Author Topic: State motions from 10 May  (Read 17050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2013, 08:25:50 AM »
Bunch of motions in here

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/168-state-motions-may-2013

Let's see if I can get a short list in here before MJW beats me to it.

Motion to preclude defense bringing up the penalty for the charged crime, during closing argument

Motion to preclude defense bringing up Martin's past (school suspension, use of pot, ever been in a fight, contents of social media, wore gold grill, any school records, text messages before 26 Feb, text messages on 26 Feb unless admitted by court after hearing)

Motion to preclude defense eliciting opinion as to Zimmerman innocence (I think this is aimed at preventing SPD and others from testifying they lacked probable cause)

Motion to exclude toxicology report.  Bernardo specifies the low-level pot report, and does not refer to any other report.

Motion to preclude defense from eliciting testimony or mentioning to the effect that the state's failure to call certain witnesses is because those witnesses were not favorable to the state.

Motion to preclude defense from eliciting testimony as to hearsay statements by Zimmerman to witnesses.  I don't have a quick thought as to what hearsay by Zimmerman might be involved.  Maybe that Martin was "acting suspiciously" where the conclusion (acting suspiciously) is hearsay, but I think that argument fails.  In general, I think this motion is the state trying to force Zimmerman to take the stand.

The state objects to O'Mara's requires for a Frye hearing, and the state asserts (without producing any evidence) that their audio experts pass the Frye test.

The state seeks an order compelling defense to comply with discovery rules, and cites an example of a defense witness who testified having produced a map for the defense, but the defense was unable to produce the map; and another example where a defense witness had given a video recorded statement to defense counsel, but defense counsel didn't provide the recording to the state until the day of state deposing the witness - now state will depose the witness again; and a third example where defense provided reports that its witnesses would testify about, moments before those witnesses were deposed by the state.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2013, 08:26:08 AM »
State's Response to Defendant's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

The prosecution says a Frye Hearing is not required because they do not intend to introduce any 'new or novel' testimony (p. 2).

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2013, 08:41:08 AM »
the state asserts (without producing any evidence) that their audio experts pass the Frye test.

I don't think that is an accurate characterization.

The prosecution cites case law to the effect that a Frye hearing is not required unless there is a 'new or novel scientific theory being presented'. (I don't know what the distinction is between 'new' and 'novel'. I think it's just excess legal verbiage.) The prosecution argues that the testimony they propose to offer is not 'new or novel', citing previous cases in which they allege the same kind of testimony has been admitted, 'in some cases, by these very same witnesses'. They list six cases, two of them in Florida. (The Connecticut case is a civil case, not the criminal case in which Tom Owens applied his new methods.)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 08:45:04 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2013, 08:55:11 AM »
State's Motion in Limine as to Appropriate Penalty or Disregard of Law

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony by witnesses or statements by attornies regarding the appropriate penalty for Zimmerman or suggesting that the law be disregarded.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Self Serving Hearsay Statements of Defendant

The state is seeking to limit self-serving hearsay statements without proper foundation (i.e. Zimmerman testifying to them.)

State's Motion in Limine Rearding Defendant's Prior Criminal History

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Zimmerman's lack of previous felony convictions.

State's Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence

The state is seeking to prohibit statements or testimony regarding the propriatey of Zimmerman's charges or his guilt by family or law enforcement.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Trayvon Martin

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Tayvon martin being suspended, having ever been in a fight, use of marijuana, any social media names or content, ever wearing fake gold teeth, performance in school, text messages before Feb. 26 and text messages on Feb. 26 that are not relevant.

State's Motion for Protective Order/Order in Limine Regarding Toxocology Reports

The state is seeking to prohibit testimony or statements from witnesses regarding Martin's toxicology report.



 

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2013, 08:56:15 AM »
BDLR's been busy.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2013, 09:12:11 AM »
Motion to preclude defense from eliciting testimony as to hearsay statements by Zimmerman to witnesses.  I don't have a quick thought as to what hearsay by Zimmerman might be involved. 

Zimmerman's statement to Officer Tim Smith that he (Zimmerman) was calling for help. His statement to W-13 that Martin was beating on him.

These might come in as spontaneous statements, particularly the one to W-13.

The motion states, without discussion, that no  'recognized hearsay exception' applies (p. 1). (I had to google res gestae. It's lawyer speak for the spontaneous statement exception.)

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2013, 09:18:02 AM »
Zimmerman's statement to Officer Tim Smith that he (Zimmerman) was calling for help. His statement to W-13 that Martin was beating on him.

That's not hearsay by Zimmerman.  It would be hearsay by Smith and W-13.  Maybe Bernardo doesn't literally mean "self serving hearsay statements by defendant," but aims to preclude hearsay by Smith and W-13 being used to establish that Zimmerman was calling for help and Martin was beating on Zimmerman.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2013, 09:55:26 AM »
That's not hearsay by Zimmerman.  It would be hearsay by Smith and W-13.  Maybe Bernardo doesn't literally mean "self serving hearsay statements by defendant," but aims to preclude hearsay by Smith and W-13 being used to establish that Zimmerman was calling for help and Martin was beating on Zimmerman.
The state knows that the game is over if Zimmerman stays off the stand.  So I regard this motion as a "Hail Marry" to see if they can trick the defense into calling Zimmerman.  The defense has much better stuff in Witness #6 and the EMTs who will testify as to Zimmerman's injuries and I doubt getting Smith and W-13's statements in will get them to call Zimmerman.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2013, 10:06:25 AM »
That's not hearsay by Zimmerman.  It would be hearsay by Smith and W-13.  Maybe Bernardo doesn't literally mean "self serving hearsay statements by defendant," but aims to preclude hearsay by Smith and W-13 being used to establish that Zimmerman was calling for help and Martin was beating on Zimmerman.

"evidence, testimony, questioning or other reference to self-serving hearsay statements by defendant to witnesses..."

I took that as another motion against Serino's possible testimony. I'm probably wrong though.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2013, 10:13:42 AM »
I find the motion concerning the evidentiary hearing the most interesting since it may relate to evidence we don't know about yet. 
Quote
The State notes that the Defendant has listed one such individual himself;
Does anybody remember such a listing by the defense?  One thing that makes the motion unclear is if is also applies to voice identification testimony from non experts.  I would be interested in hearing if any experts think non experts can possibly identify screams under the conditions of the 911 call. 

From the wording of the memo, it seems that the prosecution will not call Owen at trial since his program is certainly a non standard method of voice identification and would certainly have to pass a Frye hearing.  The identity of the State witness, whom the defense refused to depose, remains a mystery.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2013, 10:16:29 AM »
Good God a'mighty.

A couple of them seem to be missing, though:

Where's the state's motion to bar defense counsel from entering the courtroom during the trial?

And where's the motion to forego the trial and proceed directly to sentencing?

IANAL, so I threw up in my mouth a little when reading these motions.

For those amongst us who are lawyers-- are there legal grounds for these motions? And is it likely Nelson will grant them?

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2013, 10:18:05 AM »
Actually, thinking back on it... I think all of the limine motions might be in regards to what Serino might testify to. In nearly all of them BDLR says that questions of the type they're wanting to eliminate in trial were asked in a deposition. All of those subjects Serino would have some knowledge on, since he was lead investigator.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2013, 10:19:25 AM »
Does the motion opposing introduction of TM's school records and social media only imply to their introduction in the defense case?  If the motion was granted would the defense be prevented from using them to impeach witnesses that testify that Trayvon was a gentle, non confrontational soul?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2013, 10:28:58 AM »
The motion "IN LIMINE REGARDING CALLING OF WITNESSES" struck me as meaning DeeDee won't be called at trial.  Could they have had anybody else in mind?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking