What makes you think it is hearsay? She witnessed a crime in progress.
Actually, that’s a statement that needs clarification.
In self-defense cases in Florida, if the evidence leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, and at least one of those inferences is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, the case is not legally sufficient for guilt and the jury cannot legally find guilt.
So if the “any ole crazy” claim is one of self-defense, even if it’s flimsy, the state has to disprove it.
But self-defense is the only crazy claim for which that’s true.
No she didn’t.
Yes, she did. She was a material witness to the events that led to a homicide. She didn’t hear about it from a third party, which is hearsay.
No I’m saying that I hope you will be resting comfortably once your medications are adjusted.
This from a guy who argued vehemently that black youth are too stupid to put together the words “I am begging you.”
She did not see the event. She has no way of knowing who said what.
What do you think hearsay is? Hearsay is an out of court statement that is offered in evidence to prove to truth of the statement.
The statement might be admissible anyway, but it’s hearsay.
So blind people cannot testify in court? First I’ve heard of that.
She can testify she recognized Trayvon’s voice. Defense can challenge that on cross, but they can’t prevent her from testifying.
You know, I bet cardiac surgeons go nuts when people confuse a heart attack with a stroke, and declaim authoritatively when they have no clue what they are saying.
Hearing about it from a third party is not hearsay.
Hearsay is: an out of court statement, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the statement.
When someone says anything outside of the courtroom, and that statement is then repeated in the courtroom for the purpose of getting the jury to believe the truth of the statement, THAT is hearsay.
So hearsay is not automatically inadmissable in court. I think I am not the only one with a misconception about hearsay.
Yes, blind people can testify. But like anyone else, they can’t repeat an out-of-court statement in court if the purpose is proving the truth of that statement, unless the statement falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.
The problem is not that she failed to recognize Treyvon’s voice. The problem is that when she testifies as to what she knows, the jury can judge her credibility because they can see her. When she testifies as to what she heard Treyvon say, the jury can’t see Treyvon and judge his credibility.
There are exceptions to the rule which may apply, but that doesn’t make this not hearsay.
Oh, no, not at all automatically inadmissible. There are a raft of exceptions to the hearsay rule, and there are at least two that I think might be applicable here.
Thank you for fighting my ignorance.
No prob.
It’s a complicated subject, and one that trips up lawyers that are not litigators.
The key question is: what is the purpose of the testimony? One exception to the hearsay rule is “excited utterance:” A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.. And another is “present sense impression:” A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
Depending on what the prosecution hopes to prove with the testimony, I think a decent argument can be made for one or the other of those. And those are exceptions to the hearsay rule; statements made that fit those descriptions are admissible, even though they are hearsay.
Don’t know about DeeDee’s statement. “It about to rain. He about to get to-inside a thing. It started raining.” This raises a lot of questions. If it hadn’t started raining yet, why didn’t Martin go to the nearby townhouse where he was staying to wait for it to begin raining, instead of the mail shed? He was allegedly headed to the townhouse.
The mail shed was closer.
Depends on how you interpret, “It about to rain”, unless we assume Trayvon was possessed with mystical shaman rain sensing powers, then there must have been some external indicators that rain was coming quickly. Perhaps it was sprinkling and started to get harder, maybe there was thunder and lightning, there are a multitude of reasons why one would choose to seek shelter immediately in lieu of walking some distance further.
Apparently Trayvon didn’t want to see the game that badly.His alleged reason for the skittles and tea. He might have had to get soaked anyway.
What about the “dying declaration” exception? I know that the person making the declaration is supposed to know (or have good reason to believe) they are dying at the time, but ISTM that since Martin is dead, and these are the last words a witness heard him say as the fatal incident began, those circumstances should warrant an exception.
Whatever legal justification is ultimately used, since TM isn’t around to testify for himself, I should hope any means available of giving his POV a voice is given a wide latitude. As a juror comparing DeeDee’s testimony for that timeframe to GZ’s, I know which one I’d find infinitely more believable. In one of their versions, if they were inclined to lie, they could have lied about much more “convenient” facts. In the other’s version, if they were inclined to lie, they could hardly come up with more “convenient” facts than they already did. (Which was when they weren’t aware of any witnesses to contradict them.)