Author Topic: Witness #8 (DeeDee)  (Read 283075 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #255 on: August 09, 2012, 02:22:52 PM »
I don't have an encyclopedic command of her ramblings.

You weren't asked for an encyclopedia. You were asked to support the claim that you made.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #256 on: August 09, 2012, 02:41:43 PM »
That's not the part.

The section of transcript provided by MJW is the only part in which Dee Dee spoke of Martin lowering his voice.

I think you are attributing one of your own thoughts to Dee Dee. It's a common memory error.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #257 on: August 09, 2012, 03:28:19 PM »
I'm sure sure Dee Dee didn't say Martin was hiding in the SAO interview. I've listened to that recording many times, and transcribed the parts that struck me as significant. If she said that, I would know.

Okay, thank you.
 :)

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #258 on: August 09, 2012, 03:29:07 PM »
You weren't asked for an encyclopedia. You were asked to support the claim that you made.

I meant that I couldn't recite her testimony from memory like so many of the rest of you seem to be able to do.
Don't be snarky.
 ;D

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #259 on: August 09, 2012, 03:32:10 PM »
The section of transcript provided by MJW is the only part in which Dee Dee spoke of Martin lowering his voice.

I think you are attributing one of your own thoughts to Dee Dee. It's a common memory error.

Nope.

Close, but wrong. I was attributing something I've seen repeated several (many) times in several places. In other words--it wasn't my thought as such. I trusted other people and shouldn't have. I am, as such, corrected.

However ( ;)) from what she says right around where she talks of him lowering his voice, not running because he says he lost him and so forth--hiding is an easy conclusion to make.

But the facts are that she doesn't say it, there or apparently anywhere.

Okay?

Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #260 on: August 19, 2012, 12:55:29 AM »


Does anyone have an opinion of how much of Dee Dee's testimony would be considered hear say? It seems to me if she testified as to Trayvon's telling of events it wouldn't be allowed because Trayvon can't be cross examined on it.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #261 on: August 19, 2012, 03:15:50 AM »
What Martin told Dee Dee is hearsay, but potentially admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception (Fla. Stat. 90.803).

To get it excluded, O'Mara would have to argue that it was 'made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.'

 

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #262 on: August 19, 2012, 06:49:56 AM »
What Martin told Dee Dee is hearsay, but potentially admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception (Fla. Stat. 90.803).

To get it excluded, O'Mara would have to argue that it was 'made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.'

Does that include and encompass impeaching the young lady or is it limited only to the testimony?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #263 on: August 19, 2012, 07:20:00 AM »
Does that include and encompass impeaching the young lady or is it limited only to the testimony?

The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #264 on: August 19, 2012, 07:45:04 AM »
The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but oftentimes a jury will decide credibility of a witness based on relevant facts about the witness.

Hence the question.


Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #265 on: August 19, 2012, 09:40:54 AM »
The credibility of the witness is for the jury to decide.

The point of the exception to the exception, is that the judge can exclude the hearsay testimony if there is reason to doubt that the declarant, the original source of the hearsay, was telling the truth to the witness.

So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #266 on: August 19, 2012, 10:09:49 AM »
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

Well because TM isn't there to be cross examined.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #267 on: August 19, 2012, 10:13:42 AM »
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

That's how I read the statute.

There doesn't seem to be much case law on this, probably because it's an area in which appellate courts mostly defer to trial judges.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #268 on: August 19, 2012, 02:26:45 PM »
So if the young lady is being just as truthful as she knows how in relating what she heard, they can still keep it out if they have good reason to think Martin was just making it all up?

Yes, because the only reason for having her testify is for the truth of what Martin was saying. If the circumstances indicated Martin wasn't telling her what was really occurring, her testimony wouldn't matter no matter how accurately she related Martin's false tales. The premise behind the spontaneous statement exception is that someone narrating an exciting event as it occurs is unlikely to have the time for reflection, so they probably aren't making it up.

In Florida, the spontaneous statement exception is not quite as broad as it may appear from the text of the statute. The Florida supreme court said in State v. Juno that a spontaneous statement must be made in response to "an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement." Notice how de la Rionda emphasizes Martin's state of mind. I think he may have had the spontaneous statement exception in mind.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Witness #8 (DeeDee)
« Reply #269 on: August 19, 2012, 03:03:20 PM »
Just to avoid any possible confusion, let me state that there's absolutely no way del la Rionda's interview with DeeDee would be admissible hearsay that would substitute for her trial testimony. It's testimonial hearsay that would be excluded by the 6th amendment. If she testifies, it could be used by the defense to impeach her testimony, and under certain circumstances, by the state to show she hasn't recently invented or changed her testimony.

My previous comment on the relationship between the interview and admissibility concerned how del la Rionda may have been trying to establish that Martin's comments to DeeDee were made in the excited state required by the spontaneous statement exception.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking