Posted on 07/11/2013 4:59:59 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 11th, is DAY #23 (of 5th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday the defense rested its case. A legal analysis via Professor Jacobson HERE.
From my perspective the entire case ended, as expected, early in the day yesterday when Judge Nelson gave George Zimmerman his personal Platinum Express DCA Acquittal Card. The ruling, and more importantly the legal determination she used on the ruling, regarding the Trayvon Martin phone evidence was an immediate Nuclear DCA option. Nelson essentially ruled against admissibility based on ”authentication”. She could have kept it out under other legal reasoning, but no, she chose the one without the slightest chance of being upheld by a District Court of Appeals. IMHO this was intentional and aligns itself with the way she has ruled during the pre-trial discovery phase, and during the case itself. She’s a rigid ideologue, but she’s not stupid – this was intentional.
By ruling the phone records (texts and pics from Trayvon) cannot be “authenticated” to have originated by the specific personage of Trayvon Martin just gave the dismissal of the case to George Zimmerman with a bow on it.
As it was carefully explained to me, the phone is like a bucket. The data inside the phone is like marbles in a bucket. Some marbles from calls, others from pictures, others from texts, etc. The State brought the bucket into court – and validated the bucket contents with their own witness from the phone company – Both the State and the defense then began arguing their case around the phone call marbles in the bucket – Primarily with Rachel Jeantel. But no-one challenged the bucket itself. The State authenticated the bucket and the content of the bucket during the introduction.
The defense picks up the same bucket the state hands them, and now begins to use the contents – texts and pictures – and then Nelson rules the bucket itself cannot be authenticated. It doesn’t work that way.
If the state authenticates evidence, it cannot be divided and only authentic when the state holds it, but not the defense. Flawed logic – ABSOLUTELY positioned to give such a prejudicial outcome, the appeal would result in dismissal, not retrial. Nelson gave the case away to George Zimmerman.
She could have ruled on relevance, admissibility, or other factors – but she chose the one destined to fail, “authentication”. She gave it away.
In other news, people are catching on to the Eric Holder, Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Community Relations Service – being the actual puppeteers behind the entire construct of the false case. To them we say “welcome to the party pal“.
This was what "Stand Your ground" was supposed to fix, where they can't charge you unless they can show it was NOT self-defense. This is why the original police chief refused to charge Zimmerman, and why the DOJ sent CRS agents to have him removed.
Another big one in Z's favor. Limiting the instructions to Murder 2 or manslaughter does seem like what the law allows, and where it stands. That will help the jurors focus upon evidence, not needing simultaneously juggle factual evidence, circumstantial evidence, and multiple outcomes which those would need be determined if applicable.
Self defense instructions still disallowed. O'Mara will have to make his case towards that in his own closing arguments ---as pointed out twice by judge.
Weapons enhancement still allowed? But should be moot--- unless manslaughter sticks? I don't think the three requirements can be met for that charge to stick. Apologies to lurkers, cannot find those precise instructions before posting
okay, thanks.
the martin family supporters (probably the civil attorneys) will be making facial commentary during the closings. I hope mom has somebody watching the opposition for facial expressions trying to provide commentary to the jury.
When Mrs WBill and I started dating, she was very much in this camp. She'd also not fired anything more powerful than a rubberband across 3rd Period Studyhall.
So, we had a "shooting date" at the local range. First thing that she said was "Wow! This is hard!" and I've not heard her make the 'shoot to wound' comment, since.
So, IMHO, if you hear a comment like "Just shoot the bad guy in the leg", it tells you how experienced the person is that you're dealing with.
And, for what its worth, she went through a basic shooting program put on by the Pink Pistols. She thought it was worthiwhile. I thought so too, in that she'd listen to them (and not to me.....)
I’m stealing that one.
good one I ll use it
Lol......
I'll be shocked if manslaughter is out. It is almost always included as a lesser offense. If it is, that is one major break for the defense.
Paypal takes out a fee. I want all my $10.00 to stay with Georges’s needs.
In AZ, the idiots are rotated out into Family Court, where they can f*** up children's lives more efficiently. (personal experience)
The DOJ was trying to do a go-round of interviewing a witness without his attorney present. (pretending to be journalists at a Sheriff Arpaio presser, and then when caught, REFUSED to give Sheriff’s Deputies their names)
Nothing this bunch does surprises me anymore.
no self defense instructions!? she was reversed in 2011 on that!
Or it would make the jury say "What the hell is going on?? Child abuse?? Is the judge nuts?...
Result: INNOCENT of ALL charges.
‘Even if you find such texts on their phones, can you authenticate who sent them, and who read them? Hmmm?”
No, of course not. What was I thinking? lol
pour me another tequila, Shelia,and I’ll wear your red dress home.....lol
.now he’s talking with a male cop who asks him where TM is....I dunno. If I was running a cop shop, that took FD and EMT calls, I wouldn’t have one of my officers sitting there. I think your scenario is flawed.
defense gets it if they ask for it period.
prosecution ONLY gets for it after hearing and discretion of the judge. not automatic. also grounds for reversal.
.
It’s out. It’s in.
Best answer is that 50% say in, 50% say out.
It was confusing, so I’m not sure at all.
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.