John Guy slayed me
"I'd like to give Mr. West an opportunity to apologize to me."
"I'd like to give Mr. West an opportunity to apologize to me."
Live video: George Zimmerman Trial - jury selection, trial, verdict, eye rolling
- Thread starter Mr Uncle Leroy
- Start date
the artist known az
Hail the victors
Did they bring up the witness being in the audience before testifying?
yeahisaidit
All Star
Damn, I missed it!
Beegio
You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Yes, it will be addressed at 8 am tomorrow
Golayitdown
Veteran
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
In all honesty, I can't stand West or O'Mara but they have impressed me. They are the exact kind of sleaze you want defending you if you catch a case. I thought they started out very sloppily but as the trial has gone on they've picked up steam.
On the flip side, I feel the lead prosecutor has failed numerous times to go in on witnesses. He's been average at best. The other two.. younger man, I believe his name is Guy and the dude who was speaking during the motion to acquit would have been far more aggressive if they were the lead. They've both been impressive as hell every time they address the court.
On the flip side, I feel the lead prosecutor has failed numerous times to go in on witnesses. He's been average at best. The other two.. younger man, I believe his name is Guy and the dude who was speaking during the motion to acquit would have been far more aggressive if they were the lead. They've both been impressive as hell every time they address the court.
Beegio
You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Also to be addressed tomorrow is witness tampering by the defense. John Good, a sequestered witness subject to recall, illegally collaborated with the animation dude while he was sequestered. I wonder if his testimony in its entirety can be stricken from the record, and the jury ordered to disregard his testimony? @BarNone can you clarify? Or any other lawyer on this forum?
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what Florida's evidentiary rules are. I'd have to look that up.
Last edited by a moderator:
A.J.Soprano
Banned
Zimmerman's gotta be hungry as fukk right now
Where does Zimmerman go every day after trial?
to his cell?
My dumbass thought he went home n sh1t
Mikael Blowpiff
#LosIngobernabrehs
Hol up tho what happened in the past 5-6 hours?
yeahisaidit
All Star
Is their a clip of the judge walking out anywhere?
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
Last edited by a moderator:
Beegio
You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Does this help?
Restrictions on lawyers communicating with witnesses during testimony: law, lore, opinions, and the rule. - Free Online Library
Exerpt:
The Rule
In the American legal system, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of rules but one particular rule--the rule of witness sequestration--is so commonly used that it is known simply as "the rule." Even an inexperienced lawyer appearing in court for the first time usually knows to invoke the rule. The rule of witness sequestration, or exclusion of witnesses, came from common law but it is now codified in F.S. [section]90.616, which provides as follows:
(1) At the request of a party the court shall order, or upon its own motion the court may order, witnesses excluded from a proceeding so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses except as provided in subsection (2).
(2) A witness may not be excluded if the witness is: (a) A party who is a natural person; (b) In a civil case, an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person. The party's attorney shall designate the officer or employee who shall be the party's representative; (c) A person whose presence is shown by the party's attorney to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause; (d) In a criminal case, the victim of the crime, the victim's next of kin, the parent or guardian of a minor child victim, or a lawful representative of such person, unless, upon motion, the court determines such person's presence to be prejudicial. (a)
"The rule is designed to aid in ensuring a fair trial by avoiding the coloring of a witness' testimony by that which he has heard from other witnesses who have preceded him on the stand, thereby discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy and collusion." (2) However, many assume the rule also prevents lawyers from communicating with witnesses during their testimony. Thus, by invoking the rule, many believe they have done something that prevents an opposing lawyer from communicating with witnesses during their testimony.
The plain terms of the rule preclude a witness from sitting in a proceeding and listening to other witness testimony--it says nothing about witnesses communicating with lawyers. In addition, it has long been recognized that the rule also precludes witnesses from talking to each other outside of the courtroom about what happened in the courtroom; that is, witness A cannot tell witness B what questions were just asked and what answers were just given. (3) Similarly, the rule has been interpreted to preclude a sequestered witness from reviewing a daily transcript of the proceedings. (4)
Case law has also expanded the rule to include a prohibition on witnesses talking with certain nonwitness intermediaries about their testimony. (5) Obviously, the purpose of the rule would be defeated if an intermediary could sit in on the testimony and then relate what occurred in the courtroom to a sequestered witness. This intermediary concept is the basis for the argument that the rule prohibits lawyers from communicating with witnesses during their testimony. According to this argument, the trial lawyer is the ultimate intermediary.
Although there may be good theoretical and practical reasons for treating a trial lawyer as an intermediary for purposes of the rule, Florida case law interpreting the rule does not support this argument. (6) For example, in Chamberlain v. State, 881 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2004), a death penalty case, the defendant claimed the prosecutor violated the rule by speaking with a state witness, a Detective Fraser, during a break in his testimony.
Detective Fraser testified after defense counsel invoked the rule of sequestration. At the conclusion of his testimony, the court excused the jury, but asked Detective Fraser to remain in the courtroom during a bench conference. Thereafter, the prosecutor briefly discussed with Detective Fraser that he was going to be recalled to testify about a July 26, 1999, bond hearing in which Chamberlain was a witness. Defense counsel objected to Fraser being recalled on the grounds that the state had violated the rule by discussing with Fraser his potential testimony on recall during a break in the proceedings and while he was still under oath. (7)
The trial court overruled the defense objection based on the alleged violation of the rule. In affirming the trial court on this point, the Florida Supreme Court held:
The rule is designed to aid in ensuring a fair trial by avoiding the coloring of a witness's testimony by that which he has heard from other witnesses who have preceded him on the stand, thereby discouraging fabrication, inaccuracy and collusion. In this case there is no indication or allegation that Detective Fraser remained in the courtroom during the testimony of another witness, or that Detective Fraser discussed his testimony with another witness. (8)
Based on this passage from Chamberlain, it appears the Florida Supreme Court interprets the rule as prohibiting only two things: 1) witnesses remaining in the courtroom to hear the testimony of other witnesses; and 2) witnesses discussing their testimony among themselves prior to testifying. After reviewing the text of the rule itself, together with the existing Florida case law, it is clear that the rule does not prohibit lawyers from communicating with witnesses during their testimony. Those wishing to prevent opposing counsel from communicating with witnesses during their testimony must look elsewhere for support.
yeahisaidit
All Star
Thank you!!