TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Court Matters => Topic started by: TalkLeft on May 28, 2013, 01:23:44 AM

Title: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: TalkLeft on May 28, 2013, 01:23:44 AM
The pre-trial hearing gets underway at 9:00 a.m. ET.  As of now, none of the usual news sites that stream the hearings live have any links up or even mentions of live-streaming. If you find a link that broadcasts without commentary, let us know.

Here's a thead to discuss the proceedings.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 06:18:48 AM
RickyJim (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2410.msg110001.html#msg110001) advised yesterday that WESH.com (http://www.wesh.com/) plans to cover it.

At the moment I don't see confirmation at the site.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 06:27:21 AM
RickyJim (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2410.msg110001.html#msg110001) advised yesterday that WESH.com (http://www.wesh.com/) plans to cover it.

At the moment I don't see confirmation at the site.

I've used clickorlando in the past.  See too, WPTV Live Video (http://www.wptv.com/generic/news/national/George-Zimmerman-trial-complete-coverage)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 06:42:44 AM
RickyJim (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2410.msg110001.html#msg110001) advised yesterday that WESH.com (http://www.wesh.com/) plans to cover it.

At the moment I don't see confirmation at the site.
WESH already has their video up and working.  Mark O'Mara is already there.

http://livewire.wesh.com/Event/Defense_to_ask_for_delay_in_George_Zimmerman_trial
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 06:43:09 AM
Both of these links seem to be up and ready to go now:
1. Click Orlando (http://www.clickorlando.com/watch-live-george-zimmerman-case/-/1637238/19907450/-/127j9xk/-/index.html?showAds=0)
2. WESH.com (http://livewire.wesh.com/Event/Defense_to_ask_for_delay_in_George_Zimmerman_trial)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:05:02 AM
First motion under consideration is the deposition of Shellie.

Bernardo argues she is listed as a defense witness, O'Mara affirmatively says she is not a defense witness.

Nelson grants the motion.  Shellie can plead the fifth on question by question basis, those questions will be certified to the court for ruling on a question by question basis.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:11:49 AM
Nelson grants the state motion that O'Mara can't mention the penalty for 2nd degree murder.  She also grants the motion that the defense can't mention absence of felonies by Zimmerman, unless the state opens the door.

Next motion has to do with whether or not the defense can mention that the state did not call certain witnesses.  O'Mara makes note of the case law that allows him to remark in closing, provided he calls the witness.  Motion is granted (not much of an issue here, the case law is clear).

Next motion is the voice stress testing.  O'Mara concedes that this is not initially admissible by the defense.  But if Zimmerman's credibility becomes an issue, then he (O'Mara) thinks it should be admitted.  Motion granted, pending reversal at trail.  Neither party may mention these points in opening argument.

Next one is the self-serving hearsay by defendant.  Nelson says "Isn't this the kind of thing that is identified by objection at trial?"  West reminds the court that there are exceptions to hearsay.  Nelson grants the motion as to opening statements, and will consider objections as they are raised during the trial.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 07:22:49 AM
Did J Nelson limit the marijuana evidence to his prior use?  Or all of it?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 07:24:08 AM
Did I hear O'Mara just say he has a tape, made by Trayvon, of two buddies of his beating up a homeless person?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 07:24:36 AM
Did I hear O'Mara just say he has a tape, made by Trayvon, of two buddies of his beating up a homeless person?

Yes. Yes he did.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 07:28:56 AM
Is it just me or does Nelson seem very uninformed about the matters she's ruling on?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:32:10 AM
Next up is state's motion re: Trayvon Martin.   Each evidentiary point will be addressed separately.  First, Martin suspensions from school.  O'Mara argues that it's off limits in opening, unless the state offers in opening that Martin is in Sanford for a monastic retreat (yes he said that), then O'Mara could counter the state's contention.  Nelson grants the state's motion re: school suspension records, and will not be mentioned at all without prior ruling from the court.

Marijuana use: O'Mara says this is particularly relevant for the defense.  There is lots of evidence that the marijuana use was a factor in the events.  THC could have affected Martin's judgment; Zimmerman's suspicion is justified by Martin looking as though he was on drugs.  Marijuana use is intertwined with the events the evening of 2/26/12.  He argues that precluding introduction of the evidence would be inappropriate.  State says this motion is just on prior use, not use on 2/26.  Nelson grants state's motion that previous use of marijuana will not be admitted.

Past acts - fighting.  State argues that specific acts of violence are not admissible because Zimmerman did not know the specific acts.  O'Mara counters that reputation evidence is admissible.  He also notes that Martin's own admissions (which Nelson suggests may not be able to be authenticated) show that he knows to punch in the nose, and to pin an opponent to the ground.  O'Mara mentions a tape made by Martin that shows two buddies of Martin beating up a homeless guy.  O'Mara tells the court that his intention to call this into evidence depends on how the state proceeds.

Clickorlando stream cut out on me.  I missed Nelson's order.

Next up is screen names used by Martin.  State says that the screen name would only be used to disparage Martin, and that it is hearsay.  O'Mara says it's appropriate to limit him in opening, but it may become relevant according to how the state presents Martin.  Nelson grants as to opening statements.  She reiterates her inclination to deny admission based on authentication, hearsay.

Next up is gold grills.  O'Mara has no objection.  Nelson says it is not relevant.  She grants the state's motion, it won;t be mentioned during trial.

Nelson blows by the school records issue, saying it was addressed previously.  O'Mara says no, that only suspensions were addressed.  Seems this is on the evidence of theft.  O'Mara argues that the school record of theft; Nelson says that nobody may discuss evidence of fighting.

Next is contents of text messages received by Martin before 2/26.  O'Mara says the theory of the case is that Martin started in.  So, the desire to buy guns, the familiarity with fighting, the drugs.  Nelson says the rules of evidence operate to preclude presentation of evidence of self defense.  Nelson grants the motion as to opening statements, and none of these will come up in the presence of the jury, unless the court rules otherwise during the trial.

I think she made the same ruling as to text messages received/sent on 2/26.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:34:33 AM
Is it just me or does Nelson seem very uninformed about the matters she's ruling on?

I think she is informed, and she has no problem with cutting off defense ability to enter evidence that supports its theory.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 07:36:07 AM
I think she is informed, and she has no problem with cutting off defense ability to enter evidence that supports its theory.

MOM just mentioned she's not well informed--he said she's even said it.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:36:53 AM
Nelson granted the state motion to preclude introduction of opinion testimony.  This goes to the opinions of law enforcement and others that the case is politically motivated, and is not supported by the evidence.  Nelson grants the state motion and apprises the public that she thinks this evidence will never be found admissible.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:39:59 AM
MOM just mentioned she's not well informed--he said she's even said it.

I think that is just an introduction to saying something in open court.  Nelson says she doesn't see how it (evidence she is aware of) is possibly relevant or admissible under the rules of evidence; O'Mara opens his argument by describing the evidence, then moving on to argue how he would use it in defense.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
Next up is admissibility of toxicology.  Nelson grants the motion as far as opening statements, and will reserve ruling on admissibility during the trial.  She reserves allowing it until she hears from an expert witness as to the timing of ingestion and level of impairment consistent with the toxicology report.

Clickorlando dumps me again.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: AghastInFL on May 28, 2013, 07:47:04 AM
I have had a good complete no loss feed HERE (http://livewire.wesh.com/Event/Defense_to_ask_for_delay_in_George_Zimmerman_trial)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on May 28, 2013, 07:50:28 AM
Yes. Yes he did.


Where did it come from?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 07:51:48 AM

Where did it come from?

Thin air I guess. Must have been one of the redacted things.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
Next up is anonymous jury.  O'Mara's concern is that the jury will be at risk due to community pressures, and will not be willing to acquit.  O'Mara says Zimmerman is entitled to an anonymous jury so he will get a fair trial.  O'Mara says that a convicting jury might be at similar risk (I call baloney).

O'Mara brings up sequestration, and he is asking for the venire to be housed at state expense, 500 people!  I didn't expect that, but may as well ask for more, and see what the court grants.  O'Mara says this is about a fair trial, and if the public perceives this as an important civil rights case that is not decided fairly, the consequences redound to the court.

Bernardo on anonymous jury.  He doesn't know how to sequester 500 people through jury selection.  As to anonymity, he is not sure what the defense is asking for - is it asking for media exclusion?  Media counsel argues that voir dire is an open process, and the media can't be excluded.  Outer limits of Fl law allows the clerk to withhold names of prospective jurors from the public.  He knows of no Fl precedent for anonymous jury.  Another press counsel notes that Fl law does not allow juror secrecy, although it does allow for delayed release, see Anthony trial.

Nelson says that voir dire will proceed on juror number, not name.  No photos or moving pictures of prospective jurors.  No sequestration of the venire.  The press wants the right to photo jurors outside the courtroom.  O'Mara is concerned that limiting the prohibition to courtroom only will not.

Next up, visit the scene.  Nelson jabs at O'Mara, "isn't this a little disingenuous, given your motion for juror anonymity?"

Clickorlando dumps me during O'Mara's argument as to the value of going to the scene.  I'm going to switch to a different stream.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 08:13:59 AM
So Owen has become an A witness.  Apparently this is the first official notice of that.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: TalkLeft on May 28, 2013, 08:14:40 AM
please stay on topic of today's hearing. Comments about other legal systems deleted.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:23:03 AM
Switched to WESH, missed whatever was between my last post and West's motion for fees to expert.  At Nelson's suggestion that the fee has to cover travel, West would accommodate travel, either by going to NJ, or by doing deposition by video.

I think this motion wasn't well brought.  Nelson says the defense ought to talk with Owen about getting a reduced rate for less than a day.  Nelson doesn't know what the usual range of fees is in NJ.  She says the defense should make a $3,300 deposit, and then be reimbursed for hours not used.  She won't set an hourly rate.  There is no authority, says Nelson, that the court has any duty to establish a rate for a private litigant.

Press back up on juror anonymity.  Citing case law setting standard - has to be a finding that the effect of publicly on the juror must be qualitatively different on the person's being photographed.  Nelson says she is going to reserve ruling.  O'Mara wants to know if the court is ready to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the qualitative effect standard.  She sets a hearing for this Friday at 1:30 so she has time to read the precedents.

Next up are the mutual discovery motions.  Richardson hearing time.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 08:25:07 AM
Bernie has some brass ones, complaining about the defense being less than timely with discovery.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 08:26:09 AM
West mentioned the price of several experts in NJ, all of whom had PhDs or other advanced certification Owen doesn't have.

Prices are around $100/hr.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:26:59 AM
State's motion first.  Looking for a court order.  Bernardo compliments the defense on its recent disclosures, but reiterates his remark about a map claimed to have been drawn by a witness.  Bernardo says either the witness lied, or is mistaken.

Nelson reminds the parties about the obligation of 3.220 to disclose.  Nelson grants the state's order for court ordered disclosure.  Next up is the defense motion for sanctions.  This is on the phone data.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 08:37:17 AM
Frye Hearing on June 6 and June 7.  Video witnesses are OK.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:38:03 AM
Ex state attorney testifying as a witness, that a client of his informed him that he (the client) had prepared a report for the state on the Cellbrite.  He contacted O'Mara and asked if O'Mara had received 3 photos, a gun, an underage female, and drugs, as well as deleted text messages.  O'Mara asks the witness when this report was given to the state, Bernardo objects as hearsay.  Nelson grants the objection.  Client is Ben Criboss, IT director for the state attorney's office.

Based on Bernardo's objections, O'Mara moves to suspend the hearing, and a court ordered subpoena to Criboss.  Nelson continues the hearing to Friday.

Bernardo has a conflict on Friday.  His daughter is getting married.  June 6 and 7 is set aside for the Frye hearing.  She wonders if that is a good time to continue on the defendants motion for sanctions.  She will sign a subpoena for Criboss.

Court will allow experts to appear via video, at the Frye hearing.

Motion for gag order is next.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:48:08 AM
Bernardo arguing for his gag order.  He stresses credibility of a witness has been discussed by defense.  He says that now there is an attempt to prejudice the jury.  O'Mara responds to the allegation that his team disclosed sequestration.  Nelson is pissed at West for telling the press that the jury would be sequestered, 1) because she didn't rule that and 2) she specifically said that nothing said in chambers was to be discussed outside.

O'Mara points out that the Gentile case comes after the authorities cited by the state, as to what attorneys are allowed to say/discuss outside of the court context.

Nelson denies motion for gag order.  She'll allow the state and the press to reply.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 08:58:44 AM
Next up, motion to continue.  O'Mara says this is an ongoing issue due to delayed discovery.  He says he will be requesting a judicial inquiry into other discovery violations.

The other justification for continuance, Reich, may be addressed depending on court ruling.  Reich's report won't be done for another two weeks.  Reich refused to turn over his report done for WaPo based on the report being the property of WaPo.  O'Mara says he is looking for a several week to couple month delay.  O'Mara says there may be undiscovered discovery violations.

Bernardo is also waiting for defense.  The state objects to a continuance.

Nelson reviews her October order, which had a deadline of March for expert disclosure.  She also refers to defense motion to extend discovery to April 10/17, and defense statement that this would not jeopardize trial date.

She denies motion to continue, it's a final decision, she allows O'Mara to put something on the record.  He says the defense did not say it would be ready.  He points out that the state's delivery of expert material was not timely.  He goes through a list of e-mails sent to the state, looking for background/foundation on the experts, which have still not been responded to.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 09:02:01 AM
I don't understand how she can force the Defense to move forward when they don't have reports generated originally by the State.  Cboldt can you give a layman's version?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Cylinder on May 28, 2013, 09:05:53 AM
So I guess Mr. Mantei is an expert expert, right?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 09:06:31 AM
O'Mara going through list of motions to confirm they have all been addressed.

State agrees all motions have been addressed.

Nelson says she will review suggested jury questionnaires.  June 6th from the parties is fine.  O'Mara asks if he can obtain Nelson's questions.  No.  She says O'Mara will see them at the same time the jurors do, June 10th.  Nelson says that jury questions are at court discretion, unless the parties have case law to the contrary.  She rejects the notion of a hearing to discuss the questionaire.

May 31st for juror anonimity / photography.
June 6/7 for Frye hearing and sanctions motion.

Court is in recess.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 09:10:30 AM
This after action stuff between MOM and Bernie is great.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 09:11:23 AM
I don't understand how she can force the Defense to move forward when they don't have reports generated originally by the State.  Cboldt can you give a layman's version?

She can do whatever she wants.  The ultimate test is O'Mara saying he wasn't ready, and she can go ahead anyway.  The appellate court will review the record and maybe revers Nelson.  Nelson's understanding is that the state has completed its disclosure obligations, and has done so "in a timely fashion," meaning it's all turned over, now.  If that understanding changes due to new facts coming in, she says she'll deal with it.

I think the dirty truth is that many trials are conducted with half-baked preparation.  Nelson's attitude appears to be that, save for clearly documented / authenticated withholding of evidence, is the issue of being unprepared is for the attorneys and appellate courts to sort out.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on May 28, 2013, 10:12:25 AM
Did I hear O'Mara just say he has a tape, made by Trayvon, of two buddies of his beating up a homeless person?
If this is true, not only is it incredibly ironic in light of the whole Justin Collinson thing, but FL passed legislation in 2010 making attacks like this hate crimes:

"The bill was triggered by a 2006 spree of attacks by three Broward teens who beat homeless men for sport. The teens beat one sleeping homeless man to death with a baseball bat.

One of the non-fatal beatings was captured on video tape and gained national attention."


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/homeless-hate-crime-bill-passes-florida-senate-des/nL6bz/


Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 10:23:02 AM
Seems this is on the evidence of theft.

You mean the jewelry? Evidence of theft from whom? Last I hear no one had reported any of those pieces to be stolen.

There seems to be a Miami Gardens police report (different jurisdiction from Miami Metro) whose subject has not been disclosed. Serino mentioned it in his report (36/184 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)).

Quote
O'Mara argues that the school record of theft;

I didn't hear O'Mara say anything about theft.

Quote
Nelson says that nobody may discuss evidence of fighting.

I was sure she said evidence of fighting would be admissible.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 10:27:53 AM
I thought she said that, too, Nelson had several things that could not be discussed in opening arguments. I missed a lot of the hearing though.  Plumbing issues.  He showed up at 8:10am!

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: who007 on May 28, 2013, 10:28:58 AM
...
I was sure she said evidence of fighting would be admissible.

Only after it passes legal hurdles, like hearsay and authentication.

Trayvon Martin Update: Judge blocks Zimmerman's defense from discussing Martin's alleged fighting, marijuana use

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. -- A Florida judge ruled Tuesday that George Zimmerman's defense may not bring up Trayvon Martin's past marijuana use, school suspensions or fighting at trial without another ruling granting them permission...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57586390-504083/trayvon-martin-update-judge-blocks-zimmermans-defense-from-discussing-martins-alleged-fighting-marijuana-use/
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 10:32:08 AM
Here (http://mayportmirror.jacksonville.com/news/premium-news/2012-12-07/story/top-nassau-county-prosecutor-resigns-blasts-state-attorney-angela) is what I could find about Wesley White who appeared briefly on the witness stand today.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: who007 on May 28, 2013, 10:32:54 AM
And from another source:

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, at a hearing on motions ahead of the trial, also ruled that lawyers can't mention Trayvon's school records, past fights, marijuana use, ownership of gold teeth, or any photos or text messages found on the teen's phone.

Nelson said she reserves the right to change the ruling during the trial if lawyers open the door to such issues. However, she said that she can't imagine that any of these issues would be relevant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/28/trayvon-martin-testimony-trial/2365367/
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Cylinder on May 28, 2013, 10:38:38 AM
You have to be very careful about filtering the court's words through the media. Very often seemingly small journalism practices (like lumping together a list for brevity) changes the meaning significantly. JMHO
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 10:39:52 AM
Did I hear O'Mara just say he has a tape, made by Trayvon, of two buddies of his beating up a homeless person?

I think he said there is evidence Martin made such a recording. I didn't catch if he said in what form the recording was made or if he had it. I think Martin most likely would have used his phone to record.

I hope they can identify the two, and subpoena them to testify about Martin's reputation.

Serino's remark about Martin making video of 'everything he does' seems a bit ironic now.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Only after it passes legal hurdles, like hearsay and authentication.

All evidence has to pass those hurdles. The point is that she ruled that fighting, as such, will be admissible as relevant.

That's different from other things, like suspensions and past drug use, which she ruled irrelevant.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 11:06:12 AM
State of the Internet has video of the hearing on YouTube. I haven't listened. I assume it includes his usual less than clever heckling.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: who007 on May 28, 2013, 11:12:39 AM
And the audio quality generally sucks.  Don't like his commentary, at all.

Looking forward to a better version.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 11:31:55 AM
Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, at a hearing on motions ahead of the trial, also ruled that lawyers can't mention Trayvon's school records, past fights, marijuana use, ownership of gold teeth, or any photos or text messages found on the teen's phone.

Nelson said she reserves the right to change the ruling during the trial if lawyers open the door to such issues. However, she said that she can't imagine that any of these issues would be relevant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/28/trayvon-martin-testimony-trial/2365367/

As I recall, the 'can't imagine' remark applied to just one type of evidence, not to the whole list and certainly not to fighting.

As to 'any photos or text messages', I didn't hear her say that.

I wish we had video.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 12:00:56 PM
Nelson says the rules of evidence operate to preclude presentation of evidence of self defense. 

I'm sure she said no such thing.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 12:25:13 PM
I'm sure she said no such thing.

O'Mara described the gist of the self defense argument as it pertains to Martin's conduct that night.  Evidence of impairment, evidence of knowing how to fight, evidence of character from school/police incident reports.  He was sort of lamenting the inability to put on a defense.  Nelson said that what stands in his way isn't her rulings, what stands in his way is the rules of evidence.

I'm sure I made a number of remarks or observations that are similarly false, when read literally.  Such is the case when composing on the fly.  Corrections always welcome.  Criticism without a substantive correction, not so much.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 12:50:06 PM
I'm sure I made a number of remarks or observations that are similarly false, when read literally.  Such is the case when composing on the fly. 

I know that's difficult. I appreciate your live-blogging. You do it much better than I do.

As to the remark in question, to me it comes across as a hyperbolic accusation against Nelson.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
As I recall, the 'can't imagine' remark applied to just one type of evidence, not to the whole list and certainly not to fighting.

As to 'any photos or text messages', I didn't hear her say that.

I wish we had video.

This is the link for Diwata.  He has the video up without commentary.  Hearing starts at the 34:10 mark.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/george-zimmerman-hearing-may-28-2013/#comment-13850

He may have some of the presser also.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 02:18:54 PM
I think he said there is evidence Martin made such a recording. I didn't catch if he said in what form the recording was made or if he had it. I think Martin most likely would have used his phone to record.

I hope they can identify the two, and subpoena them to testify about Martin's reputation.

Serino's remark about Martin making video of 'everything he does' seems a bit ironic now.
Listen starting around the 57 minute mark here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#!).
Quote
Presumably, however, you will keep your mind open when we present to you the videos of him at these fights, not just as a pure spectator but refereeing one and being involved in taping one where two buddies of his are beating up a homeless guy.
The Judge ruled that it won't be mentioned in opening statements but could come in provided the defense satisfies authentication and hearsay requirements.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on May 28, 2013, 02:49:20 PM
I think Shellie Zimmerman might be able to seek review by the DCA of the deposition decision. It seems to fall into the"cat out of the bag" category. In the end, I doubt if she'd prevail, but the delay might be advantageous.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 28, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
I think Shellie Zimmerman might be able to seek review by the DCA of the deposition decision. It seems to fall into the"cat out of the bag" category. In the end, I doubt if she'd prevail, but the delay might be advantageous.

Nelson had to implicitly find that Shellie is on the defense's witness list, after being told that she is not.  She did not tell de la Rionda to use his Chapter 27 power.  I'd appeal just on the technicality that the state has not filed paperwork under Chapter 27.  Either that, or Nelson has assumed the power to dictate the defense's witness list.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on May 28, 2013, 03:17:26 PM
Nelson had to implicitly find that Shellie is on the defense's witness list, after being told that she is not.  She did not tell de la Rionda to use his Chapter 27 power.  I'd appeal just on the technicality that the state has not filed paperwork under Chapter 27.  Either that, or Nelson has assumed the power to dictate the defense's witness list.

That's a point I hadn't considered. She could win on that issue.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 04:24:44 PM
Quote
Wesley White, a lawyer and former co-worker of de la Rionda, testified Tuesday that the office's information technology director had found three photos plus some deleted text messages from Trayvon's cell phone and given them to de la Rionda.

-One photo was of a hand holding a gun and one was of drugs, White said.

O'Mara said those had not been handed over.

White said Tuesday afternoon that the IT director, Ben Kruidbos, was placed on administrative leave "about five minutes after I got off the stand."

A spokeswoman for de la Rionda's office did not respond to a phone call or email seeking more information
From Rene's latest (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-stay-hearing-20130528,0,1951849.story?page=2).  Talking to your lawyer can get you fired.  ::)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: DebFrmHell on May 28, 2013, 04:26:15 PM
After this mornings hearing, is the State forcing Zimmerman to take the stand in his own defense?  Jeff Gold stated/implied that in a tweet this PM.  Said it compared to Jodi Arias.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 28, 2013, 04:44:14 PM
After this mornings hearing, is the State forcing Zimmerman to take the stand in his own defense?  Jeff Gold stated/implied that in a tweet this PM.  Said it compared to Jodi Arias.
Gibberish like most tweets are.  The state can't force him to take the stand to get in the screams, W#6's testimony, EMT injury testimony or even Trayvon's naughty text confessions.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on May 28, 2013, 04:58:07 PM
You mean the jewelry? Evidence of theft from whom? Last I hear no one had reported any of those pieces to be stolen.

There seems to be a Miami Gardens police report (different jurisdiction from Miami Metro) whose subject has not been disclosed. Serino mentioned it in his report (36/184 (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)).

I didn't hear O'Mara say anything about theft.

I was sure she said evidence of fighting would be admissible.

And of the Miami schools system's own police department is a separate jurisdiction from both Miami Gardens and Metro Dade.  And apparently it's not really big on sharing.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 28, 2013, 07:09:02 PM
Nelson had to implicitly find that Shellie is on the defense's witness list, after being told that she is not.  She did not tell de la Rionda to use his Chapter 27 power.  I'd appeal just on the technicality that the state has not filed paperwork under Chapter 27.  Either that, or Nelson has assumed the power to dictate the defense's witness list.

Technically though, wasn't she? I thought they said her name was on one of these big ol' blanket lists--the kind where MoM put every single person he might ever possibly have an interest in talking to.

True, she's not now on the list, but she was on the list.

Or...you know, something.


Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
And of the Miami schools system's own police department is a separate jurisdiction from both Miami Gardens and Metro Dade.

I couldn't remember if O'Mara's request was limited to information in school records. Listening to that part of the recording, I see that it was (1:03:00) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=01h03m00s).
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 10:32:01 PM
I thought they said her name was on one of these big ol' blanket lists--the kind where MoM put every single person he might ever possibly have an interest in talking to.

Jeralyn explained this on the blog. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/5/9/23052/03063/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-Seeks-Anonymous-Jury)

Quote
How is it possible that the defense says it did not list her and the state says it did? The state says it listed her as a potential witness, after which the defense filed a witness list that included (the standard refrain) that it reserves the right to call “any witness identified through State’s discovery not otherwise disclosed herein”. I'm no expert on Florida deposition rules (Florida is one of the few states that allow pre-trial depositions in criminal cases) but I think it's an incredible stretch to claim the defense, by reserving its right to call a witness named by the state (whom the state could decide not to call) is a listed defense witness.

ETA: Judge Nelson seemed to accept the state's argument without explicitly commenting on it.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 28, 2013, 11:45:45 PM
And from another source:

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, at a hearing on motions ahead of the trial, also ruled that lawyers can't mention Trayvon's school records, past fights, marijuana use, ownership of gold teeth, or any photos or text messages found on the teen's phone.

Nelson said she reserves the right to change the ruling during the trial if lawyers open the door to such issues. However, she said that she can't imagine that any of these issues would be relevant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/28/trayvon-martin-testimony-trial/2365367/

The 'can't imagine' remark was specifically about the opinion evidence (5/28 Hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=01h09m03s) 1:09:03-10:01). Ironically, that isn't even one of the issues on the list.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on May 28, 2013, 11:47:53 PM
Jeralyn explained this on the blog. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/5/9/23052/03063/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-Seeks-Anonymous-Jury)

ETA: Judge Nelson seemed to accept the state's argument without explicitly commenting on it.

If that's her reason, I believe it can be solved by formally striking Shellie from the defense witness list, as happened in  Huet v. Tromp (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) and Kimbrough v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 886 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2004). I'm not sure if the state could depose her using some other power.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 03:41:47 AM
If that's her reason, I believe it can be solved by formally striking Shellie from the defense witness list, as happened in  Huet v. Tromp (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) and Kimbrough v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 886 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2004). I'm not sure if the state could depose her using some other power.

I wonder if making a statement in open court is formally striking (although, in this case, defense posture is that she wasn't there to strike in the first place).  Remarks and motions in open court are good enough for making other rulings, and it isn't as though a motion is required.  Everybody has notice.  I'd ask "who controls their own witness list"?

I think the state can depose her under its Chapter 27 powers, but I haven't really studied the limits of that power.  Maybe Bernardo is blowing smoke there, too.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 29, 2013, 07:07:33 AM
I admit--the way the state and Judge Nelson are going about things is more than a little bizarre imo--but in point of fact, did MOM actually strike her from the witness list or simply say he wasn't going to call her, and is there a difference (hair splitting is what attorneys do best after all)?

Either way--I still agree with Jeralyn's point which sums up my feelings better than I've been able to do.

But more to the point: what could she testify to? She wasn't there for the event, and anything that came later would be covered by spousal privilege wouldn't it?

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MikeB on May 29, 2013, 08:17:12 AM
I asked this question on the main site, but I have a question for the lawyer types here regarding inadmissibility to texts due to what Judge Nelson calls "authentication". Does this mean that anyone can say whatever they want via social media because you can't authenticate they actually typed it? Has anyone been penalized (criminally or civilly) because of stuff said via text, twitter, facebook, etc? I get her premise - at first I thought it was a solid ruling. But at some point, common sense would need to prevail or there would be no slander or libel remedies on matters pertaining to social media. Heck, people could make death threats all day long according to Judge Nelson because you can't prove a person typed it. Does case law exist that show Judge Nelson is not being consistent?

Edited to add: Watching CNN this morning, text messages for the Jodie Arias case were admitted and seemed to sway some jurors in trying to determine her sentence.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 29, 2013, 09:19:40 AM
There have been a number of convictions based on "incriminating emails".  Facebook postings have been admitted in divorce cases, I've read.  Somehow they must be authenticated.  The defense might argue that the defendant's account was hacked and somebody else really wrote them.  In this electronic communication era, there is certainly a growing case law on the subject.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on May 29, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
I asked this question on the main site, but I have a question for the lawyer types here regarding inadmissibility to texts due to what Judge Nelson calls "authentication". Does this mean that anyone can say whatever they want via social media because you can't authenticate they actually typed it?
I share your bewilderment, especially since this is apparently material originally recovered by the state-- from a phone stipulated by the state to have been Trayvon's-- and belatedly shared with defense by the state, but in the form of BIN files defense had to first translate.

It seems a fairly easy task to prove the texts, images and videos in defense evidence were recovered from the phone and that they weren't altered in any way by defense (I've seen people out there claiming the images released last Thursday were Photoshopped). It also seems easy to prove if a text was actually sent from the phone.

So then the question seems to be determining whether the texts were actually made by Trayvon, as opposed to someone else who had control of the phone at those times.

This has always been my main beef about W8 being considered as a permissible witness. We can determine that at repeated points on 02/26/12 prior to the incident, a certain phone was connected with the phone found at the scene. But that's it.

We have no way of authenticating what words were exchanged-- if any at all-- during the times those numbers connected, and we have no way of authenticating if W8 was the person on the other phone for all-- or any-- of those connected periods.

The alleged W8 calls are in marked contrast to George's NEN call and the 911 calls, which are recorded and easily able to be authenticated. They're also in marked contrast to recorded material (texts, images, videos) recovered from the cellphone stipulated to be Trayvon's, in that a jury at least can examine what exact words were said (and images captured).

Beyond verifying that defense evidence matches what state got off the phone and wasn't altered, I don't see why W8's testimony is admissible and material on Trayvon's phone is not. At the very least, they are images and videos he found important enough to carry around with him on the phone, and it seems like it could be used to rebut any state allegations of character.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 10:19:50 AM
Beyond verifying that defense evidence matches what state got off the phone and wasn't altered, I don't see why W8's testimony is admissible and material on Trayvon's phone is not. At the very least, they are images and videos he found important enough to carry around with him on the phone, and it seems like it could be used to rebut any state allegations of character.

W8's testimony is what authenticates the association between phone bill (hers and his showing a voice connection) and who was conversing.  She may be lying, but that's for the jury to sort out.  The fact that she appears on the witness stand is the authentication.

She can also authenticate texts on Martin's phone, that were to or from her.

The authentication issue comes with the other texts.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: leftwig on May 29, 2013, 10:37:50 AM
Weren't texts from the deceased used in the Jodi Arias trial?  Were they authenticated in some manner?

I can totally understand that we can't assume every text originated from a particular cell phone came from that person, but in this case, we are talking about texts from 2/26 when TM was miles from home, his closest relative was in Orlando and not with him, his phone was password protected and he was using it almost all day long.  Is the burden really that someone has to witness the person sending the text  for it to be admissible?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: TalkLeft on May 29, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
I asked this question on the main site, but I have a question for the lawyer types here regarding inadmissibility to texts due to what Judge Nelson calls "authentication". Does this mean that anyone can say whatever they want via social media because you can't authenticate they actually typed it? Has anyone been penalized (criminally or civilly) because of stuff said via text, twitter, facebook, etc? I get her premise - at first I thought it was a solid ruling. But at some point, common sense would need to prevail or there would be no slander or libel remedies on matters pertaining to social media. Heck, people could make death threats all day long according to Judge Nelson because you can't prove a person typed it. Does case law exist that show Judge Nelson is not being consistent? Edited to add: Watching CNN this morning, text messages for the Jodie Arias case were admitted and seemed to sway some jurors in trying to determine her sentence.

I answered you (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2013/5/28/5437/81418/96#96) with a lot of source links on the main site.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 10:59:17 AM
Weren't texts from the deceased used in the Jodi Arias trial?  Were they authenticated in some manner?

I can totally understand that we can't assume every text originated from a particular cell phone came from that person, but in this case, we are talking about texts from 2/26 when TM was miles from home, his closest relative was in Orlando and not with him, his phone was password protected and he was using it almost all day long.  Is the burden really that someone has to witness the person sending the text  for it to be admissible?

I posted some remarks on this subject on the main board.  I don't think authentication of text messages to or from W-8 is an issue at all, and I don't think authentication of text messages from Martin to anybody on 26 Feb 2102 poses an issue.  As to the later class of messages, Nelson might differ.  I also cited a case, State v. Raymond Lumarque, 3D09-2781 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1536173.html) (Fla. 3d DCA, 2010)

The images and text messages were found on the defendant's cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant's home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State's forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be).
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on May 29, 2013, 11:13:09 AM
W8's testimony is what authenticates the association between phone bill (hers and his showing a voice connection) and who was conversing.  She may be lying, but that's for the jury to sort out.  The fact that she appears on the witness stand is the authentication.

By that standard, you'd think the jury could also be left to sort out whether the texts were made by Trayvon or someone else. After all, she's been stipulated to have lied during a sworn deposition. But IANAL, and I'm thinking like a layperson using logic rather than established procedure.

And why does it make any sense that someone else other than Trayvon would be texting during the period of time that Tracy established Trayvon traveled to Sanford from Miami Gardens? Those are the 02/21/12 messages where the texter says that he's on a bus, later arriving in Ft. Pierce (mid-way between the two points of Trayvon's journey), getting back on the bus, then arriving in Orlando?

And there are other texts that are so closely tied to what has been stipulated to about Trayvon that it makes no sense that someone else would be using the phone to make them.

Plus, wasn't there some sort of allegation from Team Crump that Trayvon's cellphone was "treasured" and he was never seen without it?

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
And there are other texts that are so closely tied to what has been stipulated to about Trayvon that it makes no sense that someone else would be using the phone to make them.

Plus, wasn't there some sort of allegation from Team Crump that Trayvon's cellphone was "treasured" and he was never seen without it?

You make a good point about texts while he was on the bus.  He had the phone in Sanford, and it wasn't mailed separately.  Most likely Martin and the phone were together when he was transported from the Miami area to Sanford.

I don't think Crump's remarks are worth spit in the context of authentication.  How would he know?

The range of what "sufficient" is, is no doubt huge.  Most judges will err in favor of the prosecution, admitting state's evidence of defendant's communication over an authentication objection (provided there is something that serves to authenticate the message); and I expect they are all over the map on admitting exculpatory evidence over an authentication objection.  The judge's ruling has to be clearly erroneous in order to be struck down, so most of the ruling will stand.  Not all of them, the trial judge in the case I mentioned was reversed, but that was state's evidence, and was not exculpatory.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 11:34:02 AM
And there are other texts that are so closely tied to what has been stipulated to about Trayvon that it makes no sense that someone else would be using the phone to make them.

I want to add a thought, that directly arguing possession of the phone at the relevant time is not the only way to obtain authentication of a sent message.  If a message follows a certain pattern attributable to the person being claimed as the author, or if it is a reply to a message from somebody else, those facts may be found "sufficient" to produce a finding of authenticity.  Ask the people around him (in this case, Chad, Brandi, Tracy) if they ever used the phone, and also investigate the passcode protection - did they know it?  If the phone is reasonably secure, that's pretty good evidence, alone, that only people who knew the passcode might have sent from that device.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MikeB on May 29, 2013, 11:40:21 AM
I want to add a thought, that directly arguing possession of the phone at the relevant time is not the only way to obtain authentication of a sent message.  If a message follows a certain pattern attributable to the person being claimed as the author, or if it is a reply to a message from somebody else, those facts may be found "sufficient" to produce a finding of authenticity.  Ask the people around him (in this case, Chad, Brandi, Tracy) if they ever used the phone, and also investigate the passcode protection - did they know it?  If the phone is reasonably secure, that's pretty good evidence, alone, that only people who knew the passcode might have sent from that device.
IANAL, but I did a little digging (with a jump start from Jeralyn) and authentication is not hard. Authentication seems to be done by finding information where you would think it would be (texts came from the phone in TM's possession) and writing characteristics. In other words, reasonable common sense. Otherwise, people would deny doing the actual typing and get away with murder (possibly, literally). This has been challenged in a number of cases and claiming you didn't write the messages doesn't work. If I have time to read a transcript of the hearing, I would like to see how Judge Nelson ruled on the authentication issues. I thought she said they COULDN'T be authenticated - not they weren't authenticated. If she said they could not be authenticated, I think she is factually wrong.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on May 29, 2013, 11:52:23 AM
I wonder if making a statement in open court is formally striking (although, in this case, defense posture is that she wasn't there to strike in the first place).  Remarks and motions in open court are good enough for making other rulings, and it isn't as though a motion is required.  Everybody has notice.  I'd ask "who controls their own witness list"?

I think the state can depose her under its Chapter 27 powers, but I haven't really studied the limits of that power.  Maybe Bernardo is blowing smoke there, too.

The Detailed Case View says:

Quote
05/28/2013    MNFD    --ATTORNEY O'MARA RESPONDED AND INFORMED THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE DOES NOT
05/28/2013    MNFD    --PLAN ON CALLING SHELLIE ZIMMERMAN AND HAS WITHDRAWN HER AS A WITNESS.

The court minutes say something similar. I don't see how she can be deposed unless the state uses a power different from the reciprocal discovery rule.

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 12:01:38 PM
If I have time to read a transcript of the hearing, I would like to see how Judge Nelson ruled on the authentication issues. I thought she said they COULDN'T be authenticated - not they weren't authenticated. If she said they could not be authenticated, I think she is factually wrong.

She just mentioned that the texts are burdened with authentication and hearsay issues.  I don't think O'Mara was shocked at that.  She is telegraphing her approach to trail, and her remarks are a hint to Bernardo that he has many avenues of objection to work with - Nelson is receptive to excluding evidence.

I'd have to think about the state's evidence to get a sense for the effect, but all these swords are double edged.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 29, 2013, 12:05:21 PM
I don't see how she can be deposed unless the state uses a power different from the reciprocal discovery rule.

She can do so voluntarily.  If I was her, I would refuse.  Then when hit with contempt, I would argue that the state has not invoked a power that allows it to compel testimony.  I am not a defense witness, and the state's subpoenas uses, as it's source of power, that I am a defense witness.  The state's order is void.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 29, 2013, 04:27:07 PM
She wasn't there for the event, and anything that came later would be covered by spousal privilege wouldn't it?

Only 'communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses' (Fla. Stat. § 90.504). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.504.html)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 29, 2013, 05:32:48 PM
Only 'communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses' (Fla. Stat. § 90.504). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.504.html)

Which would be pretty much anything they said without a third party present.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 29, 2013, 07:46:00 PM
Of the sources linked by Jeralyn, I think p. 4 of Admissibility of Writings (http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2011SpringConference/AdmissibiltyWritings.pdf) (Emails and Texts) sheds some light on authentication issues. On the applicable threshold:

Quote
see also Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988) (interpreting federal equivalent of Rule 104(b) and finding that the trial court must decide whether "the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence").

Of course Florida may be different, but at least that's a ballpark for prevailing standards.

Note that it's a weaker standard than the court itself finding a preponderance of evidence.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 29, 2013, 08:59:59 PM
Do the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf) contain any provisions for withdrawing witnesses that have been listed?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 30, 2013, 12:00:27 AM
I wonder if making a statement in open court is formally striking

Shellie's attorney, Kelly Sims, 3/28/13 hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=38m21s) 38:21
Quote
I think that what the defense for Mr. Zimmerman has said is they have withdrawn her as a witness. I mean, they are. If they hadn't before they are right now, today.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 30, 2013, 01:09:26 AM
I would like to see how Judge Nelson ruled on the authentication issues.

She didn't. There weren't any.

Neither party raised any authentication issue for Nelson to rule on. As cboldt (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2411.msg110102/topicseen.html#msg110102) said, it was Nelson who brought up authentication.

It came up during the discussion of fighting. O'Mara mentioned that the evidence he would bring on reputation included text messages and Facebook posts. Nelson asked how he would authenticate them. O'Mara said he had people who had participated in the conversations under subpoena. (3/28/13 hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=55m21s) 55:21)

Nelson was engaging in a digression, asking O'Mara for a preview of what he intended to do at trial. There was no authentication issue before the court, and so no ruling on one.

In some of her rulings, Nelson commented that the evidence would only come in if it passed other hurdles, like authentication and hearsay. Those were just comments, not part of the rulings. They were reminders that those issues were not before the court, and hadn't yet been ruled on.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 30, 2013, 04:00:26 AM
If that's her reason, I believe it can be solved by formally striking Shellie from the defense witness list, as happened in  Huet v. Tromp (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 912 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) and Kimbrough v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16249628274464477178&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 886 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2004). I'm not sure if the state could depose her using some other power.

Just fixing link to Kimbrough v. State, 886 So. 2d 965 (http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20041851886So2d965_11381.xml) (Fla. 2004).  Your original links both citations to the Huet case.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on May 30, 2013, 11:22:00 AM
Just fixing link to Kimbrough v. State, 886 So. 2d 965 (http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20041851886So2d965_11381.xml) (Fla. 2004).  Your original links both citations to the Huet case.

Thank you. I should have double checked. (Or even single checked.)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 30, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
MEDIA COMPANIES' BRIEF REGARDING ELECTRONIC COVERAGE OF JURORS AND IMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/media_companies_brief.pdf)

At least two forthcoming media briefs were mentioned in the 3/28/13 hearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=2h39m18s) (2:39:18). I don't know which one this is. Maybe they were combined.

 
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on May 30, 2013, 03:53:15 PM
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 30, 2013, 04:07:25 PM

De la Rionda commented on spousal privilege in the  hearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=37m45s) (37:45-38:03).

Quote
She has information germane to this case, in that she was present when the defendant made statements, not just to her, there's no husband/wife privilege. He made statements to other people where she was present and overheard it. And she is also germane to what happened right after the shooting itself.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on May 30, 2013, 08:27:31 PM
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.

Not to mention blithely assuming that they would be in no danger once a verdict is delivered, regardless of what the verdict is.

You can't get them to tell the difference between calling a seven digit number and calling 911, or to tell the SYG part of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act from the immunity part, but when it comes to invading the privacy of the jurors, they're all intrepid journalists defending the public's right to be informed.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 31, 2013, 06:41:12 AM
De la Rionda commented on spousal privilege in the  hearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=37m45s) (37:45-38:03).

Yes he did. And were I the judge I believe I'd make him put those other people on the stand, since whatever she might have "overheard" seems a little shaky.

I mean really--what would be his reason for wanting to hear it from her rather than the people GZ was actually talking to at the time?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 31, 2013, 09:59:46 AM
I mean really--what would be his reason for wanting to hear it from her rather than the people GZ was actually talking to at the time?

He didn't say the others wouldn't be called. He might want Shellie to corroborate them, or impeach them if they testify for the defense.

There's also a possibility that any witness might unexpectedly become unavailable, as for medical reasons.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on May 31, 2013, 10:58:36 AM
He didn't say the others wouldn't be called. He might want Shellie to corroborate them, or impeach them if they testify for the defense.

There's also a possibility that any witness might unexpectedly become unavailable, as for medical reasons.

That's fine. Please don't respond to me any longer. I find you obnoxious and officious. Whenever you post I find myself struggling with wanting to say something Jeralyn won't like. Best we don't interact. Thank you.

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 31, 2013, 11:10:10 AM
Please don't respond to me any longer.

I don't respond to you. I comment on what you say. If you don't like it, don't post.

I'm not interested in you.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on May 31, 2013, 11:16:01 AM
Whenever you post I find myself struggling with wanting to say something Jeralyn won't like.

The forum has a twitlist feature.  It can really help.  You can always peek at a hidden post to see if it interests you.

Profile
Forum Profile
Modify Profile (this is on the left sidebar)
Buddy/Ignore lists
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 31, 2013, 02:38:06 PM
It is interesting that the brief only considers the possibility of attacks on jurors coming from supporters of the defendant rather the victim.

That's not true of the brief (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/media_companies_brief.pdf) itself. It's true of the quoted citation (p. 3), represented as the 'factors most commonly considered' for juror anonymity.

I think that reflects the case law. O'Mara suggested as much in his comments on the federal case law (3/28/13 hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=1h20m48s) 1:20:48). He said that it was mostly organized crime and 'high level' drug cases.

The last paragraph of the brief (p. 4) addresses the other concern.

Quote
In fact, and has been previously noted by the Court, the passion that this case has stirred in the community has been expressed in peaceful, non-violent ways.

I recall some press reports about assaults and robberies, in which the perpetrators allegedly said 'This is for Trayvon', or something similar. If there are police reports to go with some of those stories, there may be evidence to dispute the contention, 'previously noted' or not.

Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 31, 2013, 02:47:48 PM
You can't get them to tell the difference between calling a seven digit number and calling 911, or to tell the SYG part of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force act from the immunity part, but when it comes to invading the privacy of the jurors, they're all intrepid journalists defending the public's right to be informed.

Good one.

Now that I think of it, it seems odd that our system is more protective of the privacy of the voting booth than the jury box.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: SuzieTampa on May 31, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Re: peaceful protests. There was the vandalism by students in Miami.
http://www.local10.com/news/Police-Trayvon-protesters-ransack-store/-/1717324/9719674/-/xctonpz/-/index.html (http://www.local10.com/news/Police-Trayvon-protesters-ransack-store/-/1717324/9719674/-/xctonpz/-/index.html)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 31, 2013, 06:09:09 PM
There was the vandalism by students in Miami.

Thanks. I had forgotten that.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on May 31, 2013, 07:59:22 PM
Good one.

Now that I think of it, it seems odd that our system is more protective of the privacy of the voting booth than the jury box.

But if you keep the public from knowing who was on a jury, how can they be sure that "the fix" wasn't in?

Which creates a tension between justice being seen to be done and not making jury duty either downright dangerous or at least destructive of privacy in high profile, high emotion cases, and I guess the balance has to be struck on a one case at a time basis.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: who007 on June 02, 2013, 08:03:13 AM
I think he said there is evidence Martin made such a recording. I didn't catch if he said in what form the recording was made or if he had it. I think Martin most likely would have used his phone to record.

I hope they can identify the two, and subpoena them to testify about Martin's reputation.

Serino's remark about Martin making video of 'everything he does' seems a bit ironic now.

This video of TM recording on his phone of "his buddies beating up a homeless man" - as was stated by O'Mara at the hearing has been elusive.  No one seems to be able to find anything on it.

At least until last night.  I have found out what the video is of, as per Rene Stutzman.

I'd like to discuss it, but not sure if this would be the thread.

Could you advise where I would best place this information?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 02, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
You could start a new thread under Evidence Discussion.  However I'd  wait a while until more is known.  The fact that the article was pulled shows that Rene may have found out that what she originally said may have to be modified.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: who007 on June 02, 2013, 01:34:59 PM
You could start a new thread under Evidence Discussion.  However I'd  wait a while until more is known.  The fact that the article was pulled shows that Rene may have found out that what she originally said may have to be modified.
It does appear O'Mara made a <ahem> misstatement about the homeless video.

Not looking good.  He apologized this morning.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 02, 2013, 02:01:08 PM
Orlando Sentinel, 6/2/13 (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-fight-video-20130602,0,6996223.story)
Quote
In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.

But in today's statement, O'Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.

In his statement today, O'Mara described his mischaracterization in court as unintentional and said he was unhappy about it.

Oops.

I don't think we will ever hear the end of this.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 02, 2013, 02:06:33 PM
I posted the previous before I finished reading the story. Here's the last paragraph.

Quote
On Thursday, in preparation for the anticipated release of the fight video, an Orlando Sentinel reporter drafted a story describing it, intending to publish it once the video had been made public. A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released. The story correctly characterized the video. After readers found a cached version of the story online Sunday, Zimmerman's attorneys released their statement and decided against posting the video.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 02, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
Correction and apology (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/184-correction-and-apology-regarding-misstated-nature-of-trayvon-martin-video) now at GZLegal.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on June 02, 2013, 05:47:06 PM
So this video is something the defense actually got, and not part of the stuff the IT guy says they didn't get?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 02, 2013, 06:10:57 PM
So this video is something the defense actually got, and not part of the stuff the IT guy says they didn't get?

This seems like a pointless rhetorical question. Is there something that isn't clear?

At the hearing, O'Mara spoke of the video as something he expected to present to the judge (3/28/13 hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=57m14s) 57:14). I don't think he would have spoken of it in that way if he didn't have it.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: cboldt on June 03, 2013, 02:52:07 AM
So this video is something the defense actually got, and not part of the stuff the IT guy says they didn't get?

As far as I know, the defense "got" everything.  The issue for discovery is the form they got it in, and when they got it.  What the state provided to defense was a BIN file from the phone. I don't know exactly when, but I think April sometime. What the state did not provide to defense, but defense was able to extract from the BIN file for itself, were some photos and the text messages.  The state had extracted these items in January.

I don't know if this video is similarly among the items that defense was able to extract.

The IT guy's statement supports that Bernardo, personally, had photos and texts in January.  O'Mara has said that the defense never got the photos and texts as photos and texts.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 03, 2013, 05:26:11 AM
The IT guy's name is Ben Kruidbos.

Miami Herald, 5/29/13 (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/29/3422519/lawyer-zimmerman-prosecutor-withheld.html)
Quote
Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over.

Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

Quote
White said the photos Kruidbos retrieved were of a hand holding a gun and one depicted drugs. The content of the text messages wasn't specified.

"I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution," White said.

The defense released photos of a gun, marijuana plant and Martin's text messages publicly

At the hearing White also said there was a photo of 'an underage female', which is not mentioned in the Miami Herald article (3/28/13 hearing, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=02h06m50s) 2:06:50).

Since the other photos have been released, they are probably among those (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/tm_photos/phone_photos.pdf) in the 3rd Supplemental. (http://gzlegalcase.com/discovery_3.html)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: RickyJim on June 03, 2013, 06:07:54 AM
I don't find the pictures Bernie didn't release so damaging to his case.  I am wondering if the purpose of getting Kruidbos on the stand is to get him to open up about the phone data.  I assume he would know if there was mischief that caused the GPS info from Feb. 26 to disappear. 
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 03, 2013, 10:46:08 PM
Screen capture (http://i.imgur.com/1SoFL6s.png) of the cached version of the withdrawn Orlando Sentinel story (h/t DiwataMan (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/omara-crumpafies-video/)).

ETA: There's a better version here. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TqQGK1mGVy4J:www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-fight-video-20130531,0,7127296.story+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 04, 2013, 12:21:19 AM
I wonder if Wesley White's 'photograph of an underage female' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uAQkH_0Qvi0#t=02h07m04s) could be p. 5 of this
set. (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/tm_photos/trayvon_photos.pdf) I had been assuming not, because Trayvon is also in it.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on June 04, 2013, 09:44:31 AM
The photo in the set of Trayvon towering over a petite girl in what looks like it could be a public setting has been released publicly before, unless I'm mistaken.

I'm pretty sure CTH ran it when they were claiming to gave found "DeeDee's" social media, back when they were basing everything on the lie that "DeeDee" was only 16 at the time of the shooting.

If this is indeed the photo that he's referring to (and I think it's very likely), then I'm not sure why White states she's underage.

Just an assumption, based on the context of the photo, that that she's the same age as Trayvon? Or do they have her ID'ed?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 04, 2013, 04:13:00 PM
The photo in the set of Trayvon towering over a petite girl in what looks like it could be a public setting has been released publicly before, unless I'm mistaken.

Now that you mention it I think I have seen it before also.

I haven't thought about the setting before. It looks like school. Drab hallway, double doors, kids wearing backpacks, kids outside hanging out.

Quote
If this is indeed the photo that he's referring to (and I think it's very likely)

The gun and the marijuana plant are sensitive. I would think the picture of the girl would also be sensitive for some reason, probably whatever she is doing, or her state of dress or lack thereof.

Quote
Or do they have her ID'ed?

She may be one of the mystery witnesses. I don't think White would know who she was, but O'Mara might have told him she was underage.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: MJW on June 04, 2013, 04:32:26 PM
Now that you mention it I think I have seen it before also.

I saw that photo ages ago.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 10, 2013, 02:26:06 AM
The Orlando Sentinel has the 'homeless men' video. I suppose we're not supposed to link it. There's a link on Rene Stutzman's Twitter feed.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on June 10, 2013, 02:47:02 AM
The Orlando Sentinel has the 'homeless men' video. I suppose we're not supposed to link it. There's a link on Rene Stutzman's Twitter feed.

Is that a different video or videos from the two contained within "cell_video_1_redacted.zip", which is hosted at gzlegal.com?
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 10, 2013, 04:09:50 AM

It's the same, but at the Orlando Sentinel it's not split into two parts.

Thanks for pointing me to that. I had been looking for new stuff on the front page of GZLegal. (http://gzlegalcase.com/) It didn't occur to me that they might have added it to the Third Supplemental. (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/174-defendant-s-3rd-supplemental-discovery)
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: unitron on June 10, 2013, 04:16:29 AM
It's the same, but at the Orlando Sentinel it's not split into two parts.

Thanks for pointing me to that. I had been looking for new stuff on the front page of GZLegal. (http://gzlegalcase.com/) It didn't occur to me that they might have added it to the Third Supplemental. (http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/174-defendant-s-3rd-supplemental-discovery)

I found the actual link at D'man's site.

Just going to gzlegal doesn't seem to provide a path.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 10, 2013, 06:08:57 AM
Go to the Third supplemental (linked in my previous post), scroll down to 'Two videos from Trayvon Martin's phone (redacted)'.
Title: Re: May 28 Court Hearing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 10, 2013, 06:23:01 AM
Too late to edit, I should probably mention that the 'two videos' are the 'homeless men' video in two parts. It seems the defense has not yet released the 'fight club' video.