# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/581 "2013-07-02T16:34:17Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I have to seriously question the decision to put Osterman on the stand. He was testifying to a story told to him while he drove George home. He stated several times that he took no notes. He wrote a book 4 months later about the case. The short section on the shooting was based on memories of that earlier conversation with George. > > I can’t see where the prosecution gained anything from this witness. It’s the same story George gave in his police interviews. A few discrepancies based on memories of a casual conversation, that really mean nothing. A complete waste of the court’s time. Desperation move by the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/582 "2013-07-02T16:35:54Z")
If there is one question this Trial can answer, I hope it is this: Why the hell are their elevator buttons behind the witness stand? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/583 "2013-07-02T16:37:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If so, prosecution was extremely negligent not to object to it right away. Instead, they allowed all that in front of the jury and allowed it to be the last thing the jury heard before the court recessed for the day, thus allowing the jury to sleep on it. Amazing incompetence. Yes, that was basically the position of the analysts I saw, who were astounded the prosecution let it proceed without a peep. They even wondered if asking for the ruling the next day might be a bad move, again drawing the jury’s attention to the fact that the lead detective thought Zimmerman was telling the truth. Per them, they should have been on their feet as the question was asked, before it was answered, and it was strongly implied this is Prosecutor 101 stuff. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/584 "2013-07-02T16:39:13Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > If there is one question this Trial can answer, I hope it is this: > > Why the hell are their elevator buttons behind the witness stand? Handicap elevator? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/585 "2013-07-02T16:41:22Z")
They control the witness chair. 😛 Makes it easy to remove a hostile witness. > [@Sateryn76](#): > > If there is one question this Trial can answer, I hope it is this: > > Why the hell are their elevator buttons behind the witness stand? I have wondered the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/586 "2013-07-02T16:41:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an improper question; it invades the province of the jury. How about “are Zimmerman’s statements inconsistent?” Does that invade the province of the jury? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/587 "2013-07-02T16:42:19Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, that was basically the position of the analysts I saw, who were astounded the prosecution let it proceed without a peep. They even wondered if asking for the ruling the next day might be a bad move, again drawing the jury’s attention to the fact that the lead detective thought Zimmerman was telling the truth. Per them, they should have been on their feet as the question was asked, before it was answered, and it was strongly implied this is Prosecutor 101 stuff. LOL yes, in order for the judge to tell witnesses to disregard part of the testimony, first the court reporter had to read back the testimony to be disregarded. Then the jury was told to disregard it. Hilarious shades of Herostratus. Worked about just as well, too, I am sure. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/588 "2013-07-02T16:46:12Z")
Yep, the talking heads even trotted out the old “you can’t un-ring a bell” cliche, being singularly applicable under the circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/589 "2013-07-02T16:46:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How about “are Zimmerman’s statements inconsistent?” Does that invade the province of the jury? No, that’s OK. It’s a fine line, but the rule to remember is that the jury is supposed to be the judge of ultimate fact. You can’t ask a witness if another witness is telling the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/590 "2013-07-02T16:49:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How about “are Zimmerman’s statements inconsistent?” Does that invade the province of the jury? I don’t think those are a problem. That was much of the detective’s testimony today. I think the farthest he went was to say he suspected there may have been some exaggeration, but Zimmerman’s story remained consistent. ETA: What Bricker said, again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/591 "2013-07-02T16:51:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > My question was based on my extensive knowledge of the rules of evidence (read: I have seen _Perry Mason_ in reruns). Could the defense have painted him as an expert witness? > > “Mr. Lead Investigator, you must have investigated hundreds of crimes, and interviewed thousands of people, innocent and guilty alike. Based on your knowledge and experience, did you come to any conclusions about the truthfulness or otherwise of Mr. Zimmerman’s statement?” This is why graduates of _Perry Mason University_ have trouble when it comes time to pass the bar exam. 🙂 The question itself that you’ve posed is permissible. But imagine one of two follow-ups: (1) Q: Based on your knowledge and experience, did you come to any conclusions about the truthfulness or otherwise of Mr. Zimmerman’s statement? A: Yes. Q: As a result of those conclusions, what actions, if any, did you take? A: I advised the suspect he was under arrest for the crime of murder. Or (2) Q: Based on your knowledge and experience, did you come to any conclusions about the truthfulness or otherwise of Mr. Zimmerman’s statement? A: Yes. Q: What were those conclusions? A: That he was lying. (1) is permissible, (2) is not. All lawyers are not litigators. Any lawyer should be able to tell, after some thought, that (2) is impermissible. A good litigator will be on his feet the moment the question is asked, saying “Objection, invades the province of the jury,” before the witness can even answer. Interestingly enough, this is no longer the rule in federal practice. A witness can give a lay or expert opinion on an issue of ultimate fact without per se violating the rules of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/592 "2013-07-02T16:59:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, that’s OK. It’s a fine line, but the rule to remember is that the jury is supposed to be the judge of ultimate fact. You can’t ask a witness if another witness is telling the truth. I don’t see why the jury can’t be the judge of whether Statement A is consistent with Statement B just as well as whether Zimmerman was lying. If anything, the opposite is the case. When judging whether someone is telling the truth, there’s an ability to read tone and body language that is lost when later reading the dry statements - you don’t have that to the same extent when dealing with whether or to what extent two statements are inconsistent with each other. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/593 "2013-07-02T17:08:10Z")
If they define “consistent” as “agreeing with or possible”, Can they ask if the evidence is consistent with his testimony? It would be a dangerous question to ask by either side if it’s allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/594 "2013-07-02T17:09:20Z")
Or how about [this](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/detective-returns-to-stand-in-zimmerman-trial/?test=latestnews)? > [@](#): > > De La Rionda also asked the former lead investigator, “Did George Zimmerman exaggerate the manner in which he was hit?” Serino replied that he felt that he did. How is that in any way different than asking if he was being truthful? It seems like the exact same thing to me. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/595 "2013-07-02T17:12:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is why graduates of _Perry Mason University_ have trouble when it comes time to pass the bar exam. 🙂 > > The question itself that you’ve posed is permissible. > > But imagine one of two follow-ups: > > (1) > Q: Based on your knowledge and experience, did you come to any conclusions about the truthfulness or otherwise of Mr. Zimmerman’s statement? > A: Yes. > Q: As a result of those conclusions, what actions, if any, did you take? > A: I advised the suspect he was under arrest for the crime of murder. > > Or > > (2) > Q: Based on your knowledge and experience, did you come to any conclusions about the truthfulness or otherwise of Mr. Zimmerman’s statement? > A: Yes. > Q: What were those conclusions? > A: That he was lying. > > (1) is permissible, (2) is not. > > All lawyers are not litigators. > > Any lawyer should be able to tell, after some thought, that (2) is impermissible. A good litigator will be on his feet the moment the question is asked, saying “Objection, invades the province of the jury,” before the witness can even answer. > > Interestingly enough, this is no longer the rule in federal practice. A witness can give a lay or expert opinion on an issue of ultimate fact without per se violating the rules of evidence. Goody - something to use on my wife the next time we watch _Law and Order:SUV_. Of course, it won’t help. I will begin pontificating, and she will say “That’s nice, dear - could you get me some pop, as long as you are going to the kitchen?” And then I will get the pop, finish my dissertation, and then ask “How did you know I was going to the kitchen?” And she will say “Because that’s where we keep the pop.” I bet Perry Mason never had to get any pop when _he_ was arguing. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/596 "2013-07-02T17:13:56Z")
…Triangulating \*\*Shodan’s \*\*[location](http://www.popvssoda.com/)… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/597 "2013-07-02T17:13:56Z")
Could the Prosecution ask the previous prosecutor if they had enough to go for manslaughter and then ask why they didn’t proceed? Or is that a huge legal landmine to step on. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/598 "2013-07-02T17:16:37Z")
Is anyone watching the case, right now? Remember a few post back, where I said that Zimmerman contradicted Manalo’s statement? Well, sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, the prosecution brought up this very point. Zimmerman basically says: 1. He shot trayvon 2. Trayvon said “You got me” before collapsing 3. Zimmerman mounts Trayvon, spreads out his arms eagle-style 4. Trayvon says, “Ow, ow, ow” 5. Zimmerman shouts, “Stay down!” 6. Manalo arrives with flashlight, asking whether he needs him to call the cops 1. Zimmerman tells Manalo that the cops have been called and that he needs help subduing Trayvon. Manalo basically says: 1. Went outside with flashlight to the articulation 2. Sees a bloodied Zimmerman who looked as if he had been in a fight 3. ASk whether he needs him to call the police. 4. Zimmerman tells Manalo, that the police have already been called 5. \ **Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/599 "2013-07-02T17:17:27Z") There are so many aspects of Zimmerman’s numerous versions of what happened that don’t make sense to me - several points that the State actually touched on in the opening statement - and yet witness after witness goes by with no discussion of the points while the defense gets to hammer home ‘zimmerman’s account is possible, yes’? ‘yes’. Zimmerman was helpful, yes?’ ‘yes’’. etc etc. It’s maddening. De la Rionda doesn’t come across very well either. I can only hope the State has a bigger picture in mind here, because the alternative theory - that they really are this out-right incompetent - is making me want to throw my coffee cup through my monitor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/600 "2013-07-02T17:18:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Could the Prosecution ask the previous prosecutor if they had enough to go for manslaughter and then ask why they didn’t proceed? Or is that a huge legal landmine to step on. No, that’s attorney-client and/or work product. No can do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=31)