quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Here's the Florida rule on character evidence.

90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.—

1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.—
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
(c) Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.

(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.—
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

The point is, with information coming out since, there's good reason to argue it shouldn't have counted against him, as there's no evidence of falsehood on George's part. (There is however, evidence of falsehood on the State's part, ie, editing jail call transcripts).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And if nothing else, that's why I was glad to see Lester get kicked off the case. His potted palm statement was absurd.

Does George get to sit there like a potted palm?

Yes, in fact, he does. It's called the fifth amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

The point is, with information coming out since, there's good reason to argue it shouldn't have counted against him, as there's no evidence of falsehood on George's part. (There is however, evidence of falsehood on the State's part, ie, editing jail call transcripts).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And if nothing else, that's why I was glad to see Lester get kicked off the case. His potted palm statement was absurd.

Does George get to sit there like a potted palm?

Yes, in fact, he does. It's called the fifth amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And that will be a cakewalk for O'Mara to keep inadmissible. Mainly because George said and did absolutely nothing in regards to that matter at the bond hearing.

And with the jailhouse calls coming out since then, we've found out that George did in fact tell O'Mara about the money before the bond hearing, that he tried to transfer (IIRC) 30k but it was blocked because of the paypal limit, and that O'Mara told him that the money didn't matter because the defense cost would still be much higher than that and that he was still going to apply for indigence.

Then the following week, George voluntarily turns the entire amount over at the earliest opportunity. There's very compelling evidence that came out after that bond hearing that it really was a mis-communication between George and his attorney.

So we're back to there being absolutely nothing at that bond hearing which can be used as character evidence toward George's honesty...and that "proof" of George lying there simply is non-existent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

And what proof do you have of editing jail call transcripts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And if George wants to claim self defense, he HAS TO TESTIFY. Otherwise there's nothing to rule on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

George Zimmerman has clearly demonstrated he is unable or unwilling to tell THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And if nothing else, that's why I was glad to see Lester get kicked off the case. His potted palm statement was absurd.

Does George get to sit there like a potted palm?

Yes, in fact, he does. It's called the fifth amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And if George wants to claim self defense, he HAS TO TESTIFY. Otherwise there's nothing to rule on.

Untrue.

Zimmerman does not have to testify to get a jury instruction on self-defense

Wright v. State(1998):

A self-defense instruction for the charge of battery on a police officer can be supported by circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself from an officer's use of excessive force in making an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). To raise self-defense, a defendant [**5] does not have to testify directly about his intent behind an act occurring in the past, or that he made a conscious decision to defend himself in a certain way. Not remembering an event does not preclude the possibility of either an intentional act or an accident. From the circumstances surrounding an arrest made with excessive force, a jury might infer that a defendant reasonably believed that responsive force was reasonable and necessary and, therefore, proper. As the second district stated in Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
....it is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury's function to determine that issue.

Goode v. State(2003):

The evidence supporting appellant's theory may be adduced from cross-examination of State witnesses or direct examination of the defense witnesses. See Wright, 705 So. 2d at 104 (citing Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

And if George wants to claim self defense, he HAS TO TESTIFY. Otherwise there's nothing to rule on.

Untrue.

Zimmerman does not have to testify to get a jury instruction on self-defense

Wright v. State(1998):

A self-defense instruction for the charge of battery on a police officer can be supported by circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself from an officer's use of excessive force in making an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). To raise self-defense, a defendant [**5] does not have to testify directly about his intent behind an act occurring in the past, or that he made a conscious decision to defend himself in a certain way. Not remembering an event does not preclude the possibility of either an intentional act or an accident. From the circumstances surrounding an arrest made with excessive force, a jury might infer that a defendant reasonably believed that responsive force was reasonable and necessary and, therefore, proper. As the second district stated in Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
....it is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury's function to determine that issue.

Goode v. State(2003):

The evidence supporting appellant's theory may be adduced from cross-examination of State witnesses or direct examination of the defense witnesses. See Wright, 705 So. 2d at 104 (citing Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)).

That's a jury. We're talking about a motion to dismiss, right? Which is ruled on by the Judge as a matter of law, and not fact, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And if nothing else, that's why I was glad to see Lester get kicked off the case. His potted palm statement was absurd.

Does George get to sit there like a potted palm?

Yes, in fact, he does. It's called the fifth amendment.

And a million dollar bail, for that particular potted palm, silence costs golden, golden.