All George Zimmerman Threads

[alpha]

What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?

.

No. It's not their money. Maybe it would work if the lawyers had to prosecute the case on a personal contingency basis.

[annunaki]

DOJ'S RACE CASE FACES FBI BLOCK

FBI records: agents found no evidence that Zimmerman was racist

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/1...l#.UeOExW0QMXl

[chopnhack]

The question: << Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution? >>

I don't know, but I would be fearful if they were forced into making fewer cases because they were afraid of potentially losing some!

[TB Roye]

It isn't over, there will be a Civil Rights Trial and a Wrongful Death Suit right or wrong that is the reality of things now. I do think this was more politically driven than anything else. The prosecution seemed to keep shooting themselves in the foot for what I saw of the trial. Bad thing is one person is dead and the others life of normalcy is over. He will be unemployable and broke.

Tom

[annunaki]

Regardless as to how the confrontation occurred, once TM was on top of GZ beating him, breaking his nose, and banging his head into the pavement, no one ever suggested what other action he should have taken AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
Should he have allowed his beating to continue, risk a concussion and loss of consciousness and then what?
He did what anyone else would have done to stop the beating.
Case closed.

[phrog]

I was only half-way paying attention but I thought I heard someone say (maybe the defense counsel) there were yet meetings to be held to ascertain the financial burden of the defendant and the state's role in the burden. (I may be totally wrong because I was only half-way paying attention.)

EDIT: 7-15-2013 I was wrong. I was half-asleep.

[Knottscott]

With the evidence at hand, I don't know how they could find him guilty according to our legal system unless there was much more info available to them. That doesn't mean innocent, but a guilty verdict would have been difficult to prove.

[LCHIEN]

I have lots of opinions but I'm not going to bite and post them here,
Without any implied or direct references to tis case let's just say having the public prosecutor (ultimately the public taxpayers) pay those who it failed to convict sounds like a bad idea to me. There are many who have gotten off in our system who could not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but were also not proved innocent; payment to the tried and not convicted might become a travesty in some cases, especially the rich ones where they paid high priced legal teams to defend them. Probably just best to leave it as it is.

If there's a civil suit by the martin family, would they be forced to pay court costs and defendants costs if they lose?

[Daryl]

I am not taking any sides here, but the problem with punishing the state financially for a finding of not guilty, is that such a finding is not proof of innocence.
Zimmerman has the potential to make a boat load of money off of this case thru ghost written books, talk shows, gossip papers and such, problem is that the other fella's family will hound him like a dog with wrongful death suits and other claims.

[cabinetman]

If I was on the jury for the George Zimmerman trial, I would have voted "not guilty". I think the jury did the right thing. At the beginning, the State did not pursue prosecution as they did not feel they had enough evidence to bring to trial. With the public protest as it was, they changed their minds. Now, George has to live with the incident, the trial, and make a way for himself in life. Unfortunately Martin lost his life.

My wife and I were talking about the interaction between the prosecution and the defense. It is sort of a game, where one could win, one could lose, or a mistrial, where the game could start all over again. We wondered how the game would be played if there was something at stake for the State if they lose a case. In reality, charges can be brought against an individual, and a determination to go to trial, and then that person has to defend him/her self.

The defendant will incur costs to defend him/her self even if actually innocent of the charge. Costs for the State are paid for by the State. If the State wins, they get what is set aside for punishment of the defendant. If they lose, they have spent some money.

If the defendant loses, he/she gets the punishment. If he/she wins, gets nothing (usually) but (usually) the the costs of the defense of the charges, and living through the anxiety and repercussions of a trial.

What if the game was changed that if a defendant was found not guilty, the state would have to pay a large sum to the defendant...like a losing fee? Would that be an impetus for the State to more careful in their prosecution?

This post is not intended to be a political one and I urge any responses not to be either.

.