Posted on 12/10/2012 12:36:19 PM PST by Uncle Chip
Edited on 12/10/2012 2:31:37 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
In a blistering response to a recent filing by George Zimmerman's defense team, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda accuses the second-degree murder defendant of attempting "to co-opt the mantle of victimhood for himself."
Zimmerman's legal team had asked Circuit Judge Debra Nelson to force an attorney for the family of Trayvon Martin, the Miami Gardens teen shot by Zimmerman Feb. 26 in Sanford, to turn over a recorded interview of a witness described as the teen's girlfriend.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
They got a brown guy to attack the white brown guy witch? Gosh, liberal race hate is so diversified and complicated. Who do I hate? The innocent black guy who attacked and got killed or the white brown guy who did the killin’ but who has black and white blood????? (Why Zimmerman has managed to survie with such a raging genetic liberal race war within his body, I will never understand! We need Jamie Foxx to straighten all this out...wait, is he of white and brown blood? Algore can explain the liberal race “science” to me?)
Dang, race guilt genetics “social justice” is so complicated!
Then posted the set of relevant motions...
Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence from Third-Party
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD-PARTY
Actually it is "leading her on" Bernie who puts those words in her mouth:
"Dee Dee: When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought drinks…
[then later]
"BDLR: OK, thank you. Um…I think I already asked you, but let me make sure…he did tell you what he was at the store…the store where he had gotten candy or something, and you said iced tea, right?
Dee Dee: Yes.
She never said "iced tea" [or even "Skittles"]. Bernie said "iced tea" and she agreed like a good coached and tampered witness.
OS gives you a certain number of free reads before they start charging. They know how many times you have gone to their site by putting a cookie on your computer. It's always a good idea to clean out your cookies from time to time, but you may have to redo some things after your clean out the cookies.
Shhhhhhhhh -- not so loud.
What a stupid statement by the prosecutor. The idiot thinks liberal statements trumps law.
I second that thought! If ever there was a team dedicated to fixing a trial, this is it.
Yeah, I am disgusted with my state, honestly.
I absolutely love Alan West. Love and respect. I wish I had the opportunity to vote for him.
But it seems to me that florida republicans in general just are not...they aren’t really anything at all outside of yellow.
I don’t even have any respect for Rubio. Not jeb Bush, then there was Crist, whatever the Hell he/ she is...Angela Corey, the Senate leader whose name escapes me at this time, Rick Scott who has accomplished not a damn thing.
I believe that’s what Cbolt was discussing in his response to me. If the prosecution is going to use the tape evidence of Deedee, then the defense team is entitled to that evidence before the trial.
Regardless, if Deedee is a key witness of the prosecution, they will call her at trial, and the defense team can cross examine.
Honestly, from what I’ve been reading about Deedee, the prosecution may not want to use her testimony at all.
Like I said, I’m in my first semester, so I’m brand new to this stuff. However, I can definitely tell you that one of my professors gave an MSNBC recount of the Zimmerman incident. I was pretty disgusted, but not surprised.
The defense is entitled to it, period (under FL rules of Criminal Procedure), regardless of whether or not the state has any plan or intention to use, refer to, or produce the audio at trial.
I'd have to research, but I think that the general rule, aside from FL open discovery, is that the state can sandbag defendant, that is, produce inculpatory evidence for the first time, at trial. This isn't generally done, but it's not a violation.
-- ... one of my professors gave an MSNBC recount of the Zimmerman incident ... --
I got out of law school in 1998. 80% of the class was liberal, 40% was "Guild level liberal," and you'll figure out what that means, in due course. The professors were mostly liberal too - but get them off the political schtick, they are there to give you an education, not an indoctrination. I used to have fun showing them how the casebooks erred, typically by omission. Spend lots of time reading cases - the whole thing, not the excerpts assigned. Usually, but not always, the casebook does a great job of excerpting. Oh, it is also illuminating to read the trial case material, sometimes. You may be disappointed to learn that appellate judges are agenda driven, and prone to cherry-pick, etc.
If you stick with it, and apply yourself, the law school experience will work a profound change in the way you view the world - and in a way that will certainly be good for you, personally. Better to know how things really work, than to adhere to some false impression.
Thank you for the advice. I’d at a more conservative school I think, at least relative to other law schools, so I’ve actually made a couple good friends already who are conservative like me (just nowhere near as right).
My teachers actually haven’t been too bad with the liberal slant in any of my classes. Now and then, a teacher will throw in a jab at Scalia, or recant the bogus version of the Zimmerman incident. Overall, they actually do a pretty good job of keeping their politic viewpoints out of the classroom, but like I said, it’s probably because my school leans conservative.
I’m constantly annoyed by the NLG and their attempt to present themselves as a partisan group. From what I’ve researched, the NLG was named by McCarthy as a full-blown communist group, and don’t think they’ve really ever changed their ways.
During the election season, they were posting nonsense to our class’s Facebook page in search of election monitors due to “conservative suppression of the vote.”
Sorry, for going off-topic.
Don’t you remember the initial presser with the prosecutors? The woman whose name eludes me said she wanted “Justice for Trayvon.” At that point she should have been yanked off the case.
A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice. Period. For Trayvon, For George. For the community. A prosecutor is not supposed to quote and swallow Al Sharpton’s perspective hook, line and sinker.
Thanks for the details.
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.