Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Judge Debra Nelson needs to learn her case law again, by reading State of Florida v. Lumarque, 44 So.3d 171 (2010) which was decided by the Third District Court:
The language of Lumarque is quite specific that to authenticate a text message does not require an ID by the author of the message. It cites U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) in that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be. It does not require an ID. Debra Nelson is out of line as of tonight. She has opened herself up wide to an appeal on this issue, and I know for sure she is going to deny this evidence into admission.
Are you denying that you said Zimmerman had a broken nose?
The initial police report indicated that he was bleeding form the nose... Broken or not,he had blood coming out of his nose so DNA was on the front and back of his head. Any more stupid questions? I'm still waiting for that link to my non existent "theory."
Did you watch the trial today? We already knew it was raining, which could easily have washed any DNA off of Martin's hands, or are you going to try to rewrite the weather? It also came out that the ME did something that only happens on TV shows, they stored the wet clothes from both Zimmerman and Martin in sealed plastic bags. I will leave it to you to do some basic research on why you do not store organic material in plastic bags.
Judge Debra Nelson needs to learn her case law again, by reading State of Florida v. Lumarque, 44 So.3d 171 (2010) which was decided by the Third District Court:
The language of Lumarque is quite specific that to authenticate a text message does not require an ID by the author of the message. It cites U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) in that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be. It does not require an ID. Debra Nelson is out of line as of tonight. She has opened herself up wide to an appeal on this issue, and I know for sure she is going to deny this evidence into admission.
I could obviously be wrong, but I don't think the defense wants to use any of this stuff. I think they are arguing to get all of these things admitted to hedge their bets. Kind of calling Nelson's bluff. Either admit it when you don't want to, or we will overturn the conviction on appeal.
Judge Debra Nelson needs to learn her case law again, by reading State of Florida v. Lumarque, 44 So.3d 171 (2010) which was decided by the Third District Court:
The language of Lumarque is quite specific that to authenticate a text message does not require an ID by the author of the message. It cites U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) in that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be. It does not require an ID. Debra Nelson is out of line as of tonight. She has opened herself up wide to an appeal on this issue, and I know for sure she is going to deny this evidence into admission.
I could obviously be wrong, but I don't think the defense wants to use any of this stuff. I think they are arguing to get all of these things admitted to hedge their bets. Kind of calling Nelson's bluff. Either admit it when you don't want to, or we will overturn the conviction on appeal.
She didn't mind citing caselaw which allowed her to call it an "authentication issue" I think they need to slap her with this. Make her know that she can't just run people over in the courtroom.
I could obviously be wrong, but I don't think the defense wants to use any of this stuff. I think they are arguing to get all of these things admitted to hedge their bets. Kind of calling Nelson's bluff. Either admit it when you don't want to, or we will overturn the conviction on appeal.
She didn't mind citing caselaw which allowed her to call it an "authentication issue" I think they need to slap her with this. Make her know that she can't just run people over in the courtroom.
She can really do whatever she wants, but that doesn't mean it can hold up. I think that by not granting, or at least considering the Judgment of Acquittal that she opened up reversible error. Along with the 5 pending unprofessional conduct hearings related to the prosecution after the case is over. Plus Mr. Crump may end up disbarred over this. Saw O'Mara on CNN the other night and he has a hard on for Crump. He will follow up on charges.
The initial police report indicated that he was bleeding form the nose... Broken or not,he had blood coming out of his nose so DNA was on the front and back of his head. Any more stupid questions? I'm still waiting for that link to my non existent "theory."
Did you watch the trial today? We already knew it was raining, which could easily have washed any DNA off of Martin's hands, or are you going to try to rewrite the weather? It also came out that the ME did something that only happens on TV shows, they stored the wet clothes from both Zimmerman and Martin in sealed plastic bags. I will leave it to you to do some basic research on why you do not store organic material in plastic bags.
It was not a downpour! From what I have seen It was drizzling! The first police officer arrived on the scene in less than a minute after the shooting. That being said, she might have been able to preserve any fragile evidence that would have been washed away in the rain if not for securing GZ first! The 2nd officer arrived seconds later and performed CPR on Martin so the preservation of evidence was not his top priority either.
As far as your plastic bags: K.I.S.S. M.Y. A.S.S. I'll leave that acronym up to you to figure out!
Ok, get Limbaugh's testicles out of your eyes so you can read this:
This case HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH STAND YOUR GROUND. That is exactly what Martin did. Zimmerman was the THREAT, not Martin! TM stood his ground to neutralize that threat. Sadly, the aggressor had a gun and used it, apparently when he was getting his ass whipped!
Now; after you have finished swallowing the juice you sucked out of Hannity's underpants,
this ought to go down real easy for ya:
In regard to STALKING:
After reviewing the Florida Statues I noticed that 784.048 (1) (b,) seems to define "repeatedly" as applicable to Florida state law:
Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. "
Interpretation is crucial here. Perhaps the Florida Supreme Court would be the ultimate authority to decide if GZ's actions warrants the application of the above rule. The writers of this law included the phrase "however short" in the law and thereby invalidated any necessity to violate the statute by following or harassing someone for days or weeks.
I think it would be reasonable to say that the series of acts instigated by GZ on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin would satisfy the legal definition of the word "repeatedly."
1. Spotting and trailing Martin in his vehicle.
2. Getting out of his vehicle to follow Martin further.
3. Chasing Martin.
4. Approaching Martin , engaging and shooting him.
*
Suffice it to say, JQPubic, that your ignorance knows no bounds.
The case has ZERO to do with "stand your ground."
You have lapped up the uninformed blather of the silly main stream lolberal media.
Stand your ground means you are not required to run away if you are able to do so in safety.
But when some guy is ON TOP of you, pounding you, the question of running away is utterly moot.
You remain entirely wrong.
Laughably so.
My "ignorance" has bounds alright The "bounds" are the four corners of your square head.
If it escapes that tight confine then I might be concerned.
Do you have any link to back up that knee jerk definition you just coughed up! Keep in mind that we are talking about Florida law not any other state.
If I am wrong give me something to prove I am wrong. I am not interested in your gut feelings or excerpts from the KKK debate team's perspective on this matter!~
The initial police report indicated that he was bleeding form the nose... Broken or not,he had blood coming out of his nose so DNA was on the front and back of his head. Any more stupid questions? I'm still waiting for that link to my non existent "theory."
Did you watch the trial today? We already knew it was raining, which could easily have washed any DNA off of Martin's hands, or are you going to try to rewrite the weather? It also came out that the ME did something that only happens on TV shows, they stored the wet clothes from both Zimmerman and Martin in sealed plastic bags. I will leave it to you to do some basic research on why you do not store organic material in plastic bags.
Quick question..................have you ever washed blood off of YOUR hands?
Even when I've only had my own blood on my hands, it was pretty hard to wash off.
Sorry....................but your "theory" doesn't really hold water.
What Judge Nelson fails to acknowledge is that its the accused entitled to due process, not the jury or to herself!
This one was new to me.
Zimmerman's holster was "really" a concealed carry type. Meaning it was worn on the inside of his pants. And according to the video, he wore it in back above his buttocks on his left side.
Which almost completely destroys another part of Zimmerman's story. That Martin saw the gun.
It would mean that either Martin had xray night vision..or that's another inconsistency.
So if it were impossible for martin to see the weapon in the struggle, why didn't the prosecution make the point and prove the point?
What Judge Nelson fails to acknowledge is that it’s the accused entitled to due process, not the jury or to herself!
Guess that would go in the don't know your rights thread too. She apparently is unaware of the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution.
So if it were impossible for martin to see the weapon in the struggle, why didn't the prosecution make the point and prove the point?
It hasn't come up yet because Zimmerman hasn't testified.
That specific moment needs to come up so that the prosecution can question it.
