Prosecution's Motion to Seal Evidence

Discussion in 'George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin' started by ariesgodofwar, May 24, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. elementary

    elementary No More Excuses

    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Actually and factually, Prosecution is not "withholding" evidence. Prosecution is asking that certain evidence be sealed for fear of tainting the jury pool (even further, IMO). Withholding evidence would mean that the defence wasn't getting all the discovery. As far as we know that is not true.
     


  2. ariesgodofwar

    ariesgodofwar New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are correct, I erred in not adding from "Public Inspection." I will amend my post. In no way meant to assert that information was being withheld from the Defense. I simply do not know if it is or not.

    ETA: My edit button is not working on day old posts, must be a time limit, or I am restricted some how.....in any case, please accept my post below as my mea culpa, you are indeed correct in my omission.
     
  3. ariesgodofwar

    ariesgodofwar New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My "Edit" button has gone missing, but Elementary is correct, I erred and failed to include the bolded above in my post. I was not asserting that anything has been denied from the defense (I do not know), I was speaking strictly to the State of Florida's Public Disclosure Statutes.
     
  4. elementary

    elementary No More Excuses

    Messages:
    3,077
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    (Sorry, I don't know how to include quotes from OP.)

    It seems to me that the prosecution is doing everything by the book and doing what is allowed according to Florida law.

    As to the arguments above:

    1. VSA (Voice Stress Analysis), as far as I know, is inadmissible in Florida, so to me it is a moot point that "exculpatory evidence" as the OP asserts "may have been withheld". Besides, the defence already has it.


    2.
    http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm

    3. The last link is a blog and therefore a secondary source expressing an opinion that has been quoted in the OP.

    What isn't followed up from the title of the post is that prosecution put in a motion to seal GZ's confessions, the cell phone records of GZ, Trayvon and GF, and unidentified 'tests' which would not be admissible anyway.

    What I find interesting is that, almost immediately subsequent to the motion's filing, the new guy on the expanding defence team, Uhrig, spills the beans that it was a VSA test and that GZ passed. So who is playing dirty here- as soon as defence got the motion, first thing they do is go to the media to identify the test and its results, hereby preempting the desired gag and prejudicing the jury pool (it works both ways, IMO). De la Rionda was not out of line, but IMO, Uhrig was.

    I think de la Rionda was fairer to the defence than the defence was to the prosecution:

    Sounds to me like they're leading the prosecution down the garden path. It may not be legal 'misconduct' on the defence's part, but it sure is sneaky and hypocritical, IMO.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...23_1_statements-seal-scene-and-autopsy-photos

    And last but not least, it was not the prosecution that asked him to take the test but SPD.
     
  5. zenreaper

    zenreaper New Member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, the prosecution doesn't want this tried in the media...now that the evidence is making them look BAD. They had no problem with the media trying it, even allowing the NBP to issue a BOUNTY on GZ.
     
  6. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. i.b.nora

    i.b.nora I am polka dot

    Messages:
    8,887
    Likes Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    83
    All of this was talked about in the Bond Hearing (by both sides), I don't see what the big deal is. We don't need to know any of this stuff. In fact, I am starting to feel that all this Sunshine is impeding and harmful to a fair trial of any kind for anyone.
     
  8. ariesgodofwar

    ariesgodofwar New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Prosecution represents the state of Florida and the SPD represents the state of Florida. Ergo, they both represent the same entity, so they are not really separable as they both provide a function of the same judicial process, one investigates, and the other takes that investigation, and represents it in a court of law on behalf of the State.

    So, a few things, about the VSA, as I understand Florida Law, they would be able to ask for a Frye Hearing on Admissibility, but not entirely positive. You make it sound as if VSA's are useless.....if that were the case, I assure you, departments and agency's would not spend $10K a pop to have them. There are some methods which are more accurate than others. Are they so good we can get rid of a jury and just use a VSA? No, but there is a reason they are widely used, and if the hundreds of agencies that use them thought they were worthless, they would save their money. They are an important investigatory tool. A bit like a home pregnancy test of sorts. No licensed physician would make a diagnosis of pregnancy based on one, but they are indeed indicative.

    My understanding of the article is 2 fold-1. George took the test voluntarily at the request of the SPD and 2. According to Uhrig and George's father, his statements were deemed by the VSA to be truthful.

    Is this a "leak" if George's father was the one that put this in the public domain? I think George's father has every right to disclose, and no ethical obligation to withhold information he feels is exculpatory in nature.

    Now about the prosecution refusing to release it, I think is it because it supports the Defense, and they are trying to get the "upper hand" in trying this case in the Media.

    Lastly, you state George's "confessions." We need to be careful with this, because it is the use of the word confession itself which is at issue here. George made statements as to the events of the evening. Setting aside whether those were true, false, contradictory, or otherwise, as to his version of what transpired. What he did not do is "confess" to any crime. Had he done so, maintaining his innocence and pleading not guilty make no sense (as he best bet would be to plea bargain and take a guilty pleas if he had).

    Florida law have very strict stipulations to the limited exemptions it allows to its Public Disclosure Law, basically, the only one being a defendants confession as it would certainly prejudice a jury obviously. What De La Rionda is doing, is trying to change the definition of the word confession. Confessions are voluntary and knowing statements from the accused admitting personal responsibility for a crime, free from influence or duress. What De La Rionda is trying to do is basically get the Judge to change the definition of the statute and instead, interpret the definition of a "confession" to something which is not knowing or voluntary. He is basically trying to turn the word "confession" into "evidence which we do not want made public." He is trying to circumvent the very intent of the law. By definition, some of the very things he is withholding are not confessions, just the same as a Prosecutor is ethically required to include any exculpatory evidence that they may have in a Probable Cause Affidavit as well, and none of it, medical records, witness statements, et al. were included. This is a trainwreck you can see from a mile away, which usually happens with political prosecutions.
     
  9. KateNY

    KateNY Perpetual Lurker

    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...n-martin-shooting/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea

    BBM
     
  10. ariesgodofwar

    ariesgodofwar New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, very interesting......so, I wonder how CBS found out about potential "text messages" about leaders for the JFTM crowd? Sadly, he probably did. I think I would say no so nice things about people calling me a deranged psychopath willing to gun down a child in cold blood. If someone said that to me in a bar, they would be fighting words.
     
  11. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From ariesgodofwar:

    Remember that it was GZ's own lawyer that called his statements 'confessions' in this interview:

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ge...ome/-/1637132/13486818/-/x1vridz/-/index.html
     
  12. AJ Noiter

    AJ Noiter Little Bunny FooFoo

    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think a misunderstanding might be happening with that. Legally they -are- confessions. Outside of the courtroom if you tell someone "they have confessions" it's usually viewed as a negative statement toward the defendant. I think that's what aries is trying to say. Just my thought, of course.
     
  13. jjenny

    jjenny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    31,560
    Likes Received:
    46,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever prosecutions motives for wanting this evidence sealed, I really don't buy that its because prosecution wants Zimmerman's rights protected. And as far as I can tell, prosecution wants Trayvon's cell phone records sealed too? Why? That certainly has nothing to do with Zimmerman's "confessions."
     
  14. cmsg2002

    cmsg2002 New Member

    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    pretty certain GZ's counsel is not objecting to same, and may have also filed a memo in support of same. In this particular case, I believe its a good idea to seal the evidence, at least at this point in the case.
     
  15. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then why do you think MOM agrees to have this evidence sealed and filed his own motion yesterday? See link in #26.
     
  16. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My guess is those records have nothing to do with the case but they checked them out anyway and were part of the investigation. Nothing in them other than the names and numbers of other minors. That would be why MOM would agree. They are of no value to the case. jmo
     
  17. Karmady

    Karmady Former Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just a guess, but because O'Mara doesn't care about sealing the State's evidence since he will see it anyway, and he's more likely to get his own motion about completley different evidence granted if he consents to the State's.
     
  18. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If he were on medications wouldn't that rule out the possibility of using the results of any testing good or bad. One of the questions before a deposition is are you on any type of drugs that would influence your statement. jmo
     
  19. ariesgodofwar

    ariesgodofwar New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For a VSA? No. It does not measure galvanic skin like a polygraph does. VSA measures voice patterns and runs them through a computer to detect stress indicators. To say, "if he were on any medications"......is a bit over broad. While specific medications might allow one to mislead or trick the test, I am not aware of what they are.

    The crux of the above is whether the drugs would "influence your statement." Why would you assume George was on such drugs? If he was on Terazapam, he would be sleeping, and Adderall would not influence his statement.
     
  20. jjenny

    jjenny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    31,560
    Likes Received:
    46,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They removed the names of the witnesses so why couldn't the same thing be done with the cell phone records? I am interested in those due to girlfriend's claim she called Trayvon after head set fell off. I believe she also mentioned something about texting. Would be interesting to see if there were texts and if they fit with the story.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice