'PROOF' : "INTENT"

YOUR "Legal" "I.Q." ??

 

Before we wade into the coming discussions of the "Trayvon" Trial; we should first check out our  "Legal I.Q." ?  Remember when Defense Attorney O'Mara pleaded with the all-white (one "near-white") female jury to "disregard their common sense"?  Why did he do that?

 

He knew that members of juries (and, especially THIS jury) rarely have legal training.

For instance, he probably knew that words like PROOF,  have strict legal definitions that change with  varying facts of a case.  But, for most juries, PROOF boils down to whatever A member will ACCEPT as "proof".  It depends on what lies deep in the recesses of a juror's mind.

 

He also knows, I'm sure, that INTENT, similarly has many and varying legal definitions.  To determine what Zimmerman's intent was in the case, we would have to probe deeply into his mind; into his state-of-mind.  O'mara did everything the law allowed to deny us from getting a glimpse of Zimmerman's  "Intent" in this case.  He did so by keeping Zimmerman off the Witness Stand, and, thereby, avoiding his cross-examination by the Prosecution.

 

When jurors are carefully selected, a good attorney can virtually guarantee that certain "facts" and "evidence" will, (or will not), pervade the thinking of the juror, to gain fair consideration.  Religious beliefs, and racial beliefs, are examples of the kind of forces within an individual's mind that will work in predictable ways -- thereby making it impossible to "prove" anything!  Playing consciously or sub-consciously to a juror's prejudices becomes crucial to the desired outcome.  We saw a lot of that in this case.

 

These factors have to be taken into account whenever judicial trial is chosen  to seek "justice". "
Truth remains elusive.  Lying under oath was rampant in the trial.  Both parents claimed it was their son screaming for HELP!

 

Stay Vigilant!  Don't trip over your own thought processes. 

 

Copyright: © 2013: Williams LLC

All Rights Reserved: Williams LLC