Have I got a site that would provide a good dose of hilariousness for you then. It’s frederickleatherman.com
The posters there, including the top moron, think that the prosecution is doing a brilliant, bang-up job, Don West is an incompetent bumbler, and Zimmerman is practically in prison already, for life.
Honestly?
[QUOTE=Honesty]
The frequency isn’t a problem, but calling the police because your roommate brought someone you didn’t like or calling the cops because you your landlord wants his/her rent is abusing the system. Zimmerman was entitled.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. Maybe proclamation is an exaggeration, but can we agree that this is not a question?
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
I keep thinking back to the Scott Peterson trial. I thought he was guilty as hell. Also thought the State had about zero chance of convicting him based on the evidence they had. No cause of death, no identified time of death, onlly circumstantial evidence and his ‘behavior’…I thought there was way more evidence to convict Casey Anthony, but she walked, while Peterson’s on death row.
Legal question, if the ME cannot recall the autopsy and is relying solely on his notes, isn’t Z’s right to confront his accusers by meaningful cross examination being impaired? Shouldn’t his entire testimony be stricken?
And California also botched one of the most open-and-shut murder cases of all time, O.J. Simpson’s murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Maybe, just maybe, you can’t judge an entire state’s legal apparatus by two cases.
While I don’t think it’s quite as racist as you do, I’d like to give you a standing ovation for that analysis.
The judge just ruled that even though the ME testified that it is NOW his opinion that the THC in Martin’s blood may have affected his behavior, she still is disallowing the THC testimony.
IMO (and in the opinion of several lawyers following the trial) this is a really bad decision by the judge, and grounds for reversal on appeal if/when it happens. Bricker?
No.
The notes themselves are admissible (business records hearsay exception).
It’s not the decision I would have made, but it’s not (imho) reversible error. Decisions like this are left to the “sound discretion” of the trial judge, and won’t be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly an abuse of discretion – unless, in other words, no reasonable judge would have decided this way. THC is not known to reliably produce rage or violence. Allowing testimony about something that might have happened, without a better foundation, isn’t clearly necessary.
Didn’t Crawford v. Washington hold that hearsay exceptions must comport with the Confrontation Clause?
Also, wow. The ME testifies that Martin may have been intoxicated by marijuana on the night of the shooting and that’s NOT admissible???
It’s a shame our most strident Martin supporter won’t answer this question. She clearly does believe the state’s had some good moments, based on her reaction posts here. She really doesn’t say why she thinks that.
You’d think they could have laid the charges and then let it die out somehow. The controversy died down after the charges were laid, and the story was out of the papers.
Their complete lack of effort to even make it look like they’re trying to convict someone of something is, to say the least, bizarre. Or maybe it’s not. Maybe the political pressure brought to bear left them no choice but to go out and play the game even knowing they’d be slaughtered.
Regarding the testimony of Martin’s mother, can someone explain to me how it fits in with the prosecution’s theory of the case?
Is it the prosecution’s position that at some point prior to opening fire, Zimmerman was on top of Martin beating on him?
Put another way, according to the prosecution, what exactly was happening which caused Martin to be screaming for help?
No. Only testimonial evidence admitted via a hearsay exception is subject to the rule announced in Crawford.
How many autopsies on teenagers does this ME do so that he can’t recall anything about Martin’s autopsy? Seems strange to me.
You should tell that to your black friends. Let me know what they think. 
I agree with this. Once they decided to prosecute in the face of the evidence, a lot of their strategy became almost inevitable.
For example, they’ve been criticized a lot for putting Zimmerman’s interviews up, thus allowing him to “testify” virtually with no cross-examination. But you have to consider the alternatives. How much other evidence do they have? Zimmerman’s inconsistencies are a huge part of the case against him. I don’t think much of these inconsistencies, but if the prosecution has any hope of convicting him, they need to hope the jury does. So they pretty much have to do it.
And so on for other witnesses and evidence.
IIRC, the gravaman of what made something “testimonial” was that it was prepared in anticipation of future litigation. How is making findings during an autopsy of a 17 year old killed by a gunshot not in preparation for litigation? The coroner must know that his report will be used at trial.
brazil84, I miss you, though I liked you better when you were on our side. 