Rebuttal is permitted after the defense rests and is limited to refute only that testimony presented by the defense. It can not add to the prosecution's case in chief. Once the prosecution rests after rebuttal, the defense can provide rebuttal, limited only to refuting the testimony of the prosecution's witness. As you can see, the scope of rebuttal becomes funneled.

Kly,

Are you following at all the trial in FL? The guy who shot at a car because the music was loud? I think Davis is his name? The accused took the stand yesterday and closing arguments today.

Guy's fiance was not any help IMHO. Then again it is FL where Stand Your Ground rules.



TIS

Closing arguments coming up. I'm thinking guilty or hung jury.

Wow! Given Nagin's role in Katrina, this is really something:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/justice/louisiana-nagin-convicted/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

All that's missing from this is LCN involvement and we would never hear the end of it!

Ok, I thought this was hilarious!



TIS



WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND ALL THAT LOVE HAD GONE

A Mob-Defying Former Mayor Knows Why New Jersey Is So Corrupt


The chief of Fort Lee turned down a $500,000 mob bribe in 1974. Forty years later, he explains what makes the Garden State so fertile for corruption.
New Jersey is giving Illinois a run for its money as America’s most corrupt state. Four of the past eight governors from the Land of Lincoln have landed in the pokey, and Chris Christie could share their fate if the worst comes to pass out of recent scandals.

Even without Christie in the clink, senators, congressmen, county bosses, and mayors of almost every major city in New Jersey have been convicted of crimes. What gives? Why does New Jersey government seem like it’s run by the Sopranos?

As the former mayor of Fort Lee, I have some personal insight into New Jersey corruption. In 1974, I turned down a $500,000 bribe from developers linked to the mob to rezone 17 acres adjacent to the George Washington Bridge right where the access lanes were closed this past September in “Bridgegate.” The land was zoned single-family residential, and the developers wanted to build 3,000,000 square feet of retail, hotel, and office space. Had they gotten their way, the $500,000 bribe would have been chump change compared to the tens of millions of dollars they would have made.

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation. Almost 9 million people live in New Jersey, yet you could fit a sizeable chunk of the state into Yosemite National Park in California. Years ago, a rocket was shot and lost in Nevada. It took searchers almost two weeks to find the errant missile. Imagine a rocket being lost in New Jersey. Within seconds of hitting the ground, millions of residents would be calling in with its exact location.

The law of supply and demand applies to New Jersey real estate: there is very little of it and strong demand for it. Land in New Jersey is worth a fortune. Corrupt politicians sell their souls for power or money, and the dense development of land is where the action is. It’s as simple as that.

Even in poor cities the right development of land is worth a six-figure bribe. Just last week Tony Mack, mayor of Trenton, New Jersey’s capital, was convicted, among other things, of conspiring with his brother to accept $119,000 in exchange for the development of an automated parking garage. The jury didn’t need more than a day to return with a guilty verdict.

A few years ago working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office then headed by one Chris Christie, the infamous federal informer Solomon Dwek helped put three mayors and two state legislators into the slammer primarily by pretending to be a real estate developer offering money in exchange for zoning help. Not too many so-called public servants declined his offer.

Corrupt politicians sell their souls for power or money, and the dense development of land is where the action is.
Corruption is even more rampant in the northern end of the state where land is closer to New York City. Two of the towns involved so far in the recent Christie scandals—Fort Lee and Hoboken—are unusually densely developed and both provide spectacular views of the Big Apple. Fort Lee has more than 35,000 residents living within its two and a half square miles, and Hoboken has more than 50,000 people inhabiting not much more than one square mile.

If Mayor Zimmer of Hoboken is to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt her, the Christie administration was prepared to deny Hoboken Sandy relief aid if she didn’t favor a redevelopment project represented by David Samson, Chairman of the Port Authority and a close confidante of Governor Christie. Had Zimmer succumbed to the pressure, Samson’s law firm could ultimately have made millions of dollars in legal fees.

The United States Attorney for New Jersey is reportedly investigating this matter, and if criminal conduct is found, it will dwarf Bridgegate in importance. The misuse of Sandy funds is not only morally indefensible but potentially criminal.

Belleville, New Jersey is another municipality where the development of land, in this instance, for a senior citizen housing project, has a definite stench about it. Here it seems like the politicians were trying to cement their power rather than to fill their coffers.

For many years Belleville’s public officials had tried unsuccessfully to raise the money for this development. When Christie was kind enough to cough up roughly $6,000,000 of Sandy aid for Belleville to build the project, it was no coincidence when the Essex County Chairman, a Democrat, and the Democratic Mayor of Belleville both endorsed the Governor’s reelection bid. The only problem is that this project has virtually nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. In fact, Belleville was ranked 254th of cities affected by the hurricane.



Local officials love nothing more than supporting housing facilities for senior citizens. They are not motivated simply by pure love in their hearts, but rather because they understand that seniors vote in large numbers and tend to vote for the politicians who were kind enough to find them housing. Skilled politicians are expert in securing this vote often by putting voting booths in the lobby of the housing. Again it appears that the governor was using Sandy aid as a political slush fund.

The normally straight talking Christie has been unusually silent recently. He seems like the proverbial three monkeys all wrapped up in one—“see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” But evil seems to be everywhere, and if the governor doesn’t come clean quickly, he has a better chance of landing in the Big House than in the White House.

I'm surprised that no Board members (as far as I know) have posted about the Dunn trial in Jacksonville. I guess I should have.

The jury reached a guilty verdict on 4 attempted murder charges, but mistrial on the murder charge.

Some gun restriction laws will remain in place:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts...g-adults-n37196

the media doesn't want everybody to know that they're shooting black people down in florida

Without the media, the Trayvon case never would have gotten past the grand jury. And last time I checked, that case was in Florida. But I guess that's beside the point.

If you can carry a gun in Iraq or Vietnam at 18 years old, why can't you carry one here?

I'm all for smarter gun restrictions (namely backround checks and whatnot). But it's getting ridiculous now.

two different cases, two different racist, the same outcome

A Maine man's meth-trafficking conviction was overturned Tuesday because the cops were too efficient — they arrested him before he could actually finish cooking any meth to distribute.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meth...fficient-n38736

TIS, I'm sorry, but I just noticed this post. I didn't follow the trial closely, but was disappointed in the hung jury on the murder charge. The actions of the couple after the shooting produced incriminating evidence and evidence of flight leads to a jury instruction about the possibility of drawing an inference of consciousness of guilt. I hope they retry it.

I've been predicting this for years:

Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban.

www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/index.html

Does this mean Texas will secede from the union?

There is now a growing number of federal district court decisions holding that banning same-sex marriages has no rational relation to serving a legitimate governmental purpose, and thus the state-imposed inequality violates the Constitution. These cases will proceed to the circuit courts and will likely be accepted for review and consolidated by the Supreme Court. This will take a few years. In the meantime expect a greater number of states to strike laws banning same-sex marriage.

True Kly. I can't wait to see how the 5th Circuit Court rules. However, in recent years, the SC has tended to allow Circuit Court rulings to stand. However, as you noted, the SC abhors disparate Circuit Court rulings on the same legal issue.

It's a shame. Another arrogant judge gets to overrule the will of the people in an entire state. No surprise though. If one is so morally bankrupt that they support gay marriage, pulling a stunt like this is hardly beneath them.

If klydon's prediction comes true, much of the responsibility falls into Obama's lap, as he was the guy who put the justices in the supreme court that gave the majority that would vote that way. It's why I've said before that Obama is no more a Christian than he is a Muslim.

Like the subject of abortion, this is a legal issue that should be left up to the states. But liberals, for all their talk about tolerance, often have the least of it. They will have their way even if it means forcing their will through the courts and corrupt and designing lawyers and judges.

Whatever you feel about gay marriage, justice Scalia predicted the complete shape of the litigation on this issue - cutting through all the bullshit and pretend modesty in the previous decisions.

Scalia, J dissenting Lawrence v. Texas (2003):
“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision,” he wrote. Based on the court majority’s reasoning, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

Scalia J dissenting, Windsor:
“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote in his Windsor dissent (PDF). He points to wording in the majority opinion finding that supporters of DOMA acted to “disparage and to injure” same-sex couples, to “demean,” to “impose inequality” and to impose “stigma.”

“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘ “bare . . . desire to harm” ’couples in same-sex marriages. … How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

The bigamy litigation is already going on in texas. The state laws litigation are mentioned above.

Saw this coming. She has no backbone.

Arizona governor vetoes bill on denying services to gays
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a...d08b_story.html



It calls to mind the standard line gay marriage supporters routinely use. The one about how gay marriage doesn't have any affect on those who don't agree with it. Yet, for example, we've seen florists, bakers, photographers, and other businesses who didn't want to provide services for gay weddings because it went against their religious beliefs sued in several states. But don't expect gay marriage supporters to condemn this or retract their previous argument. They never cared about so called gay rights infringing on people's first Amendment rights related to their religion one bit. In fact, they likely take pleasure and satisfaction in all this. It's why the gays in those lawsuits didn't just go find another florist, baker, photographer, etc. Oh no, they have to make a statement. Much like when gay marriage supporters printed names of Prop 8 donors and even went to their homes. The people who are pushing and supporting this agenda are among the lowest of the low.

Ivy you can't deny service to someone simply because they're gay that's wrong. That's what this bill was propagating, it's just disguised as "protection of religious freedom".

No one's fucking saying you can't worship the way you want, I don't give a damn about what deity people worship as long as it doesn't hurt other people. This bill would do that. The thing about social conservatives is that you all want to maintain you're "Religious rights" yet you want to control what marriage is and what people can and can't do behind a bedroom.

What the hell is it with the right wing Christian groups? You people call yourselves Christians and yet you focus so much on putting down another group of people because of their sexual orientation? Unbelievable. If there ever was a hypocrisy it's that. Why not show a little "Christian charity" and just live and let live. Or better yet, love.

And no Ivy love is not "loving the sinner, but then preventing them from becoming ministers, members and marrying"

I think it would be immensely helpful if ya'll read the subject bill and understood basic due process.

Neither AZ law or federal law cites homosexuals as a protected or suspect class. The AZ bill addressed compelling government interests and allowed for a religious liberty defense of denial of service. The former was cited as part of the opinion of Federal Judge Garcia finding Texas Constitutional and statutory provisions regarding gay marriage in conflict with the US Constitution.

This proposed legislation was one of the most offensive, unchristian, unamerican pieces of garbage ever regurgitated by a legislative body. What made it especially hideous was that it was nothing more than attempt to legitimize hatred and prejudice through legislation that pretended to be promoting religious (and when Arizona says :religious," it means only right wingChristian) concerns and values.

This just proves the hypocricy of the right wing Christian lie, "We love the sinner, but hate the sin." Notice how the legislation pretends to aim at the universal concern of not forcing religious people to conduct business with those whose beliefs and practices offend their beliefs, but it then narrowly limits its application to gays. Religious people may have beliefs that they should also be offended by thieves, whoremongers, etc., but you can only discriminate against gays.

Moreover, I'm still trying to find that passage in the New Testament where Christ, who broke bread with prostitutes and all kinds of sinners, said that it was okay for merchants to deny gays, or for that matter, lepers, harlots, Roman tax collectors, etc., food, clothing, medical care, which the proposed legislation would have allowed merchants to do.

The religious right, which was the architect of this bigotry, as it coincidentally and contemporaneously arose in other state houses, withot there being a public call for it, seems unable to understand their Jesuss warning, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This proposed legislation not only pisses all over that sentiment, but it was an attempt to pass out the stones.

Excellent point. I didn't read the Texas federal court decision, but the article mentioned no rational relation to a govrnmental interest, which led me to infer that they didn't even apply strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny of a suspect class.

In cases where business owners feel it would offend their religious beliefs, such as a florist providing flowers to a gay wedding or a photographer taking pictures at a gay wedding, the state has no business compelling them to provide services. It's all goes back to the First Amendment and religious freedom, which should trump any so called "gay rights."



We want marriage to be recognized as it always has been. Not for nature and millenia of tradition to be turned on it's head in a misguided push for so called equality, where we all pretend there's nothing different between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. This has nothing to do with what people do in the bedroom but whether others are forced by the state to recognize their marriage or not.



First, while I am a Christian (Mormon to be exact) and a conservative, I don't know if I really identify with what people call "right wing conservatives." But I would say there are plenty of things Christians focus on. Not just gays. In fact, most of this wouldn't even be an issue if gays weren't trying to ramrod their agenda through the courts. Or sue business so they can make them provide services. It's the liberal, gay side who are the real intolerant ones here.





Secular liberals like yourself, who tend to be spiritually immature, always pit love against obedience. Your simplistic take is to just let everything fly in the name of "love."

Yes, Christ told the mob who was about to stone the woman, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But, after they left, He also said to the woman, "Go they way and sin no more."

First, let's not pretend you care one whit about what the scriptures say.

Second, as I said above, secular liberals like you love to quote the first part of that scriptural passage about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But you conveniently ignore the next part where Christ says to the woman, "Go thy say and sin no more."

You think because Christ ate with sinners that He condoned or excused what they did simply because He loved them. You forget that, when asked by the Pharisees why He spent time with sinners, Christ said, "The whole need not a physician but they that are sick."

Stick to your legalese ramblings, klydon, because you are clearly out of your depth here.

You forget Ivy I'm agnostic not atheist. I do not deny there could be a god out there, or some higher power, but I also don't think there's enough evidence for me to fully commit myself to a religion.

People have used religion for too long to commit atrocities, and while I realize not all Christians, Muslims, and Jews are bad in fact it would be foolish to think so, I also think that if we based everything we did was based on the Torah, Quran, or Bible we'd be stuck in 1350 all over again.

But yet I say again you can't deny service to someone because they're gay. It's the same thing as denying service to someone based on race. What you call ramrodding agendas is what gay people call "the right to be miserable" just like everyone else. Love and marriage isn't limited to straight people like you and I Ivy. If two people love each other they should be able to spend the rest of their lives together in peace as a married couple.

And for the record, I'm not going to obey any fairy tale figure in the sky who may or may not be real. That's called slavery and I have better things to do with my time than submit and read a dusty book written by men thousands of years ago