First, are you insinuating that Zimmerman is lying? You can discount Zimmerman's statement all you want, but he has the right to explain the circumstances surrounding the incident from his perspective. The physical evidence appears to support his version of events along with other eyewitness testimony. The facts will determine the veracity of Zimmerman's statement.
In some jurisdictions a self-serving statement may not be admitted in court unless there are neutral corroborating witness statements or evidence such as a security video.
That is a laughable statement on its face. I have served as a member of a jury in a murder case. The idea that the accused cannot submit a statement in their defense is pure nonsense. Do you have any source to support such an assertion? Are you a lawyer?
Maybe Zimmerman's statement is truthful...I don't know, you don't know and the legal system does not consider it evidence or proof.
If that statement is supported by fact and witnesses, it is part of the evidence or proof. So far, the police have not arrested Zimmerman because his version of events is supported by physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof falls on the state, not the accused, to prove he is innocent. That is the way our justice system is supposed to work. You are innocent until proven guilty.
wtc911 is persisently confused, even after being shown that the rules of evidence regarding “self serving statements” apply to admissible hearsay evidence; and have no application whatsoever to direct evidence.
______________________________________
Please provide links to the "eyewitness testimony" that you say supports Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked by Martin. I bet you can't.
Since there is no known corroborating neutral witness, Zimmerman's statement is, by legal definition, self-serving. There are dozens of easily found cases wherein such statements have been deemed inadmissable.
Here's one at the Appellate level...
"In retrial of interstate kidnapping resulting in death case, trial court did not err under FRE 106 Rule of Completeness in excluding self-serving exculpatory statements of the defendant or hearsay statements by his attorney in a recorded jailhouse phone call, parts of which had been offered by the prosecution regarding the defendant’s plan to kill certain witnesses, because FRE 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible, in United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. May 12, 2008) (No. 06-4691)"
You can research if you like...or not. It won't change things.
Scriptura pro scribente nihil probat.