Judge Nelson is getting pissed.

[madaboutharry]

Now discussing whether information from Trayvon's cell phone text messages are admissible.

All the defense wants to do is to smear Trayvon.

[hlthe2b]

1. How so? Can you elaborate?

[madaboutharry]

3. She has gotten very short with Mr. West.

[CatWoman]

2. where are you watching?

online?

[madaboutharry]

5. Go to the live stream at Naples News

Google Trayvon Martin Live Stream and scroll until you get to the link for Naples News. They are live streaming evidence hearings now.

[Control-Z]

7. I'm watching the same online.

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/live-zimmerman-trial-jury-selection-day-6/

[Little Star]

4. They can't be still going at 8pm can they?

[madaboutharry]

6. Evidence hearings.

The defense wants to get in the contents of Trayvon's cell phone and texts.

[TorchTheWitch]

45. when a jury is sequestered absolutely

The jury usually isn't made to do unreasonable hours but the court most certainly will. Even when a jury isn't sequestered the attorneys pretty much work 24/7 throughout a trial. It's got to be excruciating to get so little sleep or decent meals. It's a hard job and not one I'd want to do for any amount of money.

[Warpy]

9. The judge needs to point out to the jury who is on trial

He needs to point a lot of things out but most especially, this.

[madaboutharry]

10. The judge is a she.

Judge Debra Nelson.

[Warpy]

14. Lovely.

I haven't been watching.

[Luminous Animal]

18. That's no excuse.

[Igel]

20. No, but it's a good start.

I didn't know Nelson was a she. Hadn't seen a pronoun. Hadn't seen a first name. Hadn't seen her.

I'd have called Nelson a "him."

[Luminous Animal]

23. Again no excuse. In this day and age, a mindful person would use "she/he" or "her/him" when

uncertain of the gender.

[TheMadMonk]

34. I do try to use them/they wherever possible, but that awkwardness? as bad as substituting...

...the feminine in a gender neutral position. All it does is offend those who most need educating, making it even less likely they'll ever come around.

[Luminous Animal]

42. I'm probably getting it wrong bt I'm not sure what you are saying.

For instance, I don't know your gender and I wouldn't presume to know; so, if I were ever to refer to you I would use she/he which is gender neutral.

I would assume that your are a singular person and using they/them seems grammatically awkward.

[TheMadMonk]

57. Sometimes needs a bit of word reordering, but it is quite possible to write gender neutral english.

I am "you" if you are speaking to me, and "them/they/their" as necessary when speaking of me.


Or you may refer to me as Russia's greatest love machine if you wish to be formal.

[avebury]

11. Did she make a decision on the cartoon? nt

[madaboutharry]

12. She said she will have a decision at 8 am tomorrow.

[Beaverhausen]

13. what about Zimmerman's past violent behavior? Was that admissible?

[YarnAddict]

19. I think it's too late

since the prosecution rested its case.

[Lex]

22. If Zimmerman takes the stand, the Prosecution can ask him about his record and

his past violent behavior on cross, if the Judge allows it.

[Just Saying]

27. Oh if Zimmerman takes the stand

I think it would be admissible. But he won't.

[davidpdx]

55. There is no way the defense will put Zimmerman on the stand

He'd flip out on cross.

[riverwalker]

46. could they bring it up on rebuttal?

since the gym guy said Zimmerman "didn't know how to fight" I would think it calls for rebuttal.

[Scootaloo]

15. No surprises from the defense

There's no defending Zimmerman unless the defense can make Martin look like a maniacal killer lurking in the bushes. Everything the defense has is character assassination against Martin. That's all.

So the question is. Can the defense convince six women that a 16 year old boy "needed killing"? That a man twice his age, with 40 pounds on him, with MMA training, was in absolute dire threat from a kid - a child, both under the law and in common speech - who apparently had a bag of skittle in his hand right up until he was killed?

I'm wagering that no, the defense will not convince the jury of this, and that Zimmerman will be looking at thirty years in the dock.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Actually, the defense does not need to "convince" the jury of anything.

It's the prosecution that needs to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty. If the jury accepts that even one theory that Zimmerman was justified is slightly plausible, he walks.

[Lex]

28. Not technically

but in reality, yes, the defense is trying to convince the jury that shooting Trayvon was a reasonable thing to have done given the circumstances.

[riverwalker]

29. reasonable doubt

they CAN have doubt, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. Not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", not without any doubt. Reasonable doubt.

[Scootaloo]

48. And this does not change the defense's tactic of demonizing a 16 year old boy

[TorchTheWitch]

51. no, it's preponderance of the evidence

Since it's a self-defense case the burden shifts to the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a lessor standard than reasonable doubt) that the defendant was justified in using deadly force and killing the victim. The killing has already been admitted to by the defendant.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for cases that aren't self-defense cases in which the prosecution's burden is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. In this case since the killing has already been admitted to that is no longer the burden. Though the defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the killing was justified they have a lessor burden since preponderance of the evidence is not nearly as high of a standard as reasonable doubt. The jury can find Zimmerman not guilty if they believe that the evidence tells them he is not guilty even by 51% of the evidence. However, they can also find him guilty by at least 51% of the evidence.

Further, the jury can discount any evidence they want whether totally or partially... they don't have to believe that every piece of evidence is either 51% or more in favor or not in favor of the defendant. It goes by the totality of the evidence. This is true for any trial and why the jury is to remain unbiased until deliberations - in other words, until they have seen and heard all of the evidence.

The jury also can't find him not guilty because one of his stories or pieces combined from each of the ones he's given make sense because as they have to judge him by the totality of the evidence they have to consider the fact that there is more than one story that he gave. And frankly, that alone should count more highly than anything else in judging whether or not he is guilty since providing more than one story means that he's lied about what happened, and if he has lied about what happened he can't be believed. However, what matters is whether or not the jury believes that the changes in the stories he gave were significant or insignificant. If they believe there is even one significant detail that they believe he has lied about and didn't simply not remember or not remember entirely or correctly but lied about then they'd have to find him guilty on the basis that he lied about something significant or several things they believe are significant.

This is why judging on the totality of the evidence is so important. A defendant can't give a variety of explanations of what happened in the hope that one of them or the combinations of parts from more than one of them are believable and expect to be found not guilty as the fact that the defendant DID give more than one explanation of what happened is the heavier factor in judging whether or not they have been truthful about what happened and therefore not guilty.

All of this will be explained to the jury just before deliberations in the jury instructions in court by the judge. They'll also have copies of the instructions while they deliberate and can ask the judge for any clarification of the instructions or any part of them during their deliberations.

[Control-Z]

16. So what if Trayvon was thinking/talking about a firearm.

Zimmerman HAD one. If they allow this, what about Zimmerman's record?

[Zoeisright]

17. Not pissed enough.

She's let that slimeball hack attorney get away with murder. Literally.

[Nye Bevan]

25. "Literally"? Whom did the attorney murder? (nt)

[Incitatus]

21. The defense must realize that doors they open swing both ways.

If certain parts of Trayvon's past are admissible, so must parts of Zimmerman's. IIRC

[Nye Bevan]

26. The prosecution already rested its case (nt)

[madaboutharry]

30. They have rebuttal after the defense rests.

[riverwalker]

31. can watch here too, link

http://wildabouttrial.com/george-zimmerman-live-stream.html

[madaboutharry]

32. This is fascinating.

It is almost 10pm, they haven't eaten dinner, their nerves are frayed. Judge Nelson is arguing with Mr. West. It is amazing.

[riverwalker]

33. she says emails are not always

from the sender can't be authentic, others can use his phone to send message, how do you authenticate a text message? good point.

[madaboutharry]

35. Mr. West is throwing a temper tantrum.

Now it is a violation of the United States Constitution if Trayvon's text messages aren't allowed in.

[riverwalker]

36. "a 7 year old can do it"

"anyone could know the password".

"How do you know Trayvon sent them?"
West: "we have not had time to find those who received them"...blah blah...
West "violates the constitution" LOL
Judge:" It's 9:56 pm we are in recess. Goodnight."
West: blah blah whine whine whaaaaa

[Hugabear]

47. Plus, there is absolutely no context for those texts

We don't know if the texts were serious, if they were just messing around, etc.

[Spazito]

37. Holy crap, the Judge is SO pissed...

and rightly so! It seems there have been TWO breaches regarding witnesses, one for sure was by the defense and, I'm betting the second is also by the defense. Yikes and double yikes.

The hearings on those breaches are going to happen tomorrow at 8:00 am Florida time, I hope they are in public due to the Sunshine laws.

Knock-knock was whining he can't keep doing this, late nights and all, I heard a door slam and then nothing.

Wow, wow and wow.

[madaboutharry]

39. That was something to see.

[Spazito]

43. I am still trying to pick up my chin from my desk!

I have never heard of TWO violations re the '"sequestration" of witnesses by the trial attorneys as has happened here. No wonder the Judge has had it with the antics and both defense attorneys seem to be completely tone-deaf as to when to shut up and sit down.

[Glimmer of Hope]

40. He is disrespectful and whiney.

[Spazito]

44. Yep, what part of knowing when to shut up and sit down when the Judge...

is making their point does he not get. It was appalling but not the first time his behavior has been like this.

[Control-Z]

49. That was amazing!

The sniveling defense lawyers are the ones extending the hours with their long winded, redundant, arguments. They keep trying to get more smear material in for the jury to see. And they are downright disrespectful to the judge if she doesn't kowtow to their demands.

So they're stomping their feet like spoiled brats and the judge walks out on them - mid tantrum. It was a beautiful thing!! I do hope a clip of that shows up on the internet!

[Spazito]

50. I had the stream minimized and was listening rather than watching and...

heard the Judge say court is in recess and West just kept on whining about how hard these late nights and weekends are, poor baby, O'Mara whining about not enough time (yet he has plenty of time for press conferences and media appearances), I heard a door slam and then silence. It was awesome!

[Control-Z]

53. So awesome.

I feel like I witnessed something special tonight. It made it worth sitting through those last few incredibly painful hours.

I really like this judge. She's been more than patient with the likes of the defense lawyers, especially O'Mara, who has made it perfectly clear he feels she is beneath him, and needs to be schooled by him in the courtroom. I just love that she walked out!!

[Spazito]

54. I like Judge Nelson as well, she has had the patience of Job at times...

especially when both O'Mara and West show complete contempt for her and her position, talking over her, ignoring her rulings at times. She stops their atrocious behavior and, until tonight, has done so in an admirable even tone. She is a no nonsense Judge who keeps timelines as one should.

It was clear the straw was broken when the violated the 'sanctity' of the witness sequestration rules. The slamming of the door was a clear message to them, one I doubt they will heed to their detriment.

[TorchTheWitch]

38. smearing the victim has become quite popular

Particularly dead victims that are no longer alive to defend themselves.

[avaistheone1]

41. And it continues.

The defense was smearing Trayvon before trial as well.

[TorchTheWitch]

52. thankfully it usually backfires with the juries

Makes me wonder why attorneys keep doing it. Trying to smear a dead person who can't defend themselves is rightfully not taken well by most people.

[BlueStater]

56. Because he hasn't had any decent work since "The Breakfast Club"?