Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm actually referring to what has been said in the court of public opinion. This will be her last chance to paint the picture of her son from a mother's point of view.
Right, and I meant in court itself. I would refer to another trial in which this was done, the victim was smeared, but I don't want to have this comment get deleted. So let me clarify again, I was referring to this trial, and the topic at hand.
Ideally, because the jury isn't privy to the defendant's criminal past prior to the start of the trial. Anytime that an aspect of the victim/defendant's past is used to prosecute/defend that person's innocence/crime, it can also be used it indict them. It's a "catch 22," but it helps keep lawyers honest.
I still don't see how the victim's past can be used to prosecute the defendant of their crime. I don't mean their immediate past, as in Trayvon was walking down the sidewalk, but issues about Trayvon's cell phone pictures etc.
Whereas Zimmerman's past has already been brought up, his over-zealous calls to the police, his police application, his background in criminal justice...but not his arrests for assault on a police officer or domestic violence restraining order.
I have to wonder why the state isn't calling the ME ... I would assume it would have something to do with the toxicology report perhaps. Or the ME being able to confirm the trajectory of the bullet.
That's exactly what I think....either one of those, alone, should put the nail in the coffin.
If both come up....they'd have to throw this is the trash can where it belongs.
Right, but then how come the victims can be smeared?
Assuming that the victim is dead (as in this case, and what I'm assuming your question pertains to), it's because of testimony. If we are to believe a witness, then we get to believe all of that witness; regardless of if that witness meant to incriminate. This isn't so much as a "smear," but more of a "back to reality," so to speak.
If a jury is to listen to a witness' sister claim that a defendant is "a great father, loves his kids within no bounds, attends every birthday with the greatest gifts, and has never had a speeding ticket", then the jury also needs to hear that, "Yes, he has a judgement against him for not paying child support, and has been arrested for assault in the past," in order to try and understand all of that defendant.
Assuming that the victim is dead (as in this case, and what I'm assuming your question pertains to), it's because of testimony. If we are to believe a witness, then we get to believe all of that witness; regardless of if that witness meant to incriminate. This isn't so much as a "smear," but more of a "back to reality," so to speak.
If a jury is to listen to a witness' sister claim that a defendant is "a great father, loves his kids within no bounds, attends every birthday with the greatest gifts, and has never had a speeding ticket", then the jury also needs to hear that, "Yes, he has a judgement against him for not paying child support, and has been arrested for assault in the past," in order to try and understand all of that defendant.
Thanks, that's very informative. Well then, Trayvon's mother had really better watch what she says. In fact they should just stick to whether the screams are his voice or not.
On the other hand, Trayvon didn't have any history of violence or any criminal history, but he had been suspended from school, (but never for fighting.) I don't think he had anything in his past that would indicate violence, but I'm sure the defense could find something nonsensical and spin it that way.
Thanks, that's very informative. Well then, Trayvon's mother had really better watch what she says. In fact they should just stick to whether the screams are his voice or not.
On the other hand, Trayvon didn't have any history of violence or any criminal history, but he had been suspended from school, (but never for fighting.) I don't think he had anything in his past that would indicate violence, but I'm sure the defense could find something nonsensical and spin it that way.
Even if the prosecution asks SF if that is indeed Trayvon's voice, I would guess the defense will ask her if ....
It's true that Trayvon's father initially said it wasn't Trayvon's voice?
and then some version of how long did Trayvon live with her or where did Trayvon live.
Thanks, that's very informative. Well then, Trayvon's mother had really better watch what she says. In fact they should just stick to whether the screams are his voice or not.
On the other hand, Trayvon didn't have any history of violence or any criminal history, but he had been suspended from school, (but never for fighting.) I don't think he had anything in his past that would indicate violence, but I'm sure the defense could find something nonsensical and spin it that way.
Exactly. She would need to be very careful.
As far as Trayvon's past history of violence, then if you prevent some of Trayvon's history (suspensions vs good grades, for example), then you have to prevent/admit all of it. Neither the prosecution, or defense, gets to pick and choose.
Even if the prosecution asks SF if that is indeed Trayvon's voice, I would guess the defense will ask her if ....
It's true that Trayvon's father initially said it wasn't Trayvon's voice?
and then some version of how long did Trayvon live with her or where did Trayvon live.
I think that is hearsay, and if so, that would explain why the father is not expected to testify.
I've read several articles saying the final witness for the prosecution will be Sybrina Martin - no mention at all of the ME being called.
Interesting ....
That's why they brought in the goofy ME wannabee. The one who washes her feet in the autopsy sink. The one who examined George via pictures and never laid eyes on the dead body, like all doctors and Medical Examiners, lol. To confuse the jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDJD
This would be pretty standard. The prosecution wants to leave the jury with a sad and passionate witness in their minds. The cross could force the defense's hand into sounding as though they lack compassion and are in "defense mode." This could be the bast case for the prosecution.
That sad, if Sybrina Martin makes a slight "outside" comment and opens a can of worms for the prosecution to dissect. For example, "Trayvon was a good son," would result in, "Then why was Trayvon visiting you that week? Could he have been suspended from school, for example?"
If she testifies then it will be interesting to hear what she has to say, but if she isn't prefect in her words it could be disastrous for the state.
I agree. For her to testify (especially since she knows nothing) is as dangerous as it would be for George to take the stand.
I heard trayvons father was KIMBO the well known street fighter but they dont want people to know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
