Desperation move by the prosecution.
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?
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.
Handicap elevator?
They control the witness chair. 
Makes it easy to remove a hostile witness.
I have wondered the same thing.
How about “are Zimmerman’s statements inconsistent?” Does that invade the province of the jury?
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.
Yep, the talking heads even trotted out the old “you can’t un-ring a bell” cliche, being singularly applicable under the circumstances.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Or how about this?
How is that in any way different than asking if he was being truthful? It seems like the exact same thing to me.
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
…Triangulating **Shodan’s **location…
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.
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:
- He shot trayvon
- Trayvon said “You got me” before collapsing
- Zimmerman mounts Trayvon, spreads out his arms eagle-style
- Trayvon says, “Ow, ow, ow”
- Zimmerman shouts, “Stay down!”
- Manalo arrives with flashlight, asking whether he needs him to call the cops
- Zimmerman tells Manalo that the cops have been called and that he needs help subduing Trayvon.
Manalo basically says:
- Went outside with flashlight to the articulation
- Sees a bloodied Zimmerman who looked as if he had been in a fight
- ASk whether he needs him to call the police.
- Zimmerman tells Manalo, that the police have already been called
- <Manalo snaps pictures of the bloodless corpse and Zimmerman’s injuries)
Someone is lying and those two version of events do not coalesce at all.
- Honesty
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.
No, that’s attorney-client and/or work product. No can do.