# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 433
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8643 "2012-12-03T14:50:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That link explains Florida’s civil discovery rules, and is applicable to civil cases in Florida; the link quotes Florida’s rules of civil procedure. > > This is a criminal case. The rules are similar, I should add, but not identical. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8644 "2012-12-03T16:09:45Z")
What is the maximum duration evidence can be withheld before a judge calls a mistrial? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8645 "2012-12-03T16:28:23Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > What is the maximum duration evidence can be withheld before a judge calls a mistrial? There is no hard and fast rule. And a mistrial may not be the proper remedy. If the prosecution refuses, in the face of the judge’s order, to disclose evidence, then the proper remedy will likely be exclusion of that evidence at trial – or more specifically, exclusion of that evidence from the state’s case-in-chief. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8646 "2012-12-03T18:35:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no hard and fast rule. > > And a mistrial may not be the proper remedy. If the prosecution refuses, in the face of the judge’s order, to disclose evidence, then the proper remedy will likely be exclusion of that evidence at trial – or more specifically, exclusion of that evidence from the state’s case-in-chief. What? OMara described the FBI reports as exculpatory. He would already know what they contain, of course. Not having any law experience, i assume it’s illegal for the prosecution to keep out exculpatory evidence. In order to win a case, you refuse to turn over exculpatory evidence so it won’t come into trial? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8647 "2012-12-03T20:57:36Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > What? OMara described the FBI reports as exculpatory. He would already know what they contain, of course. Not having any law experience, i assume it’s illegal for the prosecution to keep out exculpatory evidence. In order to win a case, you refuse to turn over exculpatory evidence so it won’t come into trial? So because O’Mara says it’s exculpatory, it is? ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8648 "2012-12-03T20:58:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no hard and fast rule. > > And a mistrial may not be the proper remedy. If the prosecution refuses, in the face of the judge’s order, to disclose evidence, then the proper remedy will likely be exclusion of that evidence at trial – or more specifically, exclusion of that evidence from the state’s case-in-chief. Thank you **Bricker** Gotta love the legal expertise here-gotta love it…mistrial LOL. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8649 "2012-12-03T21:12:22Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > So because O’Mara says it’s exculpatory, it is? No, because the prosecution says it is, O’Mara assumes it to be, and demands it be released. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8650 "2012-12-03T21:58:30Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, because the prosecution says it is, O’Mara assumes it to be, and demands it be released. According to the FBI reports, Zimmerman was only one of the watch captains, so they apparently took turns observing the neighborhood\*. From other cases I’ve seen, when the prosecution is slow to turn over evidence, the case is usually in trouble. I doubt this one is any different. The inculpatory evidence appears to be rather meager. \*W30 is the only female watch captain. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8651 "2012-12-03T22:23:48Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Thank you **Bricker** > > Gotta love the legal expertise here-gotta love it…mistrial LOL. did you even understand what he said? Either the evidence is turned over or it’s excluded. This was considered a major piece of evidence used for the indictment. If it’s not turned over then the options are to declare a mistrial or the Prosecution can’t use it. Either way it’s bad for the Prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8652 "2012-12-03T22:36:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > did you even understand what he said? Either the evidence is turned over or it’s excluded. This was considered a major piece of evidence used for the indictment. If it’s not turned over then the options are to declare a mistrial or the Prosecution can’t use it. Either way it’s bad for the Prosecution. I sure as hell understand what Bricker just said. My response was to the OP who made this proclamation that there should be a mistrial based on this. Again, \*\*Bricker \*\*put him in his place. Communicating with you sometimes is extremely frustrating. You and many of the OPs here like using hypotheticals to “back up” their arguments. Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENSE WON’T GET THE RECORDING? HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE A MISTRIAL? If, if, if, if, if… ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8653 "2012-12-03T22:38:46Z")
It’s amazing–I just read through the entire document, yet I am not reaching the same conclusions the chorus is reaching. Talk about active imaginations LOL. From a **motion to compel** you have talks of mistrials, lynch mobs, etc. These people are funny indeed. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8654 "2012-12-03T22:49:43Z")
And yes, I absolutely agree with Crump not turning over the tape to SPD. Why the hell should he have? For them to destroy it? He played it smart. Then you have these people talking about Crump stalling the investigation…LOL. As for the “[exculpatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence)” evidence, there was talk about people being able to identify Zimmerman as the one who was screaming. So what? So goddamned what. What do we conclude from this? Let Zimmerman go? Prosecutorial misconduct? Lynch Mobs? Give me a damned break. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8655 "2012-12-03T23:03:19Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > It’s amazing–I just read through the entire document, yet I am not reaching the same conclusions the chorus is reaching. Talk about active imaginations LOL. > > From a **motion to compel** you have talks of mistrials, lynch mobs, etc. > > These people are funny indeed. The conclusion you should have reached is that the Prosecution is waffling on evidence they themselves deemed important. There is no reason for them to delay this evidence and failure to do so jeopardizes the case. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8656 "2012-12-03T23:20:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The conclusion\*\* you should have reached\*\* is that the Prosecution is waffling on evidence they themselves deemed important. There is no reason for them to delay this evidence and failure to do so jeopardizes the case. Don’t tell me what conclusions to reach–Thank you. An exception is if you can \*demonstrate \* otherwise logically. For example if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, and I conclude that Socrates is immortal, you can correct me. Otherwise, please, please, PLEASE don’t try to force your BS on me. * * * Let them take their time. Why the hell not? Also, don’t lump Crump with the prosecution…he is the Martin’s family attorney. I know they are all part of the same “lynch-mob”, but let’s try to differentiate. “Jeopardizes the case” in what sense? What the hell does that mean? Again, we gained legal perspective on this: the consequences are not as dire as you and the OP are pushing here. Why do you continue with this bullshit narrative? (am I watching FOX?) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8657 "2012-12-03T23:31:02Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > And yes, I absolutely agree with Crump not turning over the tape to SPD. Why the hell should he have? Because their job is to gather evidence. > [@betenoire39](#): > > For them to destroy it? destroying evidence is a crime. > [@betenoire39](#): > > As for the “[exculpatory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence)” evidence, there was talk about people being able to identify Zimmerman as the one who was screaming. > > So what? So goddamned what. What do we conclude from this? That he was being attacked and needed help. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8658 "2012-12-03T23:49:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 1. Because their job is to gather evidence. > > 2. destroying evidence is a crime. > > 3. That he was being attacked and needed help. 1. What you’re saying makes no sense…he had NO OBLIGATION to turn that over to them, especially considering their treatment of Martin. NONE. “Because their job is to gather evidence”…that’s lame. Why the hell would he trust them? Why should he? 1. Well I have news for you buddy, just because things are a crime, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. What a naive comment–utterly naive. 2. Yeah, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8659 "2012-12-03T23:52:29Z")
Trust people who have treated you with disrespect… Defer to people who follow you like a maniac… Like we’re back in the “good ole’ days”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8660 "2012-12-04T00:00:54Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Don’t tell me what conclusions to reach–Thank you. > > An exception is if you can \*demonstrate \* otherwise logically. > > For example if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, and I conclude that Socrates is immortal, you can correct me. > > Otherwise, please, please, PLEASE don’t try to force your BS on me. So now I’m forcing something on you. Huh. Well I’ll just amend my original statement to say the conclusion a reasoned person should have reached is that the Prosecution is waffling on evidence they themselves deemed important. * * * > [@betenoire39](#): > > Let them take their time. Why the hell not? Hey, no skin off my nose if they hose up the trial in favor of Zimmerman. You’d end up stripping a gear if this comes to pass. So yah, more power to them. Delay the heck out of it. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8661 "2012-12-04T00:21:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So now I’m forcing something on you. Huh. **Well I’ll just amend my original statement to say the conclusion [COLOR=“Black”]a reasoned person should have reached is that the Prosecution is waffling on evidence they themselves deemed important. [/COLOR]** > > * * * > > Hey, no skin off my nose if they hose up the trial in favor of Zimmerman. You’d end up stripping a gear if this comes to pass. So yah, more power to them. Delay the heck out of it. A “reasoned person” should have reached the conclusion you’ve laid out? Arrogance. It’s in favor of no one…if that’s the time they need to build their case, then that’s what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/8662 "2012-12-04T00:57:02Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > What? OMara described the FBI reports as exculpatory. He would already know what they contain, of course. Not having any law experience, i assume it’s illegal for the prosecution to keep out exculpatory evidence. In order to win a case, you refuse to turn over exculpatory evidence so it won’t come into trial? Well, what I said was that the state couldn’t present it in its case-in-chief. Exculpatory evidence I would be the job of the defense to present at trial. However, you’ve made a number of assumptions. Material is not exculpatory merely because the defense says it is, and the failure to turn over exculpatory evidence is not necessarily grounds for a mistrial…especially when, as in the present case, the defense already knows what the evidence is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=432) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=434)