The Back Alley Archives

^^ Who the hell is that?

Actually, I'm starting to think more and more that justice may actually get served. The STATE'S case seems to not only not rule out self defense...but support it. If he is acquitted, Justice will have been served. Except for the fact that he should never have been charged.

This morning things did not seem to go much better for the prosecution...

The State has now made the decision to play all of Zimmerman's prior statements and re-enactments, as well as his prior consistent statements to his best friend.

Now the State has effectively put on Zimmerman's own defense without the ability to cross examine him. Zimmerman now doesn't have to take the stand to put on his self-defense claim.

This case has been mishandled the minute Angela Corey got her filthy little hands on it. As it becomes more and more apparent this case should never have been filed, I hope, but will not hold my breath, that those who excoriated Zimmerman will admit they could have been wrong.

As a prosecutor, I would be embarrassed to be playing games like this - solely for inflammatory reasons:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0713/st ... nquiry.pdf

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0713/re ... nquiry.pdf

More Tom Foolery - this, though, in Tallahassee.

I'm sure the venue will be more than fair *eyeroll*.

For context, the moderator that is listed is a local attorney (who does work for the NAACP) and who was a leading force in the push to have Zimmerman charged. The woman providing the "prosecutorial perspective", to my knowledge has not spent any time as a prosecutor (at least in this area) and her firm (Nelson Law - likely a solo practice) does not have a website. The attorney providing the "defense perspective" is actually a very nice guy, and an attorney whom I respect, though his primary focus is not criminal law. I will be curious to know what his "defense perspective" really contains. Finally, the Judge. She was a circuit Judge that handled a criminal docket. However, she was very defense leaning throughout her tenure and had a very liberal ideological philosophy (and she despises anyone who owns a firearm).

More Tom Foolery - this, though, in Tallahassee.

I'm sure the venue will be more than fair *eyeroll*.

For context, the moderator that is listed is a local attorney (who does work for the NAACP) and who was a leading force in the push to have Zimmerman charged. The woman providing the "prosecutorial perspective", to my knowledge has not spent any time as a prosecutor (at least in this area) and her firm (Nelson Law - likely a solo practice) does not have a website. The attorney providing the "defense perspective" is actually a very nice guy, and an attorney whom I respect, though his primary focus is not criminal law. I will be curious to know what his "defense perspective" really contains. Finally, the Judge. She was a circuit Judge that handled a criminal docket. However, she was very defense leaning throughout her tenure and had a very liberal ideological philosophy (and she despises anyone who owns a firearm).

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/FAMU- ... 88931.html

The State is getting desperate now.

Seeking to introduce evidence of coursework Zimmerman took in 2009 to suggest that he DID have access to Stand Your Ground Law...FUCKING EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO IT...IT'S A STATE STATUTE. (you can find it here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... pter%20776)

The theory they're using to put it in is contradicting his statement...a statement the STATE introduced (through Sean Hannity interview). But, there will be no evidence that 1) Zimmerman was in class when taught/discussed, 2) whether or not he was able to understand it, and/or 3) whether he answered SYG questions correctly on exam. For that matter, no proof that the instructor fully understood SYG law.

This trial is a fucking mockery of our system.

[quote=DocZaius]This trial is a fucking mockery of our system.[/QUOTE]

Just piss poor...

Allowing all of this nonsense in is absurd...where is the line drawn now?

As a prosecutor, can I introduce someone's NRA membership - simply to infer that he/she MAY be a gun nut? I took an accounting class in high school (got an A in it, too)...took two more in college - did well in those...if I screw up a form on my taxes, can the prosecution enter my performance in those classes that I know the tax code? or never make a math error?

Can a prosecutor now enter into evidence that someone play cowboys and indians as a kid, and therefore must be susceptible to committing hate crimes?

This is absolutely heinous.

I wonder in all this class work and discussion on self defense...I wonder if in that same class they talked about not speaking with law enforcement, reporters, people in general without a lawyer?

Clearly some lessons didn't sink in, although it may work to Zimmerman's advantage. All the LEOs the State put on the stand agreed that Zimmerman was cooperative and credible.

I think that clearly backfired for the State.

*That* = putting on the college professor.

Got the professor to admit that injuries not need actually occur to use self-defense. However, injuries can corroborate the fear one felt at the time. Asked if someone had to wait until "almost dead" to use self defense...answer: "I certainly wouldn't advise that"...

State has rested. The Medical Examiner was a tremendous joke. Thank God, I don't work in that circuit. I could never call him as a witness again after watching that circus.

I'm quite interested to see how this plays out. It's nice (for me) to just see the facts corroborating what has been apparent to anyone who doesn't only watch the mainstream media for information. But no matter what happens, even if GZ is totally acquitted and walks as a free man. He will never be free, he will never be exonerated and will likely have to live his life in seclusion somewhere. Do I think he should have put himself in that situation? Of course not. But should he be considered the most hated man in the world for the rest of his life? Especially when a dozen of kids like Trayvon are killed every week...in CHICAGO. Why is there so much outrage here? Because of the media and race baiters who will be making out with $$$$ no matter what happens.

It's.just.sickening.

My brother knows John Guy pretty well. I asked him if he had talked to him about the trial and my brother was pretty tight-lipped about it. I mentioned that the case didn't seem to be going too well for the State and he said something that Zimmerman wasn't very credible.

I didn't push him on it, as Guy's one of his buddies and I know the trial has taken a toll on Guy's family (he has three kids, one with a disability).

Still, this trial is a farce.

I have no doubt that John Guy, Bernie de la Rionda, and Mantei are excellent people and excellent prosecutors. They were handed a shit sandwich of a case by Angela Corey and asked to make something out of it. I blame Corey for that.

Absolutely.

Defense apparently not intending to call Zimmerman - as was to be expected after State played his statements.

Good move. Avoids him being tripped up on cross.

Did you all see Judge Nelson herself saying that you can't use Trayvon's cell phone photos and texts because you can't be sure that they are from him? Even though he had two passwords? From a site I follow...

The argument, not by the State, but by Judge Nelson herself, regarding authentication, is so weak and insufferably devoid of legal analysis it is absurd on its face. Then again this is the same judge who said a few days ago, flippantly in open court, that evidence should be “shredded” (Dr. Bao notes).

Essentially she’s arguing that the phone records (texts and pics) cannot be authenticated to have originated by Trayvon Martin (despite two security codes) because anyone could have sent them. Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot !! How can an email be used in a sex offender case? How can phone records be used in RICO cases? How can GPS evidence be used in Insurance Cases? Think about it.

You can’t argue that evidence cannot be admitted because someone else might have made the phone call; Someone else might have sent the email; Someone else accessed the website; Someone else might have drove the car etc.

Not to exclude evidence.

Sure it can be argued by the other side, as a counter point to the jury, but it can’t be a reasonable consideration for exclusion.

I'll leave it to you lawyer types to explain how this doesn't smell bad.

I didn't see it but authentication is required before admitting something like that into evidence.

I think that could be satisfied by calling a police evidence technician or someone from the cell provider though.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=4,10

Thw above case out of the 3rd DCA gives a pretty clear explanation of the authentication requirement for text messages. The defense should either ask for a stipulation from the State or call the evidence technician to the stand.

If that is not good enough for Judge Nelson, well, she is wrong.

really what they needed was the person on the other end of those calls/texts to testify that it was TM they were conversing with...that would be sufficient. Otherwise, all they can do is authenticate what PHONE NUMBER it came from.

With that said, the crux of the defense's position was that the State had withheld that information and only turned it over on June 4 - despite having had it in their possession since January. That is a FLAGRANT discovery violation. One, that frankly, could (likely should) bring sanctions. The Defense was asking the Judge to take that into account and relax the authentication and let the state argue to the jury that it could have been sent by anyone and let the jury give it whatever weight they deemed necessary.

I agree with the defense in this regard.

Dr. Bao's notes are NOT evidence. They could be used to impeach his testimony - but they are NOT evidence.

^ Yeah, but they can show the phone number was Martin's, right? Hell, I assume that the police recovered Martin's phone at the scene, right? So they can show that he had possession of the same phone that those texts came from.

I wouldn't call Precious to the stand if I wanted any accurate testimony out of her.

[quote=DocZaius]^ Yeah, but they can show the phone number was Martin's, right? Hell, I assume that the police recovered Martin's phone at the scene, right? So they can show that he had possession of the same phone that those texts came from.

I wouldn't call Precious to the stand if I wanted any accurate testimony out of her.[/QUOTE]

1) Yes, they can show it is Martin's phone.
2) I don't believe those texts were from the day of the incident - thus the speculation about who could have sent them.
3) I don't believe Precious was the receiver of those texts - other friends of Martin's.