ZIMMERMAN TRIAL LIVE LINK

[Gman]

Can we just let this wrestling crap go? Please?

Sent from my tactical android.

[RblDiver]

An insult would be person A embarrassing person B for spelling incorrectly. "(new word here)" would be person B attempting to embarrass person A for spelling correctly.

I think troll would fit as the word. Not quite as elegant as schadenfreude, but still functional.

[Singlestack]

Incredible. I wonder how much the prosecution is paying this judge:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-will-testify/

Un-freaking-believable. This is judicial misconduct. "In the real world" the decision whether to testify or not is a strategy decision between counsel and the defendant - and they are entitled to change their decision as many times as they want - all the way up until either the defendant actually testifies or the last defense witness has been called. In some fairness to the judge, she is probably trying to determine if the defense will rest today to after today based on if Zimmerman will testify - but not allowing defense counsel to handle that and answer is grossly improper. As long as Zimmerman understands his rights and chooses not to testify, that should be sufficient for the judge.

[RblDiver]

Well, that judge did get quite uppity and obnoxious there, but I have to admit, I don't understand what the objection was for (not being a lawyer et al).

[Bailey Guns]

Wow. I've never seen, or heard of, a judge pressing a defendant like that. Zimmerman and his attorney's seemed stunned...for good reason. It was almost like the judge was looking for a reason (or trying to fabricate a reason) for someone to ask for a mistrial.

[TFOGGER]

Well, that judge did get quite uppity and obnoxious there, but I have to admit, I don't understand what the objection was for (not being a lawyer et al).

If he is being represented by counsel, any questions should be directed to his lawyers, except(if and) when he is on the stand.

[RblDiver]

If he is being represented by counsel, any questions should be directed to his lawyers, except(if and) when he is on the stand.

Ah, makes sense.

[Jeff350]

I would be interested to know if that exchange took place in front of the jury. If it did, I would say the defense should be moving for a mistrial. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that a defendant does not have to testify. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty! Apparently this judge thinks its her job to prove he is guilty.

[Gman]

Wow. What's the point of legal representation if the judge is going to simply ignore it?

I can understand why the defense appears confused. I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't think the defense wants a mistrial. The prosecution might. I think this trial was over after the first few prosecution witnesses.