- Thanks for the earlier in the thread, especially SheStone, realitycheck, mung, Rumpole, Chip, and kbp.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

She agreed with West

Nelson shuts down 776.041 (justifiable use of deadly force by initial aggressor) - right on queue. I assume that means that the State now cannot argue that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

That is what I am wondering. Wow if that is true then

I do have my doubts though that is what will happen.

mung - someone is reading your posts! (maybe)

11:03 a.m.
West says the state has not offered a compelling argument.

Mantei says that are facts that should be before the jury. “There is evidence the defendant is the provoker,” Mantei says.

He says he understands West doesn’t think they are credible or right, but that is up to the jury.

Judge Nelson says she understands both arguments.

West says following someone is not against the law, especially if you want to tell the police where someone is.

He says force is force, not a gun being carried in a concealed way.

“The court is not going to give it,” Judge Nelson says about the section of jury instruction.

10:57 a.m.
West says he included a section alluding to Zimmerman provoking the use of force against him. HE says he put it in there for discussion.

He says the state should argue that Zimmerman provoked the use of force against. He says the instruction is misleading.

Mantei responds. He says combining the known facts and inferences from them is provocation.

He says the facts testify to both inferences being equally valid and it should be presented to the jury.

Mantei says the argument was sort of at the judgment of acquittal.

West says what Mantei said isn’t close to the law. He says Bahadoor told a story in court of a vague movement of left to right.

“It makes no sense compared with the other evidence in the case,” West says.

He says Surdyka could not have seen what she claims to have seen because it was physically impossible and is proven by the medical testimony.

“We know that just couldn’t have happened and she’s wrong,” West says.

He says she didn’t see the confrontation initially, only heard some voices and made “gross inaccurate” assumptions.

He says Zimmerman was still in his car when Martin was known to have been running away from him.

He says Martin had two or three minutes to get home and chose not to.

He says it’s clear from Jeantel Martin initiated the confrontation. He says there was no pursuit.

He says walking up to somebody and following somebody is not enough to prove Zimmerman provoked the violence.

10:46 a.m.
Mantei says the next instruction is the justifiable use of force instruction.

West asks if they are skipping over the proposed third degree felony charge.

Mantei says the instruction omits the word “only.”

West says he’s drafted an instruction that addresses the legal issue for the jury.

Mantei says the instruction is required because it is the definition of justifiable force in the statute.

He says it is a homicide case and it is mandatory.

Judge Nelson says the defense is not alleging any felony was being committed against Zimmerman.

She asks for defense response.

West says it is part of another trick. Judge Nelson asks that he not use the word trick.

West says the state wants to court to come up with a definition of aggravated battery and can’t get it until they say Martin was committing one.

“It’s always been the only issue in the case,” West says, reading from the justifiable force definition.

Judge Nelson asks for case law showing the interpretation.

Judge Nelson says the instructions are lengthy.

Mantei says he is reading the statute for justifiable force.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

They might be!

This "following is not an unlawful act" jury instruction that West is proposing: would it not be better-served as a motion in limine against the State making the argument that following is an unlawful act?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

SheStone and Chip - not sure about that. Again, trying to catch up, distractions, but I thought she refused to include the language West requested?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Nelson: "West, produce case law that states that following is not unlawful."
West: "Ask the state to produce case law that states following is unlawful."
Nelson: "You're asking him to prove a negative."

(Which, incidentally, is exactly what Nelson is asking West to do.)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

And that's exactly what West is now arguing.

Nelson: "Ain't nobody got time for that."

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

If I understood correctly the Judge actually agreed with West regarding the issue of not reading the part about GZ provoking the attack.

Jeff Weiner tweeted:

Judge Nelson rules for defense: Jury will not be read instruction on #GeorgeZimmerman "provoking"

That is what I was referring to.

West just got a little dig on Mini-Me: "I've been around the parts since before the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was removed, pup" (paraphrased)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Thanks, SheStone! It's just such a shock for her to rule for the defense, and in particular West, I guess I just couldn't process it correctly.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

I'm sure I have nothing instructive or strategic to offer Mr. West that he didn't already know.

I'm guessing he knew it would be denied as a special jury instruction, but wanted to get the argument on record, in order to preserve for appeal, and so used the jury instruction conference as a means for such argument. He probably wanted a motion in limine all along (and probably knew how Nelson would rule, in both cases).

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)