once or twice with guns their whole life. More exposure to guns isn’t necessarily a bad thing.</p>
<p>07DAD, most of the defendants don’t testify. But I can’t remember self-defense being raised in any case that I’ve briefed. (I’ve been doing this for over 30 years - it’s possible I had one but I don’t remember it.) Usually the question is “Did he do it” or “what exactly did he do” not “did he have a valid reason for doing it?”</p>
<p>That’s why I was curious, though. Particularly when no third party witness saw what happened I would think that a jury would not go to self defense without the defendant “telling his side of the story.” It is an affirmative defense; you’re not arguing “I didn’t do it” but “I did it but I have a valid justification.” It’s hard to effectively present that defense without the defendant testifying. Of course, here GZ did get to present his testimony through the various statements the prosecutor put into evidence, so that may make a difference.</p>
<p>Lizard, I’m not sure “pretty consistent” is good enough if he doesn’t take the stand. The specific inconsistencies will be laid out in detail for the jury in closing - probably with his recorded statements played back-to-back with his conflicting statements or other contradictory evidence.</p>
<p>My children can shoot and clean and take care of a gun. We just do not keep them in the house.</p>
<p>As to the case, is anybody watching? I’m out. Is there any DNA in Treyvon from Z? Or only the other way around?</p>
<p>Zimmerman and his attorneys will make decision if GZ testifies or not. Things could change fast in court such that he has to. Too, I’m not in courtroom and I sure can’t see jurors and assess their reactions to proceedings in court…GZ’s attorneys can and they’ll tell GZ what is best for him to do as far as testifying or not.</p>
<p>The point that I think is critical in the decision about keeping guns in the house is that you become responsible for every person who enters your home.</p>
<p>You can be sure that you have taught your own immediate family members well, but you can’t be sure about anyone else who enters your home.</p>
<p>I grew up in a home and area where there was a strong hunting culture. Many families had at least one family member who hunted, and I believe that those who didn’t had enough exposure to guns and hunting that people were comfortable that there was a basic overall knowledge of how to safely store your guns, and how to behave around other families’ guns even if you didn’t own them yourself.</p>
<p>However, we now live in an area where there are few hunters, and the suburban culture here is not one that supports gun ownership. I know people here who would not let their children play at homes where guns were on the premises. And that is appropriate, because those kids really don’t know enough about guns to be considered safe around them. </p>
<p>We own guns, but no ammunition. They (shotguns) have trigger guards and are locked in a gun safe. The gun safe is in a corner of the basement, with storage boxes in front of it. The keys are kept in our bedroom. I feel that level of precaution offers enough protection to young people in my home. I would not feel comfortable if we had ammunition in the house, though.</p>
<p>Trayvon Martin’s sweatshirts were not packaged in the best way before they came to the DNA analyst. The were placed in plastic bags when damp, and had a moldy or ammonia-like smell when the bags were opened for analysis. The best practice would have been to air dry the sweatshirts, and the tomplace them in paper bags.</p>
<p>Being stored that way <em>could</em> affect findings.</p>
<p>It wasn’t clear what effect incorrect packaging might have on DNA evidence.</p>
<p>
But the other cases you’ve seen don’t involve so much of the defendant’s story coming in via video & audiotape statements. The jury has seen GZ’s statements – without cross-examination, but with full opportunity for the prosecution to point out contradictions with the physical evidence & other witness testimony.</p>
<p>GZ is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he doesn’t testify, he’s got no opportunity to clean up problems. (For example, he could say that he was confused and disoriented on the filmed walkthrough, but now having looked at a map his memory is refreshed … and then describe in more cohesive fashion how he got from one point to another). But testimony subjects him to cross-examination – and I think he would have big problems. For one thing, his testimony might very well open the door to admission of evidence about his past arrests or the lies he told at the bail hearing. Plus, from what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think he would hold it together so well. The Hannity interview and his behavior during the so-called “challenge” police interview suggest that he tends to say things without thinking about their implications. </p>
<p>My guess is that he will NOT testify – I think things can only get worse if he is cross-examined in front of the jury. There simply is too much to impeach him with. He can’t feign remorse after the Hannity interview. Even if he hold up well, cross-examination provides an opportunity for the prosecution to hammer home every inconsistency and put him on the spot with question about how many times he claims to have been hit or slammed, or what he was really doing when he was over TM’s body after shooting him (as his claim that he pulled TM’s arms out is obviously untrue).</p>
<p>I just got back from work and have not read today’s posts so I am sorry if this was discussed. I read that someone testified regarding Martin’s DNA not being on Zimmerman but Zimmerman’s DNA being on Martin. What was the context? Was it compelling testimony that will have an impact?</p>