There's a defense response that went up on the GZlegalcase site a few hours ago. I presume they'll push hard for a decision on that issue prior to opening statements. Whether Nelson will accommodate them is an open question.
Apparently, we'll be hearing the word “profiling” in opening, though “racial profiling” is excluded. It's kind of like banning the mention of a religious holiday but permitting the phrase “I'm dreaming of a white...”
I try to avoid speculating about trial tactics in open forums.
George Zimmerman was clearly battered severely; the testimony of the on-scene first responders should establish that--nothing even remotely resembling hearsay required. The basic facts of the case are that a GZ was battered severely for a significant length of time before a shot was fired, and someone was screaming for help. I'm surprised that the prosecutor seems to be focusing on a claim that the audio shows TM was the one screaming, since it would be hard to even imagine a plausible scenario where that would make sense, much less prove such a scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt the prosecutor actually believes such a claim, but perhaps they want to trick the defense into undermining its ability to use the audio to show that the person screaming was the one who was being attacked. Comparisons between the audio of the screams to non-frightened recordings of individuals aren't meaningful, but the fact that GZ was badly beaten and TM wasn't implies that as the one who was attacked, GZ was also the one screaming.
I try to avoid speculating about trial tactics in open forums.
If I were privy to any privileged information, I would certainly avoid any speculation, since it would be hard to avoid giving anything away unless I was someone who could entertain theories which contradicted my knowledge just as well as those which didn't; I'm not such a person, but since I don't have any privileged information I don't have to worry about divulging any.
My main goal with mentioning possible strategies and such is not to influence anyone's actions in this case, but rather to solicit feedback as to whether my instincts about such things are accurate. There are some cases where I've thought defense attorneys' strategy was flawed. For example, in the Ryan Frederick case, in which Mr. Frederick shot police who were breaking down his door, I would not have claimed that Mr. Frederick had no idea who was breaking down his door (which got him a manslaughter conviction), but rather that while he didn't know the particular identity of the people breaking down his door, he could tell that they were trying to break into his house and were making no apparent effort to identify themselves. The defense attorney did a good job of cross-examining the police, who admitted that they'd deliberately avoided having any marked vehicles in sight of the house, and the only announcement of "police" was uttered sufficiently softly that a cop who was outdoors listening for it as a signal didn't hear it. I would ask the jury whether someone whose home is being broken into should assume that the person breaking in is a robber who has a plan to deal with any occupants he encounters, or should figure that it might be a bunch of cops who are misfortune enough to choose someone with a very feeble voice to lead their raid?
As to whether that would have worked any better, who knows. My instincts are that it would have, but such instincts aren't always right.