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

Skip to comments.

Zimmerman trial judge strikes detective statements
cbc ^ | Jul 2, 2013 1:54 PM ET

Posted on 07/02/2013 11:31:19 AM PDT by BenLurkin

Bernie de la Rionda began by asking the judge to strike from the record a statement Det. Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found credible Zimmerman's account of how he got into a fight with Trayvon Martin. De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn't allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defence attorney Mark O'Mara argued it was proper because Serino was vetting Zimmerman's veracity in his probe.

Judge Debra Nelson told jurors to disregard the statement.

"This is an improper comment," the judge said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: georgezimmerman; martin; trayvonmartin; zimmerman
I haven't been watching the trial. Am curious what the question was which elicited in this information.

IIRC, a lawyer (in this cause the prosecutor) has to object to a question calling for such a response (if it is indeed improper), and also has to make a prompt motion to strike. Not wait until the next day.

1 posted on 07/02/2013 11:31:19 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Unrung bell, toothpaste back in tube ping.


2 posted on 07/02/2013 11:33:22 AM PDT by mc5cents (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Not sure the exact question, but I can summarize:

Who would you believe more the nice Mr. Zimmerman who was just trying to help out in his community or the drugged out thieving thug?


3 posted on 07/02/2013 11:34:16 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Obama lied, Stevens died, now Obama covers up the lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

Yup.


4 posted on 07/02/2013 11:34:23 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The jury heard it. They can’t unhear it. The defense cannot refer to it directly in closing argument. He cannot say “the detective found my client credible.” But he can refer to it in a backhand way. “The state presented no evidence that my client’s version was not credible. All of the evidence you heard points out that it is credible.” Given the large amount of evidence in the record he can point to, that argument is valid and permissible.


5 posted on 07/02/2013 11:34:33 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“Objection your honor. My witness is detrimental to my case”


6 posted on 07/02/2013 11:35:35 AM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

You can tell a jury member all you want to that they should disregard some statement, but the jury will decide in their own minds if they will consider that statement. Even in the jury room, that statement will be talked about. Some will say I am believing it and others won’t. But in the end, some will consider it in the privacy of their own minds.


7 posted on 07/02/2013 11:35:56 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The state’s chief investigator clearly said that he thought GZ was truthful.No judge on earth is gonna make me forget that.Juries,and individual jurors,are far too powerful to be restricted in such a way....particularly in matters that pertain to the *defendant*.


8 posted on 07/02/2013 11:37:43 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

What has been heard cannot be unheard..........

9 posted on 07/02/2013 11:37:56 AM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I believe that this may be the statement in question.

“Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”

Serino succinct answer: “Yes.”


10 posted on 07/02/2013 11:38:19 AM PDT by Okieshooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Bernie, “The Roach” should be disbarred for bringing this case to trial.
Angela Corey should be put in prison. And the hack liberal judge should
buy herself a new face.


11 posted on 07/02/2013 11:38:22 AM PDT by tennmountainman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

And yet she leaves alone the testimony of the proven perjurer, Rachael.


12 posted on 07/02/2013 11:38:36 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

If this was to be a fair and imparital trial, whe would at have stricken the “testimony of the serial perjurer. But since not even the State is alluding to “fair and impartial”.....


13 posted on 07/02/2013 11:38:44 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Who would you believe more the nice Mr. Zimmerman who was just trying to help out in his community or the drugged out thieving thug?

Objection! Council is leading the witness and imposing conjecture with supposition in the presumptuous leading question. lol

14 posted on 07/02/2013 11:40:01 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (If the government told us to expect rain, I'd schedule an outdoor wedding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Neither can the jury unhear how the prosecution demanded, and the judge approved, that they disregard the statement of a police officer.

So the very act of trying to unring the bell undermines the credibility of the prosecution.


15 posted on 07/02/2013 11:40:02 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

lol. Stated very well. Case closed.


16 posted on 07/02/2013 11:40:48 AM PDT by 2dogjoe (Have a Blessed Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Okieshooter

If that was the question, then the prosecutor should have objected if he thought the detective’s opinion of Zimmerman’s veracity was inadmissible.

I’m surprised the judge would grant a such a belated motion to strike.

But Judges are strange creatures.


17 posted on 07/02/2013 11:40:54 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Perhaps a lawyer will comment here, but some of this judge’s rulings seem to be strong appeal material in the event of a conviction.


18 posted on 07/02/2013 11:41:52 AM PDT by clintonh8r ("Europe was created by history. America was created by a philosophy." Baroness Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It is more than the jury and its individual jurors hearing this statement... they heard it at the end of the day, had time for it to reverberate in their minds over night, and then get reminded all over again first thing in the morning. The cherry on top is making sure these jurors think this was a special statement noteworthy of remembrance to begin with, instead of just passing over it relatively unnoticed...


19 posted on 07/02/2013 11:43:11 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

As soon as the Prosecution rests, the defense should move for a dismissal of the case based on lack of evidence.

There is more than a little bit of a reasonable doubt obvious to everyone as presented by the prosecution. If I were the defense, upon conclusion of the prosecutions case I might say,

“Your honor, the defense rests. The prosecution has presented our case splendidly.”


20 posted on 07/02/2013 11:43:21 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (If the government told us to expect rain, I'd schedule an outdoor wedding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Yes, the Judge’s admonishment is “Don’t think about elephants.” Now the jury will think about nothing but elephants.


21 posted on 07/02/2013 11:43:40 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Move to dismiss yes.

Decline to put on evidence....I don’t know about that.


22 posted on 07/02/2013 11:44:49 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It doesn’t matter. The jury heard it. That’s what mattered most (assuming that the jury is rational and not literally prejudiced).


23 posted on 07/02/2013 11:44:57 AM PDT by Teacher317 (The public is being manipulated to fleece the taxpayer. That is the real industry in Washington.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrappieLuck

“Objection your honor. My witness is detrimental to my case”

So far that pretty much describes it.

He’s directed from higher ups, to prosecute.

He says “Okay boss. We’ll do the best we can with what we have got.”

But you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t

Old Chinese proverb.


24 posted on 07/02/2013 11:45:20 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

LOL!
This corrupt judge is STILL trying to fix this charade?

/ facepalm


25 posted on 07/02/2013 11:46:24 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Hmmm... a plan to force a mistrial to let the prosecution off the hook rather than a “not guilty” verdict?


26 posted on 07/02/2013 11:46:39 AM PDT by kevkrom (Obama: less class than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Police officer was giving his own opinion as a Police Officer.

No reason to 'strike' it.

27 posted on 07/02/2013 11:49:43 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
This reminds me of the Paul Newman movie where the ‘fix was in’ in a civil case and Newman brought in a nurse, the judge struck the entire testimony but the jury still ruled for Newman's client.
28 posted on 07/02/2013 11:52:37 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“The Verdict”

A solid portrayal of personal injury litigation.


29 posted on 07/02/2013 11:54:22 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Mistrial motions must be made contemporaneously with the occurrence. You can’t ask for a mistrial the day after. I don’t know whether Florida law allows a judge to call a mistrial “sua sponte,” meaning “this farce has gone on long enough and I’m red-flagging the race.” But I doubt she will do that.

For her to call a mistrial, the state is going to have to deliberately throw a “harpoon,” the kind of question that elicits and answer so prejudicial that no appellate court would let the conviction stand. Typical harpoons involve questions relating to a defendant’s prior criminal record. In this case, it could be the prosecutor stating “We had an expert who was going to say it was poor little Trayvon calling for help, but the Judge wouldn’t let you hear it.”


30 posted on 07/02/2013 11:57:23 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Once it said "yes" will always be yes...!

Matthew 5:37 (NKJV)

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.


31 posted on 07/02/2013 11:59:14 AM PDT by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; All

“De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn’t allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness.”

Wrong, because Zimmerman isn’t a witness yet, and will likely never take the stand.


32 posted on 07/02/2013 12:11:28 PM PDT by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r

I think the objection must have been that the testimony invaded the province of the jury. It’s like the “ultimate issue” objection.
But, not only did the State waive the objection by failing to assert it in a timely manner, the testimony only stated the detective’s opinion (which, as an expert, he should be permitted to articulate). IOW, he said he believed it was credible, not that it was credible.


33 posted on 07/02/2013 12:11:36 PM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BIV

Do you believe any of the judge’s rulings could be the basis of an appeal?


34 posted on 07/02/2013 12:24:49 PM PDT by clintonh8r ("Europe was created by history. America was created by a philosophy." Baroness Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

What has been heard cannot be unheard.


35 posted on 07/02/2013 12:26:00 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
As soon as the Prosecution rests, the defense should move for a dismissal of the case based on lack of evidence.

Judge's response will sort of depend on whether she wants just her family threatened and house burned down or wants the threats and gasoline spread out among the families and homes of the jury. That specter is after all the entire basis for this prosecution.

36 posted on 07/02/2013 12:26:16 PM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I keep waiting for them to present some evidence, ANY evidence, that would prove anything but self defense.


37 posted on 07/02/2013 12:28:13 PM PDT by Veggie Todd (What difference does it make?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mc5cents

The witness speaks, and, having spoke, moves on: nor all your objections nor complaining shall lure him back to cancel testimony, nor all the Judge’s tears wash out a word of it.


38 posted on 07/02/2013 12:28:50 PM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N
The cherry on top is making sure these jurors think this was a special statement noteworthy of remembrance to begin with, instead of just passing over it relatively unnoticed...

"What Statement?" - Juror #4

39 posted on 07/02/2013 12:46:15 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 (If the government told us to expect rain, I'd schedule an outdoor wedding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Decline to put on evidence....I don’t know about that.

I was being dramatic. I might be nervous if I were the defense, however. What must be the prosecution's motive for subverting their own case? They must be working toward a, "all that doesn't matter" prosecution. I can't fathom what glove that won't fit they must be working toward.

Either they are intentionally throwing the case, or someone important insisted they take this to court. What's the line in Vegas anyway?

40 posted on 07/02/2013 12:49:28 PM PDT by Tenacious 1 (If the government told us to expect rain, I'd schedule an outdoor wedding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Reminds me of the saying,
“What do you call the lawyer who graduates last in their class? Your Honor.”


41 posted on 07/02/2013 12:52:15 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

There is NO way this jackass judge is going to dismiss this case regardless of the (Lack of evidence of a crime) facts supporting any charges. She will boot it and make the jury rule on a racial tinderbox.


42 posted on 07/02/2013 12:58:38 PM PDT by VRWCarea51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

“But you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t”

I love that and will squirrel it away for future use


43 posted on 07/02/2013 1:05:32 PM PDT by CrappieLuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I thought I heard a quote yesterday where someone under oath that he believed Zimmerman’s account was overall accurate or else he’s completely unhinged.

Why would the “unhinged” (or whatever the adjective was) be permitted without challenge?

Media’s been playing up today the bit about overall accurate (or else someone else’s similar comment).


44 posted on 07/02/2013 1:21:57 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Nope. Move for dismissal. If denied, apply a full defense then win with a two part close. The first part would be based on the defense case. The second part? I’d say, “now this is what was said during the prosecution’s case,” and use only prosecution witnesses’s statements to gut the case.


45 posted on 07/02/2013 2:28:10 PM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Read some of the leftwing blogs (bring a barf bag). The State tried to prosecute this case pre-trial, and sadly to some degree it worked. This is just a show trial in hopes that they got six of the people they’d already convinced on the jury.


46 posted on 07/02/2013 2:32:45 PM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Awesome movie. I actually read the book long before the movie was made. ‘The Verdict’. At the end, the look on the judge’s face when the jury asked if they could award MORE than the amount being sued for was priceless.


47 posted on 07/02/2013 3:04:14 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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