17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[jbombelli]

Ummmm....we all get to play who we want to be on an Internet forum. After a while, conduct reveals the real person. If your real life isn't as satisfying as you wish it were, and you want to play a "lawyer" on the Net, go for it....

Very true Jake46184, very true.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I haven't followed this thread in awhile so I don't know what's been said or explained already .

With that said , can anyone explain why the kid's past behavior isn't being allowed in evidence ?

 

[KG1]

Very true Jake46184, very true.

 

[churchmouse]

I haven't followed this thread in awhile so I don't know what's been said or explained already .

With that said , can anyone explain why the kid's past behavior isn't being allowed in evidence ?

They (prosecution) are in a full court press to put "Z" away.

 

[mrjarrell]

They (prosecution) are in a full court press to put "Z" away.

Well, that's usually their job. They aren't there to defend him. Or anyone else.

 

[churchmouse]

Well, that's usually their job. They aren't there to defend him. Or anyone else.

Yes of course. There are greater forces at work here as well.

 

[Fargo]

Very true Jake46184, very true.

Well played, I knew I recognized the self-awesome tone of pinchaser from somewhere and you nailed that one.

 

[Fargo]

I haven't followed this thread in awhile so I don't know what's been said or explained already .

With that said , can anyone explain why the kid's past behavior isn't being allowed in evidence ?

Your premise is incorrect, all the judge ruled was that some of it couldn't be mentioned in opening statements. There was no ruling as to what could be introduced into evidence.

Basically, opening statements are where the attorneys lay out their view of the case and arguments before the jury prior to the introduction of any evidence. Neither opening nor close are evidence, they are argument and the jury will be explicitly instructed NOT to treat them as evidence.

Apparently, the judge thinks that some of the past behavior will likely not be admissible as evidence so he doesn't want it mentioned in opening for fear of prejudicing the jury based upon inadmissible evidence. That sort of prejudice often results in a mistrial or reversal on appeal with the result being a second trial.

Consequently, the judge is trying to protect the integrity of this trial by not allowing the lawyers to reference likely inadmissible evidence in their opening.

Nothing in the ruling says they can't admit the evidence provided they can lay the foundation required by the rules of evidence. As a practical matter, in a self defense case, generally only facts known to the shooter at the time of the shooting are admissible because they are the facts by which his reasonableness are gauged.

In this case, you might be able to get some of the prior fighting in to show a propensity for violence on T's part to help bolster Z's claim that he was attacked. This is not as part of the traditional self-defense reasonableness analysis, but rather to help prove Z's version of events.

The drug use is much harder as smoking weed generally doesn't go hand in hand with violence and Z' had no prior knowledge of any pot smoking.

Either way, all the judge is saying is that he is going to require them to actually admit the evidence of T's past before they get to reference it in argument.

It is not nearly the ruling that many are making it out to be, in fact it is an extremely limited ruling with virtually no practical effect on the trial.

Best regards,


Joe

 

[jbombelli]

Well played, I knew I recognized the self-awesome tone of pinchaser from somewhere and you nailed that one.

Actually, credit goes to KG1.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The judge, IIRC, is a "she".

 

[jamil]

If the procecution tries to paint T as the innocent little boy that the media has presented, can the defense then use evidence such as the pot smoking and general thug-like behavior?

 

[churchmouse]

Your premise is incorrect, all the judge ruled was that some of it couldn't be mentioned in opening statements. There was no ruling as to what could be introduced into evidence.

Basically, opening statements are where the attorneys lay out their view of the case and arguments before the jury prior to the introduction of any evidence. Neither opening nor close are evidence, they are argument and the jury will be explicitly instructed NOT to treat them as evidence.

Apparently, the judge thinks that some of the past behavior will likely not be admissible as evidence so he doesn't want it mentioned in opening for fear of prejudicing the jury based upon inadmissible evidence. That sort of prejudice often results in a mistrial or reversal on appeal with the result being a second trial.

Consequently, the judge is trying to protect the integrity of this trial by not allowing the lawyers to reference likely inadmissible evidence in their opening.

Nothing in the ruling says they can't admit the evidence provided they can lay the foundation required by the rules of evidence. As a practical matter, in a self defense case, generally only facts known to the shooter at the time of the shooting are admissible because they are the facts by which his reasonableness are gauged.

In this case, you might be able to get some of the prior fighting in to show a propensity for violence on T's part to help bolster Z's claim that he was attacked. This is not as part of the traditional self-defense reasonableness analysis, but rather to help prove Z's version of events.

The drug use is much harder as smoking weed generally doesn't go hand in hand with violence and Z' had no prior knowledge of any pot smoking.

Either way, all the judge is saying is that he is going to require them to actually admit the evidence of T's past before they get to reference it in argument.

It is not nearly the ruling that many are making it out to be, in fact it is an extremely limited ruling with virtually no practical effect on the trial.

Best regards,


Joe

This clarify's the ruling at least for me.

It seems the jury has already been a bit tainted from interventions from Barry and that crowd. Hard to overlook all of that.

 

[churchmouse]

The police phone recording of the conversation with Z supports that Z lost T and headed back to his truck. After that all we have is Z's word of what happened, and some physical evidence that doesn't seem to contradict Z's story.

IANAL, and maybe you're right up to the point where T didn't just continue on home. But with Z heading back to his truck, and T coming back to confront him (so far nothing really contradicts that part of the story), how does that work for T's legal standing?

That's why to me, the violence in T's background is relevant. It helps explain to me why T might have come back after Z stopped following him.

This is what I am reading from evidence/hearsay etc. No more contact from "Z" until "T" blind sided him. "T" was clear of visual contact to do as he wished. He chose to attack "Z" as this is how the "VIRUS" reacts to the antibiotic. Attack it.

This action alone should allow past behavior to be admissible but hey, equal under the law.....................

 

[Fargo]

This clarify's the ruling at least for me.

It seems the jury has already been a bit tainted from interventions from Barry and that crowd. Hard to overlook all of that.

Yup, several hundred pages back you will find a post from me recommending that Z file a disciplinary complaint on Barry in Illinois asking that he be disbarred for breaching the Code of Professional Conduct regarding pretrial publicity.

Someone said he had surrendered his law license years ago but I honestly don't know.

This is what I am reading from evidence/hearsay etc. No more contact from "Z" until "T" blind sided him. "T" was clear of visual contact to do as he wished. He chose to attack "Z" as this is how the "VIRUS" reacts to the antibiotic. Attack it.

This action alone should allow past behavior to be admissible but hey, equal under the law.....................

Past behavior tending so show it was more or less likely that T came back and attacked Z does meet the rules for relevance although there may be some other evidentiary hurdles to cross before it comes in. As I said, the judge has ruled nothing inadmissible; all she has ruled is that until it has been admitted it can't be used in argument.



Best,

Joe

 

[PistolBob]

Free George Zimmerman, and give him back his gun.

 

[copperhead-1911]

I have no doubt they are trying to crucify Zimmerman regardless of facts.

This trial ( if you can call it that) is being made about race. The reality is that its about if people are allowed to defend themselves from any threat or if "some people" are getting special treatment.

Racism is wrong regardless of white on black or black on white. I don't see the case about race, but anyone who does not see there is a double standard of how people are judged in this country only is helping it further go to pot. A great example is look at the Knoxville horror and jena six cases then ask why they were not prosecuted as hate crimes.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Nothing in the ruling says they can't admit the evidence provided they can lay the foundation required by the rules of evidence. As a practical matter, in a self defense case, generally only facts known to the shooter at the time of the shooting are admissible because they are the facts by which his reasonableness are gauged./QUOTE]

Gotcha , thanks .

I didn't know exactly how to ask for this info not knowing " legalese " .

 

[Classic]

The prosecutor simply wants to WIN. To heck with the cost.

 

[printcraft]

The prosecutor simply wants to WIN. To heck with the cost.

That does not always work as planned.

Mike Nifong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jamil]

Free George Zimmerman, and give him back his gun.

I have a feeling that if he's ever set free, he may need to use it again.