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“.
Shnitt just said the words the defense should use. “If his head is split, you must acquit.” !!!
Shesh, Iii Thoght WEE where1 My Teavisin is gettin blurry n habin trble seeingitt
:^}
However Tracy Martin did say the first call he made was to juvie...
You lost the argument on facts.
Ignoring the fact that he was not told not to follow and you now are ignoring the dispatcher has no authoroity to tell someone to stop or issue dirrectives.
You lost.
Reply if you wish as your embarrassment apparently knows no bounds.
So, here is how it stands, either:
a) You reply thereby compounding your embarrassment and demonstrating to all your juvenile need to get the last word
b) You let it go, be an adult, grow up and educate yourself and become factually informed.
I’m betting you opt for ‘a’. . .I have a six-pack of an adult beverage riding on your next step.
It’s called arguing facts not in evidence, and it’s a slam dunk on appeal. See http://williampfeifer.com/2012/05/01/11/48/51/appeals/improper-closing-arguments-part-1-facts-not-in-evidence/1182
3 hours means 3 hours so if this idiot consumes say 2 !/ Guy only gets a half hour...that needs to be a point of contention tomorrow
Keep playing it Bernie.............”I thought he was being truthful”. A few minor inconsistencies that weren’t important”
>> Wrong or not . . . the kid he killed would still be alive.
Yeah, then St. Trayvon could still fight and steal and smoke dope and buy guns and maybe the next time he run inta a cracka de cracka be dead. Or maybe it be an innocent cracka’s ten month old baby in a burglary dead.
All Zimmerman’s fault.
Police Jargon
vs
Jenteel Jargon
so gutter slang is ok, but legal slang is not?
One lesson we should all learn from Zimmerman’s experience. Never, ever talk to the police without a competent lawyer standing next to you. If I’m ever stopped or detained by the police I won’t say a thing without a lawyer at my side.
2 1/2 hours oops
If you hadn't worn a short skirt, you wouldn't have been raped.
If you hadn't gone out late at night, you wouldn't have been mugged.
If you hadn't made lots of money and bought nice things, you wouldn't have been a tempting target for burglars.
If you hadn't contributed to the TEA Party, you wouldn't have gotten an IRS audit.
I guess it's always the victim's fault, eh?
17 yr old “boys” are the ones who worry me...thot it was racist to refer to blacks as “boy?” Did they change it back? I must be behind the times...still PO’d about “reparations” proves it.
Racehorse, you remind me of the posters here on FR in the days after the original shooting who were hoodwinked by the MSM and were calling for GZ’s head.
Nearly every one of those posters has since shaken off the MSM spell and they now realize what’s really going on here.
You must have gotten lost along the way somehow.
“That’s why West does what he does. He’s the “Go ahead judge...beat me up”.”
Interesting. And MOM stays charming and soft spoken.
they will just give MOM more time...
Give racehorse some credit. I wouldn’t call him an idiot, though some of the things he has said here show gross ignorance on this case.
I see it as “arrogant ignorance”, however, and Racehorse’s reputation would be best served by dropping out of this thread. Extra credit would be given for an apology as well.
Bernie ain't got sh!t, you must acquit.
The judge prohibited the defense from bringing in that evidence. Hence the defense can't use it in closing arguments. So BDLR can go on and on on what a sweet innocent little boy Martin was and if MOM says anything to refute that in his closing arguments he could be sanctioned or the judge could declare a mis-trial.
BDLR is just baiting the defense in hopes they make a big mistake tomorrow.
BDLR would like nothing more than having the judge declare a mistrial based on misconduct by the defense.
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.