- 12,422
- 2,916
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
R.I.P Trayvon
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by shoefreakbaby,
- Start date
- 5,584
- 974
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2010
My hearing isn't that great at 20 from being around percussion instruments and playing music...but he can easily identify and has great hearing at 70 after being in war with heavy artillery.
alright.
alright.
Last edited:
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
it was sarcasm, me poking fun at heLiumcLinton for telling me the same thing. we're on the right side. helium believes we shouldnt have opinions such as this because we're not lawyers. and that guy IS and has been one for a long time. therefor hes doing a great job. lol i disagree.
- 88,119
- 47,013
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
you mean seen
- 22,266
- 14,044
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2004
gotcha. I was reacting to what I was watching not the current conversation in the thread so I didn't see the exchange between you guys.
superb
Banned
- 5,042
- 935
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2013
prosecuter is a joke. All they had to do was record a fake recording similiar to the real one. Then ask the witness who voice they hear. Once GZ witness says it is him, tell the jury this is a fake recording....
But really I think the prosecuter already know they are going to get a guilty plea regardless. Its like its prepalasneed
- 1,151
- 169
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
That would be false evidence. Not permitable.
- 12,422
- 2,916
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
general question
before the trial whose voice did you believe it to be?
has your opinion changed/less certain after hearing testimony from the prosecution/defendants witnesses?
before the trial whose voice did you believe it to be?
has your opinion changed/less certain after hearing testimony from the prosecution/defendants witnesses?
- 5,584
- 974
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2010
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
false evidence? lol no. however, if he presented it correctly he may be able to walk the line. the defense would object anyways, but by that time, damage has been done to the jury.
ex.
"I want to play you a little recording."
*plays fake recording*
"who do you hear in the background?"
(if the defense objects here... then its a lost cause. defense might recognize fast enough this tape isnt in evidence, or that its a fake but if he doesnt...)
witness: thats gerogie!
"what? this is a fake recording. I was going to ask if it was possible to tell whos voice that was at all since you'd never met them, much like trayvon."
(objection would DEFINITELY come in here, but the damage is done)
just an example, but it wouldnt necessarily violate rules, more like... loophole. since youre not planting, tainting, suppressing, or forging evidence.
- 43,066
- 27,886
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- 6,459
- 4,035
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
When I first heard the audio, I believed it to be the voice of a teenager. Especially the part right before the gunshot and his voice cracks. I still believe the same thing. GZ saying it doesn't sound like him validated my belief.
celticsfan9783
Banned
- 5,318
- 665
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- 657
- 26
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2000
you guys said there is a recording of gz saying that it wasnt his voice screaming for help?? so they should of played that recording to the defense witness and ask them if they recognized the voice
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
the video of him saying that was played early on in the trial. but this is a good tactic. however, defense will wave it off saying most people dont recognize their voice easily especially when its stressed like this.
- 1,151
- 169
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
It wouldn't make it pass the Discovery process. Think about why a lot of TM information about his behavior in school or criminal history wasn't allowed; it's because the judge didn't allow it. All evidence has to be submitted and if the defense or prosecution has a problem with it then the judge will rule if the evidence is permissible.
Last edited:
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
once its objected to. like i said, if he catches the defense off guard and uses his words CAREFULLY so as not to actually imply or say its the recording from that night... he can manage it. but if defense catches on too fast then its a lost cause and theyll have to approach the bench and yadda yadda lol
- 43,066
- 27,886
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
Discovery takes place before the trial and not in the presence of the jury. It would never make t to their ears.
Last edited:
- 12,422
- 2,916
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
screams mistrial
- 1,151
- 169
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Last edited:
- 1,151
- 169
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
That's why you get a good lawyer/s, who will be thorough with all evidence to make the best argument that you are innocent.
Last edited:
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
Mistrial: A judge may declare a mistrial for several reasons, including lack of jurisdiction, incorrect jury selection, or a deadlocked, or hung, jury. A deadlocked jury—where the jurors cannot agree over the defendant's guilt or innocence—is a common reason for declaring a mistrial. Extraordinary circumstances, such as death or illness of a necessary juror or an attorney, may also result in a mistrial. A mistrial may also result from a fundamental error so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury, such as improper remarks made during the prosecution's summation.
Nope. Wont be a mistrial. Just an objection. And like the doctors notes, the tape would be asked to be put into evidence (which in this case the defense wont move for, since its fake) but instead the judge would ask the jury to ignore what they just heard like the judge has done twice already.
Nope. Wont be a mistrial. Just an objection. And like the doctors notes, the tape would be asked to be put into evidence (which in this case the defense wont move for, since its fake) but instead the judge would ask the jury to ignore what they just heard like the judge has done twice already.
- 79,489
- 110,290
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
Am I bugging or that biased?
People blatantly lying about hearing George's comments and that his tone changes.
this whole part of the trial is jokesit's just TOO obvious
Zimmerman's friends really did turn this into a joke. It just feels dude is gonna get away with this. We'll see.
- 1,151
- 169
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
From the same source you got that definition from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mistrials
"For example, in Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982), the defendant moved for a mistrial because of an allegedly improper comment made by the prosecution during closing argument. The prosecution stated that not only was defense counsel asking the jury to find a scapegoat for the defendant's guilt, he was also putting the blame on someone who had already been found guilty. The appellate court found that the lower court had properly denied the motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor's comment fell within the bounds of "fair reply."
That's why you must provide all evidence before trial so it will be fair.
Last edited:
- 10,249
- 6,648
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
^^^ i dont get your point. in your example, not only was mistrial DENIED... but, it had nothing to do with "new evidence" 
