Actually, the history of Trayvon should have been essential if this were to be a fair trial.
If the jury was aware of Trayvon’s record lately, they would understand that his attacking George was not so very odd.
Probably why Dershowitz is rumored to want this case on appeal..that and he has a grudge against Corey.
Jurors are weird. Providing too much evidence of who Trayvon was might make jurors feel bad, and they might be inclined to dislike someone who makes them feel bad.
What's essential is that not only did TM and GZ "somehow" end up in a physical altercation where TM was clearly the instant victor (evidenced by the lack of melee injuries), but TM decided to continue to pummel GZ long after his victory was established. That would be sufficient grounds for a legitimate self-defense claim no matter who started the fight. The only way GZ could be legitimately be convicted would be for the jury to regard as implausible the notion that GZ might have been screaming for his life. Even if a jury might be inclined to believe that it might have been TM, there's no way the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't GZ.
“just minding his own business when a creepy-assed cracker started following him.”
I’m sorry, that would be “creep-ass-cracka”. You know a thug is much to lazy for word enunciation.
Exactly, the prosecution can paint GZ as a racist, dig into his past but the defense wasn’t allowed to do that with TM (show character).
I also believe it is immoral to throw in other charges after the defense rests. You put on an entire case for charge “A” only to be judged on charge “B”. Complete BS.
MSNBC is missing the prosecutorial misconduct and brady rule violations. Saying prosecutors just screwed up.
saying evidence was there just failed to say magic words.