Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Uhhh...the state used Fulton's voice ID in their probable cause affidavit.

And?

As far as I'm aware, neither of Martin's parents are audio experts, so this issue will not hinge on anything they have to say. It will hinge on what actual audio experts have to say.

It is ludicrous to argue that the testimony of Martins is somehow crucial in determining who was screaming on the 911 recording to the point that they need to be impeached as witnesses above and beyond what their status as the parents of the victim already impeaches them.

O'Mara supposedly has all this evidence that proves his client acted in self-defense, but he's wasting his time proving that the Martins might have even more of a reason to lie than the fact that they think Zimmerman murdered their child just in case the prosecution forgets to call any actual audio experts?

That makes no sense.

 

[This is The End]

STATE’S MOTION REQUESTING COURT INQUIRY OF DEFENDANT REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSELS WAIVER OF ANY PROCEEDING TO INVOKE IMMUNITY (SELF-DEFENSE/STAND YOUR GOUND HEARING) UNDER F.S. 776.032

Finally, the State is going to try and prove that the Defense really did "waive" the immunity hearing when the Judge ordered** that any such hearing be both "filed" and "heard" by April 26th.

Since that is only 1 day away, we can now conclusively say that the Defense has waived their chance at immunity.

Of particular note on that matter is section 6 (sections 2 through 5 should be read for reference if you are unfamiliar with the background):

The State would specifically request the Court conduct a full inquiry of Defendant, to include a reminder that should Defendant in fact wish to waive any pretrial immunity challenge under this statue, he may not attempt to do so later, particularly once trial has commenced.

Also section 8:

By virtue of this Motion the State is requesting Defendant's personal appearance at the hearing scheduled for 4/30/2013.

Looks like we may actually be seeing Z himself. AFAIR it has been quite a while since we have seen him.

Of course the State's footnote goes without saying, but here it is anyway:

To this date Defense Counsel has not filed any motion claiming immunity nor has he filled a request to merge any such hearing as part of the trial. The State would object to any attempt to merge an immunity hearing as part of the trial.

**

The order required any Immunity (Self-Defense/Stand Your Ground) Motion to be filed and heard on or before 4/26/2013.

 

[KatieG]

<snip>

No, but they have relevant information to offer about the events of that evening. Such as whether they identify the screaming as TM or not. There may be other reasons they are on the witness list, but that one above should be enough.

MOM has outlined, and it has already been explained earlier, why his client has the right to vis-a-vis discovery to know what is in that agreement, and if the martins have gained financially. Do you have disagree with his argument that GZ legally has the right to discover that information ?

I'll be content to trust that as an experienced attorney,working with this case for almost a year, MOM has sound reasons for pursuing this particular piece of information. Unless MOM has taken you into his confidence and explained his legal strategy, your speculation on whether or not this is relevant to the defense is just that, uninformed speculation from a non-attorney, and it's worth is assigned accordingly.

That did not happen until the next day, so again, nothing to do with what happened the night GZ shot and killed TM.

MO'M is flailing about, trying to find anything that will help his client. There is nothing about the settlement from the HOA that has jack **** to do with what happened the night GZ shot and killed TM.

 

[KatieG]

I re-listened, and you are correct, she made two separate statements. However, I'll stand by my statement that he was living at his uncle stephens, and I think it will come out in the trial.

So what? Who cares who TM was living with before the events of the night of February 26, 2012, when GZ shot and killed TM?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The state asks the defense to stop playing coy and have the immunity hearing or get off the pot.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/mot_req_court_inquiry.pdf

I suppose that's one way of interpreting it.

However, as I am unaware of any law that compels the defense to "stop playing coy" and inform the state of their legal strategy, it seemed to be more like the state whining "we don't know the defenses strategy, make them tell us !"

We have already agreed earlier in the thread that GZ can file for immunity whenever he he wants ... today, tomorrow, during the case, after the case. And case examples were given that demonstrate immunity can be granted even post-trial. So I am curious on what bases the State is asking to be informed of GZ intentions, and why GZ would have to personally answer that, as opposed to his attorney.

 

[Unabogie]

I suppose that's one way of interpreting it.

That's what I get for reading the plain language I just read.

However, as I am unaware of any law that compels the defense to "stop playing coy" and inform the state of their legal strategy, it seemed to be more like the state whining "we don't know the defenses strategy, make them tell us !"

Not at all. The state is heading off any potential appeal after a guilty verdict that George never got his chance at immunity. They are simply saying that he needs to formally hold a hearing or waive the hearing. It's pretty clear why they are asking for that.

We have already agreed earlier in the thread that GZ can file for immunity whenever he he wants ... today, tomorrow, during the case, after the case. And case examples were given that demonstrate immunity can be granted even post-trial. So I am curious on what bases the State is asking to be informed of GZ intentions, and why GZ would have to personally answer that, as opposed to his attorney.

We've agreed? That's not true at all and if I remember correctly, we even discussed all the ways in which combining a hearing into a trial can cause reversible error. During an immunity hearing George HAS to testify (since he has to make some sort of affirmative case), while at a trial he wouldn't. I don't know where you got the idea that we all agreed with you.

 

[Dancing David]

STATE’S MOTION REQUESTING COURT INQUIRY OF DEFENDANT REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSELS WAIVER OF ANY PROCEEDING TO INVOKE IMMUNITY (SELF-DEFENSE/STAND YOUR GOUND HEARING) UNDER F.S. 776.032

Yeah I just saw that, a futile motion at best.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/hearing-tuesday-in-trayvon-martin-case/2111131/

 

[TheL8Elvis]

gloves are off

MOM responded to BDLRs bitchy response to the motion for sanctions, and asked that Judge Nelson remove it from the record, and fine BDLR as appropriate.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/042513_reply_to_sanctions.pdf

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Tuesdays April 30

Tuesday hearing should be interesting. Quite a few issues MOM is asking to have ruled on:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/042513_amended_noh_043013_2.pdf

Also a request for specific discovery of TM cell phone data. How is it that at this point in time the state still has not turned over all the cell phone data ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That did not happen until the next day, so again, nothing to do with what happened the night GZ shot and killed TM.

Becuase only things that happened that night are relevant ?

MO'M is flailing about, trying to find anything that will help his client. There is nothing about the settlement from the HOA that has jack **** to do with what happened the night GZ shot and killed TM.

If it has nothing to do with the case, then why was it filed in the case ?

So what? Who cares who TM was living with before the events of the night of February 26, 2012, when GZ shot and killed TM?

I care. If you don't, then you should probably ignore the posts about it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm willing to bet the prosecution will have actual audio experts testify regarding the identity of the screamer as opposed to relying on the inherently biased, non-expert opinion of the victim's parents.

Based on all those samples of TM's voice ?

And I think the inherently biased, non-expert opinion of the parents identifying the voice may carry more sway with some people in the jury than a boring bunch of technical "mumbo jumbo".

The Martins will not be called to offer audio analysis anymore than Detective Serino will be called to offer a medical opinion.

I agree, they won't do "audio analysis". Will they be called to ask if they recognize the voice screaming ? I think that seems likely.

Will Seino be called for an expert medical opinion ? No. Will his conclusions reached as police professional, that the injuries were consistent* with GZ story, be told to the jury ? Absolutely.

No one has ever argued that Zimmerman didn't have a right to this information, so I have no idea why you thought it relevant to mention.

I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was the case. Without outright stating that, there seems to have been a lot of implication that GZ was not entitled to the information, by claiming it's irrelevant, etc.

Funny how the detailed legal analysis dries up in the face of what is obviously a fishing expedition.

It's already been explained. You just don't like the explanation. And since you agree GZ has the right to the information, I guess MOM will get it, and we'll see how it is used in the upcoming months.


*marginally

 

[Cylinder]

Some motions filed in advance of Tuesday's hearing:

STATE’S MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF VlCTIM’S FAMILY PERSONAL INFORMATION & MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORDS PREVIOUSLY FlLED

1. Since the beginning of this case, with the Court's approval, both parties agreed that
personal information regarding the families of Victim and Defendant should remain confidential due to safety concerns.
2. Victim’s family depositions were taken in March 2013. During the depositions personal
information was obtained confirming that information previously only released to Counsel during discovery was still valid.
3. On 4/l11/2013, Defense Counsel filed a “Motion to Unseal information listed as Confidential information within a Court Filing or, in the Alternative Demand for Specific Discovery”. Victims family personal information was disclosed in the motion.
4. The State believes the disclosure was inadvertent and not intentional but the released
information has already subjected Victim's family to potential harm. and requests this Court seal the document in Question and order Defense Counsel to not further mention the information in public or release any additional personal information about Victim's family.

This is a bit odd, since the information in Zimmerman's original motion was information released by the court and Crump. I guess this is just filed in support of Crump's motion to seal the settlement he filed in Zimmerman's criminal case. The original protection order specifies only personally identifying information for parties that have not waived confidentiality by appearring in the media - none of which appears in Zimmerman's motion.

Demand for Specific Discovery

Zimmerman is asking for "[a]ny and all data in the State’s possession or the State has received regarding any downloads or reports from any phone or phone number connected to Trayvon Martin or any information that the State Attomey’s Office or law enforcement has retrieved, received or investigated concerning data on or regarding Trayvon Martin’ s phone, phones and/or phone numbers" in native format.

Demand for Specific Discovery

Zimmerman is asking for "[a]ny and all cleaned up, edited and/ or enhanced version(s) of any and all recorded 911 calls listened to by Tracy Martin as referenced by Benjamin Crump." [Cough, cough]

Redacted Motion to Allow Additional Witness Disclosure

Zimmerman is asking to disclose 5 additional, redacted witnesses past the previous deadline.

REPLY TO STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

7. Deciding affirmatively not to respond to the scurrilous and unfounded personal attacks by Ms. Corey and Mr. de la Rionda, undersigned counsel would note that all but several sentences of the eight page Response concern themselves with attacks on the undersigned. Such behaviors have, in similar cases, subjected the offending attorney to sanctions and disciplinary proceedings.

As an example, in Florida Bar v. Buckle, 771 So. 2d l I31 (Fla 2000), the Supreme Court
upheld a referee's finding that a letter sent by the offending attorney was “objectively humiliating and intimidating to a reasonable person standing in Gabas’ (the recipient of the letter) place, and that it had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, intimidate or otherwise burden Gabas. The Supreme Court held that “the principles underlying the rules include basic fairness, respect for others, human dignity and upholding the quality of justice. And further states that zealous advocacy cannot be translated to mean win at all costs, and although the line may be difficult to establish, standards of good taste and professionalism must be maintained while we support and defend the role of counsel in proper advocacy.

In the Florida Bar v. Sayler 721 So. 2d ll52 (Fla 1998), the Supreme Court accepted the
referee's determination that the offending attorney should have known that the letter and attached articles (a letter sent to the victim in a criminal ease where the offending attorney is representing the defendant) would only embarrass, frighten or otherwise burden Valdez (the recipient). The referee then found the offending attorney had violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4-4.4 which prohibits the lawyer from using means during representation of a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person; and further that he violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4-8.4(d) which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The motion also reminds the state of its obligation to refrain from making "a false statement on material fact or law to a third-person" and that "misrepresentations can also occur by partially true or misleading statements oromissions that are the equivalent of affinnative false statements ...”.

 

[KatieG]

Becuase only things that happened that night are relevant ?



If it has nothing to do with the case, then why was it filed in the case ?



I care. If you don't, then you should probably ignore the posts about it.

If it's legally relevant, how so? How does it affect the actions of either GZ or TM that night?

 

[johnny karate]

Based on all those samples of TM's voice ?

And I think the inherently biased, non-expert opinion of the parents identifying the voice may carry more sway with some people in the jury than a boring bunch of technical "mumbo jumbo".

First of all, if the Martins say the voice is their son's, and experts prove that it isn't, the Martins' testimony won't carry more sway. That's just silly. That would be like saying the Martins could refute the ballistics report because their testimony wouldn't be boring, technical "mumbo jumbo" (also known as science).

Secondly, even if the Martins' testimony was somehow important to this issue (it's not), that still doesn't explain why they need to be impeached as witnesses. Their bias against Zimmerman is obvious.

I agree, they won't do "audio analysis". Will they be called to ask if they recognize the voice screaming ? I think that seems likely.

It will be audio experts who who provide the factual basis for that claim, not the Martins. That's why trials have expert testimony as opposed to just family members of the victim offering their opinions.

Will Seino be called for an expert medical opinion ? No. Will his conclusions reached as police professional, that the injuries were consistent* with GZ story, be told to the jury ? Absolutely.

Serino never claimed Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story, so I'm not sure why you think something that never happened will be presented to the jury.

Also, Serino won't be testifying regarding the nature or severity of Zimmerman's injuries. They'll get doctors to do that.

I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was the case. Without outright stating that, there seems to have been a lot of implication that GZ was not entitled to the information, by claiming it's irrelevant, etc.

There has been zero implication of that.

Saying information is irrelevant is not even remotely the same as saying Zimmerman doesn't have the right to it.

It's already been explained. You just don't like the explanation.

No, it hasn't been explained. Nothing more than post hoc rationalizations have been offered, and the bizarre assertion that the parents of the victim somehow need to be impeached as witnesses just in case the jury didn't already know they might be biased against the man they believe murdered their child.

And since you agree GZ has the right to the information, I guess MOM will get it, and we'll see how it is used in the upcoming months.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be the case-cracker.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First of all, if the Martins say the voice is their son's, and experts prove that it isn't, the Martins' testimony won't carry more sway. That's just silly. That would be like saying the Martins could refute the ballistics report because their testimony wouldn't be boring, technical "mumbo jumbo" (also known as science).

I note that you didn't address the lack of exemplars of TM voice ? I am unaware of any entered into evidence. You ? That might make it a wee bit difficult for voice experts to say much of anything about whether it's TM screaming or not.

How about the scenario where voice experts can't confidently identify who is screaming ... do you think the Martins testimony would be worthless in that scenario ?

Also, I'm all aboard the science train with you ... choo choo. But there was much debate in the first thread about the scientific validity of the voice analysis. And the jurors are still people who can have emotions affect their decisions.

Secondly, even if the Martins' testimony was somehow important to this issue (it's not), that still doesn't explain why they need to be impeached as witnesses. Their bias against Zimmerman is obvious.

So, back to the original point - TMs parents testimony could be very relevant, I don't think we know enough to rule it unimportant at this point.

As far as bias, being a parent isn't listed by the state of FL as a factor that could impeach testimony, financial gain is. If I were MOM, the more things I can demonstrate that could impeach any potential testimony, the better.

It will be audio experts who who provide the factual basis for that claim, not the Martins. That's why trials have expert testimony as opposed to just family members of the victim offering their opinions.

Serino never claimed Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story, so I'm not sure why you think something that never happened will be presented to the jury.

Are you simply nitpicking, or just pulling my leg, or what ?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/27/cops-zimmerman-wasnt-afraid
The documents written by Sanford Police investigators also state: "Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."

Also, Serino won't be testifying regarding the nature or severity of Zimmerman's injuries. They'll get doctors to do that.

Really, you don't think the defense will use that statement by serino, we'll only hear from doctors ? Or will we hear both ?

There has been zero implication of that.

Not by you, but by others there has.

Saying information is irrelevant is not even remotely the same as saying Zimmerman doesn't have the right to it.

Great, so you agree he has the right to it.

He has the right to it because it is potentially relevant to his case - otherwise he would have no need of it.

Crump filed it in with the case, again, ostensibly because it is relevant.

Now, unless you have seen the document, how can you know what it says ?

And if you don't know what it says, how can you know that it's not relevant ?

No, it hasn't been explained. Nothing more than post hoc rationalizations have been offered, and the bizarre assertion that the parents of the victim somehow need to be impeached as witnesses just in case the jury didn't already know they might be biased against the man they believe murdered their child.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be the case-cracker.

\

Who, besides you, is making that claim ?

It's bizarre that you admit you don't know what the defenses strategy is, don't know what's in the agreement, but yet claim to know it's completely irrelevant.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If it's legally relevant, how so? How does it affect the actions of either GZ or TM that night?

It's potentially evidence of Martins character, the relevance of which was discussed in the previous thread.

Additionally, even if it doesn't turn out to be legally relevant, I can still discuss it, can't I ? Are we non-attorneys here in the non-courtroom supposed to only be discussing legally relevant things ?

 

[phonebook]

First of all, if the Martins say the voice is their son's, and experts prove that it isn't, the Martins' testimony won't carry more sway.

Yes, because there has never been a jury member to be skeptical, or totally dismiss what a so-called "expert" has to say, especially in regards to something with such solid scientific backing as comparing background screams in a 911 call to a foreground speaking voice. Not to mention, didn't the FBI already do their own "expert" analysis on the voice samples and conclude that the samples had too few words, were of too poor quality, and not similar enough (screaming vs. speaking) to conclude whether or not it was GZ's voice? Doesn't appear the FBI was able to "prove" this, so I'm not sure who the prosecution might offer that has even greater expertise.

Speaking of, it's been over a year later, and still no word of any voice samples of TM having been given to the defense, or existing at all. Where are these voice samples? Have they not had enough time to locate any? One of the original "experts" that made the news saying the voices weren't GZ's was supposed to be receiving a sample from TM's reps and releasing his findings upon doing so. Why have those findings never been released?

That's just silly. That would be like saying the Martins could refute the ballistics report because their testimony wouldn't be boring, technical "mumbo jumbo" (also known as science).

Silly like the jurors at the OJ case dismissing the following?

DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds rising to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories. Both socks had about 20 stains of blood.

I'm sure the jurors came up with a much more accurate explanation for OJ's socks having 20 stains of his ex-wife's blood on them, and the odds of that blood NOT being his wife being 1 out of 21 billion people (when there were less than 6 billion people on the entire planet), than OJ having anything to do with the murder.

If science like that can be dismissed, then it's just "silly" to think that any sort of science conclusively linking (or separating) the voices in the background of a 911 call to a foreground speaking voice could also be dismissed. Especially when factoring in that "hearing", rather than DNA blood analysis, IS something that humans can inherently identify/detect.

Secondly, even if the Martins' testimony was somehow important to this issue (it's not), that still doesn't explain why they need to be impeached as witnesses. Their bias against Zimmerman is obvious.

The bias is understandable, but to assume they're lying should not be the default assumption of a jury member. It seems the defense may imply Tracy Martin is lying about not initially telling the officers that he did not recognize the screaming voice in the background of the 911 calls as his son.

It will be audio experts who who provide the factual basis for that claim, not the Martins. That's why trials have expert testimony as opposed to just family members of the victim offering their opinions.

If my understanding of the FBI's previous analysis is accurate, then I doubt that's the case. If the prosecution does go that route, then they can easily reference the FBI's failed attempts to link the voices, and the reasons why they failed.

Serino never claimed Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story, so I'm not sure why you think something that never happened will be presented to the jury.

Taking a page out of your past book "Oh, we both know that Serino was talking about GZ's story", and not some random, hypothetical "life-threatening event" (which is closer to Serino's quote).

Nothing more than post hoc rationalizations have been offered, and the bizarre assertion that the parents of the victim somehow need to be impeached as witnesses just in case the jury didn't already know they might be biased against the man they believe murdered their child.

The jury isn't supposed to assume anything, nor should the attorneys leave it up to faith that the jurors will assume anything. Not to mention, this isn't just about "bias", it's about lying about past statements, specifically Tracy Martin's, in regards to who he felt wasn't screaming.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be the case-cracker.

There has been zero implication of that.

 

[Dancing David]

It's potentially evidence of Martins character, the relevance of which was discussed in the previous thread.

Additionally, even if it doesn't turn out to be legally relevant, I can still discuss it, can't I ? Are we non-attorneys here in the non-courtroom supposed to only be discussing legally relevant things ?

You are wrong now, what exactly does it have to do with a 'preponderance' in demonstration of a character and behaviors.

None.

It would be easier to admit that fishing is fishing.

 

[Cylinder]

MOM responded to BDLRs bitchy response to the motion for sanctions, and asked that Judge Nelson remove it from the record, and fine BDLR as appropriate.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/042513_reply_to_sanctions.pdf

What kind of struck me is in his reply to the state, O'Mara cites an example from the Florida Bar that sanctions Hal Urhig, Zimmerman's former attorney for writing a letter on behalf of a client that the bar found to be "insulting" and "highly unprofessional." In O'Mara's defense, the case is quite on-point, even using a literary allusion as a vehicle of ridicule.

 

[Cylinder]

O'Mara and Crump had a co-appearance tonight at an Orlando press dinner. Here are the press comments.