Posted on 07/08/2013 6:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Q: Mr. Expert is there anything that could help you describe these events.
A: yes.
Q: what would that be?
A: a animation of the events
Q: what would an animation reflect?
a; The events described in the documents and depositions and autoposy report.
and so on. Once the foundation is laid the animation comes in.
>> the prosecution has an opportunity after the defense with rebuttal IF THEY CAN.
Yep.
The problem with a lot of evidence (this in particular) is authentication. The best authentication of this simulation evidence is verification from the only person who could testify that it accurately depicts what he observed and experienced, and that is the defendant. I wouldn’t put Zimmerman on the stand to do that, because once he takes the stand, he is open to a wide array of questions the prosecution may ask. The trial is going so well for the defense to date, I wouldn’t risk it.
Did you fall and hit your head recently?
That's the statutory language for justified use of force. I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death. Reasonably (the jury decides) holding a fear of death is a prerequisite for resort to deadly force. The firing of a firearm in the direction of "the person to be arrested" (read that as "stopped") is always deadly force, see 776.06.
In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, self defense force MUST be measured. If you are ambitious, look up the jury instructions for additional detail.
>> The problem with a lot of evidence (this in particular) is authentication.
Be that as it may, it’s not the job of the defense to “up front” authenticate it.
It’s the job of the prosecution to DISauthenticate it. The defense then responds as required to fight off the prosecution’s challenges to Z’s version of events. This has proven to be quite easy to do — the prosecution’s own witnesses have been a great help.
I agree that it would be a bad idea to put Z on the stand. I also don’t think they need to — the prosecution’s case is as weak as they come.
Obama, a White and Black, uh Black and White, Community Agitator.
>> In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury
Thanks for the cite. However, if you go back and carefully read my post, in my example I qualified that the hypothetical “victim” did indeed fear for his life.
Back to the case at hand — as I recall there is either case law or it’s written into the law, don’t remember which, that actually RECEIVING significant injuries goes a long way towards justifying FEAR of receiving serious injuries. Right? And that describes Z. Right?
>>testimony has already been given that GZ blood tests were negative for alcohol and drugs.<<
I believe you are wrong about that. Unless the cops arrested Z that night, they had no right to request tests from GZ, although I have not doubt that he would have agreed if they asked him. I believe the testimony showed that the cops had no suspicion that GZ was impaired.
>> I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death.
Sorry, missed that.
That link is really convenient for studying the applicable laws — thanks.
I note that they don’t really define “great bodily harm”, or what is reasonable “fear of great bodily harm”, except that if someone breaks into your dwelling you are safe in presuming you’re about to receive great bodily harm.
I suppose juries decide that (or appeals courts with case law as a guide).
I swear I heard testimony regarding GZ being tested for alcohol/drugs, but you seem pretty certain. Did the police testify to GZ being sober? I know this issue was discussed in court.
For what it’s worth... a Google search of “Zimmerman drug test” calls up a bunch of cites, some reliable, that seem to indicate that St. Trayvon was tested but Zimmerman was not.
Not proof, just evidence — put whatever weight on it you want.
“No way this animation should be allowed - it’s pure speculation.”
I disagree. The defense’s job is suppose to demonstrate that the thing “could” have gone down differently than the prosecution alleges. If there is another explanation for what happened, the jury not only needs to consider it, but it helps create reasonable doubt.
I’m not a lawyer, but if my recollection is that if another reasonable explanation exists for what happened, the defendant must be found innocent.
LOL! Thank God we have a low-information voter on a Zimmerman thread finally.
If you don't believe anything the white-Hispanic has said than any animation by the defense should help bolster the State, right?
I'd love to see what the State would come up with as an animation. It *would* be cartoonish.
I hate to say it, but I agree with the prosecution on this one!
There's no need to descend to the theater of the absurd; dueling special effects? Who has the better computer graphics teams?
This is truly frightening. In a national social state where low or no information voters and presumed participatory citizens can barely separate reality from fantasy, how badly will our legal system be perverted?
I actually didn't think things could get worse!
I hope the judge has a smidgen of ethics and morals left, and this truly abominable attempt at destroying our legal system is rejected permanently!
Nothing personal, but I don't think any jury is immune to the subconscious effect of fantasy as a substitute for real, physical evidence.
Hollywood has no role in the legal system.
I know that vehicular accident reconstructions have been common in past trials, and for inanimate objects they can be more easily viewed dispassionately; but not when human interaction, thoughts, biases and intents, or their inferences, are at issue. That should never be allowed.
I see this video as being no different from collision diagrams used in traffic court. I can’t imagine the judge disallowing the defense to at least print stills from the video onto posterboards to help demonstrate events.
Heck if defense wanted to get cheeky he could print up a still from every second of the video making the judge look like a foolish luddite.
it is called dueling experts. The state then brings in their own expert with their own version to contradict the first expert.
Did they even list an expert for this?
This is why experts face voi dire. This is why demonstration exhibits are just that.
You aren’t following the case at all are you?
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.