<p>Jurors in these high profile cases feel pressure to reach a verdict. Has a high profile jury ever hung?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), the amount of THC in the system can be consistent with having smoked pot many hours ago to possibly days or weeks ago. THC level drops really quickly after a few hours of consumption but small level of it stays for a long time. It is not conclusive that it would have effected the mental function of TM, so it could have been unfairly prejudicial if it was allowed to be entered as evidence.</p>
<p>^particularly since no drug or alcohol screen was done on GZ</p>
<p>^Yes, that was probably also another part of the factor in the ruling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I mostly agree with you. </p>
<p>I think that the prosecution charged 2nd degree murder partly because it allows them to present a stronger argument against GZ, which makes it somewhat easier for the jury to agree on manslaughter. That is, it gets the jury focused on whether GZ had the “bad guy” intent that is part of the 2nd degree charge – and not simply the how scared he was part – if there is disagreement on that, then their discussion might tend to lead toward the manslaughter verdict, which really requires only culpable negligence. </p>
<p>However, I do think that if the jury believes that it is Trayvon’s voice on the tape, then that by itself could support the murder charge. It really does sound like a young, terrified voice begging for his life, and GZ’s post-shooting behaviour and apparent lack of remorse don’t help him. </p>
<p>Around the time that GZ was charged with murder, there was a case in Texas where a father caught a man in the act of raping his very young daughter (maybe age 6 or 8). The father went ballistic and beat the crap out of the rapist, and then when he realize he had gone too far, he called 911 desperate to help the dying rapist – he was panicking and doing CPR and whatever else, trying with all his might to save the life of the man he had just beaten. I think that is an illustration of the type of behavior of someone who does not have “depraved mind” (the 2nd degree murder requirement). The Texas father probably could easily have been charged with involuntary manslaughter – it really wasn’t self-defense – but in that case the father gave an accurate account without making excuses. Instead of insisting he was right to kill the rapist, he was clearly very rueful and upset at the outcome, and there was also strong physical evidence that the little girl had indeed been raped – so the prosecutors decided not to charge him.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, several times you have mentioned that it was “pitch black” outside, and said this is why TM could just jump out at GZ without GZ seeing him.</p>
<p>But it cannot have been that dark. GZ claimed TM was staring at him. You cannot tell if someone is staring at you from a distance if it’s pitch black. We have two witnesses who claim that they saw portions of the subsequent confrontation - i.e, after TM allegedly jumped out at GZ in the pitch black - and could see from quite a distance away who was on top, the colors of sweatshirts and arms swinging up and down. </p>
<p>There were no bushes near the concrete path where GZ said he was jumped, and it was not too dark to see colors, motion, and body sizes. IF GZ’s story depends on his claim that he was jumped unawares, GZ’s story just doesn’t add up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the jury is left with the evidence it is left with. Rarely do people retell events exactly the same. On the key points, GZ is consistent. If you watch the videos of him, he is pretty believable on the key points. I think he lied to Hannity when he said he did not know stand your ground, but that was well after he spoke with the police. The other discrepancies in his story are minor and easily explained away. </p>
<p>Rachael Jantel appeared to me to be someone who tries to please the person with whom she is speaking. It’s not surprising, but that undermines her credibility.</p>
<p>We will see see if I am right about the appeal. Based on the other Fl case law I have seen discussed it appears less obvious cases than this one were reversed on appeal because of self defense.</p>
<p>As to the marijuana, one of the experts said he could say that the marijuana may have had an effect on TM’s behavior or it may not have had an effect on TM’s behavior. I think it would be up to the jury to decided this given that ZM said TM looked to be on drugs.</p>
<p>I don’t see how the exclusion of the marijuana evidence would be seen as prejudicial to GZ because there is no evidence that marijuana intoxication would have any bearing on TM’s likelihood of acting violently. On the contrary, marijuana generally has more tranquilizing effects – had Trayvon been stoned, he would have been less likely to start a fight, his reflexes would have been slower, so he would also have been less likely to get the upper hand over someone else in a fight. </p>
<p>So letting in the THC evidence would have just opened the door to expert testimony about the effects of cannabis, which again would not have been particularly helpful to the defense. At most it would have confirmed GZ’s impression that TM looked like he was “on drugs” – but it would have undermined the whole self defense narrative. </p>
<p>Given that there was no particular evidence that ingestion had been recent, it makes sense that the judge would exclude it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the reason that lie is important is that GZ had a clear motivation to falsify key parts of his story, in order to establish self defense. </p>
<p>I found the college teacher’s testimony about “imperfect self defense” to be important, because it is very possible that there was a 2-way fist fight going on (maybe with more grabbing and shoving than actual punching), but that at some point TM managed to land a strong enough punch get GZ really, really angry – at which point he pulled out his gun and shot, firing in anger not fear. Then he realizes immediately that he’s gone too far, and he knows from his criminal justice course that he needs to come up with a better story than, “he punched me.” Hence the whole story about the head banging and the strangling. </p>
<p>The other aspect of the Hannity lie is simply that it it shows GZ to be less than 100% truthful. The part about looking for an address is also a demonstrable lie (either that or you have to believe that GZ is really, really stupid) – and there is also evidence that GZ told his best friend a story about a struggle for the gun at odds with what he told the cops. So if GZ is lying some of the time, it’s not a big stretch to come to the conclusion that GZ is going to lie whenever he feels he needs to – including on the critical details as to how the fight started and how it ended.</p>
<p>Here’s a video of the prosecution’s argument against the defense motion for acquittal. I think its a good preview of the prosecution’s closing argument to the jury:
[Prosecution</a> Argues Against Acquittal - Zimmerman Did Not Act Out of Self-Defense - YouTube](<a href=“Prosecution Argues Against Acquittal - Zimmerman Did Not Act Out of Self-Defense - YouTube”>Prosecution Argues Against Acquittal - Zimmerman Did Not Act Out of Self-Defense - YouTube)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. He seems to “remember” anything that he thinks makes a better case for himself, and “forget” the details that would cast doubt on his actions. I don’t think this is unintentional.</p>
<p>Just in the interest of remaining “super-civil,” I would also suggest that rather than say “GZ saw TM circling the car,” you say “GS says he saw TM circling the car” or “TM allegedly circled the car.” There are things we know, and things we don’t.</p>
<p>I agree with Sally. I know its hard to consistently remember to do so, but I try to use words like “may” or “possible” or preface my opinions with “I think” for exactly that reason. There are some undisputed facts, such as statements recorded in the 911 call, the fact GZ fired the shot that killed Martin, the fact that the bullet went through his heart – but most of the details in between rely on testimony or physical evidence that is subject to more than one possible interpretation.</p>
<p>In the eight or so trials where I was a juror I’ve seen so many incredibly inconsistent stories and whoppers on the stand things like the difference between “circling” and “staring” do not seem significant to me. Also, saying somebody came out of bushes, out of the dark, or appeared suddenly, whatever, these are not that big a deal to me. JMO. I’m not sure of the other inconsistencies, I’ll wait for the argument.</p>
<p>The lie on the TV show diminishes GZ credibility. Is it enough for me to throw out his story entirely? Probably not. But it was a stupid lie, and is a point against him in my totality of thinking.</p>
<p>I sat on a trial where a guy was charged with carjacking a lady delivering newspapers at 3 AM. Her claim was that he used a knife. He was found in the car, but he claimed he found it running and didn’t actually carjack it. So the question was whether he carjacked it, just stole it, and if he used a knife which made it much worse crime. He called a homeless lady to testify that she just happened to witness the whole thing at 3 AM and saw him steal the running car off the street. On cross, turns out she grew up across the street from him. Completely unbelievable, but we still didn’t ignore everything he said merely because he called an obviously lying witness. IIRC we ended up convicting him of the theft, not the carjack. Or maybe just not using the knife. Regardless, I am pretty sure he carjacked her with a knife, but the evidence wasn’t there. His story was as reasonable as the other story, despite his dishonest witness.</p>
<p>About the “pitch black” description of the lighting, I would really like to know more about WHEN it became pitch black. 7:00 is pretty early. Could it have started out as dusk and became dark as the events escalated?</p>
<p>Does anyone know why the taped explanation of what happened according to GZ can be introduced, which is a way of him telling his version of the story, but he cannot be cross examined? It seems odd to me, but I am not a lawyer.</p>
<p>
I’m not a lawyer either, but I think the prosecution can enter that as part of the investigation. I don’t think they would let the defense enter that evidence. I mean, doesn’t one side or the other have to move to exclude (or object to) evidence submitted without cross? In this case, the introduction of this benefitted the defense so they would be unlikely to object.</p>
<p>Oh well, I’m sure Calmom knows. My info is based on Law and Order.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the super civil means when posters are referring to other posts, not when a poster is referring to someone who is not on CC. The terms of service say something about not being mean to other posters. I think it is ok to trash GZ because he has done a pretty good job of it himself and has not posted on CC. :)</p>
<p>Sunset was 6:22 p.m. in Sanford that day…it would be dark in less than 30 minutes.</p>
<p>Trayvon Martin case quiz:</p>
<p><a href=“Million-hoodie march - CSMonitor.com”>Million-hoodie march - CSMonitor.com;
<p>How do you know GZ didn’t post here? He is an A student you know.</p>
<p>Actually only in his Litigation class, English and Marriage and Family. He got D’s in Introduction to Criminal Justice and Juvenile Delinquency, and a C in a course called Evil Minds -Violent Predators.</p>
<p>[Records</a> show George Zimmerman got D’s in criminal justice classes - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/09/2943103/records-show-zimmerman-got-ds.html#storylink=cpy]Records”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/09/2943103/records-show-zimmerman-got-ds.html#storylink=cpy)</p>