Posted on 05/13/2013 7:09:37 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
The prosecution in the George Zimmerman murder case has asked a judge to prohibit testimony about shooting victim Trayvon Martin's personal life, including whether he had been suspended from school, used marijuana or been in a fight.
The information is irrelevant and would prejudice a jury, the state contends in the motion, filed late Friday.
The motion also asks the judge to disallow:
•Screen names used by Trayvon on social media.
•The fact that he wore or owned a set of gold teeth.
•The contents of text messages received or sent by Trayvon before Feb. 26, the day he died.
•The contents of text messages received or sent by Trayvon on Feb. 26 unless a court has ruled them admissible.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
From all I have heard, this prosecution case seems pretty weak.
Will we see a rerun of the Rodney King riots, if Zimmerman is found not guilty?
Will Al Sharpton and all of the MSNBC crowd claim that our system of justice is racist and all that, if Zimmerman is acquitted?
Will some, such as that idiot black congresswoman, who claimed that Trayvon was shot in the street like a dog, claim that any rioting is justified as righteous indignation at an unjust verdict?
Zimmerman has been tried and found guilty by the liberals. They have poisoned the well, so to speak. So, if Zimmerman is found not guilty, the liberals will fan the flames of racism once again, saying our system is racist.
And that could then lead to riots. I hope I’m wrong. I pray to God that I am wrong. But the way the liberals have set up this case, they have set it up to claim racism and injustice are alive and well.
They might as well charge George Z with having killed Mother Theresa, John Kennedy, and having a hand in the crucifixion of Jesus!
STATE’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING CALLING OF WITNESSES
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/051013_limine_calling_witnesses.pdf
Is the state not going to call Witness 8 to testify???
Nope.
Goes to character and developement of lifestyle as gangsta wannabe ....
Denny Crane!!!
[[George Zimmerman trial: State wants testimony about Travyon Martin’s personal life excluded]]
Why woudl a fair and balanced court which is supposed to be abotu justice nd NOT about politics, refuse testimony which is pertinent to establishign the FACT that martin was a thug and wanna be gangster who targetted george purposely
From what I hear GZ would be happy to include his personal life- apparently he is a good family man and volunteers a lot
So, do I understand the the prosecution wants to exclude Trayvon’s past because it is bad, and exclude GZ’s because it is good?
This is the state’s attempt to bar Zimmerman’s walkthrough video or his recorded statements and to try to force Zimmerman to take the witness stand.
STATE’S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING SELF-SERVING HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/051013_limine_hearsay.pdf
Can’t think of who else the State would make such a fuss over. W8 was problematic for the State, but might have become untenable due to the festering “Francine situation” (State and Defense likely know more about this than we do), and the “ping logs” which might destroy her version of events.
I haven’t read the Charging Affidavit recently, but if the State relied on a witness to make the charge, the fact of the State withdrawing that witness seems like a big deal that the jury should know about (it would precipitate dismissal in a just world). I can see where BdlR would not want to have to expplain it.
IIRC, Judge Nelson made comments on 4-30-13 to the effect of postponing the decision about sanctioning the State over for W8’s depo, until it was clear that it had any relevance. Gee, did she know something then...?
Without W8, the State’s case goes from weak to nothing.
Perhaps this is just a head fake?
From what I read the want to exclude just about everything about st. trayvon the martyr but any and everything about GZ is okay.
If the prosecution is planning on bringing George Zimmerman’s personal life into the trial records, then it’s only fair that the defense has the right to bring in Trayvon Martin’s personal life as well.
Goes to motive. If the prosecution doesn’t allege that Zimmerman was racist, that he had no business following Trayvon Martin or in any way portray Martin as squeaky clean and therefore incapable of attacking Zimmerman, the exclusion would be fair.
But if the prosecution alleges that Zimmerman was racist, Zimmerman has the right to demonstrate that his hunch was, in fact, correct.
If the prosecution alleges that in no way would Martin ever have been the type of kid to get in trouble, than Zimmerman has the right to establish that Martin was, in fact, a repeat criminal.
My understanding is that the prosecution, however, is based on those charges.
How so? The main question for a fair jury should be whether TM battered GZ without GZ having acted in unreasonable and/or unlawful fashion to provoke him. GZ is claiming that TM did exactly that. For a jury to accept GZ's version of events, it would have to accept that TM's actions were radically different from most people's normal actions. Much of the evidence the prosecution wants to exclude would tend to show that while the actions ascribed to TM aren't consistent with how most people behave, they are consistent with how TM used to behave. Such evidence would serve to corroborate GZ's description of events.
“This is the state’s attempt to bar Zimmerman’s walkthrough video or his recorded statements and to try to force Zimmerman to take the witness stand.”
That seems likely. Also implies the BdlR can’t find any significant inconsistencies to exploit, or the State would relish letting the D present the material, then ripping it to shreds.
I posted earlier about the Charging Affidavit, assuming W8 is the witness the State intends to drop. I re-read the doc and marked it up — the only info implying a crime by GZ depend upon W8 alone (Sabrina Fulton’s easily impeached claim that TM was the one shouting for help means little without the W8 context). One wonders if BdlR is literally “going through the motions” to show he fought the good PC fight, while actually shaping the ground for Nelson to dismiss the case. Alternatively, the “can’t mention dropped State witnesses” motion could be a gambit whereby, if the State drops W8 as a witness after the trial begins, the Defense couldn’t mention it in a request for dismissal on the basis of a factually unsupported charging affidavit.
This trial is certainly going to be shaped on 5-28. BdlR appears to have outlined how he would defend GZ, then filed motions to deprive GZ of almost all logical defenses. I guess that passes for the “pursuit of justice” in his mind. No fair judge would grant the State any of these ridiculous motions — you can’t even explain the case without getting into why TM was in Sanford, etc. His attempt to shield TM’s past behavior, and even the mj in his system at the time of the incident, highlights that BdlR knows how much it matters.
Yeppers -- the defense has the prosecution and its scheme team surrogates over a barrell.
The prosecution are at this point trying not for a conviction but for a way to prevent an array of embarrassing evidence from coming to the public eye and ear in court.
It will be one thing to lose their case. It will be something else entirely to be so thoroughly embarrassed by the absence of inculpatory yet plethora of exculpatory evidence that even their supporters in the low information community begin to call for it all to end so that more does not come to the surface.
BDLR (State of Florida) Motions To Hide Background Information of Trayvon Martin
Will they want Zimmermans broken nose stricken also?
LOL
Will we see Motions forbidding any pictures or mentions of Watermelon Juice or guys in hoodies trying to buy blunts???
That would be the second time for it to be stricken.
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.