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 ...
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.
Unrung bell, toothpaste back in tube ping.
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?
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.
“Objection your honor. My witness is detrimental to my case”
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.
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*.
What has been heard cannot be unheard..........
I believe that this may be the statement in question.
Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?
Serino succinct answer: Yes.
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.
And yet she leaves alone the testimony of the proven perjurer, Rachael.
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”.....
Objection! Council is leading the witness and imposing conjecture with supposition in the presumptuous leading question. lol
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.
lol. Stated very well. Case closed.
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.
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.
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...
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.”
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?
Reminds me of the saying,
“What do you call the lawyer who graduates last in their class? Your Honor.”
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.
“But you cant make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t”
I love that and will squirrel it away for future use
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).
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.
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.
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.