06-25-2013, 10:08 AM
So, Matei made his case as to why the previous 911 calls go towards state of mind and cited 5 or 6 case laws. Matei's says they're clearly relevant and the defense has been aware of the witness and the previous calls being part of the state's case for months.
O'Mara made his case that, essentially, the prosecution was using previous "good" acts to lead the jury into thinking they were previous "bad" acts and then to draw the jury into a belief that all of these previous acts had Zimmerman seething under the surface and to show bad character. O'Mara says they are therefore not relevant under the rules of evidence regarding previous acts; O'Mara doesn't believe that anything in the defense's opening or his cross of the 911 operator opened doors for those calls to be played for the jury.
That's a nutshell summary based on my understanding.
Nelson will review the arguments and evidence and make a ruling on the admissibility of the previous 911 calls later.
Testimony continues now without those previous 911 calls.
O'Mara made his case that, essentially, the prosecution was using previous "good" acts to lead the jury into thinking they were previous "bad" acts and then to draw the jury into a belief that all of these previous acts had Zimmerman seething under the surface and to show bad character. O'Mara says they are therefore not relevant under the rules of evidence regarding previous acts; O'Mara doesn't believe that anything in the defense's opening or his cross of the 911 operator opened doors for those calls to be played for the jury.
That's a nutshell summary based on my understanding.
Nelson will review the arguments and evidence and make a ruling on the admissibility of the previous 911 calls later.
Testimony continues now without those previous 911 calls.