Author Topic: State motions from 10 May  (Read 19241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2013, 07:02:23 PM »
Wet v Dry, lighting, camera

All things that can have that effect.

If you have a grey sweatshirt in your closet go get it an poor a little water on it, it gets rather dark, coupled with different lighting conditions and different cameras with different settings.

Either that or we can create the 2Tray theory. ;)
Just to make sure, is DSC_0196.JPG, the sweatshirt TM wore under the dark blue looking hoodie in the 711 video?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2013, 08:08:01 PM »
Just to make sure, is DSC_0196.JPG, the sweatshirt TM wore under the dark blue looking hoodie in the 711 video?

No, that's the hoodie.

Btw, all these comments about how the hoodie looks in the 7-11 video are likely to be deleted the next time Jeralyn takes a look. I think she is particularly careful of the Court Matters threads.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2013, 09:39:15 PM »
Why would the hoodie comments be deleted?  The video and pictures are evidence.  I would think comments about how the hoodie in the 7-11 video looks much darker than the one photographed in evidence would be a relevant discussion point. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2013, 09:46:55 PM »
I'm not deleting any photos or discussion about photos that either party has indicated they want to introduce in evidence.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2013, 11:05:32 PM »
I'm not deleting any photos or discussion about photos that either party has indicated they want to introduce in evidence.

Is discussion about Trayvon's drug use now permitted? The state did file a motion in Limine to block and the defense filed a reply. If so, to what extent?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2013, 11:21:37 PM »
Why would the hoodie comments be deleted? 

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. I don't see how the comments are relevant to the state motions of 5/10/13. But we've had word from on high now, so that's it.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #66 on: May 23, 2013, 02:01:18 AM »
Defendant's Reply regarding the toxicology report, pp. 1-2.

Quote
The active THC was measured at 1.5 ng/mL whereas the metabolite was measured at 7.3 ng/mL. This level is sufficient to cause some impairment (although it is considered to be less than that required for a DUI arrest) according to the state's toxicologist, Dr. Bruce Goldberger. . . . Dr. Goldberger opined that Trayvon Martin could have used marijuana within a couple of hours of his death.

Both the level of impairment and mimimum time after last use are surprising to me. They contradict much of what was written at the time the autopsy report was released.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #67 on: May 23, 2013, 07:48:11 AM »
Defendant's Reply regarding the toxicology report, pp. 1-2.

Both the level of impairment and mimimum time after last use are surprising to me. They contradict much of what was written at the time the autopsy report was released.

Shoulda listened to some of us before!

 ;)

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #68 on: May 23, 2013, 08:48:38 AM »
The ME's office took head and pubic hair from Martin but I have seen no record as to those results.  The hair samples were sent to be analyzed by NMS Laboratories .  They would show if he was a chronic user or was just recreational.

The only thing released were the blood samples.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2013, 09:14:01 AM »
All the evidence in this case seems to be in three categories
  • Known only to the prosecution.
  • Known only to the prosecution and defense.
  • Known to the prosecution, defense and public.
The Florida Sunshine and Discovery Laws are so confusing that it is impossible to know if an example like Deb just gave (not a 3) is a 1 or 2.  :(
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 09:15:33 AM by RickyJim »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2013, 07:44:55 PM »
Today the defense issued a Defendant's Reply to State's Motion in Limine Regarding Self Serving Hearsay Statements of the Defendant.  All it seems to say is instead of ruling all of Zimmerman's prior statements out in limine as hearsay, let them be considered one at a time as the defense proposes to use them.  It is not clear to me why the state issued the original motion and why the defense opposes it.  You would think the state would want to get the Hannity interview and other places where Zimmerman doesn't shine into their case.  Doesn't the prosecution motion also apply to the prosecution?  Why doesn't the NEN call fall under the inadmissible hearsay rule?  If Zimmerman doesn't testify, they can't refer to his prior inconsistencies and one would think that then they are done for.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 07:52:08 PM by RickyJim »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2013, 07:53:34 PM »
The state can use almost anything GZ said under the "admissions" hearsay exception.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #72 on: May 23, 2013, 08:06:49 PM »
Please explain why the prosecution's motion doesn't apply to the prosecution.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2013, 08:23:29 PM »
Why would the hoodie comments be deleted?  The video and pictures are evidence.  I would think comments about how the hoodie in the 7-11 video looks much darker than the one photographed in evidence would be a relevant discussion point.

I certainly agree as I've got a hoodie of a shade of grey very similar to the one in today's pictures, and it's impossible to get it wet enough to make it as dark as the one in the 7-Eleven video.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2013, 08:27:47 PM »
Please explain why the prosecution's motion doesn't apply to the prosecution.

One of the exceptions to excluding hearsay is when the statement of one party (in this case, GZ) is used against that party by the other party (in this case, the state):

Quote
ADMISSIONS.—A statement that is offered against a party and is:
(a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;

So the prosecution can use GZ's hearsay statements under an exception that doesn't apply to the defense.

I should clarify that when I said, "The state can use almost anything GZ said," I meant that it would not be excluded because it's hearsay. It could still be inadmissible as irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking