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 ...
She looks like Meatloaf wearing glasses!
If a prosecutor deliberately forces a mistrial, the Double-Jeopardy rule in conjunction with the Dirty Hands doctrine generally precludes retrial. That doesn't happen often, though, because most prosecutors would rather dismiss charges than force the judge to throw out a case via mistrial.
He was asked the question in a roundabout way. Paraphrased:
Serino: “He was either being truthful or he’s a pathological liar.”
MoM: “Was Zimmerman a ‘pathological liar?’”
“No.”
True that. But there was no force by the prosecutor on this one, just asleep at the switch.
Okay, and that’s where the pathological reference came from I heard the tail end of on the radio this afternoon.
Thanks for the clarification.
I can’t wade through this trail transcript. It would drive me batty. :^)
Yup. The State may have a million reasons to ask for a mistrial, but they can't use this question/answer.
Wait, are you saying thet, after the trial, we’re going to find out Rachel Jeantel was really Marlene Dietrich in disguise?
That’s my worry. Will the girls decide that it’s better to convict Zimmerman of something than to hurt Martin’s parents feelings (and to cause massive rioting).
The fact that she couldn’t read a letter she was supposed to write indicates that someone was manufacturing evidence.
That seems logical enough. But....
This trial has some novelty to it, and risks that don’t belong, like the threats of riots and the like if the Jury doesn’t find “the right way.” That adds a non-judicial dimension that makes me worry about the six wildcards. I’m not sure the usual observations of behavior and results apply.
(And dittos to what Sergio said above, your comments are great!)
Yep!
Yeah....It seems that trips through the Florida legal system does that to people.
If the prosecution asked that question of a prosecution witness, maybe you might have a case. “. . .calls for a conclusion by the witness.” OTOH if I’m not mistaken, the question was asked by the defense, of a nominally hostile witness for the prosecution. I’m at a loss to know why it is “reversible error” if the prosecution doesn’t make a timely objection?And, BTW, the defense established (or at least I thought it had) that the investigation was headed nowhere until Crump announced that he had "found a witness” in the lovely and gracious - and articulate - "Dee Dee.” Is the jury not entitled to the information that the prosecution’s whole case hinges on the credibility of “Dee Dee"?
:^) Guilty as charged...
I am not a sexist person, nor am I a racist person. God made us all races, and He made both sexes.
I can, however, observe human behavior, and what I observe disturbs me.
Take Andrea Yates, for instance. A woman who savagely murdered 5 children.
I remember watching the appeals trial, and the women commentators on television. They basically said she was "Not Guilty By Reason of Ovaries."
And then you took the words right out of my mouth
Oh - it must have been while you were kissing me
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh, joy, oh, rapture. I’ve got a brain!"
I definitely agree. I hate what is happening here, and I hate even more that there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it.
I wish I could answer those questions. I will say that if I was on this jury I would be noting how it seems that the deck is being purposely stacked in order to achieve a guilty verdict, and I would not give that to them.
Nor manslaughter. Nothing, he walks.
It's not all that hard to prosecute them. It's pretty hard, though, to prosecute them successfully without any evidence.
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.