HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So in arguing for an acqu...

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:36 PM

So in arguing for an acquittal from the judge it is customary for the defense to outright LIE over

and over?

There is no evidence that does not support my client's claim that he was attacked by Trevon Martin.

The testimony of _______ proves that Trevon Martin was going to kill my client.

The testimony of _______proves that George Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong.

Everything said so far in this trial goes to show that my client should be granted an acquittal right now.


That is basically what this defense lawyer is saying. He is the biggest liar of them all!

18 replies, 1889 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply So in arguing for an acquittal from the judge it is customary for the defense to outright LIE over (Original post)
Maraya1969 Jul 2013 OP
Skittles Jul 2013 #1
Maraya1969 Jul 2013 #2
COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #3
Skittles Jul 2013 #5
GeorgeGist Jul 2013 #9
Maraya1969 Jul 2013 #13
arely staircase Jul 2013 #16
unblock Jul 2013 #4
displacedtexan Jul 2013 #6
Nevernose Jul 2013 #7
Gothmog Jul 2013 #8
Just Saying Jul 2013 #10
struggle4progress Jul 2013 #11
Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #12
Maraya1969 Jul 2013 #15
Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #17
Stinky The Clown Jul 2013 #14
Skittles Jul 2013 #18

Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:38 PM

1. he's doing his job

as distasteful as it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:47 PM

2. But to speak with such superlatives makes him seem like a bit fat liar!

He really is saying that there is no evidence to support anything else except Trevon Martin attacked the innocent Z as he walked around the place doing God's work and damaged him so bad that Z or anyone else would have felt that they were going to die and the absolutely only way Z could have saved his own life was to kill Trevon Martin.

I've never heard such a summation like this before. It borders on the ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:50 PM

3. Real life lawyering isn't like T.V. As the other poster

makes a good point, the lawyer is doing his job. It's up to the judge (who has been there the whole time) to decide if his arguments have merit enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:02 PM

5. he might be a big fat liar

but he's doing everything he can to get his client off and that is his job........it's the judge and jury's job to decide if he is full of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:21 PM

9. POKIFYAL?

got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:04 PM

13. I don't. Please splain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:12 PM

16. i agree with you, which is almost never the case about anything.

so I figured I'd enter THAT into the record. FWIW I think Z is guilty and hope the jury agrees. But his lawyers are duty bound to defend their client to the best of their abilities and they should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 05:53 PM

4. this isn't math. lies relate to facts, not arguments.

if a lawyer says "the witness said 'it was daytime'" when in fact the lawyer knew the witness said "it was night", then that is a lie.

if a lawyer says "the witness said it was nighttime proves my client is innocent", then that is lousy argument, but not a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:05 PM

6. Every minute GZ avoids prison is a "win" for his lawyers.

Their future income depends on how they serve their clients, especially high-profiles one like GZ. As someone above stated, they can twist facts to make them seem like "truth."

There are only 2 types of argumentation: legal and moral. When the defense can't defend the legality of what GZ did, they promote the moralty of self defense and GZ's desire to "do good." (As if.)

Watch the defense's closing arguments and see if they don't jump back and forth between legal and moral arguments.

I hate this trial. I wish I could ignore it, but I just can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:07 PM

7. The use of the word "uncontested" is what made us laugh

The only thing that's "uncontested" is that George Zimmerman killed a child with a single bullet to the heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:07 PM

8. Defense counsel takes liberties with evidence

The burden of proof is with the state and so defense counsel sometime stretch the evidence to fit the interpretation that is best for his client. The trouble with this tactic is that it rarely works (other than the OJ case) and the defense counsel risk alienating the jury and the judge if he gets too aggressive. Here, O'Mara is really pushing the boundaries in my opinion and it is clear from her ruling that the judge did not buy his interpretations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 06:21 PM

10. Yes it's disgusting but he can.

He's interpreting what he showed but the jury is instructed that what the attorneys say in closing and opening is NOT evidence. They must weigh the testimony and evidence from witnesses not what the lawyers tell you they said.

If he goes too far they will object but a lot of what's said has already been argued over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 07:15 PM

11. Counsel is free to promote his interpretation of testimony. But blatant lying -- such as

"TM shot GZ first!" -- would probably irritate the judge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 08:11 PM

12. That's not exactly what the lawyer said.

That may be what you heard. But for the first issue, what he said was that there is no evidence that contraverts GZ's claim that TM hit GZ first. (or attacked him or whatever the language was)

That is actually true. There IS no evidence that GZ hit TM first, or that TM did not sucker punch GZ.

It is perfectly permissible, and it's his duty actually, to present the evidence in the best light for his client (that's true for the prosecution, too). That's his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:07 PM

15. What about TM's phone friend who said she heard TV said "Get off, Get off"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:31 PM

17. That would be AFTER the initial interaction.

What she said first (as I recall) is that TM said a creepy ass cracker is following me. He then referred to GZ using the N word (for some reason). She then heard wind, so that she knew he was walking. Then he said "What's your problem?" or "Why are you following me?"

She also said the noise wasn't wind, but was the sound of Martin rolling in the wet grass. Lawyer asked her what rolling in wet grass sounds like. Then she said it may have been the wind, or something like that.

She also told TM family's lawyer that she was 16 (she's 19), to keep her name out of the papers. She's a major witness in a murder, and she intentionally lies about herself to the family's lawyer.

Then she says she heard TM say "get off get off." But she had not said that before in her accounts.

And even so, it doesn't mean that TM didn't hit first. She wasn't there and didn't see. She wasn't a very good witness, IMO. She changed her story in important ways and lied to the victim's own family's lawyer. She also acted oddly about her role at trial, posting things on the internet, like pics of her "court nails."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:05 PM

14. To be anything less than a fierce advocate for his client would be malpractice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 5, 2013, 10:01 PM

18. agreed

I attended the trial of a gal charged with running a red light and killing a friend of mine - she had court-appointed lawyers - I was so impressed with their vigorous defense of their client I complimented them in the parking lot - I understood they were doing their job and I've never looked at court-appointed lawyers the same ever since.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread