but if they do that, then they open up the jury to the idea of a different/multiple scenario, which in itself is reasonable doubt.

 

the defense should not have called the current witness. it's adding nothing and the state is running with him.

 

Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN.com

DOJ sends secret “peacekeepers” where Trayvon Martin was killed | Judicial Watch

» Police Fear Flash Mob Violence If Zimmerman Acquitted Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

Judge considers lesser charges in Zimmerman case

I didn't even realize it was possible?

 

in FL everything is possible.

 

Is it really legal to change the charges after the trial is already this far in without a plea? That seems like shady ****. What is to stop the DA from just hitting you with the highest charge he can and then just lowering the standard when he can't prove his case. That just sounds ridiculous.

EDIT: I just looked it up and in most courts it is perfectly legal for you to be tried for one charge and be convicted of a lessor charge if evidence for the original charge is insufficient.

 

yeah it seems kinda weak, so they just shoot for the stars and just grab whatever they can on the way down. I feel like if you're being tried for a certain crime, that's all you should be subjected to. Although I guess any lesser charges also being considered prevents double jeopardy, where they just charge him for manslaughter after a failed 2nd degree trial or something.

 

The judge is allowing the court to consider manslaughter. now they are arguing to allow child abuse charges.

 

This is actually a way to skirt double jeopardy. The bolded section is specifically prohibited by double jeopardy. You can only be tried for any given crime (read as "event") once. The charge doesn't matter. This sounds like a rule put in place to seek "justice" when the DA gets overzealous in what he thinks he can prove. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. The DA needs to know what he can prove and what he can't and make a decision based on the facts. If he overshoots he should not have this kind of bullshit to fall back on. This just breeds mediocrity.

 

I can definitely see a manslaughter charge sticking. Way to ******* back pedal DA.

 

And now they want 3rd degree murder based on "child abuse"

Talk about a political lynching!

 

West to Judge Nelson:

"Just when I thought this case couldn't get anymore bizarre...child abuse?

...

This was a trick this is a trick by the state!"

 

Judge: "Show me in law where it states that following someone is not illegal"

Go ahead, prove the negative.

 

That is in regards to allowing it in the jury instructions; I agree with the judge in this case.

Unless there's a law that says it's specifically legal, they can't be instructed on it. All the defense has to do is make sure the jury understands that following someone is not illegal during closing statements.

 

The race thing is part of THE NARRATIVE of the mass media:

(Practice spotting the media's LIES BY OMISSION in the snippets below):

 

judge threw out the 3rd degree felony murder for child abuse charge.


so lesser is just: manslaughter.



EDIT: oh looks like Angela Corey finally showed up to her show trial.

 

I cant decide if this was her attempt to create or prevent a mistrial:

 

In opening statements, the prosecution claimed GZ walked up to TM and shot him point blank in the chest. Yet to mention that about 2 hours into closing statements, just a lot a talk about a struggle before getting shot; weird. It's almost like they had to change their entire case mid-trial because their witnesses didn't match the story the Major, DOJ, and/or President of United States told them happened.

 

ROFL, he just suggested that the small button/pin on TM's hoodie is why it was about 4-5" away from his body when shot.

 

HE has still yet to provide any proof to the jury why GZ committed 2nd° murder...just a bunch of "how comes" and "what ifs" about GZ's story.