Powered by TypePad

« Saturday Morning Open Thread | Main | The Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit - Hold The Cheers »

April 14, 2012

Comments

BlahBlahBlah

"Whether to apply that section is left within the discretion of the trial judge, and her decision will not be reversed unless the appellate court finds she abused her discretion."

And realistically, if I were a defense attorney in a case such as this, I would not want the judge to throw out DeeDees testimony under 90.403 until after she has been proven to contradict herself in front of the actual jury.

I would want to make sure the jury hears her contradicting stories so they don't form conclusions, so I would only request such a tossing of her testimony after she is called and actually discredited.

It means you cant destroy the prosecutions case prior to actual arguments, but that is actually a good thing too if she is really going for a 2nd Degree you know she cant possibly produce. If you destroy DeeDee prior to the body of the trial, the prosecution is merely forced to do a lesser charge you have more likelihood of loosing.

BlahBlahBlah

"I don't think "blindsided" is the exclusive way to be coldcocked. In fact, from personal experience, I know it is not. You can be facing somebody dead on, face to face, and they can get the drop on you."

This is very correct as well.

cboldt

-- And realistically, if I were a defense attorney in a case such as this, I would not want the judge to throw out DeeDees testimony under 90.403 until after she has been proven to contradict herself in front of the actual jury. --


I want the judge to discount DeeDee, or at least give her less weight that the eyewitnesses, at both the Arthur hearing and at the immunity hearing. I do not want to go to trial.


If the judge gives DeeDee's testimony priority over that of eyewitnesses, I'm appealing.

Ignatz

--I didn't mean the praise to be faint, Ig.--

I know Jim, but had to comment on that murderers row of imbeciles at the plate and on deck.

AliceH

Derwill - one of my cases was also a multi-larceny plus kidnapping case. We returned a guilty verdict on all counts, but that one was definitely the hardest and longest deliberation of the 3 panels I was on. I very briefly talked to the prosecutor after it was over - he was downright emotional with relief at winning, telling me that the defendant was a seriously bad guy who was also charged in a separate pending case for murder, as well as having a violent felony conviction or two under his belt (none of that was known to us, of course).

I wasn't sure of the propriety of his telling me that (though it was post-trial and only publicly available info), but I was grateful to know it. It's a hard thing rendering judgment one someone.

BlahBlahBlah

"My brother drew back to grab his phone, in retreat to call again 911 and say, well, now this person who I lost sight of and was not pursuing has now confronted me."

Thanks for providing that cboldt.

And yeah, both this and the other makes it sounds as if Zimmerman quite possibly took his eyes off Martin, with at least a loss of attention for a moment. Blindside would be a strong possibility here, imo, if these statements are true and consistent with what Zimmerman said

As far as this:
"I do not want to go to trial."

See, if I am Zimmerman, I want nothing more then to go to trial.

If the case is tossed, Zimmerman will never be safe again, in my opinion. The race-baiters like the Black Panthers, Jackson and MSNBC will instantly convict not only Zimmerman but the entire system if a trial doesn't take place. (shoot, they already have back when a trail was still a possibility - they were just too impatient to wait for whatever their twisted view of "justice" is)

AliceH

Another thing about juries that struck me (though probably an obvious thing to most people) is how much likeability of the attorneys had to do with the evaluation of the witnesses' testimony. I was in total left-brain mode give-me-facts/logic mode, and my peers were saying "I just thought he was nicer". Ugh.

MarkO

Going to trial is far from a guarantee that the right thing will happen. Moreover, let's be clear about why the criminal system is not about justice.

No only is the panoply of power arrayed against Zim already, the Feds have taken him hostage. What do I mean? Even if he wins, he will have to face the overwhelming power of the Federal system in a further trial for his liberty. He is taken hostage in the sense that only through a plea bargin, not a verdict, but a plea bargain can he avoid the Federal charge.

Does that seem fair? Clearly, it is not. Is it just? No. Does it lead to the political result desired by Obama and the DOJ? It certainly seems to do so. There is extreme financial and emotional pressure on Zim to plead out.

This is not a "justice" system.

cboldt

-- If the case is tossed, Zimmerman will never be safe again, in my opinion. --


That horse is out of the barn no matter what. A trial and acquittal is just another form of the white man looking out against the oppressed black race.


Tracy Martin is on record as settling ONLY for a conviction. Not to say that Tracy Martin is, himself, a threat. Just to say that Zimmerman is a marked man no matter what.

cboldt

-- He is taken hostage in the sense that only through a plea bargin, not a verdict, but a plea bargain can he avoid the Federal charge. --


Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman is granted immunity from trial in Florida, the Feds would have to trump up an indictment that is even MORE absurd than Corey's.


Not saying they won't, just saying that it'll be a legal sham.

MarkO

cbold, both DeeDee and "John" are percipient witnesses with the same quality of evidence. That's the danger DeeDee poses. I think there is a SC case that would prevent the introduction of the "excited utterance" hearsay evidence, even if it were admissible in Florida. Confrontation issues.

Redbrow

The media reported the empty bag of weed but continually fail to mention the pipe that was also found. Since THC remains in the system for weeks or even months, it is possible autopsy reports will show THC in Trayvon's system.

A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/v-fullstory/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html#storylink=cpy

derwill

Alice,

After our judge declared a mistrial, the prosecutor asked us what the vote split was and then he told us that the nice-looking young man was already a resident of San Quentin having been convicted of 1st degree murder a few months before for a wholly different crime spree. Not sure why the state chose to proceed with our trial, since he was already incarcerated. But it was California so they probably wanted to make doubly sure he never got out. It was utterly ridiculous that the jury hung because the prosecution had two eyewitnesses--the man who owned the jewelry store that was robbed, and the girl who'd been taken as a hostage when they (he had co-horts in crime) went on the run. Not to mention fingerprints all over the various crime scenes. Even the young man's own mother testified that the hat left in the stolen car belonged to her son! The 11 of us who wanted to convict were so furious at the lone holdout that there was almost murder committed in the jury room.

AliceH

My dad, who carried on 20 year legal battle with the EPA, was what lawyers like to call "the worst sort of client" in that he was not seeking charges be dropped, or even winning a suit - he wanted public vindication and an apology. No amount of effort by family, attorneys, friends explaining to him that that wasn't something he could get from the Justice System could deter him, bless his crazy heart.

cboldt

-- both DeeDee and "John" are percipient witnesses with the same quality of evidence. --


So, if the eyewitness says Zimmerman is on the bottom, and DeeDee says Martin is on the bottom, their testimony cancels out?


Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "same quality."

Rob Crawford

Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman is granted immunity from trial in Florida, the Feds would have to trump up an indictment that is even MORE absurd than Corey's.

I think Holder is up to that challenge.

Ignatz

--Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "same quality."--

Me too. Not only is she "looking" through a phone she clearly has a bias as opposed to a third party who neither of them.

Ignatz

who *knew* neither of them

Clarice

I wouldn't be surprised if after further research the prosecution doesn't call Dee Dee to testify. In that case it is unlikely the defense would .

As far as Holder goes, I agree any ciil rights claims would make Corey look like a legal genius.

BlahBlahBlah

"cbold, both DeeDee and "John" are percipient witnesses with the same quality of evidence. That's the danger DeeDee poses."

True, with stipulations.

DeeDee does not hold any visuals, only speculative testimony in that category. "I herd him being pushed" is met with "could not Martin have been pushing Zimmerman just the same?"

DeeDee is expected to be unreliable, and therefore she likely holds zero weight overall. When she tells a different story each day of the week, her being a witness is in essence removed from the equation.

centralcal

Clarice: I asked you a question on FB (you e-cig comments with Janet).

I know this is the Trayvon/Zimmerman thread (they are all T/Z threads these days weeks), and I have been busy and way behind, BUT - what do you all think of the Secret Service guys getting called back from Colombia?

Seems like everyone who works for, with, or under The Won, succumbs to is inured by corruption!

centralcal

sheesh - typo city - "you're e-cig comments" and "succumbs or is inured"

Back to my cocktail...

MarkO

By percipient I mean a witness who is testifying to something he perceived, either by eyesight, hearing, taste, or touch. For example, were I to hear two people whose voices I recognized argue and one yell, "I'm going to kill you", followed by a shot, I'm a competent witness to testify to what I heard in a trial of the person who made the statement.

If, at the same time, there were an eyewitness who said the other person held the gun first and make the statement, those two witnesses have given evidence of the same quality, that is evidence from someone who perceived the event first hand.

It would then be an issue not of admissiblity or presumption but of simple credibility. Either the other witness or I could be wrong. There are many studies suggesting eye (ear) witness testimony is not very reliable.

Now, I say that only in regard to whether the Judge should find DeeDee's story to be less than that of the eye witness. Either one may be believed. The testimony is of the same nature. Maybe that's a better word.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

CC,

I'm dying to hear about the secret service too. I want to know why they have 12 extra secret service people so that there is no impact when they go home.

BlahBlahBlah

"That horse is out of the barn no matter what. A trial and acquittal is just another form of the white man looking out against the oppressed black race."

You are 100% correct, and these will always be those who refuse to allow for the possibility of a fair trail.

However, if the case is made and the prosecutions argument is as laughable as it seems it will be, then it will be the only way his side is heard.

Right now, places like MSNBC are just up and manufacturing their "evidence" of guilt. If his side is provided, then places like CNN, Fox and the local stations will not be able to completely ignore it. At that point, let MSNBC continue to discredit themselves all the want - they will get some people riled up, but the truth will also be interjected into most peoples minds. If even half the "we want blood" crowd is removed, it still greatly enhances Zimmermans future.


If no trial, there is no "Zimmermans side" and the race-baiters are free to make up anything they want.

cboldt

-- the same quality, that is evidence from someone who perceived the event first hand. --


Got it.


I pictured "same quality" as having some relationship with the inherent reliability or credibility of the witness's testimony. But if "same quality" is only a measure of "not hearsay," I agree. DeeDee and the eyewitness each have evidence that is not hearsay.

MarkO

cboldt, thanks for the fun today.

centralcal

Jane, I sent you an email - a true story from this morning!

cboldt

-- if the case is made and the prosecutions argument is as laughable as it seems it will be, then it will be the only way his side is heard. --


That's a media failure (and I think it will continue to be a deliberate "fan the flames" failure), because the defense will certainly produce evidence and a narrative.


At the end of the day, be it via Arthur hearing, or immunity hearing, or trial, the defense story is what it is; and it will come out as sworn testimony, in open court. A substantial fraction of the population is conditioned to reject the defense, no matter when or how presented (thanks to the media's conditioning of the battlefield).


That said, I think you are right about the degree of acceptance. The longer Zimmerman is held in jail, and the more times he gets to repeat his story, the more people will hear his story, and some of them will accept it.


His best outcome, looking at things that way, is to remain in jail for life and be a martyr. The race-baiters will be happiest, and the number of people who conclude he was incorrectly punished will be at a maximum.

BlahBlahBlah

"Seems like everyone who works for, with, or under The Won, succumbs to is inured by corruption!"

I was having a conversation about that today as well.

The sheer number of incidents like this (see also the guy up for murder, or guy just convicted in a brawl), plus the showings of pure incompetence (like the teetering Limo in Dublin) is very curious.

I came to the conclusion there is either a fairly 'laxed overall work environment and/or feeling of personal distaste or lack of respect for the man they are protecting.

There has to be a reason so many people who are almost certainly very long-time and extremely well-trained professionals are seemingly running a muck. That's what I come up with as probably the most likely in my mind. They are situations I have seen the best of people falter under in my personal past at least.

Clarice

cc, I can't rightly blame BO for the corruption in the Secret Service. I believe, however, that like the FBI they are all under Holder's immediate supervision.

OldTimer

LUN: *Dr. Watkin’s stark admonishment, “Get her off the stage right now,“ came in a recent blog post that shows the goal of the politicization of the Martin shooting is not truth or justice.
Who is Dr. Boyce Watkins? He’s a professor at Syracuse University and his website shows that he’s been a frequent guest on cable news shows, including CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. He is also a frequent speaker on black issues, and his site shows his speeches have earned high praise from well-known leaders of the resentment-driven civil rights movement, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Michael Eric Dyson.*

chas

clarice,

secret service are still treasury i believe. which means under turbo tax timmy.

chas

nope, they are part of homeland security now

Chubby

some insighful statistics wrt Hispanics and race:

HISPANIC population in U.S.A. by race (2010)

53% white
36% mestizo
2.5% black
.4% asian
.1% hawaiian

(left out a few categories)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#Race

Clarice

chas, we're both wrong. It started out with DoJ , went to treasury and for the past 5 yrs has been part of Homeland Security.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Didn'tget it yet CC. I'll keep looking.

cboldt

I find Stranahan's conclusions to not naturally follow from Watkin's statement. Corey has charged Zimmerman with murder. "It was an accident" is a perfect defense to the charge!


If Watkin's position, after review of the available evidence, is that Zimmerman committed murder, then he deserves criticism for that. Even more so if his position is that Zimmerman committed murder because he harbors animus toward blacks.

centralcal

Oh, Clarice, I know they aren't directly under Obama, or anything like that. My point is, that all of the "Departments" seem to be slacking off, or falling prey to lesser gods, and that perhaps it is the climate that surrounds them that makes them give sway to bad behavior?

centralcal

Jane, in case you have more than one email, I sent it to "FWDAJ..." (you know the drill).

cboldt

How tall is O'Mara?


Look at the photos of Zimmerman and O'Mara standing next to each other. The press has no trouble calling O'Mara "tall." Just wondering if that image is comparable to Zimmerman and Martin facing off.

Jack is Back!

cc,

Good friend is in the top 3 at SS.

Much ado about nothing. An almost type of thing. Traps set. One guy bites.

centralcal

Monday is Anne Romney's birthday.

Hopefully, our new First Lady!

BlahBlahBlah

"His best outcome, looking at things that way, is to remain in jail for life and be a martyr. The race-baiters will be happiest, and the number of people who conclude he was incorrectly punished will be at a maximum."

Why would you include that paragraph; its KK style hyperbole

Of course that would satisfy the most extreme (well, actually, death penalty would be needed, but anyway) but that ignores Zimmermans best-interest (which is what the conversation is about)

His best case is people are forced to hear both his side and to recognize how weak the arguments against him are. That can unfortunately only be achieved through trial with our current MSM having so much personal interest in this case.

Getting it dismissed before trail will only feed the MSM narrative of "A white guy is never guilty if he kills a black man" - and Zimmerman has to know that.

Even the filing of 2nd Degree has sent the MSM into a "woooah, we dont have evidence for that" mind-state, which is now being relayed to the public quite often. The more and more the prosecutions case needs to be scrutinized, the better and better it is for Zimmerman and his future.

It sucks to no end, but that's the deck he has been dealt here.

centralcal

Jack, I have the utmost respect for the SS and our military, please don't misinterpret my questions. Now, my suppositions may be way off base, but maybe not. You could have 99% excellent personnel, and that damned 1% can still drag you down.

I just think BO doesn't run the tightest ethical ship, and it bleeds down - if you get my drift.

Bob

What is with the the GSA and SS screw ups? This administration is not supervising the federal workforce except when they have a Solyndra type scam to run. The topic of this thread is another example of a mislead, mismanaged, politicized arm of the federal government in the DOJ sticking their nose in a state case. They also don't prosecute Wall St because they were supporters last election. Remember the Gulf Oil spill and they could not be bothered. They aren't interested unless they have an angle on how to profit so the day to day functions of the US government go to hell.

Extraneus

You can be facing somebody dead on, face to face, and they can get the drop on you. If you aren't expecting a punch, you can be caught unawares.

I too have been the recipient of one of these, and it fortunately wasn't to the nose or I'd have been unable to get my wits back before the next two or three punches were delivered or I was pushed to the ground. (This is why an aggressor can easily kick another guy's ass if he gets the first good one in by surprise, whether the recipient is a big tough dude, karate master, or just a regular guy.)

This leads me to ask whether it would be admissible if one or the other of these guys had a history of cold-cocking people. Has the bus driver Trayvon "swung on" ever been heard from? Wouldn't it be relevant if Trayvon had a history of swinging on people, or if Zimmerman did?

Btw, why don't we know who was on top from the gunshot wound? If Martin was shot in the chest while on his back, wouldn't we know that from the exit wound or the bullet lodging in the grass? If he was on top, there wouldn't be any flesh or guts on the ground and maybe the bullet wouldn't have been found.

Porchlight

Since THC remains in the system for weeks or even months, it is possible autopsy reports will show THC in Trayvon's system.

I have this weird feeling Trayvon may have scored again after getting suspended. Just a hunch.

Rick Ballard

I'd like to see DeeDee deposed while walking from the gf's house towards the Fatal Encounter point. Cut the questioning at 4 minutes and check the location, which should be well outside the main gate and about three times as far beyond the Fatal Encounter as the starting point. If she can't walk that far, have a 10 year old push her in a wheel chair. He'd still make the main gate in four minutes.

AliceH

Goodness, BBB - why is "telling his side" at trial in Zimmerman's best interest? I don't see how convincing the MSM to do more reporting or convincing more of the public of a weak case is at all his concern. Having his freedom restricted (if on bail) or eliminated (if no bail) for months or maybe years seems too high a price to pay to make total strangers feel like they're better informed.

How can it possibly matter if 40% of people believe you vs. 60% of people, if 99% of people never cross your path?

Porchlight

Now, I say that only in regard to whether the Judge should find DeeDee's story to be less than that of the eye witness. Either one may be believed. The testimony is of the same nature. Maybe that's a better word.

It would seem to me that if the earwitness only heard, and the eyewitness both saw and heard, the eyewitness's testimony would trump the earwitness's.

For example if DeeDee heard what she thought was a punch, but the eyewitness saw Trayvon punching Zimmerman - and the timing lines up - all else being equal, the eyewitness testimony is of a different nature - higher in quality, or however you would put that.

Not to mention that all else is not equal: the eyewitness, presumably not knowing either man, and not being invested in the outcome, could be seen as more neutral/credible - but I don't know how that plays in at this point the proceedings, exactly. That might be for a jury to decide.

cboldt

-- Why would you include that paragraph; its KK style hyperbole --


To illustrate that I disagree with the premise that the longer he's held under the thumb of the state, the better off he is.


I think he's better off if the law works the way it is supposed to, and after review of the evidence by objective parties, it is found that his use of force was justified, and he shouldn't be put to the ordeal of a trial.


Now, if he WANTS one, just because, or for whatever reason, well hell yes, I'll defer to his wishes. Skip the immunity motion pre-trial, and go for the trial.


But the law sis set up so that justified use of deadly force does not result in the person who saved his own skin going through the hassle of criminal and civil trials. I just happen to think that following the law is a superior outcome, compared with spending months of your life because some unruly mob wants your hide because they think you were on some jihad against their tribe.

Porchlight

How can it possibly matter if 40% of people believe you vs. 60% of people, if 99% of people never cross your path?

I would guess that Zimmerman believes that having his day in court is his best chance to prove to the world that he is not a racist murderer.

It might also help keep him alive - in that, the more people he can convince - the less the chance one of them will decide kill him in revenge "for Trayvon."

And I can't say as I blame him, after all that has happened - even if it isn't the most legally wise course of action.

Steve

Zimmerman was questioned at the Sanford police station the night of the incident. He did not take the 5th. Presumably he answered a lot of questions. He did not have a lawyer present. That is not the action of a guilty person.

cboldt

-- his leads me to ask whether it would be admissible if one or the other of these guys had a history of cold-cocking people. --


Inadmissible at trial. Prejudicial. Each incident is required to "stand on its own" in a sense. Makes sense - some people rehabilitate, or just had a bad spell in the past, etc.

AliceH

Huh.

I am at a total loss trying to grasp the purpose or value of "proving to the world", particularly if it would come at so much personal risk, so high a price, and next to no chance of being entirely successful.

DebinNC

Re Trayvon's possible swing at the bus driver, his 3 (at least) long-term suspensions and who knows how many short-term were all at Krop HS this year. He may have an even longer "record" at Miami Carol City HS where he was enrolled before. CC HS offered the aviation school option Trayvon supposedly loved, but his mom felt the need to get him away from CC and into Krop, which indicates to me that all was not well with Trayvon for some time.

cboldt

-- I am at a total loss trying to grasp the purpose or value of "proving to the world", particularly if it would come at so much personal risk, so high a price, and next to no chance of being entirely successful. --


At this point in time, the state is his sworn enemy. The state has an "attitude" against those it charges with crimes that makes the mob look like amatuer hour.


The state wants to convict and incarcerate him, and will fight like hell to do so.


It is impossible to change the mind of the mob, but at least there is a way to use the law to get the state off his back.

scott

This is what I was refering to earlier:

CATEGORY A--Unlimited option to depose. [RCrP 3.220(b)(1)(a)(i)]
These witnesses will be subject to depositions as deemed necessary by the defense, just like depositions prior to the rule change. Category A witnesses include: (1) Eyewitnesses; (2) Alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses; (3) witnesses present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was made by, or taken from a defendant or co-defendant, all of whom must be specially-designated on the witness list; (4) investigating officers (defined in comments to the Rule as "an officer who has directed the collection of evidence, interviewed material witnesses, or who was assigned as the case investigator."); (5) witnesses known to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged; (6) "child hearsay witnesses" (i.e. hearsay witnesses in cases involving a child victim); and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify test results or give opinions that are subject to the "Frye Test" (intended to mean expert witnesses who are testifying to things that are not generally accepted within the scientific community.)

Unless I'm missing something (quite possible), DeeDee is CatA and will be disposed "as deemed necessary by the defense" which I think can equal once a month for 18 months.

MJW

MarkO: I think there is a SC case that would prevent the introduction of the "excited utterance" hearsay evidence, even if it were admissible in Florida. Confrontation issues.

As I understand it, the SCOTUS decisions hold that the 6th Amendment applies to testimonial statements, such as a police interview, used to investigate an event but not to nontestimonial statements made in dealing with an ongoing event. Two significant cases are Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 and Davis v. Washington, 547 US 813. Davis is especially informative. The SCOTUS approved the admission of a 911 call under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions, but said the admission of a affidavit by the same witness violated of the 6th Amendment.

A witness who isn't a government investigator, like Dee Dee, is almost certainly not collecting testimonial evidence, so the 6th Amendment would probably not be bar to admitting hearsay that falls within an exception.

AliceH

Since I am in complete agreement with you, cboldt, I'm hoping your comments under a snippet of my quote @8:02 were intended to extend my point more clearly than I did, rather than offered as a rebuttal.

Ignatz

--I would guess that Zimmerman believes that having his day in court is his best chance to prove to the world that he is not a racist murderer.--

If by that you mean going to trial and being acquitted rather than having it dismissed before trial I can only assume you've never been facing a trial of any kind.
I've nearly merited a stretch at the funny farm awaiting civil trials that only risked money and property.
Imagine awaiting the fate of the rest of your life.
Pretty sure I'd take the dismissal and worry about the mob later.

Porchlight

-- I am at a total loss trying to grasp the purpose or value of "proving to the world", particularly if it would come at so much personal risk, so high a price, and next to no chance of being entirely successful. --

I don't disagree. But put yourself in his place. He's young; he seems to be somewhat ideologically driven; he really wants a career in law enforcement. He believes in himself, but the whole world despises him. The idea of being thought a racist murderer for the rest of his life is beyond abhorrent. He wants the absolute opposite - I imagine based on what we know about him, that he sees himself as a fighter for justice, maybe even social and racial justice. He certainly saw himself as a protector of his neighbors and neighborhood up until now.

He has to prove his innocence. Sure it's probably an emotional decision; he's probably also an emotional wreck right now. But it fits with everything we know about him.

OldTimer

I agree cc that if the tree is diseased all its fruit will be adversely affected. Bammy's administration is a...

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing; and, where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Ignatz

--Unless I'm missing something (quite possible), DeeDee is CatA and will be disposed "as deemed necessary by the defense" which I think can equal once a month for 18 months.--

I've never heard of being able to depose someone in that manner unless new evidence is produced. You can't simply ask them the same thing month after month in the hope they'll screw up.

Extraneus

some people rehabilitate, or just had a bad spell in the past, etc.

Even if that past was just a few weeks ago? (I'm sure you're right, but it seems unfair that Zimmerman couldn't use it if there's evidence that Martin recently took to cold-cocking people, tweeting humorously about it, etc.)

Porchlight

Pretty sure I'd take the dismissal and worry about the mob later.

Yes, but you are older and wiser than George Zimmerman, and none of us have ever experienced anything like what he has experienced in the last several weeks.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had his heart set on a trial. I think he wants his name cleared - publicly - more than anything on earth and is willing to take the risk.

cboldt

-- I'm hoping your comments under a snippet of my quote @8:02 were intended to extend my point more clearly than I did --


You made your point very well. I was just adding my two cents.

Jane

got it CC - and replied.

cboldt

-- Even if that past was just a few weeks ago? --


Yep.
Separately, this, today, on CNN:

O'Mara says that Zimmerman is stressed, nervous and quote, "frustrated that he was charged at all".


That tells me Zimmerman is not interested in going through the ordeal of a trial in order to clear his reputation.

cboldt

There is no way DeeDee's testimony is either present impression or excited utterance. She had weeks to tailor her remarks.


If I'm a judge, I exclude her altogether. She adds nothing but smoke and BS to the case. There are adequate eyewitnesses and forensics to reach a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt.

MJW

You can't simply ask them the same thing month after month in the hope they'll screw up.

For each deposition, the attorney must certify it isn't being done for improper purposes, such as to harass the witness, or in a manner that's unreasonable or unduly burdensome. On a motion by the other side, or on the court's own motion, violators can be sanctioned.

MJW

I'm not sure I agree that Martin's violent activities, assuming there were any, wouldn't be admissible. If Martin were on trial, they almost certainly wouldn't be, but he's not.

cboldt

She wasn't there; she didn't see anything; she has motives to lie (to protect her hide: snitches get stitches, to preserve a fictionalized memory of Trayvon for herself and Trayvon's parents, to open the door to a share of the civil suit); her first testimony comes AFTER the availability of 911 calls and police report; her first testimony comes AFTER consultation with counsel for the deceased.


Too much baggage.

AliceH


I think he wants his name cleared - publicly - more than anything on earth

I'm sure our assumptions of GZ are largely created out of our own way of seeing things. Here's mine:

George has demonstrated a greater interest in justice than in public opinion. His fight to see the cops who beat the homeless man charged was driven by a desire for right to be done, even at the personal cost of making him a potential enemy of some police. This could easily have ended any chance he had of ever being admitted to a police academy or of joining their ranks. His personal ambition was of lesser importance than justice.

This isn't the behavior I'd associate with someone who has something to prove - not to the world.

Also, he has a faith in God and has done work with the church. That makes me think he is not quite as concerned about wanting to clear his name "more than anything on earth" since God already knows his heart, and there will be justice in the next world.

I don't know what his family life is like, but I suspect he would take into consideration the cost to them of his taking this to trial vs. a pretrial dismissal.

The only way I see him choosing to go to trial is if he doubts himself, not as a way to tell the world anything.

Again - this is complete and unfettered speculation run wild, but it's at least as plausible as the alternative I think.

Porchlight

That tells me Zimmerman is not interested in going through the ordeal of a trial in order to clear his reputation.

I hope that's true, cboldt. I just wouldn't be surprised if he really wanted to see it through.

Porchlight

AliceH, thanks, that is very thoughtful. I think it's just as plausible as my earlier speculations if not more so. I really hope you're correct and I am wrong.

cboldt

-- If Martin were on trial, they almost certainly wouldn't be, but he's not. --


Good point - I was, for whatever reason, thinking of him as defendant, but he's not. At least not directly. He's sort of a defendant in the self-defense argument.


But with the she on the other foot, with Zimmerman being on trial, he may have a right to persuade the jury that the person he was facing had anger management issues.

scott

Ignatz, It sounds very odd, but someone who works in a law office or prosecutors office in FL posted just that here a few days ago. He said its common to depose weekly even, in hopes of tripping somebody up. That para. I listed is guidelines for LE but it notes the changes as of 10/96 LUN and I beleive it means any witness can de deposed without court order multiple times. Tip para. next saysto limit number of "investigating officers" to reduce depositions which must mean multiple allowed for each witness. I don't see how DeeDee ever makes it to trial (I see her as a scared teen who has been told to lie).

TIP: Since "witnesses who were present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was taken from or made by a defendant or codefendant" are automatically "Category A" witnesses, subject to deposition with no need for a court order, the lead investigator in cases should limit the number of other officers present during the taking of such statements. Since "investigating officers" are automatically "Category A" witnesses, investigative reports should be carefully written to designate who are, and who are not, the "investigating officers." The number of "investigating officers" in any case should be limited if a reduction in depositions to attend is to be realized.

scott

I didn't include the link, LUN

MJW

There is no way DeeDee's testimony is either present impression or excited utterance. She had weeks to tailor her remarks.

But presumably she'd be in court testifying, so that's immaterial. What matters is the hearsay statements she would testify about, made by Martin, might qualify as present sense impressions or excited utterances, since he was telling her about an ongoing event and was perhaps in an excited state. (Though as I previously mentioned, Florida uses "spontaneous statements" instead of "present sense impressions," and that seems to be a narrower exception.)

cboldt

-- What matters is the hearsay statements she would testify about, made by Martin, might qualify as present sense impressions or excited utterances, since he was telling her about an ongoing event and was perhaps in an excited state. --


Excited utterance doesn't work like that. It is a statement made by a first hand witness asserting a conclusion they otherwise would not be able to enter into evidence. "We're going to crash!" may be admitted for the truth of the matter, "about to crash."


The property of being "excited" has to belong to the declarant, and DeeDee is NOT the excited one.

BlahBlahBlah

AliceH,

As is, this man has a bounty on his head because he was not being prosecuted. This whole thing put him in hiding to the point that he wouldn't even contact his lawyers. If the case is thrown out ("again" as will be portrayed) before ever being heard ("again"), anyone he ever comes in contact with will be at risk because of the "white man doesn't want a black-killer to be held accountable" and the "you get to kill at will in Republican states with no gun laws" nonsense that will follow.

His Defense has already stated they feel he is safer in police custody at this time. If the case is thrown out tomorrow, is the threat which creates this "safer in custody" situation similarly removed?

In all other situations, yes, avoiding a case is the clear cut best bet without doubt. But we are hardly talking about any other case here.

So I guess I can only ask, how is this situation ever going to get better for him if the charges are once again dismissed and he once again "gets to just walk away like nothing after killing a black kid because yadayadayada..."?

BlahBlahBlah

"If I'm a judge, I exclude her altogether. She adds nothing but smoke and BS to the case. There are adequate eyewitnesses and forensics to reach a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt."

While you are very correct from the side of the Judge, the prosecution would likely freak out as their entire case seemingly rests on this very questionable person

Oh the problems one see's when they overreach

MJW

Excited utterance doesn't work like that. It is a statement made by a first hand witness asserting a conclusion they otherwise would not be able to enter into evidence. "We're going to crash!" may be admitted for the truth of the matter, "about to crash."

I either don't get what your saying, or I disagree. If Alice and Bob are if a cafe, and Bob screams "Duck! Chuck's got a gun!" just before Bob was shot, then Alice could testify to that in court to establish the fact that Chuck had a gun, even though it's hearsay.

MJW

..what you're saying...

I obviously type by sound.

MJW

Let me put rephrase my previous example to make the parallel obvious:

If Dee Dee and Martin are in a cafe, and Martin screams "Duck! Zimmerman's got a gun!" just before Martin is shot, then Dee Dee could testify to that in court to establish the fact that Zimmerman had a gun, even though it's hearsay.

BlahBlahBlah

"Alice could testify to that in court to establish the fact that Chuck had a gun"

I'm not quite sure that establishes that Chuck had a gun. Wouldn't that merely indicate that Bob felt Chuck had a gun?


Side-note, for whatever strange reason when I read this paragraph, the visual that popped into my head was of a person on the grassy knoll. And I know you specifically said "cafe", but that was seriously, oddly, all I could see...

cboldt

I agree that is a potential use for the exception. My point is that it won't work in this case, as the reliability of the testimony (which is what justifies the exception in the first place) is tainted by DeeDee's interests and conduct after the phone call concluded.


Now, if she'd typed out some tweet or e-mail or otherwise recorded her impression stat, THAT record stands a chance of being admissible for the truth of the matter. But no way when the first time the remark appears is 3 weeks after the call. Not from THIS witness.

derwill

'm not a lawyer, but occasionally I watch them on teevee, and I would think that if TM's mom gets on the stand and talks about what an angel her boy was, the defense on cross can bring up the suspensions and his almost slugging the bus driver. The old, "The prosecution opened the door, your honor."

Otherwise I would think the judge wouldn't let the Defense bring it up first because it would be inflammatory and prejudicial to the victim.

Clarice

MJW: "I obviously type by sound." There's another way to type?

MJW

I'm not quite sure that establishes that Chuck had a gun. Wouldn't that merely indicate that Bob felt Chuck had a gun?

Perhaps "establish" was the wrong word, since even if Bob survived and testified that Chuck had a gun, you might say it didn't "establish" that fact. But the hearsay statement could be introduced as evidence Chuck had a gun.

AliceH

how is this situation ever going to get better for him if the charges are once again dismissed

BBB - I do not believe the situation will get better for him by testifying in a trial. I do not believe an irrational mob will be pacified by anything GZ can testify to, and a formal verdict of innocent will not calm any of those out for his blood. That makes going to trial all cost and no gain for GZ.

He's definitely going to have a target on him for a long time, but it is not going to be any smaller if he goes to trial.

AliceH

If Alice and Bob are if a cafe, and Bob screams "Duck! Chuck's got a gun!" just before Bob was shot, then Alice could testify to that in court to establish the fact that she shot Chuck in self defense.

FIFY

MJW

If Alice and Bob are if a cafe, and Bob screams "Duck! Chuck's got a gun!" just before Bob was shot, then Alice could testify to that in court to establish the fact that she shot Chuck in self defense.

FIFY

I don't think that's correct, because that would not, I believe, even require Bob's statement satisfy a hearsay exception. In your version, Bob's statement isn't used as evidence that Chuck had a gun; it's used to explain Alice's state of mind.

BlahBlahBlah

"BBB - I do not believe the situation will get better for him by testifying in a trial. I do not believe an irrational mob will be pacified by anything GZ can testify to, and a formal verdict of innocent will not calm any of those out for his blood."

Fair enough, and I truly understand.

But we have like what, like 90% of blacks feeling as though Martin was shot solely because he was Black? I just feel that number would be drastically reduced, creating a much smaller pool to pull from for the baiters, if his case was fairly presented and the media was forced to admit and cover the evidence they choose to try and hide now.

He will always be in jeopardy by some, but I truly believe going through the motions (which eliminates the "they didnt even try him" aspect) plus allowing his side to be heard (as started above) would cut his threats by a ton.

I guess it comes down to my feeling a gigantic chunk of the irrational mob just doesn't know any facts of the case outside what the bias media has attempted to paint in their attempt to get a trial, and an actual trial will force them to cover things they don't want to touch now (therefore informing the lemmings on the street)

Oh well, either way his life sucks at this point. Poor Democrat - he probably truly believed his own would protect him! Now he's likely at least pondering becoming a Republican...

MJW

To follow up my previous comment--

In that context Alice's testimony isn't hearsay, since she's perfectly able to testify to what she heard Bob say. The problem arises when she quotes Bob as evidence for the truth of what he said.

AliceH

MJW - I get it. I was just riffing off my name in your scenario. :-)

mockmook


If Alice and Bob are if a cafe, and Bob screams "Duck! Chuck's got a gun!" just before Bob was shot, then Alice could testify to that in court to establish the fact that she shot Chuck in self defense.

Good one, Alice :)

mockmook


Heh, people so in the weeds they didn't get the funny.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame