Author Topic: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13  (Read 8798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« on: June 21, 2013, 08:12:12 AM »
Apparently nobody here decided to blog live.  I was listening and remember:
  • Judge will release her Frey decision later today in writing.  I deduced it will be today since she said she doesn't have a fax machine at home.
  • There are 220 witnesses listed to testify.  ???
  • The states "case" is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and they have evidence to support that.  :o
  • A prosecution witness, a professor at a community college, will be deposed by the prosecution and defense and that deposition will be played for the jury.  Professor will be unavailable during the trial.
Please feel free to add or correct.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 08:15:01 AM by RickyJim »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2013, 08:17:15 AM »
We started new threads simultaneously. I'll re-post here, and Jeralyn can delete the other one. (I tried to delete, but it seems the software won't let us do that for the only post in a thread.)

Judge Nelson adjourned around 9:30 or 9:40.

Mantei agreed that Zimmerman was appointed captain of the NW, and was out of the car when the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow, and said he didn't intend to say otherwise.

Nelson accepted the assurance, and ruled the prosecution could not claim 'racial profiling', but were free to claim profiling of any other kind. She denied defense motion as to the other inflammatory terms.

I didn't hear any mention of Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Spectators From Wearing Items That Depict Support. Has there been a ruling on that, which I missed? I thought the state might stipulate to it, but I haven't heard that either.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2013, 08:49:07 AM »
Apparently nobody here decided to blog live.  I was listening and remember:
  • Judge will release her Frey decision later today in writing.  I deduced it will be today since she said she doesn't have a fax machine at home.
  • There are 220 witnesses listed to testify.  ???
  • The states "case" is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and they have evidence to support that.  :o
  • A prosecution witness, a professor at a community college, will be deposed by the prosecution and defense and that deposition will be played for the jury.  Professor will be unavailable during the trial.
Please feel free to add or correct.

On the "no fax machine," West suggested that the parties could be apprised of the opinion via e-mail or fax.  She never claimed she didn't have e-mail.

As to the "perpetuated testimony" of Zimmerman's professor, the deposition and the trial testimony are separate items.  Nelson said the defense could depose him, then do its research, then (later the same day), conduct what amounts to trial testimony.  Trial testimony is started by the state (state's witness), cross exam by the defense.  The deposition is reverse of that, direct exam of state's witness by the defense.

She refused to relax authentication of contents of Martin's phone, until a specific piece of evidence is proffered during the trial.

I agree with your contention that she plans to issue her Frye ruling today.  Her remark that "it would have to wait until Monday" was her describing the consequences of having to hold a hearing this afternoon on the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule against admissibility.

Edit to add: I listened and audio recorded the session.  I didn't start a live remark thread, preferring to wait to see where the discussion starts, and then adding to it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 08:51:41 AM by cboldt »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2013, 08:56:43 AM »
The states "case" is that Zimmerman confronted Martin

That's not much of a case, since 'confronting' is not an element of murder in the second degree.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2013, 09:03:54 AM »
That's not much of a case, since 'confronting' is not an element of murder in the second degree.

Maybe another way to look at Nelson's remark is that if the state doesn't produce evidence that Zimmerman confronted, then the state doesn't have a case.  Not that confronting is an element, but if there is no Zimmerman-initiated confrontation, then there is no murder.

I don't think that conclusion is technically correct, as Zimmerman can murder even if he doesn't do the confronting.  My take on the remark was just that it was a window into how Nelson perceives the state's narrative, for whatever that is worth.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 09:10:45 AM »
Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?  Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.  Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday.  ;)

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 09:25:24 AM »
Nelson was just repeating what Guy had said about the state's case to justify them using "confronted" in their opening statement.  Can anyone dig up the exact quote?  Apparently they now have more evidence of confronting than Dale Gilbreath knew about when he testified the bond hearing.  Well, enough to keep us guessing until Monday.  ;)

I think it's this 'letter'. They say they didn't know about it until it came up at W-8's deposition, and it is further corroboration that Martin spoke to Zimmerman after Zimmerman got close to  him. I think it's called 'confronting from behind'.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 09:33:28 AM »
There is nothing about confronting in the self defense instruction that Nelson has read twice already to the jury.  Is the confronting just part of the Murder2 case?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 10:29:35 AM »
Fans of Nelson/West should have the popcorn ready when they watch the video. He was on her last nerve today. She was closer to losing it than I've ever seen.

She seems frazzled over pulling everything together in time for trial. Her own fault for denying a continuance.

I think she's anxious about the Frye ruling. Whatever she has decided, I think she's expecting criticism, and wants to make sure her own arguments are solid.

West had prepared some kind of summary of the Frye evidence that he thought would be helpful. When Nelson said she had what she needed, and no time for new reading material, he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2013, 10:34:10 AM »
I take her performance as meaning, "Cut it out, I am not letting Owen and Reich in so stop pestering me with this stuff and let me write my decision".  Well we should find out soon.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2013, 11:23:28 AM »
If I knew nothing else of judge Nelson prior to this exchange on the expert witnesses, I might buy that she was just trying to cut him off because she's already decided to rule in his favor.  Taken in the context of actions within the past year, I have little confidence that this is the case. 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2013, 12:11:16 PM »
I think the community college professor is the first clear indication I have seen that the prosecution intends to make an issue of Zimmerman's character or predisposition.

I think he would be available in the first few days of the trial, if the prosecution wanted to use him then. That is from the dates I heard, and some of Nelson's remarks. But they want to use his testimony when it fits in their presentation.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2013, 12:27:38 PM »
Zimmerman wasn't present at the hearing, Nelson having agreed his attendance was unnecessary. The WFTV talking heads said that neither Martin's nor Zimmerman's parents were there. I briefly saw someone I thought might be Robert Jr., but I could easily have been wrong.

Mantei raised a couple of logistical matters, which he called 'housekeeping'.

The defense and prosecution had gotten together and agreed on a list of evidence that both thought to be admissible. They had asked the clerk for tags to label them, and she had declined for reasons not clear. Nelson asked the clerk what she needed, and she said just an order from the judge, which was granted.

In passing, I learned that the agreed on items would be labeled with numbers, while items whose admissibility was still in dispute would be labeled with letters.

Mantei wanted to seat the jury in two rows of five. The defense did not object, and Nelson so ordered.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2013, 01:50:55 PM »
I think the community college professor is the first clear indication I have seen that the prosecution intends to make an issue of Zimmerman's character or predisposition.

I think he would be available in the first few days of the trial, if the prosecution wanted to use him then. That is from the dates I heard, and some of Nelson's remarks. But they want to use his testimony when it fits in their presentation.

If that's the purpose of his testimony, I expect the defense will argue vigorously to exclude it. As discussed in Rogers v. State, 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1987):

Quote
Extrinsic evidence of reputation is properly admitted when both the witness and the object of the testimony are members of the same general community of neighbors and associates. Reputation testimony is also permissible when members of that community are demonstrably unavailable if the trial court finds that the witness has sufficient knowledge to give a reliable assessment based on more than mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor.

Assuming the professor's contacts with GZ are through his teaching profession, he's not a member of the "same general community of neighbors and associates." The state clearly won't be able to establish that "members of that community are demonstrably unavailable," given that Zimmerman lived in a stable community and his neighbors and associates were interviewed by the police and FBI. I would be surprised if someone whose relationship with Zimmerman was as a professor could offer more than "mere personal opinion, fleeting encounters, or rumor."
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 01:54:16 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Short Morning Session - 6/21/13
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2013, 02:34:03 PM »
If that's the purpose of his testimony, I expect the defense will argue vigorously to exclude it.

What else might he testify to?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking