If the judge and prosecutors wanted to make Zimmerman take the stand, why allow his version of the narrative into evidence without it? From what I understand, if the prosecutor had refrained from asking anyone about anything George said, but had simply focused on
- Trayvon Martin was dead, clearly killed by a single gunshot wound;
- the smoking gun belonged to George Zimmerman, and was found to be in his possession immediately following the shooting;
- no plausible basis has been tendered for believing that anyone but GZ pulled the trigger
there would have been no need for the prosecutor to ask anyone about anything GZ said, and no reason to call any witnesses that would support a self-defense claim. The prosecution could rest having established a
prima facie case of second-degree murder case. A friendly Judge Nelson could consistently rule that for the defense to ask witnesses about GZ's contemporaneous statements, it would have to commit to putting GZ on the stand. Such rulings might be overturned on appeal, but Judge Nelson could still use them to avoid having to have an acquittal come from
her courtroom. Additionally, had the prosecutor and judge acted in that way, they could have put the defense in an awkward situation. If the defense refused to commit to putting GZ on the stand, the refusal to allow testimony related to his earlier statements would be reversible error, but a decision not to put GZ on the stand would increase the likelihood of an
immediate decision. If, under such pressure, the defense put GZ on the stand and he got shredded, I'm not sure whether that would be refersible error. Certainly it would help bolster the media case against him.