The prosecution’s star witness is Zimmerman.
I’m not sure why everyone had such a hard time understanding her. That’s why there should be a black person on the jury, or at least a few younger white people who are accustomed to African American speech.
It’s gonna be fun seeing the prosecution try to claim that it was Zimmerman that “profiled” Martin, with the “CREEPY ASS CRACKER” utterance of Trayvon’s repeated 5 (or was it 8?) times in the testimony, very loudly, for the jury to hear and memorize.
I heard Trayvon liked to go wandering around his neighborhood hoping that some white guy would kill him.
So, if he doesn’t testify, they have no chance of a conviction?
And in your view, would such a person then explain to the other jurors what was said?
Do you mean if he doesn’t take the stand? No, since wouldn’t his statements & video walkthrough etc be admitted, regardless of whether he took the stand or not.
Right.
Oh, that’s what you meant by “star witness”, his recorded statements? Disregard, then, I’ve only heard the phrase in reference to someone taking the stand and testifying.
Not like a translator, no. However, if all 6 jurors come away from this thinking that DD is a confused, slow-witted simpleton because there was a language/culture barrier, that’s a problem. It’d be nice if there was a juror there who could at least say, “I understood her just fine, it’s you not her.”
Or are jurors not allowed to share their opinions of witnesses with each other?
“You can’t make an objection to your own question.”
DD has no idea why Trayvon took forty minutes to return from the 7-11, despite taking a short cut, and she has Trayvon a couple of houses from Brandi Green’s townhouse. Total disaster for the prosecutor, when you add in Trayvon’s racial profiling.
Thank you for supplying the link. Very fascinating stuff. Here are some things that jump out at me:
- 16 calls for suspicious activity, of those 6 were car-related.
- Out of 10 calls for suspicious activity regarding people: 7/10 (70%) are black males, 2/10 (20%) the ethnicity is not mentioned/mentioned, and 1/10 (10%) was (white/hispanic).
- One phone call was to settle a dispute Zimmerman had with an employee (Call #42)
- Two phone calls was to complain about a roommate bringing in people Zimmerman didn’t like. (Call #12, #13)
- One phone call was complain that Zimmerman’s Landlord was trying to collect payment from him(Call #19)
Does anyone know if audio is available for all 46 calls?
Opinions, yes. What they can’t do is bring facts along; a juror who speaks Spanish would not be allowed to translate what a witnesses said on the stand. The translator in court should do that.
What you picture – a juror saying he understood her – is sort of on the line. In my view, it would be fine, but I can see an argument being made otherwise.
Let’s put it this way: if the only thing the juror did was say, “I understood her just fine, it’s you not her,” then there’s no way in heel that would undermine the jury’s verdict after the fact. If another juror complained during deliberations, it’s just barely possible that some hay could be made and the juror removed.
Just barely. And the only reason would be a judge who knows that a not-guilty verdict can’t get reversed, but a guilty one can. In this case, the pressures of publicity don’t favor that outcome.
I’m somewhat new to this… is there some sort of rule that if someone uses a racial slur, they can’t be be a victim of racial profiling?
Thread hijack:
If you don’t mind a little hypothetical, I really don’t know what juries are allowed to talk about.
Ivan is a witness in a trial. He’s a Russian immigrant who speaks enough English to get by. Due to the challenge of locating a Russian translator and Ivan’s technically acceptable proficiency, the judge rules that he can testify without a translator. However, he often seems confused, and is reluctant to answer. He ends up making a few corrections to his story while on the stand.
Mikhail is a Romanian-American juror. He doesn’t speak Russian, but he knows what it’s like to grow up under a communist legal system. He also knows what it’s like to try to be understood in a foreign country with limited language skills. He thinks that Ivan is telling the truth, and it’s just that he’s uncomfortable with authority and was just too quick to accept the counsels’ translations of his own broken English.
Steve is also on the jury, he’s a nurse from Idaho. Steve thinks that Ivan is lying based on his courtroom demeanor, his slightly changing story, and his nervousness on the stand.
How much are Mikhail and Steve allowed to try and convince each other that their own interpretation of the witness’ testimony is correct? What if it’s not just one throwaway line, but a heated debate? It seems to me that this is the sort of thing juries talk about, but I don’t know.
I was following twitter during DD’s testimony and people were saying some pretty shitty things about her. There was also a large contingent that were saying some pretty nice things about her. Based twitter avatars, race was a big factor in how people interpreted her overall demeanor and diction. I wouldn’t expect a court to necessarily find a Russian immigrant to serve on the jury in my hypothetical, but it seems reasonable to desire a certain amount of diversity.
I think the underlying presumption is that blacks can’t be impartial jurors, which is precisely why they were ferreted out during the jury selection process.
- Honesty
Well, that was pretty brutal. I’d say her testimony will be of very little value now.
I’m willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt since they’re working with a limited juror pool.
I felt sorry for her. She was obviously very nervous. It’s also a shame the she was interrupted so many times. I’m glad the judge stuck up for her when the defense tried to play “I can’t see her” card.
- Honesty
Yeah, she was nervous. And she is still pretty young and this is obviously a pretty emotional subject.
But she also clearly made false statements under oath about the key issues – whether she thought it was Martin’s voice on the 911 call and what Zimmerman said to Martin. I don’t know how you decide whether it’s her deposition or trial testimony that reflects her honest belief. And I would think a reasonable jury would just ignore her testimony entirely.