Be the first to like this
Can or should Zimmerman be tried again? What if there was no FAIR trial BY JURY the first time? It can't be double jeopardy then, can it? Even that can be overcome because there is enough evidence to try him for FIRST DEGREE murder, and it was all sent to the prosecution and ignored. What we need is the NEXT Rosa Parks to stand up in 47 States and insist on their right to question witnesses. It's already done in 3 States, so it cannot be unconstitutional. Where the jury did NOT question witnesses, the verdict was rendered on an incomplete record, and incomplete records ARE, by nature, inaccurate. The verdict cannot stand and if challenged to the Supreme Court level of the State, it will fall. Neither the accused nor the State got a fair trial, so, in effect, there was NO trial. The State has equal rights to a fair trial. Why is that,you ask? Because all criminal actions are brought in the name of the People of the State. Why is THAT, you ask? Because it is the State (via elected officials) who are charged with protecting and maintaining the welfare of the people. One miscreant running around, free to move to other States to commit more, and possibly worse, crimes, is one too many. That is why the slides prompt readers to take action to make history. Moving justice from the bus to the courtroom takes only one juror in each State to stand up and announce he has a question for a witness and no, he cannot hold the question until the time for deliberations, as an inaccurate record will form the basis for those deliberations! Who would dare stop such a courageous juror? At the risk of his job? No one. Jurors are summoned to court for possible selection. That right there confirms how important our Founding Forefathers thought putting ordinary people (with common sense and reasoning) into the room where another ordinary citizen has been accused. The jurors SERVE AS THE CHECKS AND BALANCE against corruption of the case by either side. Hence, the lawsuit contemplated by the medical examiner that the prosecution deliberately threw the case, would be truly tested. No one could throw a case when jurors question witnesses because it would require bribing all 12 of them (or 6 of them), and the odds that there wouldn't be one honest person diminish greatly under those circumstances. These slides demonstrate what the book explains in-depth about the fallacy of the 5th Amendment, also. We all have been led to believe that attorneys are smarter than the rest of us, but this case shows differently. We're all strong in different areas; hence, the idiom 'two heads are better than one.' So, who was it who started the rumor that jurors could not question witnesses and simply sat back and watched us bite? who was it that perverted the real meaning of the 5th Amendment? Try this on for size: One has a right against self-incrimination, but under the rules of honor and dishonor, no one has the right to deprive the other side of a fair trial.