Posted on 07/11/2013 10:41:35 AM PDT by jazusamo
In presiding over the trial of George Zimmerman, who is accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, Judge Debra Nelson has made some awful rulings none worse than failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the preposterous second-degree depraved mind murder charge . The states evidence that Zimmerman had the necessary criminal intent is non-existent, much less sufficient to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Compelling evidence, moreover, establishes that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, a claim the state has not come close to refuting. (See Andrew Brancas comprehensive summary here.)
Wednesday morning provided a snapshot of Judge Nelsons style: her peremptory decision to exclude exculpatory evidence recovered from Martins cellphone a ruling that in and of itself could be reversible error if the state is able to steamroll the jury into convicting Zimmerman.
At issue are ostensibly deleted texts and photos recovered from Martins cellphone, well described in Bob Owensspost. (Side note: deleted rarely means disappeared much or what you may think youve deleted from a computer can be recovered by a competent examiner.) Although the evidence wont be covered much by the mainstream media so desperate for a conviction in this case, it would be of interest to good faith journalists since it cuts sharply against their legend of the saintly, boyish Trayvon. Reportedly, the data haul reveals his self-proclaimed fighting prowess as well as involvement with guns, drugs and porn. (If this were Zimmermans cellphone, dont doubt that you would have been inundated for months with the details about its contents.) Only some of that evidence, however, would be relevant to the issues in the trial, which, for present purposes, is our concern.
In a hurried oral ruling from the bench Wednesday morning, after a late-night argument among the trials fatigued participants, Judge Nelson suppressed the evidence. She did not explain the ruling very coherently. To understand it as best we can, we must piece together her rambling remarks during Tuesday nights oral argument ( courtesy of Legal Insurrection , we find the video), since all she did Wednesday was reaffirm what little she had already said.
The ruling is troubling on two scores. First, there are two issues to be decided on admissibility: (1) relevance (is the evidence probative on some contested issue in the case?) and (2) authenticity ( are there reasonable grounds to believe the evidence is what it purports to be in this instance, Martins electronic communications?); yet Nelson appears to have addressed only one of them, authenticity (beginning at the 8:15 mark of the video). Second, she has gotten the authenticity question wrong.
It is worth explaining why this suppression issue is so significant and how a good judge would go about deciding it. There is nothing more momentous in a criminal trial than a decision by the court to preclude defense evidence. Because of double-jeopardy principles, the prosecution does not get a do-over: if the states evidence is erroneously suppressed and the defendant is acquitted, the state does not get to appeal. But a convicted defendant does get to appeal. Since an accused has a constitutional right to present a defense, which means an opportunity to have the jury consider all admissible exculpatory evidence, nothing is more likely to get a judge reversed on appeal than a ruling that bars defense evidence.
Knowing the appellate court is going to scrutinize such a ruling with great care, particularly in a murder case in which the defendant will be severely sentenced if convicted, a good judge is going to be very exacting. After ensuring that the admissibility issues are fully developed on the record which should be done in writing where possible for evidence of obvious importance the judge will then rule, fully addressing each contested issue. This does two important things: it gives the appellate court the benefit of the judges analysis and the confidence that the judge gave the matter the careful attention it deserved: and it prevents the defense from manufacturing new admissibility arguments on appeal if defense counsel was given a fair opportunity to make his points, the points he fails to make are waived. If the judge fails in her responsibility to make a good record, there is no limit on the imagination of defense lawyers to come up with ways the suppression of the evidence must have led to the conviction.
Given all that, Nelsons failure to address the relevance of the evidence is a glaring default. The only rational explanation is that the relevance was so palpable that commenting on it seemed superfluous.
The state claims that Zimmerman was an aggressive stalker who murdered Martin after instigating a deadly physical confrontation. The prosecution argues, moreover, that (a) the shooting was caused by Zimmermans purported hatred for Martin (whom he did not know), coupled with his supposed depraved indifference for human life; and (b) Zimmerman was not lawfully acting in self-defense. Zimmerman counters that he was attacked and brutally beaten by Martin, a patently capable brawler, before, in justifiable fear of his life, firing his (lawfully carried) gun. The cellphone evidence reportedly contains conversations in which Martin discussed his street-fighting exploits with various family members and associates including a request by Martins half-brother that Trayvon teach him how to fight.
To grasp how palpably relevant this evidence is to issues the state has put in play, ask yourself what the prosecutors would be saying if this had been Zimmermans cellphone containing evidence of his pugilistic skills. Think for a moment of the absurdly extravagant inferences prosecutors are asking the jury to draw about Zimmermans state of mind from off the cuff remarks (e.g., these f***ing a******s always get away and f***ing punks) made to the police dispatcher while he was watching Martin (because, you know, depraved-mind murderers always call the police to give them a real-time, blow-by-blow account). Is there any way such prosecutors would abide a defense claim of irrelevance regarding direct admissions by Zimmerman of his fondness for and adeptness at street-fighting? This is not a situation where the defense is claiming that evidence of Martins involvement in criminal activity is admissible to show he was a bad guy and therefore probably at fault. We are talking about evidence of traits of Martins that are directly relevant to issues the prosecution itself has raised.
Perhaps that is why the prosecution is reduced to the silly contention that when the word fight is used in Martins conversations, it could have been code for something else. Again, given the case they have presented, these prosecutors are in no position to claim that evidence should be excluded because it might cause the jurors imaginations to run wild. As defense lawyers pointed out, they were not looking to interpret Martins conversations just place his statements before the jurors and let them apply their common sense. The prosecutors could then roll out their fanciful code rebuttal and see how far that gets them.
In any event, even if relevance is clear, that hardly excuses Judge Nelsons failure to address it. As a former prosecutor, I winced in embarrassment watching the prosecutors argument, but that doesnt change the fact that relevance is a contested issue. Judges have an obligation to rule on those when they are excluding exculpatory evidence in a murder case. Nelson punted.
The judge appears instead to have relied solely on the evidences purported lack of authenticity specifically, how can we be sure that the texts and other communications on Trayvon Martins phone (which include photographs of Trayvon Martin) are really Trayvon Martins? After all, Judge Nelson sputtered, there are plenty of tech-savvy seven-year-olds who know how to access computer programs and send texts, tweets, emails, etc. How do we know that someone else didnt use Martins phone to send the messages about fighting (or, I suppose, whatever fight was code for)?
The short answer to this is that legal authenticity does not require that kind of certainty. The rules of evidence are designed to promote the admissibility of relevant evidence they err on the side of letting the jury consider evidence unless it is patently ripe with unfair prejudice (i.e., would lead the jury to decide a case based on inflamed passions or utter confusion). Authenticity, in particular, is generally as we say in the biz a matter of weight not admissibility. That is, if there is a reasonable chance that the thing at issue is what its proponent purports it to be, courts are supposed to favor admitting it into evidence while giving the opposing party lots of leeway to attack its significance on cross-examination and in summation arguments.
Here, we are talking about messages that were not only on Martins own phone but were concealed under a stealth application. In effect, they were double password protected: the password needed to use the phone plus the password needed to access the stealth app. Furthermore, there are apparently hundreds of messages, such that, if necessary, it should be straightforward to establish signature communications patterns that can identify the user.
Besides the nonsense suggesting that maybe a child purloined Martins phone, pierced the double-password protection, and sent the pertinent messages, Judge Nelson also inappositely compared the case to one where a proponent is trying to get emails admitted. Some courts have reasoned that you cannot tell, just from the email itself, whether it was sent by the person assigned the sender email address. In my mind, that is a matter of weight, not admissibility in any event; here, though, we do not just have the messages, we have the phone from which they were sent a phone configured in a way that indicates the user made it difficult for anyone other than himself to send and access messages.
Judge Nelson indicated that she had reviewed an authentication precedent the defense had pressed on her, the 2010 Florida case of State v. Lumarque. Typical of Nelson, she said it did not change her mind but provided no further insight, much less a rationale for distinguishing it. Like my ever-astute colleague William Jacobson the Cornell law prof behind the invaluable Legal Insurrection site I think the judge has committed reversible error by excluding this evidence. But while Lumarque should certainly have helped Zimmerman, I am not quite as persuaded by it as Bill seems to be.
Lumarque involved salacious images and text messages on the cellphone of a woman who was beaten by her ex-husband. The trial judge excluded some of them because the woman could not authenticate them as her own. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the exclusion was erroneous because the evidence came from the womans own phone even if she could not identify it. But in Lumarque, the issue was the defendant ex-husbands motive for the assault; obviously, he was enraged at finding sexually explicit messages between the woman and her boyfriend, regardless of whether theyd been sent by the woman or someone else. In the Zimmerman case, by contrast, the information has nothing to do with explaining Zimmermans behavior; the messages about fighting are relevant only if they come from Martin himself. Judge Nelson could thus have reasoned that the authentication standard should be higher. Of course, she didnt tell us, so we dont know.
In any event, Lumarque does remind trial judges that authentication is a low hurdle admit the evidence but allow vigorous cross-examination. In this case, there was even greater reason than usual to follow that wisdom. It goes without saying that the best authentication witness, Martin, is not available. Further, there are allegations that prosecutors delayed for months until June 4, just a few weeks before trial, the busiest time for litigators before disclosing the cellphone evidence. The defenses authentication showing was more than adequate, and these attendant circumstances should have lowered their burden. Nelson inexplicably raised it.
This prosecution is a travesty.
If the excupatory evidence is relevant to the case I dont understand why the judge would preclude it except in the case of Obamanomics or lawyernomics being involved. Justice is no longer what it once was; it been over-legalese’d to bypass truth or create a new truth in the legal process.
Here’s my take. She’s made some kind of quiet deal with the Department of Justice; she will get some kind of Federal Judgeship out of this. Just as sure Obama is a Kenyan.
That was my thoughts as well. She’d be set for life.............
It's pretty much agreed by them that this Judge Nelson has some real problems in this case and should the jury convict a successful appeal is likely.
If anyone out there is still naive enough to actually trust our liberals in the judicial system, all they have to do is to look at the laughable conduct of of the incompetent (but very liberal) judge in the Zimmerman trial.
From what I’ve seen I tend to think that’s a real possibility.
And by pure coincidence, Harry Reid is pulling the Nuclear Option today.
There seems a pattern among Florida’s county judges, with, first the murderous guy in Pinellas County who ordered the murder of Terri Schiavo, and now this one who may or may not have been gotten to with threats of offers of money or some other personal gain. My opinion.
In any event, she’s a coward, and one can only hope that someone on the jury has sufficient courage to be the law and resist the race-pimping lawlessness pervading this soviet-style show trial.
She is the perfect Obama stooge - stubborn, illogical, loyal and a generally nasty person who throws her weight around.
I’m guessing the fix is in to convict Zimmerman of something in order to avoid the necessary violence that would come if there was an acquittal. But they are deliberately providing him with ample grounds so that he can successfully appeal down the road when everyone has forgotten about this case.
I don’t believe that the state or the judge gives a hoot about reversible error.
All they care about is a conviction on ANY crime. Zimmerman can spend the next few years fighting for an appeal/reversal, but during this time, he will be known as a convicted murderer....
I certainly believe that’s the way the prosecution is handling it. For an honest judge, it shouldn’t matter.
I believe there’s plenty to reverse the conviction if there is one, but that’s a long hard road.
Based on what and how I saw her act with Zimmerman and totally stomping his lawyers, she’s in the tank for DOJ or she is just a total bitch. Her conduct comes natural to her and she rules too quickly - like she knows where she wants the defense to go.
This prosecution is a travesty.
I suspect the jury came to a silent so far undiscussed verdict by the time the prosecution finished presenting the defense’s case. Then the defense got to present a case so basically two defense cases.
They will probably agree to make it look good by dragging out the deliberation by 24 hours to try to avoid riots when they rule not guilty.
> I’m no legal beagle but I respect Andrew McCarthy and other legal experts I’ve seen on Fox and read on this case.
It’s pretty much agreed by them that this Judge Nelson has some real problems in this case and should the jury convict a successful appeal is likely.
Double whammy problem - politics and black rage against the imaginary white devil
Or to put it another way, this prosecution in itself is, morally speaking, A SERIOUS CRIME.
bfl.
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.