I was about to write that the prosecution is probably thanking its lucky stars that it has a judge like Nelson on this case. But I suspect they knew that the minute she picked up the case when the original judge was removed for obvious anti-Zimmerman bias. With a few exceptions, primarily decisions so clear in the law that she had no other choice than to grant defense motions, Nelson has demonstrated remarkable and blatant pro-prosecution bias. Many of those egregiously foolish decisions may very well constitute reversible error should George Zimmerman be convicted, but taken as a whole they stagger the mind.
Judge Nelson
For example: Wednesday morning after her decidedly unjudicial behavior of the previous evening, Nelson excluded text messages and tweets from Trayvon Martin’s phone that are unquestionably related to this case and are, under case law, clearly allowable. Tweets such as this:
In her frantic and nearly hysterical commentary on admissibility late Tuesday evening, Nelson expressed concern that because it was possible for someone else to have sent the text messages and social media posts made by Martin, she wasn’t going to allow anything. She also ruled that the animated video commissioned by the defense would not be allowed into evidence (the defense can use it in their closing argument, but they jury can’t have it for deliberations). As is her usual practice, she gave no substantive explanation for her rulings, other than to suggest that she read the Lumarque case (PDF available here). Here a section of the decision most applicable to the Zimmerman case:
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.
At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates…
Under Judge Nelson’s standard, it would be impossible for any electronic communication to ever be admitted because it would always be the burden of the defense (in the Zimmerman case) to absolutely prove them authentic rather than the burden of the prosecution to present evidence to prove they are not. In other words, anyone seeking to introduce such evidence must prove a negative: that unknown, unnamed persons did not surreptitiously access a twitter account or a cell phone, etc. This is an unassailable, and absurd, standard. By this standard, nothing handwritten or electronically produced could ever be introduced into evidence. Who could prove conclusively that a deceased person’s writings were not produced by someone else?
In the Zimmerman case, there are thousands of messages and photos, all on Trayvon Martin’s phone and all done in his name or handle. The prosecution had those messages since January, 2013, but did not turn them over to the defense until June 4, just before the trial started, denying the defense the opportunity to analyze them and to locate and depose witnesses (Update 29.2) Don West brought this up, as well as the prosecution’s serial lying to the court. As West told the judge, that phone was double encrypted. It is surpassingly unlikely anyone else forged anything, yet Judge Nelson hysterically exclaimed that someone could have gotten Martin’s password. Yes, and aliens might have eaten Judge Nelson and replaced her with an exact replica, but where’s the proof?
Clearly under Lumarque, the evidence is admissible, yet Nelson excluded it. Is she merely incompetent, malicious, some combination? Is she an entirely political animal? Does she sense the prosecution is in trouble so she’s trying to level the playing field? Normally, judges can express bias, but under the radar, or at least so subtly one can’t quite prove it. Not Judge Nelson.
Wednesday’s Trial Events:
Dennis Root
Dennis Root, Use Of Force Expert: Root, a former career police officer, lacked the easy, attractive manner of Dr. DiMaio, but was reasonably effective in supporting Zimmerman’s account. He was arguably most effective in providing a solid, impenetrable barrier for the prosecution to repeatedly run into headlong. Among the most important things he affirmed was that there was no evidence of injury from Zimmerman’s small plastic flashlight on Martin’s body. This is a line of questing pursued by the prosecution in the last few days suggesting they intend to claim during closing that Zimmerman hit Martin with that “weapon,” despite not the slightest bit of evidence to that effect. Root also portrayed Martin as the aggressor, raining blows down on Zimmerman who was unable to respond. Root explained that Zimmerman’s statements and actions indicated that he was non-confrontational and lacked “the warrior mindset.”
NOTE: Reader saliorcurt reasonably suggests that the prosecution brought up the flashlight to claim that Zimmerman was armed with two weapons, and somehow should have resorted to a plastic flashlight rather than his handgun. I’ve little doubt there is some element of this in the prosecution argument, but that too is ridiculous. Dr. DiMaio testified that the flashlight could possibly cause a bruise at best, and the prosecution did nothing to elicit specific testimony regarding the flashlight’s use as a weapon. As with most of its case, there was implication, at best. And of course, with Zimmerman stunned, unable to protect himself, let alone land a blow with a plastic flashlight unlikely to cause any injury, the argument descends to farce.
Root also testified that Zimmerman’s few obscenities directed at the criminals that had been preying on his neighbors were not signs of ill will or hatred, but simple frustration “about criminals in general.” In response to O’Mara’s specific questions, he also testified that there was nothing dangerous or reckless in Zimmerman’s use of his handgun. Root also testified that he normally testifies for the prosecution, saying:
yes, this is the complete opposite from where I usually sit.
The effect of a law and order kind of guy willingly testifying for the defense won’t be lost on the jury.
O’Mara was also able to elicit a comment about the law enforcement profession, as he so often has in this trial. Root said:
It’s a very noble career and I would recommend it to anybody.
Once again, the state foolishly blew itself up. One of the primary rules for any lawyer is never to ask a question of a witness to which one doesn’t know the answer. Prosecutor John Guy did just that and it bit him. He may well have been the unwitting originator of another legal maxim: “don’t play with life-sized dolls in court.”
Obviously thinking himself quite the Perry Mason, Guy produced a life-sized, flexible, dark gray human doll and dropping it to the floor, kneeled astride it in an attempt to demonstrate that Zimmerman could not have drawn his gun, and could not have shot Martin as he claimed–or something–this despite the testimony of multiple witnesses, not the least of which was DiMaio, to that effect. Guy also continued with the Trayvon as screamer meme, trying to get Root to say that it was possible that Martin was screaming (for 40 seconds?!) because Zimmerman was pointing a gun at him. Root blew up the first legal rule by replying that if he were in Martin’s position, astride Zimmerman and beating him, and Zimmerman suddenly produced a gun, he wouldn’t scream, but would go for that gun, just as Zimmerman has consistently maintained.
On re-cross, O’Mara blew up the second legal rule on Guy. He asked Guy, with a wry smile, “can I have your doll,” and promptly knelt astride the doll in front of Root just as Guy had done. Only O’Mara began to whack the doll’s head against the floor, getting Root to say that kind of beating could have produced Zimmerman’s injuries. It was a dramatic and effective tactic, but not the overblown and hysterical dramatics of Bernie di la Rionda or Rich Mantei. It was direct and to the point, and a sight no jury could forget.
Having his flashlight theory taken from him, Guy–on re-re-direct–couldn’t resist another run at the first legal rule. He asked if Zimmerman had other options other than using his gun. Root replied:
No. Given the totality of the circumstances, I don’t believe Zimmerman had any other option.
This is, in a single sentence, the absolute explanation of and justification for self-defense. Guy had no come back, but he wasn’t done. After a brief last series of questions by O’Mara, Guy took a final, foolish run at the first legal rule and demanded that Root tell him the exact moment when Zimmerman was struck in the nose. Notice that his question presupposes his acceptance that Zimmerman was struck in the nose. Root replied in his consistently deadpan manner:
It’s hard to say; he was hit a bunch of times.
One could almost hear a rimshot. After repeatedly sticking his head in that particular lit oven, Guy finally gave up and retreated to the prosecution table, his face blackened and his hair smoldering.
Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection, as usual, has video for those with the time and inclination. His commentary is also worthy of your time.
Olivia Bertalan, Former Retreat At Twin Lakes Resident: Under O’Mara’s sympathetic gaze, she provided a nightmarish story to which any woman can relate, which is likely why O’Mara wanted her as one of his two final witnesses. An attractive young woman with glasses, on August 3, 2011, Bertalan was home–during the day–with her infant child when someone began knocking repeatedly on her front door. Alarmed she retreated upstairs where she could look out and saw two young black males who were obviously casing her home. She called the police and the burglars broke into her home. She locked herself in her child’s bedroom and scared to death, stood, holding her child on one hip and a pair of “rusty scissors” in her other shaking hand.
Understanding female psychology tolerably well, I would have loved to be in the courtroom just then. I have no doubt every woman on that jury was empathizing with Bertalan and putting herself in Bertalan’s place. Even more so when a still-traumatized Bertalan described one of the burglars rattling the doorknob of the room in which she was hiding.
Fortunately, the burglar did not break into the room. The police arrived only after the burglars made off with her camera and laptop and other items. There was a semi-happy ending when one of the burglars, one Emanuel Burgess who lived nearby, then a juvenile, was identified and caught. However, Bertalan moved out shortly thereafter, and Burgess was released, only to be arrested again shortly after Bertalan moved.
During her retelling of this story, her voice quavered and she shook. She is obviously still very much affected by the ordeal. She also testified that at the suggestion of the police, she bought a dog. Media talking heads often characterize testimony as “powerful.” Bertalan’s was because it was real, raw and draped in honest emotion. I have no doubt she had the effect on the jury O’Mara sought: she convinced them the criminal threat against her neighborhood was real and deadly dangerous. She would convince them of Zimmerman’s useful and noble role in suppressing that threat shortly.
On Cross, Guy tried to question her about Zimmerman on topics clearly outside the scope of her testimony and was shut down. The jury was removed and he continued that line of questioning. It was a clever trap by O’Mara, and Guy smugly walked right into it. He got Bertalan to say that shortly after the home invasion burglary, Zimmerman came to her home and gave her his phone number. Zimmeman also spoke with her about the incident some 20 times. Guy was foolishly trying to suggest that Zimmerman was some cop-wannabe busybody.
After the jury returned, Guy repeated the questions and got the same answers from Bertalan. Then O’Mara sprung the trap.
In short order, Bertalan testified that she really appreciated Zimmerman’s attention and concern, and explained that his subsequent contacts were for the sole purpose of checking in to see that she was OK. Zimmerman even told her that if she was afraid, she could go to his home and be with Shellie whenever she wanted, something else that meant a great deal to Bertalan. Zimmerman also brought her a lock to secure her sliding glass patio door, the door the burglars used to enter her home, a common problem in the neighborhood.
O’Mara finally asked: “Was George Zimmerman’s behavior helpful to you?” “Very,” she replied. Guy did not run headlong into that particular wall again.
Robert Zimmerman Sr., George’s Father: A soft-spoken man, he was the final defense witness and testified only to identifying George’s voice on the Lauer 911 recording. He heard it in the prosecutor’s office in the same building, and upon hearing it, told them “absolutely, it’s my son George.”
Di la Rionda handled cross, but went nowhere, and the defense case was done.
Earlier in the day, Judge Nelson relentlessly badgered Zimmerman over the strong objections of Don West, demanding to know if he intended to testify. There is clearly no love lost between West and Nelson. It initially appeared that he might testify, but ultimately decided not to do so.
I suspect that this too may have been a defense ploy. When it appeared that he might testify, the camera rested on Angela Corey, whose head was down in a laptop. Unlike her usual, continual scowl, her face was wreathed in a smug grin. No doubt, she was anticipating her junkyard dogs having the chance to tear into Zimmerman, but alas, it was not to be. This was a wise move indeed by the defense.
O’Mara made another argument for acquittal, and though very brief, he hit exactly at the heart of the issue by suggesting that she compel the prosecution to “identify their factual scenario, their theory of the case, anything, articulating in some way Zimmerman’s guilt.” Of course, she did not do that, nor did Prosecutor Rich Mantei in response to O’Mara. How could he? There is no credible theory and no evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt. As expected, Nelson ruled there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to keep going.
The prosecution’s rebuttal fizzled dramatically. They initially called Adam Pollock, the owner of the gym where Zimmerman trained. As I noted in Update 33, Pollock testified that Zimmerman had virtually no martial skills. Mantei began by asking questions that were not in any way a rebuttal, a move that could be nothing other than a bad faith attempt to smear Zimmerman in any way possible. O’Mara objected and Pollock was eventually excused without testifying at all.
They intended to call a second witness, but thought better of it.
Mantei tried another tack that had nothing to do with rebuttal in asking to have a state alcohol agent involved in a 2005 incident with Zimmerman testify. Mantei told an incomplete story, seeking to portray Zimmerman as an out-of-control cop assaulter, and O’Mara set the record straight. Actually, Nelson shouldn’t have bothered to listen, as Mantei’s witness–he didn’t even know if the man could be produced to testify–was not a rebuttal witness at all, but as always, she allowed the prosecution substantial leeway.
For those unfamiliar with the case, Zimmerman was with a friend in a bar when several plainclothes alcohol agents, without identifying themselves, drug Zimmerman’s friend out of the bar. Thinking his friend under assault, Zimmerman followed and placed his hand on one officer’s shoulder. He was arrested for assault on a police officer, a felony. The charge was quickly changed to a misdemeanor, and Zimmerman was allowed to participate in a pre-trial diversion program. He completed it, and the charge was dropped entirely. Zimmerman has no criminal record. The actions of the system in this case clearly indicate they had no case against Zimmerman, and O’Mara reminded the judge of that.
She should have immediately denied that witness as well–it was nothing more than potential evidence of a prior bad act which is clearly not admissible–but Nelson was reluctant to make a decision and left the matter hanging.
Another Run At Donnelly: John Donnelly, the retired physician’s assistant and Vietnam combat medic whose testimony was so effective in identifying Zimmerman’s voice was the subject of an attempt by the prosecution to exclude his testimony. It seems that Donnelly sat in on the trial for several hours over two days in violation of the sequestration rules.
So there was a lengthy hearing on that matter, with the prosecution accusing the defense of all manner of mischief. It was quickly discovered that not only did the defense have no idea Donnelly was there, when West saw him on the second day, he told Donnelly he would have to leave and Donnelly, apologizing profusely, did. West explained that in a trial with some 200 witnesses–and they had no idea if they would use Donnelly or not–he must have slipped through the cracks and was not notified of the sequestration rule. West honorably took responsibility for that omission, though he clearly had nothing to do with it. It was also clear that Donnelly’s testimony was unaffected by the witnesses he heard and Nelson dropped that matter, leaving Donnelly’s devastating testimony on the record.
This is another example of the bad faith of the prosecution. In normal trials, this sort of thing is simply dealt with informally by both sides. They bring in the judge only if there is some compelling evidence of intentional malfeasance. This is particularly true in trials with large numbers of witnesses where it is very easy for witnesses not to get the message of sequestration, or to misunderstand it.
The day ended with the prosecution’s first round of closing tentatively scheduled for 1000 on Thursday, with the defense closing after lunch and the prosecution’s final summation thereafter. Yet, there are still a number of issues Nelson has continually kicked down the road to be resolved.
I’ll report on the closing arguments in the next article. I expect the prosecution to stick to The Narrative, and the defense to argue logic, law and evidence. If their trial strategy is any indication, expect the prosecution to engage in junior high-level dramatics, mischaracterization of evidence, even outright lies.
It’s a backward world in the Sanford courthouse, from start to finish.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Hey, thanks for the nice mention, appreciate it. –Andrew Branca, @LawSelfDefense, guest blogger at Legal Insurrection covering Florida v. Zimmerman
Dear Andrew:
My pleasure. You’re doing fine work, and the good professor has been kind enough to link to me in the past. George Zimmerman needs all the help he can get to make up for an obscene lack of proper criminal justice procedure and the outrageous bias of the court.
I am a fairly new reader to your fine work and am learning many new things every day. I’ve followed many televised trials closely; but I was gobsmacked when Judge Nelson attempted to put Zimmerman under oath to answer concerning whether he would testify. Then ignored West’s objections and still put Zimmerman under oath. Is this common?
Dear MaRiley:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your comment! It is not uncommon for a judge to ask about this, but it’s not terribly common either. As you say, the manner in which she behaved, particularly putting Zimmerman under oath and the crude and unprofessional way she treated Don West are unusual, and hardly uphold the dignity and fairness every citizen must demand from their courts. Any citizen watching a judge should find them admirable and believe they would receive justice in their court. I doubt that many feel that way about Judge Nelson.
A backward world indeed. Usually it’s the defense grasping at straws….
Having now watched videos of the trial, I change my opinion on the bias of the judge. The questioning of the defendant as to his decision regarding testifying was really handled badly by the court. Inasmuch as the defense had not yet finished calling witnesses, asking Zimmerman about his decision (in Colorado, it is called a Curtis advisement–I’m not sure what they call it in Florida) was premature. I actually have no problem with the judge’s question to Zimmerman, even if it was premature, but if she was trying to just be efficient with time, she should have responded to West’s objection with something like: “I understand your objection, but I am not asking your client what is decision is, rather just if he has consulted with you about it, and if he has made a decision yet. Based upon your objection, I am going to assume that he has not yet made a decision, so I will ask him again later. In the meantime, please discuss, or continue to discuss, your client’s 5th Amendment rights with him on breaks if you are able so that we can avoid delaying the jury unnecessarily.” There was no need to turn this into a fight with the defense attorney.
More troubling was the bizarre ruling on the text messages. They are obviously character evidence, but it doesn’t matter since a criminal defendant, unlike the prosecutor, is allowed to introduce evidence of a victim’s character to establish a defense (e.g. victim’s character for violence to establish self-defense), so long as the rape shield statute doesn’t apply. It seems like some of the text messages would be hearsay, but because they are statements against interest of an unavailable declarant, they nevertheless should not be excluded by the hearsay rule. The ruling on foundation is just wrong. Authentication is a very minimal burden for obvious reasons–if a jury thinks that the minimal foundation laid is not enough, they will disregard the evidence, so there is no danger of prejudicial taint (in contrast, if the court is not more scrupulous about making sure certain privileges are waived and improperly allows, e.g. a defendant’s confession of the crime to his lawyer, there is no way to cure the problem). Perhaps the docket has become boring and the judge wants to try this case again.
Dear Han Ng:
Thanks for your informative comment!
Mike, what strikes me the most about the out of the jury discussion about the text messages and photos retrieved from TM’s phone last night was the fact that we all saw it. Televised in all its glory. The information is out about TM’s drug use, his gun talk, his gangsta wannabe character. There is video from the 7-11 he purchased his watermelon drink (not iced tea). Lots of flimflam in the store. TM’s timeline begins at that store.
Using Nelson’s logic: Rachel’s testimony can’t be used, since we know, by her own admission, that several people used her phone…
This may be a poor place to insert this idea…..but who is Rachel Jeantel, DeeDee, and Diamond and who wrote the cursive letter to TM’s mother. Who is on the tape talking to Bernie (w/o video). Who testified as Rachel? Rachel and DeeDee are not the same person. They’re physically different. Their vocabulary and truncated words are different.
Thanks Mike (and Andrew as well).
The big goof today was Nelson agreeing to delay closing statements till 1:00 tomorrow, more or less at MOM’s request. Unfortunately, the prosecution will argue for 2 hours, the defense will close for 3 hours, then according to Nelson, the prosecution will take their third hour on Friday morning. When MOM realized what had just happened, he suggested waiting till Friday for all arguments. Nelson took great pleasure in denying his request, saying basically that he got what he asked for. As Elton John might say, “The Bitch is Back”.
So now, the State will get first crack to set the stage followed by the defense (hopefully Mom) and everyone will go home. The State will have all night to put together the biggest mischarcterizations they can come up with. It’s a shame. Nelson also smirked a little when she said that the State could use 2 attorneys, 1 in each segment of their closing.
I think that the prosecution went about the whole case wrong, 1. Trevon was fighting for his life, because George pulled the gun before the fight ever started, we all know he could not fight, so he pulled the gun, Trevon defended himself by hitting him, and trying to get away. That Gun was never in his holster,
2. Why did he not get one punch or scratch on Trevon, (if george was fighting for his life) If Trevon was alive why was his hands still over his heart? 3. If you live in a neighborhood which you are policing, why would you not know the name of one of the 3 streets. What happened to what Trevon was suppose to have in his hands. George lost the fight that he thought he could win because he knew this was a minor, a young boy, but this young boy had to fight for his life, and he would have his life if the gun was taken out of the picture. George is guilty………no matter what the jury decides.
The biggest misjustice of all will be the liars that say that is george’s voice crying for help.
If I got a gun why would I yell for help, I have the advantage…………….. Then why would the yelling stop as soon as the shot is fired…………………..think about it.
you are an idiot who is making things up. there is zero evidence Zimmerman pulled his gun first.
Cynthia,
I nearly wasted time refuting each of your “points”, but thought better.
You are way late to the party and life is too short to educate the uninformed and illogical, one at a time.
Cynthia, was your comment serious? Or were you making a joke? It’s hard to know, because you didn’t base your arguments on the evidence at all.
First of all, his name was Trayvon, not Trevon. Please at least get that right if you’re arguing on his behalf.
Second, there is zero evidence that the gun was out of the holster before the fatal shot, and eyewitness testimony that Trayvon was on top of George pounding away on him “MMA style”.
Third, you have no clue what Neighborhood Watch is. It’s certainly not Neighborhood Patrol.
Finally, you ask, “If I got a gun why would I yell for help, I have the advantage”. Um how about you really don’t want to shoot anybody? I carry a gun all the time. I NEVER want to have to use it. But you’d better believe that if some young kid has me pinned to the ground and is pounding on my head, I’m going to shoot him. Not because I want him dead, because I want to live.
I hear screams. Horrible screams. Inhuman screams.
They’re not from Martin. They’re not from Zimmerman. They’re from logic which has been tortured beyond any rational basis.
Really. If Zimmerman pulled his gun before the physical altercation began, as “Cynthia” alleges, are we reasonably to believe that Zimmerman then let himself be brutally physically pounded over and over again, with his head being beaten and lacerated against pavement, for over a full minute, before finally bothering to pull the trigger? Beaten up so badly that a neighbor who knew him found his face unrecognizable afterward? And he patiently endured all that with a gun in his hand that was ready to fire?
Perhaps “Cynthia” should apply for a job with Bernie de la Railroada’s prosecution team. Her reasoning skills are perfect for the role.
Better for “Cynthia” to carry water for Corey and Crump.
The picture of George with the bloody nose did not look all that unrecognizable to me. Further, having personally experienced my head bashed against the concrete, the limited scratches and contusions on the back of his head are not even close to the kind of damage hard blows to pavement cause. Maybe hard blows to the lawn with a few pebbles in the turf – – that could be more reasonable.
Heck, he didn’t even get medical attention. Try having someone beat your head on concrete for a full minute and see if you are still conscious, much less not requiring an immediate trip to the ER. Even one good crack to the concrete should produce a concussion.
That being said, George should go free on Reasonable Doubt since there is no evidence or testimony to show how the altercation actually started – pretty important prove or disprove self defense.
Not as big of a ‘misjustice’ as your comment, imho.
dear troll, what you speak is called bull maunre in my country. Everything you wrote is made up rubbish.
keyboard error; that should be manure. Darned keyboard, maybe I should think about its retirement.
Speaking of Zero evidence, almost all of the online and televised debate are irrelevant and missing the point. There is Zero evidence how the altercation started. No one witnessed or testified to what George and Trayvon said to each other, who threw the first punch, because no one saw or heard that part. Also, who could possibly know whether George was actually afraid for his life or not? Self Defense is about how it started, not how it ended, and no one saw how it started. The only way that George could be convicted is if these things were known. Cynthia is simply outlining a possible scenario, no less likely than George’s version … remembering that her version outlines events that may or may not have happened before the witnesses heard or saw anything. We can’t say she is dead wrong. She can’t say George’s version is dead wrong. Only George knows for sure, and we will never know. The only possible outcome here is Reasonable Doubt.
With Thugvons text messages and cellphone pictures now a matter of pulic record how can these BGI worshipping pundits on CNN and HLN say with any seriousness that George wrongly assumed Trayvon was a criminal
I think a good starting point would be for Cynthia to actually learn how to spell TRAYVON
We need to make it a top priority to organize and have Judge Nelson forcibly removed from the bench!
Reblogged this on A world at war.
I didn’t get the impression that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman’s flashlight to try to imply that Martin was hit by it, but to say that Zimmerman had in his possession a “less than lethal” alternative weapon and, therefore, had not needed to use his gun.
Mr. Di Maio pretty much laid that argument to rest when he looked at the flashlight and scoffed at the idea that it was substantial enough to cause serious injury.
Plus, by raising the point, the State seemed to be admitting that Zimmerman needed some sort of weapon in the situation he was in, just that the flashlight may have been a better choice. The logical conclusion of that implication being that Zimmerman really was just defending himself and the State was primarily criticizing his choice of weapon with which Zimmerman chose to do so.
Today, finally and for the first time, the whole world will hear the State’s “theory of the case”.
There was no theory in the probable cause affidavit.
There was no theory in the State’s opening statement.
There was no theory in the State’s case presentation.
Certainly, there must be a theory in the State’s closing argument, mustn’t there be?
The theory of the case was to overcharge an innocent man, get him to plea to lesser charges in any manner possible, punish him in some manner for defending himself, allow wrongful death shakedowns by a plaintiff’s lawyer who is politically connected, and then pretend nothing untoward happened. This is apparently how it is done in Florida.
None of us will ever know if he is Innocent — but based on the evidence (or lack thereof), he should be found Not Guilty.
Sir,
could you write a bit more about “reversible error” in theory and how it could apply to this case? I believe that I understand the concept, but I am not sure how the legal machinations would actually play out in relation to this case. As always, thank you for the well written information and insights.
Dear blackshepherd:
Reversible error is nothing more than serious mistakes made by a judge, or allowed by a judge, that in a real and material way deny a defendant their rights under the Constitution, specifically the right to a fair trial. Generally, appeals courts try to avoid second guessing trial judges, therefore for a mistake or omission to rise to the level of reversible error it has to be obvious and have a real effect on the defendant’s rights.
Judge Nelson for example, was recently overturned for giving a jury faulty instructions on self-defense. That sort of thing could easily lead to a wrongful conviction.
Obviously, being convicted as a result of a judge’s mistake could be reversible error. A defendant doesn’t have to prove that the error directly caused the conviction, the possibility/violation of rights is sufficient.
I hope this helps.
That helps greatly, as did the PJ Media link that you posted. Thanks again for contributing to the general understanding of this case.
State failed to justify why trayvon had right to be on top without Zimmerman responding
Mike, Jeralyn at TalkLeft had a great write up on the witness Olivia Beltaran. She has a good theory as to why MOM called on her, and as I believe you pointed out,, how her story relates to at least 2 of the 5 phone calls the prosecution played in court. Readers can find it here:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/10/172233/115/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Defense-Rests
Dear ron loper:
Hi there and thanks. I’ve already linked to and recommended that article in my PJ Media blurb posted today, but thanks for bring it up.
Of curious concern to me is something I haven’t seen or heard brought up. Perhaps the defense will touch upon it in closing. I’ve wondered HOW Trayvon knew he was being followed. He was out of sight before GZ even left his truck. I doubt he could’ve heard the door open and close as he was too far away by then, there was noise from the wind and rain, the row of homes would’ve blocked some sound and he was using ear buds in his phone convo. So, how would he know he was being followed? Unless, perhaps, he hid and observed GZ. If so, that would almost infer stalking (for those who like that word) on TM’s part.
That brings up WHY would he think he (specifically) was being followed or targeted? He would not know that GZ was maybe just lost and was looking for a home in the area on a dark rainy night when the address numbers were hard to see? Also, there was at least one other person somewhere in the vicinity at the time. And that was the 13 yr old boy walking his dog. So why think it was himself being followed?
Those two points of How and Why never seem to be brought up. Rachel Jeantel certainly didn’t allude to an answer and I haven’t heard that the prosecution or the defense specifically asked about it. Any ideas? Anyone?
In the Lumarque Case, it clearly states that texts and phone images were part of the context between the parties to the case, and that there was evidence that the defendant had examined the phone contents the day before the incident, therefore, it makes sense that contents on the phone are relevant to the case. I don’t think anyone believes George examined Trayvon’s phone prior to the incident (if he had, wouldn’t that put a whole different spin on this case? – I don’t even want to think about it)
The authentication discussion is weak – if the texts were relevant, then the Jury should be allowed to consider the authentication concerns.
Also, the “code talk” idea is a long stretch – near nonsense. However, without anyone to testify as to actual context, – – as many parents know – – it is just as likely that Trayvon was discussing RPG or other violent video game play (just like 50% of all kids today), and may have been simultaneously having a voice conversation with the other player(s) – it would be necessary to understand both sides of the conversation(s), and other possible simultaneous communications channels, and anything else going on at the time to truly understand the meaning of the messages. I’ve seen kids play video games, and communicate with other players about the game by phone and text at the same time. A text that reads, “You should stop punching” (or whatever) would mean something completely different if they were engaged in video game play.
If someone wants to add two more weeks to the trial to introduce new evidence, debate it, philosophize about it, get expert witnesses on social media, game play, and modern youthful behavior, then OK, but there is no need: No one knows what George and Trayvon said to each other or who started the altercation, or whether George was truly in fear for his life. These things need to be proven in order to convict, and the plain facts are: none of that is possible. Innocent or not, we will never know — the only conclusion is Reasonable Doubt.
OK, Thanks Mike, I haven’t read the PJ blurb yet. so didn’t know. I read Jeralyn’s post first and then came straight to this update.
OMG, first the scheme team says race shouldn’t be an issue. Now, they are saying “Who screamed doesn’t matter.” How much more hypocritical can get? How many more about faces will they make?
Pingback: 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » One Way Street Named Zimmerman
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #56: The Narrative Surfaces | Stately McDaniel Manor