quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer.

“All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?”

Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1&

Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence

http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
that sounds like we can't prove anything but let's convict him anyway.

I disagree. 2nd degree murder was an over the top charge for this case to begin with.

What I find lacking, again and again, among the "Zimmerman did nothing wrong" crowd, is any empathy whatsoever for the victim, and the circumstances he found himself in, prior to jumping the creepy ass cracker who was stalking him. There doesn't seem to be any comprehension that this young man had every right to wander around, and take his time getting back from the store, and that in a "stand your ground" culture he should not have been expected to just run home when some pervert kept staring at him.

We will hear that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch, to justify the stalking, but few acknowledgements that neighborhood watch are not supposed to be armed in the first place.

I don't think either of the players that night were perfect little angels, or despicable demons. Bad shit happened that night, and bad choices Zimmerman made led to it.

Manslaughter/negligent homicide seems to me to most appropriate charge in the case, and I think that option should be there for the jury.

quote:

I disagree. 2nd degree murder was an over the top charge for this case to begin with.

What I find lacking, again and again, among the "Zimmerman did nothing wrong" crowd, is any empathy whatsoever for the victim, and the circumstances he found himself in, prior to jumping the creepy ass cracker who was stalking him. There doesn't seem to be any comprehension that this young man had every right to wander around, and take his time getting back from the store, and that in a "stand your ground" culture he should not have been expected to just run home when some pervert kept staring at him.

We will hear that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch, to justify the stalking, but few acknowledgements that neighborhood watch are not supposed to be armed in the first place.

I don't think either of the players that night were perfect little angels, or despicable demons. Bad shit happened that night, and bad choices Zimmerman made led to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

If only someone had killed Zimmerman the day before, then we could be certain that he was not responsible for the subsequent wave of burglaries...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

isn't it kinda silly to give someone a CC permit then expect he won't carry it at the time he is most likely to run into trouble and need it anyhow??

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Florida can say that all they want, the US Supreme Court explicitly says that the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial impact.

Which is part of the reason for the rules of evidence, to decide what is probative vs. Prejudicial.

And Florida has decided that the defendant need not know of the victim's reputation for violence for it to be admissible, as it does not pertain to the defendant's fear of the victim, but the possibility that the victim was the aggressor.

And just to add a source for that, in Dwyer vs. State, the appellate court wrote:

Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).

A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits.

And Smith vs. State:

Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)

So the phone is inadmissible. The only way the defense can bring in evidence that Martin has a history of violence is to produce a witness that can be cross examined. Remember the later appellate ruling modifies the earlier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


And just to add a source for that, in Dwyer vs. State, the appellate court wrote:

Generally, evidence of a victim's character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).

A defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant's state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim's reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer's lack of prior knowledge of that victim's character traits.

And Smith vs. State:

Florida permits a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of the violent reputation or character of a victim providing there is a showing of self defense on the part of the defendant. Hodge v. State, 315 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). One legitimate basis for the admission of such evidence is for the purpose of showing that the victim was the first aggressor. Fine v. State, 70 Fla. 412, 70 So. 379 (1915). When a defendant offers evidence for this purpose, it is unnecessary for him to show that he had prior knowledge of the victim's propensities. Banks v. State, 351 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Pino v. Koelber, 389 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1980)

So the phone is inadmissible. The only way the defense can bring in evidence that Martin has a history of violence is to produce a witness that can be cross examined. Remember the later appellate ruling modifies the earlier.

The witnesses Martin texted by phone could be called in we with regards to reputation of violence. Experience fighting could be evidenced from the phone for a different purpose, that of comparing physical abilities. Nelson was open to that saying the defense would need to authenticate the texts first. (More on that here: http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2013/06/authenticating-trayvon-martins-digital-records/ ).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

As explained in the source:

"And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ladytisha

Interesting reads I must say but if you took classes and know the law especially stand your ground law then as soon as you kill someone throw your hands up and say self defense there is something definitely wrong. If someone is following me and approaches me because they feel I somehow don't belong because of my skin color I have every right to defend myself from harm. Self Defense

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

However, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a statement may “be offered to prove a variety of things besides its truth.” Foster v. State, 778 So. 2d 906, 914-15 (Fla. 2000). When a statement is not offered for the truth of its contents, but to prove a material issue in a case, it is not hearsay. Id.

In this case, the the digital evidence between W8 and Trayvon Martin may be admissible for a variety of reasons other than to prove the actual contents of the messages.

In Harden v. State, 87 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the victim’s MySpace messages (sent after the crime no loess) were admissible to show bias, motive to lie, and lack of credibility of the victim.
In State v. Lumarque, 44 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the text messages were admissible to show the defendant’s motive to commit the kidnapping.
In Foster v. State, 778 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court discussed multiple non-hearsay reasons for admitting hearsay statements and found knowledge of a fact on the part of the recipient to be an admissible non-hearsay basis to admit an out-of-court statement.
And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

As explained in the source:

"And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter."

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

As explained in the source:

"And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter."

How does that compare the the DOCUMENTED fight training Zimmerman received training 3 days a week at a Mixed Martial Arts gym?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

However, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that a statement may “be offered to prove a variety of things besides its truth.” Foster v. State, 778 So. 2d 906, 914-15 (Fla. 2000). When a statement is not offered for the truth of its contents, but to prove a material issue in a case, it is not hearsay. Id.

In this case, the the digital evidence between W8 and Trayvon Martin may be admissible for a variety of reasons other than to prove the actual contents of the messages.

In Harden v. State, 87 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), the victim’s MySpace messages (sent after the crime no loess) were admissible to show bias, motive to lie, and lack of credibility of the victim.
In State v. Lumarque, 44 So. 3d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the text messages were admissible to show the defendant’s motive to commit the kidnapping.
In Foster v. State, 778 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court discussed multiple non-hearsay reasons for admitting hearsay statements and found knowledge of a fact on the part of the recipient to be an admissible non-hearsay basis to admit an out-of-court statement.
And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter.

A text message does not prove any such thing. No judge would buy such a stupid argument. Admitting the texts on that claim would definitely be reversible error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

As explained in the source:

"And it is for this last reason that I suspect the George Zimmerman defense team will try to get Trayvon Martin’s digital records in. While Trayvon Martin’s messages about fighting may be hearsay; the knowledge that they bestowed upon the recipient create a non-hearsay reason to admit them. i.e. to show that Trayvon Martin was a seasoned street fighter."

How does that compare the the DOCUMENTED fight training Zimmerman received training 3 days a week at a Mixed Martial Arts gym?

The same gym where the trainer says George was soft, and wasn't ready to be let into the ring?