Posted on 07/02/2013 5:03:42 PM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Can any legal minded FReepers answer this question?
I'm thinking that if the Judge allows the Prosecution to present evidence regarding Zimmerman's school history such as classes taken, etc., then wouldn't she then be compelled to allow the Defense to present Trayvon's school history, to include suspensions, etc?
If the Prosecution seeks to paint Zimmerman as 'wanna be cop' then so too shouldn't the Defense be allowed to present Trayvon as a hostile street thug?
Well the only remaining relevant question in the case is who started the fight. Its already clear from tons of evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his head down into the side walk during the fight, but we only have Zimmerman's account of how it started. Since there are no other witnesses, if we are to assess who most likely started the fight than knowing that Martin had a history of starting fights and taking pride in making people bleed seems entirely relevant. It would not prove Martin started this particular fight, but it would certainly make Zimmerman's story of how it started seem more plausible.
She ruled to not allow Martin’s history. That went against case precedence for cases involving self defense, where evidence of the “victim’s” character has been allowed in the past.
The prosecution argues that these facts, though not directly pertinent to the case, relate to the veracity of Zimmerman’s statements to the police (and also to the recording of Zimmerman from Hannity). That is, the prosecution is trying to impeach Zimmerman (prove that what he has said is not trustworthy). Yet, Zimmerman has not taken the witness stand. This seems to deny to Zimmerman the right against self incrimination. I am guessing that once you waive that right, and cooperate with the police, the prosecution can then “impeach” you in court, and thereby bring reputation in the court room.
The judge is trying to steer a course down the middle, by allowing “redacted” school records and medical records and so forth to come in. This seems to me to be cutting the salami thin.
The cumulative effect of so many rulings to allow facts unrelated to the case to come into the courtyard makes the whole thing rather farcical. The only evidence, so far, that seems to point to Zimmerman’s guilt is a phone conversation relayed by an air-head. She says she recognizes Trayvon’s voice crying for help, yet the timeline put together by the defense indicates that the cries for help we heard are subsequent to the end of her phone call. Maybe she heard prior cries for help. That’s the most generous construction of her testimony. Or maybe she imagined the whole thing or is simply lying under oath. But, whatever she heard is irrelevant to the cries for help at the time that Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shot Trayvon dead.
To return to Trayvon’s supposed cries for help, why would Trayvon be crying for help? He has no wounds other than the fatal bullet wound and the abrasions on the knuckles of two fingers of his left hand.
As to who started the fight, that would be simple assault. Zimmerman isn’t accused of that, and the prosecution would have zero chance of proving it. Regardless of who started the fight, the question is: did Zimmerman use deadly force in reasonable fear of his life or some other serious injury? If not, that would be murder in the second degree if Zimmerman acted out of ill will or with a depraved mind; and, that would be aggravated manslaughter if Zimmerman acted rashly, or over-reacted, to the situation. The connection, as you perceive it, to who started the fight, is that it’s hard to imagine how you could get murder two if Trayvon started the fight.
Going back to the prosecution’s star witness, Trayvon started the confrontation by saying “Why you following me for?” Then, Zimmerman responded in one of two ways, depending on whether you want to believe her deposition under oath or her court room testimony. Again, according to this star witness, Trayvon had referred to Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker and as a niggah and such. So, in evidence and directly related to this matter, the star witness indicates that Trayvon was confrontational.
But, does this mean Trayvon started the fight? No, all we have about that, either in evidence already or under consideration, is Zimmerman saying he didn’t and the facts that Zimmerman is a family man, a working man, a man who takes community college courses to advance himself, a man who is involved in the community, a man who is interested in the law and at least in the past, possibly in becoming a policeman himself. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything incriminating about these things.
From what I’ve read, the judge may have been correct to keep out the stuff about Martin’s prior conduct. While, according to the Florida Rules of Evidence, the character of an alleged victim may be offered by the accused, Rule 405 states that “When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of that person’s character is admissible, proof may be made by testimony about that person’s reputation.” So, while Zimmerman could put up witnesses to testify that Martin had a reputation for starting fights, the Florida Rules of Evidence seem to bar evidence about specific prior incidents.
Legally (per the Rules of Evidence) it depends on why the past events being are introduced into evidence. If the past event is being used to contradict what a witness has testified to (impeach the witness’ credibility), the judge may be more likely to allow that evidence in. If the past events (such as fights are being introduced to suggest that a party acted in conformity with that past behavior in the present case, the judge will generally not let that evidence in. The judge may let that character evidence in if there was a clear patter that showed a modus operandi that was also used in the present case.
Prosecution may look at the current case and decide they can either lose it now, or have a chance if they add in Zimmerman’s back story. Look for it to be ugly, with accusations of child molestation (that can’t be proved or answered 10+ years later, it is just a smear).
And then they will try to point to previous ruling about Trayvon, and note that GZ didn’t know TM’s past but he did know GZ’s past.
It’s not a tit for tat — it doesn’t work that way
Stand-your-ground law is not involved/relevant in this instance. Pure Self-defense is the basis for Zimmerman’s case.
But,
Since Zimmerman’s team has refused to use “stand your ground” in his defense, shouldn’t the issue of this alleged contradiction be immaterial?
Doesn’t really matter who started ‘the fight’. Who escalated it to the point of using potentially deadly force? Physical evidence shows that Mr. Martin WAS using ‘offensive’force that could have resulted in GBI and possible death to Mr. Z. Martin’s actions were terminated by the ‘defensive’ force of Mr. Zimmerman. The prosecution has to show that Mr. Zimmerman’s defensive action was ‘unreasonable’ given the circumstances. Showing Mr Zimmerman as the one who escalated to deadly ‘offensive’ action is not consistent with any physical evidence thus presented. Having stated the above, OJ was guilty of murder but......
Thank you.
The way that “who started it” could enter the case is this: (1) If Zimmerman started it, and (2) if Zimmerman had an avenue of escape, then (3) he would be obligated by having started it, to escape. (The obligation of the initiator of a fight to escape if possible is not negated by “Stand York Ground”) Clearly, by reason of his story and as validated by numerous eye and ear witnesses, by the time that the fight reached its climax, there was no avenue of escape.
The testimony of Witness Eight suggests that she didn't seem surprised at the notion of TM starting a fight with GZ. Could MOM/West pursue that further if they call her back to the stand? It would seem that if TM was in the habit of getting into fights with strangers, it would be at least plausible that he would have instigated the fight in this case, which should in and of itself imply reasonable doubt.
I believe Witness Eight said that “TM would have told me if he was gonna fight” which means he probably did tell her he was going to fight but she just didn’t tell “us”
I am glad that she mentioned the “Creepy Ass Cracker” description though. That was good of her to share that with us.
I believe Trayvon was under school suspension the day he was killed.
Good point. I recall Deval Patrick wanted to protect the privacy of one dead Tamerlan Tsarnaev, too.. He just didn’t want to give up the $$$ amounts of his welfare checks and food stamps. Public subsidized terrorism, compliments of the Democrat party.
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.