The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[jon_berzerk]

it's testarosa's fault.

--lol

You guyz are funny.

thanks

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

She ruled no. Shoot! No mistrial on this one.

Decision reached on George Zimmerman case voice expert testimony - YouTube

i wonder how she will rule

on the self serving hearsay rule

 

[testarosa]

Finally had a chance to watch part of this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MhzN7-LEc]Zimmerman Trial - BIG NEWS - Court FORBIDS Prosecutor Saying RACIAL Profiling In Opening Statement - YouTube[/ame]

I'm taking the 5th.

 

[testarosa]

She ruled no. Shoot! No mistrial on this one.

Decision reached on George Zimmerman case voice expert testimony - YouTube

i wonder how she will rule

on the self serving hearsay rule

I can take a big guess.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

OT: I got my first neg!!!!! WOOT!!!!

I think I'm a Real Member now.

It doesn't say anything though. If you're going to neg me, do a good one or at least give me a frowny face.

Did it tell you what post it was for? I'm gonna guess and say it was a 'hater' that doesn't like facts and would rather make shit up.

 

[testarosa]

--lol

You guyz are funny.

thanks

--LOL

As long as you're bringing your bow, you have a totally free pass and as many reps as I've got.

 

[jon_berzerk]

She ruled no. Shoot! No mistrial on this one.

Decision reached on George Zimmerman case voice expert testimony - YouTube

i wonder how she will rule

on the self serving hearsay rule

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

 

[testarosa]

OT: I got my first neg!!!!! WOOT!!!!

I think I'm a Real Member now.

It doesn't say anything though. If you're going to neg me, do a good one or at least give me a frowny face.

Did it tell you what post it was for? I'm gonna guess and say it was a 'hater' that doesn't like facts and would rather make shit up.

No, but I'm pretty sure I get the gist of it, there was some "you're a fucking asshole" whoo-haaa preceding it.

So no talky talky about negs is the rule or you look like a wuss. But it was my first, so I'm taking a pass.

 

[jon_berzerk]

OT: I got my first neg!!!!! WOOT!!!!

I think I'm a Real Member now.

It doesn't say anything though. If you're going to neg me, do a good one or at least give me a frowny face.

Did it tell you what post it was for? I'm gonna guess and say it was a 'hater' that doesn't like facts and would rather make shit up.

No, but I'm pretty sure I get the gist of it, there was some "you're a fucking asshole" whoo-haaa preceding it.

So no talky talky about negs is the rule or you look like a wuss. But it was my first, so I'm taking a pass.

there is a thread where you can post them

so everyone can laugh at them

--LOL

 

[testarosa]

i wonder how she will rule

on the self serving hearsay rule

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

 

[testarosa]

And actually on that chess thing - there is a reason M O'M /West pushed his order argument without written that hit the button. I'm wondering how much chess is going on here. M O'M practices law in that area and so has gone before this judge and knows her. 35:15 on the video - are they doing this on purpose?

Hmmm. Strategy?

Not sure yet.

Game going on for sure.

 

[jon_berzerk]

no, but i'm pretty sure i get the gist of it, there was some "you're a fucking asshole" whoo-haaa preceding it.

So no talky talky about negs is the rule or you look like a wuss. But it was my first, so i'm taking a pass.

there is a thread where you can post them

so everyone can laugh at them

--lol

well mine was blank, so i'm kinda pissed about that. Neg me! Set the bar. Lol

--lol

 

[jon_berzerk]

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

the state does not want to let in what

zimmerman said to a witness at the scene

immediately after the shooting

 

[testarosa]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] Common or rare for a judge to have appellate reverse a motion in the middle of trial? Normal stuff? I just came off the Jodi trial and zero reversals. I need your law brains.

 

[testarosa]

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

the state does not want to let in what

zimmerman said to a witness at the scene

immediately after the shooting

Yeah I know. But it's either going to go one way or the other and so far it's going this way:

<<<<<<

 

[Snookie]

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

Always has been a game, but it's checkers for some.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

I ruling for the prosecution means the defense can't enter into self-serving claims made by Zimmerman after the event, of course the ruling goes for the defense the of course they can.

Such a ruling only applies to Zimmerman's self-serving statements, it would not limit the prosecution or defense from calling the witness to testify about what they say and heard about the event. Zimmerman would still be free to take the stand and say what he said to witnesses after the event (because his own direct utterances is not "hearsay").



>>>>

 

[Sunshine]

[MENTION=21954]Sunshine[/MENTION] Common or rare for a judge to have appellate reverse a motion in the middle of trial? Normal stuff? I just came off the Jodi trial and zero reversals. I need your law brains.

It does happen, but is not an everyday thing. Court rulings can go up for appeal while the trial in the lower court is actually in process. That is called an interlocutory appeal. It is generally for civil cases, but there are states that allow the interlocutory appeal in criminal cases as well.

Interlocutory appeal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jon_berzerk]

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

I ruling for the prosecution means the defense can't enter into self-serving claims made by Zimmerman after the event, of course the ruling goes for the defense the of course they can.

Such a ruling only applies to Zimmerman's self-serving statements, it would not limit the prosecution or defense from calling the witness to testify about what they say and heard about the event. Zimmerman would still be free to take the stand and say what he said to witnesses after the event (because his own direct utterances is not "hearsay").



>>>>

i am not sure but i would imagine that

the hearsay rules will apply across the board

 

[Sunshine]

I can take a big guess.

the rule is used more in federal cases

the state does not want to allow it

except for instances where they do

however it would aid zimmerman at the crime scene

Shit, this case is so fucked up for a fair trial.

I don't know how she is going to rule, anyone's guess, totally unpredictable.

You can't pick and choose your hearsay.

If she throws that, there leaves a gigantic hole. The witness statements are totally believable and mostly in sync and give the other puzzle pieces to the injuries to paint the full picture.

If she rules no, it's going to appellate and she's lost once.

Maybe that's why she's thinking on it so hard.

IDK. The actual process is far more interesting to me on this one than the outcome. It's all a game of chess.

It's not really that fickle. Generally hearsay is not allowed, but most states have procedural rules about what kind of hearsay is allowed in. Here are the hearsay exceptions in Tennessee where I went to law school:

Rule 803: Hearsay Exceptions. | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

Here are Florida's hearsay exceptions:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine