Her squabble over Zimmerman testifying, if done before the jury, is also highly questionable. There are a number of concerns in this trial that should get a retrial at a minimum.
The reason I think the judge might actually be throwing the case is based on the needs of “liberaldom”, i.e., the “state”. What the state needs is for Zimmerman to be guilty of something or for the jury to be hung. They need that right now, so they can do a song and dance in the media about justice being upheld and America being color-blind, yada, yada. A hung jury wouldn’t be quite as good, but they could say, “Yep, many saw Zimmerman as the monster he was, but ‘you know juries’.”
An appeal and acquittal or dismissal a few years down the road, quietly, and without fanfare would be just fine with them.
So, she could intentionally be ruining the future for a short-term win.
The same with lesser charges: I would bet money that she’ll allow lesser charges to be considered.
My sense is that self-defense is self-defense, and it’d be hard to convict Zimmerman on a misdemeanor based on the evidence. What a mountain of instruction could do, though, is confuse a low info, know-nothing jury.
Aggravated assault is probably negligence that causes harm to someone. I’m not sure what they’d argue that negligence would be unless it’s that Zim had an already-chambered round.
Since he was getting his brains beat in, that doesn’t seem negligent to me. It seems necessary. I don’t really see how he should be convicted of anything, but ‘you know juries’.
She didnt question GZ before the jury
If she lowers the charge, she opens herself up to a conspiracy charge from The People. It shows that The Man is pulling her strings and this was just a show trial. It could set off the riot.
An innocent 12 year old boy was gunned down by a white racist vigilante. That’s what people are thinking. And the government wants to go easy on him? No justice, no peace. Long hot summer.
In other words....she does NOT have control of her court...
The thing that bothers me about this is that the prosecution has essentially changed their story as the trial has progressed. In the beginning, they insisted that Zimmerman was on top of Martin as the aggressor, beating him before shooting him. But once the defense team got the ball in their court, the story evolved into admitting that Zimmerman was on the bottom, but that Trayvon began to back off of him once he saw the gun, yet Zimmerman shot the retreating Martin anyway.
In either version, the prosecution has failed miserably in proving their case. So the fact that they are now requesting a new out by substituting the original charge with manslaughter or aggravated assault only further exposes the untenability of their case.