Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

I thought discovery only applied to the state, not to private citizens?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How can I have an opinion of something that hasn't been presented yet?

When the prosecution actually makes their case, I'll be more than happy to weigh in on its strength.

No, I meant "not good" as in "unreliable". And if she's unreliable for the prosecution, she's just as unreliable for the defense.

That's why I asked for clarification. What is it that you think makes her an unreliable witness?

Then you should probably notify the Attorney General's office and let them know we should just go ahead and do away with trials since nothing of much importance happens during them.

The only thing that separates Zimmerman simply killing Martin and unlawfully murdering him is his self-defnse claim. If that goes away, murder is all that is left.

Yes, we disagree on the importance of witnesses, and apparently of trials themselves.

I prefer to keep an open mind and render my opinion once both sides have been allowed to present their cases rather than making up my mind about how the trial is going to end up before it even starts.

You keep making this some sort of false dilemma. Either one is open minded, or one thinks trials are unnecessary ... Like you, I have not yet made up mind. However, my opinion on innocence or guilt is certainly influenced by the evidence that we have already seen, which comprises most of the evidence that the state has.
And as I have said before, I have not seen any evidence so far that convinces me GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I leave open the possibility that things will be presented in a way that could make me change my mind, or witness testimony might add some new wrinkles or facts. It just doesn't seem very likely, based on all the evidence we have seen so far.

In fact, I don't see how having an open mind and believing the state does not appear have enough evidence to prove GZ guilty are mutually exclusive. You seem to think they are, maybe you can explain why you think that ?

 

[Unabogie]

Why ? I don't see why she would reject it. Is there some legal reason you think she should reject it ?

Yes, because my understanding is that discovery rules are restricted to evidence from the state. I can't think of a case in which the defense was able to demand personal items from the victim's family.

Example here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16

(E) Documents and Objects. Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and:

(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;

(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or

(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.

Note that this is restricted to items in the government's possession, custody, or control.

Stuff from the personal affects of a murder victim, from the parents' home, don't qualify.

 

[Cylinder]

Note that this is restricted to items in the government's possession, custody, or control.

Stuff from the personal affects of a murder victim, from the parents' home, don't qualify.

Zimmerman has a right to compel evidence seperate from discovery. Discovery means that Zimmerman has a right to see (discover) what evidence the government has collected. Zimmerman also has a Sixth Amendment right to compel evidence seperate from what the state has in its possesion.

 

[Unabogie]

Zimmerman has a right to compel evidence seperate from discovery. Discovery means that Zimmerman has a right to see (discover) what evidence the government has collected. Zimmerman also has a Sixth Amendment right to compel evidence seperate from what the state has in its possesion.

I just cited the relevant law in federal courts. But you keep ignoring the fact that this isn't state's evidence. This is the personal belongings of the murder victim's family. That's not a trivial difference, no matter how much you want to gloss it over.

ETA: I misread what you wrote. You think the 6th amendment compels Judge Nelson to allow George to subpoena personal items from the Martin's home? I doubt that, but please provide some case law to back up your assertion.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I just cited the relevant law in federal courts. But you keep ignoring the fact that this isn't state's evidence. This is the personal belongings of the murder victim's family. That's not a trivial difference, no matter how much you want to gloss it over.

ETA: I misread what you wrote. You think the 6th amendment compels Judge Nelson to allow George to subpoena personal items from the Martin's home? I doubt that, but please provide some case law to back up your assertion.

How about this instead - MOM filed a subpoena duces tecum against 7-11 for receipts, and Judge Nelson granted it.

Why wouldn't she also do the same for the audio subpoena ?

 

[Unabogie]

How about this instead - MOM filed a subpoena duces tecum against 7-11 for receipts, and Judge Nelson granted it.

Why wouldn't she also do the same for the audio subpoena ?

I would expect that 7/11's receipts would be different than granting a murderer the right to rifle through the personal belongings of the victim's family.

We'll see.

I predict she says no.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I would expect that 7/11's receipts would be different than granting a murderer the right to rifle through the personal belongings of the victim's family.

He is not going to rifle through their belongings. If the subpoena is granted, they simply must produce any audio recordings..

We'll see.

I predict she says no.

Yes, we will. But you still haven't really explained why you think this subpoena won't be granted ?

She granted this 'murderer' (which is inaccurate, as he hasn't been found guilty of murder) the right to 7-11 receipts to identify the 'three stooges' - I think that is a potentially immaterial avenue to go down. But the judge granted it. How is witness 8 or TM family so different ?

OTOH, voice recognition could potentially a fairly material piece of evidence (although I think we have mostly agreed telling anything from those screams is going to be 'woo')

GZ submitted voice samples. Why shouldn't he have the same opportunity as the prosecution to identify the voice ?

 

[This is The End]

No, I am not implying we won't see anything new. We will see all the redacted evidence, that will be new. Phone numbers, records, etc.

But, as quadraginta pointed out upthread:


So we have seen the witness lists, and the evidence that was not redacted.

We have not heard the 'witnesses' depositions - so it's possible there may be something in there, I guess.

But generally speaking, I am not aware of what other new things we would see.

Well you already covered the witness depositions and the redacted. I would just note that "witness depositions" includes the expert witnesses and any information the prosecution may have learned from them so far. That also includes the results of any tests the prosecution has had that expert conduct.

For instance with the supposed partial chamber check audio from the not911 call. If the prosecution had an expert do a fingerprint on that we would not know about it right now, neither would the defense. All we would know is if they added that witness. And AFAIK they are still allowed to add witnesses.

Absolutely hilarious that you keep saying we have seen all the evidence and then admit that it does not include what the witnesses will say on the stand.

You do realize that will be a significant part of the trial right?

You say "it's possible there may be something in witness depositions, I guess". Seriously? Is this your first trial or something??

There will be plenty of surprises during the trial, you can be sure of that. Implying that we know all of the evidence is very disingenuous. Of course it's just a drop in the river of disingenuous pro defense arguments you have made in this thread.

I would love for you to either stop implying that we have all the evidence or just stop flip-flopping on it.

And yet you keep saying "we have seen their evidence". That is a flat out lie whether or not you know it to be or not. If you are just ignorant of that fact, that is fine. But if you are knowingly using that line to lie then that is quite telling as to your feelings about this case.

Either way, it doesn't look good on you when you say it.

But I can almost guarantee that you will try to spin this somehow. You will find one minor error in my post, or jump on one sentence, and just pray that you can spin up enough dust so some people will ignore this.

I can also guarantee that you will continue saying "we have seen all the evidence" in your posts.

 

[Unabogie]

He is not going to rifle through their belongings. If the subpoena is granted, they simply must produce any audio recordings..

Recordings of a highly personal nature demanded by the person who, as far as they are concerned, murdered their son in cold blood and then made up racist dialogue to cover his tracks.

I believe it will not be granted because to me it's abusive, intrusive, and if you already consider the science to be woo, irrelevant.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well you already covered the witness depositions and the redacted. I would just note that "witness depositions" includes the expert witnesses and any information the prosecution may have learned from them so far. That also includes the results of any tests the prosecution has had that expert conduct.

Yes, I understand the defense is not entitled to, say, a map the prosecution creates from the phone GPS locations, for example, just to the GPS data.

For instance with the supposed partial chamber check audio from the not911 call. If the prosecution had an expert do a fingerprint on that we would not know about it right now, neither would the defense. All we would know is if they added that witness. And AFAIK they are still allowed to add witnesses.

Right. And if the 'supposed' chamber check were more than wishful thinking, maybe that would be relevant..

Absolutely hilarious that you keep saying we have seen all the evidence and then admit that it does not include what the witnesses will say on the stand.

You do realize that will be a significant part of the trial right?

No, apparently I don't realize that the witnesses to an altercation that had no witnesses will be a significant part of the trial.

You say "it's possible there may be something in witness depositions, I guess". Seriously? Is this your first trial or something??

Yes, seriously. I don't know what you mean by 'is this your first trial' ?

There will be plenty of surprises during the trial, you can be sure of that. Implying that we know all of the evidence is very disingenuous. Of course it's just a drop in the river of disingenuous pro defense arguments you have made in this thread.

Which disingenuous arguments, specifically ?

I would love for you to either stop implying that we have all the evidence or just stop flip-flopping on it.

And I would love for you to engage in a dialog and answer the questions I ask you since I courteously respond to all your questions.

And yet you keep saying "we have seen their evidence". That is a flat out lie whether or not you know it to be or not. If you are just ignorant of that fact, that is fine. But if you are knowingly using that line to lie then that is quite telling as to your feelings about this case.

Either way, it doesn't look good on you when you say it.

But I can almost guarantee that you will try to spin this somehow. You will find one minor error in my post, or jump on one sentence, and just pray that you can spin up enough dust so some people will ignore this.

I can also guarantee that you will continue saying "we have seen all the evidence" in your posts.

We have seen the evidence. We have not yet heard the witness testimony, although we have seen and/or heard the statements of the people who saw anything.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Recordings of a highly personal nature demanded by the person who, as far as they are concerned, murdered their son in cold blood and then made up racist dialogue to cover his tracks.

How do you know what the nature of the recordings they may or may not have are? And what does their relationship with the suspect who assaulted GZ have to do with the legality of it ?

I believe it will not be granted because to me it's abusive, intrusive, and if you already consider the science to be woo, irrelevant.

So then it won't be granted because it offends you, not for any legal reason.

And didn't I see you complaining about someone editing your posts in another thread ? You could at least have noted that you chose not to respond the the remainder of my post.

 

[johnny karate]

That's why I asked for clarification. What is it that you think makes her an unreliable witness?

She seems unclear and inconsistent. Honestly, I haven't put too much thought into it because I wrote her off a while ago. She simply didn't strike as very reliable from the outset.

You keep making this some sort of false dilemma. Either one is open minded, or one thinks trials are unnecessary ... Like you, I have not yet made up mind. However, my opinion on innocence or guilt is certainly influenced by the evidence that we have already seen, which comprises most of the evidence that the state has.

We're not talking innocence or guilt. We're talking whether or not the state can prove guilt. Big difference. I think Zimmerman is guilty. I have no idea if the prosecution can prove it because there hasn't been a trial yet and I'm not a lawyer. You, on the other hand, have already decided the prosecution cannot prove guilt. No trial necessary.

And as I have said before, I have not seen any evidence so far that convinces me GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I leave open the possibility that things will be presented in a way that could make me change my mind, or witness testimony might add some new wrinkles or facts. It just doesn't seem very likely, based on all the evidence we have seen so far.

And you are certainly entitled to your layperson opinions on legal matters. Just don't expect anyone else to take them very seriously, or feel compelled to prove them wrong.

In fact, I don't see how having an open mind and believing the state does not appear have enough evidence to prove GZ guilty are mutually exclusive. You seem to think they are, maybe you can explain why you think that ?

Because - as I have already stated - the prosecution of a criminal case is about more than just cataloging the evidence. If it was, a trial would just consist of the jury being handed a list. But it's not. Evidence is presented. Evidence is interpreted. Witnesses are called to testify. Arguments are made. Witnesses are cross-examined. Counter arguments are made. It's kind of an important process.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She seems unclear and inconsistent. Honestly, I haven't put too much thought into it because I wrote her off a while ago. She simply didn't strike as very reliable from the outset.

I believe your views on DeeDee are in the minority among those who think GZ is guilty.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...orge-zimmerman-crump-20130213,0,5979916.story

In paperwork made public today, defense attorney Donald West asked Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to again order Crump to appear for a deposition and answer questions about an interview he conducted of the state's most important witness, a young woman who spoke to Trayvon moments before he was shot.

We're not talking innocence or guilt. We're talking whether or not the state can prove guilt. Big difference. I think Zimmerman is guilty. I have no idea if the prosecution can prove it because there hasn't been a trial yet and I'm not a lawyer.

No idea ? Really ? Because that's what I am getting at.... I have an idea. Maybe it's unrealistic, maybe it's wrong ... but after hundreds of pages of discussion, I certainly have an opinion of what I believe the prosecution can prove at this point. I didn't really think you had no idea of what the state can prove.

You, on the other hand, have already decided the prosecution cannot prove guilt. No trial necessary.

That's a very dishonest summary of my views.
And as I have said before, I have not seen any evidence so far that convinces me GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I leave open the possibility that things will be presented in a way that could make me change my mind, or witness testimony might add some new wrinkles or facts. It just doesn't seem very likely, based on all the evidence we have seen so far.

And you are certainly entitled to your layperson opinions on legal matters. Just don't expect anyone else to take them very seriously, or feel compelled to prove them wrong.

Because - as I have already stated - the prosecution of a criminal case is about more than just cataloging the evidence. If it was, a trial would just consist of the jury being handed a list. But it's not. Evidence is presented. Evidence is interpreted. Witnesses are called to testify. Arguments are made. Witnesses are cross-examined. Counter arguments are made. It's kind of an important process.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Don West files a motion for Judge Nelson to rule on whether Crump will be deposed or not:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/motion_deposition_crump.pdf

You will recall that crump was scheduled to be deposed last Tuesday, the last court date. But his attorney (Blackwell) appeared in court that morning and asked that the deposition be postponed at the last minute (exactly what MOM was complaining about in when he asked for a motion to continue). And of course, judge Nelson heard his motion, breaking her own rule that motions must be filed 2 days before a hearing to be discussed.
Blackwell then filed an affidavit from crump.

 

[johnny karate]

I believe your views on DeeDee are in the minority among those who think GZ is guilty.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...orge-zimmerman-crump-20130213,0,5979916.story

In paperwork made public today, defense attorney Donald West asked Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to again order Crump to appear for a deposition and answer questions about an interview he conducted of the state's most important witness, a young woman who spoke to Trayvon moments before he was shot.

I'm not sure why you think quoting a newspaper article on the importance of DeeDee as a witness for the prosectution proves anything about her actual importance, but okay.

No idea ? Really ? Because that's what I am getting at.... I have an idea. Maybe it's unrealistic, maybe it's wrong ... but after hundreds of pages of discussion, I certainly have an opinion of what I believe the prosecution can prove at this point. I didn't really think you had no idea of what the state can prove.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the expertise required to properly assess the evidence on my own. Apparently, you think you do. Good luck with that.

I suppose I could adopt a similar strategy to yours and just proclaim that every legal aspect of this case that is in Zimmerman's favor is wrong. But considering your track record so far, that doesn't seem too wise.

That's a very dishonest summary of my views.
And as I have said before, I have not seen any evidence so far that convinces me GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I leave open the possibility that things will be presented in a way that could make me change my mind, or witness testimony might add some new wrinkles or facts. It just doesn't seem very likely, based on all the evidence we have seen so far.

Awesome. You go with that. I prefer to wait until the trial actually starts before I determine how it will turnout. And that's because I recognize the complexity involved in trying a criminal case, and I prefer not to make uninformed judgments about matters in which I have no expertise.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure why you think quoting a newspaper article on the importance of DeeDee as a witness for the prosectution proves anything about her actual importance, but okay.

I didn't claim it proved her importance. I don't know what her importance is right now. It was evidence that you are in the minority thinking her unimportant.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the expertise required to properly assess the evidence on my own. Apparently, you think you do. Good luck with that.

Thanks, it worked out pretty well with Judge Lester.

I suppose I could adopt a similar strategy to yours and just proclaim that every legal aspect of this case that is in Zimmerman's favor is wrong. But considering your track record so far, that doesn't seem too wise.

If you say so.

Awesome. You go with that. I prefer to wait until the trial actually starts before I determine how it will turnout. And that's because I recognize the complexity involved in trying a criminal case, and I prefer not to make uninformed judgments about matters in which I have no expertise.

I will.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Summary of the hearing from twitter:

bob kealing ‏@bobkealing
Attorneys in #GeorgeZimmerman murder case say they will need jury pool of 500. #TrayvonMartin

#GeorgeZimmerman defense next Friday 2/22 will argue to depose #TrayvonMartin family attorney #Crump.

#GeorgeZimmerman defense indicates they may seek to roll immunity hearing in to trial. For now judge sets aside two weeks 4-22 and 4-29.


Tony Pipitone ‏@TonyPipitone
#GeorgeZimmerman status conference ends with judge ordering 500 potential jurors for June 10, trial to begin ASAP after that #TrayvonMartin

#GeorgeZimmerman defense wants state to respond sooner to request for subpoena, such as for voice samples of #TrayvonMartin held by family.

#GeorgeZimmerman judge will deal with subpoena requests from defense as she normally does. No deadline. #TrayvonMartin @clickorlando

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Shellie Zimmerman returns to court today

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...merman-perjury-stats-20130218,0,1865926.story
Tuesday Shellie Zimmerman will be in court, trying to have her case dismissed. Her attorney, Kelly B. Sims, contends that Corey had no right to charge her.

Also, on the topic of perjury:

whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,
Well, I guess that's where the 'reasonable doubt' part comes in. I guess that's one reason why it (perjury) seems like a difficult charge get a conviction on.

And yet somehow they still manage to get a conviction now and again.

So how do you think they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the convicted perjurer believed themselves to be lying?

Perhaps because the prosecution only chooses to charge people when they are confident they can win. I don't know if they do that, and I don't have any statistics on perjury convictions. Do you ?

Now it appears we do.

...in the 12-month period that ended June 30, prosecutors in Miami-Dade County, Florida's most populous, filed just two perjury cases and later dropped both...

Prosecutors in 16 other Florida counties have not filed a perjury case in more than five years, the data show.

Special Prosecutor Angela Corey of Jacksonville, whose office filed the perjury charge against Zimmerman's 25-year-old wife, Shellie, is far more aggressive and successful, data from her office reveal.From 2009, when she took office, through June 30, she successfully prosecuted nearly three dozen perjury suspects in Duval County.Most were guilty of lying while filling out workers' compensation forms, making insurance claims or filing police reports. A far smaller number — 10 — were witnesses who lied in court, records from her office show.

 

[johnny karate]

But if simply telling a falsehood isn't enough (which we all know Shellie Zimmerman did), how was Corey ever able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the convicted perjurers believed themselves to be lying?