[Nervous Tick]

>> Truth of a witness’ testimony is for the jury to decide, not for another witness to decide.

On the face of it, and in most cases, that makes perfect sense.

But what you have here could be framed as testimony from an “expert witness” whose specialty, and indeed part of whose job, is to assess the truthfulness of the defendant.

Is the jury to believe that his conclusion isn’t a valid part of that testimony? Or, as another poster asked, what if Serino’s conclusion was that Z was lying? Would *that* opinion be admissible? Because that’s clearly how the prosecution was seeking to use Serino’s testimony, to impeach Z’s credibility.

(I realize it’s water under the bridge though.)

[don-o]

Bernie up to re-direct. Starts with a comment the he’s not going to ask opinions. MOM objects and is sustained.

[Cboldt]

Serino is a fact witness. He's not an expert. That's just the way it is.

The problem with this trial is very fundamental - there is no credible evidence against Zimmerman.

[Sacajaweau]

If you're going to throw out the opinion of the interrogator then the entire tape should be thrown out BECAUSE the interrogator can lie, trick, provoke the "subject". In other words, the interrogator creates "false" situations and the subject has to fit the truth into the interrogators lies.

The best example is the interrogator saying there was a video...and GZ responding "Thank God". No bad guy with underlying malice would say that.