Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[IGotWorms 4,059]

The State called the star witness who went on and on about what Trayvon said to her on the phone that night. Present sense impression

 

The State also called the police officers. Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials. No, you are incorrect. Both apply to civil and criminal cases. When the state brought in Zimmerman's statements, it was as admissions of a party opponent, which are exempt from the hearsay rules.

 

Once the State opened the door, those witnesses were fair game, though. They acted exactly as the defense wanted. Agreed. Wow, you said something right.

 

Your second to last statement is a crock. The "statement" is either hearsay, not hearsay or falls under one of the exceptions to hearsay. You are half-right. A statement is only hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it is offered for some other reason, then it is not hearsay. I did in fact go over this before. If I say "Casual Observer said that he was fine and didn't need to go to the hospital", that is not hearsay if I am offering it simply to show why I didn't take you to the hospital. Now if I wanted to admit it to show that you were, in fact, medically OK, then it would be hearsay. It's a tricky rule and clearly you don't understand it.

 

So we are clear, you didn't go over this before and I commented because you didn't even go over the basics of hearsay exceptions and unavailable witnesses (which makes you a tool and a fake lawyer). I've told RP a million times, this fake lawyer stuff is hard. However, you are slightly better at it than he is, so congrats on that.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Too many big werds.

 

Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials.

 

Can you dumb it down? Thanks.

 

He's wrong regardless, so don't bother yourself too much over it.

 

But if you're really interested, try taking a look here and here.

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

I've told RP a million times, this fake lawyer stuff is hard. However, you are slightly better at it than he is, so congrats on that.

 

Well, he's doing a good job of getting me all muddled up in the authentic looking legal gobbleygook.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

The State called the star witness who went on and on about what Trayvon said to her on the phone that night. Present sense impression

 

The State also called the police officers. Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials. No, you are incorrect. Both apply to civil and criminal cases. When the state brought in Zimmerman's statements, it was as admissions of a party opponent, which are exempt from the hearsay rules.

 

Once the State opened the door, those witnesses were fair game, though. They acted exactly as the defense wanted. Agreed. Wow, you said something right.

 

Your second to last statement is a crock. The "statement" is either hearsay, not hearsay or falls under one of the exceptions to hearsay. You are half-right. A statement is only hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it is offered for some other reason, then it is not hearsay. I did in fact go over this before. If I say "Casual Observer said that he was fine and didn't need to go to the hospital", that is not hearsay if I am offering it simply to show why I didn't take you to the hospital. Now if I wanted to admit it to show that you were, in fact, medically OK, then it would be hearsay. It's a tricky rule and clearly you don't understand it.

 

So we are clear, you didn't go over this before and I commented because you didn't even go over the basics of hearsay exceptions and unavailable witnesses (which makes you a tool and a fake lawyer). I've told RP a million times, this fake lawyer stuff is hard. However, you are slightly better at it than he is, so congrats on that.

 

That you keep coming back to present sense impression means you stayed awake for the first day of evidence and not much else. The hours of testimony elicited from "Star" were quite a bit more than a present sense impression (He said he was scared, she said she felt cold, etc.). You continue to distinguish yourself as an idiot on that point alone. Your second example wouldn't make it in over the objection of competent counsel, unless an exception to hearsay (the example you used may well be a present sense impression if I'd made that statement shortly after being hit by a car or something like that). Strike three for you is that you have yet to explain unavailable witnesses and admission of statements (because you don't understand what this means). Strike four for you is that you cannot possibly be trying cases with all of the daily posting you do around here. I'll give you a chance to at least partially redeem yourself: Is George Zimmerman an unavailable witness?

[Casual Observer 597]

 

He's wrong regardless, so don't bother yourself too much over it.

 

But if you're really interested, try taking a look here and here.

You'd simply call that a statement in the criminal context, not a statement of a party opponent. We're in State Court here, kid.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

That you keep coming back to present sense impression means you stayed awake for the first day of evidence and not much else. The hours of testimony elicited from "Star" were quite a bit more than a present sense impression (He said he was scared, she said she felt cold, etc.). You continue to distinguish yourself as an idiot on that point alone. Your second example wouldn't make it in over the objection of competent counsel, unless an exception to hearsay (the example you used may well be a present sense impression if I'd made that statement shortly after being hit by a car or something like that). Strike three for you is that you have yet to explain unavailable witnesses and admission of statements (because you don't understand what this means). Strike four for you is that you cannot possibly be trying cases with all of the daily posting you do around here. I'll give you a chance to at least partially redeem yourself: Is George Zimmerman an unavailable witness?

Wrong on every count.

 

Zimmerman may be unavailable based on his Fifth Amendment protections. Of course, the availability of the witness doesn't matter when it comes to admissions of a party opponent, which you clearly don't understand.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

You'd simply call that a statement in the criminal context, not a statement of a party opponent. We're in State Court here, kid.

Yep, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[JTB 52]

I really think worms is an attorney. Likely younger and most likely will make partner some day.

 

Casual observer, I have no idea about but this slap fight really maes lawyers look even more worthless.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I really think worms is an attorney. Likely younger and most likely will make partner some day.

 

Casual observer, I have no idea about but this slap fight really maes lawyers look even more worthless.

The SC just made that a lock.

[Casual Observer 597]

Wrong on every count.

 

Zimmerman may be unavailable based on his Fifth Amendment protections. Of course, the availability of the witness doesn't matter when it comes to admissions of a party opponent, which you clearly don't understand.

Typical Worms, "wrong on every count" without any analysis. When you're nailed on something like the present sense impression exception that you've been so horribly wrong about, you avoid it completely. To refresh your memory here, the witnesses in question were Star and the police officers. Star testified for hours about conversations with Trayvon. How did they get that testimony in? The State elicits testimony from the police officers about Zimmerman'sm statements. The defense does not object because they help their case. That's the simple analysis here.

[Casual Observer 597]

Yep, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Really? Is that based on your vast experience trying cases on the bored?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Having drugs in your system doesn't go to state of mind? Paranoia is a byproduct of smoking pot. Lil Trayvon may have been paranoid and attacked GZ because of his drug induced paranoia.

 

You aren't very good a pretending to know how a court case works.

 

Neither are you...and he keeps whiping the floor with you on any and all legal issues.

Despite your failed attempts to discredit him...or claim that you or others have beat him on these issues.

[Casual Observer 597]

I really think worms is an attorney. Likely younger and most likely will make partner some day.

 

Casual observer, I have no idea about but this slap fight really maes lawyers look even more worthless.

Worms claims to be an attorney employed by the U.S. However, he spends hours every working day posting stupid sh!t here. I think he's a paralegal. Dreams of being an attorney, has access to some resources, but makes comments that belie such a lack of real world understanding of practice on pretty much every legal topic he posts about here that he couldn't be an attorney.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[slo-N-Nuts] YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! [slo-N-Nuts]

 

[Reality 3,121]

Worms claims to be an attorney employed by the U.S. However, he spends hours every working day posting stupid sh!t here. I think he's a paralegal. Dreams of being an attorney, has access to some resources, but makes comments that belie such a lack of real world understanding of practice on pretty much every legal topic he posts about here that he couldn't be an attorney.

/Thread

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Worms claims to be an attorney employed by the U.S. However, he spends hours every working day posting stupid sh!t here. I think he's a paralegal. Dreams of being an attorney, has access to some resources, but makes comments that belie such a lack of real world understanding of practice on pretty much every legal topic he posts about here that he couldn't be an attorney.

/Worms career as a pretend attorney.

[Sho Nuff 720]

[slo-N-Nuts] YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! [slo-N-Nuts]

 

 

How clever...also funny coming from the guy doing nothing but yipping at worms in here.

Maybe I should come up with an unclever 13 year old girlish name for RP.

[Sho Nuff 720]

/Thread

 

Not really...seems like a petty slap fight where both have held their own and their ground on what they are talking about...with slight misunderstandings between the two.

 

And usually whoever pulls out the "you post here a lot" line is typically full of crap.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Typical Worms, "wrong on every count" without any analysis. When you're nailed on something like the present sense impression exception that you've been so horribly wrong about, you avoid it completely. To refresh your memory here, the witnesses in question were Star and the police officers. Star testified for hours about conversations with Trayvon. How did they get that testimony in? The State elicits testimony from the police officers about Zimmerman'sm statements. The defense does not object because they help their case. That's the simple analysis here.

I already answered.

 

Jeantel's testimony - present sense impression as to what Travon told her while he was on the phone with her. Admission of a party opponent as to what Zimmerman allegedly said.

 

Police officers - admission of a party opponent as to what Zimmerman told them.

 

Defense doesn't object because if you object and lose (which they would have), it looks to the jury like you're trying to keep stuff from them and they don't like that.

 

Honestly dude, I'm not trying to be a d!ck here, it's just that the rules of evidence are complicated, especially hearsay rules, and you clearly don't know them. You can Google it and try to pick things up from there, as you clearly have done, but that just makes you an uninformed person who thinks he has an idea of what he's talking about.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

 

Not really...seems like a petty slap fight where both have held their own and their ground on what they are talking about...with slight misunderstandings between the two.

 

And usually whoever pulls out the "you post here a lot" line is typically full of crap.

No, CO really has no idea what he is talking about. I can see how that might not be obvious to someone who doesn't practice law, but trust me on this one: virtually everything he has said here about the hearsay rules is dead wrong and would get you laughed out of every courtroom in the country.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You can Google it and try to pick things up from there, as you clearly have done, but that just makes you an uninformed person who thinks he has an idea of what he's talking about.

You are the only poster here who has googled, and used Wiki, as our legal source, Matlock.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You are the only poster here who has googled, and used Wiki, as our legal source, Matlock.

Says you...as you yip at him and then cry about me.

Seriously...he has made you look stupid about these things all over this thread (start asking for links...its fun when you whine about that).

[IGotWorms 4,059]

You are the only poster here who has googled, and used Wiki, as our legal source, Matlock.

 

How's this source, dumbass?

 

Present sense impression:

 

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

 

 

Admission of a party opponent:

 

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

...

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

( is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

 

I cite Wikipedia because it is much easier for the lay person to understand, though clearly it is still lost on some people.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Like he is going to ever answer and admit how full of crap he is (speaking of RP of course).

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Like he is going to ever answer and admit how full of crap he is (speaking of RP of course).

 

Throw CO in there too. A slightly smarter version of RP.

[Voltaire 5,322]

Worms claims to be an attorney employed by the U.S. However, he spends hours every working day posting stupid sh!t here. I think he's a paralegal. Dreams of being an attorney, has access to some resources, but makes comments that belie such a lack of real world understanding of practice on pretty much every legal topic he posts about here that he couldn't be an attorney.

In an amazing coincidence. This sounds exactly like the trajectory of George Zimmerman's career in law enforcement.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

Not really...seems like a petty slap fight where both have held their own and their ground on what they are talking about...with slight misunderstandings between the two.

 

And usually whoever pulls out the "you post here a lot" line is typically full of crap.

Yeah, Worms is really talented - he posts here all day and tries cases at the same time.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Yeah, Worms is really talented - he posts here all day and tries cases at the same time.

 

I'm a hell of a multi-tasker. Some of us just have that gift I guess.

 

Re: trying cases--most cases never actually go to trial. You'd already know that if you actually had an idea what you were talking about here.

[Casual Observer 597]

I already answered.

 

Jeantel's testimony - present sense impression as to what Travon told her while he was on the phone with her. Admission of a party opponent as to what Zimmerman allegedly said.

 

Police officers - admission of a party opponent as to what Zimmerman told them.

 

Defense doesn't object because if you object and lose (which they would have), it looks to the jury like you're trying to keep stuff from them and they don't like that.

 

Honestly dude, I'm not trying to be a d!ck here, it's just that the rules of evidence are complicated, especially hearsay rules, and you clearly don't know them. You can Google it and try to pick things up from there, as you clearly have done, but that just makes you an uninformed person who thinks he has an idea of what he's talking about.

If "Star" testified as to what Zimmerman said, I missed it. As for present sense impression, no. It could be one of these (from FLA State Law):

 

(1) SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.—A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

(2) EXCITED UTTERANCE.—A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.—

(a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.

( However, this subsection does not make admissible:

1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless such statement relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will.

2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

 

but all three typically encompass shorter, off the cuff statements, rather than the long narrative "Star" testified to. The only reason she was allowed to continue that ramble was because the defense did not object to large parts of her testimony.

 

Zimmerman made plenty of statements that were going to come in, kid. Go back and look post 505 again to see the context of my comment on unavailable witnesses. As you usually do here, you play for the lay crowd, who doesn't know what the fock you're talking about in the first place and who just take your word for it. Unfortunately, you keep citing a Federal Rule of Evidence that is not present in this Florida State Court proceeding (3. comes closest, but looking quickly at annotations, these again seem to be short statements, not long narratives). I wonder if anyone reading this understood that.

 

In any event, I'm confident I know the rules of evidence quite well and unlike you have actually tried cases before.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

I'm a hell of a multi-tasker. Some of us just have that gift I guess.

 

Re: trying cases--most cases never actually go to trial. You'd already know that if you actually had an idea what you were talking about here.

I do realize that. However, someday you will actually have to try a case, no matter how badly you want it to settle.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

If "Star" testified as to what Zimmerman said, I missed it. As for present sense impression, no.

 

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is basically a CLASSIC example of present sense impression. Trayvon tells her what is happening as it unfolds. That is the very definition of present sense impression.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about and you've gone to Google to try to throw sh!t against the wall. Know when it's over, man.

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is basically a CLASSIC example of present sense impression. Trayvon tells her what is happening as it unfolds. That is the very definition of present sense impression.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about and you've gone to Google to try to throw sh!t against the wall. Know when it's over, man.

Worms gets accused of being a fake lawyer, then uses definitions of particles of speech that remind me that I'm a fake English teacher.

[OldMaid 2,133]

Worms claims to be an attorney employed by the U.S. However, he spends hours every working day posting stupid sh!t here. I think he's a paralegal. Dreams of being an attorney, has access to some resources, but makes comments that belie such a lack of real world understanding of practice on pretty much every legal topic he posts about here that he couldn't be an attorney.

:lol:

 

Paralegals usually work twice as hard as actual attorneys. You're an idiot.

[Mike Honcho 5,304]

 

Throw CO in there too. A slightly smarter version of RP.

 

Lowest bar evah!

[Mike Honcho 5,304]

My bad. I get a little defensive when people make fun of the voices in my head.

 

No, it was on me, if I'm going to make jokes, I should try an make ones that are funny.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Unfortunately, you keep citing a Federal Rule of Evidence that is not present in this Florida State Court proceeding (3. comes closest, but looking quickly at annotations, these again seem to be short statements, not long narratives). I wonder if anyone reading this understood that.

 

In any event, I'm confident I know the rules of evidence quite well and unlike you have actually tried cases before.

Wiki must not have all the state's rules of evidence handy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wiki must not have all the state's rules of evidence handy.

Funny that you are still supporting that ship that has been taking on a ton of water.

Psst...worms is schooling him big time...and you too if you could get your head out of your ass long enough to see that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Still waiting for Matlock to explain how it would be hearsay for the defense to ask the investigating officers what they asked GZ, and what responses he gave.

 

See Slo-N-Nuts, I schooled Matlock on this pages ago. CO is schooling him now. But keep swinging from his nutsack, that seems to be your only talent.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Still waiting for Matlock to explain how it would be hearsay for the defense to ask the investigating officers what they asked GZ, and what responses he gave.

 

See Slo-N-Nuts, I schooled Matlock on this pages ago. CO is schooling him now. But keep swinging from his nutsack, that seems to be your only talent.

 

He has already explained the hearsay stuff...don't ask for the link...Im not searching it all to find it for you.

You didn't school anyone and you are too dumb to realize CO is showing his lack of knowledge...so keep yipping at his heals (as you whine that I do)...because crying is all you do on this board...and think you beat people down when really you are constantly getting your ass handed to you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

He has already explained the hearsay stuff..

Um. No he hasn't. But keep swinging from that nutsack.