Anybody that fucked this case up can BURN in HELL for all I care. They pressured me? BITCH.
I rather we sit in that bitch for 6 weeks and force a hung jury before I fold up and say "NOT GUILTY".....
Fuck this HOE.
Boom!
Anybody that fucked this case up can BURN in HELL for all I care. They pressured me? BITCH.
I rather we sit in that bitch for 6 weeks and force a hung jury before I fold up and say "NOT GUILTY".....
Fuck this HOE.
They just did an all around shit job (as i stated in more detail in the trial thread). And they should have admitted all the fucking evidence they possibly could have and left it to the defense to object or the judge to deny. And speaking of opening doors and objecting, wtf was up with allowing the defense to skype that token handicapped black lady and bring that neighbor whose home was burglarized to testify and provide irrelevant narratives that only served to boost GZs perceived character to the jury... Absolutely atrocious.I agree with all of the above, except that one has to be very careful when admitting extraneous acts of wrong against a defendant. The idea is that a person is on trial for the act charged and not other crimes and wrong doings. Admitting such evidence is opening the door for the case to overturned on appeal, so it is risky business.
Anybody that fucked this case up can BURN in HELL for all I care. They pressured me? BITCH.
I rather we sit in that bitch for 6 weeks and force a hung jury before I fold up and say "NOT GUILTY".....
Fuck this HOE.
They just did an all around shit job (as i stated in more detail in the trial thread). And they should have admitted all the fucking evidence they possibly could have and left it to the defense to object or the judge to deny. And speaking of opening doors and objecting, wtf was up with allowing the defense to skype that token handicapped black lady and bring that neighbor whose home was burglarized to testify and provide irrelevant narratives that only served to boost GZs perceived character to the jury... Absolutely atrocious.
I agree with all of the above, except that one has to be very careful when admitting extraneous acts of wrong against a defendant. The idea is that a person is on trial for the act charged and not other crimes and wrong doings. Admitting such evidence is opening the door for the case to overturned on appeal, so it is risky business.
I agree with the issue of the failure of the police.
But, I believe this was a winnable case. Jury selection was a disaster by the prosecution.
They absolutely failed to paint that picture of WHAT TREYVON MUST HAVE BEEN FEELING to be followed by a strange car, then running where a car could not follow only to hear the car stop and doors open and know that he was now being pursued on foot and then by confronted by a man with a gun....they failed in this regard. Painting this picture would have certainly proved that Treyvon was defending himself....
Bingo! And it was the prosecutions fault to let the defense define the evidence in that regard. The prosecution should have focused more on the events leading up to the fight.
2 streets. He lives on one!3 streets in developement he has lived there 4 years...how the fuck he don't know those three streets since he patrols them.
Black men have no friends.
I need to understand HOW this is possible. I couldn't allowing my self to be bullied.
Then to SUBMIT to the act of it.
I judge her to be FAKE, and a willing conspirator in the miscarriage of justice.
JG
"But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."