Posted on 07/02/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
SANFORD, Fla. — Prosecutors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman scrambled Tuesday to undo damage to their case by one of their leading witnesses, a Sanford police officer who interviewed the defendant hours after he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.
The witness, Officer Chris Serino, testified under cross-examination on late Monday afternoon that Mr. Zimmerman seemed to be telling the truth when he said he had fired his gun in self-defense. The officer’s admission made for a dramatic moment in the trial — and was a clear boon for the defense — but drew no immediate objection from the state. The court recessed for the day afterward.
But early on Tuesday, citing case law, the state successfully argued that Officer Serino’s comments about Mr. Zimmerman’s veracity ought to be disregarded by the jury. The judge then instructed the jurors, who are being sequestered during the trial, to ignore the officer’s statement, nearly 17 hours after it had been made.
Officer Serino’s testimony, in the second week of the trial in Seminole County Court, was the latest setback for prosecutors......
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yep, it is also really hard to prosecute someone when there is no evidence to support your claims.
The judge asked the state what remedy it wanted. It had grounds for a mistrial, and could have asked for that. That’s how to unring a bell.
retroactive objection?
Never saw that on Perry Mason...
On what basis?
A witness is not allowed to give an opinion on another witness, but Zimmerman is not a witness, he’s the defendant.
True, and often the attempt to do so causes more reverberations than one would intend. This even smells of desperation.
That move hurt them more than the actual statement.
Wouldn’t that be rewarding the prosecution for their own ineptitude?
I hope that holds true. How in the world can the prosecution discount testimony merely because it’s favorable to Zimmerman, and came from an official? If he’d said something they like, they wouldn’t have discounted it. So, it’s not the official they have the problem with (or they could have objected to him before trial), it’s that what he said is favorable to the defense. Zimmerman doesn’t have a right to fair testimony, even if it turns out to be favorable to him? I thought the truth mattered (not really, but you know what I mean), search for the truth and all that. It’s only true if it discredits Zimmerman?
The whole trial is a mockery. If the DA’s office had any integrity they’d nolle prosse and stop wasting tax dollars to placate the media lynch mob.
They’re going to have to offer Mr. Zimmerman a spot in the witness protection program.
That’ll be part of the deal he’ll demand.
The prosecution FAKED a cursive letter, and
FAKED the existence of REAL bruises on Mr. Zimmerman,
and has used the MSM to FAKE even the appearances
of the Obama-chosen “victim”.
Neither the facts nor the Law is on the side
of the cruel prosecution which has made this a
racist kangaroo court.
QUESTION - Will the Defense move to dismiss charges after the Prosecution rests.
It seems Judge would have to dismiss at least the 2nd degree murder charge? Correct
” The state also aired a televised interview from 2012 with Mr. Zimmerman by Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, in which Mr. Zimmerman recounted his version of events before adding, “I feel that it was all God’s plan,” as Mr. O’Mara squirmed by his side. “
I don’t think MOM really squirmed about anything. I’m sure he knew it was coming.
That opinion statement by the officer hurt them. The prosecutor waited too long. Even the instruction to the jury reemphasized the opinion by the policeman. The prosecution in this case seems inept.
Yeah, really.
If they didn’t really pay attention to it yesterday, they were reminded to, today.
A fair and impartial trial was never in the State’s plans. Why they did not sweat a “signed confreesion” a/l/a the Stalin era Show trials remains a mystery. The goal of tthe “trial” is to “legally” convict Zimmerman to go along with the media conviction.
Yeah, and it looks pretty weird if you're jumping up in court to object to a statement by your own witness.
I'm guessing that's why the wait.
Either that or else they were so gob-smacked they didn't know whether to **** or go blind.
There is no way every jurist there didn’t go “HUH?”
Even TV law isn’t that stupid. 17 hours of consideration does not evaporate because the judge wants it to.
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.