Maybe, yes, yes. There are fairly strict rules about introduction of evidence to show a party’s propensity toward a particular type of action, but they’re relaxed a bit in a civil setting.
Fearing the spectre of Bricker, who might note that I have elsewhere not applied this rule as strictly as I suggest here, I’ll note that I would allow in all cases a recap of the fact that one has pled not guilty (or even, that one has done nothing wrong) and that one is acting pursuant to advice of counsel. All of this is endogenous procedural information (the plea, that the party is represented) which the fact-finders would already know.
Preambles that seek to introduce new, exogenous, substantive information remains disallowed.
The rumor in Trayvon’s home town is worse than that. He allegedly struck a teacher, than on the way to Sanford, he hit a bus driver, which is why his father had to drive Trayvon the rest of the way to Sanford. If there’s any truth to it, hard to see a civil case.
What’s the rationale for allowing “I have done nothing wrong”? Isn’t that testimony specifically about incriminating evidence?
He can’t say he’s done nothing wrong, but his counsel can in open and close.
Generally, I consider “I did nothing wrong” to be sufficiently synonymous “I am not guilty” (particularly to non-lawyers, as witnesses and defendants and jurors tend to be) and sufficiently generalized that it does not represent the introduction of any new information for the fact-finder. The defendant has a legal right to plead not guilty, and this statement merely recaps (or anticipates, I guess) that plea. For a non-defendant Fifth-Amendment-claiming witness,* I think there is greater mischief in too quickly and summarily finding the protection revoked than in allowing a statement strictly limited to “I’ve done nothing wrong and I’m not going to testify, pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights” to go unchallenged.
Claims of Fifth Amendment protections should, within reason, not become traps for the unwary. However, this is a very narrow berth.
- In particular, I advanced this position in re the IRS employee who said something to the effect of “I’ve done nothing wrong. I haven’t broken the law. I assert my Fifth Amendment rights.” There, I said she did not waive them. Were Zimmerman to say something similar, I would agree no waiver. What is problematic in this instance is mentioning this speculation about “forthcoming unwarranted charges from the DOJ.”
The truth of these rumors is only relevant if they’re allowed into the trial. Personally I think (morally, not legally) stuff of this sort should have been allowed in (as should Zimmerman’s history of violence/confrontations) but it wasn’t. The question here is whether a civil trial would be any different.
Sounds better than “I’m pleading the Fifth because if I testified about what I did, I’d face criminal charges.”
Well, sure; counsel can say all kinds of things, but that isn’t what Kimmy meant. I suppose I agree that there isn’t a terribly wide opportunity for abuse if we allow a defendant to say “I didn’t do anything wrong” without finding a waiver, but man am I uncomfortable about it anyway. I suppose this is because I think a jury is pretty likely to ascribe some significant psychological freight to hearing the defendant say it.
Not really. What else are they expecting him to say, having pled not guilty? 
“Man, I fucked up bad, but I’m innocent!”
I think you may have stumbled upon the definitive Martin defence; no rational person would attack anyone as he did, in fact only a demented thug would smash someone’s face, no matter the provocation. So the new narrative for Martin defenders should be that he was handicapped when Zimmerman killed him, because he was a full-blown retard.
This plays to the pathos vote, and adds a further poignancy for those who well up every time the word Skittles is mentioned. A tiny black child buying sweeties brutally slain… Maybe he was wistfully looking for his lost tiny three-legged puppy at the time.
However it is imperative that you identify this beefy 40-year-old stranger whom he attacked in addition to Zimmerman; who as anyone who has read anything about the case outside their overblown imaginings knows was 28 and at least 4 inches shorter than Martin.
There’s a reason the jury instructions about a defendant’s failure to testify go on and on about how important it is not to draw inferences about it; that’s exactly the sort of thing they want to draw inferences about. The inference that a defendant is more credible because he stood up there and proclaimed his factual innocence, “facing the music,” when in fact he wasn’t risking anything because he couldn’t be confronted with any facts, is what I’m worried about. They’re not entitled to treat a defendant who pleads the 5th and says “I did nothing wrong!” any differently than a defendant who doesn’t say a friggin’ word… but I’ve talked to juries, man; they will.
So suppose Zimmerman does take the stand in a civil trial, and testifies basically the same as his previous statements. What important new evidence can we expect to come as a result of cross examination?
I personally am curious as to why he decided to start carrying a gun. If nothing significant happened in his past, I wonder what situation he thought might arise that would require a loaded, ready to fire pistol. I realize no one needs an excuse to carry a gun, but if he claims that he carried it because he was on the neighborhood watch, that would be an indication he did not plan to follow the guidelines set up for neighborhood watches, and that he expected he might get into a confrontation with a “suspicious” person at some point in the future.
I don’t expect Zimmerman’s attorneys to be that stupid.
I thought this was common knowledge. Their rationale for carrying a gun was because the Zimmermans claimed Big Boi, the neighborhood pit bull, had menaced Shellie, so when they took walks they both carried handguns.
I don’t practice in Florida and never have, but in general the big differences between criminal and civil in a case like this would likely be 1) different standard of proof–family would have to prove that more probably than not Zimmerman was negligent (failed to act as a reasonable person would have) and that his negligent actions more probably than not proximately (foreseeably) caused Martin’s death; and 2) contributory negligence on the part of Martin (or possibly defense that the sole proximate cause was Martin’s conduct rather than Zimmerman’s). The first difference could lead to admission of different evidence; the second to discovery and admitting evidence relating to Martin’s conduct and character–though in my state and many others a judge is unlikely to admit evidence of a person’s past behavior to show what likely happened here.
Nope, I hadn’t heard that. That’s interesting though because I believe he said he carried the gun everywhere he went except work, and on the night in question he was driving I think to Target.
Is it true that Skittles and Iced Tea are mixed together with cough syrup to make a cocktail called “Lean” and that Martin was a known user, or is this just right wing fabrication? I mention it because the prosecution seemed to say “he was just a sweet kid carrying tea and candy”.
There’s apparently a cocktail called Lean or Purple Drank that involves melting a Jolly Rancher in a mix of cough syrup and a lemony carbonated drink like Sprite or 7-Up (kids these days!) No known usage of skittles and Arizona brand watermelon fruit juice cocktail prior to this incident. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
What sugaree said. There’s a reason you only see that nonsense on right-wing blogs: it’s because only people who have no idea what they’re talking about are saying it. You don’t make Purple Drank with Skittles or iced tea.