Author Topic: GZ's Prior Calls to Police  (Read 7824 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« on: June 24, 2013, 03:19:36 PM »
Head of Seminole County Communications. I've read depositions she gave in a civil wrongful death case. She knows her stuff, been there a long time. She knows all the event codes, dispatch codes and acronyms, etc for the event reports.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2013, 04:01:01 PM »
Head of Seminole County Communications. I've read depositions she gave in a civil wrongful death case. She knows her stuff, been there a long time. She knows all the event codes, dispatch codes and acronyms, etc for the event reports.

Custodian of records, and she seems to know the ins and outs very well.

The issue that O'Mara raised is the relevance of Zimmerman's past calls to NEN, in the current action.  Mantei is arguing the evidence is admissible as a "then-existing state of mind" hearsay exception.

(a) A statement of the declarantas then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

1. Prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.


It seems to me that Mantei is "assuming" a certain state of mind based on Zimmerman's tone of voice, or something along those lines, and that because Zimmerman made more than one call, Mantei is entitled to impute more frustration than is apparent in the 2/26 NEN call "these a$$holes always get away" remark.

Seems an intellectually dishonest leap to me.  Just because somebody is a busybody (not saying Zimmerman is, other neighbors may have outranked him in call frequency) does not provide evidence they have a depraved mind, or even that that are (God forbid) frustrated.

Unless Mantei can better explain how he makes the connection between earlier unrelated calls and Zimmerman's state of mind on 2/26, I don't see how these calls are admissible.  To me, the calls are just sterile reports, much as me reading the paper to you over the phone (although I might be frustrated with the news).  What is the state of mind, other than informative, and "me and my neighbors want the burglaries to stop?"

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2013, 04:27:40 PM »
The real challenge for the prosecution and judge is to find a plausible reason why George's past is admissible in a way that does not also open up the door to Martin's past. They have all night to come up with something since once again Nelson has shown her bias in allowing the prosecution all the time in the world when they need it.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2013, 05:04:06 PM »
Why did O'Mara not object to this evidence being entered when asked by judge? He had specifically objected to it being entered at the beginning. Apparently only 1-163 and 184 were agreed upon. Hasn't OMara marked the others with specific objections? The evidence has already come in, can it now be excluded?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2013, 05:55:40 PM »
Why did O'Mara not object to this evidence being entered when asked by judge? He had specifically objected to it being entered at the beginning. Apparently only 1-163 and 184 were agreed upon. Hasn't OMara marked the others with specific objections? The evidence has already come in, can it now be excluded?

Yes, it can be excluded.  The judge will order the jury to disregard it.  As for what they already heard, it's not possible to unring the bell, but the state had a collection of calls, not just one, and it also had some sort of suggestion in mind that I can't quite figure out or understand.

O'Mara should have objected sooner, even a motion in limine if he had a clue the state was planning to introduce these.  I think his excuse is that the parties agreed to mark certain things as an expedience, and his belief or understanding was that objections would be made and admissibility would be ruled on as the pieces were offered to the jury.  IOW, he did not take agreement to mark as agreement to not object.

Whatever the mistake, at least Nelson is allowing the objection to be asserted.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2013, 05:59:53 PM »
Why did O'Mara not object to this evidence being entered when asked by judge? He had specifically objected to it being entered at the beginning. Apparently only 1-163 and 184 were agreed upon. Hasn't OMara marked the others with specific objections? The evidence has already come in, can it now be excluded?

O'Mara thought the question was about "mechanical" admissibility, not relevance. The recordings are admissible as business records, so he didn't object. I'm sure he'll be more careful next time.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 06:01:29 PM by MJW »

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2013, 06:12:22 PM »
Thanks for two excellent answers.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2013, 07:59:50 PM »
Mantei is arguing the evidence is admissible as a "then-existing state of mind" hearsay exception.
Nelson read the state of mind exception but Mantei mentioned the business exception
Quote
(6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY.—
(a) A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.
This exception does seem to fit.  So if the State is over the hearsay hurdle, does the defense argue relevance and/or inadmissible as character evidence?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2013, 08:16:07 PM »
Had to leave before O'Mara did the Noffke cross.  As far as the previous NEN calls there was a very thorough discussion of them on this forum in February.  Transcripts and audio links are there.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2013, 08:59:48 PM »
Had to leave before O'Mara did the Noffke cross.  As far as the previous NEN calls there was a very thorough discussion of them on this forum in February.  Transcripts and audio links are there.
Just re-read the transcripts and discussion. I think Mantei is only introducing two of the calls (171 and 174). He already introduced the first one in the transcripts. So I guess 174 is the fourth call involving two black males in an Impala.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2013, 11:48:26 PM »
Nelson read the state of mind exception but Mantei mentioned the business exception.

There was quite a bit of confusion in that discussion, caused by Mantei's claim that the previous calls were relevant to show GZ's state of mind on Feb. 26.

Quote
This exception does seem to fit.  So if the State is over the hearsay hurdle, does the defense argue relevance and/or inadmissible as character evidence?

That's what O'Mara was arguing -- that the state is trying to introduce specific-act evidence to show bad character. I think O'Mara should be careful to point out that this is worse than bad-act evidence: it's faux bad-act evidence by innuendo. There's no basis for claiming GZ was doing anything wrong, but the prosecution is suggesting he acted out of racism.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2013, 12:00:35 AM »
If I were O'Mara, I'd argue that unless the state can prove GZ's suspicions were unfounded, the calls are clearly not relevant.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2013, 05:53:28 AM »
My guess as to why the state wants to get in the records of the previous NEN calls is to contrast his restrained, cautious behavior on them with the 2/26/12 call.  Their argument might be that he was frustrated that the a******s always got away in the previous cases so he was trying something new on the 26th.   Look, they will try anything, but they can't get over the fact that only Rachel has GZ running after and catching TM in the two mystery minutes.  IIRC, Guy didn't even mention W-2 yesterday.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2013, 06:58:09 AM »
Mantei's arguments as to relevance of Zimmerman's calls can be used to justify the relevance of Martin's past remarks.  The difference is that as to Zimmerman, state of mind is an element of 2nd degree murder.  The state is arguing a build-up of frustration.  Defendant in the case he cites, Biegelow, was offered by defendant as an element of self-defense.  He also argues that the calls are part of a series of steps leading to the Feb 26 shooting.

The past calls go to profiling, that Zimmerman did something more on 2/26.  "Real suspicious guy" and "prior breakins" - state wants to probe that (without getting to the basis for suspicion and without getting to the rate of breakins).  Imapct of these prior events on the state of mind of Zimmerman.  Somehow these past calls show a Zimmerman motive.  Building level of frustration, these people always get away.  I suppose this all leads to getting out of the truck is an element of crime.

Purchased gun just to shoot the neighbor's dog.  Yep, that's what Mantei said.

Admissible as a business record (which still doesn't get to the relevance, otherwise all the business records come in).

Claims that Zimmerman actually sought out Martin, and the past calls support this theory.  Defendant created the calls, shouldn't be allowed to complain about it.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: GZ's Prior Calls to Police
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2013, 07:04:38 AM »
O'Mara is now repeating my theory of what the prosecution is trying to do, I think.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking