Skip to comments.Zimmerman trial judge strikes detective statements
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 ...
Yes, the Judge’s admonishment is “Don’t think about elephants.” Now the jury will think about nothing but elephants.
Move to dismiss yes.
Decline to put on evidence....I don’t know about that.
It doesn’t matter. The jury heard it. That’s what mattered most (assuming that the jury is rational and not literally prejudiced).
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.
This corrupt judge is STILL trying to fix this charade?
Hmmm... a plan to force a mistrial to let the prosecution off the hook rather than a “not guilty” verdict?
No reason to 'strike' it.
A solid portrayal of personal injury litigation.
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.”
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.
“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.
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.
Do you believe any of the judge’s rulings could be the basis of an appeal?
What has been heard cannot be unheard.
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.
I keep waiting for them to present some evidence, ANY evidence, that would prove anything but self defense.
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.
"What Statement?" - Juror #4
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?