TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Trial Expectations => Topic started by: TalkLeft on June 28, 2013, 06:47:11 PM

Title: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: TalkLeft on June 28, 2013, 06:47:11 PM
What are you expecting for week two of the trial?
Who else will the state call?
Which witnesses on their list do you think they will avoid calling?
Will the state's theory of the case change at all?
Do you have any suggestions for the defense?
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: spectator on June 28, 2013, 07:32:59 PM
I'm hoping the defense will eventually explain to the jury that the attack happening just west of the "T" is not a coincidence, and what a big piece of the puzzle it is.
 As i see it, someone looking to ambush would wait to see if George would turn south and come to them.
It supports George heading back to his truck, and Martin realizing it was all over but attacked anyway.


Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: DebFrmHell on June 28, 2013, 10:50:39 PM
I would eat a bug to hear Chris Serino's take on this.  I would think that he would be the prized cookie in the jar for the State.   Can he explain why he thought GZ was lying to him or is that speculation?  Isn't this the way the State is going to get in all of the 5 (?) statements from Zimmerman? 


I took off Monday.   ;D
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 12:26:48 AM
I would eat a bug to hear Chris Serino's take on this.  I would think that he would be the prized cookie in the jar for the State.   Can he explain why he thought GZ was lying to him or is that speculation?

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

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

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

I have no idea what this is about. What do you think is the barrier to admission of those statements, and what would Serino have to do with overcoming it?
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 12:51:40 AM
I guess I'm a little confused on this.  How are they going to enter any statement from Zimmerman?  Can someone explain that?  Does the defense have to do this?  Or can they leave all the versions out and just go with impeaching all of the prosecutions witnesses? 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 01:15:40 AM
I guess I'm a little confused on this.  How are they going to enter any statement from Zimmerman?  Can someone explain that?  Does the defense have to do this?  Or can they leave all the versions out and just go with impeaching all of the prosecutions witnesses?

The state can use almost any of Zimmerman's statements. The defense can't directly use them, except for a few exceptions, such as GZ's NEN call and the "res gestae" statements made just after the shooting. However, if the state uses part of statement, the defense, under the doctrine of completeness, can use the rest of the statement.  I can't say for certain what "the rest of the statement" encompasses, but in most Florida cases I've read, if part of a police interview is used by the state, the defendant has been allowed to use the entire interview.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 05:51:50 AM
Letting the jury listen to the prior NEN calls without context or commentary did nothing for the prosecution.  Letting them listen to the entirety of the police interviews won't do anything either, especially the ones of poor audio quality.  I suppose one effective tactic would be after the entirety is played,  questioning Singleton, Serino, Smith and whomever else was there about their thoughts on various snippets.  By the way, the defense showed huge technical incompetence throughout the first week at finding and reading sections of transcripts, showing pictures, and playing sections of tapes.  I think the prosecution was better prepared.  The reason we all know the evidence so well is that we teach each other by cutting and pasting quotes and linking to youtube videos in which we specify the time of the portion we wish to reference.  The poor jury doesn't have as good an educational experience.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 12:02:44 PM
By the way, the defense showed huge technical incompetence throughout the first week at finding and reading sections of transcripts, showing pictures, and playing sections of tapes.  I think the prosecution was better prepared.

I'd expect the prosecution to better prepared than the defense in the state's direct case. Most of the time, they plan to use the particular evidence in advance, so they have it ready. The defense has to respond on the fly to the state's case.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: annoyedbeyond on June 29, 2013, 12:55:05 PM
  I think the prosecution was better prepared. 

Well yeah. They knew who they were going to call and what they were going to ask them. No matter how well prepared the defense could be, they're still in the business of reacting to the prosecution.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 02:33:43 PM
The state can use almost any of Zimmerman's statements. The defense can't directly use them, except for a few exceptions, such as GZ's NEN call and the "res gestae" statements made just after the shooting. However, if the state uses part of statement, the defense, under the doctrine of completeness, can use the rest of the statement.  I can't say for certain what "the rest of the statement" encompasses, but in most Florida cases I've read, if part of a police interview is used by the state, the defendant has been allowed to use the entire interview.

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

When you talk about statements that fall outside of that, would that be things like the Hannity interview? 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Jujube on June 29, 2013, 02:40:09 PM
Letting the jury listen to the prior NEN calls without context or commentary did nothing for the prosecution.  Letting them listen to the entirety of the police interviews won't do anything either, especially the ones of poor audio quality. 

I think the prosecution is getting all the pieces that don't matter much to their case out of the way.  I went back and listened to Guy's opening statement and I believe most of these witness statements are superfluous to their case 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: RickyJim on June 29, 2013, 03:33:46 PM
What is the best thing the State can do to improve their chances?  Bribe as many bloggers as they can to insist that Zimmerman has to take the stand.   ::)
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: redstripe on June 29, 2013, 04:46:41 PM
I think the prosecution is getting all the pieces that don't matter much to their case out of the way.  I went back and listened to Guy's opening statement and I believe most of these witness statements are superfluous to their case

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

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

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

Argument 2, GZ profiled, stalked and confronted TM.

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

Argument 3, GZ lied to police

This is the only argument that the state hasn't called their strongest witnesses for yet and while they can definitely undermine GZ's credibility, that really isn't enough to carry the burden for the state as other witnesses, notably JG, corroborate a good deal of GZ's account  (at least more-so than any of the witnesses corroborate the state's account of what transpired that night).
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 06:06:51 PM
Are the "res gestae" statements those things like the taped interview with Singleton?  The taped walk-through?

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

When I first encountered the term, I looked it up. The first reference I found suggested that it's just a fancy term for the Spontaneous Statement exception to hearsay exclusion (section (1) of Fla. Stat. § 90.803 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)).

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

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

It was live-blogged, starting here (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2496.msg112653.html#msg112653) and continuing onto the next page.
 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
Res gestae is a special case of Spontaneous Statement, when the statements are made shortly after the main event, the crime or alleged crime.

Res gestae is covered by three closely-related hearsay exceptions: spontaneous statement, excited utterance, and then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 29, 2013, 06:24:28 PM
Res gestae is covered by three closely-related hearsay exceptions: spontaneous statement, excited utterance, and then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition.

Thank you.

Those would be sections (2) and (3) of the statute cited above.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: SuzieTampa on June 29, 2013, 07:00:14 PM
Now that the state is discussing GZ's character, does anyone think that the state might call the cousin who accused GZ of molesting her?
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 29, 2013, 07:18:03 PM
Those would be sections (2) and (3) of the statute cited above.

Yes. In fact, West mentions that in his motion (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/re_self-serving_statements.pdf). He says: "As the Court is aware, res gestae type statements made soon after an event are admissible notwithstanding that they are hearsay. Florida Statutes 90.803 (1), (2), and (3)."
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: jjr495 on June 29, 2013, 08:04:43 PM
In the first week, the defense established a spatial-temporal map of events that is devastating to the State's case. Martin ran minutes before the altercation started and could have run laps around the complex before the altercation. Yet, the altercation started at the T and moved south toward Goods residence. Martin was on top pummeling Zimmerman. Zimmerman was yelling for help.

Murder 2 is out the window. The state must try to prove manslaughter. The argument will be that Z could have, and maybe did, escape from TM.

What are you expecting for week two of the trial?

All of the important eye and ear witnesses have been called, but we may see a couple more. I am expecting to see lots of forensics. Medical examiner(s), DNA, fingerprints, etc.  I expect to hear lots of arguments about the lack of GZ blood on TM. We should here a lot about the preservation of forensic evidence in light of the weather and manner of preservation. I expect a debate about whether the jury can hear about THC in TM's blood.
I hope never to hear the term "ground and pound" again in my life, but I am probably out of luck.
Zimmerman's interviews will be introduced and they will spend many hours (probably days) going through the meaning of everything GZ has said. Who will be on the stand to introduce those interviews? Serino? Hannity?

Who else will the state call?
The state will call MEs and other forensic experts. I expect Nelson to rule for the State and we will have the debate about GZ's arrest and restraining order. This will open up the defense to call a lot of pro-Z character witnesses. The State does not want to put up Sybrina and Tracy because of the embarrassing (or worse) circumstances surrounding RJ. They may feel compelled to have Sybrina testify about the screams, even if it is a losing argument.
 
Which witnesses on their list do you think they will avoid calling?
The Kokopelli MMA instructor and GZ's professor. The State knows they must try to prove GZ is an MMA fighting machine, but the instructor will say he's a whimp, and liberal professors are loose canons; who knows what he might say.

Will the state's theory of the case change at all?
The State has to decide between the Murder 2 charge where Martin is screaming for help, and the manslaughter charge where Z was not reasonable in his belief that he would be killed or suffer great bodily injury. I think they will probably choose the latter approach, but they may stick with the "all of the above" approach.

Do you have any suggestions for the defense?
Put up a weak argument about why George's past restraining order and arrest should not be brought up so that they can present a lot of peaceable character witnesses during the last weeks of the trial. I think this jury is sophisticated and worldly wise enough to put these issues in proper perspective.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Jujube on June 30, 2013, 03:17:58 PM
I believe there will be new information released this week that none of us have ever seen before.  All along, I've noticed various bits and pieces missing from discovery so I expect us to see some of that.  Maybe it will be a game-changer for this trial? 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 30, 2013, 07:49:22 PM
Among the witnesses not yet called are W3 (woman who called 15 seconds before shot), Austin McLendon, W19 (woman who mentioned "elderly man" who lived next door.), W17 (John Good's wife), and W20 (Lauer's husband). I would think the state would likely at least call W3 and Austin McLendon.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 30, 2013, 08:48:31 PM
Now that the state is discussing GZ's character, does anyone think that the state might call the cousin who accused GZ of molesting her?

Very unlikely. At least assuming the state and judge don't want any conviction reversed by the DCA in about ten seconds. At most, GZ's reputation for non-violence was opened for rebuttal.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on June 30, 2013, 09:40:06 PM
I believe there will be new information released this week that none of us have ever seen before. 

Oh, right, that top-secret bombshell the prosecution has been saving. I think they'll keep saving it, until the rebuttal. Maybe longer. Years from now, people may still be wondering what it was, and why it wasn't heard.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on June 30, 2013, 10:57:28 PM
I avoid counting unhatched chickens, so I make no predictions on whether the state will come up with some strong, unanticipated evidence. If there is some, it could involve the phone records that have been kept mostly nonpublic. We don't know what positional information the state may have for TM or GZ. O'Mara said recently that there was no evidence that GZ wasn't returning to his truck when the altercation begun. If that's accurate, it would seem to indicate no positional information placed him elsewhere. I think the state may plan to use the clubhouse video to establish either TM's or GZ's actions. I've seen no report on existence of such an analysis, but the state introduced the recording into evidence, and O'Mara questioned the reliability of the time offset. I think the state may try to make some hay with new forensic evidence. I'm not sure it will go anywhere, though.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Cylinder on July 01, 2013, 12:48:00 AM
I predict that in Week 2 Team Zimmerman will not use the word punched and the state will not use the word Serino.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 12:50:21 AM
I predict that in Week 2 Team Zimmerman will not use the word punched

Why not? If using that word got the defense in trouble last week, I missed it.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 02:08:11 AM
I would hope that state and defense would agree to spare Austin McLendon the ordeal of testifying. Maybe an affidavit could be substituted, or his sister could testify for him, or his testimony could be done without. The joint 911 call will be played in any case.

I looked over the Florida Evidence Code (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/0090ContentsIndex.html) for admission of affidavits in lieu of testimony, and I didn't find any mention of the issue.

Austin's statements to his sister after the shooting would be both spontaneous statements and excited utterances, sections (1) and (2) of Fla. Stat. § 90.803. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html) Hearsay exceptions under 90.803 do not require that the declarant be unavailable. Sierra McLendon is an adult, 18 at the time of the shooting, so 19 or 20 today.

Judge Nelson wouldn't allow Selma Mora (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2521.msg113740.html#msg113740) to give an opinion on whether the screams were of an adult or child, so presumably Austin can't either.

I don't think we know what Austin would say about the color of the clothing. We've had some discussion related to this, for example starting here, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2041.msg105175.html#msg105175) here, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2041.msg105231.html#msg105231) and here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2041.msg105327.html#msg105327) He didn't mention clothing color on the 911 call. That being so, I wouldn't expect he would have mentioned it to Sierra either, but I don't know of any information on that subject.

If Austin testifies that the upper garment wasn't red or that he couldn't tell or doesn't remember, he would be asked about his earlier statements. I think that includes statements to reporters and anyone else, not just investigators. Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.608.html) says 'statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony', without qualification.

If Austin denies making any alleged statements, recordings can be played, or persons who heard the statements could be called.

Bottom line, I think Austin's testimony would at best be a wash for the state, and might help the defense to some degree. I don't know why they would want him to testify, if the defense would agree not to hold it against them that they didn't call him.

There may be some reason not obvious to me. I am not a lawyer.

I don't think Austin's testimony would help the defense very much, in a case in which they are way ahead. That he saw only one person, where we know there were two, might confuse the jury. It certainly confuses me.

The child is in a sorry predicament. His own mother has gone on national television to impeach him (Al Sharpton, 3/28/12 (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10909475-witness-mom-says-police-told-her-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense); Nancy Grace, 3/39/12 (http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/30/mom-of-trayvon-ear-witness-speaks-out/)). I believe he must be under tremendous pressure, from his family and his 'community'. I would hope both sides would have a little compassion.

When I was looking over the earlier discussion to decide where to link, I came across this, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7265603202/in/set-72157629976024341) a video still and a map based on the still, showing where Austin indicated he was standing before his dog got loose.

Someone else on the thread found the video and linked it. The link still works, but the video has been taken down, license expired. I don't know if or where the video is still available.

All of the above are my completely non-professional opinions.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: MJW on July 01, 2013, 02:45:19 AM
I disagree about Austin. There were two witnesses who actually saw the altercation: Good and McLendon. He's probably 15 years old by now. If he tells the truth, I don't know why the testimony should be an ordeal. His original statements supported Zimmerman's version. He saw someone in red on his back, screaming for help. Good mentioned that he didn't see Martin initially, so the fact Austin saw only one person may be somewhat confusing, but it's explainable. The defense included Austin's video deposition in discovery, so I expect he'll be called, and if necessary, impeached with his previous statements. I believe Austin's mother and her lawyer tainted his later comments. I don't see why the defense should be forced to forego a helpful witness because of what I suspect came close to witness tampering.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 03:02:12 AM
If he tells the truth, I don't know why the testimony should be an ordeal.

I thought I explained that. I have no more to say on that than I have already said.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 04:04:32 AM
There were two witnesses who actually saw the altercation: Good and McLendon.

How could McLendon see the altercation if he only saw one person?

Quote
Good mentioned that he didn't see Martin initially

I don't recall that.

I recall Good saying that at first he thought there was only one person, without saying he thought it was one or the other. Is that what you mean? Is 'didn't see Martin' an inference beyond what the witness said?

Quote
the fact Austin saw only one person may be somewhat confusing, but it's explainable.

What's the explanation? If Good did have a similar experience at first, that's two unexplained oddities, not an explanation.

I can see how Austin might have missed Trayvon in his dark clothing if he was straddling Zimmerman and sitting upright with his arms at his sides. But if Trayvon was hitting Zimmerman or holding him down, how does see Austin miss that while looking at Zimmerman's face and upper body? If I'm the defense attorney, I think I might just as soon not have the jury spend any time puzzling over that.

Quote
The defense included Austin's video deposition in discovery, so I expect he'll be called

Non sequitur. Of course the defense wants to be prepared if the prosecution calls him.

Quote
I believe Austin's mother and her lawyer tainted his later comments.

I don't think anyone's comments are tainted by things other people say.

We're revisiting the discussion I linked in the earlier post. You used the word 'tainted' then, and later retracted it. I don't know the exact context. I was just glancing at the posts to see where to link. I didn't review them.

Quote
I don't see why the defense should be forced to forego a helpful witness because of what I suspect came close to witness tampering.

Straw man. I didn't suggest the defense should be forced to do anything, and I argued that McLendon wouldn't be very helpful to them.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 06:07:00 AM
W19 (woman who mentioned "elderly man" who lived next door.)

Not next door.

On her 911 call, W-19 first said the 'elderly man' lived 'two doors down'. Later she said he might be up to four units away.

House map. (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/witnessmap700.jpg)

W-19's building is the one on the east. Each row of three buildings has two 6-unit buildings and one 5-unit one, so that the gap between each pair of buildings is opposite a unit instead of another gap. Of the two northern buildings, the western one is 5 units and the eastern one is 6 units.

W-19 was in the eastern, 6-unit building. She was in the 2d unit from the south end, which is the 5th unit from the north end, 2821 Retreat View Circle.

There is only one unit in W-19's building that is south of hers, 2811 RVC. Of the four units that are north of hers, we know who was in three. Counting from the north, the Manalos were in the first, Bahadoor and W-2 were in the third, and Cutcher and Mora were in the fourth, next to W-19's. That leaves the second, 2851 RVC, by default as the home of the 'elderly man'.

W-19 told Serino (http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W19_SPD03102012track2.wav) on 3/1/12 that she saw this man the next day, and 'he was out of town or something overnight'. I don't think I've seen or heard another word about him in discovery. (The part about the elderly man is about 2/3 of the way through the recording. Sorry I couldn't find it on YouTube.)

There are 3 other units in those two buildings that have yielded no witnesses, the southernmost in W-19's building, and the 2 southernmost in the western building. There were press reports saying that RATL was hit hard by the housing crash, resulting in many units being vacant. I wouldn't be surpised if 3 units out of 11, or 27%, had no residents at a given time. But we wouldn't know about the elderly man if W-19 hadn't mentioned him, so there may be other residents in one or more of those units, who weren't home or haven't admitted to being home.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 06:59:55 AM
Among the witnesses not yet called are W3 (woman who called 15 seconds before shot), Austin McLendon, W19 . . . W17 (John Good's wife), and W20 (Lauer's husband). I would think the state would likely at least call W3 and Austin McLendon.

Also Mary Cutcher and Sierra McLendon.

Why W-3, and why not the others?

I think it's quite likely the prosecution will call all of them, so as not to appear to be hiding anything. I think the most likely candidates for omission are Austin, Sierra, and Cutcher.

Austin I've already discussed. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2534.msg114345.html#msg114345)

If Sierra isn't used as a proxy for her brother, she probably has nothing to say except what she told 911, that she heard a sound she couldn't identify just before Austin ran into the house. She wasn't interviewed by SPD, FDLE, or either State Attorney's office, but she was deposed.

I've said that in my opinion Mary Cutcher is the worst witness, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2284.msg105140.html#msg105140) and in particular the most impeachable. I won't be surprised if the prosecution doesn't call her and dares the defense to, so they can be the ones to impeach her, hopefully making the defense look bad just for putting her on. Since Nelson has ruled against (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2521.msg113740.html#msg113740) opinion testimony on whether screams/cries came from a child or an adult, Cutcher doesn't have much to say that helps the prosecution. What she can say duplicates Mora. From her admission to Ofcr. Mead, and on her 911 call relaying information from Mora, I think her statements are just falsely claiming to have accompanied Mora and to have seen what she saw. And Mora backs her up, which is why I have said that I think Mora will go down with Cutcher.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: RickyJim on July 01, 2013, 07:02:27 AM
I disagree about Austin. There were two witnesses who actually saw the altercation: Good and McLendon. He's probably 15 years old by now. If he tells the truth, I don't know why the testimony should be an ordeal. His original statements supported Zimmerman's version. He saw someone in red on his back, screaming for help. Good mentioned that he didn't see Martin initially, so the fact Austin saw only one person may be somewhat confusing, but it's explainable. The defense included Austin's video deposition in discovery, so I expect he'll be called, and if necessary, impeached with his previous statements. I believe Austin's mother and her lawyer tainted his later comments. I don't see why the defense should be forced to forego a helpful witness because of what I suspect came close to witness tampering.
I don't believe McClendon knew that Zimmerman's jacket was red at the original time of observation.  At trial he would point to exactly where he was on the diagram so it might clear that up.  I am somewhat dubious about Good also.  For both, it might have been information learned later.  You can just tell if a color is light or dark in a low light situation.  Do we know whether or not Austin went out to watch again while Zimmerman was still there?
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Cylinder on July 01, 2013, 10:24:19 AM
Why not? If using that word got the defense in trouble last week, I missed it.

"Drove his fist into Zimmerman's face" is Team Zimmerman's preferred nomenclature. They've said it like a dozen times already, I think.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 01, 2013, 11:28:03 AM
"Drove his fist into Zimmerman's face" is Team Zimmerman's preferred nomenclature. They've said it like a dozen times already, I think.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Cylinder on July 01, 2013, 12:38:29 PM
OK. My Serino Prediction just went down in flames.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: Jujube on July 01, 2013, 11:11:49 PM
"Drove his fist into Zimmerman's face" is Team Zimmerman's preferred nomenclature. They've said it like a dozen times already, I think.

You gotta wonder what the jury is thinking about all this....  I think they've said concrete at least a dozen times including the claim that Martin came armed with a concrete sidewalk. 
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 02, 2013, 01:57:21 AM
the claim that Martin came armed with a concrete sidewalk.

That he armed himself with the sidewalk.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 02, 2013, 02:01:11 AM
The lineup for 7/1/13, the first day of Week 2, was Nakasone, Singleton, Serino. It looks like the state won't call any of the remaining neighbor witnesses. It will be interesting to see which ones the defense calls.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 06:41:43 AM
The state will limit it's question to cause of death.

I reviewed the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsgtFBN8uKs&feature=player_embedded&list=PLYEBn4w1XOIeEsjIiyfTohqC6BQLI81vx3t=01h04m20s) of the part of Guy's opening statement that covered the autopsy (1:04:20-6:26).

It begins
Quote
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, you'll hear from the medical examiner.

I like this.
Quote
You'll learn that Trayvon Martin arrived for his appointment with Dr. Bao . . .

His last doctor's appointment. Isn't that sweet, and more than a little creepy? Just think of the emotional associations being triggered there, especially for the jurors who are parents.

That's what predominates in this part of Guy's opening - various poetic ways of harping on how the victim in the murder case is, who would have thought, actually dead. I expect to hear a lot more of that on the direct of Dr. Bao, priming the jurors for Sybrina.

Guy's substantive points:

TM was 5'11" and weighed 158 lbs. His hands weren't swollen, and the only injury to his hand that could be photographed was a small abrasion on his left ring finger. [TM, says Guy, was right handed.] TM's chest had burn marks ('stipples'), 'just like the shirt'. The path of the bullet was straight through the heart.

I don't think TM being right handed would be an autopsy finding. Guy didn't say what evidence would support it. Sybrina can testify to it, but I would think they would want something more neutral/objective. Does anyone recall any evidence on the point being presented?

Saying the burn marks in TM's flesh were 'just like' those on the shirt, nicely glosses over how it's really only the ones on the shirt that support a contact shot.

On direct, I think Dr. Bao will be asked about all of these things. That's TM's measurements, the condition of his hands, the stippling, and the path of the bullet. He will say that the stippling shows the gun muzzle was close, and on direct he won't be asked 'how close'. But the door will be open.

Bottom line, I think I was wrong, and AnnoyedBeyond (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2548.msg115002.html#msg115002) was right. I think Dr. Bao will be on the stand for a while.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 04, 2013, 07:11:01 AM

Bottom line, I think I was wrong, and AnnoyedBeyond (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2548.msg115002.html#msg115002) was right. I think Dr. Bao will be on the stand for a while.

Do they sell Powerball tickets on July 4th?


While reading your post I started to wonder--maybe Sybrina won't be the final witness. Maybe Guy meant it literally when he said "finally, you'll hear...".

Put Sybrina on, she'll be all dignified, not teary, maybe just a little teary, she'll say that was his voice and not a lot else because Don West can ask some pretty hard questions while sounding really sweet if she opens the door about what a sweet kid TM was.

Then they bring out Bao and Guy (probably Guy, I think) goes full Jack McCoy on the direct.

The more I think about it the more I even wonder if Sybrina will testify at all. Other than a voice ID, what can she say that won't open the door to TM's character, or their apparent estrangement, or whatever else? And if she only trots up there and says "that's my baby screaming for help" and nothing else, what's that say to the jury?

Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 10:11:45 AM
Gossip/speculation  just heard on CNN, that TM's brother may testify tomorrow, plus ME and Sybrina. They don't seem to have heard the 'just one more' rumor, report on 'good authority'.

I was wondering if they were only going to have one voice witness. I'm thinking they may have been planning only the ME and Sybrina when they hoped to get done on Wednesday, then broadened the line-up when it turned out they would have to go another day anyway.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 04, 2013, 10:59:04 AM
Is that the brother that said (paraphrasing) that it wasn't Trayvon but it might be but he didn't know but it could maybe possibly?
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: jeanmarc8 on July 04, 2013, 11:52:07 AM
IAMAL, and I have not been following this as close as others. 

I will comment on the apparent lack of favorable “personalization” of TM in the court proceedings. To my review, there has been relatively little information presented on TM, “the person”.  W8 provided some of that personalization, though how favorable that image was is open to discussion.  SF may provide some of that in her pending testimony; though as his mother she will likely be considered biased.

There was no school teacher called to provide some positive educational insights. There was no church pastor to vouch for his spiritual side. There was no coach from football to recollect some team contributions.  There was no “best friend” to recall humorous events.  The jury may be left to wonder about the “real” TM in their deliberations.

For GZ, there has been a lot of video in the trial from the police interviews and some background information as well. The testimony provided has often had some positive component. He has been present in court and visible to the jury for several weeks, and I would expect them to notice his personality. 

This seems to be in contrast to the media reporting for the 16 months between the event and the trial. For that period, favorable content for TM and negative content for GZ seemed to predominate in my view. This was even more apparent in the blogs. 

Perhaps MOM succeeded in his strategy with the veiled threat on negative material should the prosecution chose to open that door. 

Again, IANAL.
Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: TalkLeft on July 05, 2013, 01:51:03 AM
good observation, Jean Marc.

Title: Re: Expectations for Week Two
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 22, 2013, 07:21:33 AM

The child is in a sorry predicament. His own mother has gone on national television to impeach him (Al Sharpton, 3/28/12; Nancy Grace, 3/39/12). I believe he must be under tremendous pressure, from his family and his 'community'. I would hope both sides would have a little compassion.



In his Newspaper interview, Austin said that his classmates don't ask him about the incident. He said that kids his age don't watch the news.