On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:00:45 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

You're right. This way he can see what the prosecution has before making the final decision.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On 5/1/13 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 00:47:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


The man charged with murdering Trayvon Martin waived his right to a
pre-trial self-defense immunity hearing during a Tuesday morning court
appearance in Sanford, Fla.

Under oath, George Zimmerman told Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that he
understood Florida's self-defense laws, that he had talked to his
lawyers about the "stand-your-ground" statute, and that he decided not
to have a pre-trial immunity hearing. The decision is seen by at least
one expert as wise but risky.

Zimmerman will not be allowed to have such a hearing after a jury has
made its decision but will also not have to testify twice. If he had
chosen to have the immunity hearing, Zimmerman could have claimed self
defense before a judge without a jury and if successful, could have been
cleared of the murder charge.

"George wants this case before a jury of his peers -- that's where he's
going to be acquitted," his attorney, Mark O'Mara, said after the
hearing. He added that the case was a "straight forward self-defense
case," and would not comment further on the defense's decision to forego
the immunity hearing.

http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

John H.

Judges are elected political hacks here and up there in a blue county
I imagine O'Mara trusts a jury more.


Scalia and Thomas are political hacks.