Author Topic: May 28 Court Hearing  (Read 16900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2013, 03:53:15 PM »
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2013, 04:07:25 PM »

De la Rionda commented on spousal privilege in the hearing (37:45-38:03).

Quote
She has information germane to this case, in that she was present when the defendant made statements, not just to her, there's no husband/wife privilege. He made statements to other people where she was present and overheard it. And she is also germane to what happened right after the shooting itself.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2013, 08:27:31 PM »
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.

Not to mention blithely assuming that they would be in no danger once a verdict is delivered, regardless of what the verdict is.

You can't get them to tell the difference between calling a seven digit number and calling 911, or to tell the SYG part of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act from the immunity part, but when it comes to invading the privacy of the jurors, they're all intrepid journalists defending the public's right to be informed.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #93 on: May 31, 2013, 06:41:12 AM »
De la Rionda commented on spousal privilege in the hearing (37:45-38:03).

Yes he did. And were I the judge I believe I'd make him put those other people on the stand, since whatever she might have "overheard" seems a little shaky.

I mean really--what would be his reason for wanting to hear it from her rather than the people GZ was actually talking to at the time?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #94 on: May 31, 2013, 09:59:46 AM »
I mean really--what would be his reason for wanting to hear it from her rather than the people GZ was actually talking to at the time?

He didn't say the others wouldn't be called. He might want Shellie to corroborate them, or impeach them if they testify for the defense.

There's also a possibility that any witness might unexpectedly become unavailable, as for medical reasons.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 10:08:59 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2013, 10:58:36 AM »
He didn't say the others wouldn't be called. He might want Shellie to corroborate them, or impeach them if they testify for the defense.

There's also a possibility that any witness might unexpectedly become unavailable, as for medical reasons.

That's fine. Please don't respond to me any longer. I find you obnoxious and officious. Whenever you post I find myself struggling with wanting to say something Jeralyn won't like. Best we don't interact. Thank you.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #96 on: May 31, 2013, 11:10:10 AM »
Please don't respond to me any longer.

I don't respond to you. I comment on what you say. If you don't like it, don't post.

I'm not interested in you.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #97 on: May 31, 2013, 11:16:01 AM »
Whenever you post I find myself struggling with wanting to say something Jeralyn won't like.

The forum has a twitlist feature.  It can really help.  You can always peek at a hidden post to see if it interests you.

Profile
Forum Profile
Modify Profile (this is on the left sidebar)
Buddy/Ignore lists

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #98 on: May 31, 2013, 02:38:06 PM »
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.

That's not true of the brief itself. It's true of the quoted citation (p. 3), represented as the 'factors most commonly considered' for juror anonymity.

I think that reflects the case law. O'Mara suggested as much in his comments on the federal case law (3/28/13 hearing, 1:20:48). He said that it was mostly organized crime and 'high level' drug cases.

The last paragraph of the brief (p. 4) addresses the other concern.

Quote
In fact, and has been previously noted by the Court, the passion that this case has stirred in the community has been expressed in peaceful, non-violent ways.

I recall some press reports about assaults and robberies, in which the perpetrators allegedly said 'This is for Trayvon', or something similar. If there are police reports to go with some of those stories, there may be evidence to dispute the contention, 'previously noted' or not.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 02:40:08 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #99 on: May 31, 2013, 02:47:48 PM »
You can't get them to tell the difference between calling a seven digit number and calling 911, or to tell the SYG part of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act from the immunity part, but when it comes to invading the privacy of the jurors, they're all intrepid journalists defending the public's right to be informed.

Good one.

Now that I think of it, it seems odd that our system is more protective of the privacy of the voting booth than the jury box.

Offline SuzieTampa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #100 on: May 31, 2013, 05:43:23 PM »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #101 on: May 31, 2013, 06:09:09 PM »
There was the vandalism by students in Miami.

Thanks. I had forgotten that.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #102 on: May 31, 2013, 07:59:22 PM »
Good one.

Now that I think of it, it seems odd that our system is more protective of the privacy of the voting booth than the jury box.

But if you keep the public from knowing who was on a jury, how can they be sure that "the fix" wasn't in?

Which creates a tension between justice being seen to be done and not making jury duty either downright dangerous or at least destructive of privacy in high profile, high emotion cases, and I guess the balance has to be struck on a one case at a time basis.

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #103 on: June 02, 2013, 08:03:13 AM »
I think he said there is evidence Martin made such a recording. I didn't catch if he said in what form the recording was made or if he had it. I think Martin most likely would have used his phone to record.

I hope they can identify the two, and subpoena them to testify about Martin's reputation.

Serino's remark about Martin making video of 'everything he does' seems a bit ironic now.

This video of TM recording on his phone of "his buddies beating up a homeless man" - as was stated by O'Mara at the hearing has been elusive.  No one seems to be able to find anything on it.

At least until last night.  I have found out what the video is of, as per Rene Stutzman.

I'd like to discuss it, but not sure if this would be the thread.

Could you advise where I would best place this information?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #104 on: June 02, 2013, 08:46:02 AM »
You could start a new thread under Evidence Discussion.  However I'd  wait a while until more is known.  The fact that the article was pulled shows that Rene may have found out that what she originally said may have to be modified.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking