Zimmermann's bond was revoked for his failure to disclose all assets.

Kly, please comment.

That's amazing. Mob guys lie about their assets all the time when looking for reduced bail, and the prosecutors barely look into the matter after the fact. This whole thing has become too media driven for me.

The prosecution just began the cross-examination of George Zimmerman, who will likely have to testify if he's going to request a self-defense instruction.

His misstatements as to his assets and his failure to mention or surrender a second passport in his possession will be used among other things to impeach his credibility. Having the bail revoked, which is an appropriate request, given the nature and context of the deception, adds an exclamation point to the false testimony.

There is a constitutional right to bail under federal and state law, but it is not absolute and the right protects against unreasonable bail.

The two-fold purpose of bail is to protect the public and ensure the appearance of the defendant. while Zimmerman's bail testimony suggested he wasn't a flight risk, you can bet the court is furious that he kept a passport and failed to disclose $135,000 in assets.

dontomasso, who is familiar with Florida criminal procedure, cacn offer a valuable perspective.

I don't know the ins and outs of what is allowed during a trail, but can the prosecution bring this up? Considering that right now this case is he said/he said, plus whatever forensics they have, can the prosecution use this to show that Zimmerman is not a credible guy?? Can they use it against him at trial?

From all the talk shows I saw earlier tonight, I think they are able to...not 100% sure though.

I thought I heard discussions earlier on tv where supposed experts didn't think they'd be able to use this evidence. However, he also, as I understand, hid the fact that he had two passports.

Since Treyvon isn't able to speak for himself it's basically Zimmerman's account so it would seem his credibility should matter.

TIS

Thanks, Kly, for that very erudite explanation.

You're right: he put himself in a big bind. If he claims self-defense, he'll have to testify. If he does, the prosecution could cite the retained passport and the lie about assets to impeach his credibility.

Nice summation, Klyd .

It can be used aginst him in trial only if he testifies because its probative value is only relevant to his credibility. And credibility only becomes an issue if he restifies.

So Zimmerman is in a bit of a Catch-22. If he testifies, his credibility is subject to attack. If he doesn't testify, he will not likely be able to sustain his burden of presenting the necessary elements of the affirmative defense of self defense.

If I were defending him, I would be scurrying to see if I could establish the self defense argument through other witnesses. If it's shaky, which it likely will be. I'd have him testify, and on direct testimony question him about the false statements at the bail hearing. I would ask him to explain himself in open ended questions, which would soften the impact on the jurors and take some of the sting out of cross-examination.

That was a lesson that wiser attorneys taught me when I was young: Don't try to hide your warts and scars. Rather display them openly.

I believe that should be applied for common sense in general.

Amen

Kly, forgive a naive question, but...

If Zimmerman chooses to testify, could he still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to answer specific questions? I know a defendant can do that in a federal trial (i.e., the Rosenberg spy case, when both defendants chose to testify but invoked the Fifth selectively). Not sure he can do it in a state trial.

If he can take the Fifth selectively, and he chooses to do so, the prosecutor will have a field day with the jury's perception of him ("Did you associate the decedent's wearing of a hoodie with black 'gangstas'?" "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me"). Imagine Michael Corleone at the Senate hearing: "Were you responsible for ordering the murder of the heads of the Five Families in 1950?" "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me."

Keep in mind that self-defense claim or not, the state has to prove 2nd degree murder, a predicate of which is intent. The witnesses could be critical and Zimmermann's injuries are going to be hard to overcome. I still say that the way that the two of them became proximate to each other is the critical factor. If the state can show that Z went after the victim, then the chance for conviction increases. If not, well ...

By the way, what would normally be the lesser charges included in jury instructions?

That's not a naive question at all. The right still applies in state court as well as federal court. I've seen it happen when a criminal defendant testified in detail about a homicide, which was the basis of his charge, but when asked about his association with a witness, who had pending drug charges, he took the Fifth. The effect was just as you suggested.

Voluntary manslaughter would be a likely charge, on which the jury would be instructed. I don't know whether the evidence would support a basis for involuntary homicide. The grading and elements of homicide charges vary slightly among the states.

But you are right that the foremost hurdle is that the prosecution must prove the elements of their case.

K2 Spice Ban In Macomb County
The gas station owners ignored requests before. I don't think they'll be able to ignore this.

Kly, while disclosure is incumbent upon the prosecution, what about the defense? It has to disclose its witness list, right? What about any physical evidence it intends to introduce?

The defense is obligated to offer alibi witnesses and their phone numbers and addresses, expert witnesses, and any witnesses it wishes to present in support of an affirmative defense, which includes defenses like diminished capacity, coercion, insanity, alibi, self-defense, etc.

The defense does not have to provide the names of any rebuttal or fact witnesses. Sometimes the court will ask how many witnesses they plan to present in order to calendar the trial appropriately. Usually, the prosecutor can figure out who the witnesses are likely to be, and they can always request an offer of proof where they are not sure what the witness is going to say.

Thanks. In My Cousin Vinny, the prosecution presents a last minute expert witness who will base his testimony on tests he conducted on prosecution evidence. Vinny requests a continuence to review that witness's test findings and his bona fides. The judge denies the continuence. Might that be reversible error?

Yes, it would. But the movie wouldn't have been as funny. Also, it's unlikely that Marissa Tomei would have been qualified as an expert, but her testimony was a classic.

That's interesting about Tomei. The DA voir dired her. What do you see as the qualification deficiency.

There cracking down on that shit all over the place they had some arrests and raids in s. jersey within the last 3 months. An associate of mine owns a headshop, hes been arrested and had $17K worth of merchandise taken at a flea market in Bucks County,PA

A lack of board certifications. The DA made a mistake by asking the trick question and subjecting himself to embarrassment in front of the jury. He should have then asked whether she regularly studies automobiles and works on cars in the course and scope of her hairdressing career, and establish that while she is familiar with cars, she can not be held out as an expert without the certifications.

Also, her relationship with Vinny would have been explored if she hadn't ruined the prosecution's case.


One of the funniest scenes in that movie was when she resisted testifying and said, "I hate him." about Vinny and the judge said, "I can see that."

This scene (and three or four other movie trial scenes) was used in a continuing legal education course I once attended.

That's agreat scene. I use parts of this movie in my classes to illustrate steps in the criminal justice process.

Jury selection for Jerry Sandusky's trial should be completed today.

Kly, are alternates in the deliberation room? I can't recall from my jury service.

Sometimes even a New York City judge gets it right .

Judge blasts 'monster mom' before handing out 32 years to life sentence for death of 4-year-old daughter

By JOSE MARTINEZ, New York Post

The monster mom who beat, drugged and starved her daughter to death shamelessly blamed everyone but herself today as she was sentenced to 32 years to life in prison as it emerged that her other child, the tragic girl’s then-5-year-old brother, heartbreakingly brought food to the tyke’s funeral so she could be “fed” in heaven.

Carlotta Brett-Pierce brazenly shirked responsibility for the death of her 4-year-old daughter, Marchella, who weighed just 18.9 pounds and had a single kernel of corn in her stomach when she died, portraying herself as a "loving and caring mother" overcome by poverty and a lack of smarts

"I do not accept responsibility for the actual death of my daughter, because in fact, I did not kill her," Brett-Pierce said defiantly, blaming jurors, the press and her own lawyers for her predicament. "This is a tragedy."

Justice Patricia DiMango disgustedly told the monster mom to get lost, trashing her as a "self-centered, volatile and belligerent woman" whose guilt was so overwhelming that a jury needed only 90 minutes last month to convict her of murder.

"What kind of person could do this to child, let alone her own child?" thundered DiMango, who also sentenced grandma Loretta Brett to five to 15 years in prison for manslaughter.

"Children do matter in society, and they do have a voice, even in death," the judge added.

The skeletal and battered little girl died in September 2010, after enduring a living hell in which she was denied food and strapped with jump-ropes to her tiny SpongeBob bed.

"Food, water and basic human parenting would have kept her alive," DiMango said.

But "neglect and apathy" at the hands of her loved ones doomed Marchella - who was a 26-pound "flourishing little girl" when she left an upstate clinic months before her death to go live with her mom in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

Once there, the sickly child was force-fed pills and battered, often in front of her brother, Tymel.

"This child, at her tender age, was subjected to a hell that no one should have to endure," DiMango said.

Yet, her mom refused to drop the bravado, showing up in court in a suede mini-skirt to beg for mercy.

"By no means am I a malicious or a vicious person," she insisted.

"I'm not perfect," Brett-Pierce whined, saying she lacked the education and money to "care for such a sickly baby."

Kagan also revealed that 7-year-old Tymel was deeply traumatized at having to testify against his mom.

"He witnessed her conduct atrocious, despicable behavior toward his sister, who he loved,"she said.

The prosecutor said the boy continues grieving his little sister, who he sweetly tried to help at her funeral.

"He brought with him food because he knew she didn't get enough," Kagan said. "And he told his foster mother, 'I hope that she gets enough food and water in heaven."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brook...L#ixzz1x2cwbB6f

Well wonders never cease. But do I even need to say what sentence would be more appropriate?

No. They're with the other jurors at all times from voir dire to the end of the judge's jury instructions. The last thing the judge does before sending the twelve jurors to deliberate is thank and dismiss the alternates.

It's a very interesting panel that's been selected. Most of the jurors have ties to Penn State, either as alumni or employees. This is expected as Centre County is not big and PSU is huge. There is even one juror, who personally knows Sandusky, though he is an acquaintence and not a friend.

Not in this case, buddy.