Author Topic: State motions from 10 May  (Read 20840 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #75 on: May 23, 2013, 08:32:36 PM »
Please explain why the prosecution's motion doesn't apply to the prosecution.

One thing to add to MJW's explanation. The title of the motion specifies 'self-serving hearsay statements'.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 08:35:18 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #76 on: May 23, 2013, 08:35:15 PM »
The title of the motion specifies 'self-serving hearsay statements'.

So anything you say may be used against you, but that doesn't mean they'll let you use any of it for you?

Hardly seems fair.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2013, 08:36:43 PM »
So anything you say may be used against you, but that doesn't mean they'll let you use any of it for you?

Hardly seems fair.

Another reason why 'even' the innocent should lawyer up.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #78 on: May 23, 2013, 08:38:49 PM »
is there a precise legal definition of self serving hearsay or is it something like the judge saying, "I know it when I see it."?  I am still not clear on what the prosecution is afraid the defense might sneak in so they filed an in limine motion.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #79 on: May 23, 2013, 08:45:39 PM »
So anything you say may be used against you, but that doesn't mean they'll let you use any of it for you?

Hardly seems fair.
I think hearsay rules were invented because only lawyers understand them.  I like the system in civil law countries, "If it seems probative to the case, it gets in."  OK, I'll stop.  :-X

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #80 on: May 23, 2013, 09:12:50 PM »
is there a precise legal definition of self serving hearsay or is it something like the judge saying, "I know it when I see it."?  I am still not clear on what the prosecution is afraid the defense might sneak in so they filed an in limine motion.

That's actually a somewhat tricky question. Some courts have excluded statements that would otherwise be admissible under a hearsay exception because they amount to the defendant testifying without being subject to cross examination. That's not the rule in Florida. By definition, a self-serving statement isn't admissible as an admission, but if it's admissible under any valid hearsay exception, it can't be excluded simply because it's self serving. See, for instance,  Bryant v. State, 98 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). To some extent, I think the reference to "self serving" is just BDLR being BDLR.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #81 on: May 23, 2013, 09:18:36 PM »
It's probably more appropriate for a learned poster to explain, but there's also a doctrine of completeness. When Zimmerman identifies himself as the shooter, the defense can introduce his next part of the statement where he asserts it was in self-defense but  that doesn't admit a statement made an hour later where he explains other things away.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 09:27:24 PM by Cylinder »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #82 on: May 23, 2013, 09:35:52 PM »
My questions about the hearsay motions come from my opinions about the evidence.  O'Mara should let BDLR rant and rave and put the jury to sleep about all the contradictions and absurdities in Zimmerman's out of court statements.  He could just point out that they don't show Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear for his life BRD before shooting in his closing statement.  Putting Zimmerman on the stand or trying to introduce statements Bernie didn't use would be totally idiotic.  He's got the EMTs, and Witnesses 6 and 11 (with scream tape) and possibly naughty Trayvon stuff and that is more than enough for reasonable doubt.  However I take it all back if the prosecution has some GPS dynamite.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #83 on: May 23, 2013, 09:43:18 PM »
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.

Every time I see this kind of discussion, I wonder about the change in information regarding ME-8 and 12.  One is described as a hoodie, the other is described as a shirt when both are actually hoodies. 

IMO ONLY!  Could the confusion that caused the switch of information been correct in the first place?  Didn't two or three witnesses describe light or white clothing?

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #84 on: May 23, 2013, 09:56:05 PM »
Every time I see this kind of discussion, I wonder about the change in information regarding ME-8 and 12.  One is described as a hoodie, the other is described as a shirt when both are actually hoodies. 

IMO ONLY!  Could the confusion that caused the switch of information been correct in the first place?  Didn't two or three witnesses describe light or white clothing?

There was a release of stuff a while back that showed pictures of the lighter colored Nike brand shirt (supposedly a sweatshirt, and complete with Swoosh that The Hoodie does not have) that was worn underneath "The Hoodie", and I don't remember seeing any sort of hood attached to it, and since there's a bullet hole in it, it's not Zimmerman's.

There probably wasn't enough time to get to Brandy's and change the wet dark hoodie for a dry lighter gray one and still get back up to the "T" silently enough to surprise Zimmerman, but the color discrepancy makes me wonder.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #85 on: May 23, 2013, 10:01:15 PM »
There probably wasn't enough time to get to Brandy's and change the wet dark hoodie for a dry lighter gray one and still get back up to the "T" silently enough to surprise Zimmerman, but the color discrepancy makes me wonder.

I think there was time for that, but I doubt Martin would transfer button, candy, and beverage to the new garment.

ETA: I think that should be 'candy, button, and beverage', for the alliteration.

Not quite as catchy as 'bell, book, and candle'.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 10:06:15 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #86 on: May 23, 2013, 11:33:51 PM »
I think there was time for that, but I doubt Martin would transfer button, candy, and beverage to the new garment.

ETA: I think that should be 'candy, button, and beverage', for the alliteration.

Not quite as catchy as 'bell, book, and candle'.

Here is a link to the original photos...
Link to pictures

DISCLAIMER: I didn't go to the website so I have no idea what it is about.  I didn't remember the lighter gray sweat as having a hood attached either.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #87 on: May 23, 2013, 11:50:22 PM »
DISCLAIMER: I didn't go to the website so I have no idea what it is about. 

I truncated the address and found a NSFW picture of Jennifer Aniston.

ME-8 has no hood.

ME-12 looks very dark.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #88 on: May 24, 2013, 03:26:50 AM »
There's a document in the discovery that explains the early reports were wrong and switched them.  ME#8 is the gray  sweatshirt and ME#12 is the dark blue hooded sweatshirt. One is Nike and one is Fruit of the Loom. I only remember because it was obvious the early reports had them backwards and it bothered me at the time, so I was glad to see the state acknowledge the error.

I wrote back in May, 2012:

Quote
Trayvon Martin was wearing a dark gray hooded Fruit of the Loom sweatshirt with a light gray Nike sweatshirt (or lighter gray shirt with long sleeves) underneath. All the police reports refer to the hoodie as ME-8 and the lighter shirt as ME-12. (Here's a similar reference in Chris Serino's report.) But, the DNA and gun residue reports label the hoodie as ME-12 and the lighter shirt as ME-8. So it's not clear which results came from the hoodie and which from the lighter gray shirt or whether any of the testing can be considered reliable.

And brought it up again here.

The acknowledgement of the mistake is on page 6 of the 262 page discovery release.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 03:29:13 AM by TalkLeft »

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #89 on: May 24, 2013, 09:21:18 AM »
There's a document in the discovery that explains the early reports were wrong and switched them.  ME#8 is the gray  sweatshirt and ME#12 is the dark blue hooded sweatshirt. One is Nike and one is Fruit of the Loom. I only remember because it was obvious the early reports had them backwards and it bothered me at the time, so I was glad to see the state acknowledge the error.

I wrote back in May, 2012:

And brought it up again here.

The acknowledgement of the mistake is on page 6 of the 262 page discovery release.

In the just released photo the light grey sweatshirt has a hood.  In the original, there is no hood.  Surely they wouldn't have washed or bleached it out.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking