Judge rules out Treyvon Martin's past

The judge didn't permanently bar the evidence from trial. He simply ruled that at this time its not admissible.

I think this is a good ruling....for right now.

However, there are many ways the evidence can be introduced and there is a good chance it will be later on in the trial.

The way I see it coming in is if the prosecution makes darling M's sweet lil cherubish character an issue. That will open the door to a rebuttal. I don't think the prosecution is that stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Remember, this is the same court system that could not get a conviction for Casey Anthony. The prosecution had OVERWHELMING evidence in that case. That being said, I think he is found Not Guilty. Now if there are lesser charges it might get sticky.

gearup said:

Remember, this is the same court system that could not get a conviction for Casey Anthony. The prosecution had OVERWHELMING evidence in that case. That being said, I think he is found Not Guilty. Now if there are lesser charges it might get sticky.

Click to expand...

OVERWHELMING evidence that the poor little girl was murdered. But no evidence (facts) that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother was the person responsible.

As I'm watching the proposed jury instructions (including 3rd degree murder involving child abuse!!!), and have watched much of the trial, I am angry, disgusted, and afraid - afraid that the RKBA organization(s) in Florida will not do what is necessary to ensure that another individual not have to go through this travesty of "justice" by engaging in such heinous acts as carrying a fully loaded firearm, following someone, etc. etc.

KBCraig said:

I would say it's clear evidence that neither thing is relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether Zimmerman was justified. Martin's actions and Zimmerman's perception are relevant; what texts Martin had sent, or substances he had consumed in the past, are not relevant to what happened that night.

Click to expand...

This.

Trayvon isn't on trial. Zimmerman is. Zimmerman can't have known Trayvon's history, therefore it's irrelevant when determining if Zimmerman was acting legally given the facts available to him at the time.

notalawyer said:

:uhoh:
Not sure if serious.
You obviously have not read any of the information that has been released.
The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's statement of the events, and that is all that matters with respect to Florida law. There is only one witness and he's the one that done the shooting.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is at least one other witness, whose statements tend to support Z.

marshaul said:

This.

Trayvon isn't on trial. Zimmerman is. Zimmerman can't have known Trayvon's history, therefore it's irrelevant when determining if Zimmerman was acting legally given the facts available to him at the time.

Click to expand...

For myself, I have mixed feelings about this. Which is usually just another way of saying I probably don't know enough about it yet, and haven't thought through on all the ramifications and implications. Not this case specifically, but the general concepts as applied to all cases.

For example, how can a person's recent drug history and violent attitude not be relevant to deciding whether an attack likely occurred? But, on the other hand, the only reason to probe such would be if the existing evidence wasn't conclusive. Meaning, I would think a juror wouldn't need to reach for likelihoods if the rest of the evidence was conclusive. Which then raises the question, if the evidence is that shaky that jurors might need to look to likelihoods, why is the prosecution bringing the case in the first place?

Which raises two more questions. If the evidence is shaky, how did the prosecution convince itself they got the right guy? And, if the prosecution couldn't honestly reach a solid conclusion about guilt, what is their real reason for bring the case?

And, if a citizen/defendant has the entirely plausible chance of being unfairly or maliciously prosecuted, why not give him every chance to defend himself?

See what I mean? Lots of implications.

If I woke up dictator of Florida, Angela Corey is disbarred, jailed for 2 years, and fined $2,000,000 with the $ going to George Zimmerman.

Edit: I'm watching the defense about 1:30 pm bitch out the evil judge, pretty entertaining actually.

Citizen said:

For myself, I have mixed feelings about this. Which is usually just another way of saying I probably don't know enough about it yet, and haven't thought through on all the ramifications and implications. Not this case specifically, but the general concepts as applied to all cases.

For example, how can a person's recent drug history and violent attitude not be relevant to deciding whether an attack likely occurred? But, on the other hand, the only reason to probe such would be if the existing evidence wasn't conclusive.

Click to expand...

Under other circumstances, the a history of initiating violent confrontations would be relevant. For instance, if Zimmerman had been walking back to his apartment after strolling down to the convenience store for a snack, and a confrontation ensued that wound up with Martin dead, then looking at histories would help a jury decide the truth of Zimmerman's claim of being an innocent pedestrian attacked for no reason.

But, that's not what happened. Even if Zimmerman had disengaged and was walking back to his truck when sucker-punched by surprise, his actions before that led directly to the confrontation; he wasn't attacked out of the blue.

Or, as I like to describe the events that night: a man committing no crime, with every right to be there, noticed a suspicious character and was on the phone reporting it when he was attacked. Did I just describe Zimmerman, or Martin?

Question

What do you think about this exchange between Z and the judge?

http://www.infowars.com/judge-in-zimmerman-case-pressured-by-obama-administration/

The state wants something to stick. Hopefully the jury will have the integrity not to compromise.

KBCraig said:

Under other circumstances, the a history of initiating violent confrontations would be relevant. For instance, if Zimmerman had been walking back to his apartment after strolling down to the convenience store for a snack, and a confrontation ensued that wound up with Martin dead, then looking at histories would help a jury decide the truth of Zimmerman's claim of being an innocent pedestrian attacked for no reason.

But, that's not what happened. Even if Zimmerman had disengaged and was walking back to his truck when sucker-punched by surprise, his actions before that led directly to the confrontation; he wasn't attacked out of the blue.

Or, as I like to describe the events that night: a man committing no crime, with every right to be there, noticed a suspicious character and was on the phone reporting it when he was attacked. Did I just describe Zimmerman, or Martin?

Click to expand...

his actions before that led directly to the confrontation

Click to expand...

Not sure you (and a lot of other people) understand the definition of 'confrontation' as it relates to the use of force statutes.

Or, as I like to describe the events that night: a man committing no crime, with every right to be there, noticed a suspicious character and was on the phone reporting it when he was attacked. Did I just describe Zimmerman, or Martin?

Click to expand...

Based on the testimony of the State's "Star Witness" you just described Zimmerman.

77zach said:

What do you think about this exchange between Z and the judge?

http://www.infowars.com/judge-in-zimmerman-case-pressured-by-obama-administration/

The state wants something to stick. Hopefully the jury will have the integrity not to compromise.

Click to expand...

Oh, boy. What was the judge up to?

77zach said:

What do you think about this exchange between Z and the judge?

http://www.infowars.com/judge-in-zimmerman-case-pressured-by-obama-administration/

The state wants something to stick. Hopefully the jury will have the integrity not to compromise.

Click to expand...

I think the judge is acting outside of her authority. It may be her courtroom but I do believe she needs to let counsel FULLY articulate an objection before overruling it and she has no business swearing him in and then grilling him. That was nothing but showboating. I certainly hope the jury was not present for that crap. It's also sure to be part of any appeal should the jury vote for the mob.

Well, I happened to catch some Faux (sic) News last night. Haven't watched it in at least a decade. There was a 5 person panel on Hannity, all but one (a Soviet prosecutorina) said the prosecution didn't have the evidence. However, all felt the jury would "compromise" and give him manslaughter. The problems with this are

1.) Most 10 year olds could see the prosecution has failed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

2.) A guilty is very bad for what few gun rights we have in Florida

3.) Bad for the pro gun movement nationwide.

We-the-People said:

I think the judge is acting outside of her authority. It may be her courtroom but I do believe she needs to let counsel FULLY articulate an objection before overruling it and she has no business swearing him in and then grilling him. That was nothing but showboating. I certainly hope the jury was not present for that crap. It's also sure to be part of any appeal should the jury vote for the mob.

Click to expand...

Did the jury witness this exchange? If they did the trial is not a fair trial. If she did that in front of the jury it WAS to PREJUDICE them because she knew full well GZ would not testify. She should be fired as a judge and disbarred for such stupid illegal behavior.

If GZ is found guilty of anything I have no doubts it will be overturned on appeal just for that performance alone.

WalkingWolf said:

Did the jury witness this exchange? If they did the trial is not a fair trial. If she did that in front of the jury it WAS to PREJUDICE them because she knew full well GZ would not testify. She should be fired as a judge and disbarred for such stupid illegal behavior.

If GZ is found guilty of anything I have no doubts it will be overturned on appeal just for that performance alone.

Click to expand...

It's not looking good for Zimmerman on the manslaughter, these women were not intelligent enough to get out of jury duty and they don't have the emotional intelligence to not hear the dishonest refrain from the prosecution "child, child, child, child, child, child" whereas the defense only used facts. Facts don't matter to most Americans.

WalkingWolf said:

Did the jury witness this exchange? If they did the trial is not a fair trial. If she did that in front of the jury it WAS to PREJUDICE them because she knew full well GZ would not testify. She should be fired as a judge and disbarred for such stupid illegal behavior.

If GZ is found guilty of anything I have no doubts it will be overturned on appeal just for that performance alone.

Click to expand...

That's what I'd like to know. If she did that in front of the Jury it would be HIGHLY prejudicial and almost assure remand for a new (and fair) trial.

77zach said:

It's not looking good for Zimmerman on the manslaughter, these women were not intelligent enough to get out of jury duty and they don't have the emotional intelligence to not hear the dishonest refrain from the prosecution "child, child, child, child, child, child" whereas the defense only used facts. Facts don't matter to most Americans.

Click to expand...

OR....there are a few on the jury who were smart enough to get on it. It works both ways. I myself have been on the "smart enough to get on" side of the issue. Not offering information that isn't asked during voir dire, avoiding words that will cause one side or the other to drop you, bringing out those things that would cause an issue (a relative that's a cop, prior work as a cop or security, etc) and definitely NOTHING about the Constitution (sad but true).

77zach said:

...these women were not intelligent enough to get out of jury duty...

Click to expand...

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...