General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust before the call cut off, she heard Trayvon Martin say, “Get off. Get off.”
Page 2 Washington Post.
This is new information to me! This means it was Zimmerman who touched Trayvon first. I hope this quells the zest of the Zimmerman apologists.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)In the hours afterwards, it could mean a lot.
In the months after, not so much.
Kingofalldems
(38,360 posts)Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)It is much easier for defense counsel to pick apart a statement that has had time to be influenced by other factors (family, friends, legal counsel, media sources) and also her own potential bias in wanting to see the man who killed her friend prosecuted.
In contrast, if the interview was taken in the hours following the attack, it is a much stronger statement and it is much more difficult for the defense to attack.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Witnesses coming forth with new information, prosecutors or defense attorneys turning up previously un-interviewed witnesses or discovering new evidence happens every day.
Impeach the witness over the facts presented, not the time-line of when the witness came forth.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)I'm simply saying that one statement is more vulnerable to attack than the other. Doesn't mean it's a lie. Doesn't mean it's truth.
Just another piece in the puzzle.
Also, according to another poster, it was taken right after Martin died, so it shouldn't have any problems.
Relax...
Igel
(35,191 posts)Most of my early childhood memories are derived from photographs. Otherwise, I have none. But my memories seem real. They're fake.
Once I was accused of saying I'd erase all the data at my place of employment; I said there was no backup system, and if something happened there'd be a really bad data loss. At the time, there were three people in the room. One had left town before I was accused.
I was, however, accused by three people, siblings. They were unimpeachable. Until I was talking to one of them alone and asked who was in the room. She thought, and said her sister. I asked where the guy was and she said there were just the three of us. "Why were we there?" She remembered we were playing bridge and there were four of us: her, her sister, me, and the other guy (call him "F" . But there were just three people in the room--and she realized that her sister wasn't there and F was. Her sister was in the bathroom and couldn't have heard what I said.
So she called her sister over, and her sister said she was there at the time. The other guy ... she wasn't sure. She recalled we were playing bridge and decided that since her brother was there it had to be him (call him "C" . Then she called C over, and he said he was there. The four of us. But he said couldn't have been bridge we were playing. He'd never played. Didn't know how to play. But it was just the four of us. F wasn't there.
C's wife was there and asked when it was. They all agreed--it was some holiday or long weekend, so it was notable. She promptly said it was impossible for her husband to be there. It was her brother's birthday party and they went to that. She pulled out her planner. She and her husband weren't just at the party--they'd planned it. He insisted he was there--and said what we had for dinner, who was there, what we did that evening, etc., etc. Right down to who sat where at the table.
I asked them what I said. They all answered at once, but it seems I managed to say three different things. It took them a few minutes to start remembering all the same thing.
I left as they started to fight over other parts of their memories. One sister realized that she was in the room with me and F. The other sister insisted she was in the room and her brother confirmed it. The brother was arguing with his wife and brother-in-law because they both said he couldn't have been there and he insisted he was.
The fight happened less than two months after the events they were arguing over. Two had fabricated memories--one of something that occurred when she was out of the room, the other created memories for an entire evening. An evening that was really quite unmemorable or unremarkable.
Now, take a 16-year-old girlfriend whose boyfriend was killed and whose testimony might be crucial in nailing the guy who shot him. Consider the claim that there's no way she could embellish or change a memory, even accidentally.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Either we were told wrong, or this is a new story.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I am aiming for the latter since none of her testimony was ever released, until now. It wasmentioned but never detailed.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The phone is knocked to the ground before/if he was on top of Trayvon. She previously said this was when she last heard him.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Whose fault is that?
Martin's?
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Just a statement of how things could turn out...
See post #5
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)think anyone will be believe it now.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)The police never bothered to check TMartin's cell phone until the defense lawyers got a hold of it. The police considered GZimmerman's response as a done deal even if the lead detective had his own doubts.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)"Attorneys for Martin's family said it wasn't until weeks later, when Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, was looking through the teen's cell phone bill that he noticed the timing of the last call. The family and their attorneys then contacted Trayvon's girlfriend and heard her account of the night. Lawyer Benjamin Crump, who represents the family, recorded an interview with the girl and provided it with Martin's cell phone records to federal authorities, who by then had joined the investigation."
As per Huffington post, the family and lawyer found the girl, spoke to her and then set up an interview which was taped and given to investigators.
I think Zimmerman's lawyer is going to tear this girl apart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D150284
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Which was kind of my point..
This whole incident was supposed to have been swept under the rug, hence the ducks were left in some small degree of disarray, no one expected anyone to look into it and it came as quite a surprise to the local authorities when they were forced to reopen the investigation.
I find the backstory of the original investigation, or lack of one rather, more interesting than the trial itself, it's really quite revealing.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)... that wouldn't be accepted here, that stated that the girl was contacted by police on multiple occasions but refused to give a statement.
Take that one as you like...
tiny elvis
(979 posts)Trayvon Martin, 17, was killed while visiting a family friend in a Florida gated community.
She was distraught because of the situation that happened with Trayvon and the fact that she was on the phone with him right before the incident occurred, Sybrina Fulton, told Matt Lauer. She was hospitalized. She also mentioned to us that she had feelings for Trayvon, so it hurt her dearly to know that he had passed away.
Family attorney Ben Crump argued that though the call was not recorded, the girl's account is not hearsay.
She is a 16-year-old teenager who just lost a friend very special to her, Crump told Lauer. Her parents are very concerned. They did not want her to get involved, and it wasnt until Mr. Martin found the phone records and saw that she called him at 7:12. The police got on the scene at 7:17, and he was shot and dead on the ground.
no multiple contacts
no police request to the girl in particular
mr martin had to find the phone records
how shall i take it?
were you not a bit hard on the girl, monsieur poirot?
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Tried to find a witty Agatha Christie quote to reply with but alas that is not my particular genre.
Frankly, I don't feel strongly about the girl's statement either way.
I do believe that Zimmerman's attorney will run roughshod over her, especially if she is as emotionally fragile as the Martin lawyer says.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)As far as Zimmerman's attorney. I think he will be as kind as possible, since the man teared up on national television and apologized to the family and gave his condolences.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)He will not be outwardly cruel to the girl but I think he is going to destroy any credibility that she has (albeit in a gentle manner)
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)n/t
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Very doubtful. Since many of the witnesses felt the police was changing their words and/or the police said they didn't need to come down to the station to clarify anything. This was witness after witness--most of whome went on national television to state as much. So I sincerely doubt that the police asked her to come in, when they didn't bother much with the witnesses they did have from the 911 calls.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)repeated at trial by the girl, who is a third person.
It's a question of "she said that he said" when the "he" can't be questioned about his own words. Statements about a third absent party's statements are not thought to be reliable.
There are exceptions for situations when the original speaker is not available, by death or otherwise, but there is no blanket rule for admission of statements made by unavailable witnesses, even if they are unavailable by reason of the murder that is at the center of the trial.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)chased, so presumably the "friend" refers to Martin's girlfriend.
She was interviewed within hours and she also stated that she heard what sounded like Martin being shoved right before the phone cut off.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I don't see how that can be since it was at least a day before Trayvon was even identified.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)His father called to report him missing the morning after. The police officer taking his father's call recognized the description.
However, you are right. I don't believe it was the next day that she was interviewed. It took longer, I'm probably thinking of one of the other witnesses. As I recall, there were several weeks when various witnesses claim they were contacting the police and not getting calls returned. That's when they started talking to the media because it looked like a cover up.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Before a jury under a defense lawyer's cross trying to make her and Martin look like liars. Hopefully, the prosecutor's office is preparing her for the defense striving to impugn the character of the person she cared about. This will be very painful for her.
This interview is the closest thing that the jury will hear to eye witness testimony, other than Z, who survived. Unfortunately, Martin is dead and had no one to protect him from the 'creepy man.' Believe me, that was creepy behavior.
Someone posted an excellent thread using the analogy of a girl instead of a boy. In all these gun cases, the balance of power is firmly in the hand of the shooter. So their victims should be looked at as what they are, people who were helpless in the face of a gun to their face or back or however it happened.
This testimony would help destroy the self-defense argument, if allowed. Add to that the video at the police station. The defense will probably argue Z was shown injured there. His demeanor didn't strike me as someone who was traumatized or in pain. Yet Z's defenders claim Z would have been brain damaged by Martin being on top of him if he hadn't fired his gun.
If that was happening, why wasn't Martin's blood on his clothing in the video?
Gravity and blood pressure would put it on Z. But if Martin was shot at a distance, or while standing up, the head beating causing a wound on the back of Z's head didn't take place as has been claimed. Unless Martin was such an amazing person that he could assault someone while dying from a chest wound.
There is so much we don't know in this case. We haven't even been told if Martin was shot in the front which would be similar to self-defense except for the screams of 'Help!' from Martin. If shot from the back, because Z didn't want him 'to get away,' that's not self-defense or even 'standing your ground.'
The way this case has been mishandled from the start may mean that there will be no justice for Martin, and I wonder how many other cases there are like his.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)"The entrance wound is on the left chest, 17 1/2 inches below the top of the head, 1 inch to the left of the anterior midline, and 1/2 inch below the nipple. It consists of a 3/4 inch diameter round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2x2 inch area of stippling. This wound is consistent with a wound of intermediate range"
"There is no wound of exit"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/trayvon-martin-autopsy_n_1525763.html
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/120687039/Trayvon-Martin-autopsy-report
As a side note, the closest thing to an eye witness will most likely be the eye witnesses who gave statements and not the girl on the phone.
Second side note, please don't think that people bleed like the movies. I will leave it to the medical types to explain why but I've seen many people with wounds, bullet and otherwise, that ranged from nothing to oozing to a full on squirt. There is a wide spectrum of possibilities.
obamanut2012
(25,906 posts)Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)since he has a history of violence and bullying minorities and seems to change his story quite a bit.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)... which will reflect in their statements and that should be taken into account.
Human nature...
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)Zimmerman chose poorly when he decided to leave his vehicle and go after Martin; a black male in a hoodie looking suspicious to him as he walked on the sidewalk of a gated community...Zimmerman's rationale was delusional on his part...he is and never was law enforcement, he's not authorized to act on suspicion...he was told by law enforcement to NOT pursue....but he indeed did do just that, hunted Martin down...and more...he shot and killed an innocent, unarmed teenage with candy and tea.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)In any case, I'm not sure what that has to do with my post or the OP really....
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)The second he got out of his car with a gun and started after Martin he was breaking all kinds of rules and placing lives in danger. We know for a fact Zimmerman followed Martin outside his car for several hundred or perhaps a thousand feet showing he was in pursuit. Pure and simple he is a fucking idiot, vigilante piece of shit who caused the death of a high school kid.
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)I do not support reading between lines and posturing about here say testimony timelines... Those who have followed this case from the beginning are aware that the Sanford Police were negligent from the moment they arrived at the crime scene. Thus, timeline testimony will reflect statements made 1-2 months after the shooting. Credibility of the witnesses will be pivotal.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)In nother thread I'm having an argument with someone who refuses to believe that GZ spoke with a Sanford Police officer (who instructed him not to follow TM) during his call and not 911 dispatch. I've posted links to the recordings, proving that Sanford Police Departmenet answers "Sanford Police Department" and 911 dispatch answers "911 ..." but the poster is in complete denial.
petronius
(26,580 posts)a police officer, and depending on the size of the department could very easily be the same person who answers the emergency line. I know that when I worked for a campus department years ago, all the lines during off-hours were answered by the dispatcher, and when I've called the non-e line in my not-so-small city here I'm almost certain that that's who I got...
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)officers and 24 civilian employees. I think the chances of GZ speaking with an officer, especially during off hours, would be pretty good.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/police/index.html
petronius
(26,580 posts)certainly better than 50-50.
It's of course possible that it was an officer that answered the phone, but (what I took to be) your claim above that the phrasing of the answer proves that case is just not valid...
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Phone: 407.688.5070
petronius
(26,580 posts)My sole and irrefutable point is that your claim thus far lacks foundation; you seem to think you've proven something, but you haven't...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Every transcript I have seen calls them a dispatcher, not an LEO
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Watch brochure of which I would like to draw your attention to page 15, Item number 10.
"10. Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department."
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf
Notice that this was put out by the Sanford Police Department. I would think that whoever wrote this brochure had the authority to give these instructions and expected them to be followed. I will also add that obviously GZ did not follow those instructions that night.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)My claim is that he called Sanford police, not 911 dispatch. The argument is that he had no obligation to follow instructions given not follow TM because it was 911 he spoke to and 911 has no authority.
petronius
(26,580 posts)"Sanford Police Department" and not "911" it proves that the person answering was an officer. That claim is simply not valid. There's no reason to think that a non-emergency line would be more likely to be answered by an officer than not, really the opposite is more likely (and if I had to bet, I'd guess that the non-emergency line goes directly to the 911 dispatcher during off-hours).
But if you say that you did call the Sanford PD non-emergency line, and the person who answered was a sworn LEO, and they told you that the person who answered when Zimmerman called was a sworn LEO, then of course I'd believe you - why would you lie?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)petronius
(26,580 posts)I thought you sorta hinted that you had.
Look, my only point here is that the evidence you presented for your conclusion above is faulty. The verbiage of the answer proves nothing about the identity of the person who answered. Do you understand that now? (If you have or want to get new evidence, go for it! As I said, I'll happily rely on the integrity of a DUer if you say the SPD gave you the true facts.)
Personally, I think it's very unlikely that a sworn LEO would be answering phones as a matter of procedure, and I think it would have been reported already if that was the case in Sanford, but I really don't know who it was on that particular call - and neither do you. The difference between us is that you thought you knew...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Given that every gov agency is hurting for $$$, I would not expect things that do no require and LEO to be staffed by an LEO.
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)Sworn in is good enough for me....
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Yes its answered Sanford PD...but is that an LEO
You remain the only person I have ever read/heard assert that there was an LEO he was speaking with. All the transcripts call the speaker "Dispatcher"
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)They have authority just as correctional officers. The Dispatcher may not be a deputy but they indeed have a standard of practice to uphold under law enforcement code.
Let's not minimize their duty...they are not waitresses from Waffle House...
The way I see it, once Zimmerman made that call to the police reporting Martin, the whole situation became a POLICE MATTER. It doesn't make one difference whether an actual police officer or an administrative dispatcher took the call. They were working in an official capacity for the police. Zimmerman's "job" was done once the police were responding. The minute Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow Martin after he made that phone call, he was a private citizen interfering in a police matter.
The nonsense going around that Zimmerman wasn't obligated to listen to the police dispatcher is pure bullshit.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Since most of us know that, when those who start of with "He did not obey an order not to follow Martin..." it impeaches everything they have to say. Even the media gets that right.
Zimmerman should have done what he was advised. It was wise, prudent, and reasonable. Martin would be alive if he had. It still wasn't illegal.
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)There is factual discussion here in this very thread which tells you that you are wrong. You are leaving the discussion format and entering spam territory... in my opinion. Oh...the sky is blue as well.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Nothing factual has been proven
meanit
(455 posts)with disobeying a police officer, then yes, ignoring the dispatcher would not be against the law and he would be exonerated. But he's charged with murder two. I think his disregard for instructions and lack of reason and prudence goes a long way in showing his intent.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Dispatchers are not normally LEOs
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)wonder if Zimmerman grabbed him...
dkf
(37,305 posts)"Ryan also questioned the basic idea that the age of the person or persons screaming during the 45 seconds and thus whether it was 17-year-old Martin or 28-year-old Zimmerman or both can be determined by measuring frequency, or pitch.
To my knowledge, there are no scientific studies of pitch as an indicator or anything else in a scream that would give someone confidence to say how old somebody was, Ryan said.
When it comes to emotionally charged situations, especially a life-or death situation, the range of the human voice is simply too wide and varied to correlate it accurately to age, Ryan said.
A 28-year-old might scream like a 17-year old. A 17-year old might yell like a 28-year-old.
The science doesnt help with a recording like this, Ryan said. There isnt anything to hang your hat on."
grok
(550 posts)She "should" be able to tell the difference particularly since the "fight" hadn't quite started yet.
A better question would be if she was "coached" by Crumb and informed of the political/personal consequences of her testimony a whole month later. That would definitely color her testimony. that's why it was so important to get it earlier.
It also is not that clear what Trayvon meant by "get off" Did he mean get off physically or get off and out of his space and tail, he was getting off the phone or telling her to hang up.
Personally I think the interview/interrogation went well. The questioner carefully kept her from lying. Maybe not lying but replacing an opinion with a fact.
Another question. how the HECK do you hear "grass" over a cell phone?
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)and there was no "smoking gun" statement that would have completely incriminated Zimmerman. If she had wanted to lie I think she would have made something up that would have nailed Zimmerman. As for the "grass" I think she meant it might have sounded like the phone landed in the grass. It may have been bruising up against clothing too.
grok
(550 posts)It's just a couple things that nag slightly. I sure wish the police would have done the interview much sooner without being forced into it by third parties and politics.
One thing she said reminded me of myself in high school. Heck, i was a momma's boy. in more ways than one.
For one thing, I had trouble displaying masculinity in front of females, both young and old. Wasn't weak or shy in any other way. Almost a jock though not a fighter/bully. Funny how many girls gravitated towards the latter.
One day I purposely picked a fight with a guy over a stupid slight which normally I would laugh off. I wanted to impress a girl that was watching us.(which I did) Felt bad about about it later but hey, it got results! Or at least I thought it did
Listening to DeeDee I wonder if the same thoughts occurred to Trayvon. Could it be that's why he stopped outrunning the old guy, held his ground, and fought?
Could it be If he wasn't on the phone with DeeDee he might still be alive? Nobody to prove to?
Boys can definitely have bad judgment, not that justifies their death but it does have consequences.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)and her version of events makes sense. I will be interested to see how Zimmerman plans to lie his way out of it. Because that is what I am convinced will happen.
grok
(550 posts)Remember, it's actually quite rare two memories of the same event are exactly the same. We almost always color a memory with our own predilections and biases. Its the conglomerate which is usually the most accurate. And not the individual one.
I still remember an instance clearly where I was quite heroic. Yet, several others remember the event differently. I don't think they are lying. Yet in my memory i get even more heroic as time passes.
The best thing for Zimmerman is to not testify at all. Uncolored by the passage of time or what he would like the memory to be.
For him, a cowardly memory is best. A heroic one will put him in jail for life.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)They've worked really hard to shut him up. I personally have always thought he was special ed. The way his father and sibling, his "friend" all jumped to his defense made it seem as if he was incompetent to speak for himself. Today, hearing he took drugs for ADHD confirms my suspicion. I am guessing borderline disabilities of some kind. Where are his school records?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I haven't seen this.
malaise
(267,799 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)That says the Trayvon fell down or the phone fell out of Trayvon's hand. So when it falls you can hear this sort of sound if the speaker part is touching the grass. It's like hearing the sheets on a bed. Try it.
grok
(550 posts)Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)
from his phone as the struggle ensues. It makes sense that Trayvon was using headphone/mike gear with his phone especially since it was drizzling. The phone is probably what Z-man saw Trayvon holding.
One of the problems using headphones with a cell is people are apt to see what appears to be odd behavior in a user. Like talking to themselves, walking around in circles or aimlessly. Obviously quite normal if you are in an animated conversation. Z-man probably never realized Trayvon was ever on a phone at all.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Im begging you, he hears the younger of the two men yell as the recording begins.
Twenty-six seconds later: Help me.
In the last second before the gunshot: a high-pitched Stop!
In an effort to find out what might be discerned from the crucial 911 call, The Washington Post retained Reich, 67, a former University of Washington professor with a doctorate in speech science who has worked for prosecutors and defense attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases over a period of more than 35 years.
dkf
(37,305 posts)The record.
He will have to validate the science. I hope he stands up to the scrutiny or he just may have crushed his relevance.
prosecutors and defense attorneys find him very relevant. Experts disagree. This one appears to be highly respected.
grok
(550 posts)Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)
I've read of some of his work he's done and he can be quite good.
The problem is he seems to be contradicting what he had written before about this type of testimony. In fact, he has written almost verbatim what the latter "expert" states about this case when the issues involved MUCH MUCH better recordings in other cases. about how high the quality of the recordings have to be, about how many samples should be taken, how a guy can be mistaken for a girl. Why emotional states matter.
It appears he is reaching very hard for significant conclusions where the quality and quantity of the data may not even come close to allowing him to do so.
It seems he is acting out of character and I wonder why.
Igel
(35,191 posts)Apart from the glottis' fundamental, that is.
That's routine speaking voice, however.
absyntheminded
(216 posts)Love the toon on your posts - too funny.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)krawhitham
(4,634 posts)It has been know to happen before
Igel
(35,191 posts)Between truth and lying there's lots of room for simple error.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And Martin is DEAD ... right?
I'm sure that Zimmerman, if he wants to, can take the stand and he can explain how Martin attacked him.
Or not. And if he does take the stand, he too could lie ... I mean, as you note ... its happened before.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Tsk tsk.
trolling4dollaz
(14 posts)Still pushing the lie that he was a racist. How pathetic that people need this to be true. The ego loves to feel like the victim.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,080 posts)Not that she is actually a liar, but they'll do everything to imply that she is.
And with no tape recording of the call, unfortunately, it's her word against Zimmerman's.
Although Zimmerman's story has changed numerous times. And the original story, the story to which he should be held to, was that Trayvon ambushed him from the bushes after he chased him, which is the biggest bunch of bunk ever.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)that testimony will be subject to the hearsay rule and may not be allowed in evidence, despite what Atty. Crump says.
Hearsay comes up in investigations all the time, but it is only allowed as evidence in the trial if it falls under one of the exceptions.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,080 posts)I.e., he being dead.
It certainly is hearsay, but I think there is one or more arguable exceptions to the rule that would fit this situation.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)and I'm not seeing exceptions, except for excited utterance for the last statement or two, that would allow the girl to testify as to what Trayvon said for the purpose of the truth of those statements.
I saw no general exception for the words of the dead or any unavailable declarant, and the exceptions pertinent to the unavailable state. The whole goal of the hearsay rule is that he said, and he said what she said isn't always reliable and that testimony offered for the truth of the words must be subject to cross examination.
What am I missing?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,080 posts)90.804?Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.
(1)?DEFINITION OF UNAVAILABILITY.Unavailability as a witness means that the declarant:
(a)?Is exempted by a ruling of a court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarants statement;
(b)?Persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarants statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(c)?Has suffered a lack of memory of the subject matter of his or her statement so as to destroy the declarants effectiveness as a witness during the trial;
(d)?Is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or because of then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(e)?Is absent from the hearing, and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarants attendance or testimony by process or other reasonable means.
However, a declarant is not unavailable as a witness if such exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability to be present, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the party who is the proponent of his or her statement in preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(2)?HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS.The following are not excluded under s. 90.802, provided that the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(a)?Former testimony.Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
(b)?Statement under belief of impending death.In a civil or criminal trial, a statement made by a declarant while reasonably believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the physical cause or instrumentalities of what the declarant believed to be impending death or the circumstances surrounding impending death.
(c)?Statement against interest.A statement which, at the time of its making, was so far contrary to the declarants pecuniary or proprietary interest or tended to subject the declarant to liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, so that a person in the declarants position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement.
(d)?Statement of personal or family history.A statement concerning the declarants own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, parentage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, including relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, even though the declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated.
(e)?Statement by deceased or ill declarant similar to one previously admitted.In an action or proceeding brought against the personal representative, heir at law, assignee, legatee, devisee, or survivor of a deceased person, or against a trustee of a trust created by a deceased person, or against the assignee, committee, or guardian of a mentally incompetent person, when a declarant is unavailable as provided in paragraph (1)(d), a written or oral statement made regarding the same subject matter as another statement made by the declarant that has previously been offered by an adverse party and admitted in evidence.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/90.804
I think the prosecution has a good argument to get them in. Of course, credibility of the hearsay witness will still be attacked, naturally, by the defense.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)My recollection is that it is usually reserved for comments just before the declarant expires, like "Danny did it because then he could buy the Dunkin' Donut franchise instead of me."
I don't think that you can force all of Trayvon's telephone conversation into "dying declaration" because although Trayvon was concerned about the guy following him, Trayvon had no reasonable reason at that time to believe that he was about to die.
His last comments on the phone, like "Get off!", may be the closest to DD, but I still think "excited utterance would work best there.
I guess we'll just have to wait.
However, releasing hearsay statements to the general public pollutes the jury pool. The more information inadmissable at trial end up in the media, the more likely the judge is to grant a motion to change venue.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)I haven't read it all through, but if it is reliable testimony then it almost completely undermines SYG (with the possible exception of disproportionate response, but I don't think that will work given the totality of the evidence as I know it).
Response to Oilwellian (Original post)
Post removed