TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Daily Trial Proceedings => Topic started by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:02:21 AM

Title: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:02:21 AM
8:59 AM

I forgot they were starting early today. They're still arguing about the evidence on GZ's background, and presumably have been for the last half hour. Mantei is addressing the court at length.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:05:46 AM
Mantei alluded to some testimony by Osterman, suggesting that some of GZ's actions were motivated by interpretations of things said by the NEN dispatcher, Sean Noffke.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:06:44 AM
Mantei alluded to some testimony by Osterman, suggesting that some of GZ's actions were motivated by interpretations of things said by the NEN dispatcher, Sean Noffke.

He had to have Osterman tell him that? Good God GZ's told them that from the beginning.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:07:01 AM
Nelson said the allusion to GZ's credit history in the rejection of his police academy application will have to be redacted.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:07:36 AM
He had to have Osterman tell him that? Good God GZ's told them that from the beginning.

GZ hasn't testified.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:10:40 AM
O'Mara up. He asked Nelson for more time to look at case law. She said he had already had all night, and she told him to be ready today.

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

Nelson is not sympathetic.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:11:09 AM
GZ hasn't testified.

Thanks Einstein.

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

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

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:12:00 AM
8:59 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

O'Mara says it is a 404.2 (character evidence by prior acts).  That the state is trying to take coursework, cop ride along, police application and convert them into some sort of state of mind.  All of the state's cites are 404.2 cases.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:14:10 AM
O'Mara said the state wants to say the acts they allege aren't bad in themselves so they don't have to meet the burden for admitting 'prior bad acts', but they will suggest to the jury that the acts are 'subtle, seething bad acts'.

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

I love these colorful terms.

And O'Mara loves 'seething'.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:15:34 AM

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

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

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:20:39 AM
O'Mara argues that the state needs to proffer a theory (or, I say, a proposition) in order to provide foundation to a finding a relevance.  The dots need to be connected between the past action and the crime being tried.

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

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

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

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

Ten minute recess.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
I wonder at what point the State of Florida might regret this tack, the next time a police officer is involved in one of those non straight forward shootings and the attorney for the family uses this sort of thing to demonstrate to a jury that obviously the officer in question was a bloodthirsty yahoo.

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

Rules, statutes, case law, etc. are not applied uniformly.  It's one of the dirty little secrets of law.  The important thing is that the public thinks the system is rules based.  Show the rules, say you follow them.  So few people look to see if that is in fact true, and an elaborate and opaque charade obfuscates the reality, that the belief in uniformity and fairness  persists.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:30:03 AM
Nelson says she's inclined to leave the word "credit" in so the jury can speculate on the meaning of that.

Did you mean 'not inclined'?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:32:28 AM
Did you mean 'not inclined'?

She said she wanted to take out "bad" and they could speculate that perhaps the PD couldn't get his credit history or some other reason, but she said she wanted credit in.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:33:08 AM
Piece of cake.  Each case stands on its own.  When the judge thinks 404.2 is beneficial to the desired outcome, it just rules the other way.

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

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

And btw, you appear more cynical than I.

Congratulations.  ;D
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:33:36 AM
It sound's like Nelson is letting in all the disputed items, with a few redactions.

Jury coming in.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:35:13 AM
Did you mean 'not inclined'?

Nope.  The summary said "bad credit," which Mantei said could mean Zimmerman lied on his application, or that he had bad credit.  Nelson is the one who suggested "bad credit" be redacted entirely, as irrelevant.  O'Mara wanted it in, not that he wanted the public to know that Zimmerman had bad credit, but better that than to speculate he was rejected for bad moral character or something.  Nelson suggested the word "bad" be redacted, leaving just the word "credit" in there, and she said it would be up to the jury to infer whatever meaning they wanted, to that.

She seems to be a fan of conviction by speculation and inference, using irrelevant evidence.  In this case, at least.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:36:59 AM
9:34 AM

Next witness sworn

Her name is Sonja Boles [something]. She is authenticating GZ's school records.

ETA: 9:38 AM

Witness excused, next witness sworn

Nelson repeated the name. I think the last one is 'Melvin'.

The next witness is a police official for Prince William County, Va.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:37:36 AM
So every time they bleat about case law and precedent, they're blowing smoke?

And btw, you appear more cynical than I.

Congratulations.  ;D

Not each time, but sometimes.  I have a few pet peeves there.  Chronic misrepresentation of Presser, Miller and even Marbury v. Madison.  The law is 95% outcome driven.  There are enough precedents, and cherry picking statements out of context is a powerful tool, that any decision can be made to look like it is rules based.

Edit to fix open italics tag.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 07:38:38 AM
9:34 AM

Next witness sworn

Her name is Sonja Boles [something]. She is authenticating GZ's school records.

boles-melvin. She's the registrar.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:43:20 AM
Mantei elicited that there is nothing 'unusual or sinister' about a person being turned down for a position as an officer.

West on cross.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:49:42 AM
West has a lot of questions about the details of the record keeping process.

He elicited that GZ's record does indicate that some problem with his credit was the reason he was rejected, and that it was possible he could have re-applied if his credit improved.

Witness excused.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:53:01 AM
9:59 next witness sworn.

Mantei on direct.

Captain in JAG, an army prosecutor. He taught Criminal Litigation at Seminole State College. He recalls GZ, gave him an A.

Q&A on course content.

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Witness said self defense was covered.

I didn't catch his name, but I think this would be Carter.

ETA: Yes, Mantei addressed him as 'Professor Carter'.

West on cross.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 07:56:48 AM
Instructor says Zimmerman was probably one of the better students in the class.

Mantei asks what is covered as far as self-defense under Florida law.  Instructor says the course included SYG and castle doctrine.  Did you discuss self defense and stand your ground in the context of crimes such as murder?  Yes.  How much time was spent in the course on this?  It's an affirmative defense, it was constantly interated, students wanted to know about it, it was practical, the class was engaged in the discussions, he recalls talking about it many times.

Cross exam by West.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 08:04:48 AM
Carter agreed that the course text was specialized for Florida law, said he added supplemental material for that.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 08:05:04 AM
Witness also worked as a public defender.  Were you a PD at the same time you taught Zimmerman? Yes.  First job as a lawyer was public defender.  Witness likes teaching, would like to be a law professor.  Educating others helped reinforce the things he needed to know in his job.  Law on the books vs. law in action.  Any change in a fact (in a case) can change the outcome (how true!).  All facts have significance, but there are certain things that through case law have been given more weight.  "Reasonable person standard" comes up.  West says "reasonable belief" is squarely part of self defense.  Gets agreement.

Witness now does only prosecution at this time.  He had done admin law in a federal context.

Is this your career?  Witness would rather not comment on that right now.

Witness did not write the course book.  It was suggested, previous professor used it.  It was not Florida law.  Book may have referenced majority/minority of states (as to each legal proposition or standard) but did not single out Florida.  Some class discussion was on Florida law, and stand your ground.

I'm going to set aside commenting until/unless the witness says something that strikes me as remarkable in the context of the Zimmerman case.  The witness seems to be a straight-up good person.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 03, 2013, 08:21:01 AM
The key question Carter will probably not be asked, "Did the expression "Stand Your Ground" occur prominently in the class discussion of self defense?". 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 08:27:31 AM
I've started a witness thread for Carter. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2549.msg114873.html#msg114873)
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 08:33:36 AM
West is keying on the notion of reasonable attaches to the fear of injury, and not actual injury.  The witness taught class with example from YouTube, stopped frame by frame, and says that the situation can change quickly; that it is possible to have reasonable imminent fear, with no injuries.  Injuries tend to corroborate a person's assertion that their fear was reasonable.

West gets into imperfect self defense.  The witness says using too much force.

Mantei had been making objections - West clarifies that all of his questions pertain to what was taught in the class, not to what the witness knows in general.  That stops the objections for now.

West describes the Zimmerman / Martin confrontation.  Person being held, beating goes on for 10, 20, 30 seconds, the victim wouldn't know when the attack would stop.  Objection, sustained.  Too much like giving an opinion on this case, as to ultimate conclusion.

West goes on to a fight where tables are turned.  Use of disproportionate force is imperfect self defense.  West says what about the person who started it (used small force, met with disproportionate force)? Can they return force?  Yes.

Back to Mantei.  This worked almost as good as the expert (Root?) that is the subject of the recent state motion in limine.

Mantei attempts to raise "provoke."  West objects, not raised on direct or on cross.  Also (my two cents) provocation in a self defense inquiry is limited to threat or use of force.

Mantei won, uses imperfect self defense example as an act of provocation.

Witness says he is referring to disproportionate force, excessive force (doesn't get to the initiation question)  Mantei drops it.  Witness is excused.  Next witness . . . (cue Jaws music)
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 08:39:25 AM
10:38 AM

Court recessed until 11:00 AM.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 08:45:15 AM
WFTV talking heads said reports are the state has 8 remaining witnesses. They speculated all of them might complete their testimony today.

Whatever the count is, I am skeptical they will get through them all today.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 08:56:32 AM
WFTV talking heads said reports are the state has 8 remaining witnesses. They speculated all of them might complete their testimony today.

Whatever the count is, I am skeptical they will get through them all today.

If it was 8 at the start of the day, they've already gone through half of them.  Some witnesses go fast.  I can't imagine Sybrina, if she takes the stand, to take very long.  15 minutes total, would be my estimate, tops.  Medical examiner who examined Martin's body, DNA expert, Gunshot expert.  All fairly straightforward due to lack of need to challenge their findings.

Might be a long day, end after 5, but I think it's possible to get done today.

I wonder if Court is in session on Friday.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 08:58:58 AM
Rene Stutzman tweets that O'Mara just deposed Pleasance over Mantei's cell phone.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:01:35 AM
11:00 AM

Pleasance on remote, I think Skype, he said he can't hear.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:25:24 AM
11:22 AM, Pleasants (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2550.msg114889.html#msg114889) excused.

Next witness Siewart, FDLE firearm analyst.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:28:52 AM
Siewart worked on gun and holster. Guy presented them to her, she IDed them.

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:30:33 AM
Gun lock removed from gun, deputy checked it wasn't loaded. Siewart is explaining the gun.

ETA: It's Amy Stiewart, according to Stutzman tweet.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:32:36 AM
AS explaining double action.

ETA: Then she explained extended trigger pull.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 09:35:28 AM
DAO, Double action only.  Every pull of the trigger energizes the hammer spring.  Long trigger action, about 4.5 pound trigger pull.  The state is arguing that the discharge was not accidental.  I think that proposition is not contentious.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
The state is arguing that the discharge was not accidental.  I think that proposition is not contentious.

Covering bases. I don't know if anything precludes the defense from springing that argument at the last moment.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:41:48 AM
Guy eliciting testimony about tests of the hoodie and shirt showing contact shot.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:50:36 AM
11:50 AM

O'Mara on cross.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 09:53:01 AM
Covering bases. I don't know if anything precludes the defense from springing that argument at the last moment.

Nothing, other than appearing disjointed to the jury.  Well, that plus an unintentional discharge is very difficult to portray as an intentional act.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 09:54:49 AM
O'Mara eliciting explanation for why a double action pistol doesn't need an external safety.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 09:55:49 AM
Nothing, other than appearing disjointed to the jury.  Well, that plus an unintentional discharge is very difficult to portray as an intentional act.

Of course, GZ has told everyone in sight that he shot TM and he did it because he was scared he was going to be killed. That kind of precludes the defense arguing it was an AD too.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 03, 2013, 09:56:34 AM
Said both sweatshirts were in contact with each other when bullet was fired.  Gun in contact with outer sweatshirt.  I think the idea is to refute defense theory that gun was lightly put against sweatshirt without pushing it into Martin's chest.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:02:54 AM
O'Mara tried to get AS to say that the Kel Tec 9 is safe to carry loaded. She wouldn't say those words, but said it is safe unless the trigger is pulled.

AS believes LE usually carry pistols loaded. 

AS agrees that for LE, weapons are not much use if not ready to fire.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:05:29 AM
AS said her finding is that the gun was in contact with the shirt, without distinction between light touching or pressing.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:08:16 AM
12:06 PM

Guy on redirect.

He asked if the gun could be used to commit a murder. I think she had answered affirmatively before O'Mara got his objection out. Sustained.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:12:10 AM
I took a break. O'Mara is on re-cross.

ETA: 12:12 PM

AS excused.

Nelson admonished jury, excused them at 12:13 PM.

Recess for lunch, 12:14 PM to 1:45 PM.

WFTV talking heads speculate two more witnesses, ME and Sybrina.

If the state is only going to have one voice witness, what was all the fuss during Nakasone's testimony about people listening in groups?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 10:15:47 AM
I took a break. O'Mara is on re-cross.

You didn't miss anything.  Court in recess until 1:45.  Jury is doing something different for lunch (probably expressed they are getting tired of the same box lunches every day).
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 03, 2013, 10:25:08 AM
Already those on the anti Zimmerman side are resigned to the inevitable and have started to attack the prosecution.  This is typical of what I am seeing now on the Huffington Post.
Quote
This particular prosecutor has no interest in purusing justice for Trayvon Martin and is simply going through the motions. Evidently, he does not wish to be there. There is a total lack of vigor on his part. He is about as useful as paramedics would have been for Trayvon the night Zimmerman hunted him down.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: jjr495 on July 03, 2013, 10:30:58 AM
Said both sweatshirts were in contact with each other when bullet was fired.  Gun in contact with outer sweatshirt.  I think the idea is to refute defense theory that gun was lightly put against sweatshirt without pushing it into Martin's chest.
Has it been noted somewhere whether or not the button went through both shirts?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:32:19 AM
Already those on the anti Zimmerman side are resigned to the inevitable and have started to attack the prosecution.

This time they're right. It was a pitiful performance.

At least the jury won't take all the blame.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:34:35 AM
Has it been noted somewhere whether or not the button went through both shirts?

Yes, Siewart talked about both shirts. I didn't think that was worth mentioning.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:36:31 AM
Of course, GZ has told everyone in sight that he shot TM and he did it because he was scared he was going to be killed. That kind of precludes the defense arguing it was an AD too.

They are allowed alternative defenses.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: Jujube on July 03, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
No one started a thread under Witnesses for this firearms person? 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: jjr495 on July 03, 2013, 10:39:34 AM
Yes, Siewart talked about both shirts. I didn't think that was worth mentioning.
Just to clarify-- she testified that both shirts were held together by the button TM was wearing?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 10:46:16 AM
Just to clarify-- she testified that both shirts were held together by the button TM was wearing?

Sorry, I read that carelessly. You said button, not bullet.

No, I don't recall the button being mentioned since the start of the trial. I think CST Smith repeated the list of items collected from TM's person, so it would have been mentioned then, but I don't remember.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 03, 2013, 10:48:09 AM
This time they're right. It was a pitiful performance.

At least the jury won't take all the blame.
The prosecution was stuck with the choice of not presenting Zimmerman's statements and being left with not being able to present the contradictions in closing if Zimmerman didn't take the stand, and presenting them, guaranteeing he wouldn't take the stand.  They probably will take at least a day for closing arguments and rely on slick power points to show the contradictions and make the claim they are incompatible with Zimmerman being not guilty.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 11:25:37 AM
One of the WFTV talking heads referred to the beverage as 'watermelon iced tea'.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
They are allowed alternative defenses.

Allowed yes. But certainly you'd have to admit--hard to argue when there's all that video of your client already in evidence saying something else.

Or are you just being pigheaded for fun today?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 11:34:33 AM
Or are you just being pigheaded for fun today?

Every day.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 11:42:41 AM
Every day.

 ;D

Zing!

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
1:46 PM

West talking about scheduling Crump's deposition.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 11:50:26 AM
Nelson confirms that the state plans on resting today.

West wants to take Friday off for Crump's depo. Nelson doesn't like that idea.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 11:51:19 AM
West tried to get Friday as a recess.  Nelson says no.  West named a few witnesses that needed to be deposed, not just Crump.  Nelson says defense has had a month to depose Crump.  West describes what happened, in court, each day since Crump was told he was deposable on 6/3.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 11:54:38 AM
Nelson says the schedule has the state resting today, and defense begins on Friday.

She says there has never been a request to recess early to allow deposition.  Now she has a jury sequestered, they are off on Thursday.  She says "End of discussion," West goes on explaining that the defense has persistently asked for more time.  Nelson says this can be discussed with her again after the state rests.  Bernardo says the state might need until Friday morning.  Nelson says they will work as long as it takes, today, for the state to rest.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 03, 2013, 11:55:13 AM
So why doesn't the defense want to interview Crump, Sunday at 6PM? 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 11:55:27 AM
What's her rush?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
Bernie says they may have to finish on Friday morning. Nelson gets testy with him too. She wants to finish the state's case today, she said something about staying as late as it takes.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 11:56:44 AM
What's her rush?

She's trying to curry favor with the jury.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 03, 2013, 11:57:13 AM
I missed it. Is Crump dodging West and MOM?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: Redbrow on July 03, 2013, 11:57:57 AM
By all accounts the prosecution has taken far less time than planned for. So why not use the unexpected extra time to ensure due process?

This is unbelievable bias and hostility.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 12:00:49 PM
By all accounts the prosecution has taken far less time than planned for. So why not use the unexpected extra time to ensure due process?

This is unbelievable bias and hostility.

I think it's run pretty much on the estimated schedule - 8+ days for the prosecution.  Total time of 10-20 days.  She's hustling things up because the jury doesn't want to be "stuck" any longer than necessary.

She's been consistently short with the defense.  I think that is a good sign for Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 12:07:43 PM
Anthony Gorgone, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2552.msg114946.html#msg114946) FDLE DNA Analyst.

Bernie on direct.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 12:13:50 PM


She's been consistently short with the defense.  I think that is a good sign for Zimmerman.

?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 12:16:48 PM
?

If Zimmerman is convicted, he appeals, and uses all of her bad decisions.

But, if Zimmerman is acquitted, all the errors she made that cut against the defense just "vanish."  It's rational for a judge to bias trial errors more against the side the judge thinks will ultimately prevail.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 12:22:05 PM
If Zimmerman is convicted, he appeals, and uses all of her bad decisions.

But, if Zimmerman is acquitted, all the errors she made that cut against the defense just "vanish."  It's rational for a judge to bias trial errors more against the side the judge thinks will ultimately prevail.

I figured that's what you were saying, you've said it before.

I suppose you're right, I just don't like it--the idea of GZ (or anyone) having to appeal to a higher court to try and get justice.


ETA: it looks like the lawyers on twitter are losing their minds, at least the ones I've seen, Diana Tennis, Jeff Dean and so forth. They can't believe how biased the judge is appearing toward the state.

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:09:47 PM
About 3:40 PM, there was 15 minute recess that lasted a little more than 20 minutes.

West crossing Anthony Gorgone.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: Jujube on July 03, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
I can't believe that they aren't going to have someone from Kokopelli's gym testify.  Incredible. 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 02:13:23 PM
I can't believe that they aren't going to have someone from Kokopelli's gym testify.  Incredible.

It would lead back to testimony that GZ took the classes but was a giant puss and never got past the heavy bag, that they weren't comfortable with him even getting in the ring.

That's not helpful for the Giant Evil George image.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:20:47 PM
In a homicide case in which the body is examined by an ME, does the ME ever not testify? I think the count of the talking heads was off. There will be Dr. Bao, and Sybrina, at least. Nelson said said she will go late, so they can be accommodated. 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: Jujube on July 03, 2013, 02:22:25 PM
It would lead back to testimony that GZ took the classes but was a giant puss and never got past the heavy bag, that they weren't comfortable with him even getting in the ring.

That's not helpful for the Giant Evil George image.

But the defense can call them and get this same testimony.  I think it's a big mistake for the State to not call them. 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:23:10 PM
It would lead back to testimony that GZ took the classes but was a giant puss and never got past the heavy bag, that they weren't comfortable with him even getting in the ring.

If that's true, the defense can call them, and in closing point out how the prosecution tried to insinuate something, then tried to hide the witness who would undermine it.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 02:23:30 PM
In a homicide case in which the body is examined by an ME, does the ME ever not testify? I think the count of the talking heads was off. There will be Dr. Bao, and Sybrina, at least. Nelson said said she will go late, so they can be accommodated.

She did say late, but honestly--do you see the ME getting off the stand quickly? It's almost 4:30 now...I think she'll be forced to call a halt before Sybrina.

But what do I know.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 02:24:52 PM
If that's true, the defense can call them, and in closing point out how the prosecution tried to insinuate something, then tried to hide the witness who would undermine it.

??

Don't tell me you haven't read that material?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:39:22 PM
Don't tell me you haven't read that material?

I did, when it first came out. I didn't make notes on it.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
She did say late, but honestly--do you see the ME getting off the stand quickly?

Possibly. I don't know what he will say that the defense would want to challenge, except possibly TM's height.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 02:44:50 PM
Possibly. I don't know what he will say that the defense would want to challenge, except possibly TM's height.


Drugs etc?
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 02:51:54 PM
Drugs etc?

The state will limit it's question to cause of death.  Cross exam will be limited with the ME as state's witness.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 02:53:01 PM
What about drugs?

In Guy's opening statement, I thought he dwelled on the autopsy for emotional impact, without making many substantive points. I expect Dr. Bao's direct will be much the same.

They carried him in a body bag. They put him on an autopsy table. You'd think the poor guy was dead, or something.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 02:55:00 PM
What about drugs?

In Guy's opening statement, I thought he dwelled on the autopsy for emotional impact, without making many substantive points. I expect Dr. Bao's direct will be much the same.

They carried him in a body bag. They put him on an autopsy table. You'd think the poor guy was dead, or something.

Discussing the drugs found in TM's system, results we haven't seen yet, a bunch of things like that.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: MJW on July 03, 2013, 03:02:21 PM
Discussing the drugs found in TM's system, results we haven't seen yet, a bunch of things like that.

The state won't ask about drugs on direct, so the defense won't be able to bring it up on cross.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:02:29 PM
As Cboldt pointed out, the defense may have to call the ME as their own witness to talk about toxicology.

Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 03:05:23 PM
How will the ME be able to testify about some parts of the autopsy report without opening the door to talk about the whole report?

I know. It's whatever Nelson says it is.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:22:25 PM
5:20 PM.

AG excused.

Bernie asked for a sidebar.

Sidebar.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 03:23:04 PM
No Sybrina today.

West wins.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 03:24:24 PM
No Sybrina today.

West wins.

Court is in recess until 8:30 Friday.

Got that?  8:30 Friday AM
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:24:58 PM
5:22 PM.

Nelson told the jury they would be excused for the day, to return at 8:30 AM on Friday, 7/5/13. She read the admonitions.

5:23 PM.

Jury excused.

Sidebar.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 03, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
Happy Independence Day, "y'all"  Have a good holiday.  Thanks for camaraderie and remarks.  I might actually get some paying work done tomorrow.  LOL.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 03, 2013, 03:29:37 PM
Happy Independence Day, "y'all"  Have a good holiday.  Thanks for camaraderie and remarks.  I might actually get some paying work done tomorrow.  LOL.

I was just about to post something very much like this.

Best wishes for a happy and safe holiday to everyone here.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: MJW on July 03, 2013, 03:32:52 PM
How will the ME be able to testify about some parts of the autopsy report without opening the door to talk about the whole report?

That's not unusual. For example, in the Diaz (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2157091988356146854&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45) case:

Quote
The trial judge correctly ruled that the results of the toxicological examination were not relevant at that time. The victim's blood alcohol level was absolutely irrelevant to the medical examiner's testimony, the sole purpose of which was to establish that the cause of death was a knife wound to the victim's abdomen. Moreover, counsel's suggestion that all aspects of an autopsy are fair game for cross-examination is incorrect.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:35:35 PM
WFTV talking heads still say the state only has one more witness, citing 'good authority'.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:37:02 PM
5:36 PM.

Court recessed until 8:30 AM Friday, 7/5/13.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 03, 2013, 03:59:24 PM
The state will limit it's question to cause of death.

I think the state will also present the autopsy measurements of TM's height and weight. The defense will then argue that his legs were bent and rigor had set in.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: ding7777 on July 03, 2013, 08:48:21 PM
I can't believe that they aren't going to have someone from Kokopelli's gym testify.  Incredible.

Yes, especially since Guy said in his opening that GZ was learning MMA fighting techniques, 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: cboldt on July 04, 2013, 03:31:02 AM
Yes, especially since Guy said in his opening that GZ was learning MMA fighting techniques,

The state already got that in via Altamont Family Practice testimony.  That lists that Zimmerman was using MMA.  The defense got her to explain that this was an aerobic exercise, and that she went a level of detail deeper in recording it on the medical record.  Anyway, the state probably feels it has delivered what it promised.  The medical record shows Zimmermn at the gym practicing MMA.

The testimony from a person at the gym is going to undermine the impression the state wants to leave.  I think the state should call the person from the gym, and take whatever lumps comes.  By not calling that person, it is still exposed to the lumps, plus, O'Mara will be able to argue on closing that the state chose not to call that witness because the testimony undercuts their case.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 06:53:29 AM
The state will limit it's question to cause of death.

Response on thread for Expectations for Week Two. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2534.msg115056.html#msg115056)
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: RickyJim on July 04, 2013, 07:28:21 AM
Diwataman caught this neat piece of pettifoggery (http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/gz-trial-highlight-george-punching-trayvon/) by Bernie. 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: Jujube on July 04, 2013, 01:57:46 PM
Is there a thread here that discusses GZ's demeanor during the trial?  How the jury may/may not be reading it?  I can't seem to find one.... 
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 04, 2013, 02:40:24 PM
Is there a thread here that discusses GZ's demeanor during the trial?  How the jury may/may not be reading it?  I can't seem to find one....

Start one. The only thing is the occasional mention during testimony threads AFAIK.
Title: Re: Week 2, 3rd Day, 7/3/13
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 06, 2013, 04:16:06 AM
AS explaining double action.

ETA: Then she explained extended trigger pull.

I got this wrong.

As AS explained later, 'trigger pull' is the amount of force that must be applied to the trigger to fire a round. The distance it has to move is called the 'trigger travel distance'. This was the term Guy was asking AS to explain (Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_567897&feature=iv&src_vid=HlAJNaZaQ28&v=tV5E_ge17fY#t=09m42s) 9:42). Then he asked her the 'relative distance' of the Kel Tec PF9. She said it has 'a longer distance than most typical pistols'.