The prosecution's 'arguing', begging the court to reduce their 2nd degree aggravated assault to 3rd degree lesser charge based on...wait for it...wait......CHILD ABUSE!!
I kid you not.
"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina
this "creepy-assed-cracker" judge imo. She broadsided the defense with early attempt to ostensibly find out if GZ was going to take the stand knowing damn well 2 things in advance:1) Defense had most likely not even had that discussion yet with their client, and 2) the Jury was present to hear her rampage! Extreme prejudice, there, judge.
She in effect, put Zim on the stand before the jury for the prosecution. I've noticed that except for this one outburst directed at Zim himself, then West, while jury's present, she's used, more or less, judicial decorum in the presence of the jury.
Smelly creepy ass cracker. Sorry, her behavior here smacks of trying to boost prosecution's pathetic case...
Low and behold... guess what's going on as I type...the prosecution is begging the court to instruct the jury on the lesser charge of 3rd degree/manslaughter!! Surprised?
Defense, West, is arguing: Nope. You asked for 2nd degree. That's what you said you would prove. Defense wants that instruction to go to the jury, nothing less.
State's trying to move the goal posts in by about 20 yards knowing now, after the trial's over, they FAILED.
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution
The only thing about this that bothered me is that the Judge was asking the Defendant how much time he needed to consult with his attorneys. The Defendant alone might not be a good judge of this because, since he isn't a lawyer, he doesn't really know what the issues are with him testifying to the extent his counsel do. But aside from that, there is nothing wrong with her inquiry. Judges get testy with attorneys if they want to ask a question and anyone who steps into court can get into an exchange like that with a judge at any time. It's part of the process. I don't think it means or shows any bias on her part. Is it wonderful behavior? No, but a courtroom is a place of business and lawyers have to take a few on the chin.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
Kathi Belich, a journalist following the trial for a local news channel, tweeted her surprise at the line of questioning, writing “I have never seen that in more than 30 years of court reporting.”
I don't view comments from non lawyers about legal process to be too informational.
And as to this issue, I can think of testy exchanges with judges as to both sides occurring in most cases I have been involved with. She is able to inquire as to whether he is testifying, and by doing so at that time she was just rying to keep the case moving. To me, the purpose is fine, the motive is fine for the questioning, and there was just one aspect of it that is a little over the line, but nothing that could not be cured the next time she visited the issue. Other than that, there are just personality and style issues.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix
this judge is a disgraceful piece of work...
they are called civil rights, your blowfishhonor...
its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: