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.
wouldnt know the name if I saw it.
Too much info and I just glanced at the name
Might have been on the legal insurrection site but can’t even remember that!
Amazing.
Everyone’s racist. :)
Mr Hyperbole is not always your friend.
LOL
In this case, the burden of proof falls on the defense - Constitution be damned. A few days ago, one of the prosecution attorneys even pointed this new fact out to the jury, pointing out that Zimmerman had not yet proved 'self defense'.
Obtuse is my default position. However I have been wrong before. It looks like I was wrong here. I'll be wrong again.
I was pinged to that post and thought it was such a stupid comment that I had to see who made it. Rummy posted it without comment. Usually when people post stupid comments and they are not in italics, we have to assume that the person posting that comment either made it or agreed with it.
Rummy has not indicated yet whether or not she agreed that Zimmerman should be sued.
I can't go along with that. The "rational portion of this country" is unlikely to go on a multi-city riot and looting binge, while the irrational ones are likely to do just that. Justice belongs to whomever has the monopoly on violence, and we're just too darned peaceful.
Easy...he could have just taken the beating. Afterall, Trayvon was just a boy with skittles on a walk. There was no way he could have REALLY hurt George.
here is where I read the info..think I might have even posted the link
The key phrase is “presumed innocent until proven guilty”.
I wasn't thinking either.
Getting ready to go to the pool.
I'm going to miss all this afternoon's testimony.
last night, as reported this am, nancy grace actually shut the microphone off of a guest who dared not stick to the nancy grace is always right narrative. (see duke lacross)
— assume —
You know what they say about that word, P.
Amazing.
Not the adjective *I* would use. 'Monstrous' would be more appropriate, in my opinion...
the infowarrior
Anyone who has followed my posts on these threads should be able to answer that question
AND NO YOU DONT ASSUME A POSTER AGREES JUST BECAUSE THEY COPY AND PASTE INFO
I have actually posted all kinds of tweets..including ones that want to kill Zimmerman..doesnt mean I want to kill him.
Yep that’s LuMarque. The Defense used this case in their motion. I heard Judge Jabba mention it this morning.
Reminds me of when Bush said the smoking gun could be a nuclear mushroom cloud. A dead “white-hispanic” on the street. Proof positive that Zimmerman had other options. He could die. Disgusts me.
>> whether he is convicted of manslaughter or aquitted is dependent upon whether the jury finds he has a depraved mind?
No, the “depraved mind” will decide between manslaughter or murder 2, not between manslaughter and acquittal.
If he’s acquitted, it’s because the jury believed his claim that he shot Skittles in self defense. Period. That, as far as I can see, is the only way he can get acquitted, since it’s undisputed that he DID kill Skittles.
Not to beat it to death, but here’s how I imagine a jury “flow chart” would look:
Did Zimmerman kill Skittles in self defense?
YES: He’s innocent. DONE
NO:
Then did Z kill Skittles with “a depraved mind”?
YES: He’s guilty of 2nd degree murder. DONE
NO: He’s guilty of manslaughter. DONE
(If there are lesser offenses besides manslaughter, then they would fit in as a decision under whatever criteria support manslaughter.)
Has anyone heard anything about the CRUMPster making an appearance today?? If so I hope thy have actual evidence against him, cuz as we’ve seen so far everyone is just lieing to the court anyways. We need some cold hard evidence... Does the defense have it??
And CNN proves a good point.. If the states strategy at this point is “ is it possible that (xyz) happened” instead of “ (xyz) happened beyond a reasonable doubt.... Acquittal !!!
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.