Among the elements of the crime are state of mind and intent. The 911 call is relevant to them. They are also relevant to an inference that Zimmerman might have been the aggressor. Bricker says they might be disallowed anyway because they’re prejudicial, but they’re certainly not irrelevant.
…
Yes, but phrasing it like this (using the term “prove”) just begs the question, because it seems likely that there are no eye witnesses (other than Zimmerman) to the first. It speaks to the problematic essence of the “stand your ground” law in circumstances such as these–the prosecution effectively is supposed to “prove” a negative. Their case will probably be to show a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, so some of these other things likely will be deemed relevant by the judge.
The inference you draw is precisely why the call is prejudicial, and why it may be disallowed. It is not permissible to draw a picture of Zimmerman as a racist vigilante and then allow the jury to assume he started the fight. The fact that Zimmerman said, “These assholes always get away” isn’t admissible because it doesn’t prove anything. If he had said, “These assholes always get away. But not this one!” That’s something admissible because it goes to show an intent to stop and confront.
I don’t agree.
There is a concept called res gestae – literally, “things done.” My best estimate is that the 911 call, complete with the key portion, would be admissible under this concept.
The defense should argue that the probative value of the portion is very small – that is, it doesn’t prove anything about the events in question. It doesn’t assist the trier of fact in determining any fact under consideration. And it’s prejudicial value is great – as these threads indicate, many people seem to seize on this comment by the dispatcher as some kind of key event, as though Zimmerman did something illegal by disregarding the advice he was given.
So, the defense will likely say, because the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value, the evidence should be excluded.
But the prosecution will counter, saying that it’s part of the chain of events – it doesn’t prove anything, but it shows what happened as part of the story, and erasing it would leave a hole in the narrative.
So a judge weighing those two principles would, in my opinion, most likely admit the portion of the call, perhaps with a limiting instruction to the jury, like “I instruct you that Mr. Zimmerman broke no laws by ignoring the comment made by the dispatcher.”
Of course the foregoing is based on what I know now. If the prosecution has some other theory of the crime, it could be easily admissible.
It’s not begging the question. Those are the facts that have to be proven.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/12/2744193/george-zimmerman-charged-with.html
It looks like DeeDee’s statement is pretty important, since I don’t see anything else the prosecutor didn’t know about three weeks ago. Apparently you don’t actually need an expert to identify screaming on a 911 recording. A mother knows the the sound of her own offspring.
Clears it up for me. That’s pretty much what I was thinking (in general, dumb-I’m-not-a-lawyer terms).
I can’t buy **treis’s **outlook that the only two questions that matter, or will be admissible, will be: “Who, Mr. Zimmerman, started the fight” and “Did you, Mr. Zimmerman, feel in danger for your life?”
Chrissakes, the trial would be over before Marcia Clark got out of make-up.
Thank you for the clarification. I like that.
So, to answer the question, I refer you back to my position that Martin cannot be treated as someone so very different than a woman in the same scenario, so picture it:
its dark, she’s followed and stared at by a strange man, followed again after thinking she had lost the follower, suddenly approached BY the follower who is now out of the car and physically near to her and is not making any attempt to identify himself or reasssure her of his benign intent, in fact he seems hostile…
You are a man. A smart man. Do you think that’s a smart way to behave? Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that there’s a very strong possibility that this woman will respond defensively, which in a woman’s case would probably be to scream and run, or mace/pepper spray him as he approached, maybe kick him in the balls? If you think this is a plausible reality, then why would it be so different for a 17 year old to have the same emotional response to Zimmerman’s behavior, respond defensively, and thereby put Zimmerman in a position where that gun in his pocket would be brought into play?
So it’s not and never has been (from ME, anyway) the mere fact of legally carrying the gun, or the mere fact of legally being a dickhead behaving in a manner many people would find scary, but the two things together. Add in the fact that Zimmerman was doing this with, as someone else is calling it, the “Batman” mindset to begin with, and really, how many people are just STUNNED that somebody got dead here? Seriously, are you, Bricker? And if most people, or even just a whole lot of people agree that this was a very bad recipe, then they can, as reasonable peers of the man in question, find that Zimmerman acted recklessly.
Or not, but I think it’s for sure a damn good argument.
??? Are you serious?
Yup.
Me too.
Damn straight.
No, just stupid, and as I just outlined, many people would immediately see the stupid in it and the potential for mayhem. Before it happened. Which is evidenced by the fact that the 911 operator told him not to. By the fact that the Neighborhood Watch guidelines specifically say not to carry weapons and NOT to confront suspicious persons. In fact, I’m quite certain that pretty much every expert you talk to in law enforcement will tell you that it is NOT a smart thing to follow and confront people you believe are criminals BECAUSE it leads to people getting hurt! And that goes double for doing it with a loaded gun! This is hardly rocket science, it’s fucking common as common sense gets.
I cannot begin to imagine how you arrive at this certainty. Since when do the facts leading up to people killing each other not matter in determining whether it was murder, self-defense, accident, manslaughter, or whatever else? Really? Can you walk me through how this seems so obvious to you?
I’m not so interested in the “racial” assumptions of ZImmerman’s phone calls,
I’m more interested (and I think the prosecution will) in his Neighborhood Watch background of “service”.
He calls very often. What is his mood when he does? Out of breath? Panicked? Out of the police reponses to calls he has made, how often is he at the scene? How often is he physically involved? How often is he armed with a firearm? Does he have active help on the watch or is it usually just himself?
I’d be VERY surprised if the dispatcher isn’t on the stand as well as any of the police that have responded to Zimm’s reports and taken his information.
If I accidentally kill a guy, I’m sure my internet search history will be probed as well as past employers, schoolmates, friends, girlfriends, all trying to establish a violent history. If I were part of a neighborhood watch group, and called the police frequently in the past, I can’t see how that’s not one of the most relevant things for the prosecution to persue.
Here is a link to the affidavit
As far as I understand, as long as the defense does not employ any “good character” defense, the prosecution is prohibited from bringing up any “bad character” evidence, such as past criminal history, or any character testimony from past employers, schoolmates, friends, girlfriends etc.
We’ll see. I can see it being used to support a prosecution time line of events. Florida’s SYG laws are pretty explicit in their wording. If Zimmerman was somewhere he was legally able to be, it’s tough to see how the circumstances of their encounter are ultimately relevant.
Would you agree that using the 911 call to argue that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation won’t be allowed?
Screaming, running, mace, pepper spray, and even a kick in the balls are different in a key respect from the concept of multiple punches. All of those would be followed by retreat; the woman would lose sympathy in your story if she followed the first kick to balls with kicks or punches to a prostrate man, yes?
Yes, but there are plenty of things law enforcement would advise you not to do.
Let’s return to your woman. She’s advised by campus security to park in a well-lit area and have someone accompany her to her car if she’s leaving the lab late at night. But she does neither, reasoning that a woman should not have to live in fear. She’s attacked by a would-be rapist who threatens her with a knife and tells her he’s gonna fuck her til she bleeds. To prevent this, she pulls her pistol and the man advances on her to disarm her; she shoots him dead.
Now, she’s done something law enforcement told her wasn’t a smart thing to do. As I read your proposed rule, that makes her responsible for the man’s death.
But that’s an odious concept, isn’t it? We don’t ask if she was following law enforcement’s advice – we ask if she was acting as she had a legal right to act. And she was.
Yes. I think it’s admissible as part of the res gestae, not as motive evidence. Unless and until something else comes to light that makes it relevant,that is.
For example, if we were to learn that Zimmerman discussed shooting someone the next time he called 911 to get those stupid cops moving faster, then his statement would be admissible.
Looks like there is going to be no shocking reveal. They’ve got some key problems:
(1) IIRC the witness “John” said that Zimmerman was screaming.
(2) They have an unexplained 2-3 minute gap between “[Zimmerman] continued to follow Martin who was trying to return home” and “Zimmerman confronted Martin”.
Let’s assume I’m on trial for robbing my local liquor store. I have three previous convictions for robbery: a gas station, a guy in an alley, and an armored car.
Do you believe the jury should hear about those previous convictions?
So if the prosecution stipulates a time line pre-trial, and the defense doesn’t dispute it, then the phone call wouldn’t be heard at all?
It’s probably unlikely that he won’t employ the “good character” defense, since most of all the other evidence that has come out hurts him. The prosecutor in effect has accused of him having a depraved mind. To counter that, I could see him putting up a slew of character witnesses who will testify that he’s practically Jesus reborn.
Yes… But I would be stunned if that proffered time-line didn’t include the time the dispatcher told him not to follow, because it ties into where he was at that point. So I doubt that’s much help.