Posted on 07/08/2013 6:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Prosecutors asked a Florida judge on Monday to block the jury in the George Zimmerman trial from seeing an animated re-enactment of the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, saying the video distorts the events of that fatal encounter.
Defense lawyers want to show the video to the six-woman jury that will decide the fate of Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty, saying he shot Martin in self-defense.
State prosecutors argued that the video fails to show the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that Zimmerman, 29, a white and Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, used to shoot Martin, 17, once through the heart.
Prosecutors also objected because they said the animation video shows details of the fatal struggle based on the animator's "approximations," including the number of blows during the fight and how each body reacts to those blows.....
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“Can’t let a jury see truth”
If you believe a cartoon to be truth, then Wilie Coyote ought to be tried for murder.
You’re an attorney?
I don’t see why not. Except that they didn’t produce one, and they have already rested their case.
They would also have had to push it as a “theory” of what transpired, because unlike the defense, the prosecution has no single eyewitness account of what transpired. All the prosecution has are partial accounts, essentially ALL of which corroborate Zimmerman’s first-hand, sworn statement. So anything THEY fill in with IS “speculation”. It may be right, but it IS speculation and the defense WOULD call them on it and make them back it up with PROOF.
Now, consider *why* the prosecution didn’t do an enactment, by considering what an enactment does: it puts a four-dimensional axis on a set of described events and conditions, the four axes being 3D position plus time. The prosecution HAS no plausible theory of what happened that would withstand the rigor of such a storyboard.
Do you like NASCAR?
Zimmerman, in his demonstration, showed that his holster was in the small of his back behind his right hip. And if he had a free hand to reach for his gun, why didn’t he use that hand to fight off his “attacker”? I don’t believe anything he’s said. Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman, by his own admission, didn’t identify himself as a block-watch guy - if Martin thought he was about to mugged, why not fight? The irony here is that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, he would have had an excellent case of “stand your ground”.
Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...
I think the animation could be very instructive for the jury, especially if it showed Trayvon, having just acquired two of the ingredients he needed to brew up his batch of "lean", slinking through the neighborhood looking for open bathroom windows where he might be able to slip in and steal the final ingredient, Robitussin with codeine.
It was that suspicious behavior that caught Zimmerman's attention, and Zimmerman was, after all, on patrol because the apartment residents had formed a neighborhood watch after the complex had suffered a rash of burglaries.
Am I missing something, didn’t the persecution play the video of Zimmerman’s statement to the Police during their presentation? How is that different? That did not result in Zimmerman having to to take the stand to be cross examined.
Not true. Zimmerman is the defendant. His sworn statement IS what is assumed to have occurred that night — the “truth standard”, if you will.
The prosecution’s job is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that something OTHER than what Zimmerman claims is what actually occurred.
Remember, in this country a defendant is assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
LOL! Why would I?
We’re. Watching.
That is your choice. But all can see that you spin a very dishonest account of events.
I DO believe Zimmerman, he has been very credible. You, not so much.
Sure. That is what juries do. Decide who is telling the truth.
>> if he had a free hand to reach for his gun, why didn’t he use that hand to fight off his “attacker”?
Hmmm... someone is attacking you, in a manner that causes you to fear that he intends to take your life.
You decide you must defend yourself, and you have two weapons at your disposal — in Z’s case, a fist and a gun.
I was not aware that there is anything in self defense law that specifies which of your available weapons you may use to defend yourself, and which you may not use. In other words, I don’t think you’re obligated to calculate just how *little* force you must apply to succeed. Can you find me a reference?
(And that leaves aside the whole question of whether or not Z’s fist *would have been* adequate defense. Actually, the defense effectively argued, using witnesses, that Z was probably not capable of fighting off St. Trayvon with his hands.)
I don't know. If they did, then I believe they absolutely opened the door for the animated presentation of the sequence of events as described by Zimmerman on that video.
it is no different than an expert drawing on a marker board.
The prosecution will have the opportunity to cross and take it apart if they can. Also, they knew about it BEFORE the trial started.
the prosecution has an opportunity after the defense with rebuttal IF THEY CAN.
hogwash.
Martin was using the concrete as a weapon.
Martin was the one with premeditation by comming back from his house. The cell phone positioning shows zimmerman was not following any more.
I hate it when people are proven wrong......testimony has already been given that GZ blood tests were negative for alcohol and drugs. Instead of swimming upstream, think of just this........what was George Zimmermans state of mind when he resorted to self-defense and what were Trayvon Martins actions that caused GZ to be in that state of mind.
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.