Skip to comments.Vanity: State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman: Affidavit of probable cause
Posted on 04/12/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by dewawi
Oh my God, no wonder Allen Dershowitz is calling it a disgrace. This looks like something a 3rd grader would put together. It even makes a mistake as to what the Dispatcher told Zimmerman when he said he was following him. Remember: the Dispatcher said "You don't have to do that". Well in this affidavit, the State claims the Dispatcher said something else DESPITE IT BEING ON TAPE!
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Her testimony, truthful or not, is not hearsay. She was a primary witness, albeit subject to the limits of telephony and the length of the call.
Hearsay doesn't refer to the human ear. What the ear hears is admissible, if the ear was listening to an actual event. Hearsay is second-hand accounts. So and so told me such and such is not admissable, whether by ear or by email, letter or whatever.
Leave it to Florida to screw this up....They can’t even count votes with major chaotic issues.
What I recall reading is that Benjamin Crump took her deposition shortly after the incident, in preparation for ginning up the lynch mob. But, amazingly, the Man didn't talk to her until Corey took over the case. It will be most interesting to see how her account "evolved" between the those two points in time.
No, the prosecutor is a an arrogant idiot, who instead of having a brief news conference, instead made a major production out of it, and proceeded to give a long speech.
All this as she's smiling and winking at her media and government employee friends in the audience..
The prosecutor Corey, is a freaking moron.
The affidavit didn't even say how they knew Martin attempted to run home. Was this what the person/friend of Martin said who was not even present or a witness?
Is this a joke?
"ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life."
"The lawyer said he would give the details of the phone call to the federal investigation."
So it appears that the girl is giving this account to ABCNews and Crump about three weeks after the incident, and that Crump is writing the interview up into a statement to give to investigators.
Of course any ABCNews article cannot be taken as objective, especially by Matt Gutman.
Was this a "reenactment" of an earlier account given to Crump by the girl, or the first time? If it was the former, it is sleazy of ABCNews to suggest otherwise, but then again ABCNews is sleazy.
This one could be on a twilight zone episode. Call it the "Rubber mask".
Maybe it was 0bamaz son on the recording.
To the extent the prosecution uses her to testify to a declaration that Trayvon made in order to prove the matter asserted in the declaration that would be hearsay. Such as "Trayvon told me on the phone it was raining" in order to prove to the jury that it was raining.
An example of such a statement I expect the prosecution to introduce would be her testimony that Trayvon told her that he was being followed, in order to establish the fact that Trayvon was following her.
Nevertheless, even though some of these statements may be literally hearsay, I expect the court to allow all or nearly all of these statements into evidence under the residual exception if necessary.
I meant to write “in order to establish the fact that Zimmerman was following Trayvon”.
What she heard in terms of struggle is not hearsay.
See my post in 90.
The dying declaration exception does not appear relevant.
What I recall reading is, she said the call dropped before she heard anything other than words being exchanged.
If Zimmerman initiated the fisticuffs, she should have heard quite a lot, judging by what turned up on the 911 audio, recorded from much further away.
On the other hand, if Martin pressed End before setting about messing up the Man, she would have heard just about what she heard.
Might as well get some facts before you use it as a negative. The dispatcher carries no legal authority. Following their advice, from an insulated deaf and blind distance, can and probably has gotten the good guys killed. If some goon is coming at you or yours, and you're trying to give a 911 operator the dope on it, would you listen to them if they told you your best best was to drop to the ground and roll in a ball, vs. shooting their ass? Unless you can say yes to that, stop convicting a guy with nonsense. (I know you didn't actually convict him, but that kind of uneducated opinion is exactly what the haters will try to use when real evidence won't get the job done.)
What don’t you understand about the definition of HEARSAY. Legally AND technically it is HEARSAY; She HEARD what he SAID. She is reiterating what she heard TRayvon say to Zimmerman. HEARSAY!
They don’t technically care a whiff about stand your ground laws, per second. Instead, what they see here is a wedge issue that they think they can use to drive up voter turnout for this fall’s elections. This will be the issue that every candidate has to choose sides on in the fall campaign. Liberal, even those who fully supported the law when it was passed, will line up against it and the narrative will be that President Obama is the sensible candidate who is against these racist and dangerous stand your ground laws.
Per second = per se.
I don't think so. What Obama needs is to build up guilt in the stupid white voters and so far he and the media are doing a great job without riots. There are very few people who read what we do and understand Zimmerman's innocence. Most people believe the media and think Z is guilty of profiling and murder.
Angela Corey We dont “usually” prosecute by public pressure or petition. But in this case we have made an exception. We believe the Sanford police department is full of incompetents who let murderers roam free for no reason. We do not want black people rioting around the streets of Florida so we decided to charge George even though there are witnesses, facts, and evidence to prove he was defending himself” this is what she really meant at the press conference