George's previous 911 calls - admissible?

The prosecution calls Ramona Rumph as the last witness today.

She maintains the calls received on the 911 and non emergency lines for the sheriff's office for 26 years.

Mantei asked her some questions about reports and started playing a 911 call made by Zimmerman on August 3, 2011.

In the call, Zimmerman reports a suspicious person and tells the the dispatcher about some break-ins in the neighborhood. Zimmerman says that the suspect matches the description of the person who allegedly did the break-in.

The defense objected and Judge Nelson sent the jury out of the courtroom.

The prosecution and defense went at each other after the jury left the room.

The defense claims the prosecution shouldn't be able to play this previous 911 call as it falls under "previous bad acts" by the defendant, which are excluded as prejudicial.

The prosecution argues that this call is relevant as it goes to Zimmerman's state of mind on the night that he shot Trayvon and ties into Zimmerman's characterization of Trayvon as one of "these fucking punks who always get away".

I'm surprised that the admissibility of George's previous 911 calls hasn't been addressed before now.

Judge Nelson indicates this matter will be researched and adjourns court for the day. Jury dismissed.

The defense is calling George's history of calling the non-emergency number on his neighbors prior bad acts?

The relevancy is so evident. The State better win this one. Glad they have the night to work on it.

I just can't let this go. The Defense is calling George's previous calls to 911 prior bad acts???

I don't understand. What does that even mean?

(06-24-2013, 05:33 PM)Adub Wrote: I just can't let this go. The Defense is calling George's previous calls to 911 prior bad acts???

Me neither.

Didn't the defense have to know that this particular call could be played in court through discovery, Adub?

Seems like a semantics legal maneuver to keep the calls out if there's any way possible to do so. Those sometimes work, but rarely.

If the defense calls the previous 911 call a "bad act", then they're essentially labeling the call to report Trayvon a "bad act" too. Not in front of the jury though, of course.

Not understanding why O'Mara didn't try to get the previous calls omitted before trial, unless he did and failed and is now trying another approach to keep them away from the jury.

(06-24-2013, 05:35 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I don't understand. What does that even mean?

The legal definition:
Prior bad acts are sometimes allowed as evidence in a criminal case as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. They are governed by federal and state evidence rules, which vary by state. Becuase of the potential for prejudice to the defendant, they must be substantially relevant for some purpose other than to point out the defendant's criminal character and thus to show the probability that he acted in conformity therewith. Therfore, the relevance and probative value of the evidence must be demonstrated.


Usually, a prior bad act entails a crime committed by the defendant in the past, accusation of incriminating or illegal behavior in the past, or something to that effect (based on cases that I've followed). In this case, O'Mara is using previous calls to 911 where George identified black males as suspicious as "prior bad acts". Never seen it used in such a way.

But, going by the legal definition above, it's actually a pretty smart move, imo. O'Mara may be able to make a case that those calls will be more prejudicial to George than they are relevant or of probative value to the case.

(06-24-2013, 05:39 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(06-24-2013, 05:33 PM)Adub Wrote: I just can't let this go. The Defense is calling George's previous calls to 911 prior bad acts???

Me neither.

Didn't the defense have to know that this particular call could be played in court through discovery, Adub?

Seems like a semantics legal maneuver to keep the calls out if there's any way possible to do so. Those sometimes work, but rarely.

If the defense calls the previous 911 call a "bad act", then they're essentially labeling the call to report Trayvon a "bad act" too. Not in front of the jury though, of course.

Not understanding why O'Mara didn't try to get the previous calls omitted before trial, unless he did and failed and is now trying another approach to keep them away from the jury.

George starts everyone of his police statements off with the calls he had previously made to 911, and the crimes in his community. State of mind. And no, O'Mara never tried to exclude any of this. It is why GZ saw Trayvon as suspicious. This Judge will get it. It will be a very important ruling.

(06-24-2013, 05:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Usually, a prior bad act entails a crime committed by the defendant in the past, accusation of incriminating or illegal behavior in the past, or something to that effect (based on cases that I've followed). In this case, O'Mara is using previous calls to 911 where George identified black males as suspicious as "prior bad acts". Never seen it used in such a way.

Thank you very much. I just didn't get why his own attorney would be referencing something his client did as a "bad act". I understand now.

(06-24-2013, 06:18 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-24-2013, 05:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Usually, a prior bad act entails a crime committed by the defendant in the past, accusation of incriminating or illegal behavior in the past, or something to that effect (based on cases that I've followed). In this case, O'Mara is using previous calls to 911 where George identified black males as suspicious as "prior bad acts". Never seen it used in such a way.

Thank you very much. I just didn't get why his own attorney would be referencing something his client did as a "bad act".

Because the Judge is good. And she is not allowing the attorneys to make speaking objections. If an attorney objects, they have to state the grounds for the objection and STFU!

I guess this is the best that the defense could come up with when put on the spot. The defense fucked-up. And tried to squirm out of it. I think. I will have to go back and listen.

(06-24-2013, 06:29 PM)Adub Wrote: Because the Judge is good. And she is not allowing the attorneys to make speaking objections. If an attorney objects, they have to state the grounds for the objection and STFU!

I guess this is the best that the defense could come up with when put on the spot. The defense fucked-up. And tried to squirm out of it. I think. I will have to go back and listen.

Defense objected to the previous call being played on grounds of "relevance".

I agree with you, the relevance is obvious. And, the judge's ruling will be a very important one.

Not til after the jury was removed did the "previous bad acts" language come into the equation by the defense. Imo, the defense knows that the previous call is relevant to state of mind. But, they wanna argue that it's not "substantially" relevant and could be more prejudicial to their client than it is relevant or valuable to the truth of the case. JMO.

The attorneys will be arguing the matter again in court at 8:30 a.m. EST tomorrow (5:30 a.m. for us, yikes) outside of the jury. I don't know if those arguments will be in open or closed court; hope we can see it.

The jury is scheduled to be back in court tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. EST.

I think someone told George to wake the fuck up.

The Judge really needs to get this. George is a fucking serial 911 caller. It makes him feel important to talk to people on the other end, and have them appear to understand and listen. I bet George hangs up with a fucking hard on.

(06-24-2013, 06:29 PM)Adub Wrote: I guess this is the best that the defense could come up with when put on the spot. The defense fucked-up. And tried to squirm out of it. I think. I will have to go back and listen.

Just saw it replayed.

O'Mara is basically accusing the prosecution of using the previous 911 calls as "prior bad acts" since calls from months ago aren't relevant to the crime or current state of mind.

Mantei rattled off several valid points as to how the previous call(s) go towards establishing state of mind, which is required for Murder 2. He also reminded the court that it was essentially the defense who opened the door to more scrutiny of previous calls by hammering on previous crime in the area.

Judge Nelson was none too pleased with the defense for not bringing this objection forth previously (I missed that part on initial viewing).

It's gonna be an interesting argument tomorrow morning.

(06-24-2013, 06:53 PM)username Wrote: I think someone told George to wake the fuck up.

I missed the Judge telling him to standup and swear that he knows WTF his attorney are doing. Is Judge Nelson slipping? Or is that just important at pre-trial? I really don't know. She did it every day during jury selection.

Maybe that is where West got his knock knock joke.

(06-24-2013, 07:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: O'Mara is basically accusing the defense of using the previous 911 calls as "prior bad acts" since calls from months ago aren't relevant to the crime or current state of mind.

I thought I understood what was happening until you wrote "O'Mara is basically accusing the defense". Isn't Omara the defense attorney? So why would he say adversarial things about the defense?

^ I corrected that mistake before you replied, Zero. Sorry for the confusion.

Zero, she changed it.

I just "got" that stupid knock-knock "joke" about 30 minutes ago. What an idiot.

I wonder if opening the door to George's prior acts opens the door for O'Mara to bring up supposed prior acts of Trayvon? Anyone?

(06-24-2013, 07:15 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: ^ I corrected that mistake before you replied, Zero. Sorry for the confusion.

To clarify then. It is the prosecution that wants the calls included but the defense wants them excluded on the grounds that they are more inflammatory then probative in scope.

But who is declaring them 'past bad acts'? If the defense is making that declaration isn't that a damaging character reference.

(06-24-2013, 07:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(06-24-2013, 06:29 PM)Adub Wrote: I will have to go back and listen.

Just saw it replayed.

It's gonna be an interesting argument tomorrow morning.

I missed a lot. My life is being consumed by a five-year-old. Even the promise of Disneyland isn't enough to get him to back-off.

And after today, Disneyland probably appears to be some what threatening.

(06-24-2013, 07:19 PM)username Wrote: I just "got" that stupid knock-knock "joke" about 30 minutes ago. What an idiot.

I understand every member of the jury felt the same and only one presented him with a 'courtesy smile' while the others looked dumbfounded at his stupidity.