Posted on 07/02/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
SANFORD, Fla. — Prosecutors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman scrambled Tuesday to undo damage to their case by one of their leading witnesses, a Sanford police officer who interviewed the defendant hours after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.
The witness, Officer Chris Serino, testified under cross-examination on late Monday afternoon that Mr. Zimmerman seemed to be telling the truth when he said he had fired his gun in self-defense. The officer’s admission made for a dramatic moment in the trial — and was a clear boon for the defense — but drew no immediate objection from the state. The court recessed for the day afterward.
But early on Tuesday, citing case law, the state successfully argued that Officer Serino’s comments about Mr. Zimmerman’s veracity ought to be disregarded by the jury. The judge then instructed the jurors, who are being sequestered during the trial, to ignore the officer’s statement, nearly 17 hours after it had been made.
Officer Serino’s testimony, in the second week of the trial in Seminole County Court, was the latest setback for prosecutors......
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It’s up to the state to tell the judge what remedy it wants. The state was entitled to mistrial on the spot, and it did not ask for one. As you point out, this basis for mistrial is lost for good. Use it or lose it.
Is that even legal?
Do you think that the government will bring some kind of charges if he is found (when he is found) not guilty?
I see big big riots ahead for the summer. It will be ugly.
Part of a cop's job is to be able to pick up on non-verbal cues which indicate when a witness is being truthful. Although some cops may claim to perceive such clues because they want to justify a belief a defendant is lying, the presence or absence of such cues would be a bona fide subject of direct observation by the cops.
I guess I would regard a question of "Did you perceive Zimmerman to be truthful" as a short-hand form of "What non-verbal cues, if any, did you notice from Zimmerman which would influence your judgments of his truthfulness"? If a cop were to say a witness was a pathological liar, a proper cross-examination would ask what non-verbal cues led to that opinion. If the cop can't articulate any clear basis for such belief, the defendant should be allowed to argue that the jury should consider it plausible that the cop might have formed an erroneous opinion of the defendant which was not based upon any real evidence, and the imagined the defendant as acting in such fashion as to justify that opinion.
so everyone who kills someone they believe is a mortal threat to them are in trouble if they don’t let themselves get assaulted severely enough to satisfy the state?
that is not the standard for the use of up to lethal force. you don’thave to allow yourself to be injured,you have to hgave fear of death or grave injury, and if thge guy is bigger and on top and beating you and grabbing for your gun that’s enough for me to use of up to lethal force.
It's not. But O'Mara didn't object because he didn't mind the answers.
It's okay to ask about defendant's tone, demeanor and other indicia. The issue comes when assigning ultimate conclusion. E.g., "(I think) He had or showed ill will" or "(I think) He was lying" or "(I think) He was telling the truth." Those issues are for the jury.
I do agree that in this case, the state has lost it's right to ask for mistrial. It was given an opportunity to state the remedy it sought, and it stated the remedy it sought.
Manslaughter is a necessarily inlcuded lesser offense, and MUST be given to the jury.
This is a gross abuse of the power of the state against an innocent person. Corey and de la Rionda are despicable. Bondi knows what is happening, and by now the governor and quite a few judges have it figured out. None of them are saying squat, content to let Zimmerman squirm.
Incidents like this make my blood boil. Anybody that has any respect for the legal system ought to reconsider their position. It deserves respect for the same reason the mafia does.
Cboldt...you are one of the reasons FR is so popular. Informed,knowledable information from someone who has been there and done that, and without a hidden agenda.
Thank you for all your comments, I have learned quite a bit.
Don't they always? Even if the Prosecution's case was good?
Didn’t Z pass 2 lie detector tests? Can the defense tell the jury that?
I totally agree with that. That's why Nelson is bending over so far for the persecution...she doesn't want to "be responsible" for the riots that may (heh) occur if Zimmerman gets off. She's passing the buck to let an appeals court do the dirty work, while Zimmerman has to pay his bucks out through the nose defending himself.
sfl
Sounds hugh.
Your analysis, as usual, is spot on IMO.
“grave injury”
I’m reminded of that scene with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.
“I asked GRAVE danger, and you replied ‘Is there any other kind of danger’”.
“I know what I said....”
Looked at the other way, assume Nelson rules against O'Mara on everything, and gives him 1,000 SOLID grounds for appeal. How many of those will come back to her if O'Mara wins at trial?
Nelson is acting rationally, and biased as all get out. She can afford to. The state is going to lose. None of her foul rulings against O'Mara will see the inside of the DCA.
If she thought the state was going to win, she'd be more favorable to the defense at trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.