George Zimmerman Trial Coverage > Evidence

GZ's Prior Calls to Police

(1/7) > >>

TalkLeft:
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.

cboldt:

--- Quote from: TalkLeft 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.

--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---


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?"

Redbrow:
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.

jjr495:
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?

cboldt:

--- Quote from: jjr495 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?

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version