It’s not a dying declaration!!! Sheesh!
There’s nothing in the record we know of that suggests Martin knew he was moments away from death when he made those statements, and nothing that identifies Zimmerman as the person that killed him.
I blame Dick Wolf for the confusion over this point.
If she were there, and did something, like run away, the prosecution can argue it needs to show why she ran away, and thus needs the jury to hear what made her run away. So the jury hears the testimony, typically with a limiting instruction, like, “You are to consider this only as it relates to why Ms. X ran away.”
There would of course be an argument against it, but it’s certainly conceivable that a jury would be permitted, with a limiting instruction, to hear it – especially if the actual words were slightly less inflammatory.
If she were on the phone, the prosecution can’t really argue that the jury needs to have anything explained; what she did on the phone has no relevance.
25 pages in, and no one has still managed to explain extremely important detail.
I think this is the most significant blow to Zimmermans credibility. Not only is it unlikely that this kid would double back to confront him after he had just run away. It’s also implausible that, in the absence of a foot chase, Martin could have been shot where he was.
Lets say Martin had slugged Zimmerman on the street and then run off. Would Zimmerman would have then been within legal rights to chase this boy, restrain him, and then shoot him? Not that i believe this is what happened.
I don’t know exactly what the girl’s testimony might be.
But assuming it’s substantially as relayed by Crump, the lawyer for the family of the victim:
[ul]
[li]Trayvon was walking home from the store Feb. 26 and had temporarily taken refuge from the rain. He then began walking again.[/li][li] “I think this dude is following me.”[/li][li]“This man is watching me.”[/li][li]“So he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” the girl said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”[/li][li]“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for?’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here?’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”[/li][/ul]
I think’s mostly admissible as present sense exceptions, as orcenio pointed out and I agreed with a couple pages ago.
The only thing I’d object to as a defense lawyer for Zimmerman is, “Somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell.” That’s speculation; she has no way of knowing what made the head set fall and whether Martin pushed or was pushed.
Notice she doesn’t hear any shots or anything beyond that point.
[bolding mine] So let me ask this:
What if the prosecution’s goal is only to prove that Martin said that Zimmerman had a gun, etc.? The defense can still argue that Martin was claiming he was doing something other than he actually was. People do that all the time:
“Yeah, I’m going into a tunnel now… going to have to hang up…” They can also argue that the girlfriend is making the whole thing up (and the prosecution, presumably, can provide call logs to show that she was, at least, on the phone with Martin at that time). So the girlfriend’s testimony about Martin’s statement alone does not prove anything other than the fact that he made that statement. But then, if the jury can accept as fact that Martin said what he said, couldn’t they consider whether there is reasonable doubt that he was accurately reporting what was happening?
In terms of hearsay, can anyone explain the qualitative difference between what the girl heard in her phone and what the people heard from inside their houses?
Or for that matter, if a victim called 911 but there was an issue with the recording, could the operator testify about the phone call or would that now be inadmissible hearsay?
It seems strange that hearing someone narrate a crime in progress is considered in the same category as someone recounting it after the fact.
Sorry, I see you’ve just addressed this; so apparently, this would likely be allowable.
Technical question here, I’d be obliged if someone knew the answer. Martin’s cell phone was during the time of interest. Does the phone continually tell the tower exactly where it is? I’m thinking if it pinged the tower with its location data say every 15 seconds, couldn’t that be retrieved to establish the movement of the phone and Martin up until the time he dropped it? Seems to me that if that is technically feasible, then we’d know if indeed he reversed course and went after Zimmerman.
You can triangulate a cell phone’s location (or turn on the GPS in some cases) but that data isn’t recorded as a matter of course. At best they’ll have the tower he made the call through, but that won’t record his movements down to the foot.
No, phones don’t do that, at least not directly. All the system generally knows is which cell (and maybe which sector of the cell) the phone is currently in, and some signal strength data. Since a cell covers a large area, that doesn’t tell you much about small scale movements. If there’s enough signal data available from multiple cells, you can do some math and narrow down the location, but it won’t be nearly as precise as GPS; under ideal conditions, you might get it down to about 50 meters. That might not even tell you which street the target is on.
I guess I was asking in a more general sense, not in specific to this case.
Let’s say two people are web-camming with each other and someone busts in and shoots one of them in the head. The other person could be called to court as an eye-witness. But if they were talking on the telephone and the same thing happened, why couldn’t the other person be called as an “ear-witness.”
Or is it basically that “hear-say” is just a more legalistic way of saying “ear-witness.”
Regardless … it just seems odd that one sense is given more weight than another when it comes to witnessing.
ETA: Or what jackdavinci said up there a few posts.
Dang. I thought I was going to crack the case.
LOL. Bricker, I know it wasn’t a dying declaration in the legal sense. That’s why I said I was being snarky.
And to answer **crowmanyclouds **, it appears as if there are two 7-11s approximately 3/4 of a mile North of the subdivision.
This may link you to the picture I’m seeing, but I’m not sure: Google Maps
Well, Ohio does have battery. They just don’t call it that. Causing harm is mashed together with attempting to cause harm under the prohibitions on “felonious assault” (Ohio Rev. Code §2903.11), “aggravated assault” (§2903.12), “assault” (§2903.13) and “negligent assault” (§2903.14).
I heard this morning that Trayvon was at the county morgue (unidentified) for two days. It was suggested that perhaps there was some kind of mix up. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
If you’re thinking of the Hattori case, it happened in Louisiana and the victim was more “puppy-like” than rowdy.
It isn’t that easy to figure out. It looks like a new store that wasn’t on Google maps.
1125 RINEHART RD
SANFORD,FL 32771
That works out to 8/10 of a mile from where Martin was shot. The 7-Eleven is next door to the Sams Club.
I found an article that said that Martin died 70 yards from his father’s house, which would mean that his father lived further South on Twin Trees Lane before you get to Long Oak Way.
It was only a couple of minutes walk from the entrance to where Martin was shot.
With regards to the issue of the phone call, I don’t get it, either.
How is what Martin’s friend heard over the phone any less valid as evidence as what someone would have heard from inside their house? A witness is a witness; she is stating what she perceived happen at the scene of the alleged crime at the time it was taking place.
Even if one dismisses her perception of what Martin said as hearsay, she apparently heard George Zimmerman say something as well. As Zimmerman is the suspect/potential defendant, surely THAT testimony is admissible.
Because the reporter of the phone call is reporting utterances that stand for propositions that do not come from his or her own personal knowledge or experience. (“Trayvon said ‘Zimmerman is chasing me!’”)
The neighbors are reporting occurrences they themselves heard. (“It sounded like a scuffle was taking place outside my window.”)
We worry about hearsay because when something is reported through the intermediary of a hearsay witness, we cannot investigate facts that go to the reliability of the hearsay declarant’s report. These facts are things like the perceptual ability of the declarant, his memory, his ability to put his experiences into words, his credibility, the existence of incentives of mislead or bias, and so on.
That is, with an ear-witness, we can ask them directly: Well, were you in a good position to overhear this, or were you far away? Do you remember events clearly and distinctly, or are you having difficulty remembering what you overheard? Does the witness seem able to digest their experience and personal knowledge into clear, understandable testimony, or is the testimony rather more vague or confused.? Do you seem believeable on the stand? (OK, we wouldn’t ask the last couple ones, we’d just see how they behave while testifying)
None of that is possible when the declarant is not there to confront (btw, this is the Constitutional consideration (apart from evidentiary ones) also present with hearsay—the accused has the right to confront witnesses).
Yes, but keep in mind you still have to answer why the prosecution wants to show that Martin said Zimmerman had a gun, if not to show that Zimmerman did in fact have the gun?
See, that’s the tricky part: what is the evidence trying to prove? That Zimmerman had a gun? Not admissible. That Martin said Zimmerman had a gun? Admissible, but why?