Zimmerman case cracking for prosecutors

2seaoat wrote:The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.

The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.



First, the prosecutors are under a duty to disclose facts to the Defense counsel in the discovery process. It is encouraging to see prosecutors work for justice, rather than a conviction. Second, the witness as certain as the sun rises probably has other incidents which the defense will attempt to impeach her credibility. No big deal. However, it will be up to the judge to decide if the lying as to being in the hospital is relevant to the case. She may have lied to a creditor in court on a case. She may have lied to her ex boyfriend, she may have lied on her taxes......and even if she was convicted of a misdemeanor on any of those lies.....they still may not be relevant or admissible.

So your assumption that the Prosecutor's case is cracking is certainly premature until the parties make motions in Limine to determine what facts are prejudicial and not relevant. I simply do not know if the defense will even be allowed to cross examine her in that regards if the state makes a proper motion as to relevance. What you or I think is relevant matters little, and it is very frustrating when I have been in court on landlord and tenant matter not being able to show that a tenant has a record of convictions and lying which would help me prove that he has lied to the court in regard to my lease with the tenant. Until the first time a lawyer beats you up with a motion in Limine, you think you can just show documents, prior convictions, and other clear evidence, but the court is concerned with the relevant facts of the case, and only certain types of convictions can even be introduced, and when doing something pro se......you better understand to get that conviction certified, because a simple letter may not work.....and some convictions they will not even recognize as not being relevant.........I am no expert, but I can tell you as soon as you begin assuming courts will hear all the evidence.....that is when I or my lawyer have had our heads handed to us by a tenant who is a dirt ball.....but we cannot show that they are a lying dirtball........

2seaoat wrote:

Now your innuendo about a hoodie really bothers me.

2seaoat wrote:The court of the public media certainly did repeated lying.

Maybe. However, after somebody has been killed the media can either find a photo from a public source, a prior booking like we see on another thread here, a yearbook or some other publicly released material, or the family will release a photo. I have at my desk photos of my family, but it shows my wife and kids 25 years ago. Am I trying to lie when a customer comes in? Is it a conscious effort to trick folks that I have this pretty young wife and young kids, or is it the last available photo I had. I think you are jumping to a conclusion that this was coordinated or a result to garner sympathy for a 17 year old who was not an adult who could sign a contract.

Now your innuendo about a hoodie really bothers me. Since I have been sick I get cold really easy. I always wear a hoodie when I go and play poker at Greyhound or other casinos. It is accepted wear at a poker table as people put on sun glasses and put the hood up to hide as much of their face and hopefully disguise any tell about their hand. I wear them because they are comfortable and afford me in any situation an easy way to stay warm if I begin to chill. Well one day while waiting to play poker, I went to a table game called three card poker. As I sat down the dealer said to me, are you new to here......I said no, I have played this game......he goes no are you new to the casino and do you realize they might say something about your hoodie. I very quietly but firmly told him let anybody come and ask me about my hoodie and I will tell them I am terminally ill and that I wear the same because it keeps me warm, and that I had played at that table for over 12 months wearing the same and he needs to cut the sarcasim. He stumbles around for words......he misdeals about two hands later where I have a flush and the person two people over has a straight which pays out very nicely......he wants to muck the cards.....I protest. They call the pit boss. He says they must muck the cards because he exposed his cards even though we had all committed to bet, I tell the pit boss, that what the dealer said is not true and they should look at the camera.......a manager comes about five minutes later, having not even looked at the camera, and tells the table that the hand will be mucked, and I simply take my money and say to the manager that what this dealer has said is untrue. All this started because of a prejudgment about a hoodie. I wrote the gaming commission to find out if in fact their was a dress code which bans hoodies.....there was not. This was simply a smart ass dealer who was prejudiced against the same because of some media portrayal of the same. Well, the end of the story is that a week later the dealer was no longer employed at the casino, and I never got confirmation why he was let go, but from my perspective there are a lot of folks who walk around every day prejudging folks and harming them with words or actions because of the way they dress......I would never have wanted the dealer let go for being a smart asz with the hoodie comment, but when he lied about what happened at the table......that is another matter, and my guess it was reviewed.

So where did you learn your prejudice?

2seaoat wrote:

I have never seen a crucifix hung from a car mirror,

2seaoat wrote:The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.

The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.



First, the prosecutors are under a duty to disclose facts to the Defense counsel in the discovery process. It is encouraging to see prosecutors work for justice, rather than a conviction. Second, the witness as certain as the sun rises probably has other incidents which the defense will attempt to impeach her credibility. No big deal. However, it will be up to the judge to decide if the lying as to being in the hospital is relevant to the case. She may have lied to a creditor in court on a case. She may have lied to her ex boyfriend, she may have lied on her taxes......and even if she was convicted of a misdemeanor on any of those lies.....they still may not be relevant or admissible.

So your assumption that the Prosecutor's case is cracking is certainly premature until the parties make motions in Limine to determine what facts are prejudicial and not relevant. I simply do not know if the defense will even be allowed to cross examine her in that regards if the state makes a proper motion as to relevance. What you or I think is relevant matters little, and it is very frustrating when I have been in court on landlord and tenant matter not being able to show that a tenant has a record of convictions and lying which would help me prove that he has lied to the court in regard to my lease with the tenant. Until the first time a lawyer beats you up with a motion in Limine, you think you can just show documents, prior convictions, and other clear evidence, but the court is concerned with the relevant facts of the case, and only certain types of convictions can even be introduced, and when doing something pro se......you better understand to get that conviction certified, because a simple letter may not work.....and some convictions they will not even recognize as not being relevant.........I am no expert, but I can tell you as soon as you begin assuming courts will hear all the evidence.....that is when I or my lawyer have had our heads handed to us by a tenant who is a dirt ball.....but we cannot show that they are a lying dirtball........

Harold wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.

The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.



First, the prosecutors are under a duty to disclose facts to the Defense counsel in the discovery process. It is encouraging to see prosecutors work for justice, rather than a conviction. Second, the witness as certain as the sun rises probably has other incidents which the defense will attempt to impeach her credibility. No big deal. However, it will be up to the judge to decide if the lying as to being in the hospital is relevant to the case. She may have lied to a creditor in court on a case. She may have lied to her ex boyfriend, she may have lied on her taxes......and even if she was convicted of a misdemeanor on any of those lies.....they still may not be relevant or admissible.

So your assumption that the Prosecutor's case is cracking is certainly premature until the parties make motions in Limine to determine what facts are prejudicial and not relevant. I simply do not know if the defense will even be allowed to cross examine her in that regards if the state makes a proper motion as to relevance. What you or I think is relevant matters little, and it is very frustrating when I have been in court on landlord and tenant matter not being able to show that a tenant has a record of convictions and lying which would help me prove that he has lied to the court in regard to my lease with the tenant. Until the first time a lawyer beats you up with a motion in Limine, you think you can just show documents, prior convictions, and other clear evidence, but the court is concerned with the relevant facts of the case, and only certain types of convictions can even be introduced, and when doing something pro se......you better understand to get that conviction certified, because a simple letter may not work.....and some convictions they will not even recognize as not being relevant.........I am no expert, but I can tell you as soon as you begin assuming courts will hear all the evidence.....that is when I or my lawyer have had our heads handed to us by a tenant who is a dirt ball.....but we cannot show that they are a lying dirtball........

If you're talking about prosecutors in this case , I have to disagree they're working for justice. They most certainly overcharged Zimmerman in my opinion. As to the witnessess credibility, it certainly does go to her credibility when she is proven to have lied under oath in a deposition. They can use that to show she is not credible.

didn't zimmerman lie under oath about his financial status during his bail reduction hearing? does that also make him not credible?

2seaoat wrote:Yup-it makes it even so the jury will have to decide on the physical evidence alone.

nope.....not necessarily. The defense has the most difficult problem in this case. Whether to allow the defendant to take the stand. Absent him taking the stand, it is highly unlikely that the fact that the defendant lied about a bail financial status can be used to impeach a witness.....when there probably will not be a witness......this idea that things can just be introduced into evidence in a trial is not as easy as some think. If courts allowed this willy nilly cumulative non relevant evidence......trials would be taking years as somebody introduces evidence that someone lied to their seventh grade teacher about the dog eating their homework......relevant evidence in the end is the judge's call......or an appeals court call.

2seaoat wrote:Good Lord! No matter what Oats posts, he can't turn everyone into a racist. No matter how many fantasies he has about it.

Ok.....it is official......racism does not exist. Do you feel better? Does what I think change any reality? So your reality is that racism does not exist. I just have never figured out how you find the door for the twilight zone.....do you have an elevator.....is it like Jack and the beanstalk, and I plant a seed and climb onto a cloud to find this world you live........or is it a transporter unit where Mr. Spock will transport me to join you in this utopia of fair minded folks who see all people as the same..............I guess you are right......I live in a world of fantasy.