• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giz said:
Which makes this ruling incredibly odd. Has she just given grounds for an appeal in ther, unlikely, event of a guilty verdict?
Click to expand...
There is no proof it was he who sent the msg's or what the context was.
 
Rare Truth said:
There is no proof it was he who sent the msg's or what the context was.
Click to expand...

But "The government routinely uses this (or less) authentication against defendants"...? (Which would seem to indicate that it was "proved").
 
The ruling apparently dismisses it as even evidence.
(BTW--they don't submit "Proof"--they submit evidence in court. Whether it is proof or not is a jury decision...)
 
The level of "tech stupidity" among the elder generation is pretty strong, and while I can't attribute this to that, you have to wonder if it's not a part of it. It's pretty mind numbing to think this is the phone he died with, the phone he used to call DeeDee, but that all those messages, messages which just happen to (in many circumstances) refer to other things we already know about him, are from someone else.

I'd think it should be admitted and that the prosecutors get to try to suggest that some of those are not, or might not be his messages.

Of course if the prosecution could show ANY reasonable evidence that the phone was actually someone elses, even for a period, they should be allowed to do so. But since they didn't, we know such evidence doesn't exist.

Of course it's possible she was "playing" skeptical and will offer a different opinion tomorrow, but it does not sound like it is going to be admitted right now.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Judge Nelson is not agreeing the texts/pics are authenticated as being sent from TM.

Judge Nelson calls recess.

Don West super angry.

This case is rolling along at super pace. It is ...something.
Click to expand...

Cylinder said:
Nelson reserved ruling until the AM. She was quite skeptical though.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry. She hasn't actually ruled yet, although, she did opine that she thought it failed authentication.

IMO, being hidden by a different program that requires a password, and the phone itself requiring a password ought to be sufficient.

I think I recall when this came up before that for example, a home IP address proven to be associated with an account held by a person sending an email was sufficient to authenticate that email. I guess we will see in the morning.
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
Of course it's possible she was "playing" skeptical and will offer a different opinion tomorrow, but it does not sound like it is going to be admitted right now.
Click to expand...

Nelson sounded very skeptical, but I will say this - she usually reserves rulings if she is going to rule against the state. That gives her time to get the legal findings in order and issue a written order. The state can get appellate review this week, since once the jury says "Not Guilty" the appeal is forever lost. On the other hand, if the error hurts the defense there's a chance a not guilty verdict renders the error harmless and even if that doesn't occur, it will be many months before the District Court reviews her decision. No instant slap-down.

As I said, she sounds very skeptical but it's hard to imagine she doesn't let the fight text in.

State v Lumarque

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. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
The level of "tech stupidity" among the elder generation is pretty strong, and while I can't attribute this to that, you have to wonder if it's not a part of it. It's pretty mind numbing to think this is the phone he died with, the phone he used to call DeeDee, but that all those messages, messages which just happen to (in many circumstances) refer to other things we already know about him, are from someone else.

I'd think it should be admitted and that the prosecutors get to try to suggest that some of those are not, or might not be his messages.

Of course if the prosecution could show ANY reasonable evidence that the phone was actually someone elses, even for a period, they should be allowed to do so. But since they didn't, we know such evidence doesn't exist.

Of course it's possible she was "playing" skeptical and will offer a different opinion tomorrow, but it does not sound like it is going to be admitted right now.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking because TM could have opened the phone, meaning entered the code to unlock it, and let someone else text, that is why it really cannot be authenticated. I'll admit I haven't been able to watch much of this trial, as I'm working a lot. Were these messages sent earlier in the day, or even earlier than that?
 
Rare Truth said:
TWO sequestration violations to be dealt with in the morning.

John Good

&

John Donnelly
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? I'm using this forum to keep me updated on the trial, as I've been very busy lately. I understand the issue with Donnelly, but what's the story with Good? Is he a state or defense witness?
 
triforcharity said:
I'm thinking because TM could have opened the phone, meaning entered the code to unlock it, and let someone else text, that is why it really cannot be authenticated.
Click to expand...

If that is the standard then pretty much any mob boss or terrorist mastermind can use their phone however they like and, if the FBI try to use it in court, say "hey, maybe I handed it to an acquaintance and they texted something, I don't recall"
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
Is that the one of the cases West quoted?
Click to expand...

Nope. They cited Manuel v. State - which is from Texas. It may well be that Texas and Florida have the same rule regarding authentication, but the Texas decision doesn't bind Florida courts. They were obviously working on the fly here.

The requirement of authentication or identification is a condition precedent to admissibility and is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it is. [Tex. R. Evid. 901(a)]. Whether the proponent of evidence has satisfied the threshold requirement of authenticity is one of the preliminary questions to be decided by the court. [Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638].

However, rule 901 “does not erect a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be cleared by circumstantial evidence.” [Peter T. Hoffman, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook, Article IX at 948 (8th ed. 2008-09) (quoting United States v. Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 37 (2d Cir. 2004))]. The proponent of evidence does not need to “rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.” [Id]. In fact, in performing its gate-keeping function under rule 104, the trial court itself need not be persuaded that the proffered evidence is authentic. [Tienda, 358 S.W.3d at 638].

Rather, the ultimate question of whether an item of evidence is what the proponent claims is a question for the fact finder.
Click to expand...

It seems they are relying on the federal court cites from that Texas case.
 
triforcharity said:
I'm thinking because TM could have opened the phone, meaning entered the code to unlock it, and let someone else text, that is why it really cannot be authenticated. I'll admit I haven't been able to watch much of this trial, as I'm working a lot. Were these messages sent earlier in the day, or even earlier than that?
Click to expand...
Oh ya, that's clearly the logic, that someone else could have been using the phone to send all those messages. And it's clearly possible, it just seems like it's stretching it to exclude it based on that, especially given court precedence of the type Cylinder quoted.

Heck, isn't that what every person sued for illegal file downloading tries to claim (not that it's the same, those are civil trials), yet the court usually allows the info in and they get to dispute that they were the one doing the downloading.

I believe the messages were sent over a long period of time, the guy was able to pull many messages off the phone even including ones that had been deleted but were still in the bin files.
 
State objection sustained as to the animation. Can be used as demonstration, but not as substantive evidence.

State objection sustained as to text messages, no Richard Connor.

Apparently not going to deal with witness sequestration issues now, as jury is coming in...
 
Defense calls dennis root.

http://www.dennisroot.com/dennis.php

Judge has ruled already as to 3 specific areas defense cannot ask opinions.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press...tion_in_Limine_Regarding_Expert_Testimony.pdf

The State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney,
hereby moves this Honorable Court to prohibit any opinion testimony related to whether
or not (1) the Defendant's use of force was reasonable, (2) the Defendant violated the
Florida Statutes when using deadly force, and/or (3) the Defendant exhibited restraint in
his use of deadly force against Trayvon Martin.

thanks cylinder :-)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom