GUILTY FL - 17 killed in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Parkland, 14 Feb 2018 *shooter Guilty, School officer NG* #5

[Weki]

Judge proved the defense attorney's point. It made me laugh. She's a hypocrite and she needs consequences after her antics today.

What do you think about the judge hitting back with the fact that McNeil brought her kids into the trial? And used them for argument?

 

[Gardenista]

This may be a very unpopular post but I have never seen victim impact statements with this tone. I agree that if ever the DP then this case might have been the one but using this time to berate defense attorneys just doing their jobs, berate a jury who did not just have one against the DP for Cruz (as indicated by one speaker) but 3 and the latest one is trashing the court (aka judge). Sorry but I did not hear from many of these speakers what this did to their families etc. The one yelling "Karma" was the worst. I get the anger but I don't think the statements should go after attorneys, judge and most of all jurors. I did not like the childish way the judge handled this. Do I make sense at all?

I'm with ya. And it's happening while the defendant is sitting there so overmedicated that he likely isn't hearing a word they are saying.

 

[Gardenista]

What do you think about the judge hitting back with the fact that McNeil brought her kids into the trial? And used them for argument?

That's why I'm saying she was a hypocrite. She went ballistic when the defense was asking her to put herself in their shoes.

 

[Weki]

That's why I'm saying she was a hypocrite. She went ballistic when the defense was asking her to put herself in their shoes.

The judge’s point from my understanding was that McNeil has no grounds to complain that the families brought up her kids (only one person referenced def attys kids from what I saw) when she herself brought them up in the trial. McNeil injected the issue herself.

 

[Gardenista]

The judge’s point from my understanding was that she has no grounds to complain that the families brought up her kids when she herself brought them up in the trial. McNeil injected the issue herself.

I heard, and I disagree with that.

 

[turaj]

Judge proved the defense attorney's point. It made me laugh. She's a hypocrite and she needs consequences after her antics today.

i could not believe what I was seeing.

 

[turaj]

The judge’s point from my understanding was that McNeil has no grounds to complain that the families brought up her kids (only one person referenced def attys kids from what I saw) when she herself brought them up in the trial. McNeil injected the issue herself.

this is not a case of "opening the door" etc. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[turaj]

I'm with ya. And it's happening while the defendant is sitting there so overmedicated that he likely isn't hearing a word they are saying.

he was somewhere else..not processing a word that was said. I was really upset with questioning a jury's verdict. I guess I always thought that was off limits in this setting. We may not agree but they served for what over a month? It had to have been awful and three disagreed. It is our system and I don't think the courtroom is the place to question the verdict. I think most experienced judges without some serious bias against the defense attorney McNeil would have asked STate to be sure none of this is included in the statements. They could talk all they want about the monster at the table and how the death has impacted them but this went down a very odd road today. I am shocked. I think that head DA is going to go higher and I think judge may have some backlash from all defense attorneys in that district. She has also made it more difficult to get any jurors that want to serve. Even the name of a juror was included in one impact statement. I googled that juror and she is a mental health professional...it would have been pretty easy to predict her stance here and yet she got on the jury.

 

[Gardenista]

he was somewhere else..not processing a word that was said. I was really upset with questioning a jury's verdict. I guess I always thought that was off limits in this setting. We may not agree but they served for what over a month? It had to have been awful and three disagreed. It is our system and I don't think the courtroom is the place to question the verdict. I think most experienced judges without some serious bias against the defense attorney McNeil would have asked STate to be sure none of this is included in the statements. They could talk all they want about the monster at the table and how the death has impacted them but this went down a very odd road today. I am shocked. I think that head DA is going to go higher and I think judge may have some backlash from all defense attorneys in that district. She has also made it more difficult to get any jurors that want to serve. Even the name of a juror was included in one impact statement. I googled that juror and she is a mental health professional...it would have been pretty easy to predict her stance here and yet she got on the jury.

All of that. I guess we'll see Nov 15, but I can't imagine Judge Dorow standing for that in her courtroom considering her response to the victim who told DB to burn in hell.

 

[turaj]

These two judges are day and night. I at times questioned Judge Dorow but in the end knew she would get the job done with the fairest trial that guy could have. I did not feel the same about judge Scherer...her inexperience really showed and she did not command the courtroom. Today she seemed almost like since there was a verdict and the sentence is pretty fixed she took off her robe and went off the rails. Yelling at the DA like that was not called for. He just asked for a sidebar. Maybe she is taking a lot of heat for the results in the community? She should have defended her jurors but let people just skewer them today. If I were one of the jurors watching this I would be very mad especially the one that was named. I don't think the verdict was the one that judge wanted and so she is going to let this happen trying to appease the victims and their families. Not the way to do it.

 

[Weki]

My sense was that judge feels defense has earned the rebuke and she’s not going to protect them from it. I agree about going after jurors. But the jurors that were named have given public interviews with their name/image shown. So they put themselves in the fray.

 

[Dotta]

I have not been a fan of this judge but I am with her today. She made the point that defense was bringing more attention to the couple comments directed at defense attys by making these objections. Those comments weren’t made by everyone. And saying their children were attacked was pure hyperbole. Then to add that these comments would incite violence against the def attys? Wow!

Good for the judge for shutting them down! My guess is because of her inexperience these def attys have been outta pocket with her. And she knows it!

I think one must never underestimate the attacks on lawyers taking part in a trial.

Aren't the lawyers protected by law against the attacks of irate people??

Lawyers, both Prosecutors and Defence do their JOB!

I'm amazed the Judge did not intervene.

Moo

 

[PrairieWind]

This may be a very unpopular post but I have never seen victim impact statements with this tone. I agree that if ever the DP then this case might have been the one but using this time to berate defense attorneys just doing their jobs, berate a jury who did not just have one against the DP for Cruz (as indicated by one speaker) but 3 and the latest one is trashing the court (aka judge). Sorry but I did not hear from many of these speakers what this did to their families etc. The one yelling "Karma" was the worst. I get the anger but I don't think the statements should go after attorneys, judge and most of all jurors. I did not like the childish way the judge handled this. Do I make sense at all?

You haven't seen many victim statements in murder cases apparently.

 

[Weki]

this is not a case of "opening the door" etc. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I respectfully disagree. The defense attys are officers of the court and have a professional obligation to conduct themselves respectfully and with decorum. To the extent the community and victims families feel they did not, they have a right to express that and call it out. A trial is not a sterile environment and there’s a natural action and reaction going on at all times. I agree with the judges assessment. A couple people got carried away but no one threatened the attys children or incited violence and the fact that the defense raised that just demonstrates how outta line they’ve been. JMO

ETA: Defense attys behave inappropriately and do despicable things during trials all under the guise of defending their client and to say that any criticism or frustration/anger directed at them incites violence and that no one should direct any ire at them at all is not correct imo.

 

[turaj]

You haven't seen many victim statements in murder cases apparently.

so it is normal to attack attorneys, the court and jurors? Wow.

 

[turaj]

I respectfully disagree. The defense attys are officers of the court and have a professional obligation to conduct themselves respectfully and with decorum. To the extent the community and victims families feel they did not, they have a right to express that and call it out. A trial is not a sterile environment and there’s a natural action and reaction going on at all times. I agree with the judges assessment. A couple people got carried away but no one threatened the attys children or incited violence and the fact that the defense raised that just demonstrates how outta line they’ve been. JMO

ETA: Defense attys behave inappropriately and do despicable things during trials all under the guise of defending their client and to say that any criticism or frustration/anger directed at them incites violence and that no one should direct any ire at them at all is not correct imo.

okay fair enough...I did not watch this one from the first phase...only second so maybe they deserved this.

 

[Weki]

Please check out Cathy Russom’s tweet for the middle finger from the defense atty’s table incident referenced by the judge today. Wow. I didn’t even know about that one. Then they share a laugh with NC while doing it.
Sorry I can’t seem to figure out how to embed tweets.

 

[PrairieWind]

Please check out Cathy Russom’s tweet for the middle finger from the defense atty’s table incident referenced by the judge today. Wow. I didn’t even know about that one. Then they share a laugh with NC while doing it.
Sorry I can’t seem to figure out how to embed tweets.

What? Did they really flip off the Judge?

 

[SeesSeas]

Judge Calls Out Parkland Defense for Laughing and Flipping the Bird in Court​

Nov 1, 2022
Judge Elizabeth Scherer called out Parkland shooter's defense table for their behavior during the trial. "When these people are upset about specific things that have gone on from that table, like shooting the middle finger up at this court and laughing and joking," the judge said.

 

[SeesSeas]

2021 Florida Statutes​

Chapter 960 Section 001 - 2021 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

flsenate.gov

960.001 Guidelines for fair treatment of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems.—
(k) Notification of right to submit impact statement.—The state attorney shall inform the victim of the victim’s right to submit an oral or written impact statement pursuant to s. 921.143 and shall assist in the preparation of such statement if necessary.

Chapter 921 Section 143 - 2021 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

flsenate.gov

921.143 Appearance of victim, next of kin, or law enforcement, correctional, or correctional probation officer to make statement at sentencing hearing; submission of written statement.—
(1) At the sentencing hearing, and prior to the imposition of sentence upon any defendant who has been convicted of any felony or who has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to any crime, including a criminal violation of a provision of chapter 316, the sentencing court shall permit the victim of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, the lawful representative of the victim or of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, or the next of kin of the victim if the victim has died from causes related to the crime, to:
(a) Appear before the sentencing court for the purpose of making a statement under oath for the record; and
(b) Submit a written statement under oath to the office of the state attorney, which statement shall be filed with the sentencing court.
(2) The state attorney or any assistant state attorney shall advise all victims or, when appropriate, the victim’s parent, guardian, next of kin, or lawful representative that statements, whether oral or written, shall relate to the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence.