Posted on 07/02/2013 5:16:14 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Which is all irrelevant anyway, since the 911 dispatcher does NOT have any authority to order or command a citizen to do anything!
Since when can’t a 16 year police veteran and professional at discerning the truth from lies not express what he believes?????
>> Judges told the jurors to disregard the fact that Serino believed GZ was truthful.
Is it just me, or is there something Orwellian about that whole exchange?
I did not follow the argument on the case law submission. Suddenly West was talking about a witness that they failed to depose. Indeed, confusion.
In principle, it’s the witness encroaching on the province of the jury. Truth of a witness’ testimony is for the jury to decide, not for another witness to decide.
So your hair is still on fire.
...and the low-brow humor..?
'Where do white families like to go for breakfast'?
Mature adults can withstand a little dissent and criticism. Only juvenile, immature folks get upset on public forums when they are dissed or disagreed with.
Just sayin....
Can we get back to the on-going trial proceedings now?
this ruling MAY benefit GZ in the end...
possible grounds for appeal
and how does it play with the Jury
They heard it and you can’t unring the bell
such as...
“I trust that cop..Bernie is obviously afraid of that testimony.”
It’s important that O”mara makes this witness sympathetic and believable to the jury...and thus the comment will ring in the back of their heads
Questioning RIGHT NOW SHOWS WHY THE TAPE IS A PROBLEM AND WHY O’MARA COULD NOT JUST SIT DOWN.
He had to fix THAT issue about the injuries.
The legal system and process is premised on existence of probable cause, credible evidence that cuts in favor of a conviction. When that is absent, the system is put in a strange situation, like running your toaster on water. The rules don't work "right" anymore.
The systematic functions that are supposed to help defendant, that are supposed to force the state to prove its case, are being used to hurt defendant, and shift the burden to defendant to prove innocence.
I want to open a restaurant just so I can have a menu item called the “Creepy *ss Cracker” —
it would be some type of Mexican/Laatin food served on White bread.
My heavens. RC simply expressed an opinion as to what she saw as a plausible outcome. Give her a break, she has every right to express.
>> Truth of a witness’ testimony is for the jury to decide, not for another witness to decide.
On the face of it, and in most cases, that makes perfect sense.
But what you have here could be framed as testimony from an “expert witness” whose specialty, and indeed part of whose job, is to assess the truthfulness of the defendant.
Is the jury to believe that his conclusion isn’t a valid part of that testimony? Or, as another poster asked, what if Serino’s conclusion was that Z was lying? Would *that* opinion be admissible? Because that’s clearly how the prosecution was seeking to use Serino’s testimony, to impeach Z’s credibility.
(I realize it’s water under the bridge though.)
I think we all know the answer to that. And it has nothing to do with justice or fairness, much less with the goal of ensuring a fair trial for Zimmerman.
Laatin????? Hopefully my menu will have better spelling. LOL
Bernie up to re-direct. Starts with a comment the he’s not going to ask opinions. MOM objects and is sustained.
O’Mara cross over as judge refuses to let him continue asking Serino about his investigation
Bernie up —
They always get away!
Absolutely true.
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.