Posted on 07/10/2013 5:55:51 AM PDT by servo1969
In my post last night I noted a near shouting match between defense attorney Don West and Judge Debra Nelson over whether text messages on Trayvon Martin’s phone regarding fighting were “authenticated.”
Judge Nelson stated that there was no evidence that Trayvon typed the texts even though the messages were on his phone and stored in double-password protected format using phone apps. Judge Nelson read from the bench from what appeared to be a treatise on evidence.
The defense countered that its computer forensic expert, who testified, was able to track hundreds if not thousand of text messages on the phone and that the flow of conversations indicated it was Trayvon in context. The defense also vigorously complained that because the State held back evidence and the defense’s request to postpone the trial was denied, the defense did not have the time to track down and call as witnesses the people with whom Trayvon was texting to personally authenticate the conversations.
Although we will not get her ruling until after court starts this morning, it appears that Judge Nelson is on the verge of reversible error if she excludes the text messages on authentication grounds (there may be other grounds to exclude them, I’m just dealing with authentication).
A reader forwarded to me the case of State v. Lumarque, 44 So.3d 171, Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2010, in which a Florida appeals court reversed a trial court’s decision to exclude text messages on authentication grounds. Here’s the pertinent part of the holding (emphasis mine):
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.
At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion….
As much as the State wants to keep out the text messages, reversible error due to an improper authentication ruling is not the way to go.
Jurors are not typically in court for procedural arguments and rulings as the matters heard are outside the case facts until such time as they are admitted into evidence and allowed to be properly presented.
There are very few positive things coming out of this trial.
However, it does reinforce my firm belief that we have a show trial system where both sides attempt to get the best “half truth” heard by the jury and the thing on the bench is just a tool of government abuse.
I hope if there is a riot after the verdict the judge gets out in the street between the two warring factions to try and stop it. Her deliberate and obvious attempts to subvert justice would be quickly rewarded.
This judge is either grossly incompetent or, in the tank for the Obamabots, 100%. She should be removed from the trial!! Also her manner is unbecoming to a respected member of the bench!!! She belongs with all the hating race baiters in the Obama/Martin camp!!!
They were on TM’s phone, so they are his. Let the jury decide if they are authenticated or not.
On HIS phone = belong to him in some way, shape, or form.
This nitwit is a judge?
I think she is just totally prejudiced for the prosecution.
It could be that the judge knows the state did not make its case and that acquittal is the likely outcome. Perhaps she is not giving the defense anything more to avoid giving Obama’s ignorant base any more justification for commencing the rioting they have been dutifully instructed to do by the lib politicians and media. Obama’s base is too stupid to comprehend rules of evidence. All they would take away from a ruling for the defense is that whitey judge let whitey racist defense counsel for whitey racist defendant defame choirboy young angel Trayvon. Sure, it could be grounds for appeal, but she may be willing to take the chance. Perhaps I’m giving her more credit than is due her.
She's not a Latina but she's certainly wise. (end sarcasm)
I think normally, while they’re arguing about what can and can’t be admitted, they excuse the jury; wouldn’t be much point otherwise. Course this judge is so incompetent she might have done it in front of them.
In the minutes officers expressed disapproval of Dr. Rao's "propensity to classify virtually all prison deaths as homicides, and lack of expertise by office personnel in the management of crime scene investigations."
I’m torn on this... because I have a teen and twenty something year old who grew up on the internet. I have little doubt T Martin wrote those texts... however, kids do borrow each others phones and notoriously write embarassing things on other peoples facebook pages, or text people without their friends permission.
Which is why I’m surprised the story of the boy who is sitting in jail for idiotic facebook posts is sitting in jail.
Authenticating the texts would be difficult, as T Martin is deceased.
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.