Posted on 07/03/2013 5:16:54 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 3rd, is DAY #18 (of 4th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Rather than recap yesterday, I want to draw attention to some issues – A great recap is available HERE:
Yesterday, we got the first view on the horizon of the mud about to get slung by the State toward the character of George Zimmerman – Things are about to get intense.
Also, the State probably wants the jury to hear Sybrina, TrayMom™ and tears, last in the line-up prior to the long mid-week holiday break - so heads up for her this afternoon.
Tracy probably will not testify – due to his on-the-record lies now visible in evidence.
Remember, there is so much corruption in the assembly of this case you can expect the State to avoid the traditional witnesses brought by normal prosecutions.
The state has already won a pre-trial motion to bar the defense mentioning the absence of any witness from the State’s case.
So if the Seminole County Medical Examiner, or any LEO is not called to the stand – O’Mara cannot mention it. M.E. = Trayvon Blood Tox. etc.
The Scheme Team has, in their desperation, blitzed the media and geography. Daryl Parks, and Jasmine Rand are doing as much Cable News as possible. Jasmine is the David Axelrod of their scheme. She is also a well skilled liar, and working hand in hand to assist and counsel with the State.
Jasmine is also simultaneously trying to coordinate the narrative of Rachel Jeantel with Rod Vereen. You now have: Natalie Jackson, Ben Crump, Darryl Parks, Jasmine Rand, and Rod Vereen all working together to protect their narrative.
According to her girls: Alicia Stanley – has also been physically threatened and extorted to keep her mouth shut. They, all of them, are in full tactical combat operational mode to get their lynching money.
There is NOTHING they will not do. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
The judge has ruled that Tray’s past is not admissible.
Never write off an old disk jockey.
not sure that is right...
they couldn’t use it during the opening
but if some door gets opened and the defense can show various things..she MIGHT allow it
but given this Judge..
the door has to be pretty big
Not sure if you know it but we torpedoed a few of our own ships...torpedoes took a turn and hit the sub they were fired from. I met somone who survived such a hit
http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-zone/circular-torpedo-runs.shtml
I mean, the state has to prove that 1) TM is dead, 2) He was killed by gunshot, 3) it was illegal to kill him.
DId I sleep through the autopsy report?
Did they bring up drugs in TM blood?
I agree...West did a terrific job with Carter. GREAT points were made...
Nope, true dat, nope, and nope.
and as Sybrina weeps on the stand Tracey will be in the front row gnawing on a package of Slim Jims.
********************************************************************
Or, depending on which type of Slim Jim he brought, scratching his back with one?
I suspect, they’re counting on leaving them with Sabrina’s sobbing face to ponder on their weekend.
If SF is called to the stand, can the defense ask her questions about TM past that she has knowledge of?
Kathi Belich, WFTV @KBelichWFTV
It appears the state thought it was a big win to get #Zimmermanon9 ‘s school records in but never anticipated the door it opened.
The judge is making the appeal process into a sure thing.
This from Cboldt at Talkleft re: Carter’s testimony
Instructor says Zimmerman was probably one of the better students in the class.
Mantei asks what is covered as far as self-defense under Florida law. Instructor says the course included SYG and castle doctrine. Did you discuss self defense and stand your ground in the context of crimes such as murder? Yes. How much time was spent in the course on this? It’s an affirmative defense, it was constantly interated, students wanted to know about it, it was practical, the class was engaged in the discussions, he recalls talking about it many times.
Cross exam by West.
Witness also worked as a public defender. Were you a PD at the same time you taught Zimmerman? Yes. First job as a lawyer was public defender. Witness likes teaching, would like to be a law professor. Educating others helped reinforce the things he needed to know in his job. Law on the books vs. law in action. Any change in a fact (in a case) can change the outcome (how true!). All facts have significance, but there are certain things that through case law have been given more weight. “Reasonable person standard” comes up. West says “reasonable belief” is squarely part of self defense. Gets agreement.
Witness now does only prosecution at this time. He had done admin law in a federal context.
Is this your career? Witness would rather not comment on that right now.
Witness did not write the course book. It was suggested, previous professor used it. It was not Florida law. Book may have referenced majority/minority of states (as to each legal proposition or standard) but did not single out Florida. Some class discussion was on Florida law, and stand your ground.
I’m going to set aside commenting until/unless the witness says something that strikes me as remarkable in the context of the Zimmerman case. The witness seems to be a straight-up good person.
West is keying on the notion of reasonable attaches to the fear of injury, and not actual injury. The witness taught class with example from YouTube, stopped frame by frame, and says that the situation can change quickly; that it is possible to have reasonable imminent fear, with no injuries. Injuries tend to corroborate a person’s assertion that their fear was reasonable.
West gets into imperfect self defense. The witness says using too much force.
Mantei had been making objections - West clarifies that all of his questions pertain to what was taught in the class, not to what the witness knows in general. That stops the objections for now.
West describes the Zimmerman / Martin confrontation. Person being held, beating goes on for 10, 20, 30 seconds, the victim wouldn’t know when the attack would stop. Objection, sustained. Too much like giving an opinion on this case, as to ultimate conclusion.
West goes on to a fight where tables are turned. Use of disproportionate force is imperfect self defense. West says what about the person who started it (used small force, met with disproportionate force)? Can they return force? Yes.
Back to Mantei. This worked almost as good as the expert (Root?) that is the subject of the recent state motion in limine.
Mantei attempts to raise “provoke.” West objects, not raised on direct or on cross. Also (my two cents) provocation in a self defense inquiry is limited to threat or use of force.
Mantei won, uses imperfect self defense example as an act of provocation.
Witness says he is referring to disproportionate force, excessive force (doesn’t get to the initiation question) Mantei drops it. Witness is excused. Next witness . . . (cue Jaws music)
Yeah knew that. Interesting factoid nevertheless.
Quite the contrary. Did a 101 level course. It surely gobsmacked the prosecution
At this point, I don’t think the defense needs to bring Trayvon’s past into the trial. Rachel’s testimony shed a great deal of light on what kind of person he was.
If I am not mistaken, if the prosecutor calls a witness to the stand, even SF, the defense has a right to question her also, correct?
I had never seen or heard of that before. I found video...and he’s done checking out at 5:55:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WScO9r5INU
The clerk seems to be ‘acting casual’, while keeping an eye on him.
And he does just what you say, start to leave, then comes back in frame, walks back toward the coolers...picks something off the floor? Moves towards the coolers...then turns around and leaves.
All other tapes of this have been from a different angle, and it isn’t obvious that he does this.
a white Martin...oh my.....you just might choke on some skittles
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.