I'm sure, without a doubt, MOM will be criticized for his comments. I think he was right to distance GZ from his brother's tweets. Although, I see RZ's point, I think it was a misstep on RZ's part. Will this put an end to the controversy, probably not.

The only people who think his tweets are racist are those who can't accept the fact that there is a culture that consists largely of black youth and they are without empathy or morals. This culture has no problem committing heinous acts without provocation. It is interesting that the friends and family of those people who are caught always say that these poor children would never do anything like this.

RZ Jr. = bad cop MOM = good cop

RZ Jr. tweets, getting lots of attention, which starts to die down, so MOM responds, refreshing attention on RZ Jr.'s tweets.

RZ Jr. is a media master mind. Millions of dollars of free publicity. Probably getting job offers.

Will reveal? Didn't she already reveal all of that? What about her clearly illegal order to keep W8's address secret from defense counsel? What about her clearly erroneous order protecting Crump from deposition and finding (1) that Crump is opposing counsel (2) ignoring clear and glaring waiver of working product and (3) that fact work product is absolutely privileged?

Crump as "opposing counsel" (defined by Judge Nelson) may backfire as the issue of "witness tampering" arises.

I like RZ,JR. but I think that was a misstep in the way of posting that picture. He has been strong in that he rarely sinks down to that level. I expect it from some of the TM supporters, I have seen the same kind of tripe from GZ supporters. Good intentions and the road to hell and so forth....

The man that murdered my cousin was white as a lily. His parents couldn't believe a good child of theirs could do such a thing either. The fact is he was a grudge-carrying, drug dealing assbite. BTW, his girlfriend, also white, kind of started that altercation also. Passively. Then contributed by driving the car away from the murder scene. They got him for murder and she skated with an 8 yr sentence for drugs.

I don't think the problem lies solely within a community but within society itself. Things aren't the same as they were years ago when there were two parent households and one had the luxury of staying home with the children. Divorce used to be taboo. Today we have a much more "disposable" society and that is reflected across the board. I would have to look up the stats.

Sorry for the rant.

I have a question for the lawyers here. Will the issue of witness 8's hospital lie be admissible to impeach her testimony? The Wilson v State ruling seems to say no, since the hospital visit is a collateral matter that is not relevant to the case. I believed that the Florida rules of evidence would allow it under 90.609(1), but others disagree. What specific caselaw (if any) would supersede Wilson v State and allow the defense to introduce the lie to BDLR to impeach witness 8 on truthfulness?

_________________
Figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.

What is wrong with that photo?

More specifically: what is inherently wrong or inherently racist about drawing a comparison between the two individuals? Why are any and all comparisons verboten?

_________________
"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 agree, the "racist" angle, the "race card" is way overplayed to the point it has become a wooden nickel. It is a case of prim and proper PC gone wild. I posted a few minutes ago at the CTH a bit more on this "repudiation" of RZ Jr. by O'Mara and what it is really about is O'Mara.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... ent-356434

This is the Tweet that caused all the uproar which is a tempest in a teapot

Thank you. As I have read about all this I was having trouble putting what I was thinking into words. Its like saying, "Black people like fried chicken." Because it is true, they don't want you to say it.????????????????

Specific lies don't initially come in as character evidence. The defense would need to have somebody lay an adequate foundation, and then testify about W8's reputation for untruthfulness. If the reputation witness was crossed on the specific foundation for their knowledge of W8's reputation, then that would open the door for evidence of specific lies.

Similarly, evidence of Z sitting like a potted palm during SZ's testimony about the paypal account won't come in either.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -2007-CURR

_________________
Figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.

Doesn't it become material when the questions about how and when she was located are brought into play? Also isn't it material when it is used to bolster the witnesses credibility? ie. She was so upset by what she heard on the phone that she had to go to the hospital. Well no she really wasn't, she lied.

That is something the Trayvonites keep getting hung up on. They say it doesn't matter if she went to the hospital or not and she didn't have to go to the hospital or funeral. That is correct; however, when those statements are used to explain other parts of her story, then those lies become important.

Debfrmhell : I'm sorry for your loss.....

The two side by side photos must have really gotten the Traybots going!

RZ Jr. fully intended to stir the pot by being pointedly politically incorrect and it worked.

Result: Millions of people focused on photo of Trayvon flipping the bird and making the Trayvon = thug connection. Well done.

Oh, I can't even imagine what they must be threatening/tweeting/copying/and tattling to the Scheme team!

RZjr. has guts but I await the chips that will fall from this latest controversy!

I have to ask, what was O'Mara thinking when he said in his statement *when Zimmerman approached Martin*?

I'm not a lawyer, but will offer my opinion anyway.

In Wilson v. State, 72 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) the court disallowed impeachment evidence about an argument between the defendant and a witness that occurred after the trial had begun. That's quite dissimilar to W8's lies about what she did in the days immediately following the shooting. Also, that involved impeachment of the defendant, not a witness against the defendant. The 6th Amendment and similar provisions in the Florida constitution guarantee the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. As the Florida supreme court said in Coco v. State, 62 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1953), "the right of cross-examination stems from the constitutional guaranty that an accused person shall have the right to be confronted by his accusers." Therefore, according to the 5th DCA in Elmer v. State, (5th DCA 2012), "A criminal defendant should be afforded wide latitude to cross-examine the State's witnesses, especially when cross-examining a key prosecution witness."

W8 claims she heard her friend being chased by a man who the friend thought was going to beat him. She then heard the beginning of an altercation, at which point the phone disconnected. She soon found out her friend was killed around that same time. She didn't call the police. What W8 did in the days following Martin's death is entirely material. Did she behave in a manner consistent with her story? Going to the hospital due to stress is certainly evidence she did. Crump and many others have used it for that very purpose. On direct examination, she'll almost have to explain her behavior in the days between the shooting and the Crump interview. I think that, alone, probably opens the door to evidence she'd previously lied about her behavior to make it more consistent with what would be expected from someone who'd heard a friend chased down and killed. I wouldn't be surprised if when W8 testifies, the prosecution asks her about the lie during direct examination in an attempt to defuse it.