Nelson is going to deny the "great bodily harm" jury instruction.

_________________
"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)

Verdict form now?

Has she already decided the 3rd degree?

The appellate court doesn't have jurisdiction to do anything at this point. It's called an interlocutory pleading if it's during trial proceedings. The defense has to wait until the trial is over and if the verdict is unfavorable, appeal.

Yes, if the judge evidenced obvious* and egregious bias, they could file asking her to recuse herself, but she won't. And they could file for a mistrial based on her bias, but she won't grant it. By the time the pleading addressing the failure to recuse or grant a mistrial is even seen by the appellate court the trial will be long over.

*Judges have a lot of discretion which is typically reviewable under a reasonable person standard, meaning if NO reasonable person could agree with the judge, only then would the appellate court would disturb her ruling.

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

She is going to research that on her own concern plus give West time to research as well.

Still pending.

_________________
"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)

MOM made a comment on Anderson last night about not writing out his closing arguments...hmmmm, got me wondering what he's doing too.

Last-minute courtroom irony: recording of BDLR interview of Rachel Jeantel would have been defense exhibit number (wait for it...)



Double-D

_________________
"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)

11:46 a.m.
West says the instruction is wrong for the jury to have.

He says the state has been trying to shift from someone going through what Zimmerman was with his head being hit.

“This is treading on very this ice for this court,” West says, saying it isn’t the law.

Mantei argues there is no definition anywhere and that’s the reason the courts have given it.

He says the court said the standard instructions provide no definition and they approved giving the jury guidance.

Judge Nelson says instructions should be woven into the evidence.

She says Mantei’s argument should say it was consistent or not consistent.

Mantei says they are talking about the defendant’s reasonableness of fear.

She says she finds the definition akin to the defense request she just struck.

Mantei says the aggravated battery sections should also be included.

She says the court will not give the special instruction.

Mantei says the only other one was the provocation instruction.

Judge Nelson moves on to the verdict form.

11:38 a.m.
Judge Nelson moves on to other parts of the instruction.

West asks if the focus of the compensation instruction is focusing on if someone was bribed.

Judge Nelson says there were some witnesses that were asked if they were sounding like they were giving infomercials. She says the instruction would be confusing.

She says there is a special instruction for expert witnesses and says she can see the danger of the instruction.

She goes back to the felony murder third degree instruction.

She says she has an initial the child abuse portion. She says it requires an intentional act.

Mantei says the shooting is an intentional act. He says the question is if it was justifiable.

She says she will give West time to prepare his argument.

She asks for objections to the manslaughter argument as written.

Mantei says there is also the issue for the bodily harm jury instruction.

He says if the court is not going to give the aggravated battery, but the instruction from the defense discusses the fear of bodily harm.

He says defining great bodily harm would give the jury a frame of reference.

West objects.

He says the Supreme Court said it didn’t need to be defined and the state is seeking to shift the focus.

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

Hi, Mike! Nice to cyber-see you! I suspect MOM is going through all of the evidence, testimony, etc. and making notes about what points he wants to make and how to tie them to the evidence.

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

I'm sorry! It is to mean she has decided in hor own mind, just not on record yet.

11:55 a.m.
West argues there should be another line the saying the jury finds the defendant not guilty.

Judge Nelson shares the way it has always been done in this court.

West says he wants not guilty on the first page.

Judge Nelson says she understands the argument, but she is not doing it.

Wests asks about the order of the charges.

Judge Nelson says the defense sought to enter the portion of a tape played for Jeantel. She asks the court report to check. She confirms it was played outside the presence of the jury and it will not be admitted into evidence.

She says they will be in recess until 1 p.m. and De la Rionda will be given moments to plug it into his arguments.

She says the state will finalize the instructions.

They will be back at 1 p.m. to argue the third degree murder instruction.

West says he will do his best, but it is only an hour.

Court is in recess.

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

Hi, Guests! What do you think about all of this?

To join and share your thoughts please email Rumpole.

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

Thanks! I needed to add

Wouldn't George at least have had to know Trayvon was a "child" for this charge?