This is true, I haven't maintained that I'm an expert (beyond possessing general legal skills) and I've repeatedly hedged most of what I've said w/ an "in my opinion," etc. I haven't studied CrimLaw or CrimPro since the bar exam (and, as is consistent w/ my stmts, that is mostly common law/MBE stuff... there is no SC specific CL/CP stuff on the bar). I've never maintained otherwise. I, like the majority of atty's, work in civil defense.

quote:
I can say all this comfortably because you just made one of the strangest comments I've ever seen a lawyer make. You just described Zimmerman's interview and first-person account of what happened as circumstantial. There is absolutely no way an attorney with any sort of experience in any courtroom could make that kind of ignorant statement and actually mean it. In fact, there is no way that I can believe that you actually know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence given that statement. A party that was a part of the incident who testifies directly regarding what happened is not circumstantial evidence, it is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is when the neighbor says he saw two men fighting, one on top who had a darker complexion and a hoodie and one on the bottom with a lighter complexion and a jacket. In that instance, you draw the inferences as to who is who, so it is circumstantial. In the instance of Zimmerman saying what happened, you don't have to draw inferences. When he says he was on the ground being pummeled by Martin, you don't have to draw an inference that Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top because he just testified to that. It's not circumstantial in any way shape or form, it is direct evidence. Just as when Zimmerman says "I shot him" it's direct evidence that he shot Trayvon. You don't need to link up bullets with forensics and fingerprints and so forth. he has provided you with direct evidence that he pulled the trigger. That would be circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman shot Trayvon as opposed to Zimmerman's direct evidence via his admission.

I was referring to the testimony of the witnesses as circumstantial in regards to whether deadly force was necessary. In my eagerness to reply I quoted the full text rather than the latter half.

quote:
As for the second part of your post, I just don't know what world you're living in. Now you're acting like you're playing the role of prosecutor or defense attorney and you're building a case? What are you talking about? We're talking about the result here. You made statements that were directly contradicted by the evidence at trial because you hadn't paid any actual attention and you drew conclusions from that evidence to call it an injustice. You weren't discussing whether or not you would have proceeded under the applicable law previously, you were saying that the actual result was a miscarriage of justice given what occurred. And your idea of "what occurred" was patently wrong. You weren't "making a case." Nor would I hope you'd ever be asked to given your statements in this thread.

I don't think it's beyond the bounds of rationality to speculate how one might've proceeded differently. My point a/b miscarriage of justice isn't that the result was wrong, it's that the law that permitted the result creates perverse incentives.