• 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.

Will George Zimmerman Take the Witness Stand?

Will George Zimmerman Take the Witness Stand?

  • Total voters
    13
Excon said:
iLOL
You asked me an irrelevant question as to that which I had quoted and replied.

This was specifically about the false statement of an "agreement" of "we", when there is none.
Which is what I was pointing out.


Let's walk you through this.

​


As to your question. It requires an assumption to be made. If you want to be one who ASSuMEs, go ahead. I will not participate.
Hence my reply of; What has O'Mara said? Which is an answer. Once you figure that out you will have your answer.
Click to expand...

You crack me up.
 
AlfredENeuman said:
Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's exactly as Leatherman says. You can't introduce something you wrote, said, etc. as evidence of innocence, for the precise reason that it's hearsay and cannot be cross-examined. Otherwise, all defendants would simply write up a defense on paper and send it to the police before trial and then have the defense read it to the jury. Have you ever seen such a thing?
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer ether, just reading from the State of Florida Statutes.
An it looks to me like it says official records ARE an exception to the hearsay rule, and are admissible.
it further says "availability of declarant immaterial" .
 
longview said:
I am not a lawyer ether, just reading from the State of Florida Statutes.
An it looks to me like it says official records ARE an exception to the hearsay rule, and are admissible.
it further says "availability of declarant immaterial" .
Click to expand...

But there are also different rules for the prosecution and defense. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd go with what Mr. Leatherman says and also point to our personal experiences. I've served on a jury, and there was no written defense just entered in by the defense. And that defendant didn't testify (it was just a DUI case).

We can agree to disagree but I really don't think you're correct here.
 
AlfredENeuman said:
But there are also different rules for the prosecution and defense. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd go with what Mr. Leatherman says and also point to our personal experiences. I've served on a jury, and there was no written defense just entered in by the defense. And that defendant didn't testify (it was just a DUI case).

We can agree to disagree but I really don't think you're correct here.
Click to expand...
In our system of law, the rules are different for the prosecution and defense,
more leeway is given to the defense.
I find it hard to believe, that if official reports and recordings are subpoenaed,
the Judge would not allow them to be entered into evidence.
I would find it even harder to believe that evidence available to the prosecution
would not be available to the defense.
 
longview said:
In our system of law, the rules are different for the prosecution and defense,
more leeway is given to the defense.
I find it hard to believe, that if official reports and recordings are subpoenaed,
the Judge would not allow them to be entered into evidence.
I would find it even harder to believe that evidence available to the prosecution
would not be available to the defense.
Click to expand...

It's the nature of hearsay and why it's not allowed in as evidence. As an exercise, find a similar case and see if any of this was let in? I doubt either of us will be able to accurately asses the text of the law.
 
AlfredENeuman said:
It's the nature of hearsay and why it's not allowed in as evidence. As an exercise, find a similar case and see if any of this was let in? I doubt either of us will be able to accurately asses the text of the law.
Click to expand...
As cited the Florida Statutes
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
explicitly allow official records into evidence.
 
longview said:
As cited the Florida Statutes
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
explicitly allow official records into evidence.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I posted a lengthy explanation of the way the law works and I don't think either of us are qualified to pick up a snippet of the case law in Florida to make an assertion that Leatherman is wrong about this. I guess we'll see shortly.

ETA: Ok, here's more discussion about this, please take a look:

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable | Federal Rules of Evidence | LII / Legal Information Institute

The relevant passages are what makes a person unavailable? Notice that none of those elements are "5th Amendment" grounds for not testifying:

(a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant:

(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;

(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;

(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;

(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or

(5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure:

(A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or

(B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4).
Click to expand...

Ok, so then they list the exceptions, and these are:

(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:

(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one; and

(B) is now offered against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest had — an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.

(2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.

(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

(4) Statement of Personal or Family History. A statement about:

(A) the declarant’s own birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the declarant had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact; or

(B) another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the declarant was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the person’s family that the declarant’s information is likely to be accurate.

(5) [Other Exceptions .] [Transferred to Rule 807.]

(6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.
Click to expand...

NONE of these exceptions apply to Zimmerman here, but this one applies to the state:

(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
Click to expand...

This is where he's screwed because "anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law". And that means they can use any part of what you say. You can't return the favor because what you said earlier was NOT against the state's interest it was against yours, hence, you have to take the stand to get your story out.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
In my view, this isn't a matter of whether or not Zimmerman's gun killed Martin - that fact has been ascertained - so the only questions are did Zimmerman act in self-defense and/or did he have a right under Florida law to stand his ground and use lethal force to do so. Therefore, I believe Zimmerman will have to tell his story and be convincing - in such cases, it's almost a requirement to prove innocence rather than the prosecution proving guilt. When two interpretations/scenarios are presented, the law requires that the one most favorable to the defense must be accepted by a jury unless irrefutable evidence is provided otherwise. In order to ensure the interpretation/scenario favorable to Zimmerman is presented, he must do it himself.
 
CanadaJohn said:
In my view, this isn't a matter of whether or not Zimmerman's gun killed Martin - that fact has been ascertained - so the only questions are did Zimmerman act in self-defense and/or did he have a right under Florida law to stand his ground and use lethal force to do so. Therefore, I believe Zimmerman will have to tell his story and be convincing - in such cases, it's almost a requirement to prove innocence rather than the prosecution proving guilt. When two interpretations/scenarios are presented, the law requires that the one most favorable to the defense must be accepted by a jury unless irrefutable evidence is provided otherwise. In order to ensure the interpretation/scenario favorable to Zimmerman is presented, he must do it himself.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
CanadaJohn said:
In my view, this isn't a matter of whether or not Zimmerman's gun killed Martin - that fact has been ascertained - so the only questions are did Zimmerman act in self-defense and/or did he have a right under Florida law to stand his ground and use lethal force to do so. Therefore, I believe Zimmerman will have to tell his story and be convincing - in such cases, it's almost a requirement to prove innocence rather than the prosecution proving guilt. When two interpretations/scenarios are presented, the law requires that the one most favorable to the defense must be accepted by a jury unless irrefutable evidence is provided otherwise. In order to ensure the interpretation/scenario favorable to Zimmerman is presented, he must do it himself.
Click to expand...


I disagree with the statement "When two interpretations/scenarios are presented, the law requires that the one most favorable to the defense must be accepted by a jury unless irrefutable evidence is provided otherwise."

The law requires that a conviction be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that is a different standard then you describe.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I disagree with the statement "When two interpretations/scenarios are presented, the law requires that the one most favorable to the defense must be accepted by a jury unless irrefutable evidence is provided otherwise."

The law requires that a conviction be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that is a different standard then you describe.



>>>>
Click to expand...

What do you think my statement means? It means that if there are two explanations, both reasonable, the one favoring the defendant must be accepted by the jury. It's a well known legal principle.
 
longview said:
As cited the Florida Statutes
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
explicitly allow official records into evidence.
Click to expand...
:applaud


AlfredENeuman said:
I think you're wrong and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I posted a lengthy explanation of the way the law works and I don't think either of us are qualified to pick up a snippet of the case law in Florida to make an assertion that Leatherman is wrong about this. I guess we'll see shortly.

ETA: Ok, here's more discussion about this, please take a look:

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable | Federal Rules of Evidence | LII / Legal Information Institute

The relevant passages are what makes a person unavailable? Notice that none of those elements are "5th Amendment" grounds for not testifying:

Ok, so then they list the exceptions, and these are:


NONE of these exceptions apply to Zimmerman here, but this one applies to the state:

This is where he's screwed because "anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law". And that means they can use any part of what you say. You can't return the favor because what you said earlier was NOT against the state's interest it was against yours, hence, you have to take the stand to get your story out.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
:doh:doh:doh
Maybe you should limit yourself to Florida's rules of Evidence and not try to make the Federal rules of evidence apply, because they don't.
Just sayin'!
 
If the rules were cut and dried, why is Mr. West filing this motion?

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/re_self-serving_statements.pdf

Notice that he's attempting to get in the statements made immediately following the event (not the written statement or any of his interviews) as "res gestae".

Res gestae means "during the act", so he's trying to get his statements to the first witness he saw in under the hearsay exception. Obviously if Judge Nelson were to allow this, then the chances of Zimmerman testifying go way down.

But this shows that I was right, whether the link discusses federal rules or Florida rules.
 
AlfredENeuman said:
If the rules were cut and dried, why is Mr. West filing this motion?

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/re_self-serving_statements.pdf

Notice that he's attempting to get in the statements made immediately following the event (not the written statement or any of his interviews) as "res gestae".

Res gestae means "during the act", so he's trying to get his statements to the first witness he saw in under the hearsay exception. Obviously if Judge Nelson were to allow this, then the chances of Zimmerman testifying go way down.

But this shows that I was right, whether the link discusses federal rules or Florida rules.
Click to expand...


And that motion is a huge steaming pile of BS too.

West is trying to pull a fast one too - for the media, mostly. The judge quite sternly told him she had already ruled on that matter.
 
Paperview said:
And that motion is a huge steaming pile of BS too.

West is trying to pull a fast one too - for the media, mostly. The judge quite sternly told him she had already ruled on that matter.
Click to expand...

Even putting that aside, this proves that the self-serving statements aren't coming in from the interviews, written statements, or anything else.

The state will put on a case that shows that Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin. It will be up to Zimmerman to explain himself, and that means taking the stand. The prosecution will THEN use his prior statements in an attempt to impeach him. But he will not be able to introduce these statements as evidence. He's got to get up on the stand.
 
AlfredENeuman said:
Even putting that aside, this proves that the self-serving statements aren't coming in from the interviews, written statements, or anything else.

The state will put on a case that shows that Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin. It will be up to Zimmerman to explain himself, and that means taking the stand. The prosecution will THEN use his prior statements in an attempt to impeach him. But he will not be able to introduce these statements as evidence. He's got to get up on the stand.
Click to expand...

Explain what?
 
ric27 said:
Explain what?
Click to expand...

The prosecution will make a case that he has committed a crime. The defense then presents their case. Now if the defense feels that the prosecution failed to meet their requirement, the defense is not required to present any case.


<<Prosecution Present's Case>>

BDLR: Your honor the prosecution rests.

MO'M: Your honor the prosecution has failed to prove their case, the defense then decides to not present a case and we will rest with no witnesses and no rebutal evidence. Your honor the defense rests.




You really think that will happen or do you think the defense will make an affirmative case that Zimmerman acted in self defense?


>>>>
 
sharon said:
Explain why he was so stupid that he didn't identify himself as NW and diffuse the situation he created.
Click to expand...

He wasn't on NW sharon. You already know that.
So stop with your silliness.

And what is really absurd is that on NW you are not supposed to make contact, yet he you are claiming he should have.
Absurdity at it's best.
 
Excon said:
He wasn't on NW sharon. You already know that.
So stop with your silliness.

And what is really absurd is that on NW you are not supposed to make contact, yet he you are claiming he should have.
Absurdity at it's best.
Click to expand...

As soon as George called NEN he was on NW.. That's what he agreed to in his training.

George was supposed to stay in his truck and wait for the police. Failing to do that, he should have spoken up instead of killing someone..

The world is full of fools who need a manual and can't think...
 
sharon said:
As soon as George called NEN he was on NW.. That's what he agreed to in his training.

George was supposed to stay in his truck and wait for the police. Failing to do that, he should have spoken up instead of killing someone..

The world is full of fools who need a manual and can't think...
Click to expand...
Like the two manuals you paid to be 'Vanity-Published'? LOLO! So what would you call someone who bought one of your manuals?
Breaking! Judge denies any audio experts to testify. Any of the 'T-Boners' need a hanky?
 
niff said:
Like the two manuals you paid to be 'Vanity-Published'? LOLO! So what would you call someone who bought one of your manuals?
Breaking! Judge denies any audio experts to testify. Any of the 'T-Boners' need a hanky?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I didn't self publish anything.. A foreign government picked them up .. translated them and there was huge distribution for their centenniel..

All about George's cheap gun.

The Truth About George Zimmerman's Kel Tec PF-9 | The Truth About GunsThe Truth About Guns
 
sharon said:
As soon as George called NEN he was on NW.. That's what he agreed to in his training.
Click to expand...
NO sharon that is not true.
He was not on NW that evening.
Nor is he required by any law to follow any of there guidelines at any time.
You are simply spouted absurd and ridiculous bs.


sharon said:
George was supposed to stay in his truck and wait for the police.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't sharon. There is no such requirement.


sharon said:
he should have spoken up instead of killing someone..
Click to expand...
There is no such requirement sharon. Matter of fact I believe that NW guidelines even say not to.
And as we already know it wouldn't have mattered had he done so when ™ confronted him as ™ was already attacking.


sharon said:
The world is full of fools who need a manual and can't think...
Click to expand...
The I would suggest you run out and get one as soon as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom