Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 327

On July 10 2013 12:05 dAPhREAk wrote:

no

On July 10 2013 12:48 FatChicksUnited wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57588085-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-judge-to-weigh-possible-prosecutor-sanctions-post-trial/

This is the incident to which West was referring at the end of the night. A state IT director found the additional texts and images, and presented them to the prosecution. Concerned that the evidence would not reach the defense and that he would be implicated, he hired a lawyer at that point. His lawyer reached out to MOM later and confirmed that the evidence had in fact not been handed to the defense. The IT director has since been placed on administrative leave.

This came out in a pre-trial hearing, where the judge decided that sanctions (if any) would be decided post-trial.

On July 10 2013 10:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:

it was doing that earlier for me, i just reloaded.

on-topic:

dude, this judge and the prosecution are proving themselves to be fucking corrupt as shit... this is some bull

Holy shit, I can't believe she just did that. This is fucking horrible.

On July 10 2013 17:18 dUTtrOACh wrote:
inb4 Self Defense acquittal.

The prosecution goofed big-time, and Zimmerman's defense team has crushed so much face throughout the trial.

On July 10 2013 22:16 Felnarion wrote:
So that's a no on both counts. I find that unacceptable, but some people seem to think otherwise. I would argue this essentially means text messages/e-mails/electronic communications are inadmissible under any circumstances except those where someone can testify to having seen the text being sent by the person.

On July 10 2013 22:45 BigFan wrote:

I didn't realize that the trial went late last night. Can someone give me a quick overview of what happened after the Jury left? I know they were talking about the animation and the guy was getting hammered by the prosecution so I'm guessing the animation wasn't allowed? What about the messages? I thought those were admissible already so? Thanks!

On July 10 2013 22:16 Felnarion wrote:
So that's a no on both counts. I find that unacceptable, but some people seem to think otherwise. I would argue this essentially means text messages/e-mails/electronic communications are inadmissible under any circumstances except those where someone can testify to having seen the text being sent by the person.

On July 10 2013 23:07 Felnarion wrote:


The animation is not allowed as evidence, only as a demonstrative tool, to whatever extent that makes a difference.

The cell phone contents are far as I know are wholly inadmissible.

After the Jury left last night, the animation was picked apart and defended for a few hours...Then they discussed the matter of the cell phone contents and the judge ultimately decided that it was inadmissible because there is "no way for us to know if Trayvon sent the messages"

Despite it being Trayvon's password protected pictures on his password protected phone that there is only evidence he used. I believe they have a text where Trayvon is trying to buy a gun, as well as some past fighting experience. Those cannot be shown. There was some issue as to the prosecution's not giving up information they had quickly enough so that the defense could perhaps work on the identification issue..but the judge didn't care to hear it.

On July 10 2013 23:27 crms wrote:
I could understand the evidence not being admissible if Trayvon was on trial but considering he's dead and Zimmerman is the man actually accused of crimes, you'd think the Judge/laws would allow Zimmerman to use everything at his disposal to try and show his innocence. Seems very strange to me that 'evidence' can be inadmissible that could HELP a person defend them self in court. I totally understand why defense attorneys would want various things to be inadmissible because they could damage their client but the state/DA should want any and all facts presented to get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction.


This is what others were talking about the other day, the state is trying to 'win' not get to the truth. The state isn't representing anyone but the truth in this case yet they are making it seem as if they're the defense attorneys for Treyvon Martin.

On July 11 2013 00:09 Sjokola wrote:
Is the defence doing a good job discrediting this witness?

On July 11 2013 00:04 ZasZ. wrote:


Except the relevance of some of this evidence is in question. How would knowledge that Trayvon Martin smoked weed help get the most fair, logical, and assured conviction/acquittal for George Zimmerman? Some of the stuff they found on the phone, like the fighting references, are pertinent to this case if you're trying to determine the sort of person Zimmerman shot that night. But all of it? Telling the jury that Trayvon Martin watched porn and smoked weed does nothing to prove or disprove the guilt of George Zimmerman in this case, it just makes Martin look bad and make the jury less likely to sympathize with him.

Of course the prosecutor is trying to "win." That is their job. They do not know the truth, that is the whole point of the trial. People still get caught up in this idea that prosecution should be trying to seek truth or justice. That's the job of the judge and jury. The prosecution, like the defense, should be doing everything within their power (legally) to advocate for their client, in this case the state. As long as they are not misrepresenting information or doing anything illegal, if both sides do everything they can to win, it is ultimately in the hands of the judge and jury to determine which facts are important and which aren't, and the guilt of the defendant. If the prosecution gets tied up in what is "fair," they are not very good at their jobs.