or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 239

post #3571 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

And in other news, 47 shootings and 11 murders in Chicago this past weekend,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/us/a-violent-weekend-in-chicago-despite-a-recent-trend-of-decreasing-homicides.html?_r=0

Predominantly all black on black violence. Where were the CNN writer, Sunny Hostin, Al and Jesse on this story?

How does this relate to T & Z? You do the math.

the same reason those numbers do matter nor register with people are the same reason the this zimmerman case should not be on the radar... no one really cares when coloreds kill coloreds. which I find that the attention that this thing get is amazing, you do not have 100 page threads on that chicago violence on stormfront...


and those number alone indicate the need for proper gun training, only slightly above 20% fatality rate, when it is about 60% that is acceptable.
post #3572 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

" and now know how important it is to distinguish between a white Hispanic vs. a plain old Hispanic.
Have you not learned anything here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

That dumb bint doesn't know what "presumption of innocence" means. I loathe her.
I agree she's an idiot. But to be a little bit fair, I take that comment, in context, to be describing her view of the presumption juries actually apply in murder cases, rather than the presumption they're supposed to apply. But yeah, she's stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

The judge finally ran out of steam and very abruptly recesses. But she's reconvening at 8 AM tomorrow. O'Mara says he's not prepared for tomorrow. West says, Judge, I'm not physically able to keep up this pace. She talks over them and says too bad.

That's something else.

West is clearly in the wrong profession. Trials are a grind, but it comes with the territory. And this hasn't even been that long of a trial. I've had (as many other folks have) trials that last a month or more, where not just during trial but during the run-up to trial you're working 12-18 hour days, interspersed with the occasional all-nighter. I usually got ridiculously sick afterwards when my brain finally allowed my body to relax, but generally adrenaline and perseverance get you through.

Of course, those were mostly before I got old.


Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

I'm not sure how the Defense would use the animations during closing arguments without having the person who prepared the animation testify as to what it represents and where the info for it came from.
I'd be curious about your experience with these sorts of animations. I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't ridiculously prejudicial and misleading, and I think the risks of juries over-fixating on them and being unable to distinguish them from actual evidence is quite high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

What I'm getting is that the people shooting on Thursday had terrible aim.
Ha. Reminds me of a few years back when the the Police Department here in LA was publicly crowing that fatal shootings had decreased by, say, 5% or some such as compared to the previous year. Much later in the news story it was mentioned that non-fatal shootings were up like 25%. So basically the police were taking credit for the public's declining marksmanship skills.
post #3573 of 6250
How does the prosecutor get to introduce a dummy and straddle it on the floor in front of the jury when a defense 3-D animation is not allowed? I mean, a guy with a dummy to demonstrate what he wants to show has to be pretty similar to a 3-D recreation.
post #3574 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

How does the prosecutor get to introduce a dummy and straddle it on the floor in front of the jury when a defense 3-D animation is not allowed? I mean, a guy with a dummy to demonstrate what he wants to show has to be pretty similar to a 3-D recreation.

For one thing, it's much harder for many jurors to appreciate what assumptions or theories are incorporated into the animation. It presents as a "scientific", integrated piece, and some people feel like it's the same as watching the events on TV (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not that much). There's a (false) air of verisimilitude to those sorts of illustrations that isn't present when they see somebody acting something out live.

That effect is exaggerated if they are allowed to have the animation in the jury room and play it over and over. They start to focus on it, and many jurors start viewing it as "evidence" rather than just an illustrative aid reflecting somebody's theories and assumptions.

I'm sure there are studies out there that deal with this, of course -- they may support my anecdotal experience and theorizing, or may run contrary to it.
post #3575 of 6250
I've never really understood how they planned to get that animation in as substantive evidence without showing it to the actual witnesses.
post #3576 of 6250
Thanks for the interesting answer. So the defense could have that re-creation guy just have it acted out live in front of the jury? I think I would have tried to get that done if I was the defense.
post #3577 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I've never really understood how they planned to get that animation in as substantive evidence without showing it to the actual witnesses.

That's also a good point. You do need to lay a foundation (which at least in theory acts as a control on the more potentially misleading aspects), although I've seen people try to fudge that by trying to characterize it as a mere demonstrative as opposed to evidence per se.
post #3578 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Thanks for the interesting answer. So the defense could have that re-creation guy just have it acted out live in front of the jury? I think I would have tried to get that done if I was the defense.

My gut reaction is: probably, yes. The judge has discretion as to whether to allow it, of course. Aside from more technical rules of evidence, the general standard is that the judge can exclude evidence if she determines that whatever probative value it has is outweighed by the risk of juror confusion, delay, or unfair prejudice.

Although if they did so, the prosecution likely would get a chance to cross-examine the re-creation guy, and it would become a big, sloppy mess.
post #3579 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

For one thing, it's much harder for many jurors to appreciate what assumptions or theories are incorporated into the animation. It presents as a "scientific", integrated piece, and some people feel like it's the same as watching the events on TV (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not that much). There's a (false) air of verisimilitude to those sorts of illustrations that isn't present when they see somebody acting something out live.

That effect is exaggerated if they are allowed to have the animation in the jury room and play it over and over. They start to focus on it, and many jurors start viewing it as "evidence" rather than just an illustrative aid reflecting somebody's theories and assumptions.

I'm sure there are studies out there that deal with this, of course -- they may support my anecdotal experience and theorizing, or may run contrary to it.

I think you're pretty spot on here. I took a CLE a year or so ago on this topic and those are the kinds of issues a trial court has to weigh. This is a pretty decent article on it.

http://cogentlegal.com/blog/2011/05/computer-animations-vs-simulations-for-evidence/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

How does the prosecutor get to introduce a dummy and straddle it on the floor in front of the jury when a defense 3-D animation is not allowed? I mean, a guy with a dummy to demonstrate what he wants to show has to be pretty similar to a 3-D recreation.

True, but unlike an animation the dummy is readily available for use by the defense to demonstrate their own theory. That's exactly was O'Mara did today when he took the dummy and used it himself. That's a little more difficult to do with a computer animation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


I'd be curious about your experience with these sorts of animations. I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't ridiculously prejudicial and misleading, and I think the risks of juries over-fixating on them and being unable to distinguish them from actual evidence is quite high.

They're usually pretty terribly one sided. I've only seen them used in murder trials or PI cases. In murder cases it's a struggle to get the client to cough up the $$$ to pay for a rebuttal animation. Zimmerman's case is the opposite of my normal experience, where the prosecution is the one that can afford the animation. If Z's case weren't so high profile and hadn't received so much financial support from the public there'd be no way he could get one done. The one's I've sourced run about $10,000 for prep and testimony included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I've never really understood how they planned to get that animation in as substantive evidence without showing it to the actual witnesses.

If they based it on the statements made by Z to the police and his description of events I think they could conceivably get it in.
post #3580 of 6250
So I've been watching this in spurts and starts, but I've never understood exactly what the prosecution's version of events is. It sounds like they are claiming that Zimmerman chased him down and shot him point blank in the chest, which is frankly absurd. Am I missing something? Even the people arguing that Zimmerman should go to prison don't generally seem to be supporting that theory.
post #3581 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

If they based it on the statements made by Z to the police and his description of events I think they could conceivably get it in.

I'm a little fuzzy on this at the moment, but you can't lay a foundation for entering a picture into evidence by having someone describe the scene, can you? How's this different?
post #3582 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

So I've been watching this in spurts and starts, but I've never understood exactly what the prosecution's version of events is. It sounds like they are claiming that Zimmerman chased him down and shot him point blank in the chest, which is frankly absurd. Am I missing something? Even the people arguing that Zimmerman should go to prison don't generally seem to be supporting that theory.

It doesn't matter how it happened, it's that a white (LOL) man killed a black teenager, and that is murder. Duh!
post #3583 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

It doesn't matter how it happened, it's that a white (LOL) man killed a black teenager, and that is murder. Duh!

A child! A 6'3" little boy.
post #3584 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I'm a little fuzzy on this at the moment, but you can't lay a foundation for entering a picture into evidence by having someone describe the scene, can you? How's this different?

Assuming FLA follows in some semblance the federal rules of evidence, "animations" and "recreations" are different from photos in that they are supposed to represent an expert's opinion. So the animation isn't like a picture. A picture is supposed to represent a factual situation. "This is what the scene looked like on the day in question." An animation based on an expert's report is "This is in my opinion how the vehicle accident occurred."
post #3585 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

If they based it on the statements made by Z to the police and his description of events I think they could conceivably get it in.

I'm a little fuzzy on this at the moment, but you can't lay a foundation for entering a picture into evidence by having someone describe the scene, can you? How's this different?

The foundation for a reenactment video would be similar. In this case the problem is that there is no witness other than the defendant who could lay that foundation, and if they don't want him to testify he can't do it.

You could try to use an expert to get a reenactment in, but that would be dicey if the only factual foundation for the expert is Z's statements to the police, which are hearsay when offered by the defense. Although experts can rely on hearsay, a video that is based almost entirely on the defendant's satements would basically be testimony without the opportunity for cross.

If there was adequate forensic and other testimony about the crime to create a video without reliance on the defendant's statements, it would be much easier for an expert to get it in. I don't know if there is enough in this case, and I doubt the video was prepared in sole reliance on testimony actually in the record.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon