Predict the Zimmerman verdict

Toasters find ANY doubt reasonable.


We can all be a toaster at some time in our life.....there are two slice toasters, four slice toasters, and even eight slice toasters......we have a few 32 slice toasters on this fourm........hopefully the jury has other appliances on the jury. Your ANY comment as many of your other perceptive insights is the essence of the fingernails on the blackboard.

2seaoat wrote:Not it's not that simple.  You have to believe something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  Not just believe it.  If you have a reasonable doubt about your belief,  then the law is telling you your belief doesn't count when you're making your decision as a juror.


Again Bob.....I will be patient.   In the law there are Affirmative defenses to criminal charges.   An affirmative defense can justify the otherwise proven crime.   A self defense affirmative defense requires some evidence of the same to overcome the otherwise proven elements of a case.  Yes, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is a burden to present evidence that the self defense instructions have been met, and the otherwise proven manslaughter case can be excused because the killing was justified.  The two elements of manslaughter which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are as followed:
1   The victim is dead..................do you have reasonable doubt
2    The defendant intentionally caused the act or acts that caused the death of the victim......................do you have reasonable doubt

The defense has asserted an affirmative defense which means they must show evidence that can justify the death, and the instructions say that if manslaughter by act is justified, the jury must find a NG verdict.  Florida contrary to what the idiot talking heads have been saying is not a negligence Manslaughter state....it is an ACT state, so now the burden does shift to the defense to show the evidence which justifies the killing which as an affirmative defense destroys and otherwise perfect manslaughter case where the two elements have been met.   I have tried for weeks to communicate this on this forum, and I am consistently met with responses which quite frankly do not understand the concepts, the instructions, the law, or the facts in evidence.  There are people who did not even know the state had the final closing.......If I seem like a jerk....let me try instructing you on how to repair a Wulitzer, or tell you the age of a machine and I am a decade off.......this is a simple criminal case which has a common fact pattern.  This is not rocket science, but the lack of understanding on this case, and the discussion of racial riots......utter ignorance and prejudgment.

Don't worry,  I've been "repairing Wurlitzers" for over 40 years and I still sometimes struggle with it.   And with Rockolas and Seeburgs too.   lol

The issue at hand is not whether Florida is an "ACT state".
The issue at hand,  regardless of that,   is the burden or, put another way,  the "level" or "degree" of confidence a juror has to permit him/her to vote to convict.
And that level of confidence has to go beyond "a reasonable doubt".  Meaning that if the juror still has a "reasonable doubt",  then he/she is instructed by law not to convict.
That has nothing to do with ACT states or anything else.  That principle is applied across the board to every criminal prosecution regardless of the the circumstances.

And another bedrock principle is "innocent until proven guilty".  If that burden "shifts to the defense" as you put it,  then the principle becomes "guilty until proven innocent".  
So let's pursue this contention of yours that this does happen in an "ACT state".  Because if it does I would like to know about it.
Please elaborate and link me to something that will help convince me of it.

Look, Ann Coulter says "you're either a liberal or a conservative if you have an IQ higher than a toaster".

So I'm very proud to have the IQ of a toaster.

2seaoat wrote:Exactly. We can't decide which scenario actually occurred so it would be against our laws to find him guilty of anything.

You neither understand the law or the evidence in this case.

Right and you do w/ your legal opinions that make no sense? LOL! Some people have much more common sense than you do w/ your constant pompous legal instructions.

Slicef18 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.


Do you understand Bob what you have just said.   The state has a dead body.   There is not one scintilla of evidence or reasonable doubt that anybody other than Zimmerman killed the victim.   The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable.   You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable.  If you doubt the self defense, you must convict because there is no justification for the killing.  This is a simple common criminal trial.   These usually take place in a bar or behind a bar, but as we speak, across this country there are hundreds of similar cases where there might not be murder, but the self defense is argued.   We have people who have approached this case as a racial case.  It is not.   It should have been charged immediately.  It should not have the fanfare it has.   George Zimmerman is a common criminal who has lied to justify his killing of a 17 year old kid.   The color of the kid or Mr. Zimmerman makes no difference.  This talk of riots is exceptional......it would be like me talking about my cancer and talking about some miracle cure.....it simply does not happen except in extraordinary situations.   Riots on racial trials are not an automatic.  They have happened, but to make that conclusion one has to jump to the conclusion that this was a racial trial.......this was a simple criminal trial which the jury verdict will confirm.   It was an unjustified killing of a 17 year old kid.  Sure the racial profiling was important, but the state knowingly charged 2nd degree because all prosecutors know that if they argue 2nd there is a high likelihood that the jury will compromise on the manslaughter.   This has been a very good trial.

Self defense does not require you be in mortal danger.
LEGALLY, self defense only requires one "believe" they are in danger of "bodily harm." They DO NOT need to believe they are in "mortal danger." This is Florida law. A woman being raped may use any lethal weapon under Florida's definition of "self defense."

Thank you! Now we're talking to somebody who has a little sense.

And another bedrock principle is "innocent until proven guilty". If that burden "shifts to the defense" as you put it, then the principle becomes "guilty until proven innocent".
So let's pursue this contention of yours that this does happen in an "ACT state". Because if it does I would like to know about it.
Please elaborate and link me to something that will help convince me of it.



You do not understand. The state has proven Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the two elements of manslaughter. Not one person on this forum would disagree.......unless they are a 32 slice toaster.

It is easy to show the two elements....he is dead.....it was the defendant's actions which killed him.......his gun shot the defendant. There is not a scintilla of evidence to contradict this. It has been proven.

The defense is saying yep, this is manslaughter, but the defendant was justifiable doing it. They had no duty to do a thing. They did not have to make an affirmative defense. Zimmerman never had to say a thing. The state would put their evidence in and Zimmerman would be found guilty of manslaughter by ACT. The defense has the right to raise an affirmative defense. If they do not present credible evidence of the same, the affirmative defense fails. Your opinion is that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify the proven Manslaughter. I do not find the defendant credible, and I do not find the physical evidence or timeline consistent with the Defendant's story of self defense. I cannot justify this killing. It is that simple. If you believe the killing act was justified, you will vote NG. Now you decide if you want to be a toaster or otherwise.

Right and you do w/ your legal opinions that make no sense? LOL! Some people have much more common sense than you do w/ your constant pompous legal instructions.


I would not expect a 32 slice toaster to understand a thing I have written or talked about for weeks. I asked my wife how many slices of bread are in a loaf.....she said it is variable......but I would go so far as to say that a loaf toaster may be achieved in the near future.

2seaoat wrote: Your opinion is that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify the proven Manslaughter.

That one sentence is at the heart of your post.

No,  AGAIN that is NOT my opinion.  If I was a juror having to decide this,
my opinion would be that sufficient evidence has been presented to give me a REASONABLE DOUBT that the state is wrong.  Or put another way,  I believe there is a REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the defense is correct.

The problem with every post you've made so far is it ignores those words,  "beyond a reasonable doubt", as if that principle does not exist.
What you keep missing is that even if "my opinion" or "my belief" is that Zimmerman is guilty,  IF I STILL HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THAT BELIEF OR OPINION then I'm required BY LAW to acquit.

2seaoat wrote:Not it's not that simple.  You have to believe something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  Not just believe it.  If you have a reasonable doubt about your belief,  then the law is telling you your belief doesn't count when you're making your decision as a juror.


Again Bob.....I will be patient.   In the law there are Affirmative defenses to criminal charges.   An affirmative defense can justify the otherwise proven crime.   A self defense affirmative defense requires some evidence of the same to overcome the otherwise proven elements of a case.  Yes, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is a burden to present evidence that the self defense instructions have been met, and the otherwise proven manslaughter case can be excused because the killing was justified.  The two elements of manslaughter which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are as followed:
1   The victim is dead..................do you have reasonable doubt
2    The defendant intentionally caused the act or acts that caused the death of the victim......................do you have reasonable doubt

The defense has asserted an affirmative defense which means they must show evidence that can justify the death, and the instructions say that if manslaughter by act is justified, the jury must find a NG verdict.  Florida contrary to what the idiot talking heads have been saying is not a negligence Manslaughter state....it is an ACT state, so now the burden does shift to the defense to show the evidence which justifies the killing which as an affirmative defense destroys and otherwise perfect manslaughter case where the two elements have been met.   I have tried for weeks to communicate this on this forum, and I am consistently met with responses which quite frankly do not understand the concepts, the instructions, the law, or the facts in evidence.  There are people who did not even know the state had the final closing.......If I seem like a jerk....let me try instructing you on how to repair a Wulitzer, or tell you the age of a machine and I am a decade off.......this is a simple criminal case which has a common fact pattern.  This is not rocket science, but the lack of understanding on this case, and the discussion of racial riots......utter ignorance and prejudgment.

You're not even understanding wth you're saying.Just because you decide Zimmerman is a liar doesn't make it so. The facts presented show he has an affirmative defense that injects reasonable doubt. You're thinking is not logical or in reality. You don't think it's a racial case but the blacks do. You don't understand what the friggin law says yet you keep telling other people they're not smart enough to understand. Utterly unbelievable!

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote: Your opinion is that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify the proven Manslaughter.

That one sentence is at the heart of your post.

No,  AGAIN that is NOT my opinion.  If I was a juror having to decide this,
my opinion would be that sufficient evidence has been presented to give me a REASONABLE DOUBT that the state is wrong.  Or put another way,  I believe there is a REASONABLE POSSIBILITY that the defense is correct.

The problem with every post you've made so far is it ignores those words,  "reasonable doubt" as if that principle does not exist.
What you keep missing is that even if "my opinion" or "my belief" is that Zimmerman is guilty,  IF I STILL HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THAT BELIEF OR OPINION then I'm required BY LAW to acquit.

Correct,Bob. If there is the possibility that another scenario existed then you have reasonable doubt and cannot convict. In Seaoat's mind, he completely throws out any other possibility which is wrong for him to do and not what the law says.

2seaoat wrote:I still have reasonable doubt that Zimmerman WAS NOT defending himself.


Do you understand Bob what you have just said.   The state has a dead body.   There is not one scintilla of evidence or reasonable doubt that anybody other than Zimmerman killed the victim.   The only element left which there may be reasonable doubt is was the killing justifiable.   You have just stated above that you have reasonable doubt on the self defense which would make this justifiable.  If you doubt the self defense, you must convict because there is no justification for the killing.  This is a simple common criminal trial.   These usually take place in a bar or behind a bar, but as we speak, across this country there are hundreds of similar cases where there might not be murder, but the self defense is argued.   We have people who have approached this case as a racial case.  It is not.   It should have been charged immediately.  It should not have the fanfare it has.   George Zimmerman is a common criminal who has lied to justify his killing of a 17 year old kid.   The color of the kid or Mr. Zimmerman makes no difference.  This talk of riots is exceptional......it would be like me talking about my cancer and talking about some miracle cure.....it simply does not happen except in extraordinary situations.   Riots on racial trials are not an automatic.  They have happened, but to make that conclusion one has to jump to the conclusion that this was a racial trial.......this was a simple criminal trial which the jury verdict will confirm.   It was an unjustified killing of a 17 year old kid.  Sure the racial profiling was important, but the state knowingly charged 2nd degree because all prosecutors know that if they argue 2nd there is a high likelihood that the jury will compromise on the manslaughter.   This has been a very good trial.

That is not true.  Even if you think it might not have been self defense, or if you doubt that it was self defense, that does not meet the required condition of beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:To not convict Mr. Zimmerman of manslaughter, you need to believe that the killing was justified.  It is that simple under the instructions.   Bob, if you believe the killing was justified.  You would vote guilty.   I did not find the killing justified.  I would vote for manslaughter.   However, what we vote does not matter, but to misstate the law as given to the jury is simply not correct and one of the criticisms of the jury system is that citizens are incapable of understanding the complexities of evidence and the law as instructed.  I disagree.  I think jurors usually pay attention.......I however do not believe all observers do the same.

No that is ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT,  seaoat.  It's not correct because what you have ommited is crucial.

Because you have completely ignored one of the most significant legal principles in our entire criminal justice system.  The burden of proof.
It's not just a phrase that you can gloss over and ignore as you have done.
It is paramount if you have regard for the law.  

Here is what you said...

To not convict Mr. Zimmerman of manslaughter, you need to believe that the killing was justified.  It is that simple under the instructions.

Not it's not that simple.  You have to believe something BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  Not just believe it.  If you have a reasonable doubt about your belief,  then the law is telling you your belief doesn't count when you're making your decision as a juror.  It's THAT simple.

YES!

Seaoat just does not get it. For all his spouting of laws and instructions, he just can't understand the simple concept of reasonable doubt. If you don't have in evidence what really happened you CANNOT convict someone. I get it.He just cannot wrap his mind around that. This is why Casey Anthony was not convicted.

Fired State Attorney Ben Kruidbos the information technology director when he testified last month that he was worried prosecutors didn’t turn over information about deleted images and text messages Kruidbos recovered from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including photos of a hand holding a gun and a plant that looked like marijuana. M.r Kruidbos has hired an attorney to represent his suit against the Prosecutors of the George Zimmerman case.

Slicef18 wrote: Fired State Attorney Ben Kruidbos the information technology director when he testified last month that he was worried prosecutors didn’t turn over information about deleted images and text messages Kruidbos recovered from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including photos of a hand holding a gun and a plant that looked like marijuana. M.r Kruidbos has hired an attorney to represent his suit against the Prosecutors of the George Zimmerman case.

I just read about that. It's disturbing. According to what I have read, the defense only received this information days before the trial started.

Sorry,  seaoat,  I missed seeing this post until now.

2seaoat wrote:Bob,


Aggressor.  § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony.  See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or

Define applicable forcible felony.  Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.


A person defending themselves can be the aggressor if the bold print conditions exist.

After seeing your post I've read and reread this legalese.
The heading is "Use Of Force By Aggressor".  But it's confusing to me how exactly that word is being used in this context.

Here is verbatim how the statute is written...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Firstly,  for reference,  what is referred to as "preceding sections of this chapter" is this (what comes before it in the rest of Chapter 776...

CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012
Use of force in defense of person.
776.013
Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031
Use of force in defense of others.
776.032
Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041
Use of force by aggressor.
776.05
Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051
Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06
Deadly force.
776.07
Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08
Forcible felony.
776.085
Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.

You can read that chapter and verse with this link...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

But back to the chapter at hand.  Yes the title refers to the word "aggressor".
But when we take it verse by verse...

Verse one reads...  (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony

I don't see any reference to an "aggresor" in that verse.

Verse two reads...  (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

Say what?  Okay I guess if someone uses force against himself that could be construed as an "aggressor",  but to me it's better described as a "masochist".  So unless there is evidence that Zimmerman is a masochist then that's out.

Verse 2A reads...  (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

That would be exactly the claim of Zimmerman's defense.

And finally verse 3B...  (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The Zimmerman defense did not argue that so it's irrelevant to the case at hand.

NOW.  Here's the confusing thing.  Even though the heading of all this is "Use Of Force By Aggressor",  there is absolutely nothing I can read in any of that which would lead us to believe it's describing the victim of an assailant as being an "aggressor".  
I think it's still referring to the assailant as the "aggressor" seaoat,  and not the individual using force against an assailant.
It's just poorly worded as a heading.  

So nothing about it is contradicting the dictionary definition of "aggressor" (except maybe the masochist verse and frankly when someone is using force against himself that's just fucking odd).  And the dictionary definition of "aggressor" is not "someone using force against an assailant".
The dictionary definition of "self-defense" is just that.  "Defense",  not "offense".  I aint never heard of "self-offense".  lol
Because "self-defense" denotes a response or reaction.  Not the initiation.  That's what an "aggressor" does.  Inititiates.

Bob,
You have piled statutes and dictionary definitions. I have given you the instruction on manslaughter. The very act of shooting a bullet into another person is aggression. The very act, which Florida is an Act state on manslaughter, and not a negligence state, is an act which takes a person's life. So Zimmerman's Act of aggression can be justified if the jury BELIEVES the affirmative defense of self defense. The standard of proof to prove an affirmative defense is below the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore my language was correct when I said the Jury BELIEVES the ACT was justifiable. The defense does not have to prove this affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt and most scholars have been concerned that Omara made a big mistake of confidence where he implied to the jury that he could prove Zimmerman was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of the people who know what they are talking about caught this error, which like in this thread could lead to confusion to those not familiar with the standards.

Nekochan wrote:

Slicef18 wrote: Fired State Attorney Ben Kruidbos the information technology director when he testified last month that he was worried prosecutors didn’t turn over information about deleted images and text messages Kruidbos recovered from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including photos of a hand holding a gun and a plant that looked like marijuana. M.r Kruidbos has hired an attorney to represent his suit against the Prosecutors of the George Zimmerman case.

I just read about that.  It's disturbing. According to what I have read,  the defense only received this information days before the trial started.

I think before all this is over Angela Corey will be brought up on criminal charges.

These are the jury instructions for this case. You have to scroll down in the box shown on the page.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zimmerman-final-jury-instructions/

I just read about that. It's disturbing. According to what I have read, the defense only received this information days before the trial started.


Any non compliance with discovery is disturbing. It can happen intentionally or unintentionally, but the impact must be weighed under a standard which goes to the probative nature of the evidence. A judge can rule before the conclusion of the trial that the non disclosure is so probative that as a matter of law a motion for acquittal will be granted.

Here is what is going to happen on this issue. If Zimmerman is found NG, the defense attorneys are still going to make a motion for sanctions, and the court will determine what financial cost the defense suffered from this non disclosure, and there may be a referral to the Florida Supreme Court for a disciplinary hearing for an individual who intentionally did not comply with the court order, and the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.

If Zimmerman is found guilty, there will be post trial motions dealing with this, but it is highly unlikely the trial court will interfere with the jury verdict, rather the appeals court will weigh these factors:

On balance would these photographs on the cell phone have been probative and would the non disclosure deny the defendant a fair trial. They have the authority as a matter of law to overturn the jury verdict and find the Defendant NG by acquittal. What would really happen is that a picture of the defendant standing by a pot plant, and a picture of the defendant if present, would have not been allowed into evidence because it is not probative or relevant, and that its prejudicial weight would far outweigh is probative value. Those photos would NEVER have been put into evidence without a motion in Liminie where we are talking about a victim of a crime.......there are rare incidents where this might be allowed where the state opens a door which allows the defense to bring these in.........but I will give you my read on the many trial discovery issues.......I think OMara said it best.....the prosecutors have been used to dealing with public defenders who are overwhelmed and do not have the resources to conduct a case, he thought this explained much of the delay and in his opinions non compliance with the state. These allegations should be looked at as these discovery issues go back and forth in every county in America.....what is unusual is the firing of the information director......he is either a true whistle blower, or he has conveniently looked to make some money on what appears to be non probative in the disposition of the trial. It will be reviewed.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Slicef18 wrote: Fired State Attorney Ben Kruidbos the information technology director when he testified last month that he was worried prosecutors didn’t turn over information about deleted images and text messages Kruidbos recovered from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, including photos of a hand holding a gun and a plant that looked like marijuana. M.r Kruidbos has hired an attorney to represent his suit against the Prosecutors of the George Zimmerman case.

I just read about that.  It's disturbing. According to what I have read,  the defense only received this information days before the trial started.

I think before all this is over Angela Corey will be brought up on criminal charges.

After being shown that the prosecutor outright lied about witness testimony in his closing argument, it does not surprise me that he would withhold evidence.  And I don't say this lightly.  I don't think "most" prosecutors are liars or that most defendants are innocent, but this prosecutor is a liar.   I know that Seaoat thinks the prosecutor made a "mistake" in saying that Zimmerman told his neighbor that he "killed" someone, but if you watch the video of what the witness said and then you watch the video of the prosecutor saying that Zimmerman used the word "killed" in referring to what he did to Trayvon, it was clearly no accident.   Zimmerman actually used the word "shot", not "killed".   This is NOT about me thinking Zimmerman is innocent.  I actually think he got a pretty fair trial and that the jury has enough evidence to make a fair and informed decision.  It's about a crooked prosecutor. The next defendant won't have the resources that Zimmerman has had with his attorneys.

Chances are the cell phone evidence wouldn't have been allowed. That does not make it any less of a crime if the prosecution intentionally withheld it.

I think before all this is over Angela Corey will be brought up on criminal charges.


What do you base your opinion?

It's about a crooked prosecutor. The next defendant won't have the resources that Zimmerman has had with this attorneys.

The prosecutor is not crooked, nor is somebody a criminal as Dreams can only do. So now after rushing to judgment for over eight years on every black kid who is charged with a crime in the PNJ, you question the relative power of prosecutors in America. Maybe this trial has done something important in America. Yes, it is an unfair fight. Yes, innocent folks have gone to jail. Yes, sometimes defendants just give up and plea because they do not have the resources. Poor people in America struggle. However, this country provides public defenders, we fund the same with tax money to try to give some resources to poor people who come into contact with this criminal justice system. For eight years on the PNJ I have begged for shrinkage of about of 25% in this criminal justice system because it is trending in a direction which can be dangerous. A system that has a prosecutor who makes a mistake in closing or does not timely make discovery deadlines must answer to the court.....they will......but let me ask you the question......when a person gets ran over by a car on a bike after being chased......what was your opinion that the state never took the case to a grand jury.....so which is worse.....discretion not to prosecute where a grand jury would have indicted, or stumbling on a word or not making a discovery deadline......as Dreams has suggested is the prosecutor guilty of a crime?

My daughter has dismissed criminal charges against a defendant against her immediate supervisor's instructions to proceed because she knew the defendant would not receive justice, she had to explain her reasoning to the SA......he immediately affirmed her decision. Yes, some prosecutors can be zealous, and guess what.....discovery violations are always a two way road.......and sanctions may come after any trial against defense also, but the critical component of our system depends on a prosecutor seeking justice......We have an amazing system which does fail at times. This trial is the best of the best. If the jury finds NG......I will still say this was an amazing trial which was the best of what this system can offer.