Zimmerman Trial

#1,176
#1,176
OrangePack82 said:
Doesn't that set precedence that any electronic exchanges can't be used because they "can't authenticate" the sender? That would destroy tons of cases.
Click to expand...

State v Lumarque
FL appeals court overturns decision excluding texts due to authentication:
On the appeal, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that exhibits 5-9 and 11-15 are not admissible in the trial of this case. The State sought to admit into evidence two sexually suggestive images and eleven text messages between the ex-wife and a boyfriend, found on the defendant’s cellular telephone. The ex-wife testified that prior to the assault by the defendant, he showed her the two images and one of the text messages. There also is evidence in the record from which one might infer the defendant examined the ex-wife’s cellular telephone on the morning or afternoon before the alleged incident when he was alone in the house for a brief period after returning their children back to his ex-wife’s home.

At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be). It also is immaterial that the ex-wife could not identify each of the messages being shown to her on the night of the incident. Regardless how these images and text messages might have found their way onto the defendant’s cellular telephone, the State has presented sufficient evidence at this stage that these exhibits constitute evidence of motive. Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 863 (Fla.1987) (stating that evidence of motive is admissible when it would help the jury understand other evidence). Accordingly, they are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case upon the State laying the proper predicates as indicated by this opinion….
Click to expand...
 
#1,179
#1,179
So was the only grounds for exclusion authentication, or did she say they were too prejudicial in part in view of it being impossible to know whether he himself sent the texts?

Either way they should have been admitted because directly relevant to whether TM was the aggressor. But if they were excluded only on authentication grounds, then WOW.
 
#1,180
#1,180
Not having watched this, I suspect the issue is that him generally saying in the past that he was interested in MMA or buying guns goes really only to his character and any relevance it has to proving that he attacked Z on the night in question is too low compared to how badly it would make the jury react to TM.

When appellate courts look at evidentiary issues, they use a standard of review called
"abuse of discretion," meaning not just that the appeals judges disagree with her, but that no reasonable person could find the way that the trial judge did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,181
#1,181
Judge is scared imo (and I don't blame her). She does not want to do anything that would seem (to people like the twitter idiots) she was partial in any way to the defense. Unfortunately, I am sure the jury feels threatened too.
 
#1,182
#1,182
vols4sure said:
Judge is scared imo (and I don't blame her). She does not want to do anything that would seem (to people like the twitter idiots) she was partial in any way to the defense. Unfortunately, I am sure the jury feels threatened too.
Click to expand...

So Zim could go to prison because people are scared???

Absolutely insane world we live in.
 
#1,183
#1,183
lawgator1 said:
Not having watched this, I suspect the issue is that him generally saying in the past that he was interested in MMA or buying guns goes really only to his character and any relevance it has to proving that he attacked Z on the night in question is too low compared to how badly it would make the jury react to TM.

When appellate courts look at evidentiary issues, they use a standard of review called
"abuse of discretion," meaning not just that the appeals judges disagree with her, but that no reasonable person could find the way that the trial judge did.
Click to expand...

The texts relating to fighting should absolutely be included. The prosecution was accusing Zimmerman of doing "MMA-style attacks" while Martin was defenseless. The fact shown by the texts is that Martin had been in street fights and had some kind of fighting training.
 
#1,184
#1,184
vols4sure said:
So was the only grounds for exclusion authentication, or did she say they were too prejudicial in part in view of it being impossible to know whether he himself sent the texts?

Either way they should have been admitted because directly relevant to whether TM was the aggressor. But if they were excluded only on authentication grounds, then WOW.
Click to expand...

There is at least an argument to be made for excluding the texts on hearsay grounds. But the appropriate ruling would be to give the defense time to try to find folks with knowledge of the fights referenced in the texts.

But to exclude them on grounds of authentication shows a stunning lack of understanding of the rules of evidence.
 
#1,186
#1,186
Obsessed said:
So Zim could go to prison because people are scared???

Absolutely insane world we live in.
Click to expand...

yep scared of riots etc..and maybe for their own safety... blacks have done everything short of terrorism to see the Z is put in jail

it worked in the OJ case
 
#1,188
#1,188
hog88 said:
Not political lines but if GZ is convicted it is open season on law abiding citizens in FL. No one will be safe from prosecution for defending themselves or their property.
Click to expand...

The good people of Fla better make sure they got fire insurance in case Z walks.
 
#1,191
#1,191
lawgator1 said:
Not having watched this, I suspect the issue is that him generally saying in the past that he was interested in MMA or buying guns goes really only to his character and any relevance it has to proving that he attacked Z on the night in question is too low compared to how badly it would make the jury react to TM.

When appellate courts look at evidentiary issues, they use a standard of review called
"abuse of discretion," meaning not just that the appeals judges disagree with her, but that no reasonable person could find the way that the trial judge did.
Click to expand...

She didn't give an explanation but I'd say this is likely. Important to note though Defense wasn't trying to get in pictures or evidence of gun purchases. Defense wanted the texts to show knowledge of fighting so they were going with the whole MIMIC non-character purposes of getting it in. Also, I believe most of these texts were written in the week before Trayvon died and described wanting to hurt someone, punch them in nose, get them on ground....etc. - basicully describing exactly what he did to Zimmerman. I assume she didn't allow texts in b/c she probably thought the texts were more prejudicial than probative. I think they should have come into evidence, especially since they introduced into evidence and talked so much about Zimmerman's aerobic classes, I mean deadly MMA fight training.
 
#1,192
#1,192
vols4sure said:
Judge is scared imo (and I don't blame her). She does not want to do anything that would seem (to people like the twitter idiots) she was partial in any way to the defense. Unfortunately, I am sure the jury feels threatened too.
Click to expand...

I said earlier in the thread, the jury and the judge are scared for their lives. GZ will have to appeal to get his day in court.
 
#1,193
#1,193
OJ said:
The good people of Fla better make sure they got fire insurance in case Z walks.
Click to expand...

For whatever reasons, they have been buying guns and cartridges as fast as stores can put them on the shelves, for several years.

It would be tragically ironic for people who believe Martin had the right to assault Zimmerman to learn so little from the case that they rush out to assault people. I do not think that will happen, but if it were to happen, it probably would not last very long. Rioters are not soldiers, and there is not much of an historical record of rioters assaulting armed positions. They typically just go crazy burning and looting businesses in their own neighborhoods when police fail to show up.
 
#1,194
#1,194
Vol4LifeLCA said:
She didn't give an explanation but I'd say this is likely. Important to note though Defense wasn't trying to get in pictures or evidence of gun purchases. Defense wanted the texts to show knowledge of fighting so they were going with the whole MIMIC non-character purposes of getting it in. Also, I believe most of these texts were written in the week before Trayvon died and described wanting to hurt someone, punch them in nose, get them on ground....etc. - basicully describing exactly what he did to Zimmerman. I assume she didn't allow texts in b/c she probably thought the texts were more prejudicial than probative. I think they should have come into evidence, especially since they introduced into evidence and talked so much about Zimmerman's aerobic classes, I mean deadly MMA fight training.
Click to expand...

From her questions and statements last night, it appears that her isdue with texts was authentication, not prejudice.
 
#1,196
#1,196
bamawriter said:
From her questions and statements last night, it appears that her isdue with texts was authentication, not prejudice.
Click to expand...

Last night thats true but she, like all the attorneys, was tired. There was case law almost directly on point that texts were authenticated. So, she likely didn't admit for other reasons and may explain why she didn't explain ruling.
 
#1,197
#1,197
Little confused by prosecution on the cross. They implemented the west theory of more words are better than few words and it bit them in the ass.
 
#1,199
#1,199
Burhead said:
So following it on Twitter, sounds like Root on the stand isn't helping the defense.
Click to expand...

Root as a wash, imo. He responded well to defense questions but the prosecution's cross ex was effective. He should have been called before Vincent de Maio(sp) who was a great witness for the defense. Root entered after very clear testimony and basically reflected the confusion of a fight. So what was clear now seems a little muddied.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top