Home » Uncategorized » June 17, 2013

June 17, 2013

juror summary

A huge thank you to AJ for his work on summarizing the potential jurors last week. Above is a summary of the demographics. As you can see from the total time taken to interview potential jurors, the defense is taking more time in vetting them. Of the 42 interviewed, the defense took 2 hours longer in questioning the candidates than the prosecutor did.  In all, the lawyers spent almost 22 1/2  hours interviewing potential jurors last week.

On average, each potential juror is being questioned for a half an hour.  Of the 13 candidates that didn’t make it through to the next stage, overwhelmingly is was the men.  8 of the 13 were men, only 5 women didn’t make it through.  Of the 7 black jurors, only 1 didn’t make it through.  Of the 29 potential jurors in the pool, 11 are under 40 and 18 are over 40.

AJ has generously been updating the drop-box with the documents in the case and he has compiled an excel spreadsheet that summarizes and provides resources to the work done in court last week.  I’ve embedded the link in the photo of a dropbox on the sidebar for anyone looking for a link quickly in the days ahead.  It’s an awesome resource to help us keep track of the potential jurors and all the documents in the case so far.  We’ll want to keep the juror spreadsheet handy and close when we get to the next stage and need to recall what the potential juror said in their individual interviews.  On the 3rd tab, AJ provides a video link to the start of the interview with the prosecutor or a link to the start of the interview with the defense.  In the second tab of the spreadsheet, he provides a short description to remind us who that potential juror was.  When we download this spreadsheet to our computers, we can sort the spreadsheet in any order we want.

On behalf of the readers AJ, we thank you for this work.  This will help us alert to anyone who may not be honest.  Those jurors had best be honest and transparent or team Zimmerman will be all over it.

 DONATE_BUTTON2Thank you to everyone who has helped in the fund-raising effort. Last we heard (4pm June 9th) the fund was in excess of $85K.  I’ve been advised that no update will be given until after a jury is selected.  I assume all energies are being focussed on jury selection right now.  The goal is to get $120K. Please continue to spread the news that help is needed.  Even a $5 donation will help.  This is one worry we can take off George Zimmerman’s shoulders. Thanks again.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed. If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life. Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

Anyone who wants to share something privately, email me at nettles@bell.net

Advertisements

143 thoughts on “June 17, 2013

      • If you listen to Omara’s interview with i think the guys name is Steve Malzberg Omara seems o suggest that the defense may not even need to present anything depending on how bad Bernie flops on his presentation and how bad the witnesses are shredded on cross.

        • The jury is unaware of the motion, so no momentum shift from their point of view. Cases can be reversed based only on denial of Motion for Judgment of Acquital. O’Mara will file that motion, even though doing so cuts against his public statement that Zimmerman wants the decision to come from a jury, not from a judge.

          • I was not referring to the jury, but to the prosecution. Do you think that MOM will file the motion after Opening statements? Or do you think he will wait until the Prosecution presents its case and the file? He could file it at the conclusion of each fase too.

            • He’ll file it after the state presents its case. Opening statements aren’t evidence, so it would be premature to say the state’s evidence is insufficient, right after opening statements. He needs to have the state’s evidence entered into the case in order to have substance to argue that the motion has merit.

              I figure he expects the motion will be denied (even though, as a matter of law, it should be granted), so I don’t see denial as being a momentum robber to the defense, either. O’Mara and West will be ready and jazzed to put on the defense case. After that, I expect he will renew his motion for judgment of acquittal, which I expect will also be denied.

            • From what I remember reading somewhere O’Mara will let the state put on their case. When they rest, and it may be proven that the state has no case, O’Mara will make his move then, and would possibly not have to even put on the defense’s side. O’Mara had indicated that that was his line of thinking back to when he originally decided to not do the April immunity hearing. Also, after the prosecution rests, the defense knows then exactly what the state has and doesn’t have, which they would not have known before the state puts it all out there. I can’t even imagine what will happen when the defense crosses the state’s witnesses. I can’t even imagine what witnesses are even left for the state to use credibly.

              BTW, I really like Steve Mahlzberg. He is most definitely a Zimmerman guy. He discussed the case on some past shows when he filled in for Chris Plante. Plante is also a Zimmerman supporter.

              • The state’s whole case will be an attempt to destroy George’s credibility. There are some minor inconsistencies in the things he told Serino over the course of several days, which seemed to me to be in response to Serino playing the “buddy” role and trying to get George to tailor his story in certain ways, probably in an attempt to trip George up and get him to change something major so that he could be charged. I think these inconsistencies are the reason that Serino said he wasn’t sure George was being truthful, or something like that, despite George’s passing the voice stress analysis. The state will try to muddy those waters, and they’ll include the info about the passport and defense fund to do so. Then, they’ll present the “evidence” that George was a wanna-be cop, like the Kokopelli’s gym info and the application to the Maryland police force. If they can get their “experts” in to claim that it’s Trayvon screaming, or that it’s NOT George screaming, then that will be the icing on their cake.

                So, the prosecution strategy is to get the jury to think George Zimmerman is a vigilante and a liar, to cause doubt in their minds about whether his claim of self-defense is true. I know that’s not the correct state burden – the state is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George’s claim is NOT true – but I think that’s what they’re trying to do. If they can get just one juror to have doubts that George is telling the truth, then they have a fighting chance for that juror to convince others. The result will be a hung jury, at a minimum, which I think Bernie will take as a win in this case.

                • If I am not mistaken, if the prosecution goes after George’s character, credibility, and past, that opens the door for the defense to bring in TM’s character and credibility also. Knowing Nelson, she will likely allow the trashing of GZ, but will limit and control what is allowed in about TM. I have little doubt she will even care about the disparity that may be blatant and in your face. That only strengthens the defense case for appeal. IMO, it won’t be Nelson or the jury who decide George’s final verdict, it will be the DCA.

                  • I think that’s mistaken. My understanding is that the state can attack George’s character and credibility, and the defense can rebut that by providing evidence of his truthfulness and good character. Only if the state introduces evidence that suggests that Trayvon Martin was a good kid, or a law-abiding kid, or anything like that, can the defense then rebut those charges with evidence of Trayvon’s bad character.

                    Cboldt?

                    • There are evidentiary rules, and there are gentlemen’s agreements. O’Mara can bring up Martin’s reputation without anybody else opening the door (according to the rules of evidence). The gentlemen’s agreement is that if the prosecution doesn’t bring up Zimmerman’s past, and doesn’t mischaracterize Zimmerman, and further, doesn’t mischaracterize Martin, then the defense won’t attempt to submit evidence of Martin’s character.

                      O’Mara has said that this case can be tried on the basis of evidence of just a few minutes of time, likely starting with what Zimmerman said he saw before he called SPD’s NEN.

                    • I see. So, it’s not necessarily that the evidence on Martin would be off limits, but that O’Mara may politely decline to bring it up depending on his analysis of the strength or direction of the state’s case?

                    • Correct. That doesn’t cover all of the potential evidence, and doesn’t get into the timing. By timing, I mean the difference between bringing up evidence on cross examination, vs. bringing it up on defense direct examination. But you’ve well summarized the general arrangement. O’Mara will play nice as long as the state does, and the state goes first. The value to that is that the state controls whether or not the case turns into “blame the victim,” and that is by gentlemen’s agreement, not by rules of evidence.

                • Good analysis. I am definitely concerned about a hung jury considering the lynch mob outside. The BGI has all their eggs in this basket, and it’s simply not about the truth to the BGI supporters. It’s about winning no matter the cost or consequences. A loss will be an excuse to riot and wallow in pity which many of their supporters wouldn’t mind either.

                  Both Trayvon and GZ have skeletons in their closet. The difference is GZ’s are years prior, and Trayvons were current. Both can be painted in a negative light, But only one can be painted in a positive light. There was absolutely nothing positive about Trayvon in this period of his life. On the other hand, the amount of positives GZ had at 27 were staggering. He was the one of the best neighbor anyone could ask for. I’d be proud to call GZ a friend.

                  TM may very well have matured, very similar to GZ, by the time he was 27 and turn out to be a great person and neighbor. But at 17, there is no doubt he was out of control and a thug.

                  • Could you even imagine if Trayvon had a positive side to him….say he was a big brother…or hell if he even saved a kitten from a tree one time in his life, how the media would be climbing all over themselves to report it.

                    Their silence on Trayvon’s positive qualities is deafening.

        • Just to add about giving the prosecution momentum, at the point of concluding presentation of its case, the momentum of the prosecution is irrelevant. The prosecution is done, except for closing argument. Denial of defense motion for judgment of acquittal is “off limits” to the jury, rightfully so because the jury would be confused by an assertion that the defense prevailed lost in a motion to acquit and might be miffed (in this case, might be relieved!) that the defense tried to cut the jury out of the decision loop. So, Bernardo can’t use the denial as some sort of confidence booster in closing argument to the jury.

          If the question aims to get inside Bernardo’s head and figure out if he gets some confidence boost because the judge concludes there is some evidence (which is true even if the evidence is not credible), I really don’t know. In some matters of basic law, Bernardo can’t be a complete ignoramus. His arguments in this case make him come off as a complete ignoramus, but that doesn’t mean he is one. A weak or non-existent case also results in supporting argument being silly.

          • Unfortunate typo above. Not that defense prevailed in its motion for acquittal, but that defense lost. Bernardo would imply in his argument (if he was allowed to mention the motion and the judge’s decision) that this means the judge thinks the defendant should not be acquitted.

  1. I just listened to N18 – I.was so glad to have this chart to see that he was released. I don’t think he can decide what to have for breakfast without his higher power telling him what to do. No wonder his head hurts and he can’t sleep, having to second guess a powerful God and always afraid he’s going to do the wrong thing.

  2. Local leaders hope to attend Zimmerman trial

    http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20130610/NEWS/306109979?p=2&tc=pg

    I don’t know if this has been posted before, article is from last week. The NAACP plans to send members to Sanford once the trial begins.

    “It is important that I attend this trial to ensure that justice is served for the killing of an unarmed teenager,” Slater said Monday. “We all should be outraged about the murder … and no parent should have to experience such a tragedy.”

    These “leaders” are not interested in justice, if George is acquitted, they will continue the outrage I’m sure. How about justice for George for being attacked by a violent teenager. And I’m amazed that after all the explanations stating this is NOT a Stand Your Ground, but simply Self Defense, these leaders still get it wrong. If they want justice, they should be willing to at least know the facts.

    • Any signs of interfering with the judicial process will not go over well with the public. The cries about unfair treatment have been answered with an appointment from the Governor. Now it’s time to let the system work. Those who try to unduly influence it from either side will look foolish.

  3. Apparently BDLR had no problem with the words not to be used in the defense’s motion in limine last week. I missed it. Rene put this story out this morning.

    “That means the theory that was the backbone of the state’s case – that 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was profiled — is now something prosecutors cannot mention as they launch into their case against the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer.”

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-geo-zimmerman-trial-profile-20130617,0,1761292.story

      • ….because, as Ackbarsays has long thought, BDLR does not want to win this case against a clearly innocent man, and if he does win, he and Nelson want the conviction to be overturned on appeal.

        • Poppycock ackbar. If BDLR and the prosecution didn’t want to win the case they would have been shoving all of the exculpatory evidence to the defense long ago. They have instead hidden everything they can. My self personally, I think that theory is just silly stuff.

          • But if you extend my theory – all of the foot-dragging with evidence was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters in terms of discovery so that there would be clearly appealable issues post-conviction.

      • But Judge N ruled “not to be used in opening statement.” She didn’t rule for the entirety of the trial, does that mean something could open the door for the phrases to come in? She ruled on 2 statements, the other was “confronting TM,”

        Does that mean the State CAN USE “he shouldnt have gotten out of the car?”

    • Don’t you find it odd that so much of the charging document is being destroyed? Look at that list and tell me why/how the state can continue when at least part of the document is said to be false by the judge….

      calling NETTLES and all of our lawyers…. this makes no sense…

  4. Shellie and a black friend of George’s in the courtroom today. No one else from George’s family there. Ms. Fulton and Mr. Crump there for Trayvon, no sign of Mr. Martin.

  5. Everyone appears to be listening to the Judge and West converse. Will this Judge ever become embarrassed for making the argument of the State. Bernie never had to talk up there.

  6. I miss the PV #81 that was dismissed very much. A woman after my own heart… H13 is a harsh contrast to her.

        • thank God!

          Congrats to u and Nettles for being famous now with Sundance! At least that is one way to have your ideas there.

          I think he can do a lot of good, if he could stay focused. How about he concentrate on why all the AA jurors? That is a good puzzle for him instead of his strange conspiracy theories, with no proof by the way.

          • I haven’t posted at the Treehouse since February. It’s highly probable most there now don’t even know who he’s talking about.

            Yes, thank goodness that juror didn’t make it through. She was too set in her ways on GZ doing something wrong, imo.

          • stevie- It’s actually fun to watch sundance’s head go all “splodey” when others disagree with him. If he had the ability he would be banning Nettles (and I) from Nettles own blog. That ban hammer would be slamming down hard. Yes, you are correct, by reprinting what some of us have said, it gives our views a wider audience. Other than the sundance cultists, I didn’t see anyone arguing many of the points made here. Bori tried to defend himself from sundance cherry picking the parts of his posts that he wanted to highlight.

            As I said yesterday, and will repeat today, sundance ran with the O’Mara “control freak” language but, again, who is the control freak? When you are so thin skinned that you cannot take criticism of your ideas and personal opinions, and that truly is all sundance has, perhaps you should start using the site as a recipe exchange. More than once I’ve considered that sundance owns stock in a tin foil mfg., yet he claims some of us cannot accept reality?

            Last I checked, defendants have the right to chose their own defense attorney’s, and for whatever reason they want to choose them.

            • “If he had the ability he would be banning Nettles (and I) from Nettles own blog.”

              that is a great line pinecone!

              yes, he banned me long ago when i told him to brush up on a/c privilege. i still go there to check, but he goes off on too many tangents–like a chicken with its head cut off!

              i would not be surprised if he bans people who post there, and he finds out they post against him on other blogs!

            • i think it is called projection if we were going to psychoanalyze him. he projections his own faults onto others.

        • I hope so. She was pretty sure GZ continued to follow even when told not to. She reminded me of the lady who got excused who very much though GZ was innocent.

          They should both be excused for forming such a solid opinion without the presentation of the evidence yet.

          • From what I’m reading, Bob Kealing ? said she was seen leaving the area long before they were excused for lunch. She was not going to change her mind that GZ followed TM when the police told him not to. Something else I read, she said something about feeling really sorry for Sybrina for losing her child, and as women with teenagers they are very overprotective of their children, or something like that. She put my fears of to many female jurors into words better than I ever could. Women are over protective of their children, and would make their decisions based on emotions rather than the facts in the case. She also seemed to be anti-gun, and would hold it against GZ because he had a gun, even though it was legal and he was forced to use it.

  7. Ever notice the way Bernie LOVES to put words into the mouths of others? He assumes the answer to the question while asking it–So this case will be a hardship for you, correct? So I would have to do MAGIC in order to change your mind about this case?

  8. i don’t think MOM really wants this guy much either. He gets his news from Netflix? I think MOM wants more literate, intelligent jurors.

  9. I thought I heard Puerto Rico. Also said he was in Kuwait and has friends in Middle East so I am thinking he was in the Army.

  10. bernie tried to get away with another one:

    So you are pretty much committed to the defense?

    MOM: Objection. No foundation.

    Debby sustained it!

  11. i think it might show that YOU might think i’m biased, but not whether I think i could be biased!

    he is killing Bernie! BDLR is going nuts!

  12. Has anyone ever asked if any of the PJ’s ever donated to the Sybrina trashcan tour? It would be impossible to determine since they were dropping cash into the cans and it can’t be traced.

    So did this guy get dismissed, or need I even ask?

    • It looks like Mr. O’Mara has left the courtroom too. George is sitting a the defense table beside Lorna Truett and Don West is at the podium asking the questions of Dr. Wayman.

  13. From what I’m reading elsewhere, Nelson said that Wayman can testify, but his simplified report prepared 9 days ago will not be allowed as evidence. Don’t we still have weeks to go until Reich finishes his report?

    It appears to me that the voice experts will be allowed at trial, simply because of Nelsons ruling. The state is depending on Reich saying that he hears TM saying “stop, I’m begging you” and other garbage, as opposed to someone who will talk about the science and technicality of voice identification, that will likely be above the heads of the jurors. I can’t wait for the jurors to hear Reich repeating over and over, what you say, speak up, I can’t hear you.

  14. Testimony of Wayman is done. Everyone is exhausted. State said they are going to call Mr. Owen as a rebuttal witness and he’ll take about an hour.

    Mr. Mantei was extremely rude, implying that Mr. Wayman wasted 4 hours of the court’s time and his rebuttal witness will only need about a 1/4 of the time.

    Court to reconvene looking for jurors tomorrow morning at 9am and the Frye hearing to resume Wedneday at 4pm.

    This case is beyond insane.

    • Mantei comes from Angela Corey’s office, would you have expected anything different. I find it interesting that some just refuse to see that most of what is happening with the defense doing what they are doing is for the appelate court. They knew long ago that they will gain absolutely nothing from Nelson. They decided against the immunity hearing in April knowing that Nelson is behind the railroad caboose pushing it forward.

      I can only imagine what Diana Tennis will tweet on Wed. Is that a come on to keep reading Tennis’s tweets. Just say whatever it is Diana.

    • Mantei was pretty frustrated. Imagine being in his shoes – even w/Judge Nelson helping out. His rebuttal witness – Mr. Owen!!. Is that the best you got?

      • It’s been quite the joke on twitter. The defense brings governmental employees and experts with PHds and the state brings a bachelor in history.

      • Thx! I really hope MOM calls her….. even though people are supposed to try to only focus on what’s presented, her supposed role in this is going to be stuck in a lot of people’s minds, I think….

  15. I’m feeling kind of angry at these media organizations fighting that jurors’ names may be kept private for 6 months. They didn’t investigate, they just repeated Crump’s narrative, some like Renee-whoever had to always mention TM’s race – in short, they did whatever they could to sensationalize the case and divide the populace, stirring up the hatred. Now they want to make things more dangerous for the jurors, when they’re largely responsible for the danger in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s