______________________________________
Please provide links to the "eyewitness testimony" that you say supports Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked by Martin. I bet you can't.
Since there is no known corroborating neutral witness, Zimmerman's statement is, by legal definition, self-serving. There are dozens of easily found cases wherein such statements have been deemed inadmissable.
Here's one at the Appellate level...
"In retrial of interstate kidnapping resulting in death case, trial court did not err under FRE 106 Rule of Completeness in excluding self-serving exculpatory statements of the defendant or hearsay statements by his attorney in a recorded jailhouse phone call, parts of which had been offered by the prosecution regarding the defendant’s plan to kill certain witnesses, because FRE 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible, in United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. May 12, 2008) (No. 06-4691)"
You can research if you like...or not. It won't change things.
Scriptura pro scribente nihil probat.
"In retrial of interstate kidnapping resulting in death case, trial court did not err under FRE 106 Rule of Completeness in excluding self-serving exculpatory statements of the defendant or hearsay statements by his attorney in a recorded jailhouse phone call, parts of which had been offered by the prosecution regarding the defendant’s plan to kill certain witnesses, because FRE 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible, in United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. May 12, 2008) (No. 06-4691)"
The defendent has every right to submit a statement regarding his innocence and the circumstances surrounding the charges against him. It is up to the prosecution to prove that he is lying.
That isn't what Rule 106 is really about, is it? Rule 106 is really about excerpting testimony which may mislead the jury.
From: UNITED STATES v. LENTZ:
Rule 106 provides that “[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” Fed.R.Evid. 106. Its purpose “is ‘to prevent a party from misleading the jury by allowing into the record relevant portions of the excluded testimony which clarify or explain the part already received.’ ” United States v. Bollin, 264 F.3d 391, 414 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir.1996)).
Rule 106 does not, however, “render admissible the evidence which is otherwise inadmissible under the hearsay rules.” Wilkerson, 84 F.3d at 696. Nor does it require the admission of “self-serving, exculpatory statements made by a party which are being sought for admission by that same party.” Id.; see also Bollin, 264 F.3d at 414 (“The fact that some of the omitted testimony arguably was exculpatory does not, without more, make it admissible under the rule of completeness.”). We review the trial court's decision to deny admissibility of evidence under Rule 106 for an abuse of discretion. See Wilkerson, 84 F.3d at 696.
Prior to the introduction of the recordings as evidence in this case, the district court carefully and individually considered all excerpts proposed to be included or excluded by both sides, but declined to allow into evidence various self-serving exculpatory statements made by Lentz to Salvato during the conversation as well as various hearsay statements made by Salvato which were unnecessary to place Lentz's comments in perspective. Having reviewed the proposed additions and the rulings of the district court, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the omitted portions as they were neither necessary to avoid misleading the jury or to place the portions admitted into proper context.