Posted on 03/24/2012 6:47:49 AM PDT by tobyhill
Amid the rush of loud outrage and vocal protest from the parents of Trayvon Martin and their supporters the silence of one character in this tragic tale has been deafening: George Zimmerman, the free man who shot Martin and alleges self-defense. His attorney, Craig Sonner, finally spoke out to Anderson Cooper last night, and had few answers but one accusation– his client has a broken nose and a laceration on his skull, and that was “an injury done by Trayvon Martin.”
Sonner noted to Cooper that his client seemed fine save for a “considerable bit of stress” natural to his situation, but admitted that “y conversations have been by telephone.” He did not know where Zimmerman was but assumed he was “still in the area” and hadn’t fled the country. He had surprisingly little to offer Cooper about the facts of the case; asked what Zimmerman had told him about what transpired the night Martin died, he said “he should have made a statement to police at the time, I believe he did,” and said he “did not discuss the details,” and they would be privileged even if he had.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
O. J. was innocent. Jury said so. You should go back over the threads that produced. A bunch of people ranting with no evidence and no clue.
His (or any potential suspect’s) statement that the guy he shot attacked him would be considered self-serving unless it were to be corroborated by a neutral witness or evidence such as a condo-complex security camera. That’s just the way the law works.
I don't know if you have heard, but teachers have been blackmailed to assure that football players have grades sufficient to stay on the team. That assumes the player is at least better than the towel boy. The point is grades mean nothing. I know that, for a fact.
--------------------------------------
No. Any statement that the law would consider to be self-serving would not be considered to be true without neutral corroborating evidence or testimony.
Take yourself out of this particular situation and substitute it with a case wherein a guy stabs an unarmed stranger to death in a deserted parking lot with no witnesses and no cameras to record the killing. Maybe the guy with the knife was assaulted and defended himself. Maybe he started the fight, got punched a couple of times and then pulled the knife.
Nobody knows except the killer...and he is saying that he was attacked.
The legal concept of self-serving statements demands that his statement be regarded as an effort to diminish his culpability and/or punishment.
The law presumes that no individual will lie to inculpate himself but that most individuals will lie to exculpate themselves.
The statement may well be entered but any proscetutor worth a nickel will point out the self-serving aspect of it and its worth will be diminished or negated by the jury.
I understand that his remarks that he was attacked works in his favor, and as such can be called self-serving - certainly remarks made after the incident. And assuming his testimony is "self serving" that way, it remains so, whether corroborated or contradicted by other evidence.
I think what you are asserting is that his statements are inadmissible, and what I'm looking for is your rationale for that.
I'd suggest you check Williamson again, and review the meaning of "hearsay," and review the Rules of Evidence to facilitate your explanation of why Zimmerman's testimony would be inadmissible.
If you aren't asserting that his post-incident testimony would or could be held inadmissible, then I'm curious what you see as the ramifications of categorizing any Zimmerman statement, either during or post-incident, as self-serving.
All the burglaries were committed by blacks and that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin while getting into his SUV.
The link you provided as proof doesn't say anything like this at all....so I'm still waiting for you to provide any bit of proof for your statements.
While you're looking you might want to ask yourself this....
If, as you say is true, Martin attacked Zimmerman when Zimmerman was getting into his SUV, why did the struggle and shooting happen behind the buildings?
Good luck.
I understand the concept of self serving. I was asking about the term “limited value”. You gave me the answer. Thank you for that.
If Zimmerman’s statement carries no weight legally doesn’t there still have to be evidence presented by the prosecution that he’s guilty of a crime in order to convict?
A lower court may well allow the statement to be entered but the prosecution will then diminish it by making sure that the jury understands the legal concept of self-serving statements.
For this reason there should be no trial, absent any unknown to the public evidence.
Just so I am clear --- my opinion is that Zimmerman likely continued to act aggressively (ie, continued to follow/pursue) and that he initiated contact.
That is in keeping with the behavior that we know through his taped call that they both exhibited --- zimmerman followed --- martin avoided contact.
I believe that zimmerman got in over his head and shot. I have seen many fights wherein the aggressor got his ass kicked.
I also believe, based strictly on the known knowns, that zimmerman cannot be convicted ---- think OJ.
I know that. What you need to do is translate that into, first "if," and then "how" the Williamson case applies to Zimmerman's testimony.
-- A lower court may well allow the statement to be entered but the prosecution will then diminish it by making sure that the jury understands the legal concept of self-serving statements. --
Our legal system is adversarial in nature. All evidence is attacked for reliability, truthfulness, etc.
I have the impression that you think a motion to exclude (at least some of) Zimmerman's statements would be seriously entertained. What you haven't articulated, even though I asked you to, is which of Zimmerman's statements, and what are the legal grounds for excluding (any part or all of) his testimony?
Rather than play hide the ball with any more, you are applying a hearsay evidence rule, to evidence that is not hearsay.
In the absence of more information, I have concluded that Zimmerman did not initiate the confrontation. He tells the dispatcher that he lost Martin, and I’ve heard (although I have no link) that Martin tells his girlfriend that he lost Zimmerman. How is Zimmerman supposed to have initiated the confrontation if he can’t find Martin?
There is a hearsay exclusion (as affirmed by the case you cited) which allows a third party to testify to inculpatory statements made by a declarant if they cannot or will not testify at trial (or, legally, are considered unavailable, but does not allow testimony by a third party regarding exculpatory statements made by a declarant.
You've cited no Rule that states any contemporaneous or other exculpatory statement made by Zimmerman, particularly any spontaneous utterances at the scene, are not admissable simply because they are exculpatory.
Do you seriously believe that a defense attorney cannot cross examine a police witness, and ask that police witness what contemporaneous statements were made by a defendant, even if those statements are exculpatory, because such testimony relates a self-serving declaration by the defendant?
Please post any Florida statute that Zimmerman violated, along with any evidence released to the public that establishes probable cause to arrest Zimmerman for violating that statute.
Otherwise, what's the debate about?
Are you suggesting that his teachers rigged the FCATs?
Math was his favorite subject, according to one of his Carol City teachers, Ashley Gantt .She taught his sophomore year English honors class where the curriculum included works such as T he Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Sometimes he’d come to the second period class looking exhausted. Gantt would call out his name. “I’m sorry, Ms. Gantt. I’m not asleep. I’m listening,” he’d reply, she said. He’d often wear a hoodie at school – just like the one he was wearing the day he was killed in Sanford. “Once he came in wearing a UM hoodie. I’m a Florida Gator,” Gantt said. “I’m like, ‘You can’t come into my class with that.’” Gantt said she never saw Trayvon behave aggressively or show disrespect. “He was just a sweet kid, she said. “He got As and Bs. If he received a C on an assignment, it was because he was just being a kid that day. He was very smart.”
______________________________
How is martin to have initiated the cinfrontation if he ran away?
From zimmerman's taped call we know two things about their behavior...
1) zimmerman followed/pursued.
2) martin ran/avoided.
I am pretty sure that was exactly my point dimwit.
We need more evidence.
I used Williamson as a known case wherein the definition and established standard understanding of self-serving statements in a criminal proceeding is addressed.
If you read the opinion in the case you will see that it is referenced exactly as I wrote. If you haven't read the opinion then I can't help you.
No dummy you were saying it was wrong, you are free to change it is my point.
Try what? Being non-responsive to my questions and helpful suggestions?
-- I used Williamson as a known case wherein the definition and established standard understanding of self-serving statements in a criminal proceeding is addressed. --
So, you know that Williamson addresses a subset of the universe of statements that can be characterized as "self serving."
-- If you read the opinion in the case you will see that it is referenced exactly as I wrote. --
Well, yes, you did excerpt it faithfully. What you haven't done is apply the legal principle of the Williamson case to the instant case. I told you what your error was. You are applying a hearsay evidence rule (some hearsay is admissible) to evidence that is not hearsay.
-- If you haven't read the opinion then I can't help you. --
I'm trying to be helpful to you, by hinting at what the Williamson case is about, and why it doesn't apply to Zimmerman's testimony and statements.
You've worn out my goodwill toward you. Carry on without me. Oh, and thanks for the offer of help, but I don't want any help from you at all. It would be best if we forget we ever encountered each other.
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.