How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?

[nomatter_nevermind]

But without Zimmerman to cross examine, I doubt they would have much of an impact. 

Why?

[RickyJim]

Why?

Zimmerman's statements without and with Zimmerman to cross examine is like an outline for a movie script with the final film.  I think that the prosecution might present a closing summary with a sort of spreadsheet where the columns are various issues like: reason for Z getting out of the car, where Z dropped to the ground, details of the fight, etc. and the rows showing what Zimmerman said at various times as well as what physical evidence says.  The trouble with all that it is still a stretch to use that to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not self defense.  Cross examination gives rise to the possibility that Zimmerman will contradict himself from one second to the next, lose his temper and make the jury feel it has the moral duty to punish him.  I posted yesterday a bunch of questions on his walk from TTL to RVC.  I find it hard to imagine how Zimmerman could answer them (with followups to his answers) without the jury losing any sympathy they may have had for him.  I don't think he won over anybody with his performance handling gentle questioning from Hannity.

[MJW]

I guess it depends on the path of questioning.  If there is a way to get it in there by way of scope, I can see it happening.

It later occurred to me that there might be a way to try to get the money-hiding evidence in, and it seems to me that it's right up BDLR's alley. Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt.  I have no idea if it would fly, but note that the time has passed for the defense to challenge Lester's decisions, so all aspects of his bond-hearing ruling presumably still stand. Of course, that approach can be used regardless of whether Zimmerman testifies.

[RickyJim]

Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt. 

Maybe, but if you recall the OJ criminal case, the prosecution never used the bronco chase and the disguise found in the bronco as evidence of consciousness of guilt.  Of course, nowadays, prosecutors regard that case as a model of what not to do.   

[DebFrmHell]

It later occurred to me that there might be a way to try to get the money-hiding evidence in, and it seems to me that it's right up BDLR's alley. Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt.  I have no idea if it would fly, but note that the time has passed for the defense to challenge Lester's decisions, so all aspects of his bond-hearing ruling presumably still stand. Of course, that approach can be used regardless of whether Zimmerman testifies.

And then there is Shellie.  Would/Could  the Prosecution call her even though she is a spouse?

[MJW]

And then there is Shellie.  Would/Could  the Prosecution call her even though she is a spouse?

Even discounting the spousal privilege, Shellie has been charged with a crime related to the money, and would undoubtedly plead the 5th.

[MJW]

Maybe, but if you recall the OJ criminal case, the prosecution never used the bronco chase and the disguise found in the bronco as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

I'd forgotten about that. I wonder why. I admittedly know almost nothing about the use of consciousness of guilt as evidence against a defendant. Maybe I'll look into it a bit.

[leftwig]

Why would that be grounds for excluding her testimony?

Tainted witness (not sure of the appropriate rule).  Just to be clear, I don't know that information exists to come to this conclusion, but I think its possible.  Police asked for access to the phone and were not given access by Martin presumably on counsels advice.  Witness 8 remained silent/unknown until after Martin's lawyers were given access to 911 and Zimmerman's NEN calls and she was contacted and interviewed by Martin's team of lawyers first, not the proper authorities.   Dee Dee hasn't been asked much in the way of details about her contact with Crump or other Martin lawyers, but it has been reported that Dee Dee talked to Crump early on (at funeral or wake).  IF it can be shown that Crump had talked to Dee Dee in early March, chose not to to identify her to police and have her wait to come  forward until after their demands to listen to tapes was met, I think a judge could very well exclude her testimony.

[Kyreth]

Using Judge Lester's rather outlandish conclusion in his 2nd bond-hearing ruling that Zimmerman intended to use the money to flee, claim that hiding the money was part of an escape plan, and therefore shows consciousness of guilt. 

Considering BDLR's willingness to stretch the truth, I wouldn't put it past him.  I doubt it would get very far, though, since the Defense could demonstrate that what the Zimmermans did with the money showed an intent to stay (arranging a home with long term contracts on line installations etc.)

[RickyJim]

I'd forgotten about that. I wonder why. I admittedly know almost nothing about the use of consciousness of guilt as evidence against a defendant. Maybe I'll look into it a bit.

This is from Marcia Clark's book, "Without a Doubt":

Worse, if we introduced the Bronco evidence, it would give the defense an opening to slip in the records of the calls Simpson had made from his cell phone while motoring up the 405. We'd get the tape of Tom Lange talking him in off the freeway, telling him what a wonderful guy he was, how his children needed him; in the background, we'd hear Simpson's groans of anguish. We'd get a parade of witnesses who would recall the tearful protestations of innocence and grief.

[MJW]

Why would that be grounds for excluding her testimony?

I've read secondhand reports (perhaps in the Orlando Sentinel)  that O'Mara said he hopes to exclude DeeDee's testimony based on the circumstances surrounding Crump's initial handling of her. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I wonder if that's really what O'Mara said. I wish I could find O'Mara's actual comments. It wouldn't be the first time a reporter misunderstood something.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Tainted witness (not sure of the appropriate rule). 

It seems to me these are issues of credibility for the trier of fact, not grounds for exclusion. If I'm to think differently, I would need a citation.

[RickyJim]

I think I am in a minority here about this but without DeeDee, I think the prosecution still has a case, at least as far as the immunity hearing.  Since other evidence seems to contradict that Zimmerman was on the dogpath before the fight started, she establishes little of help to the prosecution.  In my post where I gave an attempt at a prosecution summation for the immunity hearing, I left her input out.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Even discounting the spousal privilege, Shellie has been charged with a crime related to the money, and would undoubtedly plead the 5th.

Spousal privilege in Florida is minimal. Only confidential communications are protected.

Fla. Stat. § 90.504

Would the 5th excuse her from testifying in a case that isn't hers? I think it would just mean the testimony couldn't be used in her trial.

If the prosecution thinks Shellie's testimony would help at all in convicting her husband, I think they would give her immunity in the perjury case.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I think I am in a minority here about this but without DeeDee, I think the prosecution still has a case, at least as far as the immunity hearing.  Since other evidence seems to contradict that Zimmerman was on the dogpath before the fight started, she establishes little of help to the prosecution. 

Dee Dee hasn't said Zimmerman was on the dogwalk.