Here is a guidepost on one critical jury instruction

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I think it's a common motion that is almost never granted by any judge in any trial.


It is a common motion.   It is an automatic motion which if defense counsel does not make the same, they may have committed negligence, but the commonality of the motion which is about 99.9% does not negate the rule of law which the court must follow........the court cannot give second degree murder instructions if Omara was correct and Zimmerman was credible.  After listening to the argument, I was shocked the jury got to consider second degree murder charges.   I disagree that it is almost never granted.  It is a protection from overcharging and prosecutorial abuse......the state must prove a prima facia case, and granted juries usually have lesser included to go to verdict, but it is common to have overcharged defendant's motions granted.  It happens all the time.

Does it happen often with this judge?

For crying out loud! Judges errors get cases overturned all the time too.

Nelson has the reputation of being a "prosecution" judge.

The court finds that the state has provided sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to allow the charge to go to the jury," Nelson said.

Correct and he's on here interpreting what the judge meant. LOL!



No, I am telling you what the law says the court must base their ruling as given by defense counsel which evidently you have proven you neither understand or listened to.......calling me a Dilbert.........is a Dilbert somebody who understands the standards of the law which the court must follow, or is a Dilbert someone who is interpreting what a judge meant......I think the real Dilbert is not being able to distinguish the two concepts.....nothing new here......I have been shocked all day that somebody who utterly lacks any prerequisite understanding of the law actually went to college and has a masters degree......in Dilbert identification......which somehow.......like Zimmerman......she must have missed the Dilbert chapter.

Does it happen often with this judge?

That really is not the question. The question is as a matter of law, has the state met the necessary requisite elements of second degree murder. I think Omara said, or quoted from cases that there have been zero second degree murder charges affirmed by the appellate court where self defense has been raised since the stand your ground legislation has passed. So where Dreams declares I am a Dilbert because she cannot distinguish my recital of the law as dictated by Omara and determines I am mind reading the judge, and now you ask how often this judge grants motions for acquittal.....we miss the issue entirely.......the motion for acquittal must be granted under florida law where there is any plausible self defense argument in evidence. Zimmerman's entire statements are in evidence......either the judge is a rogue judge out of control and oblivious to the law which Omara gave and the state did not rebut.....or she sees zero credibility in Zimmerman's story. On appeal if the Jury finds Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, there will be a high probability that the appellate court could rule in light of the standards Omara recited that the court should have had a plausible self defense argument, and the jury never should have got those instructions......but I am talking to myself here.....Dreams does not understand these concepts, and certainly if she listened to Omara I could attempt an intelligent conversation......then again......nope.......that is a bridge too far.

Nekochan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I think it's a common motion that is almost never granted by any judge in any trial.


It is a common motion.   It is an automatic motion which if defense counsel does not make the same, they may have committed negligence, but the commonality of the motion which is about 99.9% does not negate the rule of law which the court must follow........the court cannot give second degree murder instructions if Omara was correct and Zimmerman was credible.  After listening to the argument, I was shocked the jury got to consider second degree murder charges.   I disagree that it is almost never granted.  It is a protection from overcharging and prosecutorial abuse......the state must prove a prima facia case, and granted juries usually have lesser included to go to verdict, but it is common to have overcharged defendant's motions granted.  It happens all the time.

Does it happen often with this judge?

I don't know but there was an article on her saying she was a pro prosecution" judge.

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat, I think it's a common motion that is almost never granted by any judge in any trial.


It is a common motion.   It is an automatic motion which if defense counsel does not make the same, they may have committed negligence, but the commonality of the motion which is about 99.9% does not negate the rule of law which the court must follow........the court cannot give second degree murder instructions if Omara was correct and Zimmerman was credible.  After listening to the argument, I was shocked the jury got to consider second degree murder charges.   I disagree that it is almost never granted.  It is a protection from overcharging and prosecutorial abuse......the state must prove a prima facie case, and granted juries usually have lesser included to go to verdict, but it is common to have overcharged defendant's motions granted.  It happens all the time.

Please show all us careless people WHERE the judge stated that the state has proven a prima facie case.

Do you know what prima facie evidence even means?

I'll give you an example, just to get you started.

If I show you a current drivers license, THAT is prima facie evidence that I am a legally licensed driver.  Mine also shows that I am licensed to ride a motorcycle.

YOU would have a difficult time proving otherwise.  If a cop pulled me over for something, it is still prima facie evidence.  However, if he goes back to his squad car, and typed in the number on my drivers license he would be able to produce proof evidence PROVING my license was not valid and was suspended or revoked.  In my case, he could not produce such evidence but that should point you in the right direction.

No, he doesn't know what it means. He hasn't even spelled it right.It's prima facie ....not facia

2seaoat wrote:Does it happen often with this judge?

That really is not the question.  The question is as a matter of law, has the state met the necessary requisite elements of second degree murder.   I think Omara said, or quoted from cases that there have been zero second degree murder charges affirmed by the appellate court where self defense has been raised since the stand your ground legislation has passed.   So where Dreams declares I am a Dilbert because she cannot distinguish my recital of the law as dictated by Omara and determines I am mind reading the judge, and now you ask how often this judge grants motions for acquittal.....we miss the issue entirely.......the motion for acquittal must be granted under florida law where there is any plausible self defense argument in evidence.   Zimmerman's entire statements are in evidence......either the judge is a rogue judge out of control and oblivious to the law which Omara gave and the state did not rebut.....or she sees zero credibility in Zimmerman's story.   On appeal if the Jury finds Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder, there will be a high probability that the appellate court could rule in light of the standards Omara recited that the court should have had a plausible self defense argument, and the jury never should have got those instructions......but I am talking to myself here.....Dreams does not understand these concepts, and certainly if she listened to Omara I could attempt an intelligent conversation......then again......nope.......that is a bridge too far.

Much as it pains me, that "sentence" seems to prove that Dreamsglore is NOT the one with the comprehension problem.

Please show all us careless people WHERE the judge stated that the state has proven a prima facia case.

By asking this question you do not understand the rule of law.

Do you know what prima facia evidence even means?

hmmmmm I think I will venture a yes

If I show you a current drivers license, THAT is prima facia evidence that I am a legally licensed driver. Mine also shows that I am licensed to ride a motorcycle.

YOU would have a difficult time proving otherwise. If a cop pulled me over for something, it is still prima facia evidence. However, if he goes back to his squad car, and typed in the number on my drivers license he would be able to produce proof evidence PROVING my license was not valid and was suspended or revoked. In my case, he could not produce such evidence but that should point you in the right direction.



You have again confirmed you do not understand the elements of the State's Prima facia case in murder, unlike your idea that the driver's license meet all the elements of a the states burden to show a driver is driving on a suspended license, the best evidence rule controls and the necessary elements of driving on a suspended do not stop at a static driver's license, but it is the dynamic record of the secretary of state which controls.........by your example you clearly do not understand the concept.....try again, a drivers license is never considered prima facia evidence, rather it is a recognition that at the time of issuance the driver MAY have met the necessary elements to be driving lawfully. If you even had a slight clue....I could be in possession of a driver's license which on its face was invalid......take some time to think about that......the use of your example explains why you are having difficulty with Omara's argument which you obviously did not watch and doubtfully would understand. If I seem like a jerk.....you go show that guy with the 30k income that million dollar home.......probably could sell a home to dreams......when she asks you about the security system on the home....you go ahead and answer her questions......a driver's license analogy to a prima facia murder case where the elements must be met......hey does that alarm system have a panic button.....cuz I think you need to push the same.

pri·ma fa·cie (prm fsh -sh, -sh-)
adv.
At first sight; before closer inspection: They had, prima facie, a legitimate complaint.
adj.
1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible: prima facie credibility.
2. Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.

Gawd Seaoat! Get the word right,would ja!

Much as it pains me, that "sentence" seems to prove that Dreamsglore is NOT the one with the comprehension problem.

And both of you did not listen to or understand the motion.......so I would find this entirely consistent. Of course you thought the judge based her ruling on race and concern for riots......which confirms your predisposition on this case from the beginning....even if you did listen to the motion........some people get it, and now with Mr. Markle and Dreams on the same page, I have reached the next level..........I am nearing enlightenment......and I think that can be found under the mushroom on level 8, where I have slain the twin valleys of dumb and dumber who argue the rule of law in this case without even listening to the argument........this really gets far too easy. The discussion on this thread was the courts ruling on the law........I have been called a dilbert because apparently some cannot distinguish the dual concept of reading a judge's mine and reciting the law, and now I have Mr. Markle shining brilliance on the discussion by using the faulty logic of a prima facia case as a drivers license, when he too has not watched the legal arguments.......I think I want to reset the game.....this is way too much fun.

2seaoat wrote:Please show all us careless people WHERE the judge stated that the state has proven a prima facia case.

By asking this question you do not understand the rule of law.

Do you know what prima facia evidence even means?

hmmmmm  I think I will venture a yes

If I show you a current drivers license, THAT is prima facia evidence that I am a legally licensed driver. Mine also shows that I am licensed to ride a motorcycle.

YOU would have a difficult time proving otherwise. If a cop pulled me over for something, it is still prima facia evidence. However, if he goes back to his squad car, and typed in the number on my drivers license he would be able to produce proof evidence PROVING my license was not valid and was suspended or revoked. In my case, he could not produce such evidence but that should point you in the right direction.



You have again confirmed you do not understand the elements of the State's Prima facia case in murder, unlike your idea that the driver's license meet all the elements of a the states burden to show a driver is driving on a suspended license, the best evidence rule controls and the necessary elements of driving on a suspended do not stop at a static driver's license, but it is the dynamic record of the secretary of state which controls.........by your example you clearly do not understand the concept.....try again, a drivers license is never considered prima facia evidence, rather it is a recognition that at the time of issuance the driver MAY have met the necessary elements to be driving lawfully.  If you even had a slight clue....I could be in possession of a driver's license which on its face was invalid......take some time to think about that......the use of your example explains why you are having difficulty with Omara's argument which you obviously did not watch and doubtfully would understand.   If I seem like a jerk.....you go show that guy with the 30k income that million dollar home.......probably could sell a home to dreams......when she asks you about the security system on the home....you go ahead and answer her questions......a driver's license analogy to a prima facia murder case where the elements must be met......hey does that alarm system have a panic button.....cuz I think you need to push the same.

You have done a good job of proving you do not know the definition of prima facie evidence.

You are right, a driver's license and murder case are entirely different but the rules of prima facie evidence remain the same.  That is why your use of the term is senseless.  You have come to realize that to be true but you don't have the courage to admit defeat.

My example of a drivers license is perfect.  Which demonstrates all the holes in your wishful thinking.  Was that a phrase you thought would make you look intelligent and thought you'd throw it out there?

Have you considered using punctuation to make your paragraph long sentences somewhat understandable?

By the way, the only cases I can bring to mind, which the COURTS consider to be a prima facie case, when it goes to trial, are Fair Housing, probably Fair Lending violations. If the case goes to trial, the plaintiffs case is considered to be prima facie evidence of the guilt of the Defendant. It is the defendants responsibility to prove themselves innocent.

This is also why Janet Reno's threats to bring Fair Housing and Fair Lending charges against banks carried so much weight. Lenders who did NOT lower their loan standards and approve more loans for minorities we subject to have the Attorney General on their case going over every loan approved, turned down everything. Picture Janet Reno giving you a rectal exam.

By the way, the only cases I can bring to mind, which the COURTS consider to be a prima facie case, when it goes to trial, are Fair Housing, probably Fair Lending violations.

You do not understand the term, and you have now tried to connect a thread which has nothing to do with politics to your assignment and source of income.......you failed in all regards. You keep thinking that a driver's license is prima facie proof of driving privileges.....it is not.