Author Topic: State motions from 10 May  (Read 21015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2013, 10:14:06 PM »
How is that argument relevant?

Which are you asking, how is that false profiling argument relevant for the state, or how is the argument that Martin had drugs in his system relevant to responding to it?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #31 on: May 17, 2013, 11:36:53 AM »
Which are you asking, how is that false profiling argument relevant for the state, or how is the argument that Martin had drugs in his system relevant to responding to it?

The first was what I had in mind. The second is also of interest, but it depends on the first.

On reflection, I'm thinking that Martin being 'up to no good' could be an explanation for why he might react violently to surveillance.

We don't know what the defense intends to argue in this regard. Maybe we'll find out when they respond to the motion.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #32 on: May 17, 2013, 12:40:10 PM »
The first was what I had in mind.

Based on the charging affidavit and what BDLR has said in his court papers, I think he intends profiling to be a major focus of the prosecution. I've wondered how he intends to present that issue. Will he just talk about it in his opening and closing statements, or will he call witnesses? I feel that the defense is mainly interested in the negative character evidence about Martin because it could hamstring BDLR on this issue.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2013, 01:25:59 PM »
Based on the charging affidavit and what BDLR has said in his court papers, I think he intends profiling to be a major focus of the prosecution.

Or it could all be for the media.

Do you not even have a theory on how the prosecutors might argue the relevance of the issue?

Zimmerman's 'on drugs' remark isn't mentioned in the affidavit. Is it mentioned in other court papers?


Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #34 on: May 17, 2013, 01:41:12 PM »
Do you not even have a theory on how the prosecutors might argue the relevance of the issue?

Zimmerman's 'on drugs' remark isn't mentioned in the affidavit. Is it mentioned in other court papers?

The only thing I can think of is that it will be part of establishing the "depraved mind" element. I don't recall any specific mention of GZ's "on drugs or something" comment, but I think that BDLR may want to use it as part of the "false profiling" claim; or at least the defense needs to be prepared if they do.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2013, 02:01:58 PM »
The only thing I can think of is that it will be part of establishing the "depraved mind" element.

Right. I keep forgetting to take the M2 part seriously.

I doubt the prosecutors believe they can convict on M2, but they've charged it, so they can argue the elements.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2013, 02:29:51 PM »
Wikipedia
Quote
If the motion in limine to exclude evidence is granted, then the excluded records would be prohibited from being presented without specific approval from the judge at the time the party wants to offer the evidence.

If this is correct, an order in limine doesn't preclude a party from asking for the issue to be revisited if the other party opens a door.

The prosecution's intentions may be discussed in the hearing on the motion.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2013, 03:45:10 PM »
Wikipedia
If this is correct, an order in limine doesn't preclude a party from asking for the issue to be revisited if the other party opens a door.

The prosecution's intentions may be discussed in the hearing on the motion.

That's what the DCA said should have happened in a case I mentioned yesterday,  Arias v. State. The trial court granted a motion in limine to exclude the victim's 0.21 blood-alcohol level and cocaine traces, but the prosecutor opened the door by his argument.

In my opinion, a self-defense case victim's trace marijuana level shouldn't be admitted as evidence without some showing of relevancy, but a 0.21 blood-alcohol level certainly should be. I don't see how the jury can properly evaluate what occurred without knowing the victim was drunk.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2013, 09:16:59 PM »
That's what the DCA said should have happened in a case I mentioned yesterday,  Arias v. State. The trial court granted a motion in limine to exclude the victim's 0.21 blood-alcohol level and cocaine traces, but the prosecutor opened the door by his argument.

In my opinion, a self-defense case victim's trace marijuana level shouldn't be admitted as evidence without some showing of relevancy, but a 0.21 blood-alcohol level certainly should be. I don't see how the jury can properly evaluate what occurred without knowing the victim was drunk.

Wasn't the deal in that case that the ME, when testifying as to cause of death, wasn't allowed, during cross by the defense, to mention the deceased's BAC because that wasn't the cause of death, getting stabbed was, and the prosecution only called the ME to testify as to cause of death, but later the defense was able to call the ME as their witness to ask about the BAC?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2013, 09:46:41 PM »
That's what the DCA said should have happened in a case I mentioned yesterday,  Arias v. State.

Wasn't the deal in that case that the ME, when testifying as to cause of death, wasn't allowed, during cross by the defense, to mention the deceased's BAC because that wasn't the cause of death, getting stabbed was, and the prosecution only called the ME to testify as to cause of death, but later the defense was able to call the ME as their witness to ask about the BAC?

Diaz v. State.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2013, 11:29:32 PM »
Coincidentally, the Diaz and Arias victims had the same .21 blood-alcohol level. In both cases the DCA said the juries should have been allowed hear the results, but only because the defense established the relevance for reasons beyond the obvious fact that excessive alcohol consumption affects behavior.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2013, 12:39:44 PM »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2013, 12:55:00 PM »
"DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TOXICOLOGY"

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/173-defendant-s-reply-to-state-s-motion-for-protective-order-motion-in-limine-regarding-toxicology

How did you find that?  Separately, I notice that the last part of the URL's starts with a number, "173" in this case.  There are some gaps in number assignments, on reviewing the GZLegal website.  I haven't tried to discover hidden URL's with a web spider, but maybe it's worth a shot.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2013, 12:57:35 PM »
"DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TOXICOLOGY"

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/173-defendant-s-reply-to-state-s-motion-for-protective-order-motion-in-limine-regarding-toxicology

From O'Mara's description of the swaying at the counter it appears he was given one of those copies of the 7-Eleven videos that does not run at one second per second and therefore exaggerates small motions by making them appear to go on much longer than they actually did.

I wonder if that was intentional on the part of the state, to get him to argue one thing and present a good copy at trial that shows something else.

 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2013, 02:37:47 PM »
From O'Mara's description of the swaying at the counter it appears he was given one of those copies of the 7-Eleven videos that does not run at one second per second and therefore exaggerates small motions by making them appear to go on much longer than they actually did.

If Martin was swaying, does it matter if he was swaying fast or slow?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking