He was on at least on prescription med that caused aggression I believe. Almost forgot. After googling it, he was on Adderall and Temazepam.
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
You don't need legal cause to follow anyone.
methane47
Member
Police can't testify on proper procedure?
like "is it recommended for citizens to follow individuals?"
Or something like that?
I believe the jury should hear expert advice from law enforcement that dissuades pursuing people. Especially since the person he pursued ended up dead.
But if Zimmerman is not a witness, then they can't impeach him, because he hasn't testified, correct? So they could only really use those to establish the truth of the matter (since it's defendant's self-incrimination), but since it's his version of what happened, it would not be incriminating, so they couldn't use it. Right?
Dude Abides
Banned
No. Maybe if Zimmerman was a police officer, but he wasn't.
It isn't relevant whether it's recommended for citizens to follow individuals. These witnesses are supposed to testify as to the facts they know regarding that night, not offer their opinions on what should or should not be done generally.
It's a party admission so it fits into a hearsay exception. I'm not all that familiar with the interviews, but presumably something about them is damaging, which is why the poster suggested they should come in.
methane47
Member
They been giving opinion all afternoon.
Why were his pants wet? -- "I assume its because he was lying on his back"
Police didn't know how he was lying down, its an assumption, its opinion. But yet, defense got the police witnesses to say in their testimony that he was lying on his back.
Other people said they couldn't see who was screaming, Defense lead them into saying "Wellll i guess the person on the ground was screaming"
How is that advice legally relevant?
The damaging thing about them is that they show he's given different accounts. But that sort of info can only be used for impeachment. If Zimmerman doesn't testify, they can't show evidence that his testimony is untrustworthy. EDIT: because there is no testimony. It would be objected to on the grounds of relevance.
Dude Abides
Banned
No, an assumption is not an opinion. It's an inference. It's not at all the same thing as "Is it a good idea to follow someone?"
PotatoeMasher
Member
Did we watch the same trial? Jeantel's testimony was a train-wreck. Beyond the personality stuff that I'm not interested in, her actual statements are a mess: didn't report until weeks later, wasn't forthcoming with details originally, what details she was forthcoming with changed substantially over time, lied numerous times to attorneys about her age, lied in her deposition.
All humans suck at recalling memories accurately. Every time we access a memory we overwrite it, so memories evolve over time despite our best intentions to preserve them. It's imperative to have clear, detailed statements from the immediate aftermath of something like this (and those are usually pretty spotty in quality still). The fact that her testimony changed so much after coming in late is a big warning sign.
Killing_Joke
Member
That makes sense and i really hope they do. They can make a nice long list of contradictions. Which they desperately need to do.
All i saw was a defense trying to create a liar and make her admit something that wasn't true. She gave reasonable reasons why she lied. She was scared, hurt, dramatized etc. I mean what do you expect? She did nothing after a couple of redials and texts. I would feel like shit too.
I agree it didn't go as smooth as other witnesses due her lack of proper education. Defense spent i think 2-3 hours on her didn't get her to crack or say the "truth" in their minds. Which was TM started the fight and she knew.
What were those?
vas_a_morir
Banned
I missed the action yesterday. Is it true that she couldn't read a letter she allegedly wrote? That can't be the case.
Dude Abides
Banned
Not relevance. Zimmerman saying what happened is clearly relevant.
I assumed there was something directly damaging about them beyond just showing that Zimmerman's story has not been consistent. If there isn't, and there is no direct testimony from Zimmerman, then I agree with you that they probably won't get in, nor would the state want them to.
I misunderstood what you were saying about them. Just playing them to show Zimmerman's story changed has no purpose if Zimmerman doesn't testify at trial.
Why wouldn't they show it? If the video is police record, they can and should show it. They can play the video and point to witnesses accounts completely contradicting Zimmermans account. That's pretty damn important.
Dude Abides
Banned
No, Zimmerman being a liar and contradicting himself is only relevant if Zimmerman testifies at trial. Remember, this jury is not supposed to have heard Zimmerman's prior accounts, or at least is not supposed to have considered them. All they are supposed to have heard is the witness accounts. There is no point in showing that the witness accounts contradict out of court statements that the jury has never heard.
faceless007
Member
If Zimmerman doesn't testify, I don't see how he can prove self-defense, since he's the only witness who can testify that he had a reasonable fear of danger from Martin.
empty vessel
Member
But they could be introduced as an admission of a party opponent, if the State wants them introduced.
Dude Abides
Banned
Right, I said that up above. But why would the state want them introduced for the truth of the matter asserted?
MMA has made another appearance!
faceless007
Member
Medical records say Zimmerman had started exercising with MMA. Interesting...
He doesn't have to prove that. The defense only has to present minimal evidence to support the self defense claim for the jury to consider it. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self defense.
PotatoeMasher
Member
Biggest example was around "Why are you following me?" She gave two completely different answers at various points, settling now on "What are you doing around here?" I listened to all of the testimony but didn't take notes, so I'd rather not put words in her mouth unless I know the exact wording she used.
Her story has evolved and her various opinions evolved and all of the changes lean towards helping convict the man who killed her friend. It's a natural thing you'd expect, but you don't want your star witness to appear compromised, whether intentionally or not.
I can't imagine anyone sitting through her two days of testimony being able to trust her word beyond a reasonable doubt and without any possible corroboration. She can say anything happened on those calls and no one can say it didn't and her tendency to withold things in previous statements that might paint her friend in a bad light makes you wonder if there could be more on the call that she isn't sharing.
I'm not making any judgements on her as a person, but I didn't find her to be the credible witness I was hoping she would be (anything that gets at the truth here is what I want).
Maybe I don't understand how our legal system works but that seems like bull shit to me. We know he kill Trayvon. He should have to prove it was self defense... Not the other way around.
Dude Abides
Banned
Didn't Zimmerman's trainer say that Zimmerman didn't do MMA, just worked out there, and that he was soft?
PotatoeMasher
Member
Yeah, it was a letter she delivered to TM's mother as she didn't want to have to talk to her (which I think she ended up having to do anyways). I believe it's the first statement she made on the case, although the timeline on when she actually gave statements and when they were scheduled was confusing and I couldn't keep up. She dictated the letter and a friend cleaned it up and wrote it down. She said she couldn't read the friend's handwriting, as it was cursive.
In many states that's exactly how it works. Florida's laws are not set up that way, because the citizens of Florida (through their elected officials) chose to have a very, very strong self-defense statute when they worded their "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Zimmerman soft? What ever would make someone think that?
mercenar1e
Member
TheKaeptain
Banned
Not really. It's average.
vas_a_morir
Banned
The weather in the Summer is enough for me to never go back.
Especially against a person 40 pounds lighter than him.
empty vessel
Member
No idea, I've not been following closely and I don't know the content of his statements. Presumably if he's made different statements, some would be beneficial to the State. But maybe not.
That would be wise.
It aint that bad. From what we know, Trayvon acted pretty preemptively for this whole self defense thing to be an issue right now. The law is handy for home invasions honestly.
BloodMoney
Banned
So if GZ was trying to be anything but honest, wouldn't it make sense he would have lied to this doctor and said, oh yea, my head is ringing, i'm dizzy, i've got tingling in my extremities, i got fucked up hardcore by that kid...
Seems as though he was very matter of fact about the questioning with the doctor (and the police)... i'd take that to mean he felt he had nothing to hide, i.e, he felt his actions were in self defense.
Seems as though he was very matter of fact about the questioning with the doctor (and the police)... i'd take that to mean he felt he had nothing to hide, i.e, he felt his actions were in self defense.
faceless007
Member
I was looking at this post which has the jury instruction for justifiable use of deadly force, which says: "however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force." Does Zimmerman have to prove that?
childplease
Banned
Has this been posted yet.
methane47
Member
Or he was trying to get back to work as soon as possible. By time he met with this chick the Police had already cleared him. Maybe he already assumed he was scott-free
You don't have to 'prove' self defense anywhere. The defense doesn't have to prove anything period, all the defense needs is a reasonable doubt.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Has this been posted yet.
Oh man... I just figured it out... I figured out who she was reminding me of. It was like on the tip of my tongue, but I just figured it out.
CrimsonCommie
Member
childplease
Banned
Precious.
I posted it because I wanted to see if anyone noticed how dumb the question was.
How do you even answer that ?
methane47
Member
that was the most ridiculous question. But she was a terrible witness. West probably roflcopter'd himself home that night.
- Status