Am I mistaken but I thought there was an eye-witness to Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.Similarly, as already stated, the State does not seem to have an eye-witness to the initial physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.
. . . but what exactly precipitated that? Martin stalking and surprising Zimmerman with an attack? Or Zimmerman drawing his weapon? If there were witnesses to the first contact between the two, Zimmerman would have to be concerned that his own testimony might be disputed. But absent a witness who claims to have seen it, it’s Zimmerman’s word vs. the prosecutors’ - and the prosecutor wasn’t there at the time of the confrontation.One thing if Zimmerman tells various conflicting stories which don’t all match up with other testimony/evidence. But if Zimmerman tells a single story and it matches up with what is known of the case from other sources, what basis would the judge have for rejecting his testimony? Inconvenience?
I quite agree that it will be difficult for the prosecution to prove something happened other than Zimmerman’s story, since there probably is no other witness for the start of the fight, the relevant issue.
They will have to not only cast doubt on his story, but will have to come up with some alternate scenario with Z as the aggressor, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Which I don’t think they can do.
The police may have already known him from earlier times when he had reported suspicious activity and had a sense of whether he was telling the truth.