Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trayvon Martin’s Brother: Originally not sure if it was Trayvon screaming on 911 call

Trayvon Martin’s Brother: Originally not sure if it was Trayvon screaming on 911 call

Prior TV interview contradicts current claims of certainty

Jarvis Martin, Fulton half-brother, testified in court today that the voice on the 911 call was that of Trayvon Martin. On cross-examination, however, it was revealed that two weeks after first hearing the screams on the 911 call he was interviewed in a sit-down with a local TV reporter and at that time told the reporter he was uncertain if the screamer was Trayvon.

The testimony came shortly after Trayvon’s mother said she was sure it was Trayvon screaming.

Here’s a link to the original CBS television interview being referenced by Mark O’Mara (statements at issue start at 11:10).

And video clip of Jarvis Fulton’s testimony this morning in court

Trayvon Martin Brother Testimony Twitter Capture


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by Amazon.com, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery.  A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I have a question. Why doesn’t the judge allow George’s parents into the courtroom? Must have missed all of that because I haven’t been able to watch the whole trial. Just bits and pieces. Doesn’t seem fair to me.

    Because Zimmerman’s parents were supposedly going to be called as witnesses. Trayvon’s parents have a right to be there under Florida statute.

      kittycat in reply to EBL. | July 5, 2013 at 10:21 am

      Thanks for your response. You’re saying that under FL statute George’s parents can’t be there?

        Uncle Samuel in reply to kittycat. | July 5, 2013 at 10:31 am

        The Prosecution put them on the witness list to prevent them from being in the court room.

        What I am saying is under FL statute, Martin’s parents cannot be excluded. Hence the difference.

          #zimmermantrial : Why Can Martin’s Parents Stay in Courtroom, But Zimmerman’s Family Can’t? FL Law Explained http://is.gd/ayIEcR

          nomorebsplz in reply to EBL. | July 7, 2013 at 6:56 am

          It is so unethical to allow the parents of George to stay on the witness list when it is clear it only serves one purpose. By the way, the parents lied but I am sure that disgusting judge will allow it to continue just as she bailed Rachel out of potential perjury. How is that even legal?

          The defense wants to play tapes to show she is lying on the stand, the judge interferes. Why is nobody talking about this more?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to kittycat. | July 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Because Florida has a very poorly written statute that says that the alleged victims family may be in the court room even if they are witnesses, but the family of the accused is restricted if they are witnesses.

Are we missing a post? FOX is up with a story saying Sybrina has testified it was Travon screaming but I don’t see anything here on LI.

Andrew, another subtlety is that TM’s bro also testified ON DIRECT that he had never heard TM scream the way he heard on the phone call ever before. IOW basically an admission that based on all of the bro’s experience with TM it was NOT a basis to determine the scream came from TM.

Henry Hawkins | July 5, 2013 at 9:54 am

Will there ever be a Branca recipe book?

Judge Nelson’s hatred of the defense is absurd and erodes any possible objectivity.

    Marco100 in reply to Fabi. | July 5, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Judge Nelson’s possible internal mental dialogue:

    “GZ, you idiot, the only reason we all need to be here is that you foolishly took it upon yourself to play cops & robbers lacking adequate training to be able to defend yourself in a tight situation without killing some moronic wannabe-gang banger/burglar.

    Didn’t you learn from all those criminal justice courses that no good deed goes unpunished? How dare you presume to play the role of involved citizen, but having put yourself in that position, you are now reaping your just desserts.

    This is all a great big pain in the butt, a no win situation for me as a judge.”

    Possible Judge Nelson’s internal dialog: I have to appease the powers that be for my own political future. Plus Zimmerman looks guilty enough for me…

      graytonb in reply to EBL. | July 5, 2013 at 10:30 am

      Or a possible prevent defense to deflect the sure-to-come rage away from her house, in the event there is an acquittal.

      Musson in reply to EBL. | July 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm

      From my experience, Judges often go with the political flow – and justify their rulings by telling themselves that the case can always be appealled.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Fabi. | July 5, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    Remember this is also a Judge who has had rulings overturned because they should have been deemed self defense and she let the trials play out. So he is probably not the brightest robe in the bench.

    But I do agree, she does seem pretty bias towards the prosecution, however I am not a lawyer and have no real basis for saying that other than what makes sense to me.

Jaharvis is the good son, TM is the bad seed–a possible subtextual narrative that can hurt the prosecution.

Anyone having a problem with the live feed?

I’ve been thinking lately that our culture has officially crossed through the Looking Glass with this trial. Is it possible that the prosecution never thought or relied on the fact they needed a solid case at all but went forward entirely on the basis of personal and collective Progressive Statist ego and the premise that their control of the culture and media — and their Narrative saturation thereof — would be enough to win? That they don’t even care about the details of the trial or the disastrous testimony or anything else related to the law or procedure?

This ME’s speaking style and accent are atrocious.

Trayvon’s brother and mother say it was Trayvon screaming. George Zimmerman’s father and brother will take the stand and say it was George screaming. Next.

The whole trial is a microcosm for post 1992 America, isn’t it?

They should call it “America on Show Trial”.

Zimmerman, the quintessential everyAmerican man, the guy who tutored disadvantaged kids, the guy who put his life at risk to help protect his neighbors from a crime-wave, the guy whose ambition was to become a state prosecutor, the guy who correctly deduced that a street thug was casing his community, is sneak attacked and beaten by the fully-formed wannabe gangsta from the mob that has taken over the country, and put on trial so he can lose his freedom for the rest of his life, win or lose; just like the marxists planned 60 years ago.

And Pravda makes it happen, in full partnership with the radicals who somehow have taken over the legal system, just like every other rein of power in the country. The rest of us were too busy, it appears, feeding our families, building the wealthiest country in world history, knocking down communism and racism, and elevating the bedrock concepts of civilization to notice that a group of people who have no interest in work, morality, community or anything other then dominating other people’s lives had borrowed their way into the very institutions that the Founders established to protect freedom, not destroy it.

How did they do it? Watch the trail to find out. With lies. Unending, blatant, in-your-face lies. If they say something, you can bet the opposite is the truth.

It’s beyond imagination. Zimmerman, America, “win” or lose, is a walking dead man. Oh, he, us, may live. But he, we, won’t be living the lives our parents and grandparents risked theirs to give us. That’s for sure.

    don’t forget he also was (really) the only one to stand up for a black homeless person (I forget his name) against the cops that investigated him.

    GumBoocho in reply to donmc. | July 6, 2013 at 12:37 am

    Is Zim “the quintessential everyAmerican man”? Or is he an Afro-peruvian American? The moment his mom got on stand, reinforced by his tio, the whole white vs black paradigm collapsed.

What was the point of the delay all for a button? Just to leave SF up there on the stand for a longer time?

TM’s hands not bagged. Since it was raining that night, would this mess up the evidence? May be a stupid question.

I have a question: What exactly is the prosecution’s theory of the case vis-a-vis the screaming and beating?

Is it the prosecution’s position that Zimmerman got on top of Martin for a while; beat on him for a while; and then shot him for whatever reason?

If so, then how does the prosecution explain Zimmerman’s injuries and Martin’s lack of injuries?

And if not, then what is the point of introducing evidence that Martin was screaming?

    Ragspierre in reply to sabril. | July 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin.

    Martin is frozen on the spot, but starts screaming like the DJ in “The Fifth Element”.

    After which, he does a flying scissor take-down, winding up on Zimmerman and pummeling his while he continues to scream.

    Hey, it ain’t pretty…but it is a theory.

      Musson in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2013 at 1:13 pm

      You left out the part where George Zimmerman (criminal mastermind) deviously pulls Trayvon’s hoodie away from his body before shooting – so the evidence makes it appear that Trayvon was on top and the hoodie was falling forward onto Zimmerman underneath.

      ThomasD in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      “screaming like the DJ in “The Fifth Element”.

      Ruby Rhod

      Lol!

    BubbaLeroy in reply to sabril. | July 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    I think that the prosecution’s theory is that Zimmerman was stalking Martin, they then got into a fight, at some point Zimmerman got on top of Martin, Martin started screaming for help and Zimmerman shot him. Since the autopsy report cannot support the claim that Zimmerman was on top at the time of the shooting, they will probably argue that Zimmerman and Martin were rolling around during the fight, with each being on top at separate points.

    Under this theory, it doesn’t matter who started the fight, just that at some point during the fight and before Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman was on top and could have gotten away or subdued Martin without shooting him.

      GumBoocho in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 6, 2013 at 12:42 am

      If Zim had got on top of TM before Zim shot him, there should have been marks on TM’s face for the beating he never got. TM’s girl friend could be correct about “Get off me,” but said by Zim. Has Zim ever testified that he said, “Get off me”?

Richard_Iowa | July 5, 2013 at 11:48 am

Let’s see. Travon busted Zimmerman’s lip, broke his nose, got him on the sidewalk and slammed his head into the concrete as he was on the top of him, all the while screaming for help. Absolutely. That makes perfect sense. For a while I thought it might be that the Martin family thought that there might be a big ol’ pot of money waiting if Zimmerman get convicted. How silly of me to think that.

Carol Herman | July 5, 2013 at 11:55 am

The visual. Trayvon’s brother, Jarvis, sure bears a striking resemblance to Trayvon. I notice he had a rather wide neck. Visually, does he look “big?”

Trading places, is Jarvis close in size to Trayvon’s size? Not that it matters, but how tall is Jarvis?

Henry Hawkins | July 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm

It is common for the attacker to scream during a fight – you know, like the moment you realize you *won’t* be winning the wrestling match for the gun you just tried to grab off your victim’s hip.

Carol; Since the State made the incomprehensible choice to lead off with the Fultons and then followed with the mess from the ME we have just seen, I am thinking they have really reduced the impact of the family’s testimony overall.

    Ragspierre in reply to graytonb. | July 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    Right. Amazing incompetence.

    Get the gory clinical details, so that the jurors are cringing.

    THEN have the bereaved family testify for maximum emotional effect.

    caambers in reply to graytonb. | July 5, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    I don’t think they had a choice. I’m sure they wanted the grieving mom to be last today, but they evidence locker fiasco made them have to move things around. It’s almost as if there’s an outside force trying to balance the judge’s obvious bias…just sayin’…

I know that they’re not going to talk about TM’s past, but he was no angel from stuff that I’ve read. He was kind of rough. Pretty sure that he loved to fight.

Cracker-American | July 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm

prosecution’s screaming & beating theory ?

Crazed depraved GZ scared the bejesus outta poor little innocent TM by pointing his gun or verbally threatening him, so TM beats the living hell outta GZ while screaming like a banji.
How stupid do they think the jury really is?

“I didn’t want to believe it was him, so I said I wasn’t sure” — which makes no sense. He already knew that Trayvon was shot dead. There’s no logical reason why he might have preferred to believe it was the other guy screaming for help.

Obviously, he just hadn’t yet figured out that it would be hard to paint Trayvon as an innocent victim attacked without provocation if it might be the other guy screaming.

Same with the dad. He changed his answer when he realized that his first answer was not helpful to his case.

Question for lawyers….since we do know as a matter of record that Martin’s father, when the audio was first played for him, said it wasn’t Trayvon (only later changing his story)–can the Defense call him to the stand to question him about this inconsistency? I think that coupled with Zimmerman’s family saying it was George AND the eyewitness John Good’s testimony makes it unlikely they’ll believe Sybrina/Sabrina. Correct?

    graytonb in reply to caambers. | July 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm

    Ordinarily one would think so, but it could be tricky…it could be seen as piling on to a grieving Dad.
    It probably hasn’t escaped the jury that Tracy, who raised him, is likely more affected by TM’s death than his bio-mom.

      caambers in reply to graytonb. | July 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      That’s exactly what I thought about this am….the dad had more contact with Trayvon than Sabrina/Sybrina did. If HE didn’t originally think it was him screaming, then it’s pretty obvious the state putting the grieving mom was just a cheap stunt. I’d hope the jury sees through this.

The only eye witness has testified that, without question, Trayvon Martin was on top of GZ throwing one punch after another. What will be interesting is how the prosecution is going to get people to believe Trayvon’s mother identifying his son’s voice is accurate which means Trayvon was yelling for help while he was on top and beating the crap out of GZ. Just a story I would love to hear explained.

I think that the prosecution’s theory is that Zimmerman was stalking Martin, they then got into a fight, at some point Zimmerman got on top of Martin, Martin started screaming for help and Zimmerman shot him. Since the autopsy report cannot support the claim that Zimmerman was on top at the time of the shooting, they will probably argue that Zimmerman and Martin were rolling around during the fight, with each being on top at separate points.

Under this theory, it doesn’t matter who started the fight, just that at some point during the fight and before Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman was on top and could have gotten away or subdued Martin without shooting him.

    Cleetus in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 5, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    The problem with this is that it is the defense that has to show reasonable doubt, not the prosecution.

      ThomasD in reply to Cleetus. | July 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      Isn’t that backwards?

      Reasonable doubt is presumed.

      The prosecution is the one charged with establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 5, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    For that scenario to be feasible – There would have to be mud on the BACK of TM’s jacket.

    There WAS NOT.

    This whole case is predicated on the manufactured Crump Narrative and Falsified Evidence, False Testimony and who knows what else.

    Which is fraudulent, prejudicial and designed to incite racial hatred and public favor.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Unfortunately for the prosecution not even their own evidence, nor witnesses back up that theory.

    By the way, the newest narrative I have heard is that if Zimmerman is Acquitted, “it still doesn’t mean he is innocent”, lol. I just love the mental gymnastics of liberals.

Wondering if the defense might call the step mom who raised Trayvon? From the interview I saw with her seems like Tracy stopped communicating with her. If she testified she could not tell if it was Trayvon screaming (don’t know is she would) then could her testimony be brought forth? Also from what I have seen there is only one about 2 second audio of Trayvon available. I find that to be pretty amazing in this day and age of cell video etc that there is not any more out there to be found anywhere. From the recording I heard and listening to GZ the voice sounds much more like GZ but also really hard to tell, but doesn’t sound at all like TM from the little available. So in the end as a juror either you believe the eyewitness or you can’t really conclude whose voice it was.

    GumBoocho in reply to bizbach. | July 6, 2013 at 12:50 am

    I think O’Mara and West blew the cross-exam of the voice-print FBI expert who said that a person who knows the speaker is the best identifier of a person’s voice screaming for help, better than science. The expert should have been pinned down. What does “best” mean? I mean there might be a situation in which a wet noodle is the best weapon you have. Just how reliable is the human identifier? The expert should have been asked to quantify the accuracy; is it 1 in 10 probability of being correct? The best identifier may still be too unreliable for the court room.

    Myself, I don’t think there is anything expert about that opinion.

    I don’t know if it would be possible to test TM’s mom, like get recordings of TM screaming (as at a football game) and then putting his 2 second cream with 10 other screamers in random order to see if she can identify TM, like in a lineup.

citizenjeff | July 5, 2013 at 1:26 pm

The medical examiner clearly didn’t want to hand over his notes. What if he had simply refused to do so? What, if anything, authorizes the judge to order him to hand them over?

    Sez I in reply to citizenjeff. | July 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Discovery? Mandatory disclosure of evidence?

    Ragspierre in reply to citizenjeff. | July 5, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    It’s a rule of evidence.

    Any witness can use notes. Any interrogating attorney can ask for them.

    The judge can compel them to be relinquished.

      citizenjeff in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      But isn’t the rule imposed on the lawyers rather than on the witness? What law requires a witness to even be aware of the rule? What if the notes contain embarrassing and/or incriminating information that doesn’t even relate to the trial? Why should the witness be forced to endure such an intrusion?

    ThomasD in reply to citizenjeff. | July 5, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    It is also the work product of a public employee, he has no ability to prevent his employer from disclosing their contents.

      citizenjeff in reply to ThomasD. | July 5, 2013 at 5:22 pm

      He could prevent the disclosure by destroying the notes – if he hadn’t already complied with the judge’s order to turn them over. At least I think it was an order. Not sure, as I said, what her authority is.

    GumBoocho in reply to citizenjeff. | July 6, 2013 at 12:52 am

    Refusing the judge would be contempt of court in the presence of the court! She could have sent the bailiff to confiscate the notes & sent the refuser to the slammer on the spot.

Ya know..the one thing that is becoming crystal clear for me is this: the state never had a case. There are points in this story where we will never have an answer. But for me, when the verbal sparring became physical and escalated, the person on the receiving end of the worst of the fight could do two things 1) continue to take it and hope it would stop or 2) do something to make it stop. Even if they just shoved each other–so long as there was equal shoving but once fists started to fly and given the lack of injuries to Martin besides the knuckle scuffs and gunshot wound and the wounds on Zimmerman’s head…that imbalance tells me the only part of this story that is important.

I am having a really hard time here trying to figure out how Mr. Bao’s boss is going to justify not firing him.

BDLR said “Let’s not talk abut it.”

Is that what Dr. Bao said?
BDLR refused to hear about the effects of THC content?

This judge is awful.

The marijuana use should have been allowed in.

    Agree, and for ALL in attendance too. That’s so they can tolerate what’s going on..

    Gremlin1974 in reply to kittycat. | July 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    You would think that the possibility of Martin having a drug in his system, which is something that Zimmerman suspected from his phone call to police, would be allowed for 2 reasons. 1) Zimmerman’s suspicions voice during his phone call.
    2) While most folks that smoke pot are laid back, that is not true for everyone, it does affect judgement and could have affected Martins, and the effects can vary if it is mixed with other drugs. (Not implying that Martin was using other drugs just as a medical fact.)

That fat ugly stupid judge thinks she’s Trayvon Martin’s third mom.

There’s an interesting article at WND. It’s talking about all the violent comments by TM supporters to where people are talking about killing Zimmerman. Pretty scary. Imagine if it was a white man who was threatening to murder a black man if he was found innocent?

Anyway, it talks about in the minds of many African Americans, Zimmerman is guilty, which that was already sealed by our president and what he said about TM when it stated, If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.

If Zimmerman is found innocent, which I truly hope that he is, I sure do hope and pray that somehow he is protected from all the crazies.

    V.McCann in reply to kittycat. | July 5, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    I’ve had some entertaining exchanges with such people on twitter over the past few days.

    graytonb in reply to kittycat. | July 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    The sad and simple truth is that an acquittal will result in TM supporters rioting. A conviction, on the other hand, will not result in GZ supporters rioting…
    Although the TM crowd may still seize the opportunity and riot anyway,
    Certainly hope not.

I don’t think the judge grants the JOA because if she does they will certainly riot.

pm: they’re going to anyway. She might as well do the right thing.
But she will not.

    kittycat in reply to graytonb. | July 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    I’m sorry, but I tried to rate you a thumb’s up, but I hit the wrong thing. I give you a thumb’s up. I’m petting my cat and hitting the button. Haahaa…it’s my cat’s fault!

I am not as well versed on law but can’t the defense file appeals on some of this judge’s rulings and get a decision before the end of this case or do they have to wait until the case is concluded before doing such?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to pmasters. | July 5, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Yes, they actually got a pretty major one when it was decided that they can dispose the Martin family attorney. Which I think is also one of the reasons the Judge is being so bias in her rulings, she didn’t like that they got her ruling overturned.

Does the state get to respond to the motion for JOA?

I’ve been busy, but I guess that Judge W*tch didn’t go for the acquittal, right?

tarheelkate | July 5, 2013 at 5:40 pm

I’m not an attorney and haven’t attended a criminal trial, so maybe the prosecution’s histrionic argument against a JOA is standard. I thought it was stupid and offensive. Dear Floridians, prosecutors in your state believe that if you fire your legally-carried weapon you automatically have a depraved mind and are a murderer if you happen to fatally wound the guy who is threatening your life. Oh, and if you do fire when you fear death or great bodily harm, you must stop and aim carefully so as not to hurt your assailant (who is on top beating you). Also, you men, you may not use the f-word lest you be judged guilty of raw hatred — but if you’re from a particular ethnic group, it’s okay to use the n-word and “cracka.”

    Pauldd in reply to tarheelkate. | July 6, 2013 at 7:42 am

    “I’m not an attorney and haven’t attended a criminal trial, so maybe the prosecution’s histrionic argument against a JOA is standard.”

    No it is not. It is extremely rare that for the state to lose at this stage. For the state this is a low hurdle to clear. In a typical case, the state argument is short and matter of fact. Sometimes the state will just submit the case without argument.

    MKReagan in reply to tarheelkate. | July 6, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    FL Prosecutors are second only to our Election Supervisors in incompetence.

I think a good defense attorney will tell their expert witness NOT to put anything in writing – once it is put in writing and proffered as an opinion I think it then becomes fodder for either side? If never put in writing then it never existed-right?

    And not putting things in writing, when a reasonable professional would have, is also fodder.

    We lawyers can be clever that way. We either are, or starve. Powerful incentive.

    On the other hand, some are just born to it. It’s fun. FUN. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      GumBoocho in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 6, 2013 at 12:33 am

      The expert witness, the autopsy doctor, seemed not to understand the role of expert opinion in trials, confusing that with the role of opinion in science. I have long thought that this expert opinion business is nonsense in court. I would like to see all witnesses confined mostly to telling what they saw and heard. That doc kept talking down to the court as if it needed to be instructed on what “opinion” is and how it differs from fact. In reality he was correct IMHO, but not following court standards.

One would think that how adamant and quickly Nelson got on West about the marijuana that she is afraid she might somehow connected as Trayvon’s dealer or something. It is not like its a speculative or debatable social media posting, it is actual evidence that came from the kid’s body that 1. supports George’s initial observations that night 2. Supports Trayvon’s alleged aggression with authorities and getting caught and his paranoia that night and 3. combined with the extensive consumption DXM and Lean dranks, could be part of the problem with his liver which I believe I read somewhere there was small problems with.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm

The only thing missing from this People’s Show Trial is one of Lavrentiy Beriya’s henchmen handing the judge a copy of tomorrow’s prepared outcomes and conclusions.

Pathetic. Utterly pathetic.

Carol Herman | July 5, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Another big win day for the Defense. There’s a break for lunch. And, the back and forth over lessening the charge, or outright acquittal, were all outside the jury’s hearing. So, they got to sit in the jury room. I wonder if anyone brought in board games or cards? How do you pass so many hours?

Then, abruptly, after the two sides “presented,” the judge rules BECAUSE she had already made up her mind. (There were shots of her actually stifling yawns.) Then, with two minutes to five O’Clock, she calls the jurors in “so they can decide if they want to hear evidence. Or quit for the weekend. The jurors all say LET’S GO ON AND HEAR MORE EVIDENCE.

Quick as a flash, O’Mara brings in Zimmerman’s mom. Who has no trouble making eye contact with each and every juror. Plus, her own son, George. She identifies the voice of the man calling for help, as her son. 2 minutes. Dismissed. But she can be called back.

Then O’Mara calls another witness. George’s uncle. Who is actually an officer in a nearby court. (One loved by both defense and prosecution attorneys). He’s here only to identify George’s voice.

He said he was at his own computer. At home. When his wife, who was listening to the TV news … had on the tape that was being played of the phone call made by a neighbor of Zimmerman’s. Uncle says he’s not looking at the TV, when like a shot, he hears the screaming for help. And, he stands up and says to his wife: THAT’S GEORGE (my nephew). And, then he asks his wife “what are you watching?”

Last witness of the day. Again, no trouble making eye contact with the jurors. And, BDLR can’t really accuse this man of lying. But he tries. O’Mara defends.

And, court is adjourned until Monday morning at 9 AM?

Those of us who watched the debate between the two lawyers, addressing the judge on the matter of “directed verdict(?) … Came away seeing O’Mara EXCELLENTLY present the LAW. While Mantel was trying out his LYING CLOSE, as if none of the testimony so far mattered. And, that the Chinese Bao, (some excuse for an medical examiner) … REMEMBER NOTHING.

I particularly liked the way he didn’t even remember “yesterday.”

Someday, ahead, it should be interesting to see how the State’s case sits with these jurors.

And, I sure wonder how George’s uncle took in this jury, as he sat there giving his (voice identifying) testimony, where, he, too, can talk to his sister about their experiences testifying here.

O’Mara OWNS the end of the day! Two witnesses. It just seemed to go by in a flash.

Can we take bets that Monday morning brings in Vincent DiMaoi? (Since Nelson may have been the sentencing judge in the case of the guy caught at this condo complex stealing stuff … Is it possible she’s also seen DiMaoi before?) He’s sure going to be an experienced hand on the stand.

Wouldn’t it be nice if by next Wednesday we’re already in Closing Arguments?

    GumBoocho in reply to Carol Herman. | July 6, 2013 at 12:28 am

    I figured that this judge would deny the prosecution-rest acquittal. To me she seems anti-Zim. Now she let in all the irrelevancies of Zim’s college classes, but will she allow the TM history of any conflict, school misbehavior, brushes with the law — what about his illegal drug involvement?

    O’Mara failed to ask TM’s mom if she had ever heard TM scream in a life-threatening situation before. Perhaps O’Mara didn’t ask it becs he didn’t know what she would say; he may have anticipated a prepared story in response. The prosecutor didn’t fail to ask similar questions to Zim’s relatives.

    The moment Zim’s mom got on the stand, any paradigm of white vs black disappeared — those Spanish accents changed the tone of the trial. When O’Mara was asking the background/family situation questions of Zim’s mom, I wonder why he didn’t bring out that her grandfather was black. Thus under old-south law, I think Zim would be considered “colored.”

I’m waiting for the made-for-tv movie: ‘ An Inconvenient Truth: The Trayvon Martin Story”.

    The difference, if I write it, is that my version won’t be a travesty of pseudo-science successfully designed to pad billions into my wallet.

    Because I’m not smart enough to do that.

    Also . . . well, having trouble thinking of another reason. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Have we now learned how to beat cross-exam from TM’s girlfriend & mother? When the atty asks the difficult question, you give him a lookand say to him, with an incredulous tone of voice indicating that he is an incomprehensible imbecile with absurd suggestions: “I don’t understand your question.” Should we call this the cross-examination ROPE-A-DOPE?

MOM asked Jarvis, almost in passing, if he communicated with Trayvon on Facebook or Twitter. Jarvis said no. I wonder if that was a lie, and if evidence of it exists that would allow MOM to bring in Trayvon’s FB and Twitter postings?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend