TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Trial Expectations => Topic started by: TalkLeft on July 04, 2013, 07:34:04 PM

Title: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: TalkLeft on July 04, 2013, 07:34:04 PM
The state is expected to rest Friday, with Sybrina Fulton as their last witness. It's not known if they will also call Medical Examiner Shipping Bao (Bao has given interviews stating he expected to be called), if they will hold Bao for rebuttal or not call him at all.

After the state rests, the defense will move for its first judgment of acquittal. (It will make its second motion for JOA after the close of its case.)  The judge is almost certain to deny this, and any other motions to dismiss.

The defense will then either rest without putting on evidence  or begin its case.

I think they will present evidence,  particularly since they have a firearms/ballistics and pathology expert waiting in the wings.  I also expect them to call at least one witness familiar with GZ's voice who will say they think he is the person crying out for help in Jenna Lauer's call.

The defense also has a self-defense expert on tap but the state is objecting to his testimony.

Who do you think the defense will call, who should they call, and does anyone think GZ will testify?

Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 04, 2013, 08:00:22 PM
When you say "rest Monday" do you mean Monday or has the holiday thrown you off?


I'm looking forward to the super-deluxe-whiz-bang-second-by-second timeline O'Mara was hinting around about.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: TalkLeft on July 04, 2013, 08:02:09 PM
Thanks! The holiday threw me off. I keep thinking tomorrow is Monday. I fixed it.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Cylinder on July 04, 2013, 08:08:22 PM
They have a reenactment animation that they will have introduced. They keep pointing out the gap argument repeatedly.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 08:08:47 PM
I think the defense might call Rachel Jeantel and Tracy Martin as their own witnesses.

Meanwhile, I'm puzzled/confused over the crossing of Jeantel, which I thought was not complete. Do they waive their right to further cross if it isn't complete before the state rests? How does that work?
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: RickyJim on July 04, 2013, 08:13:39 PM
Why do you think the cross of Rachel Jeantel was not finished?  West did say they plan to call her in their own case.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 04, 2013, 08:15:22 PM
I think the defense might call Rachel Jeantel and Tracy Martin as their own witnesses.


Did you ever answer the question on the other thread as to why you thought the defense calling Tracy would be a good idea? Did I just miss it?

Because as I see it, they bring him up, he testifies that he said it wasn't TM, but then under cross he tells how he was in shock and didn't know what he was saying...a wash, at best.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 08:24:02 PM
It's not known if they will also call Medical Examiner Shipping Bao (Bao has given interviews stating he expected to be called), if they will hold Bao for rebuttal or not call him at all.

Guy said in his opening statement that the jurors would hear from the ME (Video, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsgtFBN8uKs&feature=player_embedded&list=PLYEBn4w1XOIeEsjIiyfTohqC6BQLI81vx3t=01h04m20s) 1:04:20).

If the state doesn't call him, I don't know why the defense wouldn't, maybe as their first witness, and make all they could of the state leaving their own promise for the other side to fulfill. I can't imagine the state won't call Dr. Bao before they rest.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 08:42:14 PM
Did you ever answer the question on the other thread as to why you thought the defense calling Tracy would be a good idea? Did I just miss it?

I think I missed the question.

Quote
Because as I see it, they bring him up, he testifies that he said it wasn't TM, but then under cross he tells how he was in shock and didn't know what he was saying...a wash, at best.

Has he said that's his story now? Last I heard it was still a difference in the sound quality, and the cops lying.

The 'in shock' story would be impeachable with its lateness, and possibly by Serino and Erwin testifying about Tracy's demeanor. I recall at one time mention of a third witness, but I don't know if he/she was ever identified. The more times the jurors hear the story of Tracy saying the voice wasn't his son's, the better for the defense IMO.

However Tracy tries to walk back the admission, he is stuck with the admission not being self-serving, while the walk-back is.

I don't see what the defense has to lose by getting it all in front of the jury, to make what they will of it.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: TalkLeft on July 04, 2013, 08:59:04 PM
They have a reenactment animation that they will have introduced. They keep pointing out the gap argument repeatedly.

Has the court ruled on the state's objection to it?
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Cylinder on July 04, 2013, 09:05:46 PM
Has the court ruled on the state's objection to it?

To my knowledge, no. I'll have to look back through the minutes.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Cylinder on July 04, 2013, 09:27:41 PM
No order or reference in trial minutes. I posted a thread (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2560.0.html) to discuss the motion itself.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 04, 2013, 11:01:27 PM
Why do you think the cross of Rachel Jeantel was not finished?

I don't have time to find it on video right now. My recollection is that before Jeantel was excused on her second day, when they were discussing whether to let her go home to Miami until she was needed again, one suggestion West made was to bring her back later the same day. The T-Mobile rep testified right after her, so I thought West wanted to cross her on the phone calls after more foundation was laid.

Quote
West did say they plan to call her in their own case.

I missed that.

It may be that West was just indifferent as to whether his remaining questions were asked on direct or cross.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: TalkLeft on July 05, 2013, 12:43:15 AM
Long interview with Mark O'Mara here. (http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Video-Zimmerman-lawyer-discusses-case-with-Local-6/-/1637132/20814476/-/7smn6s/-/index.html)

He expects evidence to be done middle to end of next week.

He will cross-examine Sbyrina Fulton "gingerly" because she's a grieving mother.

Decision on GZ testifying will be made after state ends case, and depend on whether he thinks state has proven charges

Medical examiner will testify but it will be dry

He will call a lot of witnesses

Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: cboldt on July 05, 2013, 04:00:20 AM
It may be that West was just indifferent as to whether his remaining questions were asked on direct or cross.

Or the defense has potential questions that could not be asked on cross.  I'm thinking reputation (for fighting, maybe for bigoted prejudices, although that door was opened with "creepy ass cracker") as one such line of questioning.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 05, 2013, 05:54:48 AM
Or the defense has potential questions that could not be asked on cross.

I guess I wasn't clear on what I was talking about. It starts at 11:32 on this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP8AI-xzW5o#t=11m32s)

West said something about a proffer. Did he mean he wanted to question Jeantel as part of a proffer, or that he needed to make the proffer to lay a foundation for questions he wanted to ask her? Or something else?

Then Nelson called a sidebar, which lasted about four and a half minutes from Nelson saying 'approach' (12:35-17:05). Then she sent the jury out, and there was a shorter sidebar, and then Nelson told Jeantel that she could to go home, and that she would be subject to recall.

At the time I took West to be indicating that he would be done with Jeantel if he could ask a few more questions on cross. After watching again, I realize I shouldn't draw any inferences, because I really have no idea what was happening there.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: cboldt on July 05, 2013, 06:03:43 AM
West said something about a proffer. Did he mean he wanted to question Jeantel as part of a proffer, or that he needed to make the proffer to lay a foundation for questions he wanted to ask her? Or something else?

The proffer is eliciting testimony outside the view of the jury.  Counsel would ask questions, the witness would answer, the judge would rule on admissibility.

It could have been that West was trying to get everything the defense wanted to cover, covered while the witness was a state's witness.  He might do that to make things easier for the witness (only one trip to Seminole County instead of two), or for tactical reasons during that part of the trial.  I assume West's proffer was denied, likely because the question was outside the scope of direct examination.  So, he preserved the right of defense to call the witness as a defense witness.  The scope of allowed questioning there will be admissibility in general, not limited by the scope of Q&A when she is state's witness.

Exactly what the defense wanted to probe is speculation, but I'd guess it was the interpersonal spat between she and Martin Feb 26th.  Another possibility is that he wanted to elicit reputation testimony.

As a tactical matter, those pieces of evidence coming in on the state's dime would, in principle, increase the chances of the judge granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after the state rests.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 05, 2013, 03:42:09 PM
Thanks, Cboldt.

The defense's first voice witness was GZ's mother. I'm thinking the last two should be GZ's father, and TM's father.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: unitron on July 06, 2013, 09:49:47 AM
I think O'Mara should put the very entertaining Dr. Bao on the stand and keep him there until the jury begs for mercy and promises an acquital in exchange for being allowed to go home.

 ;D
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 07:04:54 AM
I definitely think the defense should call Tracy Martin.

I'm thinking that if Tracy decides to admit to his earlier statement and try to explain it away, he might not be able to get away from his previous position that the police were lying. A lot will depend on what public statements he made in his own voice, without going through his privileged communication attorneys. Tracy did a lot of public speaking in various venues.

I'm not so sure about Robert Sr. It would be powerful symbolism, for the defense to bookend their voice witnesses with GZ's parents, then call the father of TM that the prosecution didn't call. I think the impact of the defense calling Tracy would be weakened somewhat by their not calling Robert Sr.

The flip side is that putting Robert Sr. on would give the state a juicy opportunity to play the race card.

In an earlier discussion, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2458.msg112522.html#msg112522)  it was argued that the state would be afraid to go there because they don't know how well Robert Sr. might defend his views. I'm not sure they don't know. His book came out on the eve of trial, but there may have been clues that led the state to explore the issue in his deposition. In any case, why would they care?

Watching and discussing the trial for the last few days, I've developed an appreciation for the importance of focus and momentum. If I were one of the prosecutors, I think I would like nothing better than to have Robert Sr. on the stand all day, holding forth on his opinions about racial relations in America, whether he argues them well or badly. It would be a huge distraction during the defense's part of the case, and break their momentum.

If any of the jurors feel that Robert Sr.'s opinions on these matters are crankish or morally questionable, they aren't likely to change their minds because he argues well.

The prosecution might not go there for a different reason. They seem to be in a hurry to get the case over with, so they might not want to use what amounts to a delaying tactic.

I'm thinking that calling Robert Sr. is a risk the defense would do well not to take.

All of the above is my opinion.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: RickyJim on July 07, 2013, 07:19:08 AM
You would only ask Tracy Martin about the screams on the 911 call?
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 07:58:44 AM
You would only ask Tracy Martin about the screams on the 911 call?

I can think of some other things. I would like to know more about what Chad said when he and Brandy got home. But that wasn't explored with Chad, so I doubt they will go there.

They could clear up that whole thing (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2336.msg107026.html#msg107026) about 'sitting out on the back'.

I'm sure there are possibilities I haven't thought of. What would you ask him?

ETA: If the quotes about TM were explored in deposition and turned out to be irrelevant, I suppose we won't hear about them in the trial.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 07, 2013, 09:32:08 AM
I definitely think the defense should call Tracy Martin.

I'm thinking that if Tracy decides to admit to his earlier statement and try to explain it away, he might not be able to get away from his previous position that the police were lying. A lot will depend on what public statements he made in his own voice, without going through his privileged communication attorneys. Tracy did a lot of public speaking in various venues.

I'm not so sure about Robert Sr. It would be powerful symbolism, for the defense to bookend their voice witnesses with GZ's parents, then call the father of TM that the prosecution didn't call. I think the impact of the defense calling Tracy would be weakened somewhat by their not calling Robert Sr.

The flip side is that putting Robert Sr. on would give the state a juicy opportunity to play the race card.

In an earlier discussion, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2458.msg112522.html#msg112522)  it was argued that the state would be afraid to go there because they don't know how well Robert Sr. might defend his views. I'm not sure they don't know. His book came out on the eve of trial, but there may have been clues that led the state to explore the issue in his deposition. In any case, why would they care?

Watching and discussing the trial for the last few days, I've developed an appreciation for the importance of focus and momentum. If I were one of the prosecutors, I think I would like nothing better than to have Robert Sr. on the stand all day, holding forth on his opinions about racial relations in America, whether he argues them well or badly. It would be a huge distraction during the defense's part of the case, and break their momentum.

If any of the jurors feel that Robert Sr.'s opinions on these matters are crankish or morally questionable, they aren't likely to change their minds because he argues well.

The prosecution might not go there for a different reason. They seem to be in a hurry to get the case over with, so they might not want to use what amounts to a delaying tactic.

I'm thinking that calling Robert Sr. is a risk the defense would do well not to take.

All of the above is my opinion.

I was thinking they should keep Robert Sr off the stand but today I'm re-thinking it. As long as O'Mara is very careful in the questions he asks, the prosecution will be very limited.

The only problem with that is the built in extra prosecutor--the one wearing the black bathrobe. JDN will also go out of her way to protect Tracy, I believe.




Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: RickyJim on July 07, 2013, 09:53:42 AM
I'm sure there are possibilities I haven't thought of. What would you ask him?
That all depends what I am allowed to ask him about.  I notice that O'Mara didn't question Sybrina Fulton about how she was faring financially as a result of the case, did she kick Trayvon out of her house and did she tell Crump she wasn't sure if Trayvon's voice was the one on a video he shot.  If I could, I would ask Tracy about the details of what he learned when speaking with Rachel Jeantel about the phone call with Trayvon before his death.  I don't believe he would have referred her to Crump if she said she heard nothing relating to the case.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
As long as O'Mara is very careful in the questions he asks, the prosecution will be very limited.

Credibility, including bias, is always fair game.

Fla. Stat. § 90.612 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.612.html)

Fla. Stat. § 90.608(2) (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.608.html)

Googling turns up plenty of Florida case law saying that 'bias' does include racial bias, at least when it is racial bias of a prosecution witness against a defendant. For racial bias of a defense witness against a victim, I haven't found a case either way.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 10:25:34 AM
I notice that O'Mara didn't question Sybrina Fulton about how she was faring financially as a result of the case

I don't know what you mean by this.

How Sybrina's financial interest would be affected by the outcome of the case would be fair game for impeachment, I think. I don't see why it wouldn't be. But I think going there in front of the jury would be negative sum.

Quote
did she kick Trayvon out of her house

Beyond the scope of direct, and I don't see how it would go to impeachment. I think the defense would have to call Sybrina themselves to ask that.

Quote
did she tell Crump she wasn't sure if Trayvon's voice was the one on a video he shot.

Privileged.

Is this something you've heard, or a guess? I haven't heard any such thing.

Quote
If I could, I would ask Tracy about the details of what he learned when speaking with Rachel Jeantel about the phone call with Trayvon before his death.

Very good point. I think Sybrina and Tracy both should be pressed on what Jeantel has told them, at any time.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 07, 2013, 10:29:33 AM
Credibility, including bias, is always fair game.

Fla. Stat. § 90.612 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.612.html)

Fla. Stat. § 90.608(2) (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.608.html)

Googling turns up plenty of Florida case law saying that 'bias' does include racial bias, at least when it is racial bias of a prosecution witness against a defendant. For racial bias of a defense witness against a victim, I haven't found a case either way.

You're correct, and I wasn't thinking of that (obviously) when I replied. I do wonder what RZ Sr would be considered there though--if he came to the stand solely to ID a voice on a tape, not to offer any testimony about any other aspect of the case. You have any ideas on that, NM?


Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: RickyJim on July 07, 2013, 10:34:03 AM
Is this something you've heard, or a guess? I haven't heard any such thing.
Quote
Ben Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, says that Martin’s own mother isn’t sure it’s his voice.
Jeralyn posted this link (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/09/18866221-on-eve-of-zimmerman-trial-in-trayvon-martin-killing-new-video-becomes-public?lite) on the main site.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 10:45:52 AM
I think Sybrina and Tracy both should be pressed on what Jeantel has told them, at any time.

When I wrote this I had lost sight of the fact that all the witnesses have been deposed. What the lawyers will ask will to some degree depend on the answers they have already gotten, most of which aren't known to us.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
I do wonder what RZ Sr would be considered there though--if he came to the stand solely to ID a voice on a tape, not to offer any testimony about any other aspect of the case. You have any ideas on that, NM?

I don't understand what you mean.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 10:57:41 AM
Jeralyn posted this link (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/09/18866221-on-eve-of-zimmerman-trial-in-trayvon-martin-killing-new-video-becomes-public?lite) on the main site.

Thank you.

I have to admit I wasn't reading carefully. I thought you were talking about the 911 call, even though you clearly said it was on one of the phone videos.

This might not be privileged, if Crump made such a public statement. But I don't think they can ask any witness anything about the video until (and unless) the video itself is admitted into evidence.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: TalkLeft on July 07, 2013, 02:03:00 PM
Comments claiming Robert Zimmerman Sr.'s phone records for 2/26 were subpoenaed have been deleted. The state subpoenaed Robert Zimmerman Jr.'s and Shellie Zimmerman's phone records for 2/26. They are in the 17th Suppl. Discovery filed June 3, 2013.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 07, 2013, 02:37:27 PM
If I could, I would ask Tracy about the details of what he learned when speaking with Rachel Jeantel about the phone call with Trayvon before his death.  I don't believe he would have referred her to Crump if she said she heard nothing relating to the case.
Why? All they needed was for RJ to confirm her phone was connected to TM's at the right times, and to get her to agree to make a statement that would help get an arrest of GZ.

Everything they needed her to say, they already had in hand, ready to put in her mouth if she agreed to say she heard it.

Unfortunately for everyone, RJ thought signing the 3/19 "letter" (and being prepared to say she wrote it if asked) was sufficient to their needs.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: ding7777 on July 07, 2013, 02:48:23 PM
did she kick Trayvon out of her house

Calling Brandy to ask why TM was staying with her when Tracy was away may get the answer.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 07, 2013, 11:10:11 PM
They have been moving quickly through the voice ID witnesses. If the defense even calls any more voice witnesses, I expect the last one will be excused well before the day is over. Who will be up next?

My best guess is that the defense will call their firearm and self-defense experts, to support an argument that GZ's manner of carrying was correct and common.

I think they may also call the instructor for the firearms safety course that GZ took to qualify for his concealed carry permit (85-86/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)). He would be a fact witness, so I don't think  they would have to pay him an expert's fee.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 09, 2013, 03:06:23 AM
I was wrong. Monday was almost all voice witnesses.

Word from Twitter is that the defense says they will finish on Tuesday or early Wednesday.

Here's how I understand the expert lineup.

Dennis Root, self defense.

Shoemaker, who made the animation. I don't know what kind of expert he is, or if there is anything else for him to testify about if the animation is excluded. I haven't found a convincing source for the spelling of his name, but 'Shoemaker' is on Twitter. That is what it sounds like.

De Maio, pathology. Also unsure of spelling.

Richard Connor (Jeralyn (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2584.msg116061.html#msg116061) thinks he will authenticate some phone data.)

Two whose names I don't know, firearms and toxicology.

The defense may also call Dr. Bruce Goldberger, the state's toxicologist.

Court convenes early on Tuesday, 8:30 AM. The animation will be discussed before the jury arrives. If the state's objections have not been satisfied, there may be a hearing.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: who007 on July 09, 2013, 03:56:01 AM
I'm expecting something will be made of Donnelly being in the courtroom a number of days last week.

Days when the tape was played in full.

Also, doesn't him being in the courtroom violate the sequestration rule?
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Meni on July 09, 2013, 03:08:54 PM
I'm expecting something will be made of Donnelly being in the courtroom a number of days last week.

Days when the tape was played in full.

Also, doesn't him being in the courtroom violate the sequestration rule?

I think they are addressing it today.

It is not clear if he violated anything.
He may not have been put on the witness list until after he was in court,
if he was there.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 09, 2013, 03:14:03 PM
I think they are addressing it today.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, the lawyers will come in before the jury to discuss Donnelly.

They are doing the animation now. After that, Conner proffer.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Meni on July 09, 2013, 03:15:41 PM
Oh thank you!
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: Meni on July 09, 2013, 03:21:04 PM
 Diana Tennis @TennisLaw

Note the irony. The reason there is not enough evidence to fill in blanks of animation is because state didn't prove what happened.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: who007 on July 10, 2013, 02:20:38 AM
I think they are addressing it today.

It is not clear if he violated anything.
He may not have been put on the witness list until after he was in court,
if he was there.
He was deposed in May; he was on the witness list before trial started.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 10, 2013, 05:24:32 AM
Last night (Tuesday) O'Mara said something about Eloise Dilligard (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2585.msg116067.html#msg116067) being his last witness. He may have just meant last for the day.

As I've mentioned, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2575.msg116034.html#msg116034) I think Mark Osterman did a good job defending concealed carry, in general and as practiced by GZ. But he's no substitute for an expert, as he conceded on cross. So I would think/hope that Dennis Root and the firearms expert are on deck for today.

I'm not clear on whether the defense ever had their own toxicology expert, or if they always intended to rely on Dr. Goldberger alone. Either way, I don't think it's likely that the defense will drop the whole toxicology matter, after working so hard to get it in.

I missed most of Tuesday's Conner proffer. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2584.msg116096.html#msg116096) It seems that at least three witnesses (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2584.msg116097.html#msg116097) were named as receiving pertinent communications from TM's phone. I'm thinking they will be called to testify in person, as O'Mara suggested in one of the pre-trial hearings. I'm hoping Rachel Jeantel will be recalled as well.

I find it hard to believe the line-up I've suggested can be gotten through today. I'm thinking I've made some wrong guesses, or the defense isn't resting before Thursday.

Court convenes at 8:00 AM today, without the jury, to take up the alleged sequestration violation by defense witness John Donnelly. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2578.msg115783.html#msg115783) Judge Nelson may also rule on admitting the defense's animation and their evidence from TM's phone.

All of the above are my opinions.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 10, 2013, 06:06:02 AM
I've just learned from Twitter that court will start at 9:00 AM today.
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 10, 2013, 06:31:41 AM
I've just learned from Twitter that court will start at 9:00 AM today.

I learned that before midnight but couldn't post it here.

The court spokesman said JDN "changed her mind". LOL
Title: Re: Week 3 Expectations on Defense Case
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 10, 2013, 07:01:08 AM
Wow. Talking heads are going nuts with the reversible error thing. Talking about how the judge just can't push the lawyers with a stupid schedule.

Court in session. Sidebar.