Author Topic: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery  (Read 16918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2012, 02:35:24 PM »
Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me, the motion is interesting, but not a huge blockbuster.

It appears various members of the Sanford police department held a number of meetings on the case prior to the charges being filed. Most of the attendees, including Serino, seemed to agree that the evidence didn't justify filing charges. Some of the attendees were quite upset when Serino recommended a manslaughter charge.

The reason I don't see it as a huge deal is that the opinions of the meetings' attendees isn't admissible evidence.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2012, 02:36:46 PM »
Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me, the motion is interesting, but not a huge blockbuster.

It appears various members of the Sanford police department held a number of meetings on the case prior to the charges being filed. Most of the attendees, including Serino, seemed to agree that the evidence didn't justify filing charges. Some of the attendees were quite upset when Serino recommended a manslaughter charge.

The reason I don't see it as a huge deal is that the opinions of the meetings attendees isn't admissible evidence.

Perhaps its an opportunity to familiarize the Judge Nelson - who has declared zero knowledge of the case with the paucity of evidence of GZ's guilt.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2012, 02:38:00 PM »
These are not merely opinions of people on the street. These are opinions of officers on duty, acting in an official capacity during an official investigation. These meetings were not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2012, 02:38:48 PM »
De la Rionda also argued that it hadn't been proven that witness 8 (DeeDee) was a minor.

What!?! They don't know how old she is?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2012, 02:40:46 PM »
The reason I don't see it as a huge deal is that the opinions of the meetings' attendees isn't admissible evidence.

What about the opinion of Serino as expressed in the transmission to the State Attorney?  That is, that a charge of manslaughter exists on the basis that Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome by either staying in his vehicle, or announcing his function and intention?  That conclusion appears to the the SPD speaking, even though most members of the SPD thought otherwise.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2012, 02:41:59 PM »
These are not merely opinions of people on the street. These are opinions of officers on duty, acting in an official capacity during an official investigation. These meetings were not disclosed to the defense by the prosecution.

Obviously the meetings should have been disclosed,  but I don't think their opinions are any more admissible evidence then the opinions of people on the street.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2012, 02:42:15 PM »
What!?! They don't know how old she is?

It was pretty funny, to me anyway, when O'Mara informed the court that the reason the state gave for protecting her identity was that she was a minor.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2012, 02:46:40 PM »
What about the opinion of Serino as expressed in the transmission to the State Attorney?  That is, that a charge of manslaughter exists on the basis that Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome by either staying in his vehicle, or announcing his function and intention?  That conclusion appears to the the SPD speaking, even though most members of the SPD thought otherwise.

I still don't see how that matters once the special prosecutor independently decided to file a second degree murder charge. The state can't use Serino's opinion in court to establish Zimmerman's guilt.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2012, 02:49:49 PM »
I still don't see how that matters once the special prosecutor independently decided to file a second degree murder charge. The state can't use Serino's opinion in court to establish Zimmerman's guilt.

Agreed.  And as I think about it, the information to be obtained in this aspect of discovery is more useful in a civil claim of wrongful prosecution.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #24 on: October 19, 2012, 02:53:11 PM »
It was pretty funny, to me anyway, when O'Mara informed the court that the reason the state gave for protecting her identity was that she was a minor.

Not knowing her age and not giving the defense her address seems very strange to me. ("Strange," as in "suspicious.")

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2012, 02:57:13 PM »
Not knowing her age and not giving the defense her address seems very strange to me.

I don't think it was the state not knowing her age, my impression was that de la Rionda was in an attack mode, where if the defense hadn't proved (DeeDee age), then the motion is not well founded.  He also went off about there being an absence of proof (X-ray) that Zimmerman's nose was broken.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2012, 03:01:14 PM »
I still don't see how that matters once the special prosecutor independently decided to file a second degree murder charge. The state can't use Serino's opinion in court to establish Zimmerman's guilt.

Let me add that the motion is useful in the court of public opinion in the murder case.  It puts some detail to the inner working of SPD, and includes the opinion of Assistant State Attorney, Jim Carter of Wolfinger's office.  The public story so far is that SPD recommended prosecution for manslaughter.  This motion has the potential to change that perception.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2012, 04:01:36 PM »
I was unable to watch or hear today's hearing.  Is there a transcript or replay available?  Were any comments about the actual evidence made?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2012, 04:08:12 PM »
I was unable to watch or hear today's hearing.  Is there a transcript or replay available?  Were any comments about the actual evidence made?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC3yzSJWADg"?Youtube - Part 1[/url]

You can get the other parts from there, I hope.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2012, 04:52:02 PM »
The clips are not yet linked at the end, but you can find them from the uploads page for that user. If you hover over the link, you can see the part number of the series - they are in reverse order. They are midly NSFW for language and they do take some cheap shots at Zimmerman in the background audio.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking