Wow, Nelson is partially justifying the five-hour video deposition delay on her being in session and not getting a relevant message.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Judge: Another full day Tuesday, May 28th.

Hmmm. This is what HLN says:


12:03 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson said she did not find any discovery violations in this case, but she will hold a hearing on whether the defense is entitled to montary compenstation from the prosecution for time wasted on the Witness 8 hospital issue. She also said the next hearing in Zimmerman's case will be held on May 28.

Nelson is talking about an all day Hearing set aside... May 28th... news to me, but will add to calendar.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

12:06 p.m. ET: O'Mara is asking the Nelson if the attorneys can get together to discuss issues with jury selection. Nelson said she can meet with the attorneys about jury selection this afternoon.

It's over.

Will reconvene after lunch at 1:30 in judges chambers to go over jury issues for trial.

_________________
Puzzler - that which puzzles or perplexes; anything that arouses curiosity or perplexes because it is unexplained, inexplicable or secret.

BDLR just asked West to remove something from the GZLegal website. Any idea what it is that the State wants removed?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

myfoxorlando

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

The "experts" have no idea what SYG is and still think that it is tied to immunity.

12:09 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson has recessed court, so the hearing is finished. The attorneys will meet with the judge about jury selection in a meeting that will be off the record.

So, Nelson decided NOT to strike BDLR's rant-as-pleading. Then Nelson heard oral arguments, and then read yet-another-pre-prepared decision about discovery violations.

But can someone clarify: did she say that the court did or did not find that discovery violations took place? She read so fast that I may have mis-heard her.

Time to get her removed from this case.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I thought she said did NOT.

_________________

BDLR's unprofessional response to MOM most likely. Redacted copy to come.

I think I understand the confusion, maybe.



The immunity statute, 776.032, otherwise is not directly related to the "stand your ground" clause of statute 776.013, other than anyone justified in using deadly force per 776.013 (or 776.012 or 776.014) falls under the immunity statute, 776.032. However, the immunity clause 776.032 was passed at the same time as the "stand your ground" clause in 776.013, in what the legislature called the "Stand Your Ground" Law. So, the two, related-but-separate statutes were joined at the hip by the legislative bill that introduced both statutes.

So, the self-defense immunity statute is mis-named colloquially as the "Stand Your Ground" statute, because of the "Stand Your Ground" Law.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

OK, I am convinced that HLN is trying to hide the truth. Just as Crump was explaining the details around the "cleaned up" tape they went to commercial again.

Crump is an idiot. Glad the reporters are pressing on him.

So no pre-trial hearing on stand your ground, but the defense can bring it up at trial. I thought so all along.

They still don't get it. Hey Schemeteam, they aren't saying that the parents wanted him dead, they are asking if his testimony changed because of it. Stop trying to avoid the question by making people seem evil.

Mr O'Mara said he is not sure of the judge's ruling and will have to read the order. She has retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions.

I missed the hearing because getting up at 6 am is very hard for me. I am listening to HLN's recap.