Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Breaking – Jury will not get to see Trayvon fighting texts

Breaking – Jury will not get to see Trayvon fighting texts

Also, Animated Video Not Evidence

The Judge in the Zimmerman trial just ruled that the jury will not get to see numerous text messages on Trayvon Martin’s phone regarding his prowess at fighting, including texts as to how to punch someone in the nose and make them bleed.

The Judge did not give an explanation for her ruling other than to stand by her prior ruling as to social media evidence.

It is not clear if the Judge found a lack of authentication, which was one of the arguments last night.  The Judge did indicate she reviewed the Lumarque case in which a trial court was reversed for failing to allow text messages.

The Judge also ruled that an animated video prepared by the defense (consisting of still animation pages, not motion) will not be allowed in evidence, but could be used as a demonstrative exhibit by the defense.  That means that the animation images are merely part of the defense argument, probably in closing, not evidence the jury takes back into the jury room.

Nelson ruling

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


kentuckyliz | July 10, 2013 at 9:20 am

If the prosecution is asserting that GZ was a rabid racist, isn’t it reasonable to present evidence to show that GZ’s intuitions were correct perceptions? That seems nuts to me, and it’s a blank check for thugs to do whatever the hell they want and tweet or text about it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

housemom1952 | July 10, 2013 at 9:20 am

This woman is not even attempting to hide her bias!

    Danny Leong in reply to housemom1952. | July 10, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    Judges in general do tend to have a bias in favor of the prosecution. Most want to be seen as “tough on crime,” after all. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Zimmerman is placed in this situation, but I doubt many of us really want a system where the defense can routinely call into question the character of the victim. Remember, those in the defendant’s chair are frequently (maybe even usually) hard-core criminals.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Danny Leong. | July 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm

      Nelson is a former prosecutor.

        Danny Leong in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm

        A lot of judges are, so there is a natural tendency to favor the prosecution. It’s not a landscape defense lawyers are unfamiliar with. So far the Zimmerman team has managed to mount an effective defense. That’s what matters. A fair trial doesn’t mean both sides get the same treatments.

If Zimmerman is found guilty would the fact the judge ruled against allowing the phone pics/texts help in the appeal process?

    MC Escher in reply to iMark. | July 10, 2013 at 9:26 am

    It won’t matter. If the jury convicts, which seems highly unlikely at this point, she’ll have to choose between issuing a directed verdict AFTER the jury comes back in or being overturned.

    I’m not sure if that would be on “The Law” or “The Evidence” though. It would turn on the State failing to meet the statutory minimum standards of proof though.

    My understanding is that the reversible errors are appealable.

biglawmonies | July 10, 2013 at 9:21 am

Couldn’t tell whether the Judge made a decision based on (1) authentication; (2) hearsay; or (3) relevance. Could anyone else tell?

I can understand the animated video decision, but not the text/picture ruling, for all of the reasons and authorities mentioned in the argument and comments yesterday.
These are sad days for our society, once based on the rule of law. All branches of our government march to the beat of a lawless drum.

    Mark30339 in reply to Rick. | July 10, 2013 at 9:38 am

    This case is beyond this judge’s level of temperament or ability. The bending over backwards to not tell Trayvon’s character flaws to the last 6 people in the world who don’t yet know is beyond me. It’s HIS cell phone, there is a reasonable inference the texts are HIS. The defendant has constitutional rights to offer evidence of Trayvon’s non-passive postures on fighting and weapons, in light of all the evidence showing Trayvon punching George. This shouldn’t hold up on appeal, but there probably won’t be an appeal and the racial grievance community will see this ruling as a precedent blocking all of society from holding their community to account for the content of their character.

      raven in reply to Mark30339. | July 10, 2013 at 10:44 am

      >>”This case is beyond this judge’s level of temperament or ability.”

      Decidedly. A low-level person.

      Is she elected or appointed?

        jayjerome66 in reply to raven. | July 10, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        Elected… recently I think so not in political jeopardy in the near future. Hopefully voters will keep a long memory for this one

      I should have given a thumbs down because I did not catch all the concern troll statements.

      If the jury stupidly come back with a guilty verdict, especially based upon the non-evidence, then this will be appealed due to the errors that were committed by Nelson.

      The case is full of her decisions that are reversible errors, including her decision not to allow those texts or any evidence relating to the real gangsta character of Trayvon Martin.

biglawmonies | July 10, 2013 at 9:32 am

Ok, looks like she did not rule on authentication but ruled on hearsay. She said the text does not meet Fl. Stat. 90.803(3):

“(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.—
(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.
2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.
(b) However, this subsection does not make admissible:
1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will.
2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.”

Wonder whether Fla Stat. 90.904(2) would have applied also…given that TM was saying that he was fighting and beating other people up:

(2) HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS.—The following are not excluded under s. 90.802, provided that the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(c) Statement against interest.—A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest or tended to subject the declarant to liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, so that a person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement.”

    DriveBy in reply to biglawmonies. | July 10, 2013 at 9:39 am

    Please say that again in nonlegaleze.

      Humphreys Executor in reply to DriveBy. | July 10, 2013 at 9:53 am

      Different exceptions to the hearsay rule apply depending on whether the declarant (the person who made the out-of-court statement, i.e. TM by his text messages) is available to testify. So the point is, which exceptions did the judge consider, if any.

    Edgehopper in reply to biglawmonies. | July 10, 2013 at 11:16 am

    If she ruled on hearsay, unfortunately she might be right. The 90.803(3) probably shouldn’t apply to the vast majority of the texts, which are not descriptions of present mental states but of past activities (e.g., “I lost the first round but won the 2nd and 3rd and made him bleed.”) The most applicable hearsay exception is a declaration against interest, but that also probably doesn’t apply because there’s no indication that any of these fights were nonconsensual, so Martin wouldn’t be making a statement that exposes himself to criminal liability on the fights. The gun buying texts are statements against interest, but they aren’t relevant to the case like the fighting ones.

    It’s actually a little ironic after all the Trayvon defender whining about how only Zimmerman gets to tell his side of the story–only Zimmerman can have his past statements used against him!

    The defense should get a continuance to Monday to subpoena and depose Martin’s friends though about these fights. If you can’t get the texts in, find another avenue.

    V.McCann in reply to biglawmonies. | July 10, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    Given that the texts, assuming they’re authentic, should be admissible as evidence of Skittle’s character for violence, rather than to prove their content, it seems she was relying on an entirely irrelevant statute if she was citing hearsay exceptions. 90.404 allows evidence regarding an alleged victim’s relevant character trait. The fact that Martin was boasting about having inflicted injury on other person is relevant to his character for violence irrespective of the truth of his claim. I think this is yet another blown ruling.

      V.McCann in reply to V.McCann. | July 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm

      My first sentence probably would have been more readable this way:

      Given that the texts, assuming they’re authentic, should be admissible as evidence of Skittle’s character for violence rather than to prove their content, it seems she was relying on an entirely irrelevant statute if she was citing hearsay exceptions.

      Sorry.

Did the judge rule that the probative value of the texts was outweighed by their prejudicial effect? If so, that doesn’t seem logical, given that one of the seminal, unanswered questions in this case is whether Martin or Zimmerman initiated the violence in their altercation. Thus far, the State has not offered any evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s narrative that Martin attacked him first. If Martin’s text messages indicate that he had a propensity for getting into fights with people and then bragging about it afterwards in exchanges with his friends, how can this be deemed to not be relevant?

    txantimedia in reply to guyjones. | July 10, 2013 at 9:46 am

    It’s not relevant when you are hell bent to convict someone regardless of the evidence in the case.

      Aridog in reply to txantimedia. | July 10, 2013 at 10:30 am

      Relevance? Four days ago I commented right here that a hard punch to the nose is the best sucker punch there is to anyone unaccustomed to being hit…and that anyone who has a minimum of boxing, martial arts, or ordinary street hassles, knows this. Eyes flood with tears, if hard enough, the ears are impacted and dizziness can occur, to include falling down. Evidence locked behind a secure password on TM’s cell phone talking about the nose punch is certainly relevant.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Aridog. | July 10, 2013 at 11:03 am

        Exactly. As a former AAU and PAL amateur boxer, that is the exact purpose of a good stiff jab.

        kentuckyliz in reply to Aridog. | July 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm

        Off topic question for Aridog: are you boycotting Althouse while comments are off? I am. You are one of the commenters I valued there. That commentariat was worth its weight in gold.

          Aridog in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 10, 2013 at 2:07 pm

          Not so much boycotting as just not interested in reading a blog that asks questions, outright or my implication, in a substantial portion of its posts, and no offers no mechanism to give an answer. I sorry it has gone the way it has, as I said in the comment that Ann put up, and I feel it is a mistake.

          kentuckyliz in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm

          I so wanted to point out the trending #IfMyVaginaWasAGun (sic) on twitter two nights ago–seemed very relevant to recent discussions of paternity fraud, contraceptive fraud, nonconsensual insemination, etc. I bet a lot of that commentariat would have stormed the hashtag with their pithy comments and totally warped its meaning. I did my best with humor and prolife statements and a critique of radical feminism. ROFTL it was so funny. The hashtag refers to a poem written about the Wendy Davis TX filibuster for pro abortion, and dreamy defiant feminism. To relate it to this topic on this page, one of my favorite and most RT’d/faved tweets was, #IfMyVaginaWasAGun there’d be a lot more respect for the Neighborhood Watch Program.

          Aridog in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 10, 2013 at 5:47 pm

          I neglected to thank you for your compliment and return my own. You’re one of the prior Althouse commenters that I always made point to read, both for your humor and your purview. That said I’ve been a frequent reader and an occasional commenter here on Legal Insurrection. I imagine that participation will increase now. I think Professor Jacobson covers more topics of my interest, in my interest, than the smörgåsbord of other potential sites. I only have time for one or two with any regularity. My email is in my profile if you have direct questions.

    PackerBronco in reply to guyjones. | July 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

    Which begs the question: Prejudicial effect on whom? Martin is not on trial here and the texts definitely aid in raising reasonable doubt on whether GZ is guilty. The prosecution can raise all sorts of questions for the jury about the text’s legitimacy and the jury can decide about how much weight they want to give the texts.

Juba Doobai! | July 10, 2013 at 9:53 am

This is monstrously wrong! We generally do not share our cellphone’s texts with others. More than that, the law should make all information available to the jury to make a properly informed decision.

    Observer in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 10, 2013 at 10:58 am

    It’s great news for Florida’s criminal population. (At least the ones who appear before this judge). Apparently, all the incriminating text messages and photos the cops find on their password-protected phones are now inadmissible against them, unless there is an eyewitness who can testify that they saw the defendant taking the photo or typing out the text.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Observer. | July 10, 2013 at 3:27 pm

      It’s terrible for rape cases (to not allow social media and texting records). Rapists are bragging to their friends and sharing pix and video and comments. Think Steubenville rape case. My IT students could have done so much better with the computer/phone forensics than the SPD investigators did–they seemed stuck in the pre-cell, pre-Internet era.

You know, this was and still is an ongoing movie, written, produced and directed by the noted lefty racist, Quentin Tarantino. Pulp Fiction (The Sequel).

The sad fact(s) is/are (pick one), it involves real people.

What we have learned from this proceeding…
Acceptable: Brudda bustin’ a cap on anudda brudda over drugs or a whore.
Unacceptable: “White” Hispanic [sic] bustin’ a cap on a brudda in self defense.

[…] Update:  Breaking – Jury will not get to see Trayvon fighting texts […]

And a B (rated) “movie” at that!

She is omitting the text/pictures because she doesn’t want us to see what Obama’s son would be like……if he (Obama) had a son.

    Observer in reply to Robert1977. | July 10, 2013 at 11:09 am

    LOL. Obama’s comment on the case, grossly inappropriate as it was, was certainly on the mark, wasn’t it?

    If Obama had a son, he’d likely be a racist, choom-smoking type who routinely skipped school, hung around with friends of questionable character, and who didn’t even have enough sense not to jump a stranger in a concealed carry state.

      Twanger in reply to Observer. | July 10, 2013 at 11:39 am

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^

      I can’t tell if I dislike the prosecution attorneys because I think their case is weak, or because they come off as a bit slimy and smug. Probably both.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Observer. | July 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      Obama would have to edumacate his B&E thieving son how to clean up his act, go to law school, then get elected and engage in huge scale theft that daddy has mastered brilliantly.

      You can steal more money with a teleprompter than a screwdriver.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Observer. | July 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      I have to say that this was a very nasty thing to say about Martin, I mean Martin did not have ears nearly big enough to be related to Obama, if he had Zimmerman could have just pulled one or the other to get Martin off of him.

Is anybody really surprised about this?

. . . . . and does anybody not think that if the police had discovered in Zimmerman’s cell phone comments along the line that someday he’s going to nail one of those punks that are burglarizing the complex, that the state and the judge would have that on display front and center from the opening moment of the trial?

atl.attorney | July 10, 2013 at 10:41 am

Has anyone been keeping track of Nelson’s rulings? i.e.- percentage of rulings in favor of State as opposed to Defense?

    Ragspierre in reply to atl.attorney. | July 10, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Dunno that would tell us a lot. O’Mara is not an “objection hound”. He lets a LOT of stuff go by, which we know is a matter of style and strategy.

      Matt in FL in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Yeah, I commented yesterday (or was it the day before, I can’t remember anymore) that when it was the State’s case, BDLR clearly didn’t know how to ask a non-leading question, and MOM let most of them go by, but the ones he did object to were mostly all sustained. It was just not that important to him.

      When the tables turned, and it was the defense’s case, BDLR objected to virtually every even remotely leading question that MOM asked.

        txantimedia in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 10:54 am

        That is not lost on a jury, BTW. The impression will be that O’Mara is accommodating and the prosecution is combative. That enters, subconsciously, into the jury’s deliberations.

      atl.attorney in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 11:04 am

      Honestly, I am curious about the substantive rulings, particularly those stemming from motions. There are some that fall within her discretion and I am interested in knowing which way her discretion leans. From what I am recalling it seems that she has exhibited a strong pro-State bias with her rulings, but I didn’t know if that is just because I am a defense attorney and I think this whole case is a sham…

Can someone pls explain to me why Defense can’t enter the phone as evidence of “phone found at scene of attack” and then show the txts to jury after blacking out Trayvon’s ID/name?

The prosecution can enter hearsay and the proven lying testimony of a functionally illiterate witness but fact-based animation and encrypted, password-protected messages on Trayvon’s phone are inadmissible.

Worst case scenario, O’Mara can plead a mistrial based on Nelson’s obvious bias.

I like, and I assume the jury likes, pithy statements. I think, “Carrying a gun without a round in the chamber, well, why carry it?” qualifies as such a statement.

Carol Herman | July 10, 2013 at 11:02 am

Judge is protecting her friends!

The deletion of material from the cell phone was not done by Trayvon. But by the Mayor’s office. And/or Drump! Given that this information still exists in reality. It can come off the cell phone and go viral on the Internet. There will be no forced testimony which needs to be done by the race whores.

After the fact, can this chicanery get exposed?

    Matt in FL in reply to Carol Herman. | July 10, 2013 at 11:09 am

    @Carol Herman: There is no evidence whatsoever that the deletion of texts and photos from TM’s phone was done by anyone other than TM himself. Peddle your tinfoil hats somewhere else, please.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 1:07 pm

      @Matt in FL — No evidence Trayvon deleted all those files either. Why would he dump it all, especially photos of himself he seemed so sullenly proud of ? Take if from me, teenagers don’t delete their own photos except to back them up elsewhere, and is there’s any evidence he downloaded them some where else? The dump seem like something a CRUMBy lawyer, with a lot of money riding on future racist-based litigation, would do..

        rantbot in reply to jayjerome66. | July 10, 2013 at 6:07 pm

        Yes, that’s the sort of potentially embarrassing stuff somebody deletes before a trial, not before cold-cocking some crazy-ass cracker.

Are you frigging kidding me. He did not refer to TM as an asshole or call him a f-ing punk. He was referring to previous individuals. This is all the persecution has a couple of curses. A man is on trial b/c of swearing, really? How called the police, TM or GZ? If I was going to plug someone thats not the 1st thing I’d do.

Wow ! Talk about ‘one trick ponies’ ! This AH prostituter is falling back on BLDR’s favorite trick -shouting ‘F’ing punk’ and ‘AH’.

I guess that the closest thing the prostituters have to a point – ‘if you use a naughy word, you are a murderer !’

F’ing MF’rs ….. if you will pardon my language .

With the hidden text messages revealed to show that St. Trayvon was texting his father “Fruit” about buying and selling guns I see now why the family refused to give police the TM’s phone password. Could this be why the man who extracted this info for the state became a whistleblower b/c he believed the prosecution wasn’t going to release info to defense.

    Yes. They had the evidence that directly contradicts the whole narrative and they were hiding that evidence from everyone.

    This is a kangaroo court. It is a show trial. It is truly disgusting on so many levels.

“…you wouldn’t lie to get yourself into trouble.”

Ya moron….

Rastafaustian | July 10, 2013 at 11:16 am

Might there be any consequences for Judge Nelson if this decision is later found to be a gross error?

Ehh, I could make some good arguments for tossing out the animation and the tweets. Nelson is surely on better footing with these decisions than with most of her others. Motion of Acquittal should have passed, for instance, and this case should already be over. But these two decisions are far from her worst.

O’Mara is smiling.

Let me repeat this ad nauseum. His head hit the concrete. His head hit the concrete. His head hit the concrete.

Gawd these prosecutors are stupid.

Question for all you legal eagles; if Trayvon Martin’s cell phone records, which included numbers called AND text messages, could be used to locate Witness #8 (the infamous Dee-Dee) why are the rest of the cell phone records not admissible?

It seems to me the prosecution was allowed to use cell phone records for the purpose of prosecution, but Nelson said “No” for the purpose of defense.

    jayjerome66 in reply to retire05. | July 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    I’m more of a legal chipmunk, but they located Dee Dee through phone company records of the numbers dialed to and received from TMs phone, which are available for scrutiny. The text messages on a phone are a different matter — have privacy issues attached.

Is this prosecutor on a fishing expedition? I think he is being extremely picky and annoying.

This cross will go down in history as the “bellybutton humiliation”.

So, evidence that Z once took a criminal justice class is admissible because it shows he is a wannabe cop, but Martin’s tweets about fighting are not admissible to show that he was a wannabe fighter?

Is the state now trying to say that TM was giving up and getting off before the shot was fired? If so where is that evidence? Backwards Trial!

    DriveBy in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Yes. Or at least Reasonable Doubt that TM could have been giving up, for 40 seconds while screaming “HELP!!!! I want to give up! HELP!!!!”

    PackerBronco in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Apparently GZ has to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the only way I can figure all of this nonsense speculation about tree branches, etc.

Is that dummy BDLR or Corey-Nifong?

Worst prosecution ever. The expert is very sharp. John Guy is dumb.

This guy’s testimony is golden.

GZ never told Osterman that TM grabbed the gun Osterman said that he didn’t take notes and if a mistake was made that was different from GZ’s statement it was his (Osterman) fault.

Mr. Guy, you are drowning. Get out of the water, excuse the witness!!!!

Objection to the computer animation.

http://bitstrips.com/r/06L69

The State my have just violated limine, and opened the door.

We’ll see….

There is no law where you must inform a dispatcher you have a weapon and a dispatcher is not a LEO! WTF!

    Matt in FL in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

    To be specific, there’s no law in Florida to inform a LEO at all, unless they ask.

      styro1 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

      I know a lot of states if pulled over or come to scene of incident your at you must inform LEO

        Matt in FL in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm

        That’s correct, but not in Florida. If pulled over, you never have to mention it. Some choose to, and if asked to step out of the car, it would probably be wise to, before they discover it, but there is no duty to inform, unless asked.

          iconotastic in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm

          Always a poor decision to surprise a LEO with a firearm. You may get an anti-gun nutter officer but most are very supportive of legal concealed carry. At least that has been my experience at traffic stops.

Root would have benefited by having some notes.

Andrew, saw your tweet about being in southern NH tomorrow where and what time? I’m a fellow Mass resident and like to meet and get book signed.

Carol Herman | July 10, 2013 at 12:27 pm

Last night, we saw a BIG SHOW. O’Mara and West have released to the Internet world that Trayvon Martin’s cell phone had images and taxts DELETED.

Who did the DELETING?

THIS is what nelson is protecting. The “brotherhood” of liberal race baiters.

Who wouldn’t buy a book showing “what, when & where” these deletions occurred? Since there’s now information on data bases which can be pulled, and analyzed.

Either someone in Sanford’s police department. Or more than likely; Norton Boneparte, City Manager. Or Crump, himself. It’s a mystery.

After this trial is over, and given how far NSA has gone under Obama’s presidency … Why wouldn’t there be a worldwide search to discover how such “fiddling” could take place?

O’Mara’s back on track. What nelson did was done to protect “The Big Guys.” Now? It’s a small leak in the sewer pipe. Doesn’t mean there aren’t a few people who’d like to know more about it.

What about cases where child pornographers are charged ONLY BECAUSE information is found on their computers?

This case may end soon. But the deletion of text and photos from Trayvon’s phone? Not so soon. Not by a long shot.

GOOD MORNING FOR O’MARA still there for the jury to absorb? Plus, now they get a dummy to play with during deliberations, no?

Carol, there is no evidence to suggest who deleted the data. So there is no way for us to know who did it.

not_surprised | July 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm

the text messages are stored in SQLLite, a database. the database has a transaction log that records every transaction and can easily be inspected to see which day a give record was deleted. The forensic guy just doesn’t have the tools or knowledge to open and interpret the log file transactions as they are not plain text. From (an available) database expert..

As for the hidden app data repository, not sure if the deletes are time stamped, most likely not.

Given a timeline of the deletes, and the chain of custody of the evidence (phone) they might be able to identify a delete 😉

    Ragspierre in reply to not_surprised. | July 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    And THAT could count in Florida a “new evidence”.

    Evidence destruction is called “spoliation” in the law, and is a VERY, VERY bad thing to courts. If a lawyer engages in it, I would suggest that is almost a guarantee of disbarment.

      iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 1:18 pm

      Something else to add to the sanctions referred to by West in the hearing? After all, why were the phone contents hidden from the defense for months?

    Cervisia in reply to not_surprised. | July 10, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    > the database has a transaction log that records every transaction and can easily be inspected to see which day a give record was deleted. […] From (an available) database expert.

    Unfortunately, that expert is wrong.

    SQLite’s default transaction log mechanism is a rollback journal, which gets deleted or overwritten after every transaction.

    If the database is in WAL mode (which is unlikely because it’s not available on older phones, and is not the default anyway), there is a log of the most recent transactions, but the database does not store any timestamps for those.
    The time of a transaction could be reconstructed only by any timestamps that the application has written to the database.
    If no new messages have been received or sent after the deletion, it is not possible to find out when the deletion happened.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to not_surprised. | July 10, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    We could just ask the NSA I am sure they have them.

Everyone is saying this case is about race, but I don’t think it is.

I think this case is all about the right to defend yourself with deadly force (a gun).

GZ is as “not-guilty” as it gets. He’s a poster-child for proper self-defense behavior.
He did pretty-much everything right. He phoned 911 in advance. He took a beating for 40 seconds before pulling the trigger. He called the cops on himself. He complied in every way. He didn’t lawyer up (ill advised, by the way). His story has really never changed, and it has stood up to scrutiny.

He showed amazing restraint, really. Would you take 40 seconds of beat-down from somebody who just said they were gonna kill you before pulling the trigger?

So … if he’s convicted it will send a strong message to anyone who would defend themselves against thugs with a gun. That message is: You should not defend yourself. You must simply take your beat-down and hope you’re not killed. BECAUSE – if you defend yourself your life will be over and you’ll soon become some prison thug’s bee-och.

This is why the 1,000 brudda-on-brudda killings in Chicago are not getting the time of day in the liberal press. They can’t stop illegal gun violence, and they don’t care if some pimp kills some crack dealer.

However, they want to put the fear of God into you about defending yourself with a gun.

This is all part of the Dem/Obama anti-gun transformation of America.

    Aridog in reply to Twanger. | July 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    You said: “…part of the Dem/Obama anti-gun transformation…”

    While I agree with that sentiment, does it bother you that the main players [Gov Scott who appointed Corey, Attorney General Bondi, as well as Corey herself] on the prosecution side of this case are all Republicans?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Twanger. | July 10, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    The right to defend yourself with deadly force is what this case SHOULD be about, and to most of us that is what it is about. To the bias media and race baiters it is about race, but then so is pretty much anything else that someone disagrees with them on.

Carol Herman | July 10, 2013 at 12:55 pm

txantimedia: The cell phone has no chain of custody? Wasn’t it found at the crime scene?

I think the “surprise” is that information you’ve put into your cell phone, just doesn’t go “up in a cloud.” But can be retrieved.

A long time ago, when people wrote with pens and pencils. And, to make copies they used carbon paper … You could see testimony NOT from the page, itself, but from underneath that page. Where’ you’d brush it lightly … and like a secret message … up would pop this missing document. Because the pencil strokes were deep enough to put words on what looked invisible.

Here? Programmers of computers, and technicians, can retrieve information stored in “a database.”

So, on the “chain of custody,” who bagged the phone? Were did this particular evidence go? And, except for incompetence, wouldn’t you expect to be able to retrieve the cell phone so it could be used as evidence at trial?

Judge nelson, last night, tried to tire out O’Mara and West. And, also bounce away curiosity on just what sits on that cell phone.

Given that DRUDGE has mounted a picture of Trayvon smoking dope … isn’t it possible that out of court … more of these deleted pictures will see the light of day?

So, the jury doesn’t. But what if public opinion … for people who read DRUDGE … or who go to Hannity’s Show … start to get more curious over wanting to see those pictures? Wanting to see that text? (Will this be a court item because Sibryna Fulton trademarked Trayvon’s name?)

This judge has no interest in the TRUTH.

So much for the oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Has escaped her rulings. Last night’s court’s extension had two purposes. To rid her courtroom of the contents of the cell phone deletions. And, to exhaust O’Mara and West. While BLDR left earlier, and got to have a good night’s sleep.

TeacherinTejas | July 10, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Man, she makes Lance Ito look like John Marshall!

Stand by her earlier ruling on social media evidence? Texts aren’t social media.

How long will the 6 lady jury be out for ? What is the norm ?

My husband just told me this, and it’s serious. It’s on Rush. Go to PJ Media, I think, or listen to Rush. The DOJ, someone from there, went down to Sandford and stirred up stuff about this case. I think in 2012. Maybe March. Now I think it’s on Drudge. Judicial Watch got some documents.

Justice Department Facilitated Anti-Zimmerman Protests.

It’s on Drudge now.

    Matt in FL in reply to kittycat. | July 10, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    This is not new news. From their website:

    “The Community Relations Service is the Department’s ‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.”

    This is an organization born during the civil rights era, and although there’s not as much call for it now as then, what they do is not “facilitate” protests. They talk to the protesters to show them how to get their message out without it turning ugly. In turn, they talk to local authorities to teach them how to deal with the protests in such a way as to keep civil order without infringing on folks’ civil rights.

    To put it in simple terms, they teach the protesters to protest without throwing rocks and bottles at the cops, and they teach the cops to enforce order without resulting to billy clubs and fire hoses.

    Make sense now?

      Ragspierre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm

      I am not at all sanguine about your explanation.

      Before the Holder Department of (racial) Justice, I would be more inclined to think these guys may have been innocuous.

      I am not now.

        Matt in FL in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm

        That’s a fair statement. If it turns out they went beyond (or well beyond) their stated area of operation, then there should be fallout.

        Not that I expect that will happen. Because Holder.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 1:51 pm

        I’m also not pretending to know, one way or the other.

        Like Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, etc., it needs to be closely inquired into.

        So. A NEW scandal.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      CRS = Communityorganizer Racegrievance Services

      slim56 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 5:29 pm

      No, it does not make sense. The purpose of and the reason for the existence of such a provision in the Act does not apply here. In any event, I don’t believe that it would be of much help in dealing with members of the New Black Panther Party. I also believe that the police escort given to protestors before Zimmerman was actually arrested and formally charged was an indefensible use of law enforcement and taxpayer dollars. What is beginning to make sense is the obvious intent to make something big out of a case that never should have been prosecuted in the first place–perhaps for the purpose of satiating a hungry mob? I just hope that said mob has dwindled in numbers and passion since the 2012 election is now over–which happens to have been a big factor in the appointment of a “special” prosecutor to handle a case that otherwise never would have been prosecuted. Further, try to make sense out of the fact that hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the DOJ Voting Section is a sign expressing solidarity with Trayvon Martin. That should give everyone reason to wonder exactly why this case is so important to the DOJ.

    Judge Nelson is just doing what the Obama Administration did prejudging George Zimmerman.

    They know the facts are weak, but it is in their political interest to go after him, so they are doing so.

So this makes me wonder, did they get to the judge as well? Maybe someone better tell MOM about this. I don’t have Twitter.

Can the defense appeal the texts ruling during the trial as they did with the toxicology report? Is there time?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to 595959. | July 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Yes, they could appeal the decision to the Appeals court, however that takes time and this judge has repeatedly refused to grant the defense a continuance, even though it was obvious that it was needed, deserved and the right thing to do.

      snopercod in reply to Gremlin1974. | July 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm

      “this judge has repeatedly refused to grant the defense a continuance”

      There may be another explanation for that. I was on a federal jury once where the prosecution’s case was so laughably week that the “innocent” verdict was a foregone conclusion from the very beginning. The judge just wanted to end the farce as soon as he could. I can only hope that’s the case here.

retiredprosecutor | July 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm

TM’s bragging about is fighting ability was not being introduced to prove that he was, in fact, a great fighter. Therefore, the rule against hearsay and any exception to that rule is inapplicable to the analysis.

Rather, his bragging about having engaged in fights (whether or not he ever actually engaged in any such fights) was non-hearsay that is relevant to establish that he is the type of person who would be willing to fight someone without any provocation. This, in turn, is relevant to establish that TM attacked GZ when the two of them met on the sidewalk. This evidence would have corroborated the testimony of witness Good, and would have undermined the prosecution’s theory that GZ — with his supposed MMA training — was the initial aggressor at the critical moment when the two men came face-to-face.

From what I heard, it doesn’t appear that defense attorney West did a good job of pointing out this important distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay. Instead, it appeared that he relied exclusively upon the hearsay exception argument. To be fair to Mr. West, it has been my experience that many attorneys (prosecutors and defense counsel) and most judges do not fully grasp the important distinction between using hearsay to prove the truth of what was said, and using the statements as non-hearsay circumstantial evidence of a person’s relevant character trait.

    Ragspierre in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Agreed. And hearsay and its exceptions in trial, on the fly, is often a generator of error by the courts.

    As they say in the movies…It’s complicated…

    Zimmerman’s appellate lawyer: “Your Honors, a statement is hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A statement is not hearsay if…”

    Justice: “Counsel, you may safely assume we’re familiar with the basics of evidence law.”

    Appellate lawyer: “Respectfully, Your Honor, trial counsel made that assumption of the trial court to my client’s detriment.”

      Matt in FL in reply to V.McCann. | July 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Although I laughed, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

      Rick in reply to V.McCann. | July 10, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      The law does not allow a trial lawyer to make that assumption. The trial lawyer has to object. If he does not, the objection is waived.

        V.McCann in reply to Rick. | July 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

        We’re not talking about the defense’s failure to raise an objection. We’re talking about the judge’s ruling in a hearing regarding the admissibility of Martin’s texts. Even if we were talking about on objection, the defense was seeking to admit evidence in question, so the duty to object would have been on the state. Regardless, an attorney arguing a hearsay issue does not have to explain to the judge what hearsay is. She’s expected to know because she’s, you know, a lawyer.

        then please take my thumbs down as a means of saying your argument failed.

    WilliamJD in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    The distinction isn’t very complicated. The problem for an attorney like O’Mara is that he’s probably getting 3 or 4 hours of sleep each night.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    retireredprosecutor, if the judge allows prior bad acts of Zimmerman, does that open the door for the defense to again try to get things from Martins past in?

Rumor: Prosecution team has received a generous advance for their soon-to-be-published book, Prosecution for Dummies.

Rumor: The prosecution will next employ the zombie defense, claiming that George Zimmerman initiated the altercation by shooting Trayvon Martin, after which Trayvon rose up and pummeled Zimmerman in retribution.

What I wish I had heard:

Prosecutor: Did GZ ever call you a fucking punk or asshole when you were interviewing him?

Witness: No sir and neither have you today. However, based on your obvious penchant for those terms I do have a good idea of what you will probably be calling me later today after court adjourns.

jayjerome66 | July 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm

As stated above Nelson excluded the phone text messages on hearsay because the text doesn’t meet Fl. Stat. 90.803(3): but the wording applies to STATEMENTS made of of states of mind, emotions, etc., made in retrospect.

Why then was the specific photo showing TMs buff, wide shouldered physique also excluded? An actual photo isn’t hearsay. Nor is it in any way prejudicial to Martin, as say those photos showing Martin frequently giving everyone the middle finger. That photo bolsters today’s expert witness who testified it was important to evaluate the physical conditions of the participants in a fight. And I believe the State Self Defense charge includes instructions about incorporating that into jury deliberations.

Any thoughts?

“(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.—
(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

    retiredprosecutor in reply to jayjerome66. | July 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    To the extent that the photo was taken shortly before the incident, it should have been admissible since it depicted TM’s physical stature which, in turn, was highly relevant to the critical issue in the case: self-defense.

    Danny Leong in reply to jayjerome66. | July 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Picture of a muscular black man posing in an intimidating pose can be considered prejudicial. It adds nothing to the facts of the case. The jury already knows who had the upper-hand in the struggle from the injury reports. The judge probably did the right thing excluding that.

      retiredprosecutor in reply to Danny Leong. | July 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      It is only “prejudicial” in the sense that it hurts the prosecution case. But that is not how the law defines prejudicial. Rather, evidence is deemed prejudicial only if it has a unique tendency to inflame the passion of the jury, confuse the jury, or is completely extraneous to the issues in the case. The photo of TM doesn’t meet any of those definitions. Therefore, since it is relevant, the court can’t exclude it under the law that permits the exclusion of “prejudicial” evidence.

        Danny Leong in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm

        Black guy with no shirt on. A jury of white women. I’m pretty sure some legal analyst somewhere would voice a theory on how that can inflame the passion. Backed by articles from respectable scientific journals too.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Danny Leong. | July 10, 2013 at 5:20 pm

          Is it more intimidating than, say, a photo of a white guy in the same pose with his shirt off?

          If so, why? Is it because blacks commit more violence than whites? Or some other reason?

          the answer depends upon the meaning of “excites the passion of white women”

        Remember thought that you have to look at it through the “racial grievance” lens that this case has been focused through.

        Showing a jury of 6 white(ish), effectively middle age women a picture of a highly muscular black punk, acting as such, might “inflame their sensibilities” that he was, in fact, a punk, without regard to the probative value of if he started the altercation on “this” particular occasion. The fact that TradeMark had no respect for ANYBODY, and showed so through his photographs and texts is itself inflammatory without actually being probative of how he acted in this instance. It’s propensity evidence.

        Is it relevant? Oh hell yes, it’s highly relevant. In fact, it might even be an admission against penal interest, and thus not subject to hearsay law at all anyway. But to anyone who is thinking in terms of race as a factor (which the Prosecution IS doing, despite their protestations), it’s also “prejudicial” because it highlights TradeMark’s “Black, Gangsta, Punk” nature.

Carol Herman | July 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm

That long night, last night, was nelson trying to upset O’Mara and West. The other part of this drama, is that both O’Mara and West know they’re winning. (A publi poll, accessed through one of Drudge’s links, put 94% of respondents believing the Defense.)

I’d bet the showdown came because O’Mara and West wanted to “show” their cartoonish visuals; which has been in discussion with the State, for quite some time. I say this because the “visual” was once in “moving video format.” And, O’Mara and West, responding to the State’s objections, then changed the format to still figures.

The State desperately tried to show that the computer programmer was no “expert.” And, he didn’t “add in” the timeline of Good’s call to the police. But generally, if you were watching, it seems like a pretty accurate portrayal of what happened.

After the verdict, I may be the only one who believes this, but media will be running with the “visual” to explain how the jurors are contemplating their vote. Or it goes up on screen, around the world, after a verdict arrives.

Today? Well Guy brought in his naked sexy doll. So even O’Mara got to sit on top of it. While taking Root’s testimony.

If, by now, the jury hasn’t settled in on one team or the other, then perhaps with Guy’s dummy (instead of the visual re-creation) … they can play around with this piece of evidence.

After this trial is over, the next moves come from the Martin’s. If it looks like GZ can write a book, I’m sure the Martin’s will sue Zimmerman for a portion of such profits.

When do you get an idea that a case can have a lingering effect? Scopes Trial. Sacco and Vincetti (sp). The OJ case. The JFK assassination (where the chief justice of the supreme court stepped into it?)

How fast will this particular case lose altitude?

As to Al Sharpton, he rode the Tawana Brawley case … downhill. While the cop who was accused of raping her, won a Civil Law Suit. So she was found (new name). And, her salary is being garnisheed to meet the cop’s civil victory.

Takes a long time. But racial whores eventually just put an ugly smell onto the Black community. For a lot of people watching this case, the State just stumbles alone. And, a hanging judge makes every effort to throw O’Mara and West, off their excellent Defense.

You know, if the judge had ruled differently, this case would be extending itself weeks into the future.

Also, by now we are also playing with the clock. If the jurors thought they’d go home by this weekend, they’ll be lucky if they can go home next weekend.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Carol Herman. | July 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Actually, to the point of the Martins suing Zimmerman, I believe I read somewhere that if Zimmerman is acquitted then in Florida the Martin’s can’t sue him. Not 100% on that “fact” but pretty sure that is what I read.

JEEZUS!

Nelson is BULLYING Zimmerman!

Isn’t that ILLEGAL!

She’s trying to FORCE him to personally state whether or not he wants to testify.

    retiredprosecutor in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    GZ should have responded as follows: “Your Honor, I prefer not to discuss my trial strategy in public with the court. I prefer to discuss my decision whether or not to testify with my attorneys, as part of my attorney client privilege. After I do so, my attorneys will advise the court if I will testify or not. Respectfully, if the court is compelling me to answer your question that violates my 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Thank you.”

    That would have put the judge in her place.

    It appears that the judge’s animosity/irritation toward Mr. West is getting the best of her. She needs to take a real deep breath and contain her anger. She is not supposed to be an advocate in this case. Her role is simple: Ensure that both sides get a fair trial.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    I got the same impression – that the Judge was trying to fluster and bully Zimmerman into some kind of error that the prosecution could jockey into a reason to force him onto the stand…. but it darned sure came across as bullying of the defendant who has been nothing but quiet polite and reserved.

Traditionally (according to Channel 9 commentators) the court asks this question at the conclusion of the trial.

Nelson’s animosity toward West is so blatant.

Is that right?

    retiredprosecutor in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Yes, his aggresive advocacy on behalf of GZ has gotten under her skin and it is obvious. This is nothing unusual. I have personally witnessed this dynamic in hundreds of trials over the last 30 years. But this trial is different. It is on national TV. The judge needs to take a Xanax.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 4:58 pm

      It is especially hard for this Judge because, I believe, she knows just how bias she has been and she knows that this case could very well cost her the bench.

    graytonb in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    It’s distressing to see a judge turn into a raving bitch simply because defense counsel advocates for the absolute rights of his client.

      Fabi in reply to graytonb. | July 10, 2013 at 3:31 pm

      Raving bitch? Why are you sugar-coating your comment? And I’d add ‘lol’, except there’s NOTHING funny about the abuse this presumed-innocent man is undergoing! Again, criminal!

      And now the PMSNBC losers are saying GZ answered the judge incorrectly! Un-farking-believable!

      I need a big ol’ tumbler o’ Scotch and I usually don’t start drinking until 3:00 Central Time!

      Argggggg!

      retiredprosecutor in reply to graytonb. | July 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      Judges hate to have their authority and knowledge challenged by an attorney. And, if the judge has little confidence in their own ability and legal intelligence, they often lash out at the offending attorney. This judge is certainly not among the best and brightest. Her legal knowledge is rudimentary, at best. All of the attorneys in the trial appear to have a far greater understanding of the law. As a result, she is probably intimidated when an aggressive advocate like West — a person who has a far greater depth of legal acumen that her — doesn’t back down. She can’t respond with cogent legal arguments. So she falls back on the weapon of the insecure: Bullying; raising her voice; and subtle threats.

This women just tweeted that bus loads of ppl are going to be at courthouse for verdict. https://twitter.com/Moniluv2009
Is the DOJ Community Relations Service paying for the buses? It disgusts me that tax dollars are used to pay for police escorts for ramble rousers. You want to protest do it on your own dime.

Question: Did the manner and tone in which Judge Nelson uttered the word “Overruled” evidence spite, anger, hate, or ill will toward Attorney West

    wyntre in reply to BillD. | July 10, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    It sure sounded that way. She did the same thing last night when she called a recess in the middle of West’s arguments.

      graytonb in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      Called a recess is one polite way to phrase what he did, which was stomp out of the courtroom. She might as well have uttered ‘ effing punks ‘ under her breath…..

Sorry, what ‘ she ‘ did.

Here is my $.02, I wonder if the state’s political masters are speculating that doing everything they can to get the conviction even if it is ultimately overturned in appeal gives the pound of flesh to the community of TM supporters that they want–to try and minimize potential social unrest. Then after, in appeal he gets let off–the wind is already out of the sails and blowing into another direction. To me it explains the make up of the jury, the prosecution’s weak case, the shifting story of the prosecutors to create reasonable doubt in the defense case, and the judges strange rulings and behavior…etc.

The trick is keeping GZ alive long enough while incarcerated to get to the appeal.

    JPL17 in reply to kcp_here. | July 10, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    The same thing occurred to me. The trial is so chock-full of obvious reversible error, it MUST be the judge’s and DA’s intent to get a conviction at the trial level at any price, and to let the appellate court reverse later, after Zimmerman has served some time and feelings have somewhat cooled. Their behavior makes no sense otherwise.

Concerning the issue of authentication of text messages — Trayvon’s cell phone had at least one level of password protection, in addition to a “hidden” app with another level of password protection. Many of the text messages in question were part of ongoing conversations that included circumstantial evidence that the text conversations were indeed between Trayvon and other persons.

For example, in one text message the sender remarked that if the recipient didn’t stop fighting, he risked being suspended from school again. Other messages and exchanges included similar circumstantial information.

Given both the password protection, the circumstantial nature of the text exchanges, and the lack of any evidence that other people were using Trayvon’s cell phone, it seems to me that the judge’s concern over authentication would have been satisfied. Since her decision didn’t include any statement about authentication, is it fair to assume that authentication was no longer an issue for her?

It seems to me that the text messages speak to the heart of the case — the subject of fighting in general, the mention of a blow to the nose, and TM’s experience of being “on the bottom” during a fight. If that’s not relevant to the case, then what would be?

This judge is crooked! Sinful!

I think point blank..Zimmerman should be convicted of this crime. He took the law into his own hands,and instigated the confrontation with Trayvon, even after being told not to pursue (in his own words) the “suspect”. What makes someone a suspect? Is it a crime to walk to the store, and walk back home with a bag of candy and a drink, minding your own business, in a neighborhood where you may be visiting or live? This would have never happened if Zimmerman would have listened to police, and backed off. His desire to be a police officer was so strong..that he couldn’t resist.They fought each other, but when Zimmerman found out that Trayvon was no slouch.. he decided to kill him! That’s very sad, and for those who feel like Zimmerman should not be convicted, God forbid that this would ever happen happen to anyone that you love.

    RokShox in reply to Neizee02. | July 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    He was walking across the “T” to get to the front side of the townhomes on Retreat View Circle because 1) the house numbers are on the front of the buildings and 2) he didn’t know the name of the street where he was parked. This was at the request of the 311 operator who asked him for an address.

    Obvious TROLL is obvious.

    angienc in reply to Neizee02. | July 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    The standard of “none of this would have happened *if*” isn’t the legal standard of a court of law, troll. And for your information (since logic doesn’t seem to be your strong suit) “none of this would have happened if” TM had gone to his father’s fiance’s house (which was less than 400 feet away by Rachel Jeantel’s testimony) after noticing that the “creepy *ss cracker” was “following” him. See, it works both ways, dummy.

    Fabi in reply to Neizee02. | July 10, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    Wait right there, Neizee02, I call you a whaaaaaaaaaambulance!

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Neizee02. | July 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Wow, I think you managed to mention every bullcrap theory that has been completely disproved, before the trial started, in one paragraph. I am so proud of you, now back to your crayons so you can finish your picture for Obama.

I get the impression that his judge is trying to frame Zimmerman. At any rate, she’s a lousy judge.

Well, at least a talking head on MSLSD just said the judge should show more courtesy to GZ because he has constitutional rights!

Unreal. Unreal. Unreal…

George will not testify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O’Mara wants Judge Half-Nelson to reconsider JOA!

Mantei just used the word ‘murdered’ again?! Good grief!

retiredprosecutor | July 10, 2013 at 3:40 pm

Appellate courts will almost never intervene in ongoing trials. The judge has to be committing egregious errors before such intervention. Although the judge in this case has committed many fundamental errors that appear to favor the prosecution, she has not yet crossed the line that would warrant appellate court intervention.

In the end, I don’t believe the judge’s erroneous rulings will matter.

I am 75% convinced that GZ will be acquitted. And, if not acquitted, a hung jury is the next most likely result. But I think there is a 10% chance that the jury will convict him of manslaughter (simply because the “eyes of the nation are on them” — kind of a “reverse discrimination” effect). Something that they wouldn’t do if they were aware that such a conviction will result in a multi-decades long sentence.

    Thank you.

    What are the chances that an appellate court will find she has committed reversible error if GZ is convicted of something?

    2 questions

    1. if there is a hung jury do you think the state would really try this again or just drop the case?

    2. if GZ is acquitted do all the “errors” Nelson has made just go away or will she have to deal with them in any way?

    Danny Leong in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 10, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    I’m in the decisive minority here. I think Judge Nelson did a good job managing a controversial case. I’m assuming that the jury will return an acquittal.

    If the jury doesn’t acquit based on Zimmerman’s physical injuries and the Good testimony, I can’t imagine what else could have convinced it. The state has no case to begin with.

      There’s a difference between “managing” a case, and following the law and the rules of evidence.

      Judge Nelson has shown herself effective at handling a docket, but to be a poor Jurist in the process.

      In the wrap-up of every day’s proceedings, I have seen at least one, if not multiple, reversible errors committed on her part which meet or exceed the “abuse of discretion” standard. She has often (not so subtly) put her thumb on the scale attempting to tip it toward the prosecution, and has only relented when it became patently obvious that continuing to do so would result in a quick “kick-down” of her decision from the 5th DCA for obvious error upon appeal.

O’Mara demands a factual basis of the State’s hypothesis!!!!

Judge Peppermint Patti waits another 3 milliseconds to deny JOA!

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm

Unbelievable! Unbelievable! By what standard has the state precluded the possibility that his self defense claim is possible? The standard is that they have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that his self defense claim is not probable. How in God’s name could she make this ruling?

Dear Lord, please help this jury to put a stop to this madness!

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Anybody see anything on this website about George Zimmerman? http://ironwearfitness.com/

    kentuckyliz in reply to txantimedia. | July 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    I searched the page and site using keyword Zimmerman and Trayvon–no results. Is this a scavenger hunt of some sort?

Shouldn’t the judge be able to rule this improper rebuttal in just a few seconds?

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 4:00 pm

The question was false anyway. And the witness answered Absolutely not! Where in the hell does the prosecution get off even asking that question?

    Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 10, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    It’s a prefectly swell impeachment question.

    I think it has also been asked and answered during Pollack’s testimony.

First, the “expert” on local news coverage says it is definitely improper rebuttal. Now, he says it could go either way.

Ha! A recess! Get your chit together Half Nelson!

Out on 15 minute recess now. What’s going on?

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 4:03 pm

I know witnesses cannot be in court but can they watch on livestream?

    Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 10, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    THAT is a very good question. The answer to which should be NO.

    Just another way rule are not keeping pace with technology.

    I was in a Federal court a few months back, and they took all our camera-phones before we could go in. EVERYBODY’s.

      Aridog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      That is my experience in federal and state courts here…at least those I’ve been in courtrooms for cases. Nothing electronic goes in to the courtroom unless you are the prosecution or the defense counsel.

      So how does Angela Corey obviously have a device in her lap that she pecks at constantly during the trial. She is in the spectator sector with the TM family. Can she still be considered part of the prosecution team trying the case?

        Ragspierre in reply to Aridog. | July 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm

        There are computers all over that courtroom.

          Aridog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

          Yes. That was what puzzled me due to my experience….and IANAL. Seems like an abundance of computing devices other than at counsels’ tables. I noticed a screen reflection in Corey’s eyeglasses and that is what bugged me…e.g.., given her position, is she part of the prosecution team before the judge? Or not?

          I do want to thank you for your periodic answers to layman questions like mine.

Harry Baldwin | July 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm

Will the judge’s obvious hostility to the defense make the jury more sympathetic to Zimmerman? Aren’t women supposed to be extra sensitive to bullying?

So now Mantei says he’s not trying to impeach the gym owner.

And the judge is letting him get away with this?

MOM calls it “bizarro” impeachment.

I’m getting confused.

Nelson rules against this witness appearing.

What a miracle.

Whee! A ruling for the defense! Spank me on the butt and call me Nancy! Whee!

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm

Oh, gee your honor, if we can’t just throw wild-ass questions out there, I guess we won’t call these “rebuttal” witnesses.

Now Mantei wants to call an ATTF agent to testify that GZ attacked him in 2005 thus showing GZ is stronger than the defense has portrayed him.

Pure desperation, no?

Now they want to call the ATF agent that GZ roughed-up? Why wouldn’t that be direct testimony, too?

    wyntre in reply to Fabi. | July 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    In an event that happened 8 years ago in 2005.

    Nelson says Mantei doesn’t even know if witness is available and will decide tomorrow.

    She didn’t give the defense this courtesy last night.

      Fabi in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      I noticed the same double-standard! Unreal.

      ‘Your Honor, the persecution would like yet another Mulligan!’

    Actually, I think it’s whatever the Florida equivalent of the Alcoholic Beverages Commission is (the State agency which polices the bars to make sure they aren’t selling to underage people). Not the ATF.

MOM says if state brings in this witness defense should be able to bring in 30 witnesses to counter him.

Cracking up.

Another denial! No ATF agent!

Nelson wants to get case to jury by Friday.

    My hope is that it goes to the jury TOMORROW, and is IMMEDIATELY returned as a verdict of ‘not guilty.’ It should not take this jury long to see that this case should never have been brought in the first place, and the demonstration with the dummy should have cemented the fact that Zimmerman was in peril, and should have rightly feared for his life.

      wyntre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | July 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      Me too.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | July 10, 2013 at 5:10 pm

      I actually tried to set back last night an think over all I had seen and heard and to place myself in the “shoes” of a member of this Jury, though I am male. I think the most honest answer I can give to this is that I would be Pisses that I have been made to sit through this pitiful excuse to try to convict a man of murder and that the Judge and Prosecution keep doing things that are keeping me away from my family and friends even longer.

So Nelson gave the prosecution 9 days to present their case and rushed the defense through the past 3 days?

    Fabi in reply to wyntre. | July 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    She’s been told to keep the schedule most favorable to the NAACP conference in Orlando. Priorities, ya know.

txantimedia | July 10, 2013 at 4:58 pm

If they get Donnally’s testimony striken, it merely highlights what he said, which the jury will remember and take into account along with all the other witnesses testifying as to whose voice was crying for help.

Big deal. The state has nothing and is now trying to chip away at the overwhelming evidence in an attempt to squeak by with a guilty verdict.

Good luck with that!


Font Resize
Contrast Mode