# State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501 "2013-06-20T20:32:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/521 "2013-07-01T21:29:10Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > The defense has done an excellent job getting the officers to acknowledge that George wasn’t angry or that they were concerned about minor inconsistencies in his statements. Serino even said George seemed very forthright in his answers. The story about George asking the officer about her cross really humanized him for the jury. I will give this to the defense, they have proven that Zimmerman was courteous to officers involved in the case, but so was Dr. Kevorkian. Having superficial social skills doesn’t correlate with a likelihood or murdering someone. The defense, on the other hand, have not addressed the inconsistencies in his statements. It’s also fascinating, although I’m sure the prosecution would not be allowed to highlight it, that Zimmerman exclaimed In the testimony, at 32:25 Zimmerman claims that he doesn’t know what occured after his allegedly covered by Trayvon. Then, he circles back at then 32:39 with a “Oh!” (probably the most emotion he’s expressed ever) followed by the accusation that Trayvon reached for his gun. You can literally hear the neural circuits of his left brain firing to come up with some story about how to fill in that gap. Manalo said that when he arrived, Zimmerman looked like he had been in a fight and that Trayvon was lying face down, arms tucked in. Zimmerman, on the other hand, says that when Manalo arrived, he was holding Trayvon and asked Manalo to him for help in subduing Trayvon Martin. Someone’s lying there I’m going to trust the guy who spends his time working and enriching the life of his offspring, rather than Inspector Gadget and his wife, Penny. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/522 "2013-07-01T21:29:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In fact, that is positive for Zimmerman. If he was an accomplished liar as people here try to portray him, he’d say he recognized himself. Instead, he told the truth - to him it didn’t sound like him. Anyone (who is not in a showbusiness type of work) who ever heard their voice played back can hardly recognize it. > **[Head trauma: First aid](https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-head-trauma/basics/art-20056626)** > > How to administer first aid for head trauma. George Zimmerman is lucky. During his interview, according to the witness, George Zimmerman was bleeding from the ear. This can be a sign of damage to the brain. He definitely should have gone straight to the hospital. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/523 "2013-07-01T21:35:18Z")
[testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i2pny38Cj8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnN4ZxVAFoGrg-EhoRxhtTA) ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/524 "2013-07-01T21:38:22Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > [He definitely should have gone straight to the hospital. Has it been established why Zimmerman did not get medical attention? It seems from the witnesses that nearly everyone was encouraging him to seek help for his “life-threatening” injuries. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/525 "2013-07-01T22:14:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ummm… I don’t think I have ever heard of anyone’s lie detector test being admissible as evidence ever anywhere at all under any circumstances of any kind since the dawn of lie detector tests. And I’m probably remembering scripted TV, but still I think even a mention of the test is grounds for judicial hysteria. So to speak. Google First. Case law has developed as to [when lie detector evidence can be admitted](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00262.htm). It even went to the Supreme Court in _[United States v. Scheffer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheffer)_. Some courts have shot it down (as did SCOTUS in the Scheffer case) but it is a gross overstatement to say that polygraph tests have never been “admissible as evidence ever anywhere at all under any circumstances of any kind since the dawn of lie detector tests.” SCOTUS ruled that courts MAY exclude polygraph evidence, not that they SHALL exclude such evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/526 "2013-07-01T22:23:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In some states, they are admissible as evidence if both the prosecution and the defense agree. > > [Cite.](http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html) > > Since Zimmerman passed\*, I can’t imagine the prosecution agreeing to have the test result admitted. > > - And it wasn’t a traditional polygraph, it was a voice stress analysis. Cool! Thanks for the education! > [@Human\_Action](#): > > But if you believed his story was the complete truth, that includes Martin threatening to kill him and trying to grab his gun. Forget the wounds, that’s reasonable fear right there. He only had that reasonable fear _ **while the gun was not in his hand** _ Once it was, I think a “Dude, I’m pointing a loaded gun at your heart, wanna get the fuck off?” would have been more than sufficient. As an aside to this: > [@](#): > > The four states of mind recognized as constituting “malice” are: > > Intent to kill, > Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, > Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an “abandoned and malignant heart”), or > Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the “felony-murder” doctrine). > > Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. T **hus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, “intent follows the bullet.”** Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm a victim. Speaking of inferences… _ **INFERENCES BY THE JURY** _ I thought I’d throw in the following bits and pieces to chew upon when considering what a jury may or may not infer, especially in combination with questions of witness credibility. Juries are the finders of fact, after all, it is they who decide what is credible, whether it is justified to infer from the evidence a given fact. > [@](#): > > here is an important distinction between an inference and a presumption. An inference is “a permissible deduction which the jury may reject or accord such probative value as it desires, and is descriptive of the factual conclusion that the jury may draw from sufficient circumstantial evidence.”4 In Busbee v. Quarrier, 172 So. 2d 17, 22-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), the court noted that the word “inference” has a two-fold use. First, it describes that which the law reaches without direct proof from an admitted antecedent fact. Second, it refers to the factual conclusion which a trier of fact may draw from sufficient circumstantial evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “adverse inference” as being a “detrimental conclusion drawn by the fact-finder from a party’s failure to produce evidence that is within the party’s control.”5 It has been said that an inference will support a jury verdict, but not a directed verdict.6 Florida’s evidence code, F.S. §90.301(3), provides that “nothing in the chapter will prevent the drawing of an inference that is appropriate.” > [@](#): > > “A prosecuting attorney is permitted in his argument to draw from the facts in evidence all inferences which are reasonable, fair, and legitimate, but he may not use jury argument to get before the jury, either directly or indirectly, evidence which is outside the record. A prosecuting attorney, though free to strike hard blows, is not at liberty to strike foul ones, either directly or indirectly.” > [@](#): > > United > States v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705, 715 (8th Cir. 2011). > On review, evidence is viewed most favorably to the verdict, giving it > the benefit of all reasonable inferences. _**Reversal is appropriate only > where no reasonable jury could find all the elements beyond a > reasonable doubt. This court does not weigh the credibility of the > witnesses or the evidence. The jury has the sole responsibility to resolve > conflicts or contradictions in testimony, and credibility determinations > are resolved in favor of the verdict.**_ > [@](#): > > However, \***“a witness’s credibility is for the > jury to decide,” United States v. Thompson, \_\_\_ F.3d \_\_\_, 2012 WL 3023471, at _6 > (8th Cir. July 25, 2012), and “[t]he jury’s credibility determinations are virtually > unreviewable on appeal,_**” Aldridge, 664 F.3d at 715. In the same way the jury is charged with searching their own minds for reasonable doubt, they are charged with determining reasonable inferences: > [@](#): > > _ **Reasonable inferences mean “conclusions which are regarded as logical by reasonable people in the light of their experience in life.”** _ [Lannon v. Hogan, 719 F.2d 518, 521 (1st Cir. Mass. 1983)] > [@](#): > > In the law of evidence, a truth or proposition drawn from another that is supposed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted. A logical and reasonable conclusion of a fact not presented by direct evidence but which, by process of logic and reason, a trier of fact may conclude exists from the established facts. Inferences are deductions or conclusions that with reason and common sense lead the jury to draw from facts which have been established by the evidence in the case. > [@](#): > > _ **362. Consciousness of Guilt: False Statements** _ > _**If [the] defendant [\] made a false or misleading statement relating to the charged crime, knowing the statement was false or intending to mislead, that conduct may show (he/ she) was aware of (his/her) guilt of the crime and you may consider it in determining (his/her) guilt.**_ > [@](#): > > Evidence > \*\*\*The false nature of the defendant’s statement may be shown by inconsistencies in the defendant’s own testimony, his or her pretrial statements, or by any other prosecution evidence. \*\*\*(People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 498 [244 Cal.Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803] From juury instructions > [@](#): > > In determining the facts, you may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. > You may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you > to draw from the facts shown by the evidence in this case. But you should not speculate on > any matters outside the evidence. > [@](#): > > Inference Defined > During the trial, as well as in these instructions, you have heard the term “inference," and you have been asked to infer, on the basis of your reason, experience and common sense, from one or more established facts, the existence of some other fact. An inference is not a suspicion or a guess;\*\*\* it is a reasoned, logical decision to conclude that a disputed fact exists on the basis of another fact which you know exists. \*\*\* > > There are times when different inferences may be drawn from the same facts. The Government may ask you to draw one set of inferences, while the defense may ask you to draw another. I_ **t is for you, and you alone, to decide what inferences you will draw.** _ The process of drawing inferences from facts in evidence is not a matter of guesswork, speculation or intuition. An inference is a deduction or conclusion which you, the jury, are permitted to draw – but not required to draw – from the facts which have been established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In drawing inferences, you should exercise your common sense, and may draw such reasonable inferences from the facts as you find to be justified in light of your experience and common sense. > > Your function is to weigh the evidence in the case and determine whether or not the Defendant has been proved guilty solely upon the basis of such evidence or lack of evidence and any reasonable inference that you choose to draw therefrom. > Each juror is entitled to his or her opinion; each should, however, exchange views with his or her fellow jurors. Keep in mind the purpose of jury deliberation: to discuss and consider the evidence; to listen to the arguments of fellow jurors; to present your individual views; to consult with one another; and to reach an agreement based on the evidence or lack of evidence – if you can do so. Retire to reflect and consider the evidence and instructions. Let me know if, where, and how the Court may assist you in your endeavor. > Each of you must decide the case for yourself, after consideration, with your fellow jurors, of the evidence in the case. However, if, after carefully considering all the evidence and the arguments of your fellow jurors, you entertain a conscientious view that differs from the others, you are not to change your view simply because you are outnumbered. Your final vote must reflect your conscientious conviction as to how the issues should be decided. Juries deliberate privately, they don’t describe what their thought processes are. If the six women in this jury consider the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and draw conclusions which they find logical, in light of their life experience, and that conclusion is that GZ actions met the elements necessary to find him guilty of murder in the second degree, then they have done their job properly. And since lots of people have clearly done exactly that, it’s ridiculous to keep insisting that there is only _ **one possible way** _ the evidence could be received. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/527 "2013-07-01T22:27:31Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Has it been established why Zimmerman did not get medical attention? It seems from the witnesses that nearly everyone was encouraging him to seek help for his “life-threatening” injuries. No one’s claiming he had life threatening injuries, except you. I’m just saying that bleeding from the ear can possibly be from a ruptured blood vessel inside the brain. Luckily it wasn’t. He should have gotten medical help. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/528 "2013-07-01T22:32:15Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Wonderful day for the prosecution today. **Honesty** , this case is getting a fair amount of national press, and that means a number of different network legal analysts are commenting. Excluding Frederick Leatherman, are there any legal analysts who share your view that today was a wonderful day for the prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/529 "2013-07-01T22:38:12Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Juries deliberate privately, they don’t describe what their thought processes are. If the six women in this jury consider the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and draw conclusions which they find logical, in light of their life experience, and that conclusion is that GZ actions met the elements necessary to find him guilty of murder in the second degree, then they have done their job properly. What’s your best guess about what they will do? ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/530 "2013-07-01T23:39:04Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > [testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i2pny38Cj8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUnN4ZxVAFoGrg-EhoRxhtTA) That’s over two hours of testimony. What are we supposed to look at? What, in that, was expositive of your point? What, in fact, _was_ your point? Do you _have_ one? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/531 "2013-07-01T23:39:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s your best guess about what they will do? No clue, because I have not been listening to the trial. I’ve only seen snippets and read analyses, which tend to come to wildly different conclusions about almost everything. And without knowing exactly what evidence the jury has seen and heard, along with all the arguments, I cannot possibly say. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/532 "2013-07-01T23:54:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In fact, that is positive for Zimmerman. _ **If he was an accomplished liar** _ as people here try to portray him, he’d say he recognized himself. Instead, he told the truth - to him it didn’t sound like him. Anyone (who is not in a showbusiness type of work) who ever heard their voice played back can hardly recognize it. Au contraire! I specifically called him out for sucking at it. Doesn’t seem to stop him, though. Kinda like the horrible singers trying out for American Idol. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/533 "2013-07-02T00:00:47Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > No clue, because I have not been listening to the trial. I’ve only seen snippets and read analyses, which tend to come to wildly different conclusions about almost everything. And without knowing exactly what evidence the jury has seen and heard, along with all the arguments, I cannot possibly say. Well, as someone who has been following the trial, is decidedly on Team Trayvon, and as recently as 4 days ago was yelling at Steophan for “calling it” too early, I can say this: be glad you’re not watching the trial. I don’t think the prosecution is even trying. I thought once they started examining Zimmerman’s statements they’d turn the heat up, but they’re doing absolutely nothing to counter the picture of events that the defense is presenting. Serino’s testimony today exemplified this. Here’s a guy who has some serious problems with Zimmerman’s story (the lack of serious injuries and his failure to identify himself as a neighborhood watch representative) and who clearly doesn’t like the defense, and even he’s hand-waving away inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s interviews that the prosecution didn’t even bother to point out. It’s like the defense was prepared to address the inconsistencies, the prosecution didn’t bother to bring it up, and the defense addressed them anyway, just in case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/534 "2013-07-02T00:05:03Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > No clue, because I have not been listening to the trial. I’ve only seen snippets and read analyses, which tend to come to wildly different conclusions about almost everything. And without knowing exactly what evidence the jury has seen and heard, along with all the arguments, I cannot possibly say. Excluding Frederick Leatherman, have you read any analyses from lawyers that suggest the prosecution is going well? And excluding Leatherman again, have you read any analyses from lawyers that characterize the prosecution’s case as strong? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/535 "2013-07-02T00:13:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excluding Frederick Leatherman, have you read any analyses from lawyers that suggest the prosecution is going well? And excluding Leatherman again, have you read any analyses from lawyers that characterize the prosecution’s case as strong? I have just been reading randomly, so I don’t know who is saying what. I’m just noticing people saying different things. I haven’t read anything today at all. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/536 "2013-07-02T00:41:24Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Well, as someone who has been following the trial, is decidedly on Team Trayvon, and as recently as 4 days ago was yelling at Steophan for “calling it” too early, I can say this: be glad you’re not watching the trial. I don’t think the prosecution is even trying. I thought once they started examining Zimmerman’s statements they’d turn the heat up, but they’re doing absolutely nothing to counter the picture of events that the defense is presenting. > > Serino’s testimony today exemplified this. Here’s a guy who has some serious problems with Zimmerman’s story (the lack of serious injuries and his failure to identify himself as a neighborhood watch representative) and who clearly doesn’t like the defense, and even he’s hand-waving away inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s interviews that the prosecution didn’t even bother to point out. It’s like the defense was prepared to address the inconsistencies, the prosecution didn’t bother to bring it up, and the defense addressed them anyway, just in case. Same here, more or less. I never thought there was evidence for murder 2, but I figured it was just a strategy to charge high, build a (more realistic) case for the lesser charge of manslaughter, and hope for a compromise verdict. But now it looks like it’s just a political dog and pony show, and they purposely overcharged to get an acquittal. Is there typically less cooperation/coordination between the prosecution and the PD when it’s a special prosecutor trying the case? I don’t know how else to explain what happened with the witnesses today without going into CT territory. Is the prosecution just that incompetent? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/537 "2013-07-02T00:47:18Z")
Most of the analyses I’ve seen indicate it is going poorly for the prosecution, some indicating a sort of train-wreck level of bad. Not that I’ve done any sort of comprehensive look. [Here’s one cite](http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-open-comment-forum-weekend-wrap-up/), if you’re interested in a poll. From that cite: > [@](#): > > On the stand was Chris Serino, who was the lead investigator for the Sanford Police Department on the Trayyvon Martin shooting. Defense counsel Mark O’Mara led cross-examination with his usual consummate skill, obtaining responses from this witness–remember, the State’s witness–that all but completely guts the State’s charge in this case. > > Among the key revelations so far: > > Zimmerman was always completely cooperative, open, and straightforward with all the police investigators over many weeks of multiple interviews, both in person at the police station and phone. The sense given is that Zimmerman demonstrated endless patience. > > O’Mara noted that Serino was leading an investigative team, gathering and sharing evidence ,that included all levels of the Sanford Police Department up to the Chief, and even members of the 18 Circuit State Prosector’s office. Asked if there was ANYTHING that Zimmerman had said that contradicted the wealth of evidence possessed by Serino, the Investigator answered, “No, sir.” No physical evidence, no witness evidence, no officer statements, nothing? “No, sir.” \ In fact, noted O’Mara, the evidence Serino had all fit into a self-defense theory, and Serino agreed that it did, and that his information supported self-defense. Serino would note this in the normal course of an investigation because in addition to investigating crime it was also his charge to investigate defenses, including self-defense. I have no idea how this site is viewed by legal eagles, but it looks legit to a piker like me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/538 "2013-07-02T00:52:26Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Is the prosecution just that incompetent? I don’t think incompetence is the only plausible theory. Others include: [ol] [li]The prosecution was politically required, so they went with what they had.[/li] [li]The prosecutor thought in good faith that there was room for reasonable debate on whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and viewed it as an uphill battle that a jury should decide.[/li] [li]The special prosecutor’s relationship with the PD is not as strong as local prosecutors.[/li] [li]They thought the case should plead out, they were wrong, and now they have to go to trial to maintain credibility in their future plea negotiations.[/li][/ol] It’s probably a mix of all of the above. But I haven’t seen them do anything that strikes me as incompetent (though I haven’t been following as closely as some). ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/539 "2013-07-02T00:58:08Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > From that cite:I have no idea how this site is viewed by legal eagles, but it looks legit to a piker like me. FWIW, that guy has been tweeting profusely during the trial. Based on his tweets, I can say that he’s incredibly biased, agenda-driven, and a giant dick. No idea if his legal analysis is any good, though. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501/540 "2013-07-02T01:02:07Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > FWIW, that guy has been tweeting profusely during the trial. Based on his tweets, I can say that he’s incredibly biased, agenda-driven, and a giant dick. > > No idea if his legal analysis is any good, though. Based on my reading his views on other legal topics, I would say his legal analysis is quite biased and not especially acute. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-of-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-trial-thread/661501.md?page=28)