What has been heard cannot be unheard..........
Posted on 07/02/2013 11:31:19 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Bernie de la Rionda began by asking the judge to strike from the record a statement Det. Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found credible Zimmerman's account of how he got into a fight with Trayvon Martin. De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn't allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defence attorney Mark O'Mara argued it was proper because Serino was vetting Zimmerman's veracity in his probe.
Judge Debra Nelson told jurors to disregard the statement.
"This is an improper comment," the judge said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
IIRC, a lawyer (in this cause the prosecutor) has to object to a question calling for such a response (if it is indeed improper), and also has to make a prompt motion to strike. Not wait until the next day.
Unrung bell, toothpaste back in tube ping.
Not sure the exact question, but I can summarize:
Who would you believe more the nice Mr. Zimmerman who was just trying to help out in his community or the drugged out thieving thug?
Yup.
The jury heard it. They can’t unhear it. The defense cannot refer to it directly in closing argument. He cannot say “the detective found my client credible.” But he can refer to it in a backhand way. “The state presented no evidence that my client’s version was not credible. All of the evidence you heard points out that it is credible.” Given the large amount of evidence in the record he can point to, that argument is valid and permissible.
“Objection your honor. My witness is detrimental to my case”
You can tell a jury member all you want to that they should disregard some statement, but the jury will decide in their own minds if they will consider that statement. Even in the jury room, that statement will be talked about. Some will say I am believing it and others won’t. But in the end, some will consider it in the privacy of their own minds.
The state’s chief investigator clearly said that he thought GZ was truthful.No judge on earth is gonna make me forget that.Juries,and individual jurors,are far too powerful to be restricted in such a way....particularly in matters that pertain to the *defendant*.
What has been heard cannot be unheard..........
I believe that this may be the statement in question.
“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”
Serino succinct answer: “Yes.”
Bernie, “The Roach” should be disbarred for bringing this case to trial.
Angela Corey should be put in prison. And the hack liberal judge should
buy herself a new face.
And yet she leaves alone the testimony of the proven perjurer, Rachael.
If this was to be a fair and imparital trial, whe would at have stricken the “testimony of the serial perjurer. But since not even the State is alluding to “fair and impartial”.....
Objection! Council is leading the witness and imposing conjecture with supposition in the presumptuous leading question. lol
Neither can the jury unhear how the prosecution demanded, and the judge approved, that they disregard the statement of a police officer.
So the very act of trying to unring the bell undermines the credibility of the prosecution.
lol. Stated very well. Case closed.
If that was the question, then the prosecutor should have objected if he thought the detective’s opinion of Zimmerman’s veracity was inadmissible.
I’m surprised the judge would grant a such a belated motion to strike.
But Judges are strange creatures.
Perhaps a lawyer will comment here, but some of this judge’s rulings seem to be strong appeal material in the event of a conviction.
It is more than the jury and its individual jurors hearing this statement... they heard it at the end of the day, had time for it to reverberate in their minds over night, and then get reminded all over again first thing in the morning. The cherry on top is making sure these jurors think this was a special statement noteworthy of remembrance to begin with, instead of just passing over it relatively unnoticed...
As soon as the Prosecution rests, the defense should move for a dismissal of the case based on lack of evidence.
There is more than a little bit of a reasonable doubt obvious to everyone as presented by the prosecution. If I were the defense, upon conclusion of the prosecutions case I might say,
“Your honor, the defense rests. The prosecution has presented our case splendidly.”
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.