Author Topic: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13  (Read 8597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2013, 03:22:30 PM »
This is a good end of the day for the defense.  I think the state and defense will work out any issues with "the animation" in a mutually agreeable form.

Yea. The animation must have been fairly inflammatory for O'Mara to concede the changes. I want to see it, damnit.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2013, 03:23:17 PM »
I haven't read either case--I was reacting based only on what JDN said.

Arias is more factually similar, so I'll focus on it. The key section is:

Quote
Turning now to the present case, the defendant took the stand and testified that the victim was behaving erratically, threatened to kill him, and appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of cocaine. Assuming that the defendant again takes the stand and so testifies at retrial, the toxicology findings will then be admissible "to confirm the defendant's perception that the victim was, in fact, intoxicated."

So the court says Arias's testimony that he observed that the victim was drunk is a prerequisite to allowing in the victim's .21 blood alcohol level. I think the fact the victim was quite drunk is relevant no matter whether Arias knew it or not.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2013, 03:28:02 PM »
Before the break, O'Mara said they had made so many changes in the animation, trying to satisfy state's objections, it was hardly an animation any more.

One of the prosecutors said they still had objections. I was typing, didn't see if it was Guy or Mantei.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2013, 03:30:20 PM »
Yea. The animation must have been fairly inflammatory for O'Mara to concede the changes. I want to see it, damnit.

You can pretty well guess the contents by reading Mantei's supplemental motion.  I don't think it was particularly inflammatory as it was speculative, or it presented Zimmerman's account (which is in evidence) which the state claims is speculation even though it's not.

I think O'Mara is just whittling it down to speed up the trial.  Substantial parts of it need not be present to "make the case," so he can whittle it down without concern.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2013, 03:30:46 PM »
If Tracy Martin is subject to recall, why is he still sitting in court?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2013, 03:32:07 PM »
5:31 PM

Mantei arguing objections to animation.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #66 on: July 08, 2013, 03:36:37 PM »
Nelson said they would recess until defense witness arrives and and state has talked with him. Guy raised an evidentiary 'housekeeping' matter.

Recess, 5:35 PM

Defense witness is Schumacher (sp?).

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #67 on: July 08, 2013, 03:36:57 PM »
Rene Stutzman ‏@renestutzman 14m
OMG Angela Corey is wearing a toe ring. In court.
Second toe, right foot.



 :o I just thought y'all needed to know.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2013, 03:37:43 PM »
If Tracy Martin is subject to recall, why is he still sitting in court?

He's been there all along.  LOL.  Family of the victim is not subject to sequestration rules, even if they are witnesses.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2013, 03:38:25 PM »
Nelson said they would recess until defense witness arrives and and state has talked with him. Guy raised an evidentiary 'housekeeping' matter.

Recess, 5:35 PM

Defense witness is Schumacher (sp?).

Changing out the handwritten state's timeline for a freshly printed version that doesn't look like an intern made it with a sharpie. Cuz...an intern did actually make it with a sharpie.

Offline Meni

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2013, 03:38:31 PM »
Rene Stutzman ‏@renestutzman 14m
OMG Angela Corey is wearing a toe ring. In court.
Second toe, right foot.



 :o I just thought y'all needed to know.

Thanks Rene.
Critical details up to the minute...lol.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2013, 03:38:59 PM »
He's been there all along.  LOL.  Family of the victim is not subject to sequestration rules, even if they are witnesses.

Thanks for reminding me of that, I'd forgotten (obviously).

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2013, 03:39:44 PM »
Thanks Rene.
Critical details up to the minute...lol.

Is that the friendship toe or the engagement toe?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2013, 03:41:22 PM »
So Root gets to testify just not as an expert and there are 3 things he can't say.

He'll be the second time the defense gets to put on a "law of self defense" class for the jury.  The first was Zimmerman professor who testified in person, the JAG officer.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Week 3, Monday, 7/8/13
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2013, 03:45:50 PM »
West mentioned it. I didn't catch his name but apparently they have their own tox expert that will talk about how impaired TM may have been. Since it will be his opinion and the state can rebut she's letting it in.

It wasn't clear to me if West was referring to only one or to two experts.  One of them he cited as a state toxicologist.  Another point I noticed, during West's opening on the subject.  West said the issue before the court is the single tox report that shows active THC plus metabolite.  That is all that is at issue at this time.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking