I am just hoping that this is "normal" filing from Pros. I disagree, IMHO this is all relevent especially because Geo stated that TM was acting suspecious.

Sorry its Late, BUT... Praying everyone had an AWESOME MOTHERS DAY!!! If not your Mother, with a Mother Like Figure!!! Hugs to ya til ya cant breath!!!!

From CTH.....

Lou says:
May 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm


LandauMurphyFan says:
May 13, 2013 at 2:38 pm

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

In my (limited) experience following trials.......

Such motions are normal (ish)... one side trying to have "prejudicial" evidence excluded.

Such motions are HARMLESS (Mostly)

Thinking back, though... it's normally the DEFENCE trying to exclude evidence about a bad client.

What they claim as "Prejudicial" evidence is of course most of the evidence when they have a client who is GUILTY.

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

Of course in this case there is the fact that as the trial commences in coutroom5 the players enter.....


The Nelson Zone

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

And in your experience, Rumpole, how often are such motions granted?

I agree about "trying to exclude evidence about a bad client" - you would think that any rational person, reading the list of "For God's sake don't let the other side ask about THAT in court!", would come to the conclusion that those are areas where the client's behaviour has been less than stellar and therefore that the odds of this client being an honour student and future astronaut were slim to none. Any teenager will have areas of weakness, but this many???

No, what worries me, Rumpole, isn't whether such motions are normal when a lawyer is representing a guilty client; it's the likelihood that this particular "judge" will actually grant those frantic motions despite the transparency of their intention.

You win some... you lose some..... normally.

Done PROPERLY the Judge weighs the likely "prejudicial" effect against the "Probative Value"

NORMALLY I would be surprised to see these motions granted PRE -trial... but its Nelson... I ain't betting no more cakes on HER rulings!!

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

Stock up on pop-corn, though... the hearing on the 28th should be "interesting"

HEARING: Various matters? (5-28-13)
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=925

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

So the whole contention they're making is that none of this is relevant to the events of Feb 26th and Martin's being shot...

But here's the head-scratch moment for me...

One of the fundamental contentions of Trayvonites, including the persecution as manifested in their initial charging document, and presumably one of the cornerstones of what they'll be arguing at trial, is the notion that Zimmerman's appraisal of Martin was all wrong, unreasonable, baseless, and that his subsequent actions (keeping an eye on him) were therefore unreasonable also and that a normal, average person (juror) shouldn't be able to imagine themselves having had the same suspicions of Trayvon. More importantly, they pretty much MUST argue that Trayvon didn't do what Zimmerman claims he did in terms of launching an assault on him, because if he did, there is no case at all, right? (Which there isn't, btw)

So, admittedly I'm no lawyer... but to me it's mind-boggling for someone to say "George, you should go to prison for decades because you shot this guy who objectively did beat the crap out of you, because you finding him suspicious was just baseless racist nonsense, and we don't buy how you say the altercation started... he was just a good kid minding his own business." and then tell George, whose life is on the line (just like it was that night) "oh and you aren't allowed to demonstrate that he wasn't just a good kid minding his own business or that he might have shown signs in other behaviors in his life which make not only your suspicions about him, but what you claim he did... MASSIVELY more plausible."

Yea... I just don't get that.

Motion to preclude defense from commenting on state's failure to call a witness. Pretty sure that BDLR won't call W8. Very upsetting, I did so look forward to the cross-examination of W8.

Thanks, John.... yes Dee Dee no show looks likely.

As others have asked.... can the defence call DeeDee as THEIR star witness?

I do think more Motions are in order....

Motion to preclude defense from commenting on state's failure to present a case.
or
Motion to preclude defense from laughing out loud at the State's opening address.

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

Maybe BDLR's plan is to just play a bunch of LiveLeak and WorldStar HipHop flash mob videos, as well as video of the 1992 LA Riots, and just turn to the jury afterward and say "any questions?"

BDLR has ALL of LIMPapa's videos..... LIMP and the gang have said they have sent all that stuff to BDLR

AND.... Moreinane Dave said he (and only he) had a witness who saw the whole thing.. the "fight" start and the shooting... and Moreinane Dave assured Justarse Quest Cretins TWICE (that I saw) that he was passing that witness name on to BDLR.

POWERFUL STUFF... maybe GZ should plead guilty and do a deal on length of sentence?

PS
Then there is audio expert Ludwig who can identify 2 male and two female accomplises in the truck with GZ... and later....
There is of course the COCKATOO... plainly heard by Ludwig.

Maybe George could turn "state's Evidence" and finger the cockatoo?


If only Trayvon had kept his hands in his pockets, none of this would have happened.

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

Well, please e-mail Vinnie and tell him so. He is sounding alarmingly biased against GZ.

He and Tanya on HLN agreeing that TM's background should not come in - that it's not relevant.

huh? - Does Vinnie know this case?

Oh dear.....

You are watching HLN!!!

I have only done that once or twice... I am not proud of myself

Vinnie (as I recall) is ex PROSECUTOR?

His bias shows in every case he comments on.

LACK of knowledge seems to be a pre-requisite for all case commentary on HLN

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

Well, darn. I was so looking forward to watching DD trying to remember how Crump told her to answer the questions.

am I crazy in feeling like, once you're dead, all protections of your "reputation" should disappear? I think his school and police records should've opened up like Christmas presents. He's not a minor, he has no privacy, he's dead.

Of course, there would normally not be any great interest in some random dead person's records... but in this case there is a very good reason for interest in his. His innocent victim's life hangs in the balance and if a jury needs to hear those details to see the truth of the situation, they should IMO.

BTW: Hold on... is "motion to prevent defense from remarking on state not calling a witness" a real motion? I thought that was a joke.

I agree that "privacy" concerns are overridden when balanced against another person's liberty (life in some cases)

And I agree privacy concerns are LESS if a person is deceased... but perhaps not totally absent as to the reputation of a person after death? Important perhaps to his friends and family still.

In this case specifically... TM's character and likely behaviour on the night are very much relevant IMO

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

There are a lot of people, whether they be professional legal commentators like Nancy Grace, Vinnie, etc... or the actual lawyers involved in this case on both sides, the judge, or even just the crews who typically talk about big cases at various websites (JQ, CW, wherever...) for whom the Zimmerman/Trayvon case is a real curve ball.

It really throws people for a loop and tosses a wrench into a lot of peoples' mental gears. Why? Because you've got someone who is simultaneously the killer AND the victim, who shot an unarmed teen AND was the innocent party who deserves to win the court case.

A lot of people go into a serious "does not compute!" mode mentally because of that. They're used to "Someone killed little Jon-Benet Ramsey, whoever that was, is a monster and the bad guy" "Casey killed Caylee, she is the bad person" - they are struggling with this case because it is complex. Well actually, it isn't complex. And those of us with brains that handle nuance well aren't having any issues with it. Or we haven't had any issues with it beyond the first week or so, or however long it took us to see actual EVIDENCE.

I'm not aware of anyone whose initial reaction to this case wasn't "oh my god that's horrible! When does this racist vigilante go to jail?" including myself. The key test for people was when actual evidence started becoming available, particularly John's interview to the local Fox station which was my big "hmm" moment.

Those who failed that test now retreat deeper into their Gollum cave and erect more and more barriers to prevent reality from getting to them. They cradle their ignorance in their palm like the One Ring and mutter "my precious" over at JQ and CW.

Well said Geo.

The case would NOT be such a mental challenge for people if they had not been IMPRINTED with the Julison/Crump false narrative.

Remove all aspects of that false narrative.. and the facts speak for themselves... but even just removing one critical aspect "TM was a child" would be sufficient for many to have an epiphany as far as this case goes.

Trayvon was NOT a child as people STILL picture him. IF they could genuinely let that notion go and instead picture a large, agressive 17 year old the rest might fall into place?

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

I immediately thought the witness in question in that motion was Witness 8.

I wonder: if that is indeed the case, and in the pre-trial hearing the State indicates that they will not have Witness 8 testify at trial, can the defense challenge the PCA, and go for broke with habeus corpus?

(I'm sure it's a pipe dream, but really: without Witness 8, the PCA is utterly devoid of even a modicum of evidence.)

_________________
"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)