Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Backwards Trial: Zimmerman Prosecutors Stumble as Defense Wraps Up

Also, Judge Nelson references case law that appears to contradict her, and a dummy takes a beating.

by
Mike McDaniel

Bio

July 11, 2013 - 8:31 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

Judge Debra Nelson continues to give the defense worthwhile arguments for appeal, if necessary.

After a Tuesday night that saw her decidedly injudicious rant and her storming off the bench as the defense tried to address her, Wednesday morning arrived with little improvement in Nelson’s temperament. Nelson excluded text messages and tweets from Trayvon Martin’s phone referencing attempts to buy and sell illegal guns, fighting — including at least one message about punching people in the nose and making them bleed, and a large number of messages about Martin’s drug use. In her frantic commentary on admissibility late Tuesday evening, Nelson expressed concern that someone else could have sent the text messages and social media posts made by Martin, so she wasn’t going to allow any of them.

She also ruled that the animated video commissioned by the defense would not be allowed into evidence (the defense can use it in their closing argument, but the jury cannot have it for deliberations). She gave no substantive explanation for her rulings other than to suggest that she read the Lumarque case.

The following is the section of the Lumarque decision most applicable here:

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 … (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 … (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.

Under Judge Nelson’s standard, it would be impossible for any electronic communication to ever be admitted because it would always be the burden of the party seeing to introduce the evidence to prove a negative. They would need to establish that unknown, unnamed persons did not surreptitiously access a Twitter account or a cell phone, etc., rather than those seeking to exclude having to introduce evidence to suggest the postings were not authentic. This is an unassailable and absurd standard. With it, nothing handwritten or electronically produced could ever be introduced into evidence. Who could prove conclusively that a deceased person’s writings were not produced by someone else?

In the Zimmerman case, there are thousands of messages and photos, all on Trayvon Martin’s phone and all done in his name or handle. The prosecution had those messages since January 2013, but did not turn them over to the defense until June 4, just before the trial started. The delay denied the defense the opportunity to analyze them and to locate and depose witnesses. Don West brought this up, and also mentioned the prosecution’s lying to the court about this evidence.

West told the judge Martin’s phone was double-encrypted. It is surpassingly unlikely anyone else forged anything, yet Judge Nelson exclaimed that someone could have gotten Martin’s two passwords.

Clearly, under Lumarque the evidence is admissible. Yet Nelson, who claims to have read the case, excluded it.

————————-

Wednesday’s other events and witnesses:

Dennis Root, Use Of Force Expert: Root, a former career police officer, lacked the easy, attractive manner of Dr. DiMaio, but was reasonably effective in supporting Zimmerman’s account. He was arguably most effective in providing a solid, impenetrable barrier into which the prosecution repeatedly ran headlong. Among the most important things Root affirmed was that there was no evidence of injury from Zimmerman’s small plastic flashlight on Martin’s body. This is a line of questioning pursued by the prosecution in the last few days suggesting they intend to claim it during closing, despite having no evidence that Zimmerman hit Martin with that “weapon.“ Root also portrayed Martin as the aggressor, raining blows down on Zimmerman, who was unable to respond. Root explained that Zimmerman’s statements and actions indicated that he was non-confrontational and lacked “the warrior mindset.”

Root also testified that Zimmerman’s few obscenities directed at the criminals that had been preying on his neighbors were not signs of ill will or hatred, but simple frustration “about criminals in general.” In response to O’Mara’s specific questions, he also testified that there was nothing dangerous or reckless in Zimmerman’s use of his handgun. Root also testified that he normally testifies for the prosecution.

O’Mara was also able to elicit a comment about the law enforcement profession, as he often has in this trial. Root said:

It’s a very noble career and I would recommend it to anybody.

One of the primary rules for any lawyer is never to ask a question of a witness to which one doesn’t know the answer. Prosecutor John Guy did just that, and it bit him. He also may have been the unwitting originator of a second legal rule: “Don’t play with life-sized dolls in court.”

Guy produced a life-sized, foam, dark gray human doll and dropped it to the floor, and kneeled astride it in an attempt to demonstrate that Zimmerman could not have drawn his gun, and could not have shot Martin as he claimed. This was despite the testimony of multiple witnesses, not the least of which was DiMaio, that this was the likely scenario. Guy also tried to get Root to say it was possible that Martin was screaming — for 40 seconds — because Zimmerman was pointing a gun at him.

Root exploded the first legal rule by replying that if he were in Martin’s position, astride Zimmerman and beating him, and Zimmerman suddenly produced a gun, he wouldn’t scream but would instead go for that gun, just as Zimmerman has consistently maintained.

On re-cross, O’Mara blew up the second legal rule on Guy. He asked with a wry smile, “Can I have your doll?” He promptly knelt astride the doll in front of Root just as Guy had done. But O’Mara began to violently whack the doll’s head against the floor, getting Root to say that such a beating could have produced Zimmerman’s injuries. It was a dramatic tactic, and a sight no jury could forget.

Having his flashlight theory taken from him, Guy — on re-redirect — couldn’t resist another run at the first legal rule. He asked if Zimmerman had other options other than using his gun. Root replied:

No. Given the totality of the circumstances, I don’t believe Zimmerman had any other option.

This is, in a sentence, the proper explanation of and justification for self-defense.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Nelson is a walking appeals farm. She is so out of line, so in the tank, so completely incapable of conducting a fair and impartial trial...that acquittal is the ONLY verdict that could withstand honorable appellate scrutiny.

Frankly, she has disgraced herself and the State of Florida, the court system, and further tarnished the image of American jurisprudence.

She has been an abject failure as the sentry to our gates of justice.

This case has been a travesty from the moment the media turned it into a leftist carnival of racist propaganda. Nelson has shown every sign of being a willing participant in the charade.

Her badgering of Zimmerman about testifying went beyond the need to get a waiver...she was playing to the cameras for effect. It was more than mere judicial misconduct. It was cheap and dirty political theater.

Nelson should be removed from the bench. She has shown herself to have no judicial ethics and is a political hack in black robes. In short...you have no honor, Your Honor.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The only thing that really matters is whether that jury is brave enough to go home after rendering a "not guilty" verdict. They're going to be slimed in the media and mau-maued by the grievance mongers. They know this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"If he got hit, you must acquit!"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (33)
All Comments   (33)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
No chance in hell of a not guilty verdict now. The Women have been way too long...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sadly, nothing may matter because the fix is in. Once again the black tail is wagging the big white dog who feels guilty he has a black tail.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Dear Sparky Redux:

What you suggest is not, fortunately, the law. In order to present this evidence, the defense does not need to absolutely prove that no one could have possibly had access to Martin's phone or accounts. That's an impossible standard. As I noted, Judge Nelson demanded that the defense prove a negative, and in that, made a plainly reversible error.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think someone surreptitiously accessed this "judge's" college transcripts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"West told the judge Martin’s phone was double-encrypted. It is surpassingly unlikely anyone else forged anything, yet Judge Nelson exclaimed that someone could have gotten Martin’s two passwords."

I hate to burst your bubble but the judge COULD be right. It may be very unlikely that someone else beat two passwords but it isn't necessarily so. I saw a claim on a TV show the other night that said that 90% of people used the word 'password' as their password. I'm not sure if that's true but I am an IT guy and I have seen articles saying that a very substantial number of people use very easy passwords that can be guessed very quickly. If Trayvon Martin had used 'password' as the password on his phone AND on the stealth app that was hiding his emails, his phone could have been accessed in about three seconds flat. Slightly harder passwords, like his first name for the phone and his last name for the secret emails would have taken SLIGHTLY longer to defeat. Then someone could have written bogus emails that painted him very differently than he actually was - worse or better.

If I were the judge, knowing what I know about computers, I would have required the lawyers to do some things before I made the claim that any 7 year old could have hacked the phone and generated the emails.

I'd require them to use password-guessing software to determine what passwords Martin had actually used. That might be a big job if Martin chose strong passwords or it could have revealed that the passwords were dead easy to guess. I would also want to know whether the phone has protections against guessing the password. For instance, my ATM card gives me three tries to get my PIN right; if I fail, the card is no longer accepted and I have to go to the bank and verify my identity with them before I can change the PIN (since I've obviously forgotten it). If Martin's phone had comparable protections, then it's unlikely someone could have guessed the passwords in order to generate fake emails.

If the lawyers' IT people have unlimited tries to crack Martin's passwords and don't succeed in getting in pretty quickly, I'd say that Martin had very strong passwords and the likelihood of hacking that phone was very low.

In my opinion, that's how you weigh the likelihood that the messages were from Martin.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As an engineer I am often called on to configure new equipment and accounts for other less IT savvy folks. Unless forced by a system to do otherwise I always set the access password to "password" along with a strong admonition for the user to immediately change it upon first login. I'm sure some if not many ignore my suggestion, but it does save me what used to be a common occurrence of users calling me up at all hours demanding that password that they had forgotten or written down wrong.
As for the trial and phone records, clear bias by this judge. Had the defense been provided this information in a timely manner they could easily located the other parties involved and deposed them to prove TM as originator, or not as the case might be. This delay and the subsequent exclusion by the judge all by itself would appear to be grounds for an appeal.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In this trial, the idea of excluding potential witnesses from the courtroom was effectively gutted by the blow by blow TV coverage. Back before TV cameras were admitted to courtrooms, the idea of excluding potential witnesses was so those potential witnesses wouldn't hear the responses of witnesses etc who testified earlier and the potential witness could not tailor his testimony to echo the earlier witness. This was the theory but it didn't prevent two potential witnesses from getting together prior to the trial and agreeing on their mutual testimony.

Therefore any claim of error in "allowing" a later witness to sit in the courtroom for a time was mere noise for the sake of noise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These threatened riots will have all citizens with an I.Q. over room temp locked and loaded . The Florida riots will incite and ignite the rest of the Nation . Cities like Detroit and Chicago will erupt into chaos . New Yorkers will protest by drinking 64 ounce sodas and tossing arugula and broccoli in the streets.
Californians will knit rainbow streamers and sing "We are the gays"
This comment even made me LOL.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Her giving option to the Jury for a lesser charge was her message to the Jury you must find Zimmerman guilty of something .
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Judge Nelson , was picked by the DOJ. The premise for their choice was she voted for Barack Hussein Obama twice in '08 and twice in '12 .
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Evidence?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You'll find it in the dictionary under Sarcasm.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All

One Trackback to “The Backwards Trial: Zimmerman Prosecutors Stumble as Defense Wraps Up”