Posted on 07/04/2013 4:44:30 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Driving back from Miami-Dade today, and recognizing the defense had run out the clock on Sybrina Fulton’s opportunity to testify, this question crossed my mind: Should the defense ask her any questions?
I’m absolutely the wrong person to actually answer that question, because quite frankly I have researched too much about her.
But I’m wondering what you think?
Is the risk of seeming callous toward a grieving parent such that asking her deliberate questions should be avoided?
Should the Defense Team Cross Examine Sybrina Fulton Yes No Not Sure Vote View ResultsPolldaddy.com
If it were up to me, I would. But again, I’m way too close and too understanding of her manipulations. Almost all of which would never be grasped or understood by a jury. Especially a jury of women and Moms.
The types of questions I would ask would be to open doors to further evidence – The prosecution would never expect the defense would be so bold as to crack those doors with Sybrina on the stand – If you think about the evidence they would frame around her testimony, they themselves would be opening quite a few doors, is it possible to walk through them? I already know the answers to most of these specific questions, but would really like to see Sybrina’s reconciliation:
Who was the primary legal guardian of Trayvon – Yourself, or his father, Tracy ?
You have testified the voice you hear on the recording is Trayvon. When was the first time you heard this recording ?
Where were you at the time you heard this recording ?
What was the purpose behind your request to listen to the 911 call in Mayor Triplett’s office?
Was it your idea to ask Mr. Triplett for the recording?
With that in mind, how were you then, and how are you now certain the voice was Trayvons ?
You state with maternal certainty the voice you are testifying to was Trayvon…… Prior to the shooting of Feb 26th – When was the last time you actually talked to Trayvon ?
You state with maternal certainty the voice you hear was Trayvon….. Prior to the shooting of Feb 26th – When was the last time you physically saw Trayvon ?
When you heard from Tracy on Feb 27th at 11:05am that Trayvon was shot/killed, you never went to Sanford. Why is that?
So, when, approximately, was the first time you left Miami and travelled to Sanford/Orlando? Can you remember the purpose for that visit ? Who did you meet upon arrival ?
Where exactly was Trayvon physically living prior to his departure to Sanford ?
Was Trayvon living with you on the final day he attended Krop High School ?
Did you pick him up from School? How did he return home that day from School ?
Trayvon had a cell phone on his person when he was shot and killed – who was the primary account holder for that phone ?
What was the first name of Trayvon’s closest male friend ? Who did he “hang with” ?
Approximately two weeks after Trayvon was shot, you filed a Trademark application to trademark the phrase: “Justice For Trayvon” – why was that ? Was that your idea ? If not, whose idea was it ?
oops, MOM has the full settlement but for public consumption amount will be redacted
Have you ever seen exhibits in court like we saw this week of clothes encased in those big sealed display boxes???
Nope. But it does make a nice display for the jury. I don't see anything troublesome about that method of display, as long as it doesn't hide evidence or information from the jury.
Dianne Tennis said they did it because Martin’s clothes were put away wet and probably stunk to high heavens.
If the state asks for recall rights on Z’s parents (and I’m not sure they can even do that), does that keep them excluded from the courtroom?
Thanks again, and please know I appreciate your informative answers, my FRiend. Happy 4th of July to all of us!
I think I would also ask her if she had heard Trayvon screaming in a similar situation - where life or serious injury were in the mix - in order to tie her testimony up with the audio expert’s that said that one had to hear the voice under similar stress.
What do you think on that subject?
No questions, your honor.
It would, but the state doesn't get recall rights. It goes first, it calls all the witnesses it plans to examine. If the defense indicates that it may call the witness when it is defense turn to present its case, then that witness is told they are subject to recall.
Thanks for the kind compliment. Best wishes for a safe, exciting (I know, that isn't necessarily safe!) and enjoyable Independence Day to you, your family and friends.
I'd ask if she had heard him scream in fear, but I wouldn't try to tie things up in an airtight fashion. The defense will have voice ID people too. All that said, the other evidence, injuries to George, George saying, right away, he was calling for help, John thought the guy on the bottom was screaming, etc. I mean, how much do you need to figure out which of the two was screaming? The parent's testimony won't be persuasive.
O'Mara could go way beyond gentle, and ask if Sybrina had any financial motive to say the scream was Martin. I don't think that is necessary to win the case in court, and the public and jury can find out about financial motive, etc. after the criminal trial is over.
Could be part of the reason. I think by now everything is pretty well aired out though. The cases aren't sealed, just foamboard boxes and thin acrylic covers. If the clothes are really stinky now, that stink would come through the display case.
I think more of the reason for the display case is for ease of visual display. No need to handle the fabric to show the various areas.
“Just some things for Sybrina Fulton to think about as she contemplates the testimony she will deliver tomorrow”
Nope—Even if the prosecution only asks her the one question—”were those his screams?”, it opens the door for mom to ask the question about how would she know since she has been an absentee parent for much of his life.
I stand by my opinion that the State appears to be throwing the game.
Liberals, statists, fascists, whoever, don't care about the 'individual'....only the commune and the cause.
They don't care one whit about Zimmerman the Individual. They indicted him because of rabid political pressures from the presidency on down. His personal fate one way or the other is unimportant to them.
The testimony of virtually every witness for the State so far has ended up aiding the defense. Do you really think these witnesses were not thoroughly vetted long before the trial opened? If they were indeed 'witnesses for the State', they never would have been called to the stand because they were unhelpful to the State in the first place.
Mark my words, this is a dog-and-pony show, a show trial, an absurdity. Every major actor is playing his or her part....with the possible exception of George, the inscrutable buddha.
Indeed, I can hear the script rattle.
Leni
I am thinking the persecution will not call her...she is such a huge liability because of her baggage.
Unless the State foolishly opens doors about TM’s past and whereabouts, the State can’t use SF except to claim TM is the screamer. I suggest the Defense stick to questions that require yes/no responses to which the jury knows the obvious answers. Any attempt by SF to dodge and emote will show up as a sham. Fantasy court...
Q. I have a few short questions, requiring simple yes/no answers. Did you hear the testimony of the State’s FBI audio expert, Dr. Nakasone?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he testify that it is impossible to identify the screamer from listening to the tapes because of the recording conditions and brevity of the sample?
A. But it wuz my baaayybeee. Wahwahwah.
Q. Let me read back that portion of his testimony. [read text.]. So, did Dr. Nakasone say “[quote testimony]”.
A. I can’t hear cursive?
Q. Is it ever possible for someone’s mind to play tricks on them, so that they think they hear what they expect to hear based on their understanding of events? Please answer yes or no.
A. Dodge. It wuz my baaayyyybeeee. Wahwah.
Q. Have you seen this photo of GZ’s bloodied face and this photo of the back of his head?
A. Yes. Wah.
Q. Were you in court when eyewitness John Good stated that TM had GZ pinned to the ground, and was raining down punches on GZ “MMA style”?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Since an eyewitness identified GZ as the person pinned to the ground being savagely beaten, GZ has injuries consistent with being beaten, and GZ told police at the time of the event that he was calling for help, wouldn’t it make more sense for GZ to be the one screaming for help?
Judge. Objection sustained...
Q. No further questions.
By throwing the game, you mean losing on purpose - as though the state had a chance, on this evidence, in the first place. I think the state is doing everything it can, it is not holding back any punches. It has shown spite and revenge at every opportunity. Wanted Zimmerman to appear at arraignment in prison garb, wanted him imprisoned until the trial (and almost got it), kicked his parents out of the trial.
Tell me where they've held back somewhere along the way.
I do agree that the state doesn't care about Zimmerman. The state doesn't care about anybody but itself. But Corey and de la Rionda are going to be pissed if the jury acquits, or in the unlikely event of a conviction, the verdict is reversed on appeal, with no opportunity for retrial.
But they were helpful to the state's case in their direct testimony -- UNTIL West/O'Mara stepped up to cross examine them.
The prosecution wants to avoid these and other issues. I think the prosecution will ask one question only, do you recognize the voice on the recording. There may be some “how do you know” questions. The defense would then be restricted in their cross-examination and in any rebuttal to that issue. For the prosecution to “open the door” to whether Trayvon was a person of exemplary character, the defense would not only be able to cross-question the witness, but to bring in rebuttal witnesses and other evidence. The purpose of bringing the mother of the deceased is twofold: to remind the jury of the seriousness of the allegation, and to defuse the testimony of family members of Zimmerman that they recognize the voice to be his.
The prosecution does not have the evidence.
The prosecution does not have the witness testimony.
The prosecution does not even have the law on their side.
The ONLY stunt left to the prosecution is “runaway” jury doing a jury nulification to convict based on mommy emotion by playing the mothers on the panel.
no that was a first.
Also it matches the weak effort to make impressive the physical evidence despite the EVIDENCE SPOILIATION and improper handling.
First chit chat. .... You loved your son ?
You aren’t perfect
You weren’t a perfect mother
TM was perfect
TM wasn’t perfect
Did he receive strait As
Perfect attendance
Was he in school the Friday before his death
Door open
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.