Knock Knock. Who’s There? A Lawyer with Very Little Self-Awareness
So I read this excellent Legal Insurrection post about the composition of the Zimmerman jury and thought: this sounds like a good defense jury. Maybe one clearly prosecution-oriented juror in the bunch. Maybe Zimmerman has a chance!
Then I saw this:
Wow.
Just because you think something doesn’t mean you have to say it out loud. Humor with a jury on a murder case is a tricky business.
Ken at Popehat has the best line I saw all day on this:
Knock-knock joke still not as bad as the time I got drawn into a game of the dozens against the jury foreman.
— Popehat (@Popehat) June 24, 2013
Yo mama’s so incompetent she told the jury a knock knock joke.
HEY-O!!!
well, if they railroad Zimmerman, he already has grounds for an appeal.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:27 pmThe rule of thumb for speaking to jurors is “Murder your darlings.” That which you think is just super wonderful and funny is almost certainly too precious to go over, or at any risk too risky in this context.
That said:
It’s one remark in the course of what will be a long, long trial, and I very seriously doubt that this joke, by itself, will have any meaningful effect on anything the jury ultimately decides. Is it indicative of larger problems on the part of defense counsel? I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t enough data from which to draw any confident conclusions about that.
Beldar (b97f8f) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:31 pmOur host is also revealing himself as the sort of guy who still knows all about the Slauson Cutoff. Hey-o!!!
Beldar (b97f8f) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:33 pm(Me, I still remember Jack Parr.)
Beldar (b97f8f) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:35 pm(But not well enough, I guess … Jack Paar, I meant.)
Beldar (b97f8f) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:36 pmThat was awful.
JD (b63a52) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:39 pmI imagine humor has its role in persuasion, but anti-humor?
Plus how does it help George Zimmerman if the jury think his lawyer is an ass?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:41 pmSo far, defense counsel O’Mara seems to have the best rapport with this jury. He needs to give the summation.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:51 pmFormer Conservative,
Most trial lawyers include in their summation that if you don’t like something about them, don’t hold it against their client. I think most juries try to comply with that unless they really, really hate the lawyer.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/24/2013 @ 6:52 pmAnd since the prosecution opened by assaulting the jury with Zimmerman’s “f*cking punks” comment from the 911 call, I’m declaring the results of Day 1 to be a 2-way tie for stupid.
Icy (220208) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:10 pmKnock knock
Who’s there
Florida
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:20 pmhttp://i.imgur.com/tiDhSQp.jpg
redc1c4, took the words right out of my mouth.
Is this a nuanced appeal-bait procedure?
Patricia (be0117) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:22 pmIf you are going to tell a joke, there ought to be at least one other person that thinks it is funny. Also, if your awkward disclaimers take longer than the bad joke, that should be a clue.
JD (b63a52) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:24 pmRelevant: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/118/375/tumblr_lhsus85LGP1qhk4ito1_400.jpg
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:28 pmYeah, I get that, but starting the trial by being an ass isn’t helpful.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:32 pmQuite.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:32 pmknock knock who’s there
fascist slut law barbie
oh hi pam what do you want now
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:56 pmWhat a dope. But doesn’t really matter–Trayvon was a thug and better lawyering will make that clear to today’s stone-faced jurors. Zimmermann walks.
Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e) — 6/24/2013 @ 7:56 pmWhy did the second chair give the opening statement for the prosecution?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:02 pmR.I.P. Richard Matheson,
Icy (220208) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:10 pmscience fiction author par excellence; writer of “I Am Legend”, “The Shrinking Man”, and many episodes of the original Twilight Zone tv show
I remember once when I was working in court, there were a bunch of motions on some issues, and the judge finally dismissed the plaintiff’s case. Everyone packed up their stuff and the bewildered plaintiff, who thought he was starting his trial, said, “Judge what just happened?”
“Your attorney just screwed up your case,” he said as he exited.
I don’t think that was the end of it.
Patricia (be0117) — 6/24/2013 @ 8:12 pmThere’s 4 weeks to go and by the time this is over the jury will have forgotten the joke or at least filed away into that place where weird random crap gets stored.
That said, did the camera ever pan to Zimmerman during the comedy act?
If I was Zimmerman, I’d have covered my eyes and wished I was in Peru. I wonder if Zimmerman was thinking: f****** punk lawyer.. you tell a damn joke to the jury it better sure as hell be funny. F***.
Good thing his mom wasn’t allowed into to the courtroom because she’d have either fainted or tried to kill the lawyer… or both.
The laugh meter reading on the joke reminded me of when the guy who played Kramer from Seinfeld went out on his comedy tour.. minus the n-word thank god
SteveG (794291) — 6/24/2013 @ 11:28 pmR.I.P. Gary David Goldberg, producer of “Family Ties”
Icy (a52148) — 6/24/2013 @ 11:34 pmWhy are all the wrong people dying?
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/24/2013 @ 11:57 pmIt was a stupid comment. But I get the point, and it is sad. The qualification for being on the jury apparently was simply that you didn’t know who George Zimmerman was. But ignoring the failure of the joke, I’m not sure how this isn’t taken as an insult against the jurists by the jurists. After all, how non-aware do you have to be to live in that area and have known nothing about the case?
Charlie (1bf147) — 6/25/2013 @ 12:10 amThis is why I’m not sanguine about this case,
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/
and the complaint is about an inappropriate joke, seriously.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/25/2013 @ 12:53 amI’m sure “knock knock” jokes are racist somehow.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2013 @ 1:36 amI knew it! And I said it, as soon as I read that it was an all-woman jury. OTOH, could be the supermoon on top of the summer solstice on a hairless head.
the nk who still sometimes blushes when talking to women (875f57) — 6/25/2013 @ 1:42 amRIchard Matheson also wrote “Born of Man and Woman” a short-short told from the point of view of the thing in the attic. One of very few short stories I read in high school that I still remember. He also wrote “Duel” which made Steven Spielberg.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2013 @ 1:43 amI’m reminded of a trial of nazi types where they excluded from the jury anyone who was aware of WW2.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2013 @ 1:45 amContext. Context. Context.
I had hear about it but seeing it is amazing. The thing astounding about this attempt at humor, is the joke had to have been approved by the defense team. More than one person thought the joke was funny, or a ‘grabber’. This is a perfect example of Cognitive Egocentrism. Not a good sign, when the defense starts off speaking towards their own perspective, instead of the jurors.
TimesDisliker (99dd3c) — 6/25/2013 @ 8:12 amThe one thing George Zimmerman doesn’t need now is a bad lawyer.
That lawyer was right about one thing: that joke was at considerable risk. It is weird.
Did he really like that joke so much, he has to tell it to everyone, even the jury? It’s not really relevant to anything substantial in the case. He didn’t even tell it well. His delivery was all flat. TERRIBLE.
The lawyer even commented that nobody was laughing, like a stand-up comedian sometimes does. What is it with him. Because it was played on TV it made it look like he had nothing to say, because that’s all that got played on TV.
It seems like this was planned, but there was no idea how to connect it to this case. He could have said what the court wanted was a little like that, i.e. that they were supposed to know nothing. But did their experiences, in this jury selection, as opposed to maybe some other jury selections, really mirror that?
It would not be so bad if he had followed up and
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:07 amsaid but really nobody knows nothing about this case. So they’ll have to overcome any prejudices etc, and listen to the evidence and they should not be afrad to return a verdict that some of the people they know might not understand right away. That way you could use that joke, if he was dying to deliver it.
I wonder what crazy person thought the best idea was for teh lawyer to deliver some kind of a joke (so that they’d be friendly with the lawyer? It’s a bad joke anyway in a very serious case.)
Did he not have anything else to say? Maybe he forgot what he wanted to say and he was buying himself some time?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:09 amI think that lawyer also conceded that GZ followed TM, which I don’t know is correct. If that’s the truth, of course he should say so. But what’s known is he only followed him initially.
Later, GZ said he wanted to check the name of the street. If he didn’t 100% of the truth to the police, he should condcede that and explain that and say nevertheless you can know what the truth is, or what it isn’t.
He needed to say that George Zimmerman didn’t shoot trayvon martin because he wanted to. And if he had wanted to, and he didn’t care who found out, or wasn’t worried, he would have donme it first thing. But instead they were locked in a struggle for what looks like 45 seconds. The only way George Zimmerman was the loser in that fight wa sthat he wa staken by surprise. And it really couldn’t be he pulled out a gun and taryvon Martin reacted very quickly. he could never have caught up to TM unless TM stopped running away from him. For whatever reason – and yes it could be fear, he decided to assault him.
And he should say yes maybe ti si truie that GZ didn’t NEEd to kill him. But he didn’t know that. he didn’t know that police would be there within seconds after he shot him. And George Zimmerman’s life was in danger. the law doies not require you to take the maximum chances byut he waited quite abit. he had a problkem. he had a gun. GZ will testify (or there is evidence) that TM saw that gun. GZ says TM threatened to kill him. In any case the gun wa sthewre and theer always a risk TM would grab that gun and kill him.Especially if he overpowered him. And in any case GZ was not required to take the punishment indefinitely. The judge will instruct you…
Now that’s the kind of thing he needed to say.
And he could lso say the person on the bottom was GZ – The person crying for help was not TM.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:17 amIf people are focused on the lame knock knock joke that began the defense’s opening statement, that’s better than distorting the rest of the very fact based opening statement, which contrasted sharply with the profanity laced, light on facts, prosecution’s opening statement.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:18 amThe media often select soemthing out and create an impression different from what somebody who was there saw.
If it got better after that, then this doesn’t make too much difference.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:45 amI heard the lawyer conceded that GZ followed TM. Was he talking about at the beginning, which is irrelevant, since he stopped, or was he conceding that he followed him later?
The New York Times has actually quiote a lot.
It says that Don West was “stumbling at times through the details” and “presented his case like a college professor” It says he “plunged into a chronological account, heavy on maps and audio recordings” saying that the concrete sidewalk was no different than a brick and was a deadly weapon.
(One problem with that: GZ had largely saved himself from that, and had maneuvered himself onto the grass by the time he took out the gun. GZ had a handicap in the wrestling match in that he had to avoid the sidewalk.)
The New York Times says Don West displayed aerial photos and showed that GZ could not keep an eye on TM from the car because of the interveing houses. (I think this means to prove that GZ could not have followed TM in his car, with the point being that if on foot, he never would have recahed him if TM was running away, but I don’t know if he said that. But anyway we know where the car was parked and it wasn’t near where TM was shot.)
Don west said there was no evidence that he was not returning to his car. I don’t know what GZ says, but GZ said that before he returned to his car he went further to look at the name of the street, so that’s wrong. He did not walk directly back to the car. He wanted to give the police the address so they could meet him.
One could ask does someone who intends to kill someone arrange for the police to meet him?
GZ was NOT near his car but for that very reason he could not have caught up to TM. Don West also mentioned that GZ talked to police for days without a lawyer. Doesn’t he know what GZ said?
How can he say that GZ was returning to his car?
It was a little bit more complicated than that. I think this lawyer doesn’t have all the facts straight.
And the lawyer did mention that GZ was afraid TM would grab his gun. So why talk about the sidewalk? That was over by then!! The danger at that point was Trayvon Martin grabbing the gun – plus the fact that even hitting the grass can injure someone, which he maybe didn’t mention.
Does that lawyer not understand they were struggling over the grass (although near to some concrete) by that point? Does he not understand that the injuries to GZ occurred right at the start of the fight?
And you could add also that GZ needed some medical treatment by that point, and this fight wasn’t making things better for him.
Don West also showed photographs – very large enlarged photographs of GZ’s injuries. A good counterpoint to any claim that he just went up to TM and shot him, but it’s not enough.
He also talked about the 911 tape. A good argument would have been who, more logically, would have screamed? The person who was winning the fiight or the eprson who was losing the fight? And there was some evidence that GZ wa losing the fight. He did mention that TM’s father had said that the voice on the tape was not his son. (that’s why the prosecutors later used his mother)
They also had some testimony by the police dispatcher who spoke to George Zimmerman on the 911 call. At least it was Mark O’Meara conducting the cross-examination. He got him to say that GZ didn’t sound angry or upset. (although anybody can hear the tape and decide for themselves)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2013 @ 10:55 amCan’t get over this opening delivery. Four basic rules of joke-telling broken by Don West.
1) Never ask permission to tell a joke
TimesDisliker (99dd3c) — 6/25/2013 @ 11:02 am2) If the joke doesn’t get a laugh, take responsibility. It is the joke-tellers fault, whether it is for being out of context, being unfunny, or misreading the audience. End of story.
3) “Nothing? That was funny!” Do not tell the audience they are wrong. Defense attorney Don West has just begun the trial by telling six jurors (and the rest of the courtroom) they are all wrong and he is right.
4) Don’t insult the audience. The joke is at the expense of the jurors. There is no other way to interpret it, other than the jurors are out-of-it and unengaged in the greater U.S. society.
Richard Matheson was one of the most prolific writers of the past sixty years, writing westerns, sci-fi, horror, short stories, novels, tv scripts, film scripts.
If you ever watch the vastly underrated 1980 film, “Somewhere in Time,” (which Matheson adapted from his own novel, Bid Time Return) starring Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, and Christopher Plummer, there’s a scene where Reeve’s character emerges from the hotel washroom with bits of kleenex covering his nicks and cuts from shaving, and an older man who is entering the washroom sees the numerous cuts and comments, “Astonishing !”
That’s Matheson.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/25/2013 @ 11:17 amEvidence matters and especially in self defense cases. Sitting through a self defense jury instruction as an ADA was horrible, but the same expeience was far different as a defense attorney. This is one of the few instances in criminal alw that allows the subjective beliefs and experiences of a defendant to be considered even if those beliefs are possibly irrational or questionable. Yesterday the DA on opening made a very deal about prior instances of Zimmerman’s other calls to 911 as a neighborhood watchman. He will live to regret that. Further if the defense can get past the “graduation picture” verison of benevolent Trayvon Martin dispensing skittles and AZ tea to the masses Zimmerman will be acquitted.The reality is the layout of the neighborhood can be traversed way more quickly than Martin did on that rainy night. So what the hell was he doing for all that time? That’s going to be a big part of reasonable doubt.
Bugg (ba4ca9) — 6/25/2013 @ 12:18 pmWe all know that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, and now we also know that a client who lets a fool represent him is fool twice over.
Zimmerman should dismiss the joker and apologize to the judge and jury. It’s the right thing to do and it would go a long way toward repairing the damage.
ropelight (b1f0de) — 6/25/2013 @ 2:11 pmWhat damage? Women expect men to behave like idiots.
nk (875f57) — 6/25/2013 @ 2:23 pm“Zimmerman should dismiss the joker and apologize to the judge and jury.”
Heh. Only if you believe the knock knock joke was the most important moment of the trial yesterday.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/25/2013 @ 2:27 pmInteresting note about today’s testimony from Sgt. Raimondo who tried to perform CPR on Martin.
When he arrives Martin is face down.
He turns him over and along with another officer attempts to provide CPR. At one point he holds him up looking for an exit wound in his back, but doesn’t find one. Eventually the paramedics arrive, take over CPR, but shortly thereafter pronounce him dead at the scene.
The jurors were shown crime scene photos of Martin laying face down, with his hands underneath him.
But if he had been put on his back while CPR was being performed, then that means he was turned back over for the photos to be taken.
Which means the photos are of the body as it was staged for purposes of taking the photos. There is no way to know if what is reflected in the photos is exactly the position that Martin was in immediately after being shot by Zimmerman.
No info that I can find on whether that was a line of CX.
shipwreckedcrew (5de044) — 6/25/2013 @ 4:30 pmNext up? Institutional Photo IDism…
Colonel Haiku (a4ce0d) — 6/25/2013 @ 4:38 pmOh my god, the Sammylanche adds to the crazy so much.
SPQR (768505) — 6/25/2013 @ 5:10 pmSammy Finkelman
Colonel Haiku (a4ce0d) — 6/25/2013 @ 5:35 pmcheap suit mustard stains on tie
must beat teh deadline!