Thread: Unprecedented: Judge Interrogates Zimmerman: I Have Never Seen That In More Than 30 Y

Unprecedented: Judge Interrogates Zimmerman: I Have Never Seen That In More Than 30 Years of Court Reporting

Thursday, July 11, 2013 16:34



A casual observer could rightfully argue that the fix against George Zimmerman has been in since the very beginning. From NBC doctoring the 9-1-1 phone call to make it appear his actions were racially motivated and mainstream reports identifying him as a “white Hispanic”, to the President of the United States weighing in on the debate by suggesting if he “had a son he’d look like Trayvon,” Zimmerman had been convicted by millions before he had even been charged.

As government prosecutors and Zimmerman’s defense team argued their case before the American public this week, the evidence strongly supported Zimmerman’s claims of self defense on the night of February 26, 2012. So much so that prosecutors attempted to introduce new charges such as “child abuse” mid-trial because it became clear that the jury would be hard-pressed to convict Zimmerman of murder.

Now, only a day before the jury is to convene for deliberations that will determine the fate of George Zimmerman, an unprecedented incident occurred in the court room, leaving one veteran legal analyst who was present to tweet that she has “never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”

Speculation is raging that the judge in the George Zimmerman case could have been put under pressure by the Obama administration after she staged a bizarre outburst during which she interrogated Zimmerman while repeatedly silencing his lawyers.
…

The hostile exchange began when Judge Debra Nelson asked Zimmerman if he planned to testify.Essentially, Judge Nelson told Zimmerman he had the “absolute right to remain silent” but then proceeded to demand he answer her questions interrogation-style while silencing his lawyers. Defense attorney Don West twice objected to Nelson’s interrogation, prompting the judge to raised her voice and exclaim, “Your objection is overruled!” in a manner more befitting of an angry parent lecturing a child than a legal professional.Both of Zimmerman’s lawyers appeared shocked as attorney Mark O’Mara asked under his breath, “what is going on?”Several legal experts and observers said the outburst was unprecedented.Via Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars.com

In the video below, Judge Nelson clearly targets Zimmerman in a manner unfit for an American court of law. As noted by Jones and Watson, the exchange undermines Zimmerman’s, “right to remain silent” and makes it “appear as though he and his attorneys are not firm in their convictions.” And the jury saw all of it, suggesting that the fix really is in, and that the justice system is pulling out all the stops to ensure a conviction.

Watch the heated exchange as Judge Nelson confronts George Zimmerman in an unprecedented display of improper procedure during a MURDER trial that left his attorneys bewildered and without recourse.

Please use our search box in the left sidebar to find what you're looking for. If you're wondering what happened with this page, watch the following video:

Infowars Continues:Former Senatorial candidate Richard Rivette also expressed his shock at the judge’s behavior.“This judge is an idiot. I spent five years investigating high profile capital cases defending people from the death penalty, and worked for the Federal judiciary as an independent investigator on other cases. No judge ever inquires as to whether a defendant will testify until the entire defense case is presented. If the defense rests and does not call the defendant then the judge knows there will be no testimony. If the defense calls the defendant then that’s when the judge finds out. They have to get through the entire case first. To see if it is valid after prosecution cross-examines their witnesses and experts as to whether a defendant SHOULD testify, which is decided in private not in public, and NOT on the record. By doing this, the judge has undermined a portion of Zimmerman’s credibility. He looks like he is waffling and this is normal judge/defendant questioning, which it is NOT,” said Rivette.Respondents to the story at the National Review Online also expressed their view that Zimmerman was being railroaded.“A fix is in from the administration to find Zimmerman guilty regardless of what it takes,” commented one.

It is apparent that Debra Nelson is not an impartial judge presiding over this case, but that she harbors her own position on what the outcome should be, or worse yet, that she has been “gotten to” by outside forces who are attempting to frame an innocent man (until proven guilty) of murder.

The motivations are unclear.

What is clear is that evidence has been suppressed in this trial and given this latest legal travesty, it’s evident that George Zimmerman has a huge bulls eye on his back.

Should George Zimmerman be found innocent of the charges brought against him, there is a strong possibility of riots such as those we saw in 1992 after four police officers were acquitted of wrong doing in the Rodney King trial. After thousands of social network exchanges that claim riots will result should Zimmerman be found innocent, perhaps officials fear that the situation would quickly devolve into widespread civil unrest, and maybe convicting Zimmerman, regardless of his innocence, is a small price to pay for such an outcome.

Please use our search box in the left sidebar to find what you're looking for. If you're wondering what happened with this page, watch the following video:



This article has been contributed by SHTF Plan. Visit www.SHTFplan.com for alternative news, commentary and preparedness info.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...g-2533520.html

GRETA: Zimmerman Judge Was WAY Out of Line ...

Video at the Page Link: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/11...s-way-out-line


GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Now to the testy exchange between judge and defense lawyer Don West. Now, it all started when the judge asked Zimmerman directly if he wanted to testify.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE DEBRA NELSON, FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: Mr. Zimmerman, like I said before, you're aware that during this trial, you have the absolute right to remain silent. You do not have to say anything, do anything, prove anything. Is that correct?
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, MURDER DEFENDANT: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: And you have the right to testify if you want to. Do you understand that?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, your honor.
NELSON: And I've given you an opportunity to discuss with your attorneys whether or not you want to testify in this case, and you have indicated that you have had those discussions?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, your honor.
DON'T MISS 'ON THE RECORD' TONIGHT AT 10 ET WHEN GRETA IS LIVE AND ON THE SCENE IN FLORIDA WITH THE LATEST UPDATES AND INSIGHT!
NELSON: And have you made a decision, sir, as to whether or not you want to testify in this case?
DON WEST, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your honor, I object to that question.
NELSON: OK. Overruled. Have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in the case?
WEST: I object to that question. I think that's...
NELSON: Overruled. The court is entitled to inquire as to Mr. Zimmerman's determination as to whether or not he wants to testify. Mr. Zimmerman, have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case.
ZIMMERMAN: No, not at this time, your honor.
NELSON: OK. And when is it that you -- how long do you think you need before you make that decision?
WEST: Your honor, may we have an opportunity to speak? The case isn't concluded yet.
NELSON: I understand that. And I've asked Mr. Zimmerman if he needed more time to talk to his attorneys, and if he does, I will afford it to him. Mr. Zimmerman, how much more time do you think you're going to need to discuss this with your attorneys?
ZIMMERMAN: I assume it would depend on how long the recesses are, your honor, at the end of the day.
NELSON: OK. Well, if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think that you would then know whether or not you want to testify?
WEST: On Mr. Zimmerman's behalf, at this state...
NELSON: I am asking your client questions. Please, Mr. West.
WEST: I object to the court inquiring of Mr. Zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify at this...
NELSON: Your objection is overruled! Mr. Zimmerman, I will give you more time, sir, to discuss this with your attorneys. Thank you very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us, our legal panel. In Florida, Diana Tennis. In San Francisco, Jim Hammer. And in Washington, Bernie Grimm and Ted Williams.
Diana, let me go straight to you. I'm going to tell you right off the top, that judge was way out of line. The defense had not rested, had not nearly rested. And what in the world was she badgering him for and not talking to the lawyer? Way out of line! Are you -- you agree with me or disagree? She should have waited.
DIANA TENNIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I totally agree, Greta. And what you don't or may not realize is that was the first time she inquired of George Zimmerman regarding whether or not he was going to testify. This was the second time, and they still had two witnesses to go.
She was on a tear to get this thing done. She didn't want to take another break later. She wanted to cover the colloquy (ph) then. And Don West, maybe he could have done it in a way to appease her, to say, We don't think so, but we're not sure...
VAN SUSTEREN: You know what? You know what, Diana?
TENNIS: ... but she didn't seem appeasable.
VAN SUSTEREN: Diana, it's not -- it's not about appeasing a judge. She had no business asking that particular question then -- no business! She waits until the end of the defense case. Then she can have her colloquy. But doing that in the middle of a defense case is way out of line. Bernie?
BERNIE GRIMM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I love Mr. West's tenacity. I mean, Greta, I've seen you do it in court, and me, too. I mean, you need to stand up to a judge at those points. I mean, let's say these last two witnesses bombed and Zimmerman said, You know what? I want to get up there. Does he have to go back and the judge say, Well, you can't change your mind now? All the evidence has to be in, every police report, every bit of evidence before that exchange happens, that dialogue happens with a defendant.
TENNIS: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: And this is the most important decision for any accused, is whether to exercise the right to silence or whether to exercise the right to go on the witness stand. And the judge has no business trying to browbeat a defendant to answering that question, at least -- I mean, she can ask at the end of the defense case. Ted?
TED WILLIAMS, FMR. D.C. HOMICIDE DET., CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, yes, she could. But I also...
VAN SUSTEREN: And she should! At the end of the -- at the defense -- at the end of the defense case, she should make sure there's a waiver, but not then.
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't disagree with that, but I think that, also, Mr. West was somewhat wrong. I think that he had a right to put an objection on the record. But once he put that objection on the record and the judge wanted to continue on...
VAN SUSTEREN: Absolutely. You know what, Ted?
WILLIAMS: ... that...
VAN SUSTEREN: You're dead wrong! You know, a defense lawyer should be fighting for his client. And if the judge doesn't understand the judge's job, it's the judge -- you know, it's the defense lawyer's obligation to fight for that client. So I think he should have been more aggressive!
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: But Greta, he fought for him, but you got to also be respectful of the court. And once the court says, I'm going to do it, and you put your objection on the record, then your objection...
VAN SUSTEREN: No. You know what?
WILLIAMS: ... stands on that record.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know what? When the judge is wrong -- this judge was wrong -- it would be wrong for the defense lawyer just to sit there. Jim, you're on the other side of the aisle on this, watching this discussion, but your thought.
JIM HAMMER, FMR. ASST. SAN FRANCISCO DA: Two things. First of all, Greta, you accused the judge of being wishy-washy last night. You're wrong. She's not wishy-washy. She's...
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: She may have been wishy-washy on something else, but not on stepping on the defendant's rights here!
HAMMER: She did whatever she wanted to do. Having said that, all I can tell you, in that moment, the prosecutor, which is what I've done most of my career, you're a bystander. After a tough trial, you go, Oh, it's kind of nice to see the judge fight it out with the defense attorney a little bit.
The defense attorney was right. He stood up. If you don't have thick skin, you shouldn't be a trial lawyer. She was a little premature, but her questions were essentially right, Do you want to testify or not?
VAN SUSTEREN: You know what? You know what, Jim? Jim, you fight for a client. I've been in the courtroom fighting for a client...
HAMMER: I know! (INAUDIBLE) lawyers!
VAN SUSTEREN: ... and when a judge was dead wrong, and I've had the judge say, Marshal, sit that woman lawyer down. And then they march over to you. But it's not just -- it's not to be polite to the judge.
(CROSSTALK)
HAMMER: Kudos to the defense attorney. Anyone watching, if you don't have thick skin, you shouldn't be a trial lawyer. And if you're not really tough, you shouldn't be a defense lawyer. You have to stand up for unpopular people sometimes.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, here's another exchange the judge had with the defense -- it was about -- it was late last night. And I suspect the judge isn't wild about one of the defense lawyers, which is just sort of a collateral issue. But nonetheless, here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NELSON: Is there anything else that we needed to take up tonight?
O'MARA: Now that we've moved to Friday, does it not make sense to just start closings Friday morning, and then this way, we get all the closings in one day and the jury gets...
NELSON: The reason I told you what schedule I wanted is because it makes sense to me. I'm not getting into this. Court is in recess. I will give my rules in the morning. I'll see you at 8:00 o'clock in the morning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
NELSON: Court is in recess. It is...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's 10:00 o'clock at night.
NELSON: ... 9:56.
O'MARA: I've been in the courtroom about six hours...
NELSON: And so have I.
O'MARA: (INAUDIBLE) not be able to prepare or get my witnesses gathered for tomorrow, and I can't do it tonight.
NELSON: I'll see you at 8:00 in the morning.
WEST: I'm not physically able to keep up this pace much longer. It's 10:00 o'clock at night. We started this morning. We've had full days every day, weekends, depositions at night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Diana, I just think it's outrageous. Was this woman who's a judge ever a trial lawyer? Because what -- maybe what she doesn't realize is that when trial lawyers leave the courtroom, they go back and prepare their witnesses and do research for the next day. She may go home, but that's not what the lawyers and that's not what the prosecutor does, either!
TENNIS: You know, it's troubling. I don't know what to say. I like Judge Nelson very much. She's a well-respected judge. She was a trial lawyer. I think that expecting lawyers to keep up that kind of pace really runs afoul of the 6th Amendment and due process in a big murder case. You just can't put the jurors' comfort ahead of due process. You can't do it. Those lawyers are being run ragged.


http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/11...s-way-out-line

The Zimmerman Trial Has Become a Rhetorical Circus

by Ralf Mangual July 12, 2013

George Zimmerman Trial Begins In FloridaIn an Op-ed published by CNN, Roxanne Jones – an accomplished media executive and journalist who should know better – had this to say about the role played by race in the George Zimmerman trial:

“[I]n the trial of Zimmerman, the prosecution — Richard Mantei — appears to be lying low and taking too many punches. Could it be that Mantei himself buys into the theory that Zimmerman is some misunderstood do-gooder in the community? It’s just puzzling.

Words matter, as we have seen over the course of the trial. So when Mantei told the court before resting his case: ‘There are two people involved here. One of them is dead, and one of them is a liar,’ I was shocked.

“This is a murder case. One person is dead, and the other person is a murderer. Those words more accurately describe the facts presented in the case. There is no question that Zimmerman killed Martin, so there’s no reason to tiptoe around the words.”

Actually, Ms. Jones – there is a reason. A good one:

“The presumption of innocence is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen, by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted, unless he is proven to be guilty.” Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

Ms. Jones seems to lament the existence of those who believe Mr. Zimmerman should be presumed innocent, quoting former New York prosecutor, Xavier Donaldson who pointed out that “[Zimmerman], and not Martin, the victim — has gotten the benefit of presumption of innocence.”

But the benefit of the doubt given to criminal defendants in this country traces its roots back to the English Common Law, which served as the foundation for our country’s justice system. After all, few criminal justice scholars are unfamiliar with William Blackstone’s famous formulation that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This notion was echoed by none other than John Adams who – while representing a group of defendants perhaps more unpopular than George Zimmerman is today – said that “It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished.”

Of course, we should all know that in order to overcome this presumption, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt – a standard the Supreme Court said “provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence — that bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.’“ In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

Not only does Ms. Jones’ commentary fly in the face of these bedrock legal principles, her analysis is flat out inaccurate. When Ms. Jones wrote that “One person is dead, and the other person is a murderer,” she states as fact a legal conclusion that has not yet been reached by the only body capable of reaching it: the jury.

How exactly Roxanne Jones can get away with saying that George Zimmerman is a “murderer” without his having been convicted by a jury of his peers is perhaps a manifestation of the decaying state of the public discourse. Unless Ms. Jones is clairvoyant, she has no business speaking to the validity of a version of an event she did not herself witness and printing a definitive statement to that effect as she did in her piece.

Ms. Jones asserts that “when an unarmed child is confronted and gunned down in the street by a grown man who’s trained to kill, that’s murder.” She seems to think that because Mr. Zimmerman does not deny shooting and killing Trayvon Martin, he has committed murder simply because Martin was unarmed and under 18. However, murder is defined by the State of Florida as “The unlawful killing of a human being.” The inclusion of the word “unlawful” means that there is in fact such thing as the “lawful” killing of a human being. We call these lawful killings “justifiable homicides,” and we do not punish their perpetration. These sorts of mischaracterizations of the law must be addressed and condemned by society if we are to maintain our civility.

Ms. Jones’ headline is correct in stating that the Zimmerman trial is about race. However, it is Ms. Jones and people like her who have made it so with irresponsible, innuendo-filled commentaries about how Trayvon Martin had to have been a victim of violent racism. If race is Ms. Jones’ concern, I find it absolutely remarkable that she neglected to mention the only actual racist remark, which was made by Trayvon Martin. Maybe, like Rachel Jeantel, Ms. Jones doesn’t think that “creepy-ass cracker” is a racial slur either.

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/th...orical-circus/