Could this affect the Zimmerman case?

Our local news station published this article. I am curious to hear from you guys/gals that follow court cases and know how things like this work. Could this kind of information help GZ? Could it get the case thrown out? I know we are almost to the end of the trial, so lets say he is found guilty, could this help him in a appeal? Or is it not even a factor? I imagine its the latter of the questions, but I am uneducated in the ways of the courts so that's why I ask.

http://wtkr.com/2013/07/10/ex-sanford-police-chief-zimmerman-probe-taken-away-from-us/

Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial, told CNN’s George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.

“It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn’t care if it got dismissed later,” he said. “You don’t do that.”

Only if the judge admits it into evidence. As the person has already testified and did not mention the pressure during testimony, the judge surely did not allow mention of the pressure.

So, no, it will not affect the trial. It could be an issue in asking for or arguing the appeal.

I swore I saw on the local news, that the prosecution was trying to introduce a lessor charge of manslaughter, because they didn't think murder 2 would stick?

Did I hear that correctly? Can they do that?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I think that a jury can choose manslaughter in lieu of murder as an alternate charge... let me look that up...

nice justice system, cant nail him on one thing, throw whatever else you can and see what sticks. seems fair and legit...

this case is all about burning someone for an agenda. if they dont get their way then they will burn rape and pillage their own towns. (thought we evolved past this behavior?)

I think GZ is going to be found guilty of Manslaughter and will be looking at 30 to life.

If the prosecution fails to prove that it was NOT self-defense, then neither murder nor manslaughter are options.

Does anyone here actually think that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self-defense? I think that quite the opposite is true. It has been proved beyond that reasonable doubt that it WAS self-defense, a hurdle that did not have to be cleared by the defense team.

eye95 said:

If the prosecution fails to prove that it was NOT self-defense, then neither murder nor manslaughter are options.

Does anyone here actually think that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self-defense? I think that quite the opposite is true. It has been proved beyond that reasonable doubt that it WAS self-defense, a hurdle that did not have to be cleared by the defense team.

Click to expand...

+1 not guilty

State is going for 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and 3rd degree felony murder due to child abuse.

I think that the state should be required to bring him up on all charges at the beginning of a trial. It doesn't seem like justice is being done.

Nightmare said:

The defense has rested. Closing statements tomorrow. Jury instructions Friday.

Click to expand...

Judges instructions to the jury:

"Find him guilty or we will publish your addresses and they will hunt you down and rape and kill your kids, the IRS will audit you and the NSA will release your web history"

Phoenix David said:

Judges instructions to the jury:

"Find him guilty or we will publish your addresses and they will hunt you down and rape and kill your kids, the IRS will audit you and the NSA will release your web history"

Click to expand...

Sounds about right. The little that I've actually watched has shown that this judge is terrible, and seems rather biased against the defense. Arguing with the defense attorney and asking Zimmerman in from of the jury if he will take the stand. For what reason would the Judge address the defendant directly rather than his counsel?

builtjeep said:

Sounds about right. The little that I've actually watched has shown that this judge is terrible, and seems rather biased against the defense. Arguing with the defense attorney and asking Zimmerman in from of the jury if he will take the stand. For what reason would the Judge address the defendant directly rather than his counsel?

Click to expand...

IANAL, but the judge addressing the defendant directly rather than through counsel would seem to me to be grounds for, if not a mistrial, then a reversal of a guilty verdict on appeal. Arguing with the defense attorney adds to that. Especially if both occurred in front of the jury. Talk about prejudicing a jury!!

look forward to him walking!

SFCRetired said:

IANAL, but the judge addressing the defendant directly rather than through counsel would seem to me to be grounds for, if not a mistrial, then a reversal of a guilty verdict on appeal. Arguing with the defense attorney adds to that. Especially if both occurred in front of the jury. Talk about prejudicing a jury!!

Click to expand...

Or!!! Her actions/behavior was intentional to aid his appeal if the jury succumbs to public pressure and finds him guilty of anything.