Zimmerman will not testify in his own defense

[Blue Bike]

Source: USA Today

SANFORD, Fla. -- George Zimmerman told the judge in his murder trial today that he will not testify and his lawyers asked for an immediate judgment of acquittal, which was denied.

Earlier in the day, judge Debra Nelson rejected defense requests to allow into evidence photos and text messages from Trayvon Martin's phone as well as a computer animation of the slaying.

Nelson said she will allow defense lawyers to show jurors the computer animation during closing arguments. However, she rejected the defense bid to present the animation as actual evidence, which means the animation can't be reviewed by jurors during their deliberations.

The animation, from a defense witness, depicts the 17-year-old Trayvon walking up to Zimmerman and punching him -- and later shows the teen on top of Zimmerman when Trayvon is shot.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-trial-animation/2504917/

[onehandle]

1. The jury will add this action to their deliberation. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The jury will be specifically instructed that he has a right not to testify

and that they must not take that decision into consideration when deciding whether to convict or acquit.

[onehandle]

4. Stone cold killer sits there stone faced for weeks.

Yeah. They won't even think of it.

[Tx4obama]

51. See the PHOTOS on the link below of Zimmerman smiling and laughing in Court

DU OP with photos here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023230193

[Ash_F]

21. True they won't vocably deliberate on it...

...but they do all think.

I am still concerned about the nearly all-white Florida jury, but that's a different story.

[avebury]

30. What they can take into account is the fact that he

looked Sean Hannity straight in the eye and lied about knowing nothing about the stand your ground law. They can look at all his various interviews, including the walk through recreation, and consider all the components of his stories that are BS. He has testified, just not on the stand under oath. While he does not have to take the stand, he does have to live with all the stories that he has told and are on record.

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. Um, no they won't.

What rock do you live under?

[Aristus]

2. Even though the jurors wil be instructed not to consider the animation during deliberations,

I strongly suspect that simply viewing the animation will prejudice at least a few jurors against Trayvon Martin. If I had been the judge, I would have disallowed the animation as speculation.

[truebluegreen]

5. Z won't speak in his own defense?

That would totally be my choice if I were innocent...

I'm sure I don't need this

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It usually is not a good idea for any defendant to testify.

Even an innocent one. A good prosecutor would find any holes or inconsistencies in your statements (and everybody will have a few holes, since nobody leads a perfect life, and everybody forgets things and misstates things, either accidentally or deliberately). So it is a rare defendant who will testify - lawyers almost always advise their clients, whether guilty or otherwise, not to.

[JDPriestly]

8. If Zimmerman had asked for a lawyer immediately and not answered so many questions,

he could probably testify now. But he really messed up when he was first arrested.

[christx30]

10. Plus Zimmerman

really screwed himself over by ignoring his lawyer's advice and going on national TV and doing an interview. If you're on trial for life, the only person you should speak to is your lawyer. Even if you're innocent.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Bingo.

[JDPriestly]

23. Thank you. Lessons everyone can learn.

[Bay Boy]

28. I would say...

...if Zimmerman had asked for a lawyer immediately he would have to testify now.

With the video tape that the police recorded of him saying what happened he was able to present his version of what happened without the prosecution being able to cross examine him.

[JDPriestly]

29. Very true. That was hearsay. Why the prosecution brought it in I do not know.

Maybe they plan to show the contradictions in Zimmerman's story.

[7962]

19. You are absolutely right!

It is rare to ever see a defendant testify. Drives lawyers crazy when they do.
FWIW, the prosecution hasnt proved guilt by a long shot in this trial. I'm not a lawyer or judge, etc, but if I sat on the jury I could not convict based on this trial.

[marshall]

48. It's sure driving the judge crazy

I don't know what to make of her questioning him about whether he made up his own mind not to testify after she just told him he didn't have to. What difference does it make whether he decided on his own or after the advice of counsel? It is really none of the judge's business. I fear that may come back to bite her.

[LiberalElite]

45. Yup -

the two times I was on a jury and the defendant took the stand, they did not help their case.

[joshcryer]

50. +1, never talk.

The judiciary has no desire to allow your words to help you. Ever.

[7962]

54. I have GOT to send that to my brother!

He will absolutely LOVE it. I remember once he was walking home with a friend one night and a cop pulled up and asked him where he was going. My brother said "Thats none of your business". Cop didnt like it. Imagine that

[JDPriestly]

7. The defense may be trying to set up an appeal based on the judge's refusal to allow the entry

of this evidence. I don't know about Florida, but in California, that is usually not an effective grounds for appeal because judge in California enjoys great discretion with regard to what evidence may be introduced at trial. Just generally. There are exceptions.

In my opinion, the defense attorneys are afraid to put Zimmerman on the stand because he would contradict the various stories he told the police officers in the videos on this case. Zimmerman talked to the police too much without getting an attorney. No matter how innocent he thought he was, he should have asked for an attorney. It is hard for me to believe that he took so many courses in criminal justice and did not get an attorney.

My wild guess is that the defense attorneys in my opinion don't believe their own client and don't want to risk him obviously lying on the stand. They seem rather desperate. The long argument over Martin's text messages makes no sense. What in the world did they expect to discover in those text messages that they don't already know? Surely nothing relevant. Teenaged text messages are a waste of time for the most part. R U hom? Answer to # 15?
Thinking v U. Really relevant I'm sure.

An attorney is not really supposed to present false evidence to the court so if an attorney thinks a client or witness will lie on the stand, it's quite a problem deciding whether to let them testify. It's a conflict for the attorney.

This may mean that the defense attorneys don't trust Zimmerman themselves. Everyone is entitled to a defense, and lawyers will defend people they don't trust or believe as well as they possibly can. That's what you agree to do when you take your oath as a lawyer. But sometimes lawyers have to deal with quite an internal conflict. There are very ethical ways to handle it because everyone deserves a fair trial.

I hope that DUers who are angry at Zimmerman's lawyers will remember that Zimmerman is entitled to a fair trial. He is the accused. Not his lawyers. They are just doing their jobs.

Convicting Zimmerman will not bring Trayvon Martin back to his parents. The issue is whether Zimmerman should be convicted of 2nd degree murder. And in our system, the prosecutor has to prove that case beyond reasonable doubt. It's a very difficult standard to meet.

So, everyone calm down no matter how hard it is.

We all have to accept the outcome of this trial no matter what we believe happened, no matter how unfair we think it is.

And don't be angry at the lawyers or the judge or the jury. They have very difficult jobs in this case because the facts are uncertain. There are no witnesses to the crucial moment when Zimmerman claims Trayvon attacked him.

Only Zimmerman lived to tell his side of the story. He may be lying, but we shall see whether the prosecutor has proved that he lied. And even if he has lied, the jury still has to decide whether what Zimmerman did qualifies as second degree murder.

[Steviehh]

31. Everything was fine until you said convicting Zimmerman wouldn't bring Trayvon back.

A man judged by his trainers to be a total fat ass loser kills a street tough kid 'cause he don't like no bad ass hoodie wearers robbing his neighborhood. Hey, Zimmerman, come down to my h'hood. We watch you sorry ass losers.

[axollot]

43. Posters don't seem to like this but your response is spot, on! Thanks. n/t

[SwankyXomb]

9. Isn't self defense an affirmative defense?

Usually the defendant has to testify in that case.

[Mr. David]

14. Yup.

And by refusing to testify, he's already guilty.

[onenote]

24. No he doesn't. Why would you say that?

I don't know where you went to law school. But it is simply not true that a defendant has to testify to make out a case of self defense.

Indeed, under Florida law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. All the defense has to do is present assert the defense and present a minimal amount of evidence (which can be the testimony of witnesses other than the defendant.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. That animation is BULLSHIT.

What a weak fucking way to get Zimmerman's testimony into the trial without allowing for cross-examination.

Fuck this slimy weasel-y motherfucker.

That is some bullshit right there.

[Earth_First]

13. +1000 nt

[cosmicone]

16. There will be rebuttal testimony introduced to discredit the animation... I hope n/t

[Mr. David]

12. The man is guilty as hell.

And he knows it. The jury knows it. The defense knows it. The judge knows it.

All they have to do is deliver the guilty verdict for the second degree murder.

There is no other fancy bullshit to go through. Man is dead, and Zimmerman has to pay the consequences of his behavior.

[John2]

32. Yeah, when

people can come on here with a straight face and claim they believe the lies of the defense and then say they think Zimmerman is guilty, has to be questioned. It is none other than providing cover to let someone get away with murder or taking an innocent boys' life. They just as well be guilty of the coverup themselves.

They are essentially saying there is no evidence Zimmerman profiled this boy and pursued him because of it. They are also saying just because they heard Zimmerman saying these punks or asshole, didn't have any animosity or personal feelings toward Trayvon. Anybody believing that bull shit from the defense is just as guilty of the coverup.

Anybody claiming they believe the defense produced evidence Martin circled back and attacked this guy, is also agreeing with a coverup, because the defense didn't produce any evidence to it. They are just ignoring there was no evidence except Zimmerman's words. You can't talk with a straight face, there was evidence, without going along with a coverup. It is not the prosecution's job to disprove evidence that the defense can't even present. The very fact the defense can't even show evidence Martin circled back and jumped Zimmerman speaks for itself.
There is no evidence showing Zimmerman is innocent and Martin is guilty of a crime. There is no evidence showing Martin bought on his own death by just going to the store and walking back home. The guilty party is George Zimmerman. For anybody denying that based on this defense, is agreeing to a coverup and just as guilty of it.

Now I can vote George Zimmerman guilty with no regrets whatsoever and not even think twice about it, because he is guilty. What I cannot do is assist in a coverup, with the evidence already known. So I'm sorry, I do not agree with people claiming there is reasonable doubt George Zimmerman didn't commit murder when he took this boy's life from him.

So this judge is claiming this animation is evidence? I also have a problem with this Root person. Did Zimmerman so called trainer testify to the physical fitness or capabilities of Trayvon Martin? Am I getting this right and it was allowed without any objection from the prosecution or judge? How can someone who has never trained or examined Trayvon Martin testify to his physical fitness or capabilities? Would that best be left up to Trayvon's coaches or own trainer? And did this guy have a physical fitness Degree or something?

[dusty trails]

17. I saw the animation on my noon news

The animation shows Martin as the aggressor. Zimmerman is depicted as standing there talking to Martin when all of a sudden Martin slugs Zimmerman and the fight is on.
How could the Judge allow such BS to be shown to the jury?

[John2]

36. And people

keep trying to throw their little nuggets out to provide coner for the judge, claiming she is doing a fair job, just in case people want to criticize her along with the prosecution or the State. The prosecution can not cross examine a video. They think they are ver slick, but it should be another case to sue the state.

[dusty trails]

40. How about a cartoon ?

Instead of an animation, the defense could have made a cartoon using the coyote and the road runner to show how Martin attacked Zimmerman?

[GeorgeGist]

18. I believe the PTB have made their decision:

Zimmerman walks.

[cstanleytech]

20. Why is the judge even allowing the animnation to be shown? Its not live footage of the event and

and this not actual evidence is it?

[Doctor_J]

25. Yeah, that "compromise" seems misguided

very strange. It's in gun-happy FL though.

[Ash_F]

22. I was hoping for a dramatic scene...

where he breaks down on the stand and spills the beans.

[Doctor_J]

26. Too bad life isn't a Perry Mason or Matlock episode

so much more fun

[Ash_F]

27. I bet he will tell all some day though. If even decades later.

He seems like the type. Can't keep his business to himself.

[mainstreetonce]

33. I think the law needs to be modified

In this age of video,if a defendant tells his story via video,he should have to take the stand for cross examination.

[Seeking Serenity]

34. Repeal the 5th Amendment?

Oh, that's nice.

[mainstreetonce]

42. No

A person has a choice not to testify, but if they choose not to testify,a video of their version of the story cannot be shown.

[Seeking Serenity]

52. I wasn't aware the defense introduced a video of him into evidence.

Am I wrong? Did I miss something? (Legitimate inquiry, not snark)

[mainstreetonce]

53. There are at least

Three or four videos of Zimmerman telling his story that the jury heard.

[davidwparker]

37. This means his lawyers feel the prosecution did not meet "burden." n/t

[jbond56]

46. Its unethical to let a lying defendant to take the stand.

[davidwparker]

55. You don't know what his lawyer knows from their private conversations.

His lawyer may not have even asked him, assuming he was innocent until proven guilty.

[jbond56]

56. yep

I only know what was presented in court. He lied alot and taking the stand would have been a disaster.

[Socal31]

38. Prosecution is now fighting to add "Aggravated Assault" as a lesser charge.

Not a good sign for the manslaughter option, let alone murder. That adds a whole new twist.....and allows the jury an out that could unite all 6.

[axollot]

44. They are hashing out the terms before the jury. That is it. Formality. nt

[davidpdx]

39. I said the other day I was 99.9% sure he wouldn't

There is no way they put him on the stand and let the prosecutors cross-examine him. It would have been way too much of a risk. The guy has some serious screws loose and if he started popping off his mouth that would have been squashed any reasonable doubt.

[Myrina]

41. When does prosecution rebuttal/closing arguments start?

I've looked around online & at mediaite.com and can't find a time for the court to convene.

Thanks in advance!

[jbond56]

47. Court session starts at 8:30 local time