• 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 12 testimony (Wednsday 7/10)

No animation except as an exhibit (I think she said).

No texts.
 
I'm going to guess no sequestration violations agreed with both lawyers?
 
Nelson: No text messages. Can you say 'Appeals court'?
 
the judge got it right on the video

but terribly wrong on the text messages. a certain re-trial should it be needed
 
You know, if this thing ends up with a hung jury and has to be retried, if they were to appoint another judge I have to think Zimmerman walks... I can't imagine they would appoint another judge that would be this biased, especially after the publicity this one has gotten for her conduct.
 
Where this guy is going is pretty obvious... He's going to basically say Zimmerman didn't overreact.
 
It's difficult to understand what relevance this witness has.
 
Did Judge Nelson rule on the animation? Texts? or did she proceed directly to testimony?
 
This woman is horribly biased in favor of the prosecution, but this was a known fact before the trial ever started, in fact, it was pondered that the defense made a mistake in objecting to the original appointed judge in the case early on. Reports laid out this is a pattern with this woman, and that the defense may come to regret their decision to objecting to the original judge.
 
"When I went to Jupiter...." :lol: :lol:
 
With all due respect the Judge has to rule against allowing the text messages. The authentication issue is legitimate and supported by case law. The challenge would be the defense did NOT have enough time to seek out witnesses to authenticate. Don't know the law well enough to comment on how that point may be adjudicated.

Personally, I don't think the defense needs text messages. In fact I don't think the defense needs the toxicology.

The prosecution's case and Tracy Martin telling police officers that was not his son on the tapes, created MORE than enough reasonable doubt.
 
I don't think they need the animation or the text messages.
 
Oceandan said:
Did Judge Nelson rule on the animation? Texts? or did she proceed directly to testimony?
Click to expand...

Animation can not be entered as evidence, can be used as deomntrative exhibit.

Texts are not allowed in.
 
buck said:
Animation can not be entered as evidence, can be used as deomntrative exhibit.

Texts are not allowed in.
Click to expand...

In American jurisprudence, demonstrative evidence, like any other kind of evidence must be relevant. At this point the proponent of the demonstrative evidence can either try to get the evidence admitted into the official record of the case or can choose to use the evidence as merely a prop. If the proponent of the evidence wants to have the evidence included in the official record of the case, the proponent will first ask for the evidence to be marked by the court for identification purposes. After the evidence is marked for identification, the proponent of the demonstrative evidence must lay a foundation. It is at this time that the relevancy of the demonstrative evidence is usually challenged. Laying of a foundation explains how the demonstrative evidence relates to the facts of the case and establishes the evidence's authenticity. Once the foundation is laid, the proponent may ask to officially move the piece of evidence into the record where it is marked as a full exhibit. If the evidence is marked as a full exhibit the jury may refer to the evidence during deliberations and in most jurisdictions the jury may examine the evidence during deliberations. If the evidence is not marked as a full exhibit, the jury cannot do these things. As a matter of courtesy, the proponent of the demonstrative evidence generally shows the piece of evidence to the opposing party before marking it for identification purposes. In criminal cases certain kinds of demonstrative evidence are subject to mandatory disclosure under the case law governing discovery. See Brady v. Maryland.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
Never have figured out why our Judicial system doesn't have SEPARATE hearings to qualify "expert witnesses". All that needs to be said is the Judge instructs the Jury, Ladies (and gentlemen, if not this particular trial) of the jury, this witness has been certified as an expert in "such and such" at a hearing by me in accordance with accepted legal standards.

Sorry but the curriculum vitae stuff is B O R I N G
 
Oceandan said:
Never have figured out why our Judicial system doesn't have SEPARATE hearings to qualify "expert witnesses". All that needs to be said is the Judge instructs the Jury, Ladies (and gentlemen, if not this particular trial) of the jury, this witness has been certified as an expert in "such and such" at a hearing by me in accordance with accepted legal standards.

Sorry but the curriculum vitae stuff is B O R I N G
Click to expand...

Sure makes GZ look like an idiot.. Where is the defense going with this?
 
sharon said:
Sure makes GZ look like an idiot.. Where is the defense going with this?
Click to expand...

Why does this make GZ look like an idiot?

I like Grim's explanation: this witness is going to say GZ acted as appropriately as possible considering the attack he was under . . .
 
Oceandan said:
Never have figured out why our Judicial system doesn't have SEPARATE hearings to qualify "expert witnesses". All that needs to be said is the Judge instructs the Jury, Ladies (and gentlemen, if not this particular trial) of the jury, this witness has been certified as an expert in "such and such" at a hearing by me in accordance with accepted legal standards.

Sorry but the curriculum vitae stuff is B O R I N G
Click to expand...

I was just coming her to post. I believe they would have to do it to ensure that the jury doesn't have questions on his credentials. It would suck to put this expert up and have hte jury just say, I didn't find him credible.

But I can't imagine the jury pays that much attention to this stuff, can they.
 
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... what is the point of this testimony that keeps going on and on and on?
 
sharon said:
Sure makes GZ look like an idiot.. Where is the defense going with this?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure the defense is putting him up just to make george look like an idiot. :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
Why does this make GZ look like an idiot?

I like Grim's explanation: this witness is going to say GZ acted as appropriately as possible considering the attack he was under . . .
Click to expand...

i believe we can all see that the actual idiot is easily identifiable
 
buck said:
I was just coming her to post. I believe they would have to do it to ensure that the jury doesn't have questions on his credentials. It would suck to put this expert up and have hte jury just say, I didn't find him credible.

But I can't imagine the jury pays that much attention to this stuff, can they.
Click to expand...

LOL Look no further than our friend Josie's post directly below yours! I rest my case! (-;

I do understand what you're saying. I believe Juries have an innate inferred respect for the Judge. When a Judge says "this witness is an expert and was certified by a hearing with both sides, both sides have agreed this witness is an expert in "such n such". Of course I'm contemporaneous here, the point is the wording would convey to the Jury, the witness' opinion is valid.
 
I missed some of this.. But it sounds like he is really just giving a roadmap to the jury on how to evaluate this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom