...due to BAD credit!

"I'm sorry, Mr. Runklemeyer, but your excellent credit history precludes us from offering you employment."

Yeah, right.

She prepared that ruling yesterday at the latest. She didn't care about arguments today, that was a show to try to prevent error. She's required to hear them.

It was smart of MOM to request a Richardson hearing; magnifies the error.

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

9:20 a.m.
Mantei says he videotaped one of the professor’s testimony and gave it to the defense.

He mentions the defense’s motion to exclude the term “wannabe-cop.”

Mantei says Professor Jackson has been listed as a witness.

He shows a picture of a shoehorn on the screen and says the defense is trying to shoehorn their argument with different ones.

Judge Nelson overrules the objections.

O’Mara says there was in issue for the redaction of the credit.

Mantei says the lieutenant will testify about the reason which was Zimmerman’s credit.

Judge Nelson suggests they take out the word credit.

Mantei suggests the last page being stricken.

Judge Nelson says that would make it not an issue.

Court is in recess for 10 minutes.

9:15 a.m.
O’Mara says they should have presented the evidence 10 days before trial and the state is saying they aren’t bad acts to slide them by, but they will be presented to the jury as such.

The can argue that they aren’t’ 404, but they are, O’Mara says.

He mentions the bad acts presented on some of the cases cited.

He says the state is going to argue that Zimmerman was a “seething cop-wannabe.”

O’Mara says the state must show facts from the night of the shooting to show relevance.

If they’re going to bring in prior good acts, which they can’t do unless they show a connection, O’Mara says about the state, they must proffer the evidence.

He says the problem is there is no connection.

He renews his request to proffer the evidence before the professors and additional time to address it.

Mantei responds.

9:10 a.m.
Judge Nelson says the mention of credit history would need to be redacted.

Mantei says he has no objection to that.

Mantei say a lieutenant with the Prince William police would testify about the application.

He says that they must show he was in the course is overstepping because it was Zimmerman that signed up for it and paid for it.

He points out Zimmerman got an “A” in one class and a “B” in another.

O’Mara is given a chance to argue.

He asks for a couple of hours to look over the cases given to him.

Judge Nelson says she gave him all night.

O’Mara asks to be allowed to finish his request.

Judge Nelson says she spent the night looking at it and has a jury waiting.

O’Mara asks for a continuance of a couple of hours to review the case law.

Judge Nelson says “in all due respect, we started this issued yesterday afternoon…” She mentions the half hour given yesterday and overnight recess.

She says she is not continuing the matter.

9:05 a.m.
Mantei says familiarity with certain tactics is not evidence of bad character, but just relevant evidence. He says the idea of being familiar with police procedures is not uncommon.

Mantei says it is relevant to any fact of the case like motive and state of mind, showing concern or hostility.

He says there was ample implication in cross examination of Noffke that Zimmerman only followed because of how he interpreted the words.

He says the coursework intertwines with the defendant’s other ambitions shown by the police application and ride-along with police.

He says the danger of prejudicial evidence must outweigh the probative value. He says they are clearly probative of his state of mind.

Mantei says the idea is that he would know what might be asked of him if he was ever in this situation. He says the applications for the police force and ride-along show a person that has decided he wants to do that and it shows his state of mind when he encountered the individual and called him a suspicious guy.

Judge Nelson asks about personal information and references to good or bad credit.

8:57 a.m.
Mantei says he starts with a basic relevance objection. He says there is more than one theory of the case. He says the state isn’t bound to consider one theory.

He says they sort of saw this argument before when they went over Zimmerman’s prior non-emergency calls.

He has had a desire to be an actual police officer and the defense has crossed witnesses about when they became a police officer and their motivations for it. He says they’ve made that relevant by their own questioning.

He says the relevance of the application for the degree is that it was submitted in fall 2011 and he was taking more classes in the spring of 2012. His extracurricular life mirrored that, Mantei says. He says Zimmerman wrote in his statement he used police jargon. He points out the phrase “I un-holstered my firearm.”

Mantei says the cross-examination of Serino showing police tactics. Anytime they talk about the defendant and the tactics being used on him, he says Zimmerman knew them.

Mantei cites a case that says relevance is defined as a tendency to establish a fact in controversy. He says in this case the records can impeach a statement made in a video tape.

Mantei says relevance can pertain to any element in the defense and the state has to establish there was no self-defense. Mantei mentions they can show “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

He says the records can show the context of the defendant’s behavior.

The state is asserting these are bad acts, just that they are relevant to understand his actions that night, Mantei says.

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

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

Her earlier statement, weeks ago, of handling issues later when they come up is sure a topic coming into play often, actually on issues more important than one should expect in the middle of a trial.

I am still SMH over that smirk...

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

If this goes to appeal, MOM is going to need a tractor trailer to get it there.

Just FYI: Allowed Exhibits 201, 209, 210, 211 & 212.

I had a similar thought recently. The real challenge with an appeal will be the limit of pages allowed.

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

I missed anything said about the hiking professor testifying by phone or skype. Did they say if he'd be available?

9:31 a.m.
All of the exhibits will be admitted as they are agreed to be redacted. Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

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

kbp, I don't recall hearing anything about availability this morning.

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

Witness: Sonja Boles-Melvin

9:35 a.m.
Boles-Melvin is the registrar for Seminole State College, responsible for the school’s records.

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

Witness: Lt. Scott Kerns

9:39 a.m.
The state calls Lt. Scott Kerns, with the Prince William County Police Department.

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

Well, at least they brought in someone from the right county in Virginia instead of the wrong county in Maryland.

_________________
Took my time machine into the shop for service and they said they'd get on it first thing last week.

West on Cross... pushing the nobility of wanting to be a cop

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

Witness: Lt. Scott Kerns

9:49 a.m.
West asks about his role in the police department.

Kerns says he was the administrator for six years and was in that position at the time Zimmerman applied.

Kerns says he can’t remember the application or the reference used.

A lot of people want to be police officers, Kerns agrees.

West asks about the exhibit and the letter not having letterhead or a signature.

Kerns says it is not the actual copy, it is the document used to create the original on letterhead.

West asks about the extract page and the information indicated on it.

West asks about the listing of “Spanish.” Kerns says it would indicate Zimmerman says he speaks Spanish. Kerns says it would be tested in the process.

West points out the credit history indicator.

Kerns says the credit history is the reason why he would not be accepted.

West asks if his credit was better, he could reapply. “It’s possible, sir,” Kerns says.

Kerns says he knows of people that have reapplied and been accepted.

West finishes questioning.

Kerns is excused.

9:42 a.m.
Kerns says they keep records for three years in accordance with the state’s records act. He says Zimmerman’s application was destroyed.

Mantei shows him a document.

Kerns says after the records are destroyed they create a cursory amount of information from the record and they send a letter to the individual about their status.

The letter was dated July 2009.

Kerns says there is nothing sinister or unusual with not getting the job.

Mantei finishes questioning.

Don West cross examines.

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