At this point, I don't see a need for the defense to call any witnesses. So far every witness called by the state has ended up being a defense witness.
Unless the state can prove up at least one element of the murder charge, Zimmerman is under no obligation to try to rebut it. The state has established only that Zimmerman shot Martin and that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him MMA style on the sidewalk, when Zimmerman shot him once.
In order to prove either manslaughter or murder, the state must prove first that the killing was unlawful (which they haven't proved) and secondly (for the murder charge) that there was malice aforethought.
The state has this theory that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin (which is not unlawful) and that he then decided to hunt him down and kill him. That is basically what they told the jury they were going to prove in their opening statement.
Well they haven't proven anything.
I believe that a directed verdict is in order. At this point, the prosecution is grasping at straws to try to convince the jury that Zimmerman was an uncontrolled vigilante. They have shown exactly the opposite.
Even a prejudiced jury should see through this charade. They would have to have their own personal vendetta against Zimmerman to convict him on the evidence they have seen up to this point.
Maybe BDLR has a rabbit up his sleeve, but usually the rabbit comes out at the beginning of the case and the rest of the evidence you put on confirms the rabbit. In this case they have nothing. No rabbit up the sleeve, no evidence of guilt, just smoke and mirrors.
Usually you see the defense trying to put out smoke and mirrors to confuse the jury. In this case it is the state which is acting like a desperate defense team with a guilty client.
Has anyone noticed how few objections the defense team has raised versus the constant objecting by the prosecution? The jury often interprets objections as a means to hide the truth from them. At this point, if I am on the jury, I am going to be pretty pissed off at the State for trying to keep me from hearing or seeing testimony.
Almost every objection by BDLR has been on substantive grounds, apparently trying to keep information from the jury. MOM's objections have been largely procedural, more as the the form of the questions than the content.
It appears to me that the defense wants the whole truth to come out and the state has been trying to keep selective portions of the truth away from the jury. The jury knows this.
Call in Zimmerman’s mother.
It would eliminate the race angle.
Can a jury bring back a guilty verdict out of fear for the lives? Do they have to explain to anyone why they decided the way they did? I'm just thinking about one comment I heard on tv, that 'a boy was killed after a wannabecop got out and followed him and someone needs to pay for that.' When I heard that, it stayed with me because I think that is exactly what the jury will ultimately feel whether the defense LEGALLY proved GZ innocent of all charges. I think the jury is looking for any reason at all to convict GZ....they are in genuine fear of their own and families lives.
I can understand the need to be very skeptical of every self-defense homicide. Otherwise, spouses, strangers, everyone could just go on a killing spree. I could maybe even understand thinking that each should be tried in court just to send the message that this is no easy route to take to get away with murder
But when the evidence becomes insurmountable justice should override convention and the trial should be called
This is such a time, and it is unethical for the peoples’s prosecutor to hope to confuse a jury as a means of “winning”
Do you think Bernie is dumb enough to call TrayMom and TrayDad?