Would it not be enough to elicit testimony that he was telling the truth about what happened that night?
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!!!!
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.
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.
Isn't a jury for a major trial selected on their ignorance of everything?
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.
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.
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.