Zimmerman's Bail Revoked - Page 6

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

We don't know what the judge thinks yet.... We will have to wait and see.

we already know. that's why his bail was revoked.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

A) He currently has no burden to prove.... He can choose to assume the burden though.... Depending on his defense strategy

B) This is a ridiculous article....it's like the guy has no understanding of what he is writing. From a DEFENSE perspective the bar is lower in trial than in an immunity hearing. The PROSECUTION must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial but must only prove by preponderance in the immunity hearing.

in immunity hearing, the role is switched. it falls on defense's burden instead of prosecutor so it's ultimately up to Zimmerman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

That would be unconstitutional; that's not how the American judicial system works. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

not in immunity hearing.

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

we already know. that's why his bail was revoked.

Nope.... First there will be another bail hearing. Second we don't know if the Judge will hold those items against him in an immunity hearing or trial.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:20 PM

http://www.southfloridacriminallawye...yourground.pdf

Quote:

Defendant, JULIO ABREU JIMENEZ, per Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(b), moves for
pretrial evidentiary hearing regarding his claim that the “Stand Your Ground” statute
grants him immunity for the crime of Aggravated Assault with a Firearm against Andrew
Hoffstead. In Dennis v. State, 2010 WL 5110231, Fla., December 16, 2010 (NO. SC09-941)
the Florida Supreme Court declared that a defendant asserting “Stand Your Ground”
statutory immunity is entitled to an evidentiary hearing; and the defendant has the
burden of establishing the factual prerequisites of his immunity claim by a
preponderance of the evidence.

B. Standard of Proof
Regarding pretrial determinations of “Stand Your Ground” immunity, the trial
court must hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing and apply the preponderance of the
evidence standard in determining the entitlement to “Stand Your Ground” immunity.
The minimum standard of proof possible is by a preponderance of the evidence, or
"evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is
offered in opposition to it." Black's Law Dictionary 1182 (6th Ed. 1990). Therefore,
Jimenez must only satisfy the minimum standard of proof possible - the preponderance
of the evidence standard - in establishing his entitlement to “Stand Your Ground”
immunity.

WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court declared that “Stand Your Ground”
immunity claims must only satisfy the minimum standard of proof to establish his
entitlement to immunity, Jimenez’s version of the events meets this burden, so the
charge must be dismissed.

there you go... it falls on Zimmerman's burden to prove his case that he was within his right to "Stand Your Ground"

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Nope.... First there will be another bail hearing. Second we don't know if the Judge will hold those items against him in an immunity hearing or trial.

the fact still remains that judge had a reason to revoke his bail.

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

in immunity hearing, the role is switched. it falls on defense's burden instead of prosecutor so it's ultimately up to Zimmerman.

not in immunity hearing.

Hence, "he can choose to assume the burden though, depending on his defense strategy". His last lawyer said they would not seek an immunity hearing.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Hence, "he can choose to assume the burden though, depending on his defense strategy". His last lawyer said they would not seek an immunity hearing.

in other word.... you were wrong. thank you for clearing it up.

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the fact still remains that judge had a reason to revoke his bail.

Temporarily yes, he might decide this is not a big deal too. He could even sanction the prosecution. Guess we will have to wait and see.

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

in other word.... you were wrong. thank you for clearing it up.

Nope

the quote came from my post.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Temporarily yes, he might decide this is not a big deal too. He could even sanction the prosecution. Guess we will have to wait and see.

so why don't you wait and see instead of coming up with these silly opinions of yours?

Again... the FACT still remains that judge revoked his bail because he had seen enough to do so.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Nope

the quote came from my post.

actually you were wrong in case you didn't know.

Quote:

The PROSECUTION must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial but must only prove by preponderance in the immunity hearing.

that would be incorrect

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

actually you were wrong in case you didn't know.

that would be incorrect

Ah you missed the point.... The point is the bar for the defense is much lower at trial than in an immunity hearing. With preponderance one side has to win by 51% theoretically. Essentially it is the same standard as a civil case. No biggie.

**saywhatkid** · 06-11-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Interesting view. I don't take prozac so I can't see things from your angle.

I would need much more than prozac to see things your way.

**Jiro** · 06-11-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Ah you missed the point.... The point is the bar for the defense is much lower at trial than in an immunity hearing. With preponderance one side has to win by 51% theoretically. Essentially it is the same standard as a civil case. No biggie.

sssssssshhhhhhhh...... you were wrong. clearly. end of case

Steinhauer · 06-11-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I would need much more than prozac to see things your way.

(yeah, like a formal education for starters)

Did you make that one up all by yourself?

**Foxrac** · 06-11-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

sssssssshhhhhhhh...... you were wrong. clearly. end of case

It isn't good to feed the quibbler.

Let think about alligators spread to NJ and NYC due to climate change.

**TXgolfer** · 06-11-2012, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

sssssssshhhhhhhh...... you were wrong. clearly. end of case

If it makes you feel better to believe that.

Yes taken out of context it could appear to be incorrect. I left out a "they"

but oh well.

rockin'robin · 06-11-2012, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I would need much more than prozac to see things your way.

Here....have a couple of swigs from my Mason jar full of white lightning I brought back from the backwoods in NC....It's guaranteed.

**TXgolfer** · 06-12-2012, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Here....have a couple of swigs from my Mason jar full of white lightning I brought back from the backwoods in NC....It's guaranteed.

Have had some of that before..... Woooooo

**Jiro** · 06-12-2012, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

If it makes you feel better to believe that.

Yes taken out of context it could appear to be incorrect. I left out a "they"

but oh well.

wwoooooowwwwww I never thought you could continue to spin this even further when in fact you were clearly wrong on the part that it falls on prosecutor's burden in immunity hearing. It's actually on defense's burden in immunity hearing.

oh well. this is just too sad and painful to see you continuing this comical farce.

**TXgolfer** · 06-12-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

wwoooooowwwwww I never thought you could continue to spin this even further when in fact you were clearly wrong on the part that it falls on prosecutor's burden in immunity hearing. It's actually on defense's burden in immunity hearing.

oh well. this is just too sad and painful to see you continuing this comical farce.

Again, I left out one word... But it's ok. No biggie. I had already covered the "defense choice" in a post prior to the one you are referring to so the meaning of that post should have still been clear. Oh well.

**saywhatkid** · 06-12-2012, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

(yeah, like a formal education for starters)

Did you make that one up all by yourself?

Troll much? I don't beat around the bush like you. Try it. See if they ban you. I still have a membership.

BTW, if formal education delineates level of intelligence, you better check in for a refund, with interest. Your grammar alone is downright frightening.

However, it would be good to focus on your defense of Zimmerman, and conviction of the DA. It suits you. Is the DA black, by chance?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com