“. . .those cannot be resolved by cross-examining Robert Zimmerman, because all Robert Zimmerman knows is what George Zimmerman told him. “
How about this:
“those cannot be resolved by cross-examining the thug’s girlfriend, because all the girlfriend knows is what the thug told her.”
She was not there. She was on the phone, supposedly.
Back at ya.
She was not there. She was on the phone, supposedly.
The difference (and the reason her testimony will be admissible, and his not) is that she heard what Martin told her as the event was occurring. Zimmerman's father heard what Zimmerman told him after the fact. She can provide testimony (and be cross-examined) about Martin's contemporaneous demeanor, tone of voice, etc. Zimmerman's father has no such contemporaneous information, and can only testify to Zimmerman's after-the-fact statements.
The testimony of both Martin's girlfriend and Zimmerman's father would be hearsay (although Martin's girlfriend could also have non-hearsay testimony to provide, independent of what Martin told her - as an "earwitness," so to speak). The difference is that Martin's girlfriend's testimony about Martin's contemporaneous statements likely are admissible because they fall within at least one hearsay exception, maybe more (present sense impression, present state of mind, and excited utterance come to mind). Zimmerman's father's testimony is hearsay, but falls within no exception, and is clearly inadmissible.