TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Witnesses => Topic started by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 01:53:55 PM

Title: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 01:53:55 PM
3:51 PM

Tracy sworn.

O'Mara on direct.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 01:54:32 PM
Why in the world...?


But hey, good call NM. I think your entire week's prediction has happened today.  :)
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: leftwig on July 08, 2013, 01:55:48 PM
Doesn't make sense to me either unless they have something I am unaware of. 
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 01:56:43 PM
Doesn't make sense to me either unless they have something I am unaware of.

"Did you ever tell your attorney..."

They did depo Crump yesterday didn't they? I wonder....
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: redstripe on July 08, 2013, 01:57:04 PM
O'Mara asking about his response to whether he recognized TM's voice on the tape

Tracy Martin hedges his answer slightly, says he doesn't remember the question as being 'is this your son', says the questions was more along the lines of 'do you recognize the voice' says he didn't give an unequivocal answer describes his response as moving back in his chair and shaking his head more in an emotional fashion.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 01:57:20 PM
Tracy: He answered Serino 'I can't tell', or words to that effect. He didn't know Singleton was there, didn't see her in the room. He did not ask to hear the call again. He never heard anything about a 'cleaned up' version of the tape. He never told anyone he listened to a 'cleaned up' version. He has no knowledge of an 'enhanced' version.

ETA: He also said something to the effect that every time he heard the call, as far as he knew it was the same version of the recording.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: redstripe on July 08, 2013, 01:58:50 PM
Martin says that it took him listening to it about 20 times to recognize his sons voice.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 01:59:19 PM
Tracy denies saying the voice was not Trayvon.  He says that he said something like "No, I don't know."

He says he did not see Singleton in the room.  Did you ever tell anybody you listened to a cleaned up version?  No.  Or an enhanced version?  Did you ever tell Sybrina Fulton that you had listened to the recording at Serino's desk?  No.  No particular reason, lots going on.

He was at the mayor's office playing. Did not tell anybody what was going to be played, because everybody knew they were there to listen to the recordings.  After listening to the recording about 20 times, he said he thought it was Trayvon's voice.  Did not listen to it between Serino's office and the listening at the mayor's office.

Cross exam by Bernardo.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 02:00:44 PM
Martin says that it took him listening to it about 20 times to recognize his sons voice.

He talked himself into it. I hope the jury heard that clearly.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: leftwig on July 08, 2013, 02:02:10 PM
"Did you ever tell your attorney..."

They did depo Crump yesterday didn't they? I wonder....

After thinking about it, maybe they put him on to see if would mention TM's character.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
Tracy comes off a fairly direct.  Not hesitant, tries to answer the questions.  Not fidgeting, not disrespectful, no rolling eyes or anything like that.

Bernardo getting into timing other than listening to the voice recording.  When did he first get a report of Trayvon's death, etc.  Also mentally replaying the learning details, which is an emotional event - showed you pictures of your son's body on the ground.  Objection by O'Mara.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 02:04:08 PM
Of course, they'd never lose money betting that Bernie was going to open some sort of door for them.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: redstripe on July 08, 2013, 02:04:37 PM
He talked himself into it. I hope the jury heard that clearly.

Yeah it definitely sounded that way.  It's pretty clear that there wasn't a visceral moment of recognition.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:06:41 PM
Doesn't make sense to me either unless they have something I am unaware of.

Maybe a small gamble.  If Tracy admits that he said "no" to the voice being Trayvon, then the defense has a solid reason that the state didn't call Tracy.  If he doesn't admit to saying "no," add him to the scale with Sybrina on voice, and whatever emotional heartstrings Bernardo can pull with Tracy on the stand.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:08:15 PM
Of course, they'd never lose money betting that Bernie was going to open some sort of door for them.

It's a risk free activity for the prosecution.  The judge is there to close the door behind them.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: redstripe on July 08, 2013, 02:09:07 PM
Bernie asks if he wanted to keep playing it over and over to bring himself comfort in hearing TM's voice again

O'mara objects
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 02:10:17 PM
Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 2m
Defense likely called Tracy to prevent State calling him in rebuttal, thereby keeping argument that State cherry picked voice evidence.


Not sure I understand what she's saying.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 02:12:43 PM
asks if tracy ever instructed crump to say the police lied etc.

sounds like they got something when they deposed crump yesterday and they're going after him in this.

Or I'm being frivolous again.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:12:59 PM
O'Mara asks if Tracy believes the police lied.  Objection.  One witness can't speak as to the truthfulness of another.

Did you ever instruct Ben Crump to say the police lied about you saying the voice wasn't Trayvon? No.
Did you ever instruct Ben crump about the tape being cleaned up? No.

Well, that was direct enough.  I like that much better than beating around the bush.

Witness excused.  Next witness is ex Chief SPD, Bill Lee.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 02:13:24 PM
Tracy: He listened to the Lauer 911 call so many times because he hope to learn 'why did the defendant get out of his vehicle and chase my son?'

O'Mara on redirect.

Tracy excuse, 4:11 PM.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:16:25 PM
sounds like they got something when they deposed crump yesterday and they're going after him in this.

Just bring Crump in to testify as to who said/instructed what (on "police lied" and "cleaned up tape"), and credibility of the prosecution witnesses will devolve to finger pointing over who originated those lines.

IOW, I don't think this is as much going after Crump, per se, as it is going after the credibility of Tracy v. the police on Tracy's story, today.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: redstripe on July 08, 2013, 02:16:34 PM
Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 2m
Defense likely called Tracy to prevent State calling him in rebuttal, thereby keeping argument that State cherry picked voice evidence.


Not sure I understand what she's saying.

I think she's saying that the defense was trying to get out ahead of any use of Tracy Martin's testimony to assert that it was Travyon Martin on the 911 tape.  I guess they would be less likely to call him at this point in rebuttal to the assertion that it was GZ on the 911 call because they would be retreading over old ground and Tracy's credibility to that effect is already weakened, but I can't really see it making a difference as Tracy would have faced the same questions from the defense anyway.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2013, 02:19:43 PM
Just bring Crump in to testify as to who said/instructed what (on "police lied" and "cleaned up tape"), and credibility of the prosecution witnesses will devolve to finger pointing over who originated those lines.

IOW, I don't think this is as much going after Crump, per se, as it is going after the credibility of Tracy v. the police on Tracy's story, today.

FWIW both Tennis and Hornsby are on (or very near) the Calling Crump Bus.

I think you're more right. But I haven't done really well calling the game today.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 2m
Defense likely called Tracy to prevent State calling him in rebuttal, thereby keeping argument that State cherry picked voice evidence.

Not sure I understand what she's saying.

If the state called Tracy during state's rebuttal, then the defense couldn't argue that the state didn't call Tracy as a scream ID witness.  By the defense calling Tracy, the defense CAN argue that the state avoided calling Tracy as a scream ID witness.  Not that the defense will, at this point, just a question of keeping that option open.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 04:09:46 PM
From what Nelson and Bernie said after the jury was excused, it seems Nelson might have stricken the testimonies of Serino and Singleton if the defense didn't call Tracy.

That makes sense. Tracy's testimony turns that of the other two retroactively into impeachment. Without, it's hearsay.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 04:10:40 PM
I thought Erwin was supposed to be the other impeachment witness. I wonder what happened with him.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 04:18:26 PM
That makes sense. Tracy's testimony turns that of the other two retroactively into impeachment. Without, it's hearsay.

It's not hearsay as to what Tracy said.  He said what he said.  It would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of Tracy's statement.

If the question is "What did Tracy say?" then Serino and Singleton are not hearsay witnesses, they are direct witnesses of what Tracy said.

The state's first objection was to the defense question (edit to add) asked of Singleton, "What did Tracy say to Serino?"  I think it's not a well founded objection, but the judge granted it.  So, the defense asked the question of Serino, "What did Tracy say to you?"  then recalled Singleton.  I think it was a silly maneuver - if the question to Singleton elicited hearsay the first time, it did the second time, too.  The fact that Serino testified wouldn't change that - and neither would having Tracy testify directly.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 08, 2013, 04:59:14 PM
If the question is "What did Tracy say?" then Serino and Singleton are not hearsay witnesses, they are direct witnesses of what Tracy said.

I think that's essentially my point. I don't think the question becomes 'What did Tracy say?' until Tracy denies saying it. Am I wrong?

ETA: I should say, until he denies saying it, or says something else that is impeached by his saying it.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 05:24:21 PM
I think that's essentially my point. I don't think the question becomes 'What did Tracy say?' until Tracy denies saying it. Am I wrong?

ETA: I should say, until he denies saying it, or says something else that is impeached by his saying it.

No.  The character of the question stands from the start.  It's not hearsay unless offered as proof for the contents.  But you are on to something, I think.  The question "What did Tracy say" isn't relevant in a vacuum.

It's not impeachment that makes Singleton's and Serino's answers relevant.  That's easy to see, imagine if Tracy had agreed with their testimony.  Then all three would corroborate what Tracy said (which is different from an inquiry as to the truth of what Tracy said).

I think what was going on was a bit of horsetrading.  It's difficult for most people to understand the hearsay distinction I'm describing, and, in context, it is highly improbable that a jury would not take Serino and Singleton's observations as Tracy offering "not my son" for the truth of "not my son."

So, the state argues that offering it for "what he said" and offering it for  "the truth of what he said" can't be distinguished in this case, so it's inadmissible.  Or some other smokescreen argument, doesn't really matter what the argument is.

What the state got was some contradictory evidence, so at least the jury is faced with a conflict over "what he said", which also creates evidentiary conflict over "the truth of what he said."  Who you gonna believe, the police or Tracy?  Who you gonna believe, Tracy, Sybrina and Jahavaris; or Zimmerman's friends and mother?  IOW, instead of being faced with evidence that Tracy said "not my son," the state got Tracy on the stand to say the cops misinterpreted his remark.  Basically, there are competing and contradictory pieces of direct evidence on exactly the same fact - "What did Tracy say?"

In the grand scheme of things (outside expressing truth in a courtroom), it's probably a good thing to give Tracy an opportunity to clearly join Sybrina in the scream ID issue.  I don't think having him on one side or the other makes a difference in the outcome of the case, all the action visible to the jury makes his testimony equivocal, even though he gets to express conviction that the police got him wrong, and as far as he is concerned, that's Trayvon screaming.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2013, 06:03:33 PM


What the state got was some contradictory evidence, so at least the jury is faced with a conflict over "what he said", which also creates evidentiary conflict over "the truth of what he said."  Who you gonna believe, the police or Tracy?  Who you gonna believe, Tracy, Sybrina and Jahavaris; or Zimmerman's friends and mother?  IOW, instead of being faced with evidence that Tracy said "not my son," the state got Tracy on the stand to say the cops misinterpreted his remark.  Basically, there are competing and contradictory pieces of direct evidence on exactly the same fact - "What did Tracy say?"

In the grand scheme of things (outside expressing truth in a courtroom), it's probably a good thing to give Tracy an opportunity to clearly join Sybrina in the scream ID issue.  I don't think having him on one side or the other makes a difference in the outcome of the case, all the action visible to the jury makes his testimony equivocal, even though he gets to express conviction that the police got him wrong, and as far as he is concerned, that's Trayvon screaming.

Supporting Martin as the screamer:
1        Mother
3/4     Brother
1/4     Father

Supporting Zimmerman as the screamer:
1        Mother
1        Uncle
4        Various co workers an close acquaintances
1        Bonus for trauma medic
1/4     TMs Brother
3/4     TM's Father
1/4     Bonus for  BDLR not asking RJ's opinion

This jury is not math challenged. If it is established that GZ is the screamer all self defense arguments are nearly irrefutable


Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2013, 06:07:44 PM
Here his son (presumably) scream for help and get shot, over and over again?


IMO Bernie is a contemptuous twerp . I wonder how the jury is warming to him. If I had been en-paneled the first juror to be exit  would have been dismissed  for shooting paper wads at him.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: teresainpa on July 08, 2013, 06:21:00 PM

IMO Bernie is a contemptuous twerp . I wonder how the jury is warming to him. If I had been en-paneled the first juror to be exit  would have been dismissed  for shooting paper wads at him.
Hitting the bald dude with spit balls?  I can see that  8)
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: ding7777 on July 08, 2013, 06:32:12 PM
If there is conflicting testimony re the screams, is the jury told to resolve it in favor of the defendant or are they told to come to their own conclusion?
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: MJW on July 08, 2013, 06:33:00 PM
I wonder if there are limitations on the voice ID witnesses the state can put on in rebuttal. I can see why they might be allowed to attempt to "even out" the score of voice witnesses, but it doesn't seem like it's, strictly speaking, rebuttal evidence.  The issue was not first brought up in the defense case. The state presented Sybrina in their direct case almost exclusively to say it was TM screaming. They could have put on additional witnesses, had they chosen to do so. Presenting more voice ID witnesses is really a continuation of their direct case.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: cboldt on July 08, 2013, 06:44:11 PM
If there is conflicting testimony re the screams, is the jury told to resolve it in favor of the defendant or are they told to come to their own conclusion?

Somewhere in here is a "close enough for now" version of the instructions given to the jury.  Essentially, the jury is charged with coming to its own conclusion.  It is empowered to weigh the evidence (which accounts for witness credibility, as well as how important any given piece of evidence is), and it is told which way to lean when it is uncertain.

If the jury is uncertain about the scream, and the case turns on the scream, it (is supposed to) find defendant not guilty.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2013, 06:48:36 PM
T
I wonder if there are limitations on the voice ID witnesses the state can put on in rebuttal. I can see why they might be allowed to attempt to "even out" the score of voice witnesses, but it doesn't seem like it's, strictly speaking, rebuttal evidence.  The issue was not first brought up in the defense case. The state presented Sybrina in their direct case almost exclusively to say it was TM screaming. They could have put on additional witnesses, had they chosen to do so. Presenting more voice ID witnesses is really a continuation of their direct case.

I don't think its an accident that the state  declined to present additional favorable voice witnesses during their presentation. How could they do so without opening the door to  TM's serious behavioral issues on rebuttal?
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 09, 2013, 01:21:12 AM
How could they do so without opening the door to  TM's serious behavioral issues on rebuttal?

Would you want to unpack this? I don't understand what you have in mind.
Title: Re: Tracy Martin, 7/8/13
Post by: TalkLeft on July 09, 2013, 01:40:04 AM
Here is the video (http://youtu.be/f9RnHIe0i2g) of Crump saying the police lied about what Tracy said, that he told them he couldn't tell because the tape was distorted, and now that he'd had a chance to listen to cleaned up versions he could ID the voice. Only there were no cleaned up versions. O'Mara filed a motion to get them and BDLR told the court there weren't any.  In another appearance, Crump played up the difference to Tracy having been able to listen on a computer at the mayor's office, as opposed to on Serino's dinky player.

I remember a video in which Tracy talked about why he didn't ID the voice but I haven't been able to find it today. I'll keep looking.