Author Topic: State motions from 10 May  (Read 17868 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 #90 on: May 24, 2013, 03:02:29 PM »
The defense responds to the state's motion in limine regarding character evidence about Martin.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 03:08:46 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #91 on: May 24, 2013, 03:08:20 PM »
The most provocative revelation in the response is that the Feb. 26 text messages between W8 and TM show they were hostile and angry toward each other at various points throughout the day. Perhaps that explains W8's feelings of guilt. The response doesn't mention it, but it also seems like the text messages are possibly relevant as impeachment, since she gave no indication of anything like that in the interviews.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #92 on: May 24, 2013, 03:16:55 PM »
The most provocative revelation in the response is that the Feb. 26 text messages between W8 and TM show they were hostile and angry toward each other at various points throughout the day. Perhaps that explains W8's feelings of guilt. The response doesn't mention it, but it also seems like the text messages are possibly relevant as impeachment, since she gave no indication of anything like that in the interviews.

You picked up the same hot bullet point that struck me.

The response also touches on Martin having been suspended from school, and being under suspension when he was shot; pot use (which I don't think swings much weight); experienced fighter; the screen name that "if taken literally would reflect an attitude toward life without self-imposed limits"; text messages prior to Feb 26 including efforts to purchase an illegal firearm; usefulness of much of this evidence to impeach testimony of others.

Looking forward to Bernardo's replies to the responses.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #93 on: May 24, 2013, 03:28:11 PM »
The most provocative revelation in the response is that the Feb. 26 text messages between W8 and TM show they were hostile and angry toward each other at various points throughout the day. Perhaps that explains W8's feelings of guilt. The response doesn't mention it, but it also seems like the text messages are possibly relevant as impeachment, since she gave no indication of anything like that in the interviews.

BTW, I found a case that touches on the threshhold for reputation evidence.  Simon v. State, 4D08-2903 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2010)

"(R)eputation evidence 'must be based on discussions among a broad group of people so that it accurately reflects the person's character, rather than the biased opinions or comments of . . . a narrow segment of the community. ...

On cross-examination however, the (character reputation) witness acknowledged that her basis of knowledge as to the victimís reputation was one brief meeting with the victim, and a remote conversation with the victimís ex-girlfriend. In fact, up until the time of trial, the witness did not know the victimís real name.

We agree with the trial court that the witnessís knowledge of the victimís reputation for violence derived from too narrow a segment of the community to be sufficiently reliable.


I mention this because W8 may be sufficient, on her own, to provide reputation evidence.  She's known him for quite awhile, and presumably knows how other people view Martin's reputation.

Edit to repair open hyperlink tag and format mangling cause by square braces
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 03:30:53 PM by cboldt »

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #94 on: May 24, 2013, 06:02:50 PM »
My biggest fear RE: Nelson is that she needs so much time to make a legal decision.  What is going to happen when the trial starts?  When the Defense objects will she still think that it is a reversible error to be corrected after the trial?  It boggles my mind that she is willing until after a trial to make decisions when a man's future is at stake.  If GZ is acquitted, then it is "no harm no foul."  If he isn't, well, he can gather more cash to fight an appeal?

I just want an even playing field.  Just my layperson's opinion.  You all run circles around me but you helped me learn.  I appreciate that.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #95 on: May 24, 2013, 06:33:09 PM »
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.

Plus the light colored garment, which didn't have a hood that I noticed in the previously released pictures, did have the Nike Swoosh logo on the left front, not to mention blood around the bullet hole.


Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2013, 06:53:42 PM »
So the current understanding is that TM wore two gray sweatshirt like garments, the one on top having a hoodie and turns dark blue-black in 711 light?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2013, 07:00:13 PM »
So the current understanding is that TM wore two gray sweatshirt like garments, the one on top having a hoodie and turns dark blue-black in 711 light?

It has a hood.

It is a hoodie.

Except for that, bingo.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2013, 07:56:10 PM »
Next week I expect BDLR to file a new motion: State's Motion Requesting Court to Order Defendant to Comply with Their Discovery Obligations but Not Quite That Much.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2013, 08:09:25 PM »
Next week I expect BDLR to file a new motion: State's Motion Requesting Court to Order Defendant to Comply with Their Discovery Obligations but Not Quite That Much.

Heheheh.

He's got a tough hand, but I think he likes doing what he does.  "Whatever it takes."

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #100 on: July 03, 2013, 06:31:09 PM »
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.

I'd assumed this was mostly about Serino because one line says, "where neither party calls a witness, neither party is permitted to comment on the witness's nonappearance -- even where the witness is the lead detective in the case." Perhaps the state was just stressing how broad the prohibition is; perhaps they were still undecided about calling Serino; or perhaps they were purposely attempting to mislead the defense. In any case, I now suspect the motion was mostly about Tracy Martin.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #101 on: July 04, 2013, 01:27:25 AM »
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.

I now suspect the motion was mostly about Tracy Martin.

Why wouldn't the defense want to call Tracy?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #102 on: July 04, 2013, 02:28:26 AM »
Why wouldn't the defense want to call Tracy?

I think calling Tracy would be quite dangerous, since he would undoubtedly claim it was Trayvon screaming, and his original statements were misinterpreted or misrepresented. I believe there's also a significant legal problem: A party may not call a witness for the purpose of impeaching the witness with an otherwise-inadmissible prior statement.

Bleich v. State, 108 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013):

Quote
Section 90.608(1), Florida Statutes (2010), provides that a party may impeach a witness by introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness's present testimony. However, "if a party knowingly calls a witness for the primary purpose of introducing a prior statement which otherwise would be inadmissible, impeachment should ordinarily be excluded."

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: State motions from 10 May
« Reply #103 on: July 04, 2013, 06:37:00 AM »
So they say they were calling him expecting that he'd repeat what he'd already said and were shocked-SHOCKED!--when he suddenly changed his story.

Then it's up to JDN, and that's when it becomes a goat screw.

So basically I agree with MJW, the defense stays far away from Tracy unless they have something we aren't aware of.


But: could O'Mara, in his closing, mention that Tracy said it wasn't TM's voice?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking