I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Her decision to disallow the tweets is in agreement with current court practices.
Here is a former (now celebrity) FL judge who agrees with her:
where a similar ruling by a judge was overturned by the higher court in Florida.
Here's the relevant part:
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.
At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion.
Also the argument is that if the prosecution had actually given the discovery to the defense on time (they received it in January, and didn't give it to the defense until June) then the defense could have found the recipients of the text messages and got them to testify as to their authenticity. That the prosecution broke the rules with regard to discovery and that the judge did not allow the defense extra time to find the witnesses, AND dismissed the evidence AGAINST precedents set in Florida case law is unfair and deprives Zimmerman from his right to a fair trial.
Its a moot point probably because the state has no case and he should be found innocent, but clear grounds for a correctable error upon appeal.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Are Judges always like this? That's horrific.
Thankfully, no, but there are lots (too many) of bad ones like this.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Are Judges always like this? That's horrific.
Thankfully, no, but there are lots (too many) of bad ones like this.
Oh come on, they went through three judges for this case. This one is pretty reasonable given the circumstances.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Are Judges always like this? That's horrific.
Thankfully, no, but there are lots (too many) of bad ones like this.
Oh come on, they went through three judges for this case. This one is pretty reasonable given the circumstances.
I've certainly seen much worse. She's holding it together pretty well under the circumstances imo.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Her decision to disallow the tweets is in agreement with current court practices.
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.
At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion.
Also the argument is that if the prosecution had actually given the discovery to the defense on time (they received it in January, and didn't give it to the defense until June) then the defense could have found the recipients of the text messages and got them to testify as to their authenticity. That the prosecution broke the rules with regard to discovery and that the judge did not allow the defense extra time to find the witnesses, AND dismissed the evidence AGAINST precedents set in Florida case law is unfair and deprives Zimmerman from his right to a fair trial.
Its a moot point probably because the state has no case and he should be found innocent, but clear grounds for a correctable error upon appeal.
I hope the defense lodges a complaint against the judge with Florida's judicial review board or whatever they have down here, her behavior has been embarrassingly one-sided and at times very unprofessional in her favoring of the prosecution.
Her decision to disallow the tweets is in agreement with current court practices.
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.
At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion.
Also the argument is that if the prosecution had actually given the discovery to the defense on time (they received it in January, and didn't give it to the defense until June) then the defense could have found the recipients of the text messages and got them to testify as to their authenticity. That the prosecution broke the rules with regard to discovery and that the judge did not allow the defense extra time to find the witnesses, AND dismissed the evidence AGAINST precedents set in Florida case law is unfair and deprives Zimmerman from his right to a fair trial.
Its a moot point probably because the state has no case and he should be found innocent, but clear grounds for a correctable error upon appeal.
This isn't my argument, but I thought it was compelling (paraphrasing, and haven't read the case, this was some anonymous blog reply):
In the Lumarque case, the text message and images in question were speaking to motive. Merely being on the phone, accessible by the party, was enough to show evidence of motive, regardless of source.
In this case, the messages and images would be used as hearsay, to show state of mind and body of Trayvon Martin. It's more important here that the messages and images are directly attributable to Trayvon Martin and that's why the judge may have been correct in requiring the higher standard of authentication.
On July 11 2013 05:33 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. i want to see the ATF officer come in and say Zimmerman beat my ass.
lmao.
edit: actually, that may also bring out the ridiculous lengths to which the prosecution is stretching their case.
It would also refute the Gym owner's testimony of Zimmerman's fighting ability.
I'm not sure you can equate the two.
Gym owner says Zimmerman was .5 and soft
Police officer says Zimmerman beat his ass
What do you think the Jury will think about Zimmerman's capability?
Gym owner has trained him 4-6 hrs a week for a year.
Police officer has one quick encounter with him.
What do you think the Jury will think about Zimmerman's capability?
depends on the juror.
Do you trust someone who works with MMA fighters to gauge non-MMA fighters, or do you trust someone that got beat up by Zimmerman when it mattered?
Its all moot because they're not bringing him in anyway.
you're joking right? please tell me you're joking. The guy worked with him for over 1000 hours(~8 months/4 hours a week) and saw his improvements, how he fights, how much he can put in a punch, etc... The police officer had probably ~1-2 minutes or so and according to the defense, it wasn't anything serious so chances are it was him just sticking with his friend then got arrested thus the demeanor charge instead.
On July 11 2013 10:19 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Kids these days don't even know what rioting means. My friend said OWS was a riot against rich people...
On July 11 2013 10:19 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: Kids these days don't even know what rioting means. My friend said OWS was a riot against rich people...
It would be wise for the OWS crowd not to schedule any rallies or demonstrations any time soon after the Zimmerman verdict.
On another note, I was watching AC360 and Mark Garagos made a comment that if his fellow guests on the show don't understand why the defense put that burglary victim who George had helped, then he might as well be on the "Hysterical Ladies' Network". I found that pretty fucking funny.
On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty?
The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased.
On July 11 2013 12:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everyone seems to forget the jury in this, the Judge already refused to throw it out so what makes everyone think the jury won't find him guilty?
The case has gone pretty poorly for the prosecution, but in all fairness to your point this thread is pretty biased.
Does this forum have some innate bias to support people like Zimmerman regardless of evidence? I haven't seen that; I just think the facts line up in his favor and so people think he should be found not guilty.
EPT
