Expectations for Week Two

[TalkLeft]

What are you expecting for week two of the trial?
Who else will the state call?
Which witnesses on their list do you think they will avoid calling?
Will the state's theory of the case change at all?
Do you have any suggestions for the defense?

[spectator]

I'm hoping the defense will eventually explain to the jury that the attack happening just west of the "T" is not a coincidence, and what a big piece of the puzzle it is.
 As i see it, someone looking to ambush would wait to see if George would turn south and come to them.
It supports George heading back to his truck, and Martin realizing it was all over but attacked anyway.

[DebFrmHell]

I would eat a bug to hear Chris Serino's take on this.  I would think that he would be the prized cookie in the jar for the State.   Can he explain why he thought GZ was lying to him or is that speculation?  Isn't this the way the State is going to get in all of the 5 (?) statements from Zimmerman? 


I took off Monday.   

[nomatter_nevermind]

I would eat a bug to hear Chris Serino's take on this.  I would think that he would be the prized cookie in the jar for the State.   Can he explain why he thought GZ was lying to him or is that speculation?

In the capias, Serino implied that Zimmerman was lying about being afraid of Martin because (let's all say it together) he got out of the truck. Is there some place that Serino said or implied that Zimmerman was lying without an explanation?

For me, the mystery is how anyone familiar with Zimmerman's statements and the evidence would not think Zimmerman was lying. 

Isn't this the way the State is going to get in all of the 5 (?) statements from Zimmerman?

I have no idea what this is about. What do you think is the barrier to admission of those statements, and what would Serino have to do with overcoming it?

[Jujube]

I guess I'm a little confused on this.  How are they going to enter any statement from Zimmerman?  Can someone explain that?  Does the defense have to do this?  Or can they leave all the versions out and just go with impeaching all of the prosecutions witnesses? 

[MJW]

I guess I'm a little confused on this.  How are they going to enter any statement from Zimmerman?  Can someone explain that?  Does the defense have to do this?  Or can they leave all the versions out and just go with impeaching all of the prosecutions witnesses?

The state can use almost any of Zimmerman's statements. The defense can't directly use them, except for a few exceptions, such as GZ's NEN call and the "res gestae" statements made just after the shooting. However, if the state uses part of statement, the defense, under the doctrine of completeness, can use the rest of the statement.  I can't say for certain what "the rest of the statement" encompasses, but in most Florida cases I've read, if part of a police interview is used by the state, the defendant has been allowed to use the entire interview.

[RickyJim]

Letting the jury listen to the prior NEN calls without context or commentary did nothing for the prosecution.  Letting them listen to the entirety of the police interviews won't do anything either, especially the ones of poor audio quality.  I suppose one effective tactic would be after the entirety is played,  questioning Singleton, Serino, Smith and whomever else was there about their thoughts on various snippets.  By the way, the defense showed huge technical incompetence throughout the first week at finding and reading sections of transcripts, showing pictures, and playing sections of tapes.  I think the prosecution was better prepared.  The reason we all know the evidence so well is that we teach each other by cutting and pasting quotes and linking to youtube videos in which we specify the time of the portion we wish to reference.  The poor jury doesn't have as good an educational experience.

[MJW]

By the way, the defense showed huge technical incompetence throughout the first week at finding and reading sections of transcripts, showing pictures, and playing sections of tapes.  I think the prosecution was better prepared.

I'd expect the prosecution to better prepared than the defense in the state's direct case. Most of the time, they plan to use the particular evidence in advance, so they have it ready. The defense has to respond on the fly to the state's case.

[annoyedbeyond]

  I think the prosecution was better prepared. 

Well yeah. They knew who they were going to call and what they were going to ask them. No matter how well prepared the defense could be, they're still in the business of reacting to the prosecution.

[Jujube]

The state can use almost any of Zimmerman's statements. The defense can't directly use them, except for a few exceptions, such as GZ's NEN call and the "res gestae" statements made just after the shooting. However, if the state uses part of statement, the defense, under the doctrine of completeness, can use the rest of the statement.  I can't say for certain what "the rest of the statement" encompasses, but in most Florida cases I've read, if part of a police interview is used by the state, the defendant has been allowed to use the entire interview.

Are the "res gestae" statements those things like the taped interview with Singleton?  The taped walk-through? 

When you talk about statements that fall outside of that, would that be things like the Hannity interview? 

[Jujube]

Letting the jury listen to the prior NEN calls without context or commentary did nothing for the prosecution.  Letting them listen to the entirety of the police interviews won't do anything either, especially the ones of poor audio quality. 

I think the prosecution is getting all the pieces that don't matter much to their case out of the way.  I went back and listened to Guy's opening statement and I believe most of these witness statements are superfluous to their case 

[RickyJim]

What is the best thing the State can do to improve their chances?  Bribe as many bloggers as they can to insist that Zimmerman has to take the stand.   

[redstripe]

I think the prosecution is getting all the pieces that don't matter much to their case out of the way.  I went back and listened to Guy's opening statement and I believe most of these witness statements are superfluous to their case

It was a very long line up of mostly superfluous witnesses; one would think that they'd throw some more essential ones in into the mix for good measure.  I have to disagree with you about Guy's opening statement; I think the majority of the witnesses who can speak the most to Guy's main arguments have already been called.

Argument 1, Motive: GZ was enraged because he was a wannabe cop who was frustrated at the "punks" who were always getting away.

Guy relied almost entirely on GZ's statements to the NEN operator.  Well, they played the NEN recording and IMO none of GZ's statements seemed to indicate a depraved mind, not even close.  When he took the stand, the NEN operator seemed to confirm this and said he wasn't really concerned at all by GZ's words or tone.

Argument 2, GZ profiled, stalked and confronted TM.

RJ was by far the best witness they had as far as backing up this assertion.  Regardless of how anyone feels about how much her testimony helped the state, she was their star witness as far as the theory of GZ as the pursuer/instigator goes.  All of the other witnesses either failed to actually look out the window or go outside in time to catch the fight or they managed to see a brief portion of the fight and were either favorable to GZ like JL or JG or what they saw was more or less neutral or unhelpful.

Argument 3, GZ lied to police

This is the only argument that the state hasn't called their strongest witnesses for yet and while they can definitely undermine GZ's credibility, that really isn't enough to carry the burden for the state as other witnesses, notably JG, corroborate a good deal of GZ's account  (at least more-so than any of the witnesses corroborate the state's account of what transpired that night).

[nomatter_nevermind]

Are the "res gestae" statements those things like the taped interview with Singleton?  The taped walk-through?

No, the res gestae in this case would be the statements Zimmerman made to Manalo (W-13), and the ones he made to Ofc. Smith as they walked to his car.

When I first encountered the term, I looked it up. The first reference I found suggested that it's just a fancy term for the Spontaneous Statement exception to hearsay exclusion (section (1) of Fla. Stat. § 90.803).

I eventually came to understand that this isn't quite accurate. Res gestae is a special case of Spontaneous Statement, when the statements are made shortly after the main event, the crime or alleged crime.

On the first day of trial, West moved for the court to rule on which statements qualified as res gestae,  because he wanted to include them in his opening statement. Guy's opening statement was delayed while the issue was heard. Nelson eventually ruled in favor of the defense on all of the statements they wanted to use.

It was live-blogged, starting here and continuing onto the next page.
 

[MJW]

Res gestae is a special case of Spontaneous Statement, when the statements are made shortly after the main event, the crime or alleged crime.

Res gestae is covered by three closely-related hearsay exceptions: spontaneous statement, excited utterance, and then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.