From my understanding of the law the introduction of hearsay evidence cannot be truncated as to imply something different. So as long as Zimmerman’s words are not parsed to a different meaning he shouldn’t have to testify and there are currently no “gotchas” in the testimony released. But the greatest treasure trove exists in the 5 hrs of police interview that followed so it’s hard to pass judgement in that respect. The original prosecutor didn’t see anything in this so I’m basing my opinion on the current prosecutions statement that “new” evidence had surfaced. About the only thing new is DD.
As it stands now the only evidence the state has to work with that contradicts Zimmerman’s account is DD’s testimony and she is not going to do well on the stand. Her description of the sounds she heard do not match up with her opinion.
If the phone records that the prosecution has been stalling on ping out Martin’s route and they match Zimmerman’s account the trial is over before it started.
Generally, yes. The defense has a right to move to quash an indictment, but of course the bar for this is much higher: the indictment must only be supported by probable cause. And of course there are various procedural motions that could bring an end to a prosecution before trial begins – violation of the speedy trial rule in that state, for example. But if the defense’s claim is that the evidence the prosecution has is insufficient, as a matter of law, then yes, they have to wait for the prosecution to present that evidence at trial.
True – another exception to the hearsay rule is the res gestae – the so-called “rest of the story” exception. But that’s available only to cure a pretty blatant misrepresentation created by placing only part of a statement into evidence. It’s not a cure-all that allows hearsay to be introduced because it’s exculpatory in its own right.
It means a lot more than that. It means that, at every step on the way to trial and punishment, and all through the trial, the benefit of the doubt is with the accused. At every point, the authorities must show, to varying standards, that they have proof that the accused is guilty.
They are doing so unless they have enough evidence to do so.
Legally, no, you can say pretty much whatever you like. Morally, claiming you think someone is guilty of a crime based on no more than the fact that they are untrustworthy, and refusing to show any evidence that makes you think he is guilty, is reprehensible. As is continued refusal to understand what the law of the state involved is, and what is considered evidence that it has been broken.
Nope, but you should realise that, simply because you don’t believe what someone says, you can’t assume anything else is true from that - all you can do is discount what they say as useful information. You still need evidence to show what actually occurred. That’s partly a moral issue, but it’s more one of basic logic.
You should, however, believe Zimmerman’s story where it is backed up by external evidence. To do otherwise simply demonstrates bias against him.
I noticed that HLN’s professional rumor-mongers Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace are now gearing up to misrepresent the facts and playing to their fans emotions for the GZ trial starting June 10th.
First of all, the system has always failed minorities - especially black males - so there’s no surprise there and if you need evidence of this, I’d be more than happy to start a IMHO thread on it. Second, Trayvon’s criminal record cannot possibly be as bad as Zimmerman’s. I know you all love to forget, but Zimmerman has a criminal record. Not only does he has a criminal record, but he has a long train of people from family members to former employers indicating that he’s a sociopath. So, if the system failed Trayvon, it certainly failed to keep George Zimmerman off the streets after he beat his wife and got into a fight with a police officer. Finally, I’m convinced that the peanut gallery are intellectually incapable of separating the truth from fakery, needing instead, to be spoon fed morsels of evidence in order to form conclusions.
In Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, the author talked about how the poor are better in spot deception and fakery than their middle-class and rich counterparts. I think this is true. I think this is precisely why the peanut gallery looks at Zimmerman’s interview and think to themselves, “Wow, this guy is telling the truth!” Similarly, for the same people from the peanut gallery to look any interview with Trayvon’s parents and come up to the conclusion that they’re in denial or profiteering, shows a startling lack of intuition and highlights the flaw of our almost religious fascination and praise with people who thinking linearly.
Imagine that a small group of people calling themselves “Mentats” claimed that they had a super-human ability to determine when people are lying just by looking at and listening to them. And if you doubted their ability, they dismissed you as mentally deficient. If you weren’t one of this gifted group, how much credit would you give them?
Yeah, the country with a black president has a system that fails minorities… If, as the existence of a criminal record suggests, Martin was a petty criminal, he was the one that failed. Unless you’re suggesting that he was framed for that, in which case I’ll need evidence.
You are also going to need to provide evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime that should have kept him off the streets, as I’ve seen none. I am, of course, capable of separating truth from falsehood. What I do, as I’ve constantly done in this thread - and which changed my mind on what actually happened in this case - is to compare individuals statements to the other evidence, and where it matches, I believe them. As the evidence matches Zimmerman’s statements in many places, is silent on other points, and only disagrees on a few minor details, I conclude that, as far as can be determined, he’s telling the truth.
As I am quite possibly the poorest person posting in this thread, and if not certainly poor by the official standards of my country*, my view should therefore be true.
I doubt anyone who is poor, or who has contact with poor people, would doubt for a moment that it’s possible that a young man from an underprivileged background could be violent in the way Martin is accused of. I’ve seen plenty of mindless random violence, and the majority of it from young men.
I’ve also seen many, many times parents in denial of the fact that their children are petty - or sometimes not so petty - criminals, and I don’t find it at all implausible that Martin’s parents feel that way. None of this, of course, proves anything about what happened, but Zimmerman’s story is certainly plausible.
There are two things that will make someone more likely to smell bullshit. One is a good, broad education, and the second is experience with a wide range of people. What you’re doing when you say that poor and underprivileged people have a naturally better understanding of things is promoting wilful ignorance, which is pretty disgusting. Whilst your “feelings” about whether someone is telling the truth may have some slight use if you’ve no way of getting any other evidence, it is of far less use than logic and reason, and they are what we should use in this case, where there is plenty of evidence.
In short, your preconceptions about us who think you’re wrong about this, and your prejudices against us, are both ridiculous and demonstrably wrong.
*I work for a few pence over minimum wage in a factory in England, which is over a pound an hour less than what is consider a “living wage”. I know about being poor, and I know about the lies poor people tell themselves to make them feel better about themselves.
This is not the first time you’ve referred to those who disagree with you as the peanut gallery. It appears beyond your capacity to reign in the insults. That’s sad. Is there any cite in Malcolm’s book that shows the science behind his claims of monetary based abilities to read minds?
As Steophan has stated I too reversed my opinion of the situation based on the evidence. It supports Zimmerman’s account of what happened. to suggest that “you just know he’s lying” is an abandonment of reason and the embrace of prejudice.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Trayvon’s criminal record cannot possibly be as bad as Zimmerman’s. I know you all love to forget, but Zimmerman has a criminal record.
[/QUOTE]
Actually Martin’s “criminal record” is pretty much the same as Zimmerman’s at the time of the shooting - neither has any convictions on his record. So technically speaking, you are (obviously) completely wrong.
Unless you care to stipulate that Martin had a “criminal record” because he was a petty drug dealer, thief, and vandal.
There’s your problem. The ones examining the evidence are the ones you refer to as the peanut gallery. It appears to be pretty much the anti-Zimmerman crowd who repeatedly misstate the evidence, or make false statements like this one -
The “peanut gallery”, as you call us, does not look at the interview and conclude that anyone is telling the truth. We look at the interview, check which pieces of it are backed up with evidence, and conclude that those pieces are more likely than not to be true.
The other side is the group deciding that Zimmerman must be guilty because he is white, and then misconstruing, ignoring, and/or misrepresenting the facts, evidence, and law, in order to justify your conclusion.
It’s a pretty common phrase, although correctly used it refers to those not participating in the thread. I’, hardly surprised he’s using it wrongly, though.