I don’t know if there is a standard document that becomes part of the trial record - no doubt Bricker knows more about that than I do.
It appears from some superficial research that stipulations of fact can be made in the course of the trial, and rejected or overruled at that time as well. AFAICT the only facts that the defense and prosecution agree on are [ul][li]Zimmerman shot Martin []in Florida []on that date.[/ul]Which are most of the elements of second-degree murder. The last are the trickiest - the prosecution has to prove malice or ill will, and that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. [/li]
And I am more and more thinking that the state had better have a pretty big rabbit to pull out of their prosecutorial hat. Or maybe they don’t have one, and it is pretty much what I expected - they over-charged hoping for a plea bargain, bypassed the grand jury to get an indictment in hopes that some good evidence would surface, and stalled handing over evidence to keep the pressure on Zimmerman to plead to manslaughter. He, being entirely convinced of his own innocence, didn’t fall for it, and the prosecution is duty-bound to go ahead with the trial - and get hammered.
Maybe I am wrong and there is some bombshell evidence awaiting. At this point, I kind of doubt it, and Zimmerman should start talking to publishing houses about a book offer.
It is always funny to read Stoid complaining about how “Team Zimmerman” is saying that ours is the only possible interpretation, and then see her turn around and say things like this -
No you don’t. You’ve proved that repeatedly in this thread, and if that isn’t enough, you’ve started another thread pitting someone for defending themselves against an attack from a dangerous animal.
For whatever reason, you feel that someone should have to receive a certain amount of injury before they can even think about defending themselves, and then should only do so if they don’t harm their attacker. Which is a bullshit position, both legally and morally, and is even more restricted that the bullshit laws where I live.
Watched a decent bit this morning. Some analysts characterized the prosecution as having been asleep yesterday for not objecting to the lead investigator saying he did not believe Zimmerman was lying (he also said he saw only minor inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s commentary). This is the lead investigator, the one who originally recommended a manslaughter charge be considered.
The judge sustained the “next day” objection, but the analysts I saw said the damage is done. Per Stoid, that means the detective must have checked his brain at the door, I guess. The prosecution’s case seems precarious. Nothing material seems to support it to a level that gets them over the necessary legal hurdles, and virtually every witness–the prosecution’s witnesses, mind you–has helped the defense in some way.
This case certainly seems to be a Rorschach test of sorts for those digesting it, evidence be damned. FWIW (not much), I don’t see how anyone could be following this case at all and think the defense isn’t crushing them and making a strong case (which they needn’t make). As Shodan said, the prosecution better have a big surprise ready, or they need to rely on an OJ-like jury to seek “justice” where common sense and the law don’t look to produce the result they’d like.
I expected that, when the trial started, that some of my opinions about the events, and my belief that Zimmerman is not guilty, would be challenged, and that there would be some evidence or interpretation that I, and others who share my view, had missed. Mainly because it would be hugely unethical to take the case to trial if it was that obvious he’s not guilty. So far, the prosecutors have not only not challenged my view, but have provided vast amounts of evidence to support it.
If this doesn’t change, there will be, to put it mildly, serious questions asked about the prosecution from both sides.
In their defense, the prosecution only has so much information and evidence to work with. It is what it is. Other than an actual smoking gun, they don’t really have a, figuratively-speaking, smoking gun showing GZ could be guilty of 2nd degree murder.
From the very beginning, the media deliberately distorted what had happened and what had been said. That created certain expectations in the minds of the public. Many famous people used those distortions to make unfounded, untrue, and threatening statements (probably to draw attention to themselves) which lead to more ignorant speculation. Some in the media are still (deliberately?) misquoting the evidence that has been present in court.
On the other hand, I have no idea how the jury is regarding the evidence presented to the court, so far.
Osterman is being questioned about what Zimmerman told him - isn’t that inadmissible “hearsay”? I guess either I am not understanding exactly what hearsay is admissible or the defense is not objecting because they want Osterman to say it.
The question “Do you think he was lying?” should never have been allowed, (in my layman’s terms) because it called for a level of speculation that is not admissible. One witness can’t comment on another’s credibility.
The person who tested the firearm for touch DNA testified in court that they only swabbed the rear of the grip, the trigger, and the rear 1 to 2 inches on the sides of the slide where the serrations are located. Most of the surface area of the firearm was not tested for touch DNA. That’s not sufficient proof to say TM never touched the gun. TM may or may not have touched the gun.
I have no idea why the SPD didn’t swab the entire firearm?
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?”
According to the case law the judge referenced, it’s especially problematic for a police officer to testify regarding another person’s credibility. Prejudicial and all that, coming from a person of authority.
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.
Is the massive dose of irony here intentional? This coming from the same poster who admits to being so irrational and biased that even if Zimmerman is innocent she would convict him anyway?
Hey, when you have a hand full of shitty cards, there’s only so much you can do with them…
The whole case is a joke. It’s screamingly obvious that the charges cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with the notion that no ethical DA would have brought charges againt Zimmerman.
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.
