Zimmerman trial Monday, July 1

2seaoat wrote:Dr Rao doesn't seem to want to answer the defense attorney's questions. I don't think under cross examination that she's doing a good job for the prosecution.

She is the medical examiner.  Her conclusion was the injuries were minor injuries and certainly not life threatening......why defense counsel ended with that silly question......."What about the next blow".....What about the next blow"  was a terrible admission that in fact none of Zimmerman's injuries were anything but minor and superficial which conforms with Mr. Good's eyewitness account.  

The defense failed in my opinion to be prepared with a demonstrative exhibit to show how unlikely the one contact testimony was.    It is a simple exhibit. You take a one foot by one foot piece of plywood and paint its surface.  You next take a basketball and make contact with that surface.   The doctor said oval....to describe the head....so you use an actual skull and place it against the plywood.   There will more probably than not only be one mark.  Any student who took freshman geometry understands that the Doctors one blow was attempting to minimize the injuries.

2seaoat wrote:I strongly disagree that it's essential for the defense to show that the injuries were life threatening to win the case.


The defense does not have to do a thing.  They could sit and not say a word.  The state must put a prima facia case into evidence to get a conviction.   The state will have an important part of the Prima Facia case that the injuries were superficial.

2seaoat wrote:Again, I don't think the medical examiner did well under cross.

Her testimony was not impeached.  It was probative.   The final weight of that testimony resides with the jury.

Sal wrote:I agree that the prosecution is methodically and painstakingly putting the pieces in place to obtain a conviction.

Whether or not they can weave these disparate pieces into a coherent enough narrative to remove reasonable doubt from the minds of the jurors will be key.

Sal wrote:Serino testified that Zimmerman had profiled Martin, followed him, and displayed ill-will and spite in his comments to the police dispatcher.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Serrino can't testify to Z following him.

Sal wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Serrino can't testify to Z following him.

But, he did.

lol

Nekochan wrote:I understand what the State was doing with her testimony but I don't think the defense has said the injuries were life threatening.  I still don't think she did that well under cross examination.

I strongly disagree that it's essential for the defense to show that the injuries were life threatening to win the case.

Dreamsglore wrote:The jury has made up their mind at this point. They have taken a position. Whether the prosecution thinks the injuries were superficial doesn't matter. It's what Z believed. That's what the law says. This is not a clear cut case for the prosecution.There is much reasonable doubt.

Sal wrote:O'Mara asked whether Serino had any evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after a non-emergency dispatcher told him not to.

"I would answer I have information, yes," Serino said. "Just based on where we located Trayvon and the fact that the altercation happened after the confrontation. That's my interpretation. There was some following."

Sal wrote:BET, Jamie Fox, lazy shiftless parents making money off their dead son ...

... it's obvious Dream has taken the right tact in regards to this case.

 

2seaoat wrote:Opinion Sal-not facts.

No....this was testimony.....which is evidence and has a probative value, and no motion to strike that testimony was granted.  You may be correct that the jury will assign very little weight to that evidence, just as the medical examiners testimony as to the extent of the injuries is probative and was not stricken......the weight of that evidence again in the jury's eyes may completely agree with your opinion, but it most certainly is evidence in this trial, and has not been stricken from evidence.   There may be a later motion which is granted by the judge to stricken his testimony, or the medical examiner's testimony, and specific jury instructions regarding how the jury should not even weight that evidence......however, there has been none of that.

2seaoat wrote:The biggest mistake the prosecution has made was showing the reenactment. Zimmerman no longer has to take the stand to explain or get tripped up by them. Dumb on their part.



If the primary duty of a prosecutor is to do justice, they most certainly want to be fair and disclose all the evidence in their case in chief.  Clearly, Defense counsel has expressed his reservations about putting Zimmerman on the stand, and you are correct that his words are being heard by the jury without the risk of cross examination, and ultimately may influence their decision not to have Zimmerman take the stand.   There has been nothing dumb in the presentation of this evidence.  It is necessary.   If the Jury finds Zimmerman innocent of all charges, then justice will have been served.  The Prosecution will have done their job putting the best case into evidence.   They probably think that the reenactment serves some strategic component of their case, but you are most certainly correct.....the more folks like his friend who wrote the book, and Mr. Zimmerman's own words are heard by the jury.....there will be fewer reasons for the defense to risk cross examination.