Author Topic: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13  (Read 12175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« on: July 03, 2013, 07:02:21 AM »
8:59 AM

I forgot they were starting early today. They're still arguing about the evidence on GZ's background, and presumably have been for the last half hour. Mantei is addressing the court at length.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2013, 07:05:46 AM »
Mantei alluded to some testimony by Osterman, suggesting that some of GZ's actions were motivated by interpretations of things said by the NEN dispatcher, Sean Noffke.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2013, 07:06:44 AM »
Mantei alluded to some testimony by Osterman, suggesting that some of GZ's actions were motivated by interpretations of things said by the NEN dispatcher, Sean Noffke.

He had to have Osterman tell him that? Good God GZ's told them that from the beginning.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2013, 07:07:01 AM »
Nelson said the allusion to GZ's credit history in the rejection of his police academy application will have to be redacted.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2013, 07:07:36 AM »
He had to have Osterman tell him that? Good God GZ's told them that from the beginning.

GZ hasn't testified.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2013, 07:10:40 AM »
O'Mara up. He asked Nelson for more time to look at case law. She said he had already had all night, and she told him to be ready today.

O'Mara said he needed time because the prosecution just handed him a bunch of cases.

Nelson is not sympathetic.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2013, 07:11:09 AM »
GZ hasn't testified.

Thanks Einstein.

Did you think it possible I wasn't aware of that?

I'm referring, obviously, to every statement GZ gave them, all of which are on tape and have at this point been played to the jury (pretty sure all tapes have been played now anyway).
As well as witness testimony to what GZ said.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2013, 07:12:00 AM »
8:59 AM

I forgot they were starting early today. They're still arguing about the evidence on GZ's background, and presumably have been for the last half hour. Mantei is addressing the court at length.

O'Mara tried to argue that if this aspect of Zimmerman's past comes in, it opens the door for similar review of Martin's background.  That's not true - each issue of relevance and admissibility stands on it's own as to the initial proponent.

O'Mara argued each piece was not relevant.  For the police application, he argued that the summary report needs to be authenticated by the application itself and somebody who processed it.

Right now, Nelson is suggesting certain (credit history) redactions in the police application, so it's clear she is going to allow the police application/rejection to come into evidence.

I think the relevancy argument falls flat because the state isn't articulating any proposition that the evidence goes to support.

O'Mara asks for time to review the cites that Mantei raised.  Nelson says you had all night to find cites for your side.  O'Mara asks for a two hour continuance so he can address distinguishing characteristics in this case from the cites.  Nelson says "with all due respect, we started this yesterday, you said you needed overnight, we recessed early yesterday, I will listen to any cases you have to support your position, but she is not continuing this matter."

O'Mara says it is a 404.2 (character evidence by prior acts).  That the state is trying to take coursework, cop ride along, police application and convert them into some sort of state of mind.  All of the state's cites are 404.2 cases.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2013, 07:14:10 AM »
O'Mara said the state wants to say the acts they allege aren't bad in themselves so they don't have to meet the burden for admitting 'prior bad acts', but they will suggest to the jury that the acts are 'subtle, seething bad acts'.

ETA: O'Mara says the state is portraying GZ as a 'seething cop wannabe'.

I love these colorful terms.

And O'Mara loves 'seething'.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 07:16:51 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2013, 07:15:34 AM »

O'Mara says it is a 404.2 (character evidence by prior acts).  That the state is trying to take coursework, cop ride along, police application and convert them into some sort of state of mind.  All of the state's cites are 404.2 cases.

I wonder at what point the State of Florida might regret this tack, the next time a police officer is involved in one of those non straight forward shootings and the attorney for the family uses this sort of thing to demonstrate to a jury that obviously the officer in question was a bloodthirsty yahoo.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2013, 07:20:39 AM »
O'Mara argues that the state needs to proffer a theory (or, I say, a proposition) in order to provide foundation to a finding a relevance.  The dots need to be connected between the past action and the crime being tried.

The theory is he wanted to be a cop, that, on it's own, is not enough to make it relevant.  If the state wants to argue that Zimmerman is a seething cop wannabe, then it should be charged with proffering that (theory), then producing evidence to connect those dots.

Mantei doesn't address that argument, says that the defense should not be surprised about the state desire to introduce this, as it filed a motion in limine to preclude "wannabe cop" from being said.  (I don't think the defense objects to the term, it objects to it coming in without some proposition and connecting of the dots freom the evidence to the proposition)

Nelson rules that the testimony bears directly on an issue in this case.  Objections are overruled.  The evidence comes in.

O'Mara wants to keep in the bad credit remark on the police rejection.  Given a Hobbson's choice, he'd rather have that come in for the reason.  Nelson says she's inclined to leave the word "credit" in so the jury can speculate on the meaning of that.  Resolution is to strike the entire page of the summary.

Ten minute recess.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2013, 07:29:43 AM »
I wonder at what point the State of Florida might regret this tack, the next time a police officer is involved in one of those non straight forward shootings and the attorney for the family uses this sort of thing to demonstrate to a jury that obviously the officer in question was a bloodthirsty yahoo.

Piece of cake.  Each case stands on its own.  When the judge thinks 404.2 is beneficial to the desired outcome, it just rules the other way.

Rules, statutes, case law, etc. are not applied uniformly.  It's one of the dirty little secrets of law.  The important thing is that the public thinks the system is rules based.  Show the rules, say you follow them.  So few people look to see if that is in fact true, and an elaborate and opaque charade obfuscates the reality, that the belief in uniformity and fairness  persists.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2013, 07:30:03 AM »
Nelson says she's inclined to leave the word "credit" in so the jury can speculate on the meaning of that.

Did you mean 'not inclined'?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2013, 07:32:28 AM »
Did you mean 'not inclined'?

She said she wanted to take out "bad" and they could speculate that perhaps the PD couldn't get his credit history or some other reason, but she said she wanted credit in.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2013, 07:33:08 AM »
Piece of cake.  Each case stands on its own.  When the judge thinks 404.2 is beneficial to the desired outcome, it just rules the other way.

Rules, statutes, case law, etc. are not applied uniformly.  It's one of the dirty little secrets of law.  The important thing is that the public thinks the system is rules based.  Show the rules, say you follow them.  So few people look to see if that is in fact true, and an elaborate and opaque charade obfuscates the reality, that the belief in uniformity and fairness  persists.

So every time they bleat about case law and precedent, they're blowing smoke?

And btw, you appear more cynical than I.

Congratulations.  ;D

 

Site Meter
click
tracking