George Zimmerman's bloody head

[WorldWatcher]

World, could it have been that Zimmerman somehow could have gotten himself off of the ground, and would have broke apart from the struggle before delivering the fatal shot that killed Martin (both being in a standing position at this point) ?

The forensics, which I don't claim to be an expert on, show the barrel of the gun was pointed straight (perpendicular) to Martin's chest. That would call for an unnatural position of the hand/wrist when someone is supposedly on your chest, leaning over you, while their hands are on the side of your head flexing their arms to smash your head into the ground. The lack of GSR would be indicative of a straight arm shot with the gun discharged away and not over Zimmerman's jacket/shirt.

You ask if Zimmerman could have somehow gotten himself off of the ground and broken from Martin and then drawn and fired his gun. That is one possibility, but would also require Martin to have gotten to his feet. Another possibility is that Zimmerman twisted and pushed Martin off to the side, both still on the ground but now separated by about 2 feet (arm-length). A shot fired in this type of position could still be "straight-arm" with the gun away from Zimmerman's jacket/shirt resulting in no GSR but close enough for the noted muzzle burns/stippling in the forensic/autopsy reports.



The above scenario's then are important as to determination of initial aggressor. Under Florida Statute (776.041) if Martin is the initial aggressor, the Zimmerman's immunity under self defense are never lost. However if Zimmerman was shown to be the initial aggressor **AND** he'd pushed Martin away **THEN** Zimmerman would have been under a requirement to attempt to disengage before the use of lethal force if such an opportunity (as measured by a reasonable person) presented itself. Such as Zimmerman pushing Martin away. Not committing to one scenario over the other at this piont. I just find that that there are questions (in my mind) I would hope the expert witnesses would address at the Self Defense Hearing or at the jury trial if it gets that far.

Google the law and you will see what I mean by that.



>>>>

Yes if he (Zimmerman) had pushed away, it could have been the cause for disengaugement as you say between the two men after a serious struggle began, but would Zimmerman be in a frame of mind at this point, where he felt that maybe his life was still endanger due to the initial attack, and this because the push had to be made by him in order to get disengaugement, instead of it being made by Martin who could have disengauged also by such a push instead? Where as one of the pushes could have been in order to signal an end to hostilties at this point, and the other would have been to stop an attack that could have been life threatening. Otherwise if Martin would have pushed off to disengauge, it would have signaled an end to the attack by Martin, otherwise if Martin was the attacker in this senario, and so if Zimmerman would have made the push, then it would have been to save his life somehow by such a push being made. Right?

However, if Zimmerman would have attacked Martin lets say, then the push off by Zimmerman could have been a push to somehow get free in the struggle, and this would be because Martin had turned the tide back on him (Zimmerman), and this could have very well been because Martin somehow got the upper hand in the struggle after Zimmerman attacked him, but to shoot Martin after the disengaugement occurred and/or a lull came in the struggle, where Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, well doesn't make much since does it or does it ? I guess it all depends on the fury or anger built up between these two during the struggle, that caused the gun to come out, and a shot to get fired.

I'm not really committed to any sequence of events as a final decision because we have not seen all the information yet. I find a couple of the forensic pieces of evidence interesting and it will be something to watch both at the self defense hearing and at trial (if it gets that far). The prosecution is required to hand over evidence as part of discovery, it is not required to hand over how the prosecution use expert witnesses to explain that evidence.

So we have forensics which indicate that there was some separation between Zimmerman and Martin at the time the shot was fired. It will depend on how the prosecutions (and defeses) expert witnesses present that data to the judge/jury and how it's to be interpreted AND the comparision of that information to Zimmerman's statements given that night to the police.

If the forensics and expert testimony show that the shot could not have occurred while Martin was straddling Zimmerman beating his head on the ground, and **IF** that was Zimmerman's statement - then that will look bad for Zimmerman if his story is that Martin was on toip beating his head into the ground.

The prosecution will ((IMHO) make the case that whether it was Martin or Zimmerman that was disengaging that caused the distance consistent with the forensics, that at that time Martin could not have been beating Zimmerman's head into the ground and therefore no longer presented an imminent treat.

I guess it will go back to who was the initial agressor (threw the first punch or physically made the first contact) in the situation, where as all blame for the death will befall the individual that is proven to be the initial physical aggressor, who made physical contact with the other as an aggressor, and especially so if the initial physical aggressor was the one that was armed in the situation, when the other one wasn't. So it all comes down to who started the physical confrontation first, in which led to one man's death in the struggle that ensued afterwards. Everything else was legal for both men to be doing that night, up until the physical confrontation took place correct ?

You appear to want to focus on just the physical contact as defining the aggressor. However that may not be the case. Under Florida Law (784.011) assault is defined by word or act to do violence, coupled by an apparent ability to do so and committing some threatening act which present an intent to do violence. In other words, the aggressor in an assault situation need not physically strike another person to be guilty of assault.

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate



So, the first question the Judge/Jury in the hearing/trial (respectively) will have to determine is who was the initial aggressor - which is not the same as deciding who struck the first physical blow.



>>>>

 

[idb]

The forensics, which I don't claim to be an expert on, show the barrel of the gun was pointed straight (perpendicular) to Martin's chest. That would call for an unnatural position of the hand/wrist when someone is supposedly on your chest, leaning over you, while their hands are on the side of your head flexing their arms to smash your head into the ground. The lack of GSR would be indicative of a straight arm shot with the gun discharged away and not over Zimmerman's jacket/shirt.

You ask if Zimmerman could have somehow gotten himself off of the ground and broken from Martin and then drawn and fired his gun. That is one possibility, but would also require Martin to have gotten to his feet. Another possibility is that Zimmerman twisted and pushed Martin off to the side, both still on the ground but now separated by about 2 feet (arm-length). A shot fired in this type of position could still be "straight-arm" with the gun away from Zimmerman's jacket/shirt resulting in no GSR but close enough for the noted muzzle burns/stippling in the forensic/autopsy reports.



The above scenario's then are important as to determination of initial aggressor. Under Florida Statute (776.041) if Martin is the initial aggressor, the Zimmerman's immunity under self defense are never lost. However if Zimmerman was shown to be the initial aggressor **AND** he'd pushed Martin away **THEN** Zimmerman would have been under a requirement to attempt to disengage before the use of lethal force if such an opportunity (as measured by a reasonable person) presented itself. Such as Zimmerman pushing Martin away. Not committing to one scenario over the other at this piont. I just find that that there are questions (in my mind) I would hope the expert witnesses would address at the Self Defense Hearing or at the jury trial if it gets that far.

Google the law and you will see what I mean by that.



>>>>

Yes if he (Zimmerman) had pushed away, it could have been the cause for disengaugement as you say between the two men after a serious struggle began, but would Zimmerman be in a frame of mind at this point, where he felt that maybe his life was still endanger due to the initial attack, and this because the push had to be made by him in order to get disengaugement, instead of it being made by Martin who could have disengauged also by such a push instead? Where as one of the pushes could have been in order to signal an end to hostilties at this point, and the other would have been to stop an attack that could have been life threatening. Otherwise if Martin would have pushed off to disengauge, it would have signaled an end to the attack by Martin, otherwise if Martin was the attacker in this senario, and so if Zimmerman would have made the push, then it would have been to save his life somehow by such a push being made. Right?

However, if Zimmerman would have attacked Martin lets say, then the push off by Zimmerman could have been a push to somehow get free in the struggle, and this would be because Martin had turned the tide back on him (Zimmerman), and this could have very well been because Martin somehow got the upper hand in the struggle after Zimmerman attacked him, but to shoot Martin after the disengaugement occurred and/or a lull came in the struggle, where Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, well doesn't make much since does it or does it ? I guess it all depends on the fury or anger built up between these two during the struggle, that caused the gun to come out, and a shot to get fired.

I'm not really committed to any sequence of events as a final decision because we have not seen all the information yet. I find a couple of the forensic pieces of evidence interesting and it will be something to watch both at the self defense hearing and at trial (if it gets that far). The prosecution is required to hand over evidence as part of discovery, it is not required to hand over how the prosecution use expert witnesses to explain that evidence.

So we have forensics which indicate that there was some separation between Zimmerman and Martin at the time the shot was fired. It will depend on how the prosecutions (and defeses) expert witnesses present that data to the judge/jury and how it's to be interpreted AND the comparision of that information to Zimmerman's statements given that night to the police.

If the forensics and expert testimony show that the shot could not have occurred while Martin was straddling Zimmerman beating his head on the ground, and **IF** that was Zimmerman's statement - then that will look bad for Zimmerman if his story is that Martin was on toip beating his head into the ground.

The prosecution will ((IMHO) make the case that whether it was Martin or Zimmerman that was disengaging that caused the distance consistent with the forensics, that at that time Martin could not have been beating Zimmerman's head into the ground and therefore no longer presented an imminent treat.

I guess it will go back to who was the initial agressor (threw the first punch or physically made the first contact) in the situation, where as all blame for the death will befall the individual that is proven to be the initial physical aggressor, who made physical contact with the other as an aggressor, and especially so if the initial physical aggressor was the one that was armed in the situation, when the other one wasn't. So it all comes down to who started the physical confrontation first, in which led to one man's death in the struggle that ensued afterwards. Everything else was legal for both men to be doing that night, up until the physical confrontation took place correct ?

You appear to want to focus on just the physical contact as defining the aggressor. However that may not be the case. Under Florida Law (784.011) assault is defined by word or act to do violence, coupled by an apparent ability to do so and committing some threatening act which present an intent to do violence. In other words, the aggressor in an assault situation need not physically strike another person to be guilty of assault.

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate



So, the first question the Judge/Jury in the hearing/trial (respectively) will have to determine is who was the initial aggressor - which is not the same as deciding who struck the first physical blow.



>>>>

So, if Zimmerman was adjudged to be the initial aggressor the Stand Your Ground law would exonerate Martin?

Can that law be used for prosecution as well as defence?
What I mean is, if Zimmerman was the aggressor - meaning that Martin was killed exercising his rights under the SYG law - can Zimmerman face charges under the SYG law?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.

DeeDee's testimony will be allowed. Mark it.

As for the girlfriend's testimony that is a double edge sword for the prosecution and they know it.
On cross examination the defense could show her all of the social network photos and everything out there on him and also the jewelry being found in his locker and every question out there about if he smokes dope and things like that. As for her credibility it is hard to say. What little of value she may have to offer that survives the hearsay rulings of inadmissable by the Judge is probably moot. It will be nothing related to Zimmerman's self defense claims and does nothing to attack that. I do not see her hurting Zimmerman very little if any.
And here is why:
Add in the fact that she may have had conversations with Al Sharpton and His Race Pimp Brigade, tailored her version of the events according to their set of facts and the stench that brings for the prosecution's credibility to the jury. All things the defense would vigorously attack. Martin's girlfriend is what we call a low contribution, very high risk witness for the prosecution.

The value of the girlfriends testimony of course is something we will have to wait and see. There are two possible scenario's, one the defense has no chance of keeping out, the other maybe kept out as hearsay or it may be allowed in because the individual is not available.

1A. The part of the statement/testimony that will undoubtedly be allowed in pertains to her direct testimony about the facts surrounding the phone call. One, the phone call did occur. Two she was on the phone with Martin with what could be called the pursuit phase of the event (during the time Zimmerman was in his truck, through exiting, and coming into contact with Martin. Phone records show she was on the phone with Martin from approximately 19:12 to 19:16, police reports how the police arrived on scene at 19:17 and Martin was already shot.

1B. Even if the Judge excludes what she said Martin said, he testimony about hearing another man's voice over the phone will not be excluded because that is not hearsay, that is her direct testimony of what she directly heard.

2. The second element of testimony would be the part that will be challenged by the defense as hearsay, the prosecution will call for it to be admitted. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, section 90.803 and section 90.804 provide a whole list of exceptions to the hearsay rule.​

Even without Martin's portion of the conversation being repeated by the girlfriend, her testimony can be important depending on Zimmerman's statements to police that night, statements given prior to knowing that the girlfriends call even existed. If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped out and attacked him then the girlfriends testimony would be in direct conflict with that statement has the prosecution will argue that he would not have been hiding and carrying on a conversation at that same time, an argument that has nothing to do with hearsay as it has no basis in what Martin told her. Secondly she will be able to speak directly to the second voice she heard, the fact that the second voice was heard again has nothing to do with hearsay. The judge would probably even let her testify as to the content of what she heard the other voice say because Zimmerman will be available at trial and could take the stand to rebut her testimony.


So the importance of the girlfriend being on the phone with Martin at the time of the event does not rest solely on her repeating what Martin said.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, if Zimmerman was adjudged to be the initial aggressor the Stand Your Ground law would exonerate Martin?

Theoretically "yes" if you mean by "exonerate" that if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor then under the SYG law Martin had no requirement to retreat and was authorized to use force to defend himself from an aggressor.

Can that law be used for prosecution as well as defence? What I mean is, if Zimmerman was the aggressor - meaning that Martin was killed exercising his rights under the SYG law - can Zimmerman face charges under the SYG law?

IMHO - No, SYG provides for defense only.

Generally speaking, prosecution of the aggressor would be under the applicable sections of the criminal code for assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, etc.


Which, being ignorant of the law but willing to learn, I find interesting about the prosecutions charging in the case. If they are going to try to make the case that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and that Martin was therefore defending himself - seems like they should have charged Zimmerman with the lesser offenses as a basis for the charge resulting in the shooting of Martin, which I think Murder 2 is overcharged. Under a heat of the moment scenario, assault followed by battery, leading to Manslaughter could be understandable. But Murder 2 with no lesser charges? Doesn't make sense to me.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.

DeeDee's testimony will be allowed. Mark it.

As for the girlfriend's testimony that is a double edge sword for the prosecution and they know it.
On cross examination the defense could show her all of the social network photos and everything out there on him and also the jewelry being found in his locker and every question out there about if he smokes dope and things like that. As for her credibility it is hard to say. What little of value she may have to offer that survives the hearsay rulings of inadmissable by the Judge is probably moot. It will be nothing related to Zimmerman's self defense claims and does nothing to attack that. I do not see her hurting Zimmerman very little if any.
And here is why:
Add in the fact that she may have had conversations with Al Sharpton and His Race Pimp Brigade, tailored her version of the events according to their set of facts and the stench that brings for the prosecution's credibility to the jury. All things the defense would vigorously attack. Martin's girlfriend is what we call a low contribution, very high risk witness for the prosecution.

The value of the girlfriends testimony of course is something we will have to wait and see. There are two possible scenario's, one the defense has no chance of keeping out, the other maybe kept out as hearsay or it may be allowed in because the individual is not available.

1A. The part of the statement/testimony that will undoubtedly be allowed in pertains to her direct testimony about the facts surrounding the phone call. One, the phone call did occur. Two she was on the phone with Martin with what could be called the pursuit phase of the event (during the time Zimmerman was in his truck, through exiting, and coming into contact with Martin. Phone records show she was on the phone with Martin from approximately 19:12 to 19:16, police reports how the police arrived on scene at 19:17 and Martin was already shot.

1B. Even if the Judge excludes what she said Martin said, he testimony about hearing another man's voice over the phone will not be excluded because that is not hearsay, that is her direct testimony of what she directly heard.

2. The second element of testimony would be the part that will be challenged by the defense as hearsay, the prosecution will call for it to be admitted. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, section 90.803 and section 90.804 provide a whole list of exceptions to the hearsay rule.​

Even without Martin's portion of the conversation being repeated by the girlfriend, her testimony can be important depending on Zimmerman's statements to police that night, statements given prior to knowing that the girlfriends call even existed. If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped out and attacked him then the girlfriends testimony would be in direct conflict with that statement has the prosecution will argue that he would not have been hiding and carrying on a conversation at that same time, an argument that has nothing to do with hearsay as it has no basis in what Martin told her. Secondly she will be able to speak directly to the second voice she heard, the fact that the second voice was heard again has nothing to do with hearsay. The judge would probably even let her testify as to the content of what she heard the other voice say because Zimmerman will be available at trial and could take the stand to rebut her testimony.


So the importance of the girlfriend being on the phone with Martin at the time of the event does not rest solely on her repeating what Martin said.



>>>>

I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?
"Did you know that Trayvon Martin smoked marijuana?"
"Did you know he was caught with stolen jewlery in his locker at school?"
"Why was he not in school that day? How many times had he been expelled from school?"
And everything else along those lines of questioning on cross.
They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.

 

[paperview]

Very soon we'll be privy to six phone calls made in Jail, and from what's being said, it doesn't look good for the Tugboat family.

SANFORD, Fla. - Six phone calls are among the evidence expected to be released Monday in the case against George Zimmerman.


Prosecutors say the conversations, which were made between Zimmermand and his wife, show the couple tried to hide a six-figure defense fund from the court.

The conversations led to the state moving to revoke Zimmerman's bond. They also prompted a perjury charge against Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, after she testified at a bond hearing that the pair had no significant funds for a defense.

According to investigators, the Zimmermans talked about moving tens of thousands of dollars that had been donated to a personal website.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, says the perjury charge is frustrating because it prohibits Shellie Zimmerman from taking the stand at her husband's bond hearing.

Read more: Another round of evidence expected in George Zimmerman case | Trayvon Martin - WESH Home
​

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes, but looking at the human nature side of it, what would you had done if were Zimmerman looking to keep enough money to get a new start on, and this once this thing was all said and done ?

That's a piss-poor excuse. It does not matter why he broke the law. The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court. Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?

His lie got him out of jail ?

Are you paying attention? How can you not already know that? Zimmerman was arrested and was in custody. He had a bail hearing, and his deceit helped secure him a relatively low bail amount, which he was all too willing to pay, without having to dip significantly into his available funds.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.

As for the girlfriend's testimony that is a double edge sword for the prosecution and they know it.
On cross examination the defense could show her all of the social network photos and everything out there on him and also the jewelry being found in his locker and every question out there about if he smokes dope and things like that. As for her credibility it is hard to say. What little of value she may have to offer that survives the hearsay rulings of inadmissable by the Judge is probably moot. It will be nothing related to Zimmerman's self defense claims and does nothing to attack that. I do not see her hurting Zimmerman very little if any.
And here is why:
Add in the fact that she may have had conversations with Al Sharpton and His Race Pimp Brigade, tailored her version of the events according to their set of facts and the stench that brings for the prosecution's credibility to the jury. All things the defense would vigorously attack. Martin's girlfriend is what we call a low contribution, very high risk witness for the prosecution.

The value of the girlfriends testimony of course is something we will have to wait and see. There are two possible scenario's, one the defense has no chance of keeping out, the other maybe kept out as hearsay or it may be allowed in because the individual is not available.

1A. The part of the statement/testimony that will undoubtedly be allowed in pertains to her direct testimony about the facts surrounding the phone call. One, the phone call did occur. Two she was on the phone with Martin with what could be called the pursuit phase of the event (during the time Zimmerman was in his truck, through exiting, and coming into contact with Martin. Phone records show she was on the phone with Martin from approximately 19:12 to 19:16, police reports how the police arrived on scene at 19:17 and Martin was already shot.

1B. Even if the Judge excludes what she said Martin said, he testimony about hearing another man's voice over the phone will not be excluded because that is not hearsay, that is her direct testimony of what she directly heard.

2. The second element of testimony would be the part that will be challenged by the defense as hearsay, the prosecution will call for it to be admitted. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, section 90.803 and section 90.804 provide a whole list of exceptions to the hearsay rule.​

Even without Martin's portion of the conversation being repeated by the girlfriend, her testimony can be important depending on Zimmerman's statements to police that night, statements given prior to knowing that the girlfriends call even existed. If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped out and attacked him then the girlfriends testimony would be in direct conflict with that statement has the prosecution will argue that he would not have been hiding and carrying on a conversation at that same time, an argument that has nothing to do with hearsay as it has no basis in what Martin told her. Secondly she will be able to speak directly to the second voice she heard, the fact that the second voice was heard again has nothing to do with hearsay. The judge would probably even let her testify as to the content of what she heard the other voice say because Zimmerman will be available at trial and could take the stand to rebut her testimony.


So the importance of the girlfriend being on the phone with Martin at the time of the event does not rest solely on her repeating what Martin said.



>>>>

I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?

The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.

"Did you know that Trayvon Martin smoked marijuana?"

The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.

"Did you know he was caught with stolen jewlery in his locker at school?"

Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement. School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.

"Why was he not in school that day? How many times had he been expelled from school?"

Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.

And everything else along those lines of questioning on cross.

None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.

They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.

Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else. If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Very soon we'll be privy to six phone calls made in Jail, and from what's being said, it doesn't look good for the Tugboat family.

SANFORD, Fla. - Six phone calls are among the evidence expected to be released Monday in the case against George Zimmerman.


Prosecutors say the conversations, which were made between Zimmermand and his wife, show the couple tried to hide a six-figure defense fund from the court.

The conversations led to the state moving to revoke Zimmerman's bond. They also prompted a perjury charge against Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, after she testified at a bond hearing that the pair had no significant funds for a defense.

According to investigators, the Zimmermans talked about moving tens of thousands of dollars that had been donated to a personal website.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, says the perjury charge is frustrating because it prohibits Shellie Zimmerman from taking the stand at her husband's bond hearing.

Read more: Another round of evidence expected in George Zimmerman case | Trayvon Martin - WESH Home
​

Old news, this was the basis for her arrest.
Nothing new here.

 

[tinydancer]

It's worse. Zimmerman MUST have murdered Trayvon because a witness failed to reveal that a website had collected money to defend him.

I didn't realize you were this stupid.

It shows that Zimmerman is lying or a very sloppy thinker. Either would cover failing to disclose his assets and shooting an innocent person.

Maybe he was still confused from having his head bashed against the concrete?

omg you have the best avie on the planet. Say no more. I'm laughing again. Thanks for the avie.

 

[paperview]

Here they are guys 'n gals:

http://soundcloud.com/producermatthe...n-jail-house-1

Have at it!

 

[paperview]

Matthew Keys (producermatthew) on Scribd | Scribd

Same jail calls--transcripts.

 

[Gadawg73]

The value of the girlfriends testimony of course is something we will have to wait and see. There are two possible scenario's, one the defense has no chance of keeping out, the other maybe kept out as hearsay or it may be allowed in because the individual is not available.

1A. The part of the statement/testimony that will undoubtedly be allowed in pertains to her direct testimony about the facts surrounding the phone call. One, the phone call did occur. Two she was on the phone with Martin with what could be called the pursuit phase of the event (during the time Zimmerman was in his truck, through exiting, and coming into contact with Martin. Phone records show she was on the phone with Martin from approximately 19:12 to 19:16, police reports how the police arrived on scene at 19:17 and Martin was already shot.

1B. Even if the Judge excludes what she said Martin said, he testimony about hearing another man's voice over the phone will not be excluded because that is not hearsay, that is her direct testimony of what she directly heard.

2. The second element of testimony would be the part that will be challenged by the defense as hearsay, the prosecution will call for it to be admitted. Not all hearsay is inadmissible, section 90.803 and section 90.804 provide a whole list of exceptions to the hearsay rule.​

Even without Martin's portion of the conversation being repeated by the girlfriend, her testimony can be important depending on Zimmerman's statements to police that night, statements given prior to knowing that the girlfriends call even existed. If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped out and attacked him then the girlfriends testimony would be in direct conflict with that statement has the prosecution will argue that he would not have been hiding and carrying on a conversation at that same time, an argument that has nothing to do with hearsay as it has no basis in what Martin told her. Secondly she will be able to speak directly to the second voice she heard, the fact that the second voice was heard again has nothing to do with hearsay. The judge would probably even let her testify as to the content of what she heard the other voice say because Zimmerman will be available at trial and could take the stand to rebut her testimony.


So the importance of the girlfriend being on the phone with Martin at the time of the event does not rest solely on her repeating what Martin said.



>>>>

I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?

The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.



The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.




Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement. School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.




Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.

And everything else along those lines of questioning on cross.

None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.

They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.

Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else. If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>

You should well know the scope of cross examination is far, far greater on leading questions during cross than direct. All of Martin's discussions with her are open if they discuss one conversation. How do we know if ALL of that conversation was about Zimmerman following him? If you allow part of the conversation in with Martin you have to allow ALL of that conversation and that opens the door to ALL other conversations by phone. No way to get around that.
Under Florida statute a defendant can not be limited to his cross examination that mirrors the inquiry of direct examination. IOW, that gives them wide latitude.
The Sixth Amendment GUARANTEES the right of the accused to attack witness' credibility by means of cross examination directed toward revealing possible biases or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate to the case in hand. And the theory of the defense is self defense and that Zimmerman was attacked by an aggressive, out of control young man that has had history of problems in and out of school. Federal case law is clear on this "a trial court may not prohibit cross examination when the facts sought to be elicited are germane to that witness' testimony and plausibly relevant to the theory of the defense." Martin's history is OPEN the second she takes the stand and answers one question about that call. Oh, the prosecution will certainly file a Motion in Limine to ban that line of questioning before the trial but the appellate rulings in Florida are clear on this. It all gets in. They fit under the theory of the defense case law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.

DeeDee's testimony will be allowed. Mark it.

No hearsay evidence is ever allowed in that situation. How can you cross examine "He said"?
Rules of evidence 101.

1. There are times when hearsay is admissible. The fact that you don't know this proves that you don't know even an inkling as much about the law as you pretend to know.

2. It wouldn't be hearsay if Zimmerman testifies.

3. Also, it could be deemed to not be hearsay if the g/f testifies about what Martin said, since Martin is unavailable due to death.

4. It would not be hearsay if the girlfriend does not attempt to identify Zimmerman.

 

[paperview]

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
#GeorgeZimmerman says it doesn't matter if car that picks him up from jail has tinted windows. "Well, I have my hoodie."

 

[Gadawg73]

DeeDee's testimony will be allowed. Mark it.

No hearsay evidence is ever allowed in that situation. How can you cross examine "He said"?
Rules of evidence 101.

1. There are times when hearsay is admissible. The fact that you don't know this proves that you don't know even an inkling as much about the law as you pretend to know.

2. It wouldn't be hearsay if Zimmerman testifies.

3. Also, it could be deemed to not be hearsay if the g/f testifies about what Martin said, since Martin is unavailable due to death.

4. It would not be hearsay if the girlfriend does not attempt to identify Zimmerman.

1. Never said it wasn't.
2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN?
3. You are ignorant.
4. " " " ".
Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.

 

[tinydancer]

That's a piss-poor excuse. It does not matter why he broke the law. The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court. Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?

His lie got him out of jail ?

Are you paying attention? How can you not already know that? Zimmerman was arrested and was in custody. He had a bail hearing, and his deceit helped secure him a relatively low bail amount, which he was all too willing to pay, without having to dip significantly into his available funds.

Every one is freaking now, what would be a fair amount?

What would be a bail amount that any black man could agree on? We already Know every man wants to hang him high aka asswipes out of Karengas crew.

 

[Inthemiddle]

1. Never said it wasn't.

Yes, you did.

2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN?

The g/f's statements have said that she heard someone talking to Martin.

3. You are ignorant.

No response, noted. Seems you don't know what you're talking about.

Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.

Again, no response. You're reduced to meaningless insults. Sums up the validity of your entire position.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?

The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.



The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.




Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement. School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.




Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.




None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.

They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.

Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else. If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>

You should well know the scope of cross examination is far, far greater on leading questions during cross than direct. All of Martin's discussions with her are open if they discuss one conversation. How do we know if ALL of that conversation was about Zimmerman following him? If you allow part of the conversation in with Martin you have to allow ALL of that conversation and that opens the door to ALL other conversations by phone. No way to get around that.
Under Florida statute a defendant can not be limited to his cross examination that mirrors the inquiry of direct examination. IOW, that gives them wide latitude.
The Sixth Amendment GUARANTEES the right of the accused to attack witness' credibility by means of cross examination directed toward revealing possible biases or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate to the case in hand. And the theory of the defense is self defense and that Zimmerman was attacked by an aggressive, out of control young man that has had history of problems in and out of school. Federal case law is clear on this "a trial court may not prohibit cross examination when the facts sought to be elicited are germane to that witness' testimony and plausibly relevant to the theory of the defense." Martin's history is OPEN the second she takes the stand and answers one question about that call. Oh, the prosecution will certainly file a Motion in Limine to ban that line of questioning before the trial but the appellate rulings in Florida are clear on this. It all gets in. They fit under the theory of the defense case law.

We'll have to see how it plays out in court, I know you are one of the good guys and so personally I give weight to you postings - unlike some others that just want to rant and insult.

I think there will be a distinct difference if she answers questions about the fact that the call existed and that she heard another male voice as opposed to being questioned on the content of what Martin said. The existence of the phone call and how it fit's into or conflicts with Zimmerman's story to the police that night will be very important.

Personally I assume the persecution plans on going into content so it will be interesting to see how that proceeds.


>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
#GeorgeZimmerman says it doesn't matter if car that picks him up from jail has tinted windows. "Well, I have my hoodie."

The prosecution is toast.

No brainer.