Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I'm here with our senior judicial analyst Chad and you know -- -- Joining me today to discuss latest -- comments and Zimmerman and overall.
How was the case going and how about some of the rulings that have been quite controversial.
That the judge has had to make in this case says thanks for being with me it's always been happy with -- -- fantastic.
We're -- both back and our home turf -- -- her careers trying cases not a notorious does that assure our courtrooms like that absolutely so this is an interesting because from that judicial perspective the judges had.
As -- heavy lifting to do in terms of the different types of evidence -- had taken consider in particular.
Recently with the 911 call she had to make an evidentiary finding as to whether or not in this was assigned to cabinet and it that was reliable.
Right can be helpful to the -- that wouldn't be too.
-- prejudicial and she was deciding whether or not.
Voice recognition experts that come -- to testify for the prosecution.
And make -- specific determination.
As to the identity.
Yelling for help.
On that not one can't -- -- well.
Each side has ask an expert who listen to this tape that the crucial part of tape is just a couple of seconds long.
And each side is gonna say it is the person whose voice that side wants that debate so they government is going to say it was -- right yelling for help.
And as government's experts were prepared to say that it was Zimmerman and yelling for help.
In a case where the the field of expertise is a novel one.
Like listening to a tape them including whose -- it is -- -- The court is obliged to scrutinize the experts testimony become the gatekeeper -- and and the site is is the expert capable.
Giving this to -- If there is scientific basis that it.
Is there -- community of scientists in this field who would accept this scientific basis.
So if the court decides still too -- for me this is basically just your gut feeling.
Not like you -- -- to -- to come up with full -- four.
It's not like you had a radar gun.
That was able to determine how faster car was going hi this is sort of it sounds more -- drive on to me.
Than it does government or vice Versa and the court will not permitted and has she did not -- that doesn't mean the experts can't testify.
And testify to other noises and sounds that are on there.
But the jury will decide on aided by an opinion from the experts as to whose -- it is.
But aided from an opinion by the expert to what -- listen to them.
The jury will decide whose voices I think she made the right decision I think voice recognition that technology is not yet reached the point where it is generally acceptable.
In American courtrooms.
And and and I'm smiling because it's it's sort of the default thing to do when you can't decide what to do.
What did you let it get it.
Inside so it -- and I readily accepted scientific.
And an answer -- -- that you kind of part of a jury -- is it money.
Have the wrong fact which is to confuse -- Jerry mislead the jury and depending on who can pay who'd come testify right you can have it up and down.
When the -- makes these decisions you avoid who can -- to testify you avoid that what lawyers call.
Shouting match for the swearing match between experts when the case then -- really resolved -- whose expert is more persuasive.
Can the government meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes excellent well stated now there's also a lot of discussion speculation on the legal express.
As to whether or not of course towards an amendment to take the stand.
There's been statements coming in him testifying -- -- will basically giving a witness statement to the authorities right.
He also gave -- statement our very -- Sean Hannity.
That can be introduced in court as well depending on certain aspects of it it was a statement.
Against interests and in some respects that you know can make that determination.
But if he does take the stand any of the prior statements can be used.
Against -- He's got a lot of prior statements and statements made that press statements made it to the -- -- statements made.
Two record and in and pretrial hearings.
But the decision to testify -- -- made by him obviously practiced as you know and -- really can't be made until the government's case is in.
Mean for example the government's case -- to -- today.
And there's no wait a testament haven't even made at a base case in fact their first three witnesses have gone in his favor.
Sometimes it's their fault sometimes it's not their fault but the first three people who put -- have been turned around and becomes government witnesses -- very astute cross examination.
Cross examination might add by someone we were mocking and laughing at -- -- opening statement was so.
Dreadful than not not -- right he's a far better cross examiner.
Then he is and maker of opening state I don't I would -- parent your honor -- happened the heartland but Zimmerman of course will be guided by his lawyers -- by the court for that.
That if it does take the steam and he will open up they can of worms.
Permitting because a cross examined about virtually everything he said in virtually any forum in the courtroom are not about his behavior that.
And any communications to be sent text messages or emails or this is something hasn't you know you -- you can bet the government has that you combat yes -- they -- they got them from.
The NSA and -- NSA hasn't it been spending their free time reading that -- Zimmerman emails and text messages.
I'm you bring -- such great point because.
No one really knew we had no house to think that we've heard different ports and -- in the press and in the media but now is the actual evidence under.
Officers coming and be girlfriend.
Slash friend of -- on that was there you know I'm -- one tape.
For the jury to hear now we're able to hear it because they allow.
The cameras in the courtroom.
Out of Florida so -- and were able to really get insight into that judicial process the court system.
Here all of the evidence and you make a point that so far.
In the case for an end tomorrow.
He would need to take the stand you know on some of those problems with his I don't know that the DA at all -- -- from passionate case for even a second to -- the.
-- no I don't think that is the DA has and they start -- at -- start -- witnesses -- usually you can start out of your strongest witnesses -- -- witnesses that can -- the most basic -- story.
If these -- the best witnesses the government -- -- you're looking at a director verdict of acquittal.
-- maybe they have more smoking gun basically these witnesses have acknowledged.
The defendant's version of events right which it is -- -- of dollars to fight have a life and he was on the bottom had to save his life.
If the jury only here is that version.
Then there is no version of criminality and there's no reason to proceed forward we'll give the government the benefit of them -- not stupid they're very experienced prosecutors.
Maybe they're seen as smoking gun for the end they shouldn't do it and as jurors are human beings that we in another told not to.
The -- conclusions they'll begin to form conclusions like hey there's no there there that's the last thing in the world the government wants.
I was talking about this -- -- -- that it again the ball's going to be in the judge's court I think -- -- significant way.
Is on the defense attorney in this case I am gonna make a motion for directed verdict at the very least to make sure that the second degree.
Is -- -- as -- of the jury perhaps and they just proceed on the manslaughter charges to the jury met.
No this is a question -- mean -- is that that government does -- say.
Lose credibility with jurors when they -- cases like this they had access all of these witnesses.
All of this information before hand and mr.
And statements keep in mind they took it quite a long time to charge him -- this case.
You know as as a judge I -- at times got furious internally.
When I -- overcharging think -- myself this is really absurd here is that the best interpretation of their best evidence that there was no cross examination.
That's not support this -- but I understand why prosecutors do that and they're torn between.
On the one hand losing credibility with the -- are charging a crime as to which the evidence this is clearly insufficient and we have a hand they they know that your sometimes compromise and verdicts and have the highest charges second -- they really think he's guilty.
Of aggravated manslaughter and that's the crime that one -- victim -- long a better chance of a compromise that so I understand why they do that they run the risk.
Of manipulating the system that run the risk of ethical problems right run the risk of losing credibility with that judge for the rest of their careers.
When they persistently and consistently.
I agree I really think it's unconscionable you have tremendous power when you work for the government and you know access to -- support for help for everything -- you have.
A guilty person you better be able to put a case together.
Take it case and when someone's looking at life behind bars.
And charge someone with a second degree especially in a situation like this for so much time has elapsed.
The police officers declined.
To even present for filing initially on this case in -- NBA got involved.
Well it's it's very problematic and look it's not going well for them it.
It's too early to say here.
It's probably -- three to four week government case this is only the second week.
It could turn around and -- and the -- and it yes yes we have seen when both tried yours yes absolutely.
But so far.
Very good for the defense and -- -- -- -- cross examine him they have no affirmative obligation to present any correct any self defense evident as absolutely that burden in Florida is with the prosecution as well now.
We'll see what happens that they continue to watch our cal coverage --
Filter by section