Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 10: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 10: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

I trust that everyone had a safe and satisfying extended (for some of you) 4th of July weekend.

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.

Screen Shot 2013-06-14 at 9.09.38 AM

George Zimmerman, day 10 of Florida v. Zimmerman

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY topost a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.

Yesterday I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

Live Stream Video


[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)

Live Stream Video Alternative


Monday, July 8 Commentary

. . .

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. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at  They set their own price, and it can very each day, so you might want to check there to see if they are offering the best deal today.

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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


MOMs last question was well done! Even though it was objected to and sustained the Jury knows the answer!! LOL

WHY ON EARTH, is that inadmissible? It’s exculpatory. Someone please explain before my head pops.

One thing I do not get is why can the officer testify to only what she saw. She heard what she heard and I don’t see that as hearsay because she didn’t “hear” it second hand.
Could one of you lawyers explain?
What is the difference between what this officer heard and what one of the “ear” witnesses heard?

    Edgehopper in reply to Harperman. | July 8, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the atatement. Both parts are necessary. So,

    “I heard the screams and they sounded like Trayvon” – not hearsay, because the testimony isn’t being introduced to prove the truth of the out of court screams.
    “I heard Trayvon say, “Why are you following me?”” – hearsay but admissible under an exception, probably the Florida equivalent of Rule 803(1) and/or 803(2) (exceptions for present sense impressions and excited utterances.)
    “What did Tracy Martin say when he heard the recording?” – inadmissible hearsay.

    Pauldd in reply to Harperman. | July 8, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Hearsay rules are a very complex area of law that lawyers spend a good deal of time on in law school.

    I would say that Travon’s out of court statements mentioned by the girlfriend are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth, but as part of the description of the chain of events that occurred. The question, “Why are you following me”, is not an assertion of any fact. It is merely part of the events being described that are legally relevant regardless of whether the statement was true or not and regardless of whether it contains any assertion or not.

    Other lawyers may disagree.

      Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      Better, it is the present sense impression of Martin.

      randian in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      I disagree. A witness claiming Martin said “Why are you following me” is indeed an assertion of fact, that fact being “Zimmerman is following Martin”.

        dorsaighost in reply to randian. | July 8, 2013 at 4:58 pm

        if he said “He is following me” then that would be a statement of fact … overhearing him say “Why are you following me ?” is not … if the witness claimed Trayvon was being followed that assertion would be based on hearsay and not factual …

Hey lawyers I get the hearsay objection, but to not let the detective testify about the reaction she saw? how is that?

    Ragspierre in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Didn’t hear the question. Gemme a quote of the interchange.

      Harperman in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm

      MOM asked her what was Tracy’s verbal response to hearing the tape.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 2:03 pm

      OK, generally, you will be asking for hearsay when you ask what someone told you.

      Tracy is not under any hearsay exception (that prevailed if argued), since he is not a party.

      You can get the same place (sometimes) by asking, “What was your impression of his response…?”

      Since your previous (objectionable) question was about what was said, the witness knows what you are asking for.

      Jazzizhep in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 2:04 pm

      nevermind. Serino to the rescue, moot point. thx anyway rags

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Serino wears charcoal gray ties every time. Says, ‘Authority figure – don’t mess around with me.”

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Bring on Cerino
If I recall the scream ID was not brought up on direct thus could not be on CX

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 1:56 pm

MOM is (hopefully) going to chip through the holes in Tracy Martin’s sworn statements to the police and his depositions:

– claimed to have seen Trayvon at 8:30pm an hour after he died.
– claimed he drove Trayvon to Sanford, when he rode the bus.
– claimed it was not Trayvon screaming on tape. Change mind after Crump developed false narrative.

I want to say I appreciate these long post-lunch sidebars, as they let me catch up on comments that came in while I was out eating, as well as Andrew’s midday post.

    Fabi in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    You went out to eat? Who authorized you to leave or take a break? Did you get the approval of the NEN dispatcher or did you just take it upon yourself – in violation of NW rules – to have lunch? That’s going on your permanent record, sirrrrrr!

      well does that include going to bed and sleeping? Because I do not in fact look at the trial since it happens when I am asleep!!

Did anyone see that look Sybrina gave Tracy Martin?

More histrionics…….boring.

Can anybody elaborate about the charges bought against Angela Corey ? Is this true ? Did I miss the lame stream media covering it ?

    divemedic in reply to psmeall. | July 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    There is no such thing as a “citizen’s grand jury.” That was an invention of a bunch of crackpots whose tin foil yarmulkes are wrapped too tightly.

      styro1 in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 2:16 pm

      There is such a thing. It just doesn’t have any legal weight. But I agree it’s used by tinfoil hat types for publicity.

    styro1 in reply to psmeall. | July 8, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    It was a Citizens Grand Jury. Doesn’t have any legal weight. It has been done before to indict G W Bush accusing him for inside job concerning 9/11. Anyone can hold a Citizens Grand Jury.

      tigercpa in reply to styro1. | July 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm

      About the same legal weight as the Senate Resolution declaring John McCain to be a natural born citizen. A Hallmark Card may have more legal weight.

    Matt in FL in reply to psmeall. | July 8, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Haha, it just won’t die, will it.

    When you hear “Citizen’s Grand Jury,” think “poll of guys around the poker table last night,” or “my Sunday brunch group thinks…” It has about that amount of weight.

    until it is done by something official, we should just drop that subject. It was a citizens grand jury, not an official grand jury.

The point is….Tracy Martin said it was NOT his son. Period.

Spin it as much as you want.

    Fabi in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    But, wait – he wasn’t adequately represented by his civil rights attorney when he said that! He didn’t have his swirl on yet! He still had his gang tat at that moment (and it wasn’t covered up by praying hands, as it is now)! The trademark hadn’t been applied for yet! Al Sharpton should have been by his side before asnwering such a racist question! Tracy hadn’t talked to Eric Holder yet!

    Throw this whole line of questioning out!

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Can MOM ask, “Officer Serino, what were the results of your invstigation?”

    Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    He could. It is likely objectionable, since it sort of invades the province of the jury as to the ultimate issues at trial.

    He MIGHT be able to ask if there was an indictment resulting.

Ahhh I’m from Canada Citizen’s Grand jury… Got it !

    My three dogs just formed a Citizens Grand Jury and indicted me for messing around on this blog and being 45 minutes late for their afternoon river walk today. I think I’m in trouble 😉

      Matt in FL in reply to Amy in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 3:32 pm

      Oh, Amy, don’t worry. Your dogs are probably no more likely to poop on your living room carpet than the actual Citizen’s Grand Jury.

      Fabi in reply to Amy in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm

      I pray that your dogs are not black labs or you could be brought up on civil rights charges!

        Now that is funny!!

        Hahaha! One of my foster dogs is indeed a black lab mix… and the reason he’s staying with me, is that he’s something of a “challenge”, having flunked out of/been expelled from several other placements.

        I’d better make sure he doesn’t have Mr Crump on speed-dial! 🙂 LOL.

Did the prosecution open the door to the admission of Trayvon’s character evidence (or at least give the defense the ability to so argue) when BLDR, on cross of Serino, said something like “Trayvon is not with us anymore … he is in heaven, hopefully.”?

How many times is that now that Bernie “I don’t know how to ask a non-leading question” de la Rionda has objected to MOM asking a leading question and been sustained? An even half-dozen? More?

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Re: Tracy Martin’s answer: They need to get the answers to the questions asked of anyone in WRITING – SIGNED BY THE PERSONS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS.

What does it matter that Tracy Martin was upset? It’s expected isn’t it.

    Exiliado in reply to styro1. | July 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Keep it in mind at all times.
    The state has no case .
    They are playing histrionics to appeal to emotions.

    Harperman in reply to styro1. | July 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    They are trying to imply that the “NO” was in response to his son’s death and not the question asked if that was his son’s voice.

Seems like BDLR is objecting even before the next witness comes in.

This promises to be fun to watch.

He’s done that before every witness hasn’t he.

BDLR: “Your honor I object, this is not going according to the script. We are losing this trial and Obama, Holder and Corey said that I’ll win, that the fix was in”.

This is about to get AWESOME!

Can’t the expert demonstrate ground and pound on BDLR?

I would like to see BDLR in the submissive position here.

This is just weird.

Henry Hawkins | July 8, 2013 at 2:44 pm

I represent the Possum Holler NC Citizen’s Grand Jury and we will INDICT anyone who posts on this blog that a citizen’s grand jury has indicted Angela Cory.

A$$holes and Punks

TM is agitated because GZ has been watching and following him. TM decides to confront GZ by turning around and walking back 100 ft to GZ’s truck. TM puts his hand in his waistband, staring at GZ as he gets closer. TM’s attitude is more akin to getting in someone’s face, throwing up your arms and hands, aggressively saying, SUP!, DO SOMETHING B!TCH!

GZ is intimidated and unnerved. He refers to TM as an a$$hole in a general way. GZ does settle down when TM is walking away from him, the threat is leaving. TM is not done with GZ. TM goats GZ by taking off and running down the dog walk. GZ exits his truck and a few seconds later, under his breath, says “F***ing Punks.”

GZ talks with the dispatcher for almost two minutes after he said “F***ing Punks,” During this time he is mostly calm and trying to direct the police to his location.

Rational people honestly attempt to put everything in context, as oppose to taken things out of context, as the prosecution has done.

I missed Serino’s testimony, but did O’Mara successfully argue that the Father’s statement that it was not Travon’s voice is admissible over a hearsay objection? How is that not hearsay. It is a statement offered to prove the matter asserted, i.e. “it was not Travon’s voice”. The father is not a party to the state’s case so it does not come in as a statement of a party against interest. I cannot think of any obvious exceptions to the hearsay rule. Does Florida have any catch-all exception to allow hearsay when the statement has significant indicia of reliability? (i.e. that is not something the father would say unless it was true)

Any Florida lawyers out there with an explanation?

    Jazzizhep in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    he got it in, and it was brutal for the State…BDLR tried to argue he was say “no” after the shot like “oh no my son was shot”, but the point was hammered home with the recall of Singleton MOM: Was there any doubt that when TM’s father siad “no” he meant that was not TM’s voice. Singleton: No doubt (paraphrased)

    Neil Morse in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    I did not watch the testimony, but I’m wondering the same thing about Serino’s and Singleton’s testimony concerning what Tracy Martin told them about whether it was Trayvon’s voice on the recording. What is the hearsay exception for this? I figure there must be a clear exception for this judge to have allowed this testimony in, but I’m wondering what it is. Was is a spontaneous utterance? Anyone?

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Bottom line from the gym guy – George sucked.

Pollock: Zimmerman came in as the Sta-Puff Marshmallow man who couldn’t punch himself out of a wet paper bag. He left as a thinner Pillsbury Doughboy who couldn’t punch himself out of a wet paper bag.

    guycocoa in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    No, it was an orange plastic bio-hazard bag that contained TM’s wet clothes and for which Dr Bao testified that anyone using a plastic bag would be fired immediately. I don’t think GZ could punch himself out of a plastic bio-hazard bag regardless of how wet it was

RUR-ROH….Pollock: “Zimmerman was a very nice man”

I would love to see Pollock demonstrate the full mount ground and pound to Mantei.

    Aridog in reply to vmic. | July 8, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    You too? Man, that guy is an irritating twerp. One of those clowns who giggles and grins at all the wrong spots.

I’m pretty sure I heard them playing ‘Kung Fu Fighting’ in the background of the court today.

There was funky Tommy Chin and little Sammy Chong…

Couple thangs…

there WAS a pitcher change on the State team.

this fighting stuff by the State is BORRRRRRRRRRRRING to ladies.

    That’s where you’d be wrong –

    For this particular lady, the gym guy perfectly explained that GZ was not in peak physical condition, and that he hadn’t advanced to the level of even being “trainable” in the most basic “boxing” moves.

    Anyone who watches TV or the movies just assumes that stuff is easy-peasy – and if they never take it upon themselves to try it themselves, they will remain blissfully unaware of the steps that have to be taken before a person is ready to throw the first punch against a live opponent.

    This guy was DEVASTATING to the prosecution’s case – precisely because the ladies on the jury didn’t have that kind of knowledge going in.

    He was professional, courteous, complimentary to Mr. Zimmerman in regards to his personality and work ethic, and brutally honest about GZ’s skill set.

    I learned an awful lot about what it takes to become a boxer – and I also realized that George Zimmerman was nowhere near what I would consider “able” to defend himself in a fight with anything beyond sheer instinct.

    The defense’s witness either put the prosecution on the ropes or down on the mat for the count. I don’t see how they get up from here.

I want to see a demonstration with this guy playing TM, BDLR as GZ as he jumps out from behind a desk pops him in the nose then ground and pounds him while he’s screaming.

    guycocoa in reply to styro1. | July 8, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Maybe that’s what the defense’s computer animation is about and why the prosecution is objecting to it so strenuously.

I wonder if George is seething with homicidal rage after being called soft over and over again.

Listening to the MMA teacher talk about GZ’s athleticism or lack thereof I am beginning to think that maybe I could beat GZ in a fight. What do you have to do to get a 1.0 rating with this teacher?

    KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to Catherine. | July 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    I think 12 year old Trayvon could take Zimmerman in a fight after that testimony.

    aerily in reply to Catherine. | July 8, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    you would most likely have to demonstrate good punching technique and movement, good jiu jitsu technique and win a few amateur MMA fights.

    For someone who comes in at a 5 on his scale, that could take a year or so but even that seems short. For GZ we would be looking at 5-7 years. before he would be at the point where he could intelligently defend himself in a fight.

    Aridog in reply to Catherine. | July 8, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Be breathing and lose some fat (to get up from the original 0.5). Actually, if you are out of shape that isn’t easy. I’m in recovery of sorts from cancer where I lost a lot of weight, fat and muscle, and just getting back to a 0.5, in my opinion, is a chore…for this once black belt in Tae Kwon Do, in Korea not here.

Just read a tweet that MOM and West were talking w/ former Sanford Police Chief Lee in courthouse hallway. Next witness?

The trainers testimony was devastating to any scenario the state may try put up that George had the ability to defend himself from a physical assault. He was like the proverbial old lady who couldn’t go toe to toe with a male attacker and who only recourse to defend herself is a weapon.

    Yeah, I don’t think any of this “George didn’t let himself get beat up bad enough before resorting to his weapon” and “he should have fought back harder” guff is going to be going over very well with an all-female jury.

Wow. There are some really STOOOOOOoooooopid people commenting on Fox.

    Matt in FL in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Rags, I assume you’re referring to the people being paid to be there?

    Hodor in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Yeah, you probably don’t want to follow the #zimmermantrial Twitter feed then. The WFTV blog is marginally better but here’s a little gem that just popped up there:

    “3:25 Comment From Guest
    Can Z be tried again if it is determined that the State has ineffective counsel?”

    Lol. Ummmmm, no. Funny, though.

      gxm17 in reply to Hodor. | July 8, 2013 at 3:42 pm

      Do we get do-overs? Spit take! Too darn funny.

      Fabi in reply to Hodor. | July 8, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Please, please, please tell me you’re kidding about that state having ‘ineffective counsel’ comment? I have advanced degrees in sarcasm and satire and I wouldn’t have tried that one! lol

      p.s. thanks for sharing that comment – the Traybots are quickly learning about a certain river in Egypt.

        Hodor in reply to Fabi. | July 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm

        Nope, I copy/pasted that straight from the WFTV rolling comments, not made up by me at all. Don’t believe I’m capable of coming up with some of the crap people spout off there…

    vmic in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Judges and lawyers commenting on case they know nothing about except for the talking points

    Voluble in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    You saw them too…

Ewww… Kuhl… they have a video recreation.

Jurors LOVE light and motion.

It may be excluded, but they are very often permitted in civil actions.

Why didn’t MOM get details regarding the consequences of an unsupervised ground-and-pound? Would Mantel himself willing get into a ring w/o a ref, EVER? Would Mantel himself, with his years of experience, submit to an unref’ed GaP situation? And why not?

Answer: because the Fighter on top will not stop if you are tapping out, will not stop if you are screaming for help, will not stop if you are knocked out, and there is no one to make him do so, thus, you can DIE in that situation.

I think MOM should have asked where on the 1-10 scale your average 17 year old football player would be

So basically GZ went to the the gym to lose weight and get in better shape. He chose a couple of disciplines because they interested him and he would likely continue an exercise regimen. Alternatively he could have gone to another gym and taken a Jazzercise class and accomplished pretty much the same thing? Hmmm Maybe he didn’t because he’s not such a good dancer.

(Seriously though – Kudos to him for what he did accomplish in improving his health and his weight loss at the time. One more item showing some character.)

HOLY CRAP! just said “the crime rates haven’t necessarily decreased (because of SYU), it is b/c they have stopped arresting ppl in self-defense cases

    Jazzizhep in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    SYU=Stand your uround, ummm ground

    I might have agreed with them (I didn’t hear the context) that “the crime rates haven’t necessarily decreased because of SYG”, since crime is now at a 42-year low and SYG only came in in 2005… so it was dropping already. How much SYG has helped the last 7 years’ stats is for anyone to say. My guess is that it has helped, but I wouldn’t know by how much.

    But most markedly, and what they don’t like talking about, is that SYG hasn’t done what all the hysterical anti-gun types said it was sure to do – they claimed we’d all be running around shooting each other and the streets would be running with blood. Ask them how those predictions are working out now that we’ve got over a million CCL holders here now, and they start stammering.

Interesting question about a person’s non-verbal reaction. Non-verbal conduct can be an assertion subject to the hearsay rule if the non-verbal conduct is intended as an assertion. An example would be a person shaking his head “no” in response to a question.

Here I don’t think that the father’s conduct upon hearing the tape and being asked whether it was his son, was intended by him to be an assertion. It was his unintended, perhaps unconscious, reaction.

I think that the father’s non-verbal reaction is admissible, but for the life of me, I cannot understand how his verbal statement comes in over a hearsay objection.


Tracy Martin to the stand.

Deep, low pitched voice.
Anyone noticed?

He has quite the deep voice.

Why call Tracy Martin to the stand when you have already admitted into evidence his statement that he did not recognize the voice as being that of Trayvon?

I just want to say that within the first 10 words he spoke, based on that and his general demeanor, I feel far more favorable to this man than I did to Sybrina throughout her entire testimony.

    Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    That doesn’t mean I necessarily find him more credible, but definitely more sympathetic.

      Exiliado in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      At least, he was the one trying to be honest the first time he listened to the tape.
      Come Benjamin crump and his million dollar hustle and we know where everything went….

Not sure why he was called but he sure looks like he just perjured himself.

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 3:55 pm

Tracy Martin should have been given a written statement to sign.

This should be standard practice.

If Trayvon had his father’s voice we know who had the deeper voice as testified to earlier.

Sybrina is pissed, really, really pissed.

But she knew this was coming.

Tracy to the stand?!?! Damnit! I’m taking a non-NEN authorized lunch break! I’m busted…

Speak up Bernie can’t hear ya

I don’t see what was gained from that but I think it might have something to do with that meeting.

Should have asked him is his son’s voice was deep like his.

    Even if a 17-year-old boy has a deep voice, it doesn’t have the resonance and/or timbre that a more mature man’s voice does.

    I guarantee you that a 17-year-old male’s voice is going to be much higher-pitched than a 30-something’s voice at a time of fear/panic.

      txantimedia in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 8, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      And you would be wrong – as John Donnally proved on the stand.

      You would be wrong. Lots of kids have deep voices that they inherit from their fathers and lots of grown men have the opposite. Ask any music director. You are right that any one person’s voice will likely deepen with age but you can’t extrapolate that into all younger people’s voices are higher than older ones.

      Sure we know Zimmerman’s is high. We know Trayvon’s father’s is low. We don’t know what Trayvon’s was for sure… but my money is on its being lower than Zimmerman’s because his is very weak.

      dorsaighost in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 8, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      since we’ve never heard Trayvon screaming for help we’ll never know how high his voice is in that case … he wasn’t the one screaming …

        Is there “sound” evidence of Trayvon Martin’s normal speaking voice? Like on a regular phone call / uploaded YouTube video he made?

        Not that something like that can be admitted into evidence, but I seem to remember seeing something reported to be a video where he was speaking (friends laughing at some drunk guy or some such nonsense) – his voice certainly did not sound anywhere nearly as deep as his father’s did today.

          Yes there is, but Trademark’s trashcan tour parents didn’t release it. Different rules for AAs – you understand, right? Kinda like when they went to the Feds because they didn’t trust the SPD? Different rules!

          Lucien Cordier in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 8, 2013 at 6:14 pm

          Search term:
          ABC News – Trayvon Martin Case: Voice Recording

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 4:01 pm

There are holes in Tracy Martin’s sworn statements to the police and his depositions:

– He claimed to have seen Trayvon at 8:30pm an hour after he died.
– He claimed he drove Trayvon to Sanford, when he rode the bus.
– He said it was not Trayvon screaming on tape.

– He changed his mind later.

KrazyCrackaEsq | July 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Trayvn’s dad claims he said couldn’t tell if it was son’s voice, but officers said they had no doubt he told them the screams were not Trayvon’s. Honestly, who you going to believe?

Tracy Martin taking the wind from BDLR’s sails by not letting him finish questions and build up the emotional currency

Calling Tracy may have been a mistake.

I think OMara accidentally grabbed the state’s play book when he called Tracy Martin.
He brought up a couple of items that will be impeachable I suspect, but overall, I think that witness was better for the state.

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 4:16 pm

…and you lost your job because race baiting pimps called for your head after you refused to press charges against a perceived innocent man

As I’m understanding it, the Defense called Martin because of something Crump said during depo last night. This could get real interesting.

    Voluble in reply to caambers. | July 8, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    Apparently, Martin told Crump to tell people that the police lied about the voice identification. No reason for MOM to ask that question otherwise.

Why don’t they do voice lineups where they play the tape from this case and some tapes from others and then ask if they recognize any of the voices on any of the tapes?

    Pauldd in reply to Voluble. | July 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Voluble: Don’t you think it would be pretty obvious which of the tapes was the relevant one?

      txantimedia in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      Not if it’s never been released to the public.

      Voluble in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm

      Depends on which tape and how much I guess. There would be a lot of cases where it might be obvious and I am not sure you couldn’t get an excerpt of the current tape where it was not obvious. I would have to listen to it.

      But my main point is that it seems like a practice that could be implemented. Perhaps there is a reason it is not done that way.

I am wondering why he doesn’t question this witness regarding the manner in which Travon’s girlfriend was questioned with Travon’s mother and the family attorneys present.

Well, since we’re about done for the day, I want to put in my silly comment of the day:

I think it’s funny that every time the Judge gives her admonishment to the jury, she lists “twitters” and “tweets” as two separate items.

The state wouldn’t have turned the volume up on the recording all the way only 3/4 of the way.

WOW, is she gonna rule for the defense?

    Matt in FL in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Is the outcome of ruling for the State anything like a mistrial, or is just some sort of sanction? Because if so, she really doesn’t want that.

    I laughed when Mantei said if they’d have known, they might have asked for a delay to do some research. You mean, like the delays that have been repeatedly denied to the defense, over matters of much more import than this simple question?

      Jazzizhep in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      I bet she let this softball go so she can rule on more important issues like the tox report in favor of the State

HRPuffingstuff | July 8, 2013 at 4:42 pm

What effect do you think it would have had on the jury, if they had played Donnelly the tape for the first time in open court, and he broke down?

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Here’s something interesting that I found.

The most meaningful recent study measuring driver “culpability” (i.e., who is at fault) in 3,400 crashes over a 10-year period indicated that drivers with THC concentrations of less than five ng/mL in their blood have a crash risk no higher than that of drug-free users.2 The crash risk begins to rise above the risk for sober drivers when a marijuana user’s THC concentrations in whole blood3 reach five to 10 ng/mL.

Wasn’t TM’s blood level 7ng/ml?

    Matt in FL in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Yes, it was 7 ng/mL of metabolite and 3 (?) ng/mL of active THC.

      inquisitivemind in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      So he was coming don from getting stoned earlier and decided to bea up a creepy azz craka

      Ragspierre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      It was 1.5 ng/mL if I am reading this correctly, of THC.

        Matt in FL in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm

        I stand corrected on active THC level. I knew I shouldn’t go from memory.

          guycocoa in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 6:53 pm

          You now qualify as an M.E.!

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 8:16 pm

          However, it should also be noted that those levels in the study are a averaged. Every person is different and some may have more effect from less of a given drug than others, may factors contribute to the effects including weight, tissue absorption rates, and just who you are. So, while that study is interesting, especially for me since I am in the medical field and have experience in working with drug users, it shouldn’t be taken as gospel that since Martin’s levels were lower that he could not have still been affected by them. It is a possibility.

    7 ng/ml is metabolites i.e. previous use – which is not an indication of impairment. Also since metabolites get stored in the fat the use need not be recent. 1.5 ng/ml is the only indication of recent use.

    BTW why are drivers as safe at lower levels? Because they over estimate their level of impairment and over compensate. I don’t think it helps the defense. But who knows?

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 4:54 pm

There are chemical, structural and functional brain changes that occur when a person is an addict or user of alcohol, drugs or even pornography.

There are also cognitive, emotional and behavior changes.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Link to one study re: drugs and aggression:

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      There are cumulative effects of drugs on the human brain and behavior. There is a magnification of these effects with the interaction between several drugs and/or alcohol when users imbibe in several drugs.

    Long term effects: there are no valid studies. All depend on correlation. The impairment could be caused by PTSD for which pot is self medication.

    Trayvon had all the signs of PTSD including impulsiveness and occasional violence.

    To do a valid study you would have to follow a large cohort from birth and do frequent (quarterly at least) testing. That has never been done. To my knowledge. And I follow the issue fairly closely.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 5:40 pm

      There was some talk of brain abnormalities revealed in TM’s autopsy.

        Re: brain abnormalities. At birth? Caused by PTSD? Or the drugs? We know nothing.

        And Tray – as an unwanted child was at grave risk for PTSD. If he had the right genetics.

        And evidence of that? DNA indications of susceptibility to PTSD.

          We have no DNA evidence of susceptibility to PTSD. I’d have to look up the particular markers. Some of them have been mapped. Not all.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 8:20 pm

        The changes in Martin’s brain are pretty consistent with death, almost every human who hasn’t been vaporized has died from the same thing, “lack of oxygen to the brain”. So those changes were most likely due to the lack of oxygen to his brain, which was caused by the collapsed lung and punctured heart, which was caused by being shot.

      Bernice in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 6:19 pm

      Multiple school suspensions cause PTSD? Or are you claiming PTSD is idiopathic in Trayvon’s case?

        Being an abandoned child causes PTSD. It is obvious his mother didn’t want him.

          There is no clinical evidence that Trayvon Martin suffered from PTSD. Not every angry young man who displays “impulsiveness and occasional violence” has PTSD. Sometimes they’re just angry young men.

          If he didn’t have cancer, you shouldn’t be claiming that he did what he did “because he had cancer”. If he didn’t have PTSD, you shouldn’t be claiming he did what he did “because he had PTSD”.

    DriveBy in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    Alcohol and drugs, OK, I follow you, got it. If not, why are narcotics limited to physician prescription, right? But pornography? Really? I would think/believe that excitation, amorous feelings or wants, and/or perhaps climax might/would occur, but what are you talking about? So someone who watches a porn will stagger, reckless drive a car, not be able to operate heavy equipment, get the munchies, fall asleep in the street after puking on themselves, etc, etc, etc…

    You do know that people are still having sex, and that they can recall the images of that sex in their mind at any time, right? And that people (men/women) do masturbate, right?

    Sorry, but I’m just replying to yet another dumb internet posting by someone that cannot sleep at night because they fear that someone else is having fun, even if it is by themselves or with a partner watching a silly porn. And by the way, why post that nonsense here, of all places?

    guycocoa in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Defense to drug expert #1: how would those emotional changes manifest themselves? For example, would they cause a teenager to get suspended from school? Would they cause a teenager to be uncontrollable by his mother and have to go live with his father? Would they make the teenager paranoid about being followed?

      Gremlin1974 in reply to guycocoa. | July 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm

      The answer to all of those questions is; Possibly, depending on the person and their reaction to the drug in question.

      The drug use IMO is not the root cause. The root cause is his anger at being abandoned by his mother. The root cause is PTSD. The pot use is a symptom.

      You see what we have here is a tragedy.

      I’m sorry for Tray. I’m convinced George is innocent.

Two in a row for the defense, perhaps

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Wow! The tox report is in! I’m amazed. This changes things dramatically.

    Matt in FL in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    Honestly, I’m curious if it belongs in. If levels that low are almost certainly of no quantifiable effect (in any direction), isn’t that unfairly predjudicial?

      Jazzizhep in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      the defense gets in he was smoking dope, that is all that matters…impression on the jury

      BubbaLeroy in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 5:06 pm

      You have to keep in mind that the marijuana use is also relevant to GZ’s motive in being suspicious of TM. The state has put GZ’s motives at issue by trying to claim that he was racially profiling TM.

      GZ called the police and said that TM looked like he was on drugs. It turns out that GZ was correct and TM was in fact on drugs. It confirms GZ’s account.

        James IIa in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 8, 2013 at 5:19 pm

        Right. Also, jurors are barred from doing their own research into the matter, so unless the prosecution is able to minimize the marijuana intoxication, the implication will remain.

      txantimedia in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm

      I posted a link earlier to a study that shows that levels such as TM had in his blood DO have a measurable effect. I’m sure the defense will put on an expert that will testify to the same thing.

    fogflyer in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    This information is rather trivial if the jurists are looking at the FACTS of the case, but if they are judging emotionally, this will be an important element.

    Definitely a big win for the defense.

      txantimedia in reply to fogflyer. | July 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm

      Not really. The evidence that he had THC in his blood directly corroborates what GZ reported to the operator. It therefore enhances his credibility.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 8:28 pm

        It also blows the “innocent little child” meme that has been pushed in the case. As much as pro-legalization folks don’t want to believe it, drug use is still frowned upon by the general public, especially when it is drug use by an underage person.

        (P.S.) Before anyone turns on the flame throwers, I am a nurse with certification in mental illness and drug abuse treatment and I am pro-legalization, if it is done under the same laws as alcohol, with the same penalties.)

WTF? She denied two prosecution motions in a row?

Well if you read the Talk Left article I don’t know how the judge could have kept it out. Defense-Evidence-Issues

I just saw a tweet saying state wanted to strike testimony of Singleton and Serino. Calling Tracey Martin made that moot.

IANAL, so I don’t know if that could be accurate.

what is limine(sp)?

ChattelPaper | July 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm

Motion in limine – when they ask the court to include, exclude, or limit the use of certain evidence.

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 5:20 pm

Can the Martin family trademark TrayBlounts
TrayWraps, HoodieBlounts?

Now that’s a book deal I couldn’t pass up. My currently underemployed wallet thanks you, Andrew.

if you are not reading AB tweets, he just put his book up for 40% off and free shipping with coupon code #defensewin first ten only

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm

I can get you a general effect of blount smokage from the homicide rate near here in B-ham as to toking up a few hours prior and subsequently committing a felony

Rene Stutzman just tweeted that Corey-Nifong is wearing a toe ring. Why is she looking at that beasts feet. Ewwww

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Do not like the exclusion of discussion of laws of self defense.

I hope this animation is allowed. Cool way to lay it out for jury. Hate to think what this defense is costing Zimmerman.

    Harperman in reply to rotate. | July 8, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    I don’t know what it may be costing George monetarily but as a contributor I know it is costing me and I don’t regret a single penny of it.
    The real cost to George is unmeasurable not only in emotional devastation but the utter destruction of his life regardless of the verdict.

    hesperus in reply to rotate. | July 8, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    If you are so convinced of his innocence, I suggest you donate more:

      Harperman in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      Why? The state is getting pounded worse than Zimmerman did from Treyvon’s ground and pound. LOL

      Harperman in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 6:42 pm

      Thanks for putting up the donation website. What people like me can contribute wouldn’t pay but a couple of minutes of MOM’s or West’s regular salary but when thousands of us contribute what little we can….

        LoriL in reply to Harperman. | July 8, 2013 at 7:01 pm

        O’Mara and West aren’t getting paid. All funds go toward experts, exhibits and security, etc., for Zimmerman. Also extra office space for the some paid, some volunteer legal assistants.

      Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      if you think GZ is guilty, why don’t you post something that reflects both the law and the evidence, instead of the trollish bullshit you proffer.

        unlike the rest of you here, I don’t know yet if he is guilty, but I sure as hell am not on your koolaid fest here that is convinced he is innocent. Hell half of you don’t even think there should be a trial, half of you think trayvon is on trial here. You all are just imbibing way too much and feeding off each other’s bias. And woe to anyone who might post a comment or two that questions your little party…

          rantbot in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 9:16 pm

          Hint – he IS innocent until proven otherwise. It’s pretty obvious by now that the State isn’t able to come close to proving otherwise. Therefore, he’s innocent. End of story.

          Harperman in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm

          You don’t know yet if he’s guilty? Or innocent for that matter eh? The state has rested it case and has come no where near the requirement of proving guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt. You do understand “shadow of a doubt”?

          Matt in FL in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 11:54 pm

          If you don’t know yet if he’s guilty, and the state has rested their case, then he should be acquitted.

          Neat how the law works, huh?

          hesperus in reply to hesperus. | July 9, 2013 at 8:46 am

          the jury will decide if he is guilty, not me. Funny how the law works isn’t it?

          Matt in FL in reply to hesperus. | July 9, 2013 at 8:51 am

          @hesperus: I was using you as an analogue to the jury, but I’m pretty sure you knew that.

      rantbot in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 7:58 pm

      Doesn’t really matter if he’s guilty or not. Even the guilty merit a fair trial. Nobody should be railroaded. Hence, supporting his defense is proper for anybody.

How in the Hell did the persecution get to ask that range of questions to Tracy?!?!?! The persecution could’ve asked him those questions on DIRECT! Ludicrous…

And Tracy sucks as an actor! Enough of this drive-by ‘dad’.

PMSNBC compelling testimony alert! Compelling! Compelling, I tell ya! Compelling!

    Bernice in reply to Fabi. | July 8, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    “But resist we much… we must… and we will much… about… that… be committed.”
    — Al Sharpton

Many seem content with completely ignoring common sense when it comes to the person’s voice behind the cries for help. Based upon the evidence presented by the state, before she closed, can anyone provide a plausible or even credible explanation as to why one should or could believe TM is the voice behind those cries for help?

For a cartoon, you need a Dogbert ruling?

I see our troll is back after being MIA for a couple hours. Pre-riot window shopping? LOL

Does anyone think MOM really believes that the prosecutors are “skilled?” I realize they have a tough case, but these guys need steel capped shoes if they want to keep any of their toes.

Who does Nelson trust the most? I would offer that O’Mara has been the most genuine and logical everytime he has talked with her. Everyone else attempts to deceive- BDLR, Mantei, West. When O’Mara talks to Nelson when the jury is not there, he says what he really thinks– no emotional appeal, pure rationality. Of course, she knows some of his tricks, but he comes across as genuine everytime he talks to her once the jury is out of the room. Compare that to Mantei (in the JOA), who thinks he can dupe her.

    ejomby in reply to ejomby. | July 8, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    It’s what I loved about the JOA. It was almost like he was just speaking to her on private terms. He sees it. He grants the best argument that the prosecutors have, and yet it isn’t enough. And he has the confidence to say so, straight forward. You could see her face when he was talking that she was thinking the same way– but she also knew the political and real implications of granting the JOA. If it weren’t a national trial, she might side with him. But there’s no way she could side with him on that– that would put everything on her. Plus– at this point, she’s fairly confident that Zimmerman will be found not guilty. Better to put that on the jury than herself.

Ha…just got home and rewound the DVR a bit. I loved the expressions on Mantei’s face while MOM was talking. What a twerp.

I wonder if the defense will be calling Sherman Ware as a character witness for Zimmerman?