• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Day 11 testimony (Tuesday7/9)

buck said:
I was thinking that earlier. I get trying to get the case done as quickly as possible with the jury under sequestration, but the judge should put more emphasis on trying to ensure that Zimmerman gets a fair trial.

A lot of these issues are directly related to the judge denying a delay in starting the trial. That seems like a small thing to do and would have ensured a smoother case and a quicker presentation to ensure the jury can get out of there quicker.
Click to expand...

How long did they have to prepare?

I don't know...the longer you wait to start the trial, I would think it would get more difficult to chose find a jury.
 
year2late said:
How long did they have to prepare?

I don't know...the longer you wait to start the trial, I would think it would get more difficult to chose find a jury.
Click to expand...

That's half of what the defense was bitching about tonight. The state didn't turn over pertinent information....potentially exculpatory stuff....until just a couple of weeks before jury selection.
 
Lutherf said:
That's half of what the defense was bitching about tonight. The state didn't turn over pertinent information....potentially exculpatory stuff....until just a couple of weeks before jury selection.
Click to expand...
That starts about the 05:21 mark. He then continues @ 11:52.
 
Last edited:
Exhaus.jpg


@ the 03:57 mark



Exhaus002.jpg



718 So.2d 822 (1998)
Elmer FERRER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-0575.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 19, 1998.
Order Denying Rehearing November 4, 1998.​

[...]

Of course, this technique also has the potential effect, as indicated in this case, of denying a party effective or meaningful representation by counsel. As with jurors, lawyers have limits and cannot be expected to routinely work trial days that extend well beyond ordinary ending time and into the evening.[1] Hence in a criminal case, it could lead to a denial of the effective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment. In a civil case the effect, though not of a constitutional nature, could just as likely erode the fundamental right to have worthwhile representation by the lawyer. In either event, the conclusion is that exhausting counsel by such proceedings deprives the party of the right to have a lawyer's skillful service.

[...]

Google Scholar
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
year2late said:
How long did they have to prepare?
Click to expand...

Not long enough.

I don't know...the longer you wait to start the trial, I would think it would get more difficult to chose find a jury.
Click to expand...

I find that unlikely. As people's interest dies down, it might have actually become easier. Additionally, I don't think someone that hasn't been paying attention to the case for a year will suddenly start paying attention to the case a few weeks or month later.
 
Excon said:
That starts about the 05:21 mark. He then continues @ 11:52.
Click to expand...


notice how the judge repeatedly intruded on west's presentation
she refused to allow him to continue his argument
one which she recognized undermined her own objection
she was embarrassed to have west respond that FDLE required a year, multiple experts, and specially written code to penetrate martin's double layered passcode, after she had insisted a kid could do it
she knows the defense's presentation that the state intentionally deprived the defense of evidence has merit and he realizes the court was compliant in those state efforts to conceal the information from the defense when refusing time to permit documentation of authenticity, while simultaneously establishing a very high, very unreasonable bar - martin's personal verification - of the withheld evidence
 
justabubba said:
notice how the judge repeatedly intruded on west's presentation
she refused to allow him to continue his argument
one which she recognized undermined her own objection
she was embarrassed to have west respond that FDLE required a year, multiple experts, and specially written code to penetrate martin's double layered passcode, after she had insisted a kid could do it
she knows the defense's presentation that the state intentionally deprived the defense of evidence has merit and he realizes the court was compliant in those state efforts to conceal the information from the defense when refusing time to permit documentation of authenticity, while simultaneously establishing a very high, very unreasonable bar - martin's personal verification - of the withheld evidence
Click to expand...

One would think there's plenty of case law that shows admission of cell phone texts -- if not, it's only because case law is behind the times.

(Do we know what the text messages say, anyone?)
 
Analysts are blaming the judge for these issues. stating that she should have taken care of these issues before the trial started instead of starting the trial when she did. They're also indicating that George's right to a trial is more important then the jury getting home. Glad, again, that we aren't the only ones saying that.
 
MaggieD said:
One would think there's plenty of case law that shows admission of cell phone texts -- if not, it's only because case law is behind the times.

(Do we know what the text messages say, anyone?)
Click to expand...

One was talking about a fight where Trayvon was on the recieving end of something similar to what George was in. One was about a friend, cousin, brother (can't recall) askign Travon to teach him how to fight.
 
spanky said:
The only link you've provided is to a NYT article. Link the original police statement and then highlight the comment so we can judge it in situ.

Or are you saying we should take the word of say, NBC in qouting Zimm?
Click to expand...

Here's what you said:
"True, but then again you would expect someone who believed they were in danger of death or great bodily harm, enough so that you are justified in drawing a weapon and killing someone, that they would say so, even one time, in multiple police interviews and written statements.

Zimm never did that."

Here's the transcript:
CNN.com - Transcripts

ZIMMERMAN: I didn't even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards into the grass. Then he grabbed -- he was wailing on my head and then I started yelling "help." When I started yelling for help, he grabbed my head and started hitting my head into the -- I tried to sit up and, yell for help. He grabbed my head and started hitting me into the sidewalk. When he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try and get out from under him so he would stop hitting my head into the sidewalk. I still was yelling for help. And I could see people looking, and some guy yells out, I'm calling 911. I said, help me, help me, he's killing me. And he puts his hand on my nose and on my mouth, and he said, you're going to die tonight. And I don't remember much after that. I just remember I couldn't breathe. And then he still kept trying to hit my head against the pavement or -- I don't know if there was a sign or what it was. So when I just -- when I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up, and when he said, you're going to die tonight, I felt his hand go down on my side. I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately. As he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him.

I think it's pretty clear ( to a reasonable person) that he told the cops he was in fear of death or great bodily harm.
 
justabubba said:
notice how the judge repeatedly intruded on west's presentation
she refused to allow him to continue his argument
one which she recognized undermined her own objection
she was embarrassed to have west respond that FDLE required a year, multiple experts, and specially written code to penetrate martin's double layered passcode, after she had insisted a kid could do it
she knows the defense's presentation that the state intentionally deprived the defense of evidence has merit and he realizes the court was compliant in those state efforts to conceal the information from the defense when refusing time to permit documentation of authenticity, while simultaneously establishing a very high, very unreasonable bar - martin's personal verification - of the withheld evidence
Click to expand...

This judge has already made up her mind it seems...Thank goodness for the defense that there is a jury, and this isn't a bench trial....Defense has multiple grounds for appeal in this based on this judges one sided presiding of this case, and the prosecutions games, and tactics.
 
j-mac said:
This judge has already made up her mind it seems...Thank goodness for the defense that there is a jury, and this isn't a bench trial....Defense has multiple grounds for appeal in this based on this judges one sided presiding of this case, and the prosecutions games, and tactics.
Click to expand...

confirms the decision not to pursue the affirmative defense hearing was a good one
 
justabubba said:
notice how the judge repeatedly intruded on west's presentation
she refused to allow him to continue his argument
one which she recognized undermined her own objection
she was embarrassed to have west respond that FDLE required a year, multiple experts, and specially written code to penetrate martin's double layered passcode, after she had insisted a kid could do it
she knows the defense's presentation that the state intentionally deprived the defense of evidence has merit and he realizes the court was compliant in those state efforts to conceal the information from the defense when refusing time to permit documentation of authenticity, while simultaneously establishing a very high, very unreasonable bar - martin's personal verification - of the withheld evidence
Click to expand...
It is unlikely that all that information on the phone was from anybody else other than ™, but it was not authenticated.
The Judges ruling was correct.

Wests argument about not being given enough time to properly vet the information once these things were discovered, is also correct, and is reversible error.
 
MaggieD said:
One would think there's plenty of case law that shows admission of cell phone texts -- if not, it's only because case law is behind the times.

(Do we know what the text messages say, anyone?)
Click to expand...
Such messeages can be admitted, if they are relevant, and have been vetted.
Simply being on someones phone is not enough vetting to establish that they indeed belonged to the phone's owner/possessor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom