• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

BSD, IF Ziimmerman testifies, can the prosecution not ask,"Are you telling the truth?"
 
Would it not be enough to elicit testimony that he was telling the truth about what happened that night?

First, it's inadmissible for the defense to bolster Zimmerman's testimony by asking him something like: "is everything you just told the jury the truth?" or "is everything you said about the night in question the truth?" It would be met with an objection and sustained immediately. If the prosecution did not object, I guess they could then try and then impeach him with prior bad incidents of lying. I dont see the judge agreeing that the door is opened for that kind of cross examination even if the aforementioned questions are improperly asked. The only way I could ever see this type of stuff coming into evidence is if the defense asked zimmerman have you ever lied about anything and zimmerman answers no. again, this sort of question is so out of bounds it's not even funny. assuming there is no objection by the prosecution, there is an argument the door is opened.

ETA: also, for the non florida lawyers on this thread, the Florida Rules of Evidence are very similar to the Federal Rules with few minor exceptions. None of which are of importance here.
 
Kitchin, if they can ask him about the PayPal account and he answers that he had one. Can they not call a rebuttal witness to his integrity regarding that account?

He has stated that he is honest. He has stated that he had a PayPal account. Can a rebuttal witness be called to show he wasn't honest about that PayPal account?

Didn't he "open the door" by saying he is honest and he has the account?

I realize the usual suspects don't need Viagra as long as they can see me, but these are questions like earlier.
 
This is what I think happened....Zimmie notices a kid walking thru his neighborhood and decides to follow him just to get a closer look. (he is in a car and has a gun so he is feeling a tad superior) Trayvon notices the car following him and begins to get upset.( teenager attitude that we all had at one time) Martin turns around and calls out Zimmerman....I/e " what the fu% do you want!?" Zimmie stops the car and gets out to exchange unpleasantries. Words turn to a physical assault and in result Zimmerman pulls the gun and fires. This is what we call murder!!!!

Wasn't there, so I don't know what happened, but the above seems like a reasonable approximation of how events enfolded. They showed a picture of Zimmerman's paypal page last night and it was draped in an American flag. Since when is shooting someone in the street who hasn't attempted or committed a crime a patriotic act?!? Scary that people would be so moved by Zimmerman's selfless patriotism that they'd pony up $200K to defend him. Kudos to Mr and Mrs Zimmerman for their elaborate code scheme for amount of money. They could have at least used base 8 new math. We're not talking about Navajo windtalking rainmen here.
 
Kitchin, if they can ask him about the PayPal account and he answers that he had one. Can they not call a rebuttal witness to his integrity regarding that account?

He has stated that he is honest. He has stated that he had a PayPal account. Can a rebuttal witness be called to show he wasn't honest about that PayPal account?

Didn't he "open the door" by saying he is honest and he has the account?

I realize the usual suspects don't need Viagra as long as they can see me, but these are questions like earlier.

The issue of him having a paypal account will not come into evidence. The defense will never bring it up, and if the prosecution asks that question on cross it will be objected to, and immediately sustained.

This is a non-issue. The stuff about him lying will NEVER come into evidence. The only possible scenario I can even remotely see it happening under is if Zimmerman takes the stand and is then questioned on direct examination about how he's never lied. That will not happen.

Again, this whole line of questioning is so comically out of bounds that I can pretty much guarantee you it hasnt even entered into the attorneys' heads as a potential area of inquiry.
 
I see. Thanks for the explanation. Obviously my E classes were a few years ago and have been rarely used.
 
Kitchin, if they can ask him about the PayPal account and he answers that he had one. Can they not call a rebuttal witness to his integrity regarding that account?

He has stated that he is honest. He has stated that he had a PayPal account. Can a rebuttal witness be called to show he wasn't honest about that PayPal account?

Didn't he "open the door" by saying he is honest and he has the account?

I realize the usual suspects don't need Viagra as long as they can see me, but these are questions like earlier.

No. Extrinsic evidence as to specific examples of truthfulness or lack of truthfulness is inadmissible.
 
The fact that this information is publicly available prior to a jury being empaneled ain't good for Zimmie.
 
Youre overestimating the average Americans consciousness of current events.
 
Isn't a jury for a major trial selected on their ignorance of public events?
 
In a normal case, wouldn't bail be denied after his antics?

Lying about funds is bad. Then he got a second passport after telling the court he turned his only passport in as he did.
 
don't know about admissibility in court and all that.

But just looking on as an observer, it looks like Georgy-boy has a little trouble with the truth. At the very least, he ain't afraid to look the cops or the courts straight in the eye and lie.
 
This thread is a good example of why our legal system is so screwed up. The idea of getting the truth about what really happened isn't even on the radar of what is important, based upon the posts in this thread. What is evidently important are all kinds of legal minutiae about different ways that sharp attorneys can circumvent having to be concerned about finding out the truth about what actually happened. The guy is either guilty or he is not guilty....but his guilt or innocence shouldn't....and doesn't, really....depend upon who has the better attorney.

Are you a parody?

The system is designed for him to get a fair trial. Whether or not he lied to the court has fuck all to do with what happened on that night. You're talking about a guy that was getting death threats. There's any number of reasons why he might have lied to the court. That has nothing to do with whether or not his shooting of Trayvon was justified. There is no reason to introduce that evidence. You can introduce that in his trial for perjury, since I'm 99% sure he was under oath when he told the court about his finances.
 
If his entire case is "believe me", if he lies to the court in something that has to do with his participation in the case, it should be fair game.

This is quite different than if he lied to a girl in HS or cheated on his wife. He lied to benefit his situation regarding this case.
 
If his entire case is "believe me", if he lies to the court in something that has to do with his participation in the case, it should be fair game.

This is quite different than if he lied to a girl in HS or cheated on his wife. He lied to benefit his situation regarding this case.

No, it shouldn't.

If you would like a VERY brief overview of evidence rules and the rationale behind them, you can start here http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608 (with the entire page, not just the rule). Proceed to read all of the others.

If you would like a real understanding, this one will get you most of the way there http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Univ...0311/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1338838829&sr=8-5
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying it should by the current rules of evidence. I'm saying logically and morally it should be admissible.

If you lie to a member of the trial and it can be proven, it should be allowed.

I'm not saying the rules say that. I'm saying it should be that way.
 
I'm not saying it should by the current rules of evidence. I'm saying logically and morally it should be admissible.

If you lie to a member of the trial and it can be proven, it should be allowed.

I'm not saying the rules say that. I'm saying it should be that way.

I realize that, that is why I included a link that has the commentary, not just the rule.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume you are also in favor of "propensity" evidence.

This is actually probably a better place for you to start-

http://lawschool.westlaw.com/garland/welcome.html
 
Last edited:
Nice link...I'd have to pay $163 to read it.

I'm torn about propensity evidence.

However what I said was very narrow. If you lie to the court you are in front of about something that might help you in this case, I see no reason it shouldn't be admissible.

Let me say this again, it's not about whether he lies 24/7 about everything from money to sex, it's about lying to this court about this case.
 
I am much less likely to believe the ol' zimmer now than I was a few days ago, I'll tell you that much. Dude is sketch.
 
Back
Top