*As I just mentioned, this issue is a sideline, so I’m just asking for edification: if the government did want to inject some hate-crimey element into this, (which I find extremely distasteful at best, seriously - I’m liberal and I HATE that stupid shit. Thought crime. ARGH!) how would they be able to question him to elicit either an admission that he’d profiled Martin on the basis of his race, youth and hoodie, or a lameass denial that no one would believe so would serve just as well? Because that’s what I was going for, not down the elaborate road you hint at… just a flat out…umm, err, well, no, I wouldn’t think a middle aged lady was a burgler…errr… and you get the picture…
*
The state would have to ask direct questions that exposed a hate element. They can’t ask, “Would you have also treated a white man that way?” They can ask, “Isn’t it true that you followed Martin because he was black?” and let the denial speak for itself, or they can introduce any other direct evidence that they have. But only if they’re charging that crime, or if the fact is somehow part of the res gestae, the complete picture, of the underlying crime.
It seems to me that in order to ask that question, the prosecutors would need to have a good faith basis for believing that Zimmerman was motivated to some extent by Martin’s race. I doubt that they have such a basis. If they tried to ask that question without a basis, then they should expect that at a minimum, the judge will ream them out.
+1
But since this is a thread, I am assigning myself as the jury.
Jury: “Zimmerman is not guilty. Trayvon Martin is a vile racist who sought out a white person to beat up. He found Zimmerman and beat him up completely unprovoked. Zimmerman was only protecting himself from this hateful racist.”
Judge: “So it is. The Martin family must pay Zimmerman fifty million dollars and every member of the family is to spend at least eighty years in jail and if any member is still alive afterwards then they are to be deported to North Korea.”
Wow, this is a tedious, boring, unsuccessful cross examination. I think I see a couple of jurors nodding off.
Why would you assume the first thing talked about is “the key part of the case”.
This thing is only just beginning, how on earth can you conclude that anything is the key part of the case at this early juncture.
Did you not expect each part of the affidavit to be discussed during the trial at some point? Did you think certain things listed there would just be ignored for some reason?
I was sort of hoping that the prosecutor would have focused more on the actual events culminating up to the shooting, rather that some lengthy detour through “Do you think you’re a big man, George, cuz you’re captain of the Neighborhood Watch and you carry a firearm?”, “What does your HOA’s covenants, conditions, and restrictions say about the Neighborhood Watch?”, “Is it true that if substantially different things occurred, substantially different outcomes would have resulted?”
Now, I might have expected questions in the vein of, “Who approached whom first?”, “What was said?”, “Why did you fear for your life?”, “What injuries did you sustain?”, “Why did you not seek medical treatment?”
I’d further expect most of the responses to be self-serving, and would structure the case-in-chief to undermining the credibility of Zimmerman’s specific allegations regarding the events. Cross-ex would be mostly helpful to the extent that Zimmerman has himself made any inconsistent statements (I do not know whether this is so). But mostly, the case (which would be difficult to carry BRD) would be on the basis of testimony of other witnesses, not Zimmerman.
All those questions would have been asked (and were in Bricker’s “direct”), and having him repeat it all again with even more sympathy doesn’t help you case in the least. Part of it is knowing that BrickerZimmerman isn’t going to get rattled, have an ego, or make a mistake, so why give him a chance to tell his side of things all over again?
I know next to nothing about this case, but I’m guessing that the defense will certainly try to get a self defense instruction without having to put Zimmerman on the stand. I have no idea if they can or not. But if they do call him (which was usually my favorite part of the trial), cross examination of a Bricker-type witness needs to be short, confident, and to the point. No use giving him more time to sound sympathetic.
I agree with all this. My point w/r/t the questions “I might have expected” (and by that, I mean expected within the context of this exercise) is that I certainly can’t see the relevance or persuasive force of a discussion regarding the CC&Rs on the topic of the Neighborhood Watch (if they even mention it at all, which I suspect they do not) or the admissibility of asking “Mr. Zimmerman, tell the jury: You a racist SOB, ain’t you?”.
So far, the lines of questioning have alternated between the irrelevant and the inadmissible. The questions I expected—going to getting Zimmerman to attempt to provide a detailed chronology of the events culminating in the shooting in order to see if Zimmerman could provide an internally consistent account (with Sotid impeaching as appropriate) that does not contradict any known objective or third-party evidence (with Stoid noting the existence of such contradictory evidence as appropriate) and which establishes his non-guilt on the charges—have rather remarkably not yet been asked.
Do those douchebaggy “Isn’t it true that…?” questions ever work to do anything except to make the person asking sound like a complete tool? Has any human being in the history of the world actually slipped up and said “Yeah, of course I followed him 'cause he was black. Those darkies commit all the crimes.”?
I know I wouldn’t actually do this, but if I was on the stand, and someone asked me Isn’t it true that you followed Martin because he was black?", I’d like to imagine myself replying “No. But isn’t it true that you lure little boys into the back of your van with candy and then molest them? 'cause that’s what I heard.” (I wouldn’t like to imagine the next part which would be me being thrown in prison for contempt of court. 
)
Throws molotov cocktail through Foot Locker. Runs off with 6 boxes of sneakers.
Power to the people!
ilshipm :d
It occurs to me that this was the question that spawned Stoid’s thought experiment:
Behold:
[QUOTE=KG-qua-Zimmerman]
Yes, I was armed. But I wanted to avoid the necessity of shooting if at all possible. So I called for help thinking that it would bring somebody by or at least startle Trayvon off. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. He was on top of me and he was choking me by this point; I was worried if I hesitated any further, I might not survive this encounter. So, I pulled my gun out and shot.
[/QUOTE]
Your move, State’s Attorney.
How do you scream for help if you are being choked though? I mean the screams continued until the second the gun was fired. When was the choking happening if the screaming continued up to the last second of Martin’s life?
nm
Regards,
Shodan
Good point. Since Zimmerman’s account is that Trayvon was on top of him (which I understood as kneeling or sitting on his chest/abdomen), this very well may be raised. The choking was my own invention, on the basis that Zimmerman claims to have sustained injuries to the back of his head consistent with having his head banged against the pavement. I envisioned this as secondary to choking. But it could be that Martin was pushing down on his face (unless Zimmerman has in fact stated he was choked). Having your face held down rather than being choked, however, gives you much less basis to claim that you reasonably feared deadly force was imminent.
It’s not a slam dunk, given that during a tussle, pressure to the chest and neck might not necessarily have been consistently applied as the two fought. But if definitely provides a basis to doubt the credibility of the story (or at least how likely it was that Martin had Zimmerman close to imminent danger of serious bodily harm).
This kind of question is a lot more pertinent than asking what the homeowner’s association bylaws say or what Zimmerman might have done if he saw a nun in her habit acting as Martin had been.
Well sure, but I didn’t realize Stoid was under a numerical limit of questions during the examination of Zimmerman. Like say 20 of them? Which can only be yes/no. 
You never want to bury the lede. Your questions may not be limited (though they are), but the attention span of the jury and the patience of the judge surely are.
Very true, but are we really there yet? I mean we’re only what, about a half dozen questions in right? Maybe Stoid is just setting him up for something? 
Somebody definitely needs to brush up on his skills by playing more Phoenix Wright or Miles Edgeworth games