Johnson Versus State News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Commentary cited as legal authority to the courted. i would submit while following itself might not be illegal that following is one factor the jury is free to consider in this case. it is something that evinces the defendant's state of mind. it doesn't have to be illegal and i don't think the instruction -- we want to talk about what confuses the jury. when the court starts telling them things like it is not illegal to walk across the street. it is not illegal to walk home from 7-eleven in the rainwearing a hoodie. it is not illegal to be armed with a pack of skittles. that tennes to confuse ...

Themselves have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. the jury needs to know that when you're comparing circumstantial evidence versus direct evidence. they need to know, from this court, that the circumstances must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. meaning, if they have a fact that's circumstantial, that tends to prove something that the state is claiming it supports or it could be interpreted as establishing a doubt or something that the defense claims exists, then the jury needs to know that if they have to decide how to interpret that piece of circumstantial evide...

Suspicious, by your own definition, frankly, whatever you think is suspicious is good enough under neighborhood watch or by any other measure and you call the police and you're asked to let you know if he does anything else and you follow the person in order to be able to tell the police where they went, by car, on foot, what have you. that's not legal provocation and it would be error, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice if the state were allowed to argue that to this jury. >> there is a separate instruction whether or not there's unlawful activity. we're not asking the court to ins...

Inferences from the evidence. i understand mr. west doesn't think of any of it is credible or right. respectfully,'s up to the jury, not mr. west. the issue is, i think, the provocation language should be included. the only issue i hear is whether or not it also ought to, on top of the issue was provocation, include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accost iing to the point that someone hears, let go, and a physical struggle. that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't have to -- it doesn't s say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly...

Any kind of criminal procedure. let me bring in mark, a renowned criminal defense attorney here in florida. you and i have been sort of gob-smacked, i think is a fairway to describe come of the repertoire between don west and this judge. i think fair to say she's kind of had it and fair to say he's kind of had it? >> there's no love lost between these two. i don't know i would describe it as gob-smacked. >> i have. here's why. especially in the motion in limine rulings, and that was in common parlance, that was an effort by the defense to say, judge, you cannot allow the prosecution to get up ...