Author Topic: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012  (Read 7882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jeanmarc8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2012, 05:35:57 PM »
Concerning the supplemental witness list, the likely jurists would likely be interested in the assessment from the police officers who performed the primary investigation.  Their testimony that they found the evidence they collected did not support any charges would seem to be very compelling, even at the level of one or two jurists to cause a “hung jury”.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2012, 05:55:41 PM »
Concerning the supplemental witness list, the likely jurists would likely be interested in the assessment from the police officers who performed the primary investigation.  Their testimony that they found the evidence they collected did not support any charges would seem to be very compelling, even at the level of one or two jurists to cause a “hung jury”.

I doubt the police officers' opinions on the sufficiency of the evidence would be admissible. It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence and decide if it supports the charge.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2012, 07:42:28 PM »
Then how do you know they 'came up empty handed'?

I read those reports when they were published, over six months ago. (I don't mean the Kos post, but the news report it links to.) If you read them carefully, you will see that none of them actually support that the investigation was happening, as opposed to the possibility being discussed.

Since I've heard nothing more recent, I doubt this investigation ever happened.

Sanford police recognized for policies and standards

There was this... 

I don't know how this plays with the DOJ or the FBI but getting reaccredited is a HUGE deal in LE.

Quote
The Sanford Police Department has won reaccreditation from the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, a designation that the agency has achieved professional excellence in its policies and operations.

It is the third time that the department has received the recognition.

Last July, a team of assessors conducted an in-depth review of the department's policies, procedures, practices and record-keeping. The team also interviewed police officers and department employees.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2012, 06:34:05 AM »
I doubt the police officers' opinions on the sufficiency of the evidence would be admissible. It's up to the jury to weigh the evidence and decide if it supports the charge.

The judge will entertain a motion to dismiss if the facts don't support every element of the charge.  IOW, if the legal theory has a hole in it, then the case can be dismissed.  Serino's assignment of criminal conduct depends on that "could have broken the chain of events" method of reaching culpability.  Even if she finds that Zimmerman could have broken the chain of events (by not getting out of his truck, or by properly announcing himself and his intentions), the judge can rule that this does not satisfy the elements of the lesser charge of manslaughter, as a matter of law.

Said another way, if the "sufficiency" issue is one of presence or absence of evidence, as opposed to "not enough" (presence of evidence being more than zero), there is a legal issue that should be settled without putting the case to a jury.

O'Mara has not pushed on his April 12 demand for a statement of particulars.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2012, 07:00:55 AM »
The judge will entertain a motion to dismiss if the facts don't support every element of the charge.  IOW, if the legal theory has a hole in it, then the case can be dismissed.  Serino's assignment of criminal conduct depends on that "could have broken the chain of events" method of reaching culpability.  Even if she finds that Zimmerman could have broken the chain of events (by not getting out of his truck, or by properly announcing himself and his intentions), the judge can rule that this does not satisfy the elements of the lesser charge of manslaughter, as a matter of law.

Said another way, if the "sufficiency" issue is one of presence or absence of evidence, as opposed to "not enough" (presence of evidence being more than zero), there is a legal issue that should be settled without putting the case to a jury.

I don't see how any of this makes the opinions of any of these witnesses into admissible evidence.

I also don't see what Serino's capias request has to do with anything. The prosecution isn't relying on it.

ETA: I see you were responding to MJW's phrase 'up to the jury'. That was careless, as you are correct that the case may never get to a jury. But it doesn't affect the main point.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 07:08:45 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2012, 07:02:19 AM »
The judge will entertain a motion to dismiss if the facts don't support every element of the charge.  IOW, if the legal theory has a hole in it, then the case can be dismissed.  Serino's assignment of criminal conduct depends on that "could have broken the chain of events" method of reaching culpability.  Even if she finds that Zimmerman could have broken the chain of events (by not getting out of his truck, or by properly announcing himself and his intentions), the judge can rule that this does not satisfy the elements of the lesser charge of manslaughter, as a matter of law.

Said another way, if the "sufficiency" issue is one of presence or absence of evidence, as opposed to "not enough" (presence of evidence being more than zero), there is a legal issue that should be settled without putting the case to a jury.

O'Mara has not pushed on his April 12 demand for a statement of particulars.

BBM
What is a Statement of Particulars?  I don't see it on the 18th Media Advisories site.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2012, 07:09:18 AM »
BBM
What is a Statement of Particulars?  I don't see it on the 18th Media Advisories site.

The demand is under Notice of Appearance, Waiver of Arraignment, Written Plea, Demand for Discovery, Request for Jury Trial, and April 23 entry.

A Statement of Particulars is a document that proffers, with particularity, certain evidence or facts that will be proved at trial, and either clearly implies or states how those facts satisfy the elements of the charged crime.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2012, 07:16:22 AM »
I don't see how any of this makes the opinions of any of these witnesses into admissible evidence.

I also don't see what Serino's capias request has to do with anything. The prosecution isn't relying on it.

ETA: I see you were responding to MJW's phrase 'up to the jury'. That was careless, as you are correct that the case may never get to a jury. But it doesn't affect the main point.

Well, my main point is on a different path from admissibility.  My point was as to absence of evidence, and the difference in what is presented to a judge vs. presented to a jury.  If the do-not-charge consensus of SPD hinges on absence of evidence, and Serino's recommendation that a charge lies is based on a non-existent legal theory, those points are helpful to a judge deciding a pretrial motion.  Those points would never get to a modern jury, because the legal system guards judgment of law as solely within the courts' power.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2012, 07:45:49 PM »
If the do-not-charge consensus of SPD hinges on absence of evidence, and Serino's recommendation that a charge lies is based on a non-existent legal theory, those points are helpful to a judge deciding a pretrial motion.

I disagree. The judge should evaluate the evidence herself.

You still have not explained why Serino's theory is relevant, when it isn't the prosecution's theory.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2012, 07:48:43 PM »
Comment with link to an offensive blog post elsewhere deleted.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2012, 07:53:32 PM »
Sanford police recognized for policies and standards

Quote
The Sanford Police Department was first accredited in 2005 and reaccredited in 2008.

The racially charged Travares McGill case was in 2005.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2012, 07:28:32 AM »
I disagree. The judge should evaluate the evidence herself.

You still have not explained why Serino's theory is relevant, when it isn't the prosecution's theory.

And part of the evidence the judge should consider is the number of seasoned LE professionals who didn't think there was any there, there.

How do you expect judges to get all this marvelous evidence to consider without the work of the LE professionals?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2012, 08:47:52 PM »
And part of the evidence the judge should consider is the number of seasoned LE professionals who didn't think there was any there, there.

Expert opinion on a specific fact may be evidence. I don't think that is true when the opinion is on such a broad question as guilt vs. innocence, or sufficiency of the evidence.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2012, 03:35:20 AM »
Expert opinion on a specific fact may be evidence. I don't think that is true when the opinion is on such a broad question as guilt vs. innocence, or sufficiency of the evidence.

The issue wouldn't be guilt or innocence.  It would be probable cause to make an arrest, based on the evidence in hand.  The police and prosecutor are qualified to make that determination.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Defendant's Supplemental Witness List Oct 24 2012
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2012, 11:35:26 AM »
The issue wouldn't be guilt or innocence.  It would be probable cause to make an arrest, based on the evidence in hand.  The police and prosecutor are qualified to make that determination.

So is the judge.

The issue, I believe, is not whether the witness is qualified, but whether the judge needs to be informed by their specialized knowledge.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking