Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well, what say you?
There are some indications from O'Mara's voir dire that GZ may indeed take the stand.
Most of us who have actually watched GZ on the witness stand and saw how pitiful it was are thinking if he does, this is a gift wrapped up in a bow. BDLR will utilized his powerful skills and throw devastating rhetorical MMA blows at the alleged murderer.
PoW!
We also know that even after being told by Judge Lester - though GZ has a Constituional right to not do so -- he was advised to take the stand to give his account after that major royal ****up that sent him back to jail and had his Bond revoked - yet he declined.
So...on the eve of Opening Statements and as Juror selection will wrap up today...What do you think?
Will George Zimmerman Take the Witness Stand?
Cast your vote: Yes or No.
I think we agree O doesn't *want* him on the stand.
If the State doesn't admit his statements as evidence, which many think they will not - and they won't because that will pressure GZ to necessarily almost have to take the stand.
How would the state omit words spoken by GZ to the police?I think we agree O doesn't *want* him on the stand.
If the State doesn't admit his statements as evidence, which many think they will not - and they won't because that will pressure GZ to necessarily almost have to take the stand.
How would the state omit words spoken by GZ to the police?
The detectives will surly testify, and O'mara can ask them what GZ said.
I would have to agree, he probably needs to.
But he has been consistently his own worst enemy.
He will need some phenomenal prep beforehand.
I think you are confused as to what is agreed upon and what isn't.I think we agree O doesn't *want* him on the stand.
I am not talking about casual conversation, but about what they put in their filed police reports.I believe that's hearsay. There's no way for Zimmerman to get his story out there without testifying.
There's some good explanation of the law here:
Will George Zimmerman Testify? | Frederick Leatherman Law Blog
(and pardon the source, which I'm sure will cause objections to some, but it's really good information)
I am not talking about casual conversation, but about what they put in their filed police reports.
Those reports will likely be entered into evidence, and the police can be questioned about them.
Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.
Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.
This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.
Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the immunity hearing and the jury will never get to hear them at the trial.
But that’s not fair, you say.
That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.
This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.
Can he refer to his exculpatory statements while he is testifying?
No, because they are hearsay.
What happens after he finishes telling his side of the story by answering his lawyer’s questions on direct examination?
The prosecutor who cross examines him will confront him with every statement he made to a police official or to any other witness it knows about that is inconsistent with or contradicts a statement he made while testifying on direct examination.
Given the number of times he has made improbable, inconsistent and contradictory statements, the cross examination could last several days.
I know this because I have done it to witnesses many times.
Cross examination by confronting witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements is one of the most effective and powerful tools a trial lawyer has to utterly destroy a witness.
The key to cross examining George Zimmerman will be not to beat him up so bad that the jury begins to feel sorry for him.
This is why it is so vitally important for suspects to keep their mouths shut when they are questioned by police. They cannot help themselves because their exculpatory statements will be inadmissible hearsay at trial. They can only hurt themselves by saying something that the prosecution uses to damage their case pursuant to the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule.
I am not talking about casual conversation, but about what they put in their filed police reports.
Those reports will likely be entered into evidence, and the police can be questioned about them.
So how does the state present their case without the police reports?The prosecution will likely not enter it, to force GZ's hand.
The defense cannot enter them into evidence.
I think you are confused as to what is agreed upon and what isn't.
Do you know the difference?
So how does the state present their case without the police reports?
So how does the state present their case without the police reports?
You also seem to be confused.You disagree with that? Is it your contention that O'Mara, who is a defense attorney, would prefer his client be subject to cross-examination if he can avoid it?
So I suppose official Police recordings of the interview, could not be entered into evidence.They will testify first hand. The thing is that they can choose any part of this evidence to bring in and leave out the rest, even if that's unfair. The defense MUST put the defendant on the stand if they want to get in any of his statements.
You also seem to be confused.
What has O'Mara said?
me said:Is it your contention that O'Mara, who is a defense attorney, would prefer his client be subject to cross-examination if he can avoid it?
So I suppose official Police recordings of the interview, could not be entered into evidence.
George Zimmerman Sanford Police Interview [Lie Detector/Polygraph] (February 27, 2012) - YouTube (I realize this is youtube, but the official one exists)
The prosecution will likely not enter it, to force GZ's hand.
The defense cannot enter them into evidence.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online SunshineRight, those cannot be entered by the defense because they are hearsay.
90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.—The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
iLOLI am confused, which is why I asked you a question about it. Do you have an answer to my question?
I'll repeat it for you.
You also seem to be confused.You disagree with that? Is it your contention that O'Mara, who is a defense attorney, would prefer his client be subject to cross-examination if he can avoid it?I think you are confused as to what is agreed upon and what isn't.I think we agree O doesn't *want* him on the stand.
Do you know the difference?
What has O'Mara said?
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
I think I am reading this different than you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?