Is the State really this sophistic?

Zimmerman is guilty of murder because he said "I unholstered my firearm" instead of "I pulled my gun"? Seriously?

_________________
"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)

8:44 a.m.
The first he addresses is the ride-along release form with the Sanford Police Department from March 15, 2010.

He says there is no relevance as it was two years before. He says this information would open up information about Martin.

Judge Nelson says she would like to keep focused.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei says his argument is prepared to address all the documents.

O’Mara moves to the next exhibit of the application for the police officer position.

O’Mara says Zimmerman had credit issues preventing him from being submitted. He objects that it is improper foundation and authentication.

O’Mara moves to the redacted statements; the diploma application and grade change for a class.

He says the distance in time and his client signing up for the course makes it inadmissible and the state should proffer it to show their proof.

Another document points to homework Zimmerman did of scenarios, which O’Mara says they have nothing to do with the case.

A final project from Zimmerman talking about the fourth amendment is not relevant unless it can be tied together, O’Mara says.

An excerpt from the Criminal Law and Procedure book addresses self-defense. O’Mara says it isn’t relevant without connectivity and they must show Zimmerman was present in the course.

He says his clients past should not be before the jury.

O'Mara says another excerpt from another book for another class that addresses criminal profiling. He says the state must show his client had the book, read it and discussed it with the professor. His objection is relevance.

His objects include relevance, authentication, and distance and time.

Judge Nelson says the handwritten homework assignments and application were Zimmerman's documents. She asks they stay on point after O'Mara references valentines Zimmerman might've written in first grade.

Mantei offers his argument.

8:36 a.m.
O’Mara points out the interview with Sean Hannity and the Stand Your Ground question and the course work from years earlier. O’Mara says it is far removed from admissible evidence. If it is allowed, the prior knowledge, O’Mara says Martins prior history of fighting should be.

Judge Nelson says that would be a different argument. She tells O’Mara to stay with the argument to the exhibits the state wants to admit.

O’Mara asks to go through each exhibit for different objections.

8:33 a.m.
Judge Nelson hears argument from defense attorney Mark O'Mara. He says that if the state's theory is that Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop it must conform with the law and they have to show how it meets the criteria for ill-will, spite and hatred. He says they need to connect the dots in legal and factual ways their theory of the case.

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

We all knew the state had nothing. This is not a shock. A weasel using weasel words, trying to play semantics, etc. is to be expected. What is notable is the judge allowing this.

Weasel citing case after case after case, such a litany that WFTV broke in for commentary, who wants to bet that his piling on includes cases that do not support his point, but he is gambling the judge won't read them all, and knows the defense doesn't have time to?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

I'd LOVE for Nelson to deny this JUST for the sheer pleasure of Bitch Slapping the Weasel

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

RJ's whole testimony should be stricken since she's versed in"48 hours". GMAB this is ridiculous, but of course, it will be let in.

Hopefully this does backfire on the state like so much before has done. So what if he wanted to be an officer of the law. If MoM/West play it right they can show that due to GZ's understanding of the law/police duties that he knew not to approach TM but attempt to keep an eye on him he could pass on valid information to the police when they arrived.

So obvious that the State is attempting to enter "prior bad acts" as evidence against Zimmerman. If Nelson allows, it's obvious reversible error.

_________________
"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 think MOM is making a powerful argument. He's already distinguished one of weasel's cases and wove it in. Not that it will make a difference to Nelson.

I agree with Chip, letting this in is reversible error.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

And to no one's surprise, Nelson overrules objections, and allows 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)

I can't believe she let it ALL in... Wow.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

OH my! Look at that smirk on Nelson! That's disgusting. Truly, truly disgusting.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Dear Lord, Nelson is so blatant in her bias.

O'Mara wants reference to Zimmerman's "bad credit" as a reason for his police application rejection to be stricken as prejudicial. Nelson says, "well, what if we just redact "bad",and leave in "credit"?

_________________
"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)

So.....let me get this straight. A person wanting to be a peace officer or otherwise involved in law enforcement as a career or the justice system is now considered a bad thing?

Seems like an awlful lot to make in a single ruling. It was like an intersection with a dozen ways to go, and the state wants to go every direction to merge it all back together somehow.

I expect the defense will do unspeakable things to the prosecution with this evidence. Small comfort though, watching the perversion of the legal system into a lynch mob led by the "impartial" judge.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.