The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Cylinder]

Correct, and I'm still interested in finding out if any of his calls resulted in the arrest and conviction of any bad actors.

We'll have to wait on Ms. Rumph being called as a defense witness. The state objected to Zimmerman trying to introduce the exhibits that document that particular line of questioning by O'Mara. He seemed eager to get it in, though. I honestly don't know the answer to the question off the top-of-my-head. As LEO, I'd recommend Ms. Rumph's testimony to you though.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm wading a bit over my head, but I'd think that a functional disability at some point becomes either exculpatory impeachment information or at least an officer of the court issue. A learning disability, for instance, can deny a defendant of their right to confrontation for the very reason you assert. The witness would pretend to read and understand something, but cannot really function at that level.

LashL??? Anyone???

It would really depend on the nature of the LD and/or other impairments, from a non-lawyer perspective. LD means that someone has an IQ that is not matched in academic performance, ie they have an IQ of 100 but have a learning area of extreme deficit. Now if she has a 'cognitive impairment' that is more of a global thing, ie 'slow learner' has a low IQ but does not qualify as 'cognitive impairment' as they have an IQ>75-70 yet <85.

Now the legal ins and outs of testimony are very different.

 

[Cylinder]

Ms. Jeanel signed her letter to Ms. Fulton as "Diamond Eugene". West asked her to read the letter and she did, in fact, admit she couldn't read many cursive words. West asked if she could read typewritten words. She said she could but didn't sound certain.

 

[KatieG]

She can text so she must be able to read.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was listening to CNN on the satellite radio on the way to a client site this morning, just about the past 30 minutes or so. Trayvon's girlfriend(?) is testifying. I'm assuming she is one of the prosecution's star witnesses, since she was on the phone with him when this all went down. All I have to say is, wow. A complete disaster. The defense attorney is tying her in knots. To start with, you can barely understand her, she's mumbling and sounds like she's on drugs. It was so bad at one point that the attorney had to ask if she was feeling ok. She had previously told interviewers, lawyers, etc that it was a racial crime, but didn't know why she thought that. When the defense suggested that maybe she heard it on the news, she said no, because she doesn't watch the news. When he kept pressing, she testified that Trayvon had told her that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. The defense then asked if she thought it was a racial incident, that maybe it was Trayvon who made it a racial incident, she said no, because calling someone a "creepy ass cracker" isn't racist.

In the distance, I would have swore I heard a fat lady warming up.

 

[KatieG]

She is most likely somewhat learning disabled and appears to have a speech impediment. I think she's doing just fine. She held her own with West yesterday, pinning him on dates that he had wrong. Frankly, West is the biggest disaster for this defense team. I have no idea why O'Mara isn't handling this unless it is the defense's intention to irritate everyone in the courtroom.

 

[bookworm]

So, what's the consensus on DeeDee's testimony that Trayvon profiled Zimmerman as a creepy-blank cracker N-word?

 

[Cylinder]

So, what's the consensus on DeeDee's testimony that Trayvon profiled Zimmerman as a creepy-blank cracker N-word?

My consensus is that it's the first direct evidence of racial profiling presented in the case.

 

[johnny karate]

In the distance, I would have swore I heard a fat lady warming up.

We've been promised that she'll be taking the stage any minute now for over a year.

Don't grab your coat just yet.

 

[Unabogie]

I have the same impression as yesterday. She comes across as obviously learning disabled, truthful, and someone who is scaring the bejeebus out of the defense. So we've gone almost two more hours of badgering her and as far as I can tell, her story is still the same story she told, and there's no end in sight to the badgering.

The question will be how the jury reacts to this sorry spectacle.

 

[Unabogie]

Mr. West just established that wind noise on a cell phone means you're running.
He just confirmed that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car while Martin ran.
He just confirmed that Martin ran, but did not "skip".
Apparently Martin had been standing at the mail kiosk for a little while before Zimmerman showed up. This seems different from what Zimmerman said, which was that spotted him over by Taaffe's house.

 

[sgtbaker]

Mark Nejame, CFnew 13 legal analyst is saying that her credibility very troubling to the prosecution. The points that she is consistent on are not in question. She has admitted to changing the story and the pertinent parts of her story vary. He followed by pointing out that Zimmerman's credibility is shot because of the money situation but her credibility deserves the same scrutiny. Agreed.

Nejame also slammed Cory for claiming to be unbiased but then praying with the family as well as allowing Martin's mother to be present during the police interview. He said he cannot believe the state's been so negligent.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

10:14 a.m. ET: West is going over all the different opportunities Jeantel had to mention "get off, get off," but choose not to bring it up.

10:10 a.m. ET: West is grilling Jeantel about why she did not mentioned hearing Martin say "get off, get off," in the past.

10:07 a.m. ET: West is asking Jeantel why she did not tell Fulton that she heard Martin tell Zimmerman to get off of him. Jeantel said Fulton did not ask her about her about that.

Sounds like she's having a hard time keeping her story straight. I guess that's one of the pitfalls of making things up as you go along.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nejame also slammed Cory for claiming to be unbiased but then praying with the family as well as allowing Martin's mother to be present during the police interview. He said he cannot believe the state's been so negligent.

Yeah, I first heard about that this morning.

 

[Cylinder]

She just acknowledged that Martin confronted Martin. Didn't she assert earlier today that it was Zimmerman that spoke first again or did she acknowledge that lie yesterday?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, if this is the standard that's being set for witness credibility, Zimmerman and his ever-changing story are in a lot of trouble.

It's not the standard. She has admitted on the stand that she chose to lie about things, knowing she was under oath at the time.

 

[Cylinder]

Q: You didn't know if Zimmerman hit Marin, do you? It could as easily been Martin driving his fist into Mr. Zimmerman's face?

A: Yes, sir.

 

[johnny karate]

It's not the standard. She has admitted on the stand that she chose to lie about things, knowing she was under oath at the time.

I'll accept that.

If a witness admits to lying under oath, I think that could be damaging to their credibility.

So I take it that you think inconsistencies and details added after the fact do not affect credibility?

 

[sgtbaker]

I'll accept that.

If a witness admits to lying under oath, I think that would be very damaging to their credibility.

So I take it that you think inconsistencies and details added after the fact do not affect credibility?

Zimmerman is and should be subject to the same scrutiny. Inconsistencies in her story are forgivable, IMHO, her not being able to recall if Zimmerman said, "what are you doing around here," or, "what are you talking about?" Is entirely understandable. She is not going to remember every detail in perfect chronological order. We have the witness flat out admitting to changing the story to make Trayvon sound better. That is very problematic.

 

[Cylinder]

Including one of if not the seminal fact in dispute - who confronted whom. She said yesterday Zimmerman confronted Martin. Today, Martin confronted Zimmerman. She really doesn't have to be lying - the statements are either reliable beyond a reasonable doubt or they're not.

Who can honestly argue that they are?