Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State seeks to halt animated re-enactment of Trayvon shooting
Reuters ^ | July 8, 2013 | Barbara Liston

Posted on 07/08/2013 6:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Prosecutors asked a Florida judge on Monday to block the jury in the George Zimmerman trial from seeing an animated re-enactment of the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, saying the video distorts the events of that fatal encounter.

Defense lawyers want to show the video to the six-woman jury that will decide the fate of Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty, saying he shot Martin in self-defense.

State prosecutors argued that the video fails to show the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that Zimmerman, 29, a white and Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, used to shoot Martin, 17, once through the heart.

Prosecutors also objected because they said the animation video shows details of the fatal struggle based on the animator's "approximations," including the number of blows during the fight and how each body reacts to those blows.....

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: kangaroocourt; martin; trayvon; trayvonstroops; zimmerman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: ExTxMarine

Q: Mr. Expert is there anything that could help you describe these events.

A: yes.

Q: what would that be?

A: a animation of the events

Q: what would an animation reflect?

a; The events described in the documents and depositions and autoposy report.

and so on. Once the foundation is laid the animation comes in.


41 posted on 07/08/2013 7:48:23 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

>> the prosecution has an opportunity after the defense with rebuttal IF THEY CAN.

Yep.


42 posted on 07/08/2013 7:48:35 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

The problem with a lot of evidence (this in particular) is authentication. The best authentication of this simulation evidence is verification from the only person who could testify that it accurately depicts what he observed and experienced, and that is the defendant. I wouldn’t put Zimmerman on the stand to do that, because once he takes the stand, he is open to a wide array of questions the prosecution may ask. The trial is going so well for the defense to date, I wouldn’t risk it.


43 posted on 07/08/2013 7:52:40 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Did you fall and hit your head recently?


44 posted on 07/08/2013 7:53:37 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
-- I was not aware that there is anything in self defense law that specifies which of your available weapons you may use to defend yourself, and which you may not use. In other words, I don't think you're obligated to calculate just how *little* force you must apply to succeed. Can you find me a reference? --

Florida Chapter 776.

That's the statutory language for justified use of force. I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death. Reasonably (the jury decides) holding a fear of death is a prerequisite for resort to deadly force. The firing of a firearm in the direction of "the person to be arrested" (read that as "stopped") is always deadly force, see 776.06.

In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, self defense force MUST be measured. If you are ambitious, look up the jury instructions for additional detail.

45 posted on 07/08/2013 7:54:16 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

>> The problem with a lot of evidence (this in particular) is authentication.

Be that as it may, it’s not the job of the defense to “up front” authenticate it.

It’s the job of the prosecution to DISauthenticate it. The defense then responds as required to fight off the prosecution’s challenges to Z’s version of events. This has proven to be quite easy to do — the prosecution’s own witnesses have been a great help.

I agree that it would be a bad idea to put Z on the stand. I also don’t think they need to — the prosecution’s case is as weak as they come.


46 posted on 07/08/2013 7:56:36 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Obama, a White and Black, uh Black and White, Community Agitator.


47 posted on 07/08/2013 7:58:59 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (They can follow the Communist, I'll follow the Constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

>> In situations that do NOT involve a reasonable fear of death or serious injury

Thanks for the cite. However, if you go back and carefully read my post, in my example I qualified that the hypothetical “victim” did indeed fear for his life.

Back to the case at hand — as I recall there is either case law or it’s written into the law, don’t remember which, that actually RECEIVING significant injuries goes a long way towards justifying FEAR of receiving serious injuries. Right? And that describes Z. Right?


48 posted on 07/08/2013 8:00:20 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

>>testimony has already been given that GZ blood tests were negative for alcohol and drugs.<<

I believe you are wrong about that. Unless the cops arrested Z that night, they had no right to request tests from GZ, although I have not doubt that he would have agreed if they asked him. I believe the testimony showed that the cops had no suspicion that GZ was impaired.


49 posted on 07/08/2013 8:00:25 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

>> I notice your hypothetical is premised on fear of death.
Sorry, missed that.


50 posted on 07/08/2013 8:01:03 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

That link is really convenient for studying the applicable laws — thanks.

I note that they don’t really define “great bodily harm”, or what is reasonable “fear of great bodily harm”, except that if someone breaks into your dwelling you are safe in presuming you’re about to receive great bodily harm.

I suppose juries decide that (or appeals courts with case law as a guide).


51 posted on 07/08/2013 8:17:46 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

I swear I heard testimony regarding GZ being tested for alcohol/drugs, but you seem pretty certain. Did the police testify to GZ being sober? I know this issue was discussed in court.


52 posted on 07/08/2013 8:20:49 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

For what it’s worth... a Google search of “Zimmerman drug test” calls up a bunch of cites, some reliable, that seem to indicate that St. Trayvon was tested but Zimmerman was not.

Not proof, just evidence — put whatever weight on it you want.


53 posted on 07/08/2013 8:26:58 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: stormer

“No way this animation should be allowed - it’s pure speculation.”

I disagree. The defense’s job is suppose to demonstrate that the thing “could” have gone down differently than the prosecution alleges. If there is another explanation for what happened, the jury not only needs to consider it, but it helps create reasonable doubt.

I’m not a lawyer, but if my recollection is that if another reasonable explanation exists for what happened, the defendant must be found innocent.


54 posted on 07/08/2013 8:32:59 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stormer
I don’t believe anything he’s said. Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman, by his own admission, didn’t identify himself as a block-watch guy - if Martin thought he was about to mugged, why not fight? The irony here is that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, he would have had an excellent case of “stand your ground”.

LOL! Thank God we have a low-information voter on a Zimmerman thread finally.

If you don't believe anything the white-Hispanic has said than any animation by the defense should help bolster the State, right?

I'd love to see what the State would come up with as an animation. It *would* be cartoonish.

55 posted on 07/08/2013 8:39:08 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Obama's Enemies List - Yes, you are a crook.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
State seeks to halt animated re-enactment of Trayvon shooting.

I hate to say it, but I agree with the prosecution on this one!
There's no need to descend to the theater of the absurd; dueling special effects? Who has the better computer graphics teams?

This is truly frightening. In a national social state where low or no information voters and presumed participatory citizens can barely separate reality from fantasy, how badly will our legal system be perverted?

I actually didn't think things could get worse!

I hope the judge has a smidgen of ethics and morals left, and this truly abominable attempt at destroying our legal system is rejected permanently!

56 posted on 07/08/2013 8:41:21 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tennmountainman
It should be admitted and the jury can decide if is credible or not credible.
That’s what jury’s do.

Nothing personal, but I don't think any jury is immune to the subconscious effect of fantasy as a substitute for real, physical evidence.

Hollywood has no role in the legal system.

I know that vehicular accident reconstructions have been common in past trials, and for inanimate objects they can be more easily viewed dispassionately; but not when human interaction, thoughts, biases and intents, or their inferences, are at issue. That should never be allowed.

57 posted on 07/08/2013 8:59:32 PM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I see this video as being no different from collision diagrams used in traffic court. I can’t imagine the judge disallowing the defense to at least print stills from the video onto posterboards to help demonstrate events.

Heck if defense wanted to get cheeky he could print up a still from every second of the video making the judge look like a foolish luddite.


58 posted on 07/08/2013 9:01:57 PM PDT by Teflonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911

it is called dueling experts. The state then brings in their own expert with their own version to contradict the first expert.

Did they even list an expert for this?

This is why experts face voi dire. This is why demonstration exhibits are just that.


59 posted on 07/08/2013 9:06:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: stormer

You aren’t following the case at all are you?


60 posted on 07/08/2013 9:37:59 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson