Again, with emphasis, if the prosecution is reduced to “attempting to cast doubt”, that’s just pathetic. Trying to cast doubt is the defense’s tactic. It is definitely not enough for the prosecution to do so.
I don’t think I disagreed with you - I only gave my interpetation as to WHY the prosecution was doing this.
I’ll let Bricker or some other lawbuff to describe if ‘casting doubt’ on the claims for self defense is appropriate for the prosecution.
Here’re some:
Diana Tennis @TennisLaw: “BRLR has proven reasonable doubt as to innocence. Only a thousand miles to go. Do not stop in confusion town or questionville!”
Diana Tennis @TennisLaw: “So IF he was following, where does that get you with disproving self defense?”
Beth Karas @BethKaras: “I disagree with De la Rionda that GZ should have injuries to his hands if defending himself. He doesn’t need ANY injury to make the claim.”
Great - 3 tweets that show agreement with you - that the prosecution sucks.
you win -
and again - I was offering my opinion of what/why the proseuction was doing - not if it was effective, correct or anything else. If they succeed in causing the jury to dis-believe the claim of ‘Self Defense’ - they’ve won (that part of the argument).
I’m no expert on juries, but based on my understanding of human nature I would say the opposite of your apparent premise is correct.
I would think the need for a unanimous verdict makes it more likely that Zimmerman gets convicted of manslaughter. Because if you need unanimity and you have a minority which believes in second degree, then you might have people compromise on manslaughter in order to reach agreement. Whereas if it was just a majority, then agreement wouldn’t be an issue, and this type of compromise wouldn’t be necessary.
It’s the state’s closing doing anything for anyone? I’m trying to look at it as a neutral observer, but it seems disjointed and is solely focused on “Look, Z said that the bushes were on his right at this time, but earlier he said they were almost in front of him!!! He’s lying! What else is he lying about?!?”
Good/bad/indifferent?
I’m appalled that as a citizen, if this situation presented itself to me with this type of evidence, the state would try to put me in prison for life. I’ll bet any one of you that we could drive down to the corner for a hot dog and then 10 minutes later after being quizzed on the details, we would tell mindblowingly different stories. To analyze every single word the man said when recalling a terribly stressful situation and make a mountain out of it would make any one of us guilty.
Martin is dead either way, and that is very unfortunate. However, when the investigation shows that there isn’t enough evidence to charge a crime, your attitude seems to be “Hey, what’s the big deal, just cuff him and let a jury decide.”
That’s not supposed to be the way the system works.
Then I’d suggest you not do anything resembling pushing a political or racial hot button on the way to the store.
How about
Rory O’Neill @RadioRory: “Prosecution doing great job of punching holes in defense theory. Too bad that’s the reverse of what’s supposed to happen.”
And the prosecutor’s closing statement has concluded. Jury is dismissed until tomorrow morning.
From the prosecution’s closing statement it does not seem that they have a coherent theory of what happened. Lots of ‘might have been’ and ‘could have happened this way’ types of statements. That is not what I would hope to hear from a prosecutor.
Root testified yesterday that police know that people under high stress usually have gaps in their memory for 72 hours or more. That’s why the police interview suspects multiple times in important cases. They can fill in gaps from one interview to another. Just taking Zimmerman back to the apartments and having him walk through his actions jogged his memory.
Detective Serino was asked directly (after hearing the different interviews) if the minor inconsistencies concerned him. He just shrugged and said no.
I get the impression that the cops would think there’s something fishy with any suspect that reels off the same statement over and over again. Like maybe, it was thought out ahead of time and rehearsed?
That’s the testimony that I hope the jury considers when looking at Zimmerman’s statements.
It is defense’s responsibility to bring this stuff up, prominently, in their closing.
I’ve tried to keep an open mind in the case. I patiently waited for the prosecution to deliver something definitive that proves Zimmerman acted with malice and all those other fancy words. 
I think there’s reasonable doubt. There will always be some nagging questions about Zimmerman’s actions. That missing 2 min gap in time bothers me. I personally think there was a verbal confrontation that Zimmerman glossed over. I posted a couple days ago that the Cat Lady neighbor insisted she heard two men arguing before the screams for help. I can easily see it taking a minute or so before Trayvon knocked Zimmerman on his ass. The Cat Lady was alone in bed reading. No noise in her house at all. I think she did hear men arguing for awhile.
But, there’s still reasonable doubt in my mind. The Cat Lady was nearly hysterical on her 911 call. I couldn’t send a man to prison just on my suspicion that the two men argued for a minute or two before the fight. The details of the fight were testified to by John Good. Zimmerman wasn’t lying about getting hit repeatedly and being on the ground. He was in fear of his life.
I think the prosecution today might as well have argued that Zimmerman killed Jimmy Hoffa. “True, we don’t know what happened, but if asked about it, Zimmerman would claim that he didn’t kill Hoffa, and we know he lies. That’s proof that he did kill Hoffa!”
And the Trayvonistas would shout with glee. “At least he can be convicted of SOMETHING!”.
Zimmerman provoked Martin into his actions against Zimmerman.
Blame shifts to Zimmerman, who, in order to maintain self-defense, then actually does have to justify it by explaining what measures he exhausted before shooting Martin in the chest.
From what I’ve gathered, not only did he not exhaust measures, not only did he not even attempt any other measures, he didn’t even think of other measures.
So Zimmerman doesn’t get to claim self-defense…can’t scare a kid into an altercation by following him around on a dark and rainy night, make no effort to explain or identify yourself, then do absolutely nothing, not even speak to Martin to try to tell him who you are or anything at all, then, within seconds of gaining control of your upper body (why you didn’t have control before is a total mystery, but whatever - see Jack Batty’s remarks. Or was it PatriotX?), use that control to hold him off only so much and so long as necessary for you to take aim and squeeze the trigger.
I just can’t see any way a claim that he had exhausted any and all means available could be made, and that is ZIMMERMAN’S story.
So…that is the legal relevance and exactly why there’s been so much denial and excuse-making around Zimmerman’s actions that led to Martin being afraid.
Is there a transcript of the closing argument?
For me, John Good was the most critical witness for the defense. Without his up close, eyewitness of the fight this trial’s outcome could be entirely different.
It’s a shame John Good didn’t just grab Trayvon and yank him off Zimmerman. We wouldn’t be here today watching a trial. But, I can certainly understand why John Good did not physically intervene. It took a lot of guts to even go outside.
I also applaud the other neighbor that went outside after the shot. He gave important testimony about Zimmerman’s state of mind seconds after the shooting. That neighbor was there even before the cop arrived.
I was very impressed at how freely the neighbors testified. We often hear today that people won’t get involved. “I didn’t see anything.” “I didn’t hear anything”. But these neighbors spoke up and told what they knew.
I can understand why no one went outside and broke up the fight. You never know what you’re walking into or what weapons are in use. I wouldn’t go out there either and break up a fight.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the law in Florida. Please show where in the law it shows there needs to be a checklist of measures to be exhausted during an act of self defense.
The investigation showed no such thing. That was the entire problem that created this whole fiasco of a trial in the first place. There was enough information to charge a crime, but there’s also a law that prohibited that from occurring.
If the system hadn’t been seen to not doing its job in the first place because of this law, the whole political issue would not have happened.
Most of the U.S. has self defense as an affirmative defense. This means that all that is necessary is for the shooting to have been confirmed to have happened. Having the investigation have the same burdens as an actual trial puts way too much pressure on them.
A trial is needed if the facts can be shown to have happened, at the very least.
And I say this as someone who thinks that Zimmerman has won the trial. If not here and now (because the jury for some reason does the compromise verdict I mentioned as a possibility in another thread), then via appeal.