I had to work yesterday and missed the hearing so thank you all for the posts. I have a question based on what I heard on HLN yesterday afternoon.

If Judge Nelson does not grant immunity if and when it is raised at trial and it goes to the jury; the jury can acquit but not grant immunity from a civil suit. Is this correct?

I take your point.

Of course how BDLR is perceived and performs depends on each individual Juror.

To me he comes across as bombastic... a blow-hard. Even yesterday he was "off topic"... the worry is that MOM did not object. I have to assume he (and West) will at trial and BDLR will not be allowed to wander off on irrelevant questions. Nor multi-part questions, nor leading questions.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

IANAL
But from what I have read... juries DO NOT consider immunity... let alone GRANT it. It is a JUDGE who must do that.

If not this judge .... then some other judge.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

See, I take just the opposite view. I thought BDLR looked argumentative, defensive, angry, and petty; while West looked measured, calm, composed, and self-assured. From watching previous hearings, it appears that West's normally delivery is "think first, then respond". What you perceive as confusion, I perceive as "assembling thought".

BDLR tried his usual compound questions, and West called him out on it ("you just asked me three or four questions"). BDLR tried his usual leading questions, and West called him out on it ("that's not the legal definition of exculpatory"). BDLR tried non sequitur, and West called him out on it ("If the State had believed that the defense committed a discovery violation, I would have suggested a phone call.")

What appalled me was the way that O'Mara sat there like a potted plant, and didn't object to BDLR's obvious theatrics, witness-badgering, witness-leading, argumentativeness, and irrelevant questions. West can take care of himself, but I have no doubt that BDLR will treat defense witnesses in exactly the same manner. O'Mara had better be ready and willing to stand up for them against BDLR's bullying.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I see we're thinking along the same lines here. "Bombastic" is an apropos description for BDLR's performance yesterday.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I support MOM and West, but why didn't they object more yesterday? I liked MOM's argument and demeanor about the sanctions, but he should have attempted to stop BDLR as often as possible. Nelson probably would have overruled, but the effort should have been made.

Makes it difficult when the State's "star witness" has a constitutional right to remain silent and definitely will not take the stand before the state rests.

I see some reaction to Sundance's brilliant work on M-DSPD/ TM's involvement with burglary etc.

Arguing that the information should remain undisclosed to the jury is their main concern. Actually absorbing "new" information about TM and what sort of person he was is a bridge too far for them.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

To be a fly on the wall during a discussion between MOM and West, I would love to know what their strategy is going forward. Though I do believe putting the burden on BDLR is not a bad move, he may get so angry he blows the prosecution's case.

But.... but but...... is it not true that video recordings of GZ's interrogation/interviews, the "reconstruction" video and TV appearances can be shown by BDLR?

THAT existing recorded testimony by George is what gives Traybots a tingle up their legs.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Question to ponder: Why did West have to make his own objections (e.g. "You asked me three or four questions.") when he was being cross-examined by BDLR?

Imagine if BDLR had faced vigilant opposing counsel and a judge that insisted on compliance with the rules of evidence.

Objection, compound. Sustained
Objection, calls for attorney mental impressions protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Sustained
Objection, relevance. Sustained
Objection, beyond the scope of direct examination. Sustained
Objection, argumentative. Sustained
Objection, asked and answered. Sustained
Objection, calls for speculation. Sustained
Objection, foundation. Sustained
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained

Sure, let the state compile what it wants to put on and give the defense an opportunity to object, and also supplement for completeness. For example, go ahead and play the complete reconstruction video for the jury. Is BDLR going to yell, rant and flap his arms during the video (think Trent)? Or is BDLR going to be forced to STFU while the jury watches and listens, without interruption, to a very logical, rational and believable explanation of events by GZ?

K

Just a thought..... I know "Voice Stress Test" results are not admissible, but is the hour or so session/interview related to that admissible... especially if BDLR is offering other similar police interviews?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

OMG love it!!!!

Me thinks we do LOL

I recall one primary objection that Nelson overruled: BDLR asked a question, and West answered it. BDLR then repeated the question. O'Mara objected as asked-and-answered, and Nelson overruled him.

There were a couple of other, minor objections that Nelson sustained. But on the whole, O'Mara gave BDLR free rein to question West.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

What is the exact wording of Nelson's order on the deadline date for an immunity hearing, did it say "pre-trial immunity hearing" or just immunity hearing?

I was thinking about that "untimely" issue when I read the testimony Nelson went to so much trouble in forcing GZ to have ON THE RECORD ...as I was trying to figure out WHY she had to have that on the record.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Rel ... 0Order.pdf

Page 1, paragraph 1. a.

Interesting blog from Gutmacher

On April 10, 2013, the Second District Court of Appeal decided the case of Little v. State, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D790 (Fla. 2DCA 2013), exactly per the reasoning of my much earlier 9/12/12 blog article that discussed some very important issues on conflicts regarding the "retreat rule". The Little case fully supported my earlier arguments.

To understand . . . in the Little case, a convicted felon carrying a firearm was forced to use a firearm to defend his life. The circumstances were clear -- and "but for" being a convicted felon -- there was no real question that he had no other choice but to use the firearm if he were to save his life. The trial court denied his "Stand Your Ground" motion -- with the State arguing that because he was unlawfully carrying a gun, he was precluded from having immunity under 776.013. The Second District rejected this argument, and stated that since Mr. Little did not seek immunity under 776.013 -- but instead, had sought it under 776.012 -- he was still entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed the use of deadly force "was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm". The appellate court then held his use of self defense was lawful, and that he was absolutely entitled to immunity under section 776.012. A GREAT decision!

The District Court of Appeals also "certified" its decision to the Florida Supreme Court because it felt there was a possible conflict with the decision in State v. Hill, supra (fully discussed in my earlier blog article), that was important enough that the Florida Supreme Court needed to resolve it.

I'm still dying looking at that pic of Bernie lol do I have permission to tweet it out?