<p>I think a bigger problem for the prosecution is going to be how difficult the transcript is going to be to read and comprehend. The court reporters have been reported to have had significant difficulty with transcribing the witness’s testimony. Even after it’s cleaned up, the language could be problematic for the jury to understand. We had how many posts dissecting “creepy ass cracker.” The jury will do the same thing if they read back her testimony, and likely have had the same problems in listening to it.</p>
<p>“I read somewhere that there is no gun powder residue on any of TM clothing …”</p>
<p>From the autopsy report referenced below:</p>
<p>“It (the penetrating gunshot wound) consists of a 3/8 inch diameter round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2 X 2 inch area of stippling. This is consistent with a wound of entrance of intermediate range.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf[/url]”>http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf</a></p>
<p>well we all have varied takes. I found her credible, and seemed authentic to a fault. I imagine the jurors may see her as a sympathetic witness, although her attitude may have interfered with some of that. I personally found her very sympathetic and thought she felt “out of her element” on many levels, and I did think there was an attempt to make her seem ignorant, as if because of her literacy issues, she was unable to think or express her thoughts. Fwiw, I had no problem understanding what she said.</p>
<p>I’m not following this except from a distance, and I haven’t seen the young woman or read much about her. But her name appears to be Haitian. It’s quite possible that English is not her first language despite having grown up here, and that she may have parents who speak little English. I have taught many college students who have trouble with English literacy issues and are considered ESL even though they were born in the US.</p>
<p>
Think about how the words will look on a paper. That’s the problem I was referring to. Transcripts can be tough.</p>
<p>For those that understand her so well, please explain this to me, because I don’t understand. The atty asked her that “cracker” was a word used in her culture? She responded yes sir. He then asked what culture is that? She then responded “pervert”. I can’t believe she meant she was a member of the “pervert” culture. What did she mean?</p>
<p>on paper it is more challenging, I agree.</p>
<p>I think her main message of TM being scared, feeling stalked and planning to get back to his father’s fiance’s home came through.</p>
<p>^She thought that she was asked what does it mean (the word “cracker”)?</p>
<p>Zoozer, I think Mr. West could have accomplished a fine cross examination in about one third of the time, and he could have treated the witness politely while doing so. I think that if your case is solid you don’t need to belabor points, repeat questions, or badger a witness.</p>
<p>yh–she misheard, or misunderstood his question, and answered the question “what did the word mean”. and we already discussed, that she didn’t say TM said “cracker”, she stated TM said, “a-- cracker”</p>
<p>
He gets to decide that. If the situation were reversed people would be very upset if a lawyer “went easy” on a witness that they didn’t like. Lawyers have to conduct themselves within the rules of the court, but beyond that, their demeanor (and its consequences) are their own business.</p>
<p>“He gets to decide that.”</p>
<p>Reminds me of a baseball pitcher being interviewed after giving up a game-winning home run. The pitcher was asked why he threw the batter a slider. “Well, I thought he was expecting a fastball.” </p>
<p>Sometimes a given approach works to perfection … sometimes it doesn’t. Still, it’s the Attorney’s prerogative to choose.</p>
<p>Creole, Spanish, English are all spoken in Florida courts regularly with aid of interpreters. One can take the Florida school FCAT standardized tests in any of the three languages, one can take the state’s written drivers license test in any of the three languages. </p>
<p>Witness Rachel Jeantel communicated just fine in court.</p>
<p>That seems a logical answer. Thank you. When he asked her what culture she was from, she thought he asked her to define the word cracker. Got it. Not a flattering explanation, but I suspect it is correct.</p>
<p>The Defense could have used simple questions instead of hypotheticals that require CR 600+on the SAT. She was not even an eyewitness, only an ear witness. </p>
<p>I loved the part where she waxed poetic about hearing wet grass. :)</p>
<p>Her impressions weren’t changed by the badgering.</p>
<p>I can only imagine how unsure of herself and intimidated this young woman was on the witness stand. I know how anxious I felt when I appeared in court to help in a child custody hearing as a professional. Anxiety can really interfere with how you hear and process questions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read that the first day she was quite combative right back at the attorney. The next day she is “unsure” and “Intimidated?”</p>
<p>One of the things I think most attorneys tell witnesses is to “be yourself.” Changing demeanor on a dime and overnight can be viewed by jurors as trying to change to “trick” the jury. When West asked her if her change in demeanor had been coached, the question was his attempt to use the question to provide the jury with the answer. If nothing else it may plant a seed of doubt in a juror. Actually, you have to admire West for thinking on his feet in support of his client.</p>
<p>We will have to wait until after the verdict to see how all this plays out.</p>
<p>well people are complicated 07. I think she was unsure and intimidated both days, and saw her “attitude” that she displayed a very immature way of conveying how uncomfortable she felt. Personally I didn’t see her as combative yesterday but she did seem quite immature and hostile towards West. I found the word combative too strong and seemed meant to malign her. Teenage eye roll is not combative in my view. Her asking West if he was listening to her as he ignored her speaking to him, was seen by others as combative, I thought she was standing up for herself.</p>
<p>The court system is an adversarial one. She tried to be polite today but she clearly doesn’t know how to seem patient when she knows he is trying to discredit her. Her lack of guile is something the jury may well appreciate.</p>
<p>Or she learned from her mistakes. The whole social media world was making fun of her and she wants to prove that she is not as bad as the world sees her from yesterday. I don’t think you convict on just her testimony alone, but if there are a lot of corroborating physical evidences later that go along with her statements, it could help more than hurt the prosecutor case.</p>