|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 29 2013 07:27 crms wrote:
Am I bias or are all these news articles full of shit? I swear it's like me and the news media are watching very, very different testimonies. Having actually watched for myself I find it impossible to read this nonsense. How are some of these 'reports' even legal?
we are all biased, but news media gets paid to be and they do a very good job at it
|
On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole.
A FL lawyer claims here that the defence might be able to enter "General reputation" evidence of Trayvon's character, as this is a self-defence case, to portray Trayvon as more likely to have been the aggressor in the case. Note that this is the same guy doing the writeups on legalinsurrection.com, he wrote a book on self defence law (haven't read it, don't intend to) and he is more than slightly biased towards the defense's side of the case, but he does seem to know his stuff. He does cite a case and spout a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/can-prosecution-keep-trayvons-history-of-violence-and-drug-use-from-jury-yes-and-no/.
Do you think he is accurate here?
|
On June 29 2013 07:22 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 29 2013 06:52 Dosey wrote:On June 29 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 29 2013 06:45 SKC wrote:
I still think it is weird the prosecutor was able to focus so much on MMA. well, his physical abilities are relevant to whether he actually feared for his safety. a MMA fighter and a short, obese man are going to have differing opinions on whether their life is in danger when in a fist fight. I find it interesting that Zimmerman's past as a practitioner of MMA is totally relevant while Martin's past as a... for lack of a better term, "thug", isn't. zimmerman's physical abilities are relevant because he is claiming he feared for his safety, and his physical abilities are relevant to that fear. trayvon's physical abilities are also relevant to that as well (i.e., if travyon was trained in MMA then it would likely be relevant). trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole. I'd say that Trayvon's experience in fighting is totally relevant if Zimmerman's MMA is supposed to be. Someone who "practices" MMA isn't going to be prepared to fight someone who fights on the street on a regular basis. In MMA you have rules, gear, referees, time limits, etc... on the streets there are no rules.
this is where you need good lawyers.
"it is relevant to show that trayvon is a violent kid who was looking for fights and obviously started the fight with zimmernan." -- not going to be admitted; its character evidence
"it is relevant to show that trayvon was experienced in fighting, which zimmerman encountered firsthand while he was being grounded and pounded, and to allow the jury to know that despite the prosecutor's portrayal of trayvon as a skinny child with less weight than zimmerman that trayvon was truly experienced in fighting and able to do the things zimmerman alleged he did." -- still very questionable, but at least the judge will think about it.
nothing is concrete in law; there are always gray areas, which is where trial advocacy and judges come in. also, you can "open the door" to otherwise inadmissible evidence. for example, during the testimony O'Mara asked (i'm paraphrasing) the lady if she knew of any violent tendencies of zimmerman, and she said no. the prosecutor then tried to get in evidence of zimmerman's previous arrests/crimes to show that zimmerman is a dangerous person. the court eventually didn't allow it after a hearing outside the presence of the jury--i believe because the woman didn't know about those things and couldnt testify about them.
|
On June 29 2013 07:31 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole. A FL lawyer claims here that the defence might be able to enter "General reputation" evidence of Trayvon's character, as this is a self-defence case, to portray Trayvon as more likely to have been the aggressor in the case. Note that this is the same guy doing the writeups on legalinsurrection.com, he wrote a book on self defence law (haven't read it, don't intend to) and he is more than slightly biased towards the defense's side of the case, but he does seem to know his stuff. He does cite a case and spout a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo. http://lawofselfdefense.com/can-prosecution-keep-trayvons-history-of-violence-and-drug-use-from-jury-yes-and-no/. Do you think he is accurate here?
Frankly, I agree that the evidence should have come in. However, the judge has already ruled that it is to be excluded.
|
On June 29 2013 07:36 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I agree that the evidence should have come in. However, the judge has already ruled that it is to be excluded.
I think (I could be wrong, I don't want to look it up) it was just excluded from the opening statement, and the judge stated she would decide on the other evidence as the situations dictate.
My followup question was going to be, how do you present General reputation evidence without mentioning specific incidences, do you call a few kids in his school and have them hop on the stand and talk about how they feel about being in a dark alley with Trayvon at night?
|
On June 29 2013 07:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:31 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole. A FL lawyer claims here that the defence might be able to enter "General reputation" evidence of Trayvon's character, as this is a self-defence case, to portray Trayvon as more likely to have been the aggressor in the case. Note that this is the same guy doing the writeups on legalinsurrection.com, he wrote a book on self defence law (haven't read it, don't intend to) and he is more than slightly biased towards the defense's side of the case, but he does seem to know his stuff. He does cite a case and spout a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo. http://lawofselfdefense.com/can-prosecution-keep-trayvons-history-of-violence-and-drug-use-from-jury-yes-and-no/. Do you think he is accurate here? Frankly, I agree that the evidence should have come in. However, the judge has already ruled that it is to be excluded.
Now that I think about it, the judge probably did the Defense a favor by excluding this testimony. Think about what the jury has heard so far. Jeantel's testimony totally paints Trayvon like a thug. Trayvon's dress doesn't improve this image at all. The jury is now left to wonder just how bad Trayvon was. I'm not sure that the evidence that the Defense would have offered would paint Trayvon in a worse light than that in which the jury may already perceive him.
|
On June 29 2013 07:31 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole. A FL lawyer claims here that the defence might be able to enter "General reputation" evidence of Trayvon's character, as this is a self-defence case, to portray Trayvon as more likely to have been the aggressor in the case. Note that this is the same guy doing the writeups on legalinsurrection.com, he wrote a book on self defence law (haven't read it, don't intend to) and he is more than slightly biased towards the defense's side of the case, but he does seem to know his stuff. He does cite a case and spout a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo. http://lawofselfdefense.com/can-prosecution-keep-trayvons-history-of-violence-and-drug-use-from-jury-yes-and-no/. Do you think he is accurate here?
i skimmed the article and it looks accurate; i am not an expert on Florida law in the least bit. he says that specific acts (i.e., trayvon got into a fight previously) are not allowed, but reputation (i.e., trayvon is a dangerous dude generally) is allowed. in california (where i am), i am pretty sure neither is allowed, but i will express ignorance as to Florida law. the case he cites does seem to allow it, and i havent looked for contradictory laws:
The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. Reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim’s reputation in the community. . . . the purpose of specific acts evidence in a self-defense case is to demonstrate the reasonableness of the defendant’s fear at the time of the incident. Because the defendant’s state of mind is at issue, before the defendant may introduce specific acts allegedly committed by the victim, he must show that he had prior knowledge of these acts.
Munoz v. State, 45 So.3d 954 (FL Ct. App. 2010)
florida always has been the asshole of america when it comes to laws, so i am not terribly surprised. ;-) bear in mind that this only addresses whether its excluded as character evidence, and does not do the balancing test for probative/prejudicial, which i assume Florida has as well. plus, the judge has already tentatively excluded such evidence until the defense can show relevance. whether it comes in remains to be seen.
edit: California has same rule for criminal cases. i am uninformed. =)
|
On June 29 2013 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:36 xDaunt wrote:On June 29 2013 07:31 FatChicksUnited wrote:On June 29 2013 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
trayvon's past bad acts and reputation are "relevant" but excluded as character evidence based on policy reasons. evidence of bad acts and reputation do not show that the victim (or even defendant) acted in conformity therewith at the relevant time, and tend to focus the jury's attention on whether the victim/defendant are a bad person generally instead of whether they were a bad person at the time that is relevant. as i have previously stated, if a bully is killed by a previous victim who lay in wait to kill him with considerable premediation, we dont want the jury letting off the previous victim because the bully is an asshole. A FL lawyer claims here that the defence might be able to enter "General reputation" evidence of Trayvon's character, as this is a self-defence case, to portray Trayvon as more likely to have been the aggressor in the case. Note that this is the same guy doing the writeups on legalinsurrection.com, he wrote a book on self defence law (haven't read it, don't intend to) and he is more than slightly biased towards the defense's side of the case, but he does seem to know his stuff. He does cite a case and spout a whole lot of legal mumbo-jumbo. http://lawofselfdefense.com/can-prosecution-keep-trayvons-history-of-violence-and-drug-use-from-jury-yes-and-no/. Do you think he is accurate here? Frankly, I agree that the evidence should have come in. However, the judge has already ruled that it is to be excluded. Now that I think about it, the judge probably did the Defense a favor by excluding this testimony. Think about what the jury has heard so far. Jeantel's testimony totally paints Trayvon like a thug. Trayvon's dress doesn't improve this image at all. The jury is now left to wonder just how bad Trayvon was. I'm not sure that the evidence that the Defense would have offered would paint Trayvon in a worse light than that in which the jury may already perceive him.
showing pictures of him holding a gun would do it. Look, in my eyes, jeantel was a dumb ass, but being dumb doesn't mean ur also a thug.
|
On June 29 2013 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Now that I think about it, the judge probably did the Defense a favor by excluding this testimony. Think about what the jury has heard so far. Jeantel's testimony totally paints Trayvon like a thug. Trayvon's dress doesn't improve this image at all. The jury is now left to wonder just how bad Trayvon was. I'm not sure that the evidence that the Defense would have offered would paint Trayvon in a worse light than that in which the jury may already perceive him.
Good point.
If we take that a bit further, are juries instructed as to the laws of evidence? Are they explained to that the defence cannot present Trayvon character evidence without the prosecution opening the door first? Might they wonder why nobody is talking about what a sweet kid Trayvon was, and how he isn't the type to get into these situations?
|
On June 29 2013 07:46 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:41 xDaunt wrote:
Now that I think about it, the judge probably did the Defense a favor by excluding this testimony. Think about what the jury has heard so far. Jeantel's testimony totally paints Trayvon like a thug. Trayvon's dress doesn't improve this image at all. The jury is now left to wonder just how bad Trayvon was. I'm not sure that the evidence that the Defense would have offered would paint Trayvon in a worse light than that in which the jury may already perceive him. Good point. If we take that a bit further, are juries instructed as to the laws of evidence? Are they explained to that the defence cannot present Trayvon character evidence without the prosecution opening the door first? Might they wonder why nobody is talking about what a sweet kid Trayvon was, and how he isn't the type to get into these situations?
no. court controls what evidence comes in and jurors are instructed only to consider the evidence that came in during the trial.
|
The more I watch, the more it feels like the defense attorneys outclass the prosecution in legal expertise.
One seems far more refined than the other.
|
On June 29 2013 07:40 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 07:36 xDaunt wrote:
Frankly, I agree that the evidence should have come in. However, the judge has already ruled that it is to be excluded. I think (I could be wrong, I don't want to look it up) it was just excluded from the opening statement, and the judge stated she would decide on the other evidence as the situations dictate. My followup question was going to be, how do you present General reputation evidence without mentioning specific incidences, do you call a few kids in his school and have them hop on the stand and talk about how they feel about being in a dark alley with Trayvon at night?
Basically, you ask the witness questions to lay foundation that he existed in the same community as Trayvon and that the community had knowledge of what Trayvon was like. Then you ask the witness to testify about what Trayvon's reputation was like in the community. Of course, this would have to be tightly controlled.
|
On June 29 2013 07:50 LegalLord wrote:
The more I watch, the more it feels like the defense attorneys outclass the prosecution in legal expertise.
One seems far more refined than the other.
Actually, I think that the prosecution has generally been better in terms of technical performance. They just don't have the facts on their side. Hell, the only thing that could have made today worse for the prosecution would have been the ghost of Trayvon appearing in the court room to testify that he jumped Zimmerman.
|
as far as trial presence and presentation, i think O'Mara and the second chair prosecutor are the best; West (?) and the first chair prosecutor don't present very well. the first chair prosecutor seems so disorganized and asks dumb questions; his second chair (who has the easier witnesses) seems much better. west always looks confused and surprised. i like O'Mara and think he should do more of the work, but understand his limitations (lot of work to do all witnesses). i just wish O'Mara didnt look like he was toothless. he reminds me of an old crone.
|
I thought defense had to opportunity to open the door to the character evidence about Trayvon when Rachel mentioned "If you knew Trayvon...". I would think a followup question such as "What specifically about Trayvon are you referring to?" would open the door to character. However, I think the defense is just playing defense on this and letting it be until the prosecution tries to paint Trayvon as a choir boy. In that case, the shizit will hizit the fan.
|
On June 29 2013 08:00 Kaitlin wrote:
I thought defense had to opportunity to open the door to the character evidence about Trayvon when Rachel mentioned "If you knew Trayvon...". I would think a followup question such as "What specifically about Trayvon are you referring to?" would open the door to character. However, I think the defense is just playing defense on this and letting it be until the prosecution tries to paint Trayvon as a choir boy. In that case, the shizit will hizit the fan.
The Defense can't open the door for itself. The State has to.
|
Her comment "if you knew Trayvon" didn't open the door ?
|
On June 29 2013 08:03 Kaitlin wrote:
Her comment "if you knew Trayvon" didn't open the door ?
prosecutor has to open the door, not a witness.
|
Punk ass black kid with reputation for drugs, gold teeth, suspensions and physical assaults gets his brains blown out for assaulting the wrong guy and the world cries the race card. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 29 2013 08:03 Kaitlin wrote:
Her comment "if you knew Trayvon" didn't open the door ?
The State has to ask a question of a witness that results in testimony concerning the forbidden character evidence. If it comes out during the Defense's examination, it doesn't count. That's what I mean when I say "the Defense can't open the door for itself."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
