Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 7: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 7: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will post a mid-day update (not just a list of tweets this time!). We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.

Screen Shot 2013-07-02 at 8.13.45 AM

Defense Attorney Mark O’Mara cross-examines Sanford PD Investigator Chris Serino, 7/1/13

This morning Court is expected to start at 9:00AM, with the continuing cross-examination of State witness Investigator Chris Serino, who at the time of events was the lead investigator into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Our two live video feeds and scrolling Twitter feed of selected commenters can be found just below these introductory comments.

To see yesterday’s end-of-day analysis and video, which describes how Mark O’Mara’s cross-examination of Investigator Serino so severely damaged the State’s theory of the case, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge

To see yesterday’s mid-day wrap up, which provides analysis and video of the testimony of State witnesses Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI speech expert, Police Officer Doris Singleton, and the direct examinaton by Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda of Investigator Chris Serino, click here:

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 6 — Zimmerman recounts fight for his life (recording)

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

Live Stream Video


[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense.)

Live Stream Video Alternative


Tuesday, July 2 Commentary

. . .

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. UPDATE: July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery.  A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m not aware of the significance of Andrew’s twitter comment regarding Rao not liking Stanford doctor’s findings. Can anyone tell me about the findings of a Stanford doctor?

    Sally MJ in reply to raider3. | July 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    This doctor on the stand did NOT do the autopsy. She’s giving her evidence based on photos and documentation. There must be SOME reason the State is not using the testimony for the doctor who actually did the autopsy…

      naughtynumbernine in reply to Sally MJ. | July 2, 2013 at 6:12 pm

      Could be an integrity issue – i.e. the doctor who performed the autopsy might have some.

This witness is ripe for effective cross-examination. I hope O’Mara, rather than West, does it.

I can see the headlines now, “expert testifies Zimmerman injuries were not life threatening” goodness on the cross examination I hope they ask,”if the beating had continued, could that have been life threatening?” not that it matters because he only had to be in FEAR of a life ending threat not sustain it.

    Sally MJ in reply to Nick. | July 2, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Well -again – this doctor never examined anyone – GZ or TM – personally. She’s going on photos – such as the ones that make it look like GZ has no injuries.

    hesperus in reply to Nick. | July 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    ‘reasonable’ fear – big difference

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 2:20 pm

i’m sorry but from where has this liar for hire recruited?

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to Mister Natural. | July 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    I’ve tried from the beginning to keep an open mind. A key to that is avoiding this kind of knee-jerk response to testimony that supports the prosecution.

    No juror has any reason to believe Dr. Rao is a perjurer, and this is the best testimony the prosecution has yet elicited from anyone.

    If I’m a juror, even if only out of sympathy, I’m finally jotting something down in the prosecution side of the ledger.

    That said, it’s very clear that the lack of injury is a LEGAL dead end (GZ need not have suffered ANY injury to reasonably fear for his life under Florida law).

      moonstone716 in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | July 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      Really? A doctor appointed by Angela Corey WHO ONLY LOOKED AT PICTURES? Low bar there.

        CrankbaitJohnson in reply to moonstone716. | July 2, 2013 at 2:44 pm

        Obviously the “only looked at pictures” meme is MOM’s to establish with the jury, and I trust he will. But I won’t assume the jury knows boo about Angela Corey, much less is as antagonistic toward her as you.

      hesperus in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | July 2, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      If not injuries, what else would you use as creating reasonable fear?
      Someone pulling a gun on you? Voila. Trayvon was in reasonable fear of his life, who proceeded to kick his ass, but paid with his life.

        kentuckyliz in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 5:51 pm

        That’s not even rational. If someone pulls a gun on me, I am not going to attempt to charge the person. That’s not a realistic scenario whatsoever.

The prosecution has finally found a witness biased against Zimmerman. Cross-examination should be entertaining.

CrankbaitJohnson | July 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Actual prosecution witness finally spotted!

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm

dearest andrew,
please impart to the good professor j that an edit feature is required to make this section current edge.
the typographical challenged

Something strikes me as potentially significant WRT to the lack of damage on Martin’s hands…

was it not the recollected account of Zimmerman that Martin was holding his head? If while holding him, he was bashing his head on the ground/cement, that would account for that and the injuries that are apparent.

    Solomon in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Forearms are also quite effective in raining down blows. A “forearm shiver” is in a football player’s offensive repertory, as in an MMA enthusiast’s.

Yeah, Corey hand-picked her.

This lady wouldn’t be minimizing GZ’s injuries if someone had been beating her and bouncing her head off of a concrete walkway.

    Estragon in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    The defense should have asked to demonstrate on her, since it was so “insignificant,” so she could experience more than photographs.

She is not helping the prosecution by fighting over words. Not as professional as other witnesses IMO. She is often not responsive.

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 2:30 pm

they must have been trolling the slums of bombay for this one. testifying to keep her green card

    Mister Natural in reply to Mister Natural. | July 2, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    what does a”protrusion mean. OMG i thought the freakin populace of the jewel in the crown spoke he king’s english.

Why doesn’t state that the heart stops when death occurs and also stops the body’s attempt to repair itself hence the lack of swelling and bruising on Trayvon.

CrankbaitJohnson | July 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Ad hominem aside, this is the most compelling witness the prosecution has put up. MOM might actually have to work to save a point here (though Andrew will point out it is all immaterial to the question of self-defense).

    Voluble in reply to CrankbaitJohnson. | July 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    She would be more effective if she did not come off as combative and having an agenda. She could have easily said the injuries are more consistent with a fewer number of blows than more etc…

      pmasters in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 2:43 pm

      But she does have an agenda. She is confrontational when her opinion is countered with facts. She viewed photographs and made medical decisions without actually examining the injuries in person. Add to it she is paid by the state and how can she be considered unbiased?

CrankbaitJohnson | July 2, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Lol, his injuries were “camouflaged by blood.”

I would have asked her 10 times by now, “but you didn’t actually examine Mr. Zimmerman, did you?”

Did anyone notice she referred to the PA that treated Zimmerman as a “nurse” in an attempt to lessen her credibility?

Dr Rao has a history of complaints dating back 10 years. From handling cadavers without wearing gloves to get this “washing her feet in autopsy sink. Where the hell did BDLR Corey dig up this lady.

    Narniaman in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Speaking as a Physician, the state of Florida has to really be reaching to put Dr. Rao on the stand, given the number of complaints that have been lodged against her in the past.

Her contention that all of his head injuries came from a single blow has completely destroyed her credibility in my mind. I’m no doctor but I know enough to know you can’t get simultaneous injuries all over your head from one blow.

    bizbach in reply to MegK. | July 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    We know the one witness (Goode) saw TM beating GZ repeatedly, so her coming out and saying it could have been one hit does make her lose credibility.

Probably worth asking if she would believe the other doctor who saw bruising there with her own eyes when she examined Zimmerman. You would have to phrase it better than I did but that is essentially the question. The picture does not rule out that sort of damage.

    Ragspierre in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Pretty easy.

    “You heard the testimony of Dr. ___________, right?”

    “You recall that she described Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries, yes?”

    “And she actually examined Mr. Zimmerman, did she not?”

    “You never have examined Mr. Zimmerman, have you?”

    “Is it your testimony that your assessment here is valid, when Dr. ___________ examination was not?”

    “You don’t mean to imply that Dr. _____________’s direct observations of Mr. Zimmerman were medically unsound, do you?”

    “You are aware of deaths that were caused by a single blow, are you not?”

She really seems rude when she corrects him.

Uncle Samuel | July 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm

O’Mara is earning his pay on the cross-examination of the M.E. and is destroying her initial opinion.

She is arguing against arguments he hasn’t even made. She is anticipating questions and arguing against them.

txantimedia | July 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm

The examiner’s testimony mystifies me. Does the prosecution really think this will have an impact? Gee, he only got hit two or three times, and gee, the injuries aren’t really that bad.

So what? The law says there doesn’t need to be any injury at all to justify self defense.

So what’s the point?

She is lying her butt off now.

    hesperus in reply to MegK. | July 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm


    Ragspierre in reply to MegK. | July 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    No. She isn’t lying.

    She is so patently a paid whore of an “expert” that the jury will have no trouble discounting everything she’s saying.

      hesperus in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      a whore? Gawd you are pathetic when something doesn’t go your way. I can’t wait to read your posts when zimmie get’s convicted of at least manslaughter.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 3:43 pm

      A “whore” expert is a character well-known to those of us who try cases.

      One of the hardest things a trial lawyer does is find good, credible testifying experts who can connect with a jury. They are HARD to find, and for a number of reasons.

      Finding a testifying whore, conversely, is really easy. A good lawyer NEVER uses one.

      So what does that tell us about the State here…???

        kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 5:56 pm

        I was busy at work today, so I didn’t get to listen or watch. Did defense counsel ask her who performed the autopsy? And where is that ME now? If it is someone else, and still working in the department, and not on the stand, I think that would scream volumes to the jurors.

excellent witness – main point – not life threatening injuries. She is holding up well to OMara’s redundant questions about number of ‘bruises’.

    txantimedia in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    And of course, the extent of his injuries are irrelevant to a self defense case, but go ahead and get all excited about it.

      hesperus in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      on the contrary, they’re very relevant.
      sorry to intrude into your pre defined verdict

      JasonI in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm

      And being smothered while drowning in his own blood.

      hesperus in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      Oh really? Not relevant?
      “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm”
      Not relevant?
      You need some schooling before you throw your crumbs out there

        Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm

        Now THERE is a delusional lil’ troll admission if ever there was one.

        You were talking about “inconsistencies”…before you surrendered.

        Care to try again, troll?

        Jazzizhep in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:17 pm

        thank-you for refuting your original point!…reasonable fear, at least in my universe and native tongue, does not mean victim MUST have life-threatening, only that he has a reasonable fear that it is possible

        Bryan24 in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm

        Reasonable fear of great bodily harm…. like someone sitting on your chest throwing punches at you, breaking your nose, and hitting your head against concrete in the dark behind a house?

        I classify that as “reasonable fear of great bodily harm.”

          hesperus in reply to Bryan24. | July 2, 2013 at 3:25 pm

          If you pull a gun on me I’m going to reasonably assume my life is in danger, and smash your head against the concrete – repeatedly. The reasonable nature of life threatening goes both ways.

          Ragspierre in reply to Bryan24. | July 2, 2013 at 3:30 pm

          Please. If someone pulled a gun on you, you’d soil yourself.

          Please point us to the evidence that Zimmerman pulled on Martin, causing Martin to charge the man with the gun.

          Because, as much spinning as one may do in argument, you have to have some EVIDENCE on which to predicate your spinning.

          See, moron…???

          hesperus in reply to Bryan24. | July 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm

          rags? – is that what you use when it’s your time of the month?
          You limp dicked moron. Surrounded by your adoring, uneducated groupies spewing trash and useless opinions. Ahhh, I wish you were here in front of me, and I’d show you reasonable fear. Say, why not forward me your address and we’ll settle it that way?

          Ragspierre in reply to Bryan24. | July 2, 2013 at 3:45 pm

          Oh, my…


        CrankbaitJohnson in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm

        Yes, he had already suffered multiple head injuries and reasonably feared he additional, grave, injuries were imminent, pinned as he was to the ground.

        Perhaps he also feared he would die, and perhaps he was wrong about that, but since the bar is grave injury, I don’t see it doing all that much for the prosecution. And then there’s the fact that if GZ loses consciousness at any time — a reasonable fear, I’d argue — Trayvon has the Tech-9.

        But, hey, she wasn’t a defense witness by the time she left the stand, so there’s that.

        txantimedia in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm

        Let me spell it out for you, hesperus. Injuries have no relationship to “imminent fear of bodily harm or death”. For example, the appearance of an estranged spouse at your front door, who has previously threatened to kill you, is enough to produce imminent fear and justify self defense.

        The statement of a person that they intend to kill you, followed by movement in your direction or the production of a weapon, is sufficient.

        Punching you in the nose is sufficient. Pounding your head on the sidewalk one time is sufficient. Choking you is sufficient.

        Get it? The extent of your injuries is irrelevant and completely unnecessary to establishing justification for self defense.

        As Andrew has pointed out repeatedly, in his utter amazement at the incompetence of the prosecution, discussing the extent of his injuries accomplishes nothing toward getting him convicted.

        I can assure you that the defense will hammer this point home to the jury (and they already have on several occasions.)

    Uncle Samuel in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Only in your fertile imagination…

    Voluble in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    LOL, she comes off as a crackpot with an agenda. Instead of saying she can’t tell something from the photo she berates him for not having a better photo. She won’t just say this injury is consistent or not consistent with a given scenario. She argues about things she has no knowledge of and has been walked up to three blows from one already. Now she is telling MOM he would have to have a witness to show there were 6 blows. She isn’t testifying based on her medical knowledge at all but saying she would believe a witness.

    In short, this is a train wreck that is nearly as bad as Rachel’s testimony.

    No one has ever taught this woman how to testify. I can’t believe she holds the position she does but I can see why she was appointed.

    inspectorudy in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    There is absolutely no requirement for any of GZ’s injuries to be life threatening. In fact the one punch I was taught in the USMC to throw that would do the most damage and disorientate someone is a blow to the nose. The ringing in the ears and the confusion of the victim is so over powering that your ability to think just about disappears. CNN is laughing it up that GZ said that he had forgotten his gun for the moment and that he only remembered it when Tm reached for it. One of their talking asses said that was impossible. I would like to break his nose with one good punch and then ask him to recite some legal opinion. To me, and the knowledge that I have personally from a blow to my nose I know how it feels and how disoriented I was. The ability to fight back has to be rote from hours of training since your thought process is so disabled. I would have liked to punch that Dr. just ONE time in the nose to get her opinion on how she felt!

Here’s an article I found from May 2003 about Rao when she was under fire for allegations levied against her at a meeting were complaints from law enforcement officials that Rao walked barefoot through a bloodied crime scene, probed a victim’s bullet wound with an ungloved hand and poked another’s victim’s wound with a tree branch. I can’t believe this women even has a job. But I guess it’s good enough for government work.

Are tree branches often used to inspect victims wounds? Any chance this women was threaten with job unless she testilied for Corey?

I wonder if her first language was Creole?

Is this a thing? They make it sound like it’s the People’s Court or Judge Judy indicted her:

OCALA, Fla., July 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Florida State’s Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the alleged falsification of the arrest…

This frum and it’s commenters are laughable. Most of are a bunch of uneducated armchair lawyers who pose as experts. It’s sooo entertaining. lol

    Dr Stiffy in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Glad you’re entertained, but you’re still a troll.

    Voluble in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    I don’t like Frum either and I applaud your creative use of the apostrophe and selective dropping of words in your sentences. Most people would be afraid to assume such an avant-garde style of prose for fear it would be mistaken for stupidity or illiteracy.

    Now, if only you had to something to add on the topic at hand…

      hesperus in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 3:27 pm

      I can assure you that I have more intelligence and education than many of you thrown together. If you had a tad more points on your IQ, you’d be tuning in to other sites that offer a more, shall we say, balanced review of this trial.

        CrankbaitJohnson in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:35 pm

        I’ve seen Andrew and regular commenters discuss and link to coverage at dozens of sources including major daily newspapers, Florida TV stations, every cable news outlet, NPR, TalkLeft… Just because we mock what we see there doesn’t mean we’re in a bubble.

    moonstone716 in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    It’s hard to take your opinions seriously when your posts are only semi-literate. “Frum” I could understand as a typo if you are in a hurry, but there’s no excuse for the “it’s” for “its”

Uncle Samuel | July 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm

I believe I have met the Medical Examiner…possibly in Tallahassee some years ago between her jobs or appointments.

Is Sybrina Fulton up next? Witness not there and take a 15 minute recess. Strategy by the state to maybe close the day with her on the stand crying?

keep drinking the kool aid… and stay in your comfortable world of denial

Even the clown on channel 9 admitted he thought she was hand-picked by the state.

I thought the ME’s testimony was on the whole damaging for Zimmerman to the extent that it suggests that Zimmerman exaggerated the severity of Travon’s attack. I thought MOM’s cross examination was very good with a difficult witness.

Obviously, Zimmerman did not need to suffer life threatening harm to be justified in using lethal force. In fact, he would not have had to any injury at all if the jury believes his statement that Javon was going for his gun.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    Also, this makes the opening assertion by the State that there was NO evidence of physical harm REALLY nice territory for the closing.

    When you promise the jury something that proves untrue, you are screwed.

Two important points were missed in the cross exam of Dr. Rao.

1. Discoloration of a contusion (echymosis) may not appear immediately, but rather take days to develop fully. Hence, scalp hematoma may present as swelling without discoloration on photos taken early after injury.

2. Any blow to the head is potentially life threatening. As a radiologist I have seen post traumatic subdural and epidural hematomas as well as brain shear injury in the absence of skull fracture or significant swelling of scalp.

    Voluble in reply to neils. | July 2, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Which is why I was wondering why MOM didn’t ask something along the lines of if she would defer to the opinion of a medical professional who had examined Zimmerman in person over looking at a photo. I missed part of it so maybe he did.

    I think the jury is smart enough to know that any time your head hits concrete it is potentially life threatening but it needs to be driven home. He tried to do that by mentioning the next injury potentially being the lethal one but he should have emphasized it more in the manner you suggested and perhaps gotten her to admit that it is possible to suffer brain damage with no more injury than was shown on Zimmerman’s face etc… There were lots of ways to go about it.

      Dr Stiffy in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      She referred to the PA that examined Zimmerman as a nurse. She was picked by Corey to negate previous testimony and minimize Zimmerman’s injuries. It was not really about medicine, it was about politics.

        kentuckyliz in reply to Dr Stiffy. | July 2, 2013 at 6:06 pm

        Referring to the PA as a nurse could backfire though and leave the jurors with the impression that the ME doesn’t have a very good grip on details.

    kentuckyliz in reply to neils. | July 2, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    See, that’s what I was wondering. It is SOP for police to return to DV vics over subsequent days to take more photographs of the emerging bruises that were not visible initially. Handprints, object outlines that they were beaten with, etc. emerge. There are nurses on the jury and they may be aware of this from exams and interactions with DV vics and police.

The State’s junk science experts on voice identification were barred from testifying because their methodology was not a recognized and generally accepted technique in the profession. Why wasn’t Rao barred on the same grounds? What is the recognized and generally accepted protocol for examining patient wounds by photograph — especially when better witnesses exist (like the GZ’s examining professionals and the autopsy doctor)? And who trusts an autopsy doctor to properly assess and treat a bleeding patient who is presenting with bumps, bruises, head lacerations, and dizziness?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Mark30339. | July 2, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    Perry Mason would say the State can get into Zimmerman’s school records if they are willing to allow Trayvon’s school records to be brought before the jury.

    naughtynumbernine in reply to Mark30339. | July 2, 2013 at 6:17 pm

    Is that Billy Connolly? If so – awesome!

Wow, they are now going after him because he has some education.

txantimedia | July 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm

Question for the lawyers. Why is the judge responding to O’Mara’s objections rather than asking the prosecution to explain themselves further? Is this normal?

CoastalZooKeeper | July 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm

How does this judge actually get away with arguing the prosecution’s case for them on this issue of Zimmerman’s school records?? Isn’t that the prosecution’s job? It remind me of the other day when she dismisses O’Mara ahead of time, saying “if you were to do that, there *would be* an objection of ___ and it would be sustained.” HOW is this okay??

How many times is the judge allowed to make the State’s case?

Interesting that at this point in the trial, all you hear is Martin beating Zimmerman, and hearing this over and over and over.

This is an interesting argument about whether the course work is admissible. It’s a double-edged sword for the prosecution which wants to suggest that Zimmerman tailored his statements to support a claim of self-defense. But the defense will be able to get before the jury the principles of self-defense which as of yet have not been explained to the jury. Remember West was stopped in his opening statement from talking about the law.

Given we’re now discussing the video again, I’ll ask again. How did it work that the State could just play that video for the jury. I was under the impression that all evidence had to be introduced via witness testimony, if only to testify to its authenticity. For instance, the course records would be introduced by GZ’s professor. How did the video get in?

    rhorton1 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    The Hannity video is essentially self-authenticating as it is obviously Zimmerman talking. Moreover, the defense may, in advance of trial, have stipulated to its authenticity to avoid the necessity of requiring the State to bring in a witness to establish authenticity on a uncontested point, i.e. that Zimmerman is the person talking in the statement.

      Matt in FL in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Thanks, rhorton1. Just after I posted that, I read a comment (or maybe heard it on the live feed) about stipulation, and I wondered if that’s what they were talking about.

      So, although they did it through a witness (Serino), if both sides stipulated to the authenticity of the reenactment video (and the redactions therein), it could have come in on its own as well?

        rhorton1 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 2, 2013 at 3:59 pm

        Exactly. But the defense, as a tactical matter would not want to stipulate to the authenticity of the reenactment video, because it would not then have a witness whom it could cross-examine, as it did effectively with the detective.

Since they aren’t alleging a SYG defense, how is GZ’s coursework on SYG relevant?

Wow, she has made up her mind already.

This jeopardizes Andrew’s book sales, because if you know the law of self defense you are automatically guilty of murder if you shoot someone in self defense, because you know what to say to the police. Ignorance in the Liberal Utopia is bliss.

God forbid citizens be educated about the law. What would we need lawyers for?

Uncle Samuel | July 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm

So far, the depraved minds are all on the Martin/prosecution side of the case.

The prosecution has to hit all of the left wing talking points. I wondered how they were going to shoehorn Stand Your Ground into this… I just didn’t think it would be this inelegant.

Once again, this isn’t being done for the jury but for the press.

    James IIa in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Wouldn’t the prosecution have a duty, perhaps unstated but undoubtedly important, to conduct themselves so as not to inflame passions? That is, in the event that they lose, they should be in a position to say that they made their best case but that justice was served. Some of their claims seem to be legally irrelevant but likely to fan the animosity of onlookers, and so to lead to continued resentment after the trial even though what is legally relevant points to Z’s innocence.

    Skookum in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    On MSNBC yesterday and today Sissy Matthews is starting to backpedal on GZ’s inevitable depravity and guilt. Seems that some racists in the media are listening.

    Sissy had an SF lawyer who wants to know when GZ flicked off the safety of his gun. GZ’s pistol, a Kel-Tec PF-9 has no manual safety to flick off. Idiot.

If Zimm’s prior coursework is allowed to give evidence of his ability to “construct” a favorable story, then why is Trey’s informal coursework in fighting and stealing not also allowed? Wasn’t the “prior acts”issue settled already?

They say ignorance of the law is no excuse as in it’s too bad you didn’t know the law but we’re still charging you. But then they use knowledge of the law against you also. Basically in 2013 America your damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

    Ragspierre in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Actually, it was ever thus.

    One thing I learned in law school was that you can rationalize anything. The canon of case-law supports that, unfortunately.

    There is nothing in human experience that cannot be turned against you by an adversary. Shakespeare did a LOT with that one truism.

    Aridog in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm beat me to it by a few minutes and said it better..e.g., more succinctly. 🙂

The state’s argument on Zimmerman’s knowledge of self defense law is ludicrous. I think that the average person would know a claim of self defense would be raised by his account that he was attacked and beat by a person who attempted to reach for his gun and said you are going die tonight. What does it add that he might have actually read the Florida statute? I am scratching my head.

This is a bizarre argument for admissibility and even more bizarre that the judge is buying it. Coursework is relevant because it shows that Zimmerman had the knowledge to concoct a story that would support self defense? I want to try this in my next patent case and see how it comes out.

“Your Honor, Defendants offer into evidence the inventor’s coursework showing that he took an introduction to patent law course in undergrad, as impeachment evidence showing that he knew how to fabricate answers in his testimony supporting patentability.”

“Counsel, if you offer any evidence that dumb again, I’m finding you in contempt.”

    Voluble in reply to Edgehopper. | July 2, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    She has to “buy” it because that is why she was assigned the case. The narrative must live. That is leftism in a nutshell. Reality be damned… their fantasies MUST be fulfilled and given credence.

So the State is essentially saying that anyone who has access to the Internet, a college bookstore or a public library is now an expert on SYG. On cross, MOM needs to clarify that the prof can not prove Z’s attendance and that this information is in the public domain. Throwing excremental at the wall at this point.

We often hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse” … now in this trial we are being advised that knowledge of the law is evidence of potential guilt, due to potential to shape a frame of mind?

The prosecution is even hinting they find his wording about self defense is close enough to the law to be preplanned. That Zimmerman had completed a Community College 1 semester course on criminal justice that included stand-your-ground law in Florida therefore knew what to allegedly say? Excuse me, as a lay person I don’t believe Stand-Your-Ground law has been invoked in this case? Or has it?

Yee F’ing Almighty Gawd.

I have both civilian firearms training dating back 63 years, and extensive military training dating back 44 years, including civilian laws, military laws, and Geneva Conventions. If I shoot someone is my frame of mind determined by this training and experience? Rather than the incident at hand at the time I shoot? This is one scary concept…e.g., literally damned it you don’t and damned if you do vis a vis knowledge of the law.

BTW…I have never ever wished to be a police officer, a thankless job in my opinion, but I am familiar with self defense laws as they apply to my jurisdiction. I’ve also lived in a country where no lethal self-defense is allowed unless you are yourself almost mortally injured…as evidence of imminent potential to die yourself. You could beat a thug burglar within an inch of his life, but not kill him,legally…but you could not kill him purely out or self defense for injury or defense of property. Convicted persons, of such killings, are hung by the neck there within 30 days. You can be absolutely certain I was aware and familiar with those laws, in as much as I carried a gun.

I think GZ was a frustrated neighborhood watch guy who did not look at situations the way an average citizen would. For example, during the non-emergency 911 call he wasn’t alarmed at Trayvon checking him out while he sat in his car talking to the 911 non-emergency person. In his written testimony he said that Trayvon even circled the car but he didn’t tell the dispatcher that. I would have been intimidated if someone I was watching who I thought was a suspicious person was looking at me and circled my car. Also, the dispatcher didn’t seem to think it might be dangerous for GZ that this stranger was checking him out.

I think that maybe because GZ had had other suspicious people who observed him while he observed them and nothing bad had happened to him he didn’t fear Trayvon checking him out while putting his hand in his waist band the way I would have feared Trayvon.

    Voluble in reply to Catherine. | July 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    I could be mistaken but I thought he did tell the person on the non-emergency number that Trayvon was circling or coming near the car at one point. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

    But yeah, I would be suspicious of someone circling my car. But I don’t live where he does and aberrant behaviour seems to be more common there.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 5:41 pm

      Voluble, I have listened to the NEN call and GZ does say that TM is walking around his vehicle with his hand in his waistband. I interpret that as an aggressive gesture of intimidation as if hinting he has a gun in his waistband. GZ stayed in his car until TM had left and was running to the T and down the dogwalk. I am surprised that the dispatcher didn’t escalate the call when GZ said the suspicious person was circling his vehicle with his hand in his waistband. And yet the dispatcher keeps asking questions about where the suspicious person is, where is he headed, what address and house number, describe any actions…continuing to ask GZ to observe. The door bell alarm of the car door is heard on the dispatch recording and the dispatcher does not suggest that GZ remain in his vehicle.

    bulldust Catherine.

    I have listened to that call several times. At the point that Trayvon Martin circled the car, there was a definite edge in Zimmerman’s voice. He was most definitely alarmed by that happening. To say otherwise is simply malicious.

      Catherine in reply to Aussie. | July 2, 2013 at 7:13 pm

      I think Trayvon Martin was taunting GZ while he was in the car talking to NEN-911. I think GZ was irritated by that as well as trying to be helpful in giving the dispatcher information. If I had been in the car, I would have been a little afraid. George didn’t seem fearful and the dispatcher didn’t say anything that would lead me to believe that he thought George might be in danger.

      George might not have been afraid since he had been watching and reporting suspicious people over a period of months and he hadn’t been attacked by any of the other suspicious people that he had reported on, so far as we know.

      I think George is an earnest decent person who was trying to be helpful to his community and he was attacked by Trayvon Martin and no one helped him when he needed it most.

      Hopefully the HOA has since improved the lighting in the community and added street signs since this tragedy.

    seeing_eye in reply to Catherine. | July 2, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    There us no such thing as a non-emergency 911 call.

He’s not using SYG as as defense. Just self-defense. How is this relevant? It’s not, but it will be to Judge Nelson.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to LoriL. | July 2, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    No, SYG does not apply when a person has you pinned to the ground and as Good testified, is using pound and ground tactics that may at any moment take your life.

    The more I think of this M.E.’s testimony, how easily MOM took it apart and showed how flawed it was, and now knowing her behavior and job history, the less credible her testimony is. She is about as credible as Rachel Jeantel.

    Can’t wait for Ben Crump’s testimony and the defense cross-examination. That should be a fun time.

      LoriL in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm

      Re: Crump, it should be fun, but you’re assuming Nelson will allow much testimony. She limited his depostion, unfairly I’d say.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to LoriL. | July 2, 2013 at 4:34 pm

        Crump and Corey will get their chance to testify in full in civil court…as defendants.

Well then. I just sat up and took notice. I’ll be watching this witness very closely.

txantimedia | July 2, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Wow! We’re actually making a little progress now.

Is there a reason why we are supposed to accept the testimony of Dr. Valerie Rao who has made racial and cultural slurs in the past? Not to mention she refers to gun owners as “Backwoods Rednecks”.

Just for clarification, did she testify that there werevno latent prints on the slide, not even GZ’s?

In Oklahoma a man snatched a two-year-old girl from her mother’s shopping cart and held a knife to her throat. A heroic police officer, Capt. David Huff, fatally shot 37-year-old Sammie Wallace at point-blank range, believing that the child had already been harmed by Wallace. As it turned out the little girl suffered NO injuries. Thank god this didn’t happen in Angela Corey-Nifong’s jurisdiction or cop would be up facing murder charges.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    And according to leftist mindset, because the child did not sustain life-threatening injuries, in fact, was not injured at all, except emotionally, the killing would not be justified.

    That story was shown in Australia. They showed the police officer killing the guy.

    No second guesses as to racial make-up of the guy.

I would have to say that this latest round of evidence issues is making the judge look dumb. The basic rule of evidence is  that evidence is relevant when it makes more probable the existence of an an element of the state’s case. Does the judge actually believe that the fact Zimmerman wanted to be a cop makes it more probable that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind or that he did not act in self defense?

I would not fight too hard on this one. That the state is reduced to such arguments shows how lacking in evidence the state’s case is and invites ridicule in closing arguments.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Yah, I think she is letting the State run with their theory…whatever the hell that is at this point.

    I don’t see any harm it does IF the jurors are not dumb as mud bricks, and I DO see it harming the State if the jurors can see a case based on frog fur when it is set before them.

    Any common criminal knows how to make up a plausible story, based on self-defense.

    It makes for a closing segment that just about writes itself.

    seeing_eye in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    A “wanna-be cop” is now considered as depraved and evil as Jack the Ripper?

    Before my retirement I worked with a lot of LE officers (most of whom were very conscientious about their jobs and at times very heroic). And I know for a fact that ALL OF THEM were at one time a “wanna-be cop.” And I consider it a most admirable ambition.

Well, that lack of fingerprint evidence certainly help support reasonable doubt as to whether Trayvon Martin was the aggressor. Too bad that’s not what the prosecution has to prove…

So the state gets to make the case that a person’s knowledge of police procedures and the law is evidence that the person is lying, and that is why there is no evidence that a crime was committed?

    Dr Stiffy in reply to divemedic. | July 2, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    The prosecution just seems to be trying to find something, anything, to support their case. I feel sorry for them. They didn’t ask for this trial, Angela Corey did. She made her decision and tossed it over the fence to these guys. De La Rionda probably knows there is no case and is just doing the best job he can. I’m surprised Corey showed up in court this afternoon. She seems like her main concern is her career so I figured she would distance herself as far as possible from this sham of a trial.

      Sorry Stiffy I disagree with your reasoning, and that is why a thumbs down when I would have given a thumbs up.

      I disagree that they had to take the case. BDLR is disgusting. He charged a 12 year old with first degree murder and wanted to try that child as an adult.

      On top of that he has been a lying sack of dog doo-doo and his tactics in the pre-trial bits has been totally disgusting.

      I cannot feel sorry for such a sack of dog doo-doo.

        Dr Stiffy in reply to Aussie. | July 2, 2013 at 6:07 pm

        I understand and respect your viewpoint. In this case the prosecution is more than just De La Rionda. Also, De La Rionda is not the one responsible for Zimmerman being indicted on second degree murder, but he now has to do the dirty work.

        Thank you for the reference of his past history. I will do some reading on that case.

    Voluble in reply to divemedic. | July 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    I am wondering if we now have to keep track of all of the episodes of crime dramas that have been broadcast where they explain self-defense laws and then cross reference for the ones the suspect might have seen.

Henry Hawkins | July 2, 2013 at 5:09 pm

As a non-legal, I’m relegated to spectator status for the duration of this trial and its domination of the blog, but to be useful I’ve been cruising the usual suspect sites looking to recruit better trolls for you, but so far no luck. Make do with the ones you’ve got. Sorry. I’ll keep trying.

I agree with whoever posted about the amount of time wasted. Did we really need an “expert” to tell us that if you have abrasions, cuts and bruises all over your head then you might have banged it on concrete? More than once? Was that actually necessary?

And to top it off, what she added that common sense wouldn’t tell you was demonstrably false. If George had marks on various parts of his head then yes, obviously there could have been multiple impacts with concrete, fists etc… The one thing that WOULD NOT make sense would be for it all to be the result of one punch… which was her unique contribution to this whole affair.

You punch him on the nose, he falls down and then hits his head on multiple sides like some sort of bobble-head doll… I am not buying that. I don’t think a competent professional would have posed that as a likely scenario and would have put it on the list of the ones most likely to be ruled out completely by the evidence. Certainly I would like to see the punch that resulted in abrasions to the temple, a broken or severely damaged nose and cuts on the back of the head along with (in her mind, putative) swelling to the side of the head opposite the abraided temple. About the only way I could make that happen is if he fell in a crowded room and things landed on top of him as a result.

She also made a bit of an ass of herself in being combative about whether there was swelling. Instead of stating professionally and coolly that she could not tell from the picture whether there was swelling she went off on the quality of the photo as if the defense had taken it and did so in a designed to fool her.

She just struck me as being not particularly bright and as being the sort that overcompensates for it by being surly. It does not surprise me that the ME’s voted her out and that she has multiple complaints against her.

Florida public officials seem to be a pretty sad lot.

    JasonI in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Typical government worker. Nobody else would tolerate an employee like that.

    naughtynumbernine in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    Her willingness to trivialize a traumatic head injury kind of baffled me. As an EMT I’ve been trained to treat any head trauma seriously.

    seeing_eye in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    In addition, her boss and the person she has to account to is none other than…..Angela Corey! Can it get any smarmier than this?

    Baker in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    What I found particularly interesting was the way she whined and complained about the quality and angles of the photographs indicating they were insufficient for complete and proper scientific assessments once she was questioned in detail but she had no problem spouting off the prosecutions ‘line’ only a few minutes earlier.

    And another thing, though it is not something related to the trial. It is just something that crossed my mind. She indicated that she had experience in examining live patients and the example she gave was being involved in investigating and documenting cases of potential police brutality. I just wondered how she would have classified the injuries to Zimmerman had he been hypothetically involved in a police brutality claim and she was called in for an assessment. Based just on these photos of his wounds, one wonders if she would have agreed that an investigation into potential brutality would be warranted.

naughtynumbernine | July 2, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Since the initial evidence was released about a year ago it’s been fairly apparent that the State of FL has absolutely no case against Zimmerman. Since then I’ve perused various forums around the net and there are a staggering amount of people who are completely oblivious to evidence, logic, and testimony. It’s absolutely mind boggling that people will so transparently cast aside fact to suit their often comical delusions regarding Mr. Zimmerman’s state of mind, intentions, history etc. My concern is that these people are legally able to vote, and even worse, many will be called to serve on a jury. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that the people who have clearly demonstrated that their emotion and bias trumps fact, logic, legal precedence or the inability to discern the difference will not be allowed to serve on a jury in the future? What good is our legal system when potential jurors are incapable or unwilling to discern fact from fiction?

ParalegalGirl | July 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Why didn’t MOM bring up all the complaints that have been lodged against the medical examiner?

Also, can MOM bring up the new citizen’s indictment against Angela Corey?

I would imagine that lying face up with blood gurgling down your nose and throat might produce a state if anxiety akin to that produced by “waterboarding.” Might even induce me to take desperate action to get out of the bind.

    rantbot in reply to Solomon. | July 2, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    But waterboarding is one of those things you can talk your way out of. An assault by a bigoted gangsta wannabe, not so much.

kringeesmom | July 2, 2013 at 7:19 pm

It depends on whether or not you had studied psychology and done any homework assignments on anxiety. As this evidence may be later used against you in a court of law.

Henry Hawkins | July 2, 2013 at 9:12 pm

Take it from a Cass Corridor Detroit boy no stranger to bar & street fights back in the day (Anderson Gardens! Willis Show Bar!), there comes a time in a losing effort when you realize the other guys isn’t just fighting, he’s trying to kill you. That’s the chronological moment where I’d locate Zimmerman’s screams, if indeed it was Zimmerman screaming. Next thoughts would be defensive assets, that he may now have to use his weapon, also a horrifying option when in such close quarters losing control of your weapon to your opponent is a real danger.

But, I guess that’s how a Sanford, Florida killer like Zimmerman rolls – he runs up to his profiled victim, pulls the victim down on top of himself, beats the back of his own head against the concrete beneath to provide a self-defense alibi, smacks himself in the nose a couple times with a free fist, then pulls his piece and shoots the ‘victim’.

Makes sense to me. Zimmerman is toast. He’ll get at least Impersonating A Citizen, perhaps Littering, and maybe even Unlawful Prevention Of Own Death Without HHS Approval (this last one is new, a subordinate clause in an Obama executive order addressing the marketing of banana pudding).

Mr. Branca – I have a slightly different take on why the State is harping on the Zimmerman’s injuries are not that severe theme. Their primary theory is that GZ weaved a web of lies, and they believe that one of the biggest lies GZ told was about the severity of the beating he took from TM. The state is not attacking his self defense claim, at least not directly. When the state elicits testimony that GZ’s injuries were minor they are attacking GZ’s credibility. If he lied about, or at best severely exaggerated, his injuries, you can assume that he lied about everything else, including his claim that he shot TM because he was in fear for this life. It’s like a water torture. Drip (one lie), drip (another lie), drip (another lie) ….. , then finally your head is pounding and your’re ready to call him a liar, and hence a murderer. Personally, I think it’s a fairly weak theme, that ignores the corroborating evidence of self-defense and comes no where near the state’s burden of proof. But still interested in your thoughts on whether the attacks on the severity of GZ’s injuries are an attack on GZ’s general credibility?

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:15 pm

Although Mr. Zimmerman may have been in fear of his life, his injuries prove he was definitely not “resisting an attempt of murder” which is required by the statute. The tragedy occurred because you had two aggressive personalities. Under Florida law, Zimmerman cannot be found guilty if he was not the initial aggressor.

    Horton, is that you? Or Herpes?

    How about we look at the actual statute, which states, succinctly:

    “The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.”

    FL 782.02. Justifiable use of deadly force (

    Missed that part where it says “or to commit any felony upon him” did you? Selective reading skills?

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      No, I don’t think it was selective reading skills. I suspect it was an issue of a significantly diminished attention span. He just forgot what he was doing while reading the statute, got up to get a twinkie and forgot to finish. ADHD.

      Is that reaching and speculation? Heck, why not? the prosecution has been on that train for a week.

    jackoooo in reply to marshahallet. | July 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    Good read. He should of waited until he had a concussion!

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:25 pm

The injuries sustained by George Zimmerman were very minor according to Chris Serino and Dr. Rao. They required only bandaids. They were not an attempt at murder.

    You’re clearly too stupid to have an adult conversation, but thanks for self-identifying. Kiddie table is over thataway. Don’t smack your sister, and go easy on the soda and chips. You remember what happened last time.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    kentuckyliz in reply to marshahallet. | July 3, 2013 at 12:20 am

    John Good. Bam.

    Ragspierre in reply to marshahallet. | July 3, 2013 at 6:30 am

    “very minor”…???

    I don’t recall the LEO saying that. Maybe you could find that for us?

    Have you ever had your nose broken? It isn’t…perhaps… life-threatening by itself but it isn’t “very minor” either.

    Zimmerman was subjected to a “furious assault”, as they used to say before such assaults were reduced to the level of a street game played by sexually mature children.

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:26 pm

To continue, I don’t know if those injuries constitute a felony or not.

    The felony is aggravated assault, which is what they call it when you pound someone’s head into a sidewalk and use the entire planet as a weapon against their skull.

    But of course you wouldn’t know that. They didn’t teach it during OWS training.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | July 3, 2013 at 6:34 am

      I think they DO teach it at OWS training, Andrew.

      If you are bashing the right sort of persons head, using the planet as a weapon, the planet likes it and thanks you.

      Peace, hippie…

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Sounds like the kind of conversation that started between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and ended in murder. My defense is to step away.

    kentuckyliz in reply to marshahallet. | July 3, 2013 at 12:23 am

    Which is what GZ was trying to do when TM suckerpunched him and started the assault. TM thought GZ was easy pickings. “You got it” was surprise that GZ got the gun because TM was overconfident about GZ being a pansy.

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:31 pm

I can see why you had to write a book about self defense law.

    SCLEO in reply to marshahallet. | July 3, 2013 at 12:11 am

    Whether he caused serious injury or not is irrelevant for this debate. That he used a weapon CAPABLE of causing serious injury or death (the concrete) is very relevant.

    If I point a gun at you, would you be able to shoot me to defend yourself, or do you think you would be required to wait until I shot you first before you could defend yourself?

    It appears that by your argument, you should be tried for murder if you shoot me first because although I pointed the gun at you but didn’t fire, then you lacked sufficient injury to justify killing me. Or what if I shot you first, but only grazed your arm? That isn’t significant injury.

    The questions to be considered are whether the weapon I used was CAPABLE of causing serious injury or worse, and whether or not you believed at the time that you were in danger of death or serious bodily harm, even if that belief turned out to be incorrect, it only needs to be a reasonable belief.

kentuckyliz | July 2, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Question: Is there anything illegal about this tweet? “George W. Zimmerman [address redacted], y’all know what to do.. RT this. He gone learn today.” They are publishing his real address…or that of some poor sucker with the same name. Does that constitute a threat? I searched and got the tweets and printed to PDF but it’s been RT’d like wildfire thousands of times since, I can’t keep up. It’s probably not explicit enough for terroristic threatening. Still, if something happened to GZ or his family or pets or property, it would be interesting to have this list of accounts who tweeted the threat to furnish to the investigators.

    Ragspierre in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 6:18 am

    Interesting question, liz. Would it get you a visit from the Secret Service if directed against Pres. Snoop-Dog? I kinda think it would.

    Some people are the lowest form of coward. There are lots of them that are twitter-literate. I wonder about a correlation.

    Obviously, whoever it is ought to arm themselves. Lots of “tough guys” rethink their nefarious goals when they realize they’ll need to walk through a wall of lead to accomplish them.

    Naturally, anybody can be killed. But with appropriate preparation just about anyone can make an effort to take their life a darned tough, and very costly, enterprise

    For reference see: Zimmerman, George, 2/26/12.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Is this judge bias or what? Totally for the prosecution. Probably trying to avoid a riot!!!

The prosecution and the judge just sandbagged the defense with those charges. How was the defense to know DURING the trial that these charges would be added so they could ask the right questions regarding the case?

This prosecutor, who is talking about the closing arguments, sees into Zimmerman’s head. Why did we have a trial? Let him judge the mind set of criminals. His clairvoyance is amazing. Where has he been all these years.

Prosecutor wants to know where the bood was on Zimmerman?
Why didn’t he ask the cops?
He probably thinks the Fla. jury people are morons and they forgot it was raining….