Will jurors just forget what they heard?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dungheap said:
No, it makes sense to me to have a court rule that improper testimony should be stricken from the record and to instruct the jury to disregard the improper testimony because the testimony is improper and not admissible evidence.
Click to expand...

ok, tell us what was improper about the testimony.
 
In the TV interview they showed the host asked zimmy if he regretted getting out of the car to follow Trayvon.

He answered NO.

that means he admitted getting out of the car to follow Trayvon
 
SmarterthanYou said:
ok, tell us what was improper about the testimony.
Click to expand...


Well, the police officer has no idea what is going on in the mind of George Zimmerman and cannot testify to his state of mind or his relative truthfulness. He can testify to things that he actually perceives about Zimmerman that may have some bearing on his truthfulness -- he was sweating, jittery, never made eye contact, shaking, calm, spoke clearly and in measured tones, made direct eye contact -- but not the officer's personal interpretation of those things -- he appeared to be lying/telling the truth/happy/sad/angry.
 
evince said:
there is a child dead who did NOTHING to deserve being killed.



Only a sociopath would say there should be no trial
Click to expand...

1) Saying he did nothing is up for debate... he clearly beat the crap out of Zimmerman, if Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, he had the right to defend it by any means necessary. Obviously the jury will decide whether or not this was the case.

2) Who has said there should be no trial?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, the police officer has no idea what is going on in the mind of George Zimmerman and cannot testify to his state of mind or his relative truthfulness. He can testify to things that he actually perceives about Zimmerman that may have some bearing on his truthfulness -- he was sweating, jittery, never made eye contact, shaking, calm, spoke clearly and in measured tones, made direct eye contact -- but not the officer's personal interpretation of those things -- he appeared to be lying/telling the truth/happy/sad/angry.
Click to expand...

this.
 
Jarod said:
The bell is rung, but it will give jurors who want to ignore it the out to do so.

If a witness gives testimony that is otherwise inadmissible, the fact that the witness was your witness does not then make the testimony relevant.

Now if you intentionally elicited that testimony, you might have a problem.
Click to expand...

Given it was said under cross, I don't see the problem here with what the prosecutor did. That said, I think it will be hard for the jury to completely ignore that. In the back of their minds it will be there.
 
I also don't think the testimony is all that big a deal. I mean, they let the guy walk. The obvious implication from the fact that they let a man who admittedly shot and killed another person walk out without charges is that they felt he was justified in shooting the other person and that he was truthful about what happened.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Saying he did nothing is up for debate... he clearly beat the crap out of Zimmerman, if Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, he had the right to defend it by any means necessary. Obviously the jury will decide whether or not this was the case.
Click to expand...

That is untrue. Simply thinking your life is in danger is not a justification for the use of deadly force.
 
Superfreak said:
Given it was said under cross, I don't see the problem here with what the prosecutor did. That said, I think it will be hard for the jury to completely ignore that. In the back of their minds it will be there.
Click to expand...

It's not that compelling to begin with. Even without the instruction it does little to help the defense. The jury is going to consider facts "in the front of their mind" and I doubt they are going to be swayed by the vague memory that Serino thought Zimmerman believed he was acting in self defense.
 
Professor Baxter said:
That is untrue. Simply thinking your life is in danger is not a justification for the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Actually that is exactly when it is allowed. That said, if done, you are likely going to be in the same place as Zimmerman and have to justify that thought and subsequent action.
 
if you are stalked on your way home by some creepy assed cracker you are allowed to protect yourself.


remember
 
Rana said:
He also did not beat the crap out of Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

For doughy little wimps like Super, Grind and ila it was the beatdown of the century and "ground and pound" is an elaborate mixed marital arts move rather than a style that any school yard boy has seen, practiced and been on the receiving end of a few times. :)

I would really like to see the prosecution focus on how it was that Martin was able to maintain a dominant position, while postured up and his hands high covering Zimmerman's mouth. I find it hard to imagine how it was that Zimmerman could not buck him off in such a scenario. I would point out, if allowed, that it might be difficult to buck him off if you are holding/reaching for your gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top