Posted on 07/10/2013 5:15:07 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 10th, is DAY #22 (of 5th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday began with a boom as defense expert witness, world renowned Dr Vincent Di Maio took to the stand to validate the forensic evidence supporting George Zimmerman’s version of the encounter with Trayvon Martin. However, the day ended with an even bigger THUNDERCLAP in an epic 10pm showdown as Don West took on both the State prosecutors and trial Judge Nelson after the jury was released. Ending with Judge Nelson, turning her back and walking out of court. Unreal. A great analysis of the events from yesterday is available HERE.
The late night argument, not by the State, but by Judge Nelson herself, regarding phone evidence authentication, is so weak and insufferably devoid of legal analysis it is absurd on its face. Then again, this is the same judge who said a few days ago, flippantly in open court, that evidence should be “shredded” (Dr. Bao notes) after use. D’oh
Essentially Nelson argued that the phone records (texts and pics from Trayvon) cannot be authenticated to have originated by the specific personage of Trayvon Martin (despite two security codes) because anyone could have sent them. Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot !!
How can an email be used in a sex offender case? How can phone records be used in RICO cases? How can GPS evidence be used in Insurance Cases? How are photographs taken by perps used against them? Think about it.
You can’t argue that evidence cannot be admitted because someone else might have made the actual phone call; Someone else might have physically sent the email; Someone else actually accessed the website; Someone else might have been the driver of the car; Or, someone else could possibly have been behind the viewing lens of the camera etc.
No, that argument does not mean you can arbitrarily exclude evidence. And this was the basis for her argument (watch the video).
Sure, that’s an argument which can be presented to the jury by the other side, as a counter point to create doubt with the jury, but it can’t be a reasonable consideration for total evidence exclusion. Then again, this is Judge Nelson – who in multiple prior cases has a high historical propensity of being overruled by the 5th District Court of Appeals.
It should be noted the NAACP Annual National Convention starts in Orlando on Friday; Additionally, preparations are being made in/around Miami-Dade for a Wednesday defense wrapped up with a community/LEO preparation meeting yesterday.
Right! As a retired judge he would know better.
This won’t be quite the same thing as harrassing little old ladies at polling places...
He will not testify —
Asking Z if he is freely deciding to NOT testify.
Yippee! GZ won’t testify!
Yes, a judge always asks the defendant in a criminal case whether or not he wants to testify on his own behalf. It’s standard procedure. However, that usually happens when the Defense is finished putting on its case and normally the judge gives the defendant’s attorneys notice ahead of time that she is going to formally ask the defendant.
Judge Nelson did not do that just a bit ago. GZ had no idea she was going to ask him. He was clearly unprepared to answer and was denied the opportunity to consult with his attorneys on the matter.
Just before this last recess, Judge Nelson informed MOM and West that she would soon be formally asking GZ if he wanted to testify, which is how it should have been handled in the first place.
TS Chantal is falling apart. Maybe significant rain. Wind not an issue.
Good! He is not to testify. No need to do so. His Hannity interview was enough.
They’re already attacking her on Twitter
******
You'll learn how in just a few minutes. Good luck
OMG. Now are you really, really, really, really sure you don’t want to testify??????
Here is the rebuttal....two today maybe one tomorrow.
O’Mara now arguing Judgment of Acquittal
MOM asking for JOA
Evil people....
What no HALF_LIMIT ?
I don't doubt that Shazzam would advocate this, but I bet he's sit in the background and get his gangbangers to do the deed. Which, of course, WILL be met with deadly force. 'Round these parts, we don't take kindly to arsonists and thugs.
Z is guilty since he is not taking the stand in his own defense?
So it’s a tossup.
Is it SOP to do it before the Jury?
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.