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.


Keep up the good work! Great coverage. Well done.

LilMissSpellcheck | July 2, 2013 at 9:04 am

Who’s left on prosecution’s witness list? The HLN persecutors couldn’t deny yesterday’s FAIL, but insist that BDLR can turn this around.

Honestly, what’s left in his quiver? Did he decide to lead with days and days of equivocal witness and hold back some blockbuster case-breakers?

Can the State add witnesses at this point to rebut its own witnesses? Ifso, who could they possibly add>

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 9:08 am

who would have thunk it? that BAD FAITH BERNIE D would want to have the lead investigator’s assessment of the veracity of GZ’s statements struck down? surprise surprise surprise. Too bad bernie, ding dong the bell has rung

Will the prosecution bring in Corey or someone from her office to explain what evidence they have that made them think this case should go to trial?

    Frank_Underwood in reply to Lisa_PA. | July 2, 2013 at 10:42 am

    Corey will only show up if the jury does the wrong thing, otherwise she is going to avoid this mess. She knows it only damages her.

    Of course, you might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

More “broken arrows” I suspect.

This is a crock!
The state files a motion in the morning that they have researched all night, and O’Mara has to come up with his argument on the spot? It is already in the record, it could be struck tomorrow if need be. This judge really pisses me off sometime.

Mrs. Leroy Goldberg | July 2, 2013 at 9:14 am

Sometime??? How about ALL the time!

They can strike it from the record but they can’t make the jury unhear it. All MOM has to do is ask him again “Did you find any evidence, witness statements or officer statements that contradict Zimmerman’s account?” Even more powerful than Serino’s personal opinion.

    bernie49 in reply to MegK. | July 2, 2013 at 9:21 am

    MegK: Nicely done. The motion strikes me as a crock, since Serino’s whole interrogation is predicated on his continuous assessment of whether he sees GZ as telling the truth or not. It will hit home even harder if it is the first question after the jury is told to disregard Serino’s previous statement as to whether he believed GZ or not.

O’Mara has the world, the flesh, and the devil against him. The world represented by all those people watching the trial on YouTube, the flesh in the person of the judge, and the devil in Bernie de la Rionda. (Punch line of a joke my grandfather once told me…)

    Ragspierre in reply to EBL. | July 2, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Nope. Not without experts, and that boat sailed a LOOOONNNNNG time back.

    Ragspierre in reply to EBL. | July 2, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Again, that blog is notorious crap. IMNHO.

    Where in the autopsy report does it say anything about “brain injury from past drug use”? I can’t find it.

    I won’t be quite as blunt as Ragspierre, but I do find that site a bit “over the top” a lot of the time as well. It’s not exactly credibility central.

    kentuckyliz in reply to EBL. | July 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Brain damaged people still have to obey the law. It is not a pass for Assault with a Deadly Weapon. (Serino’s testimony about the concrete)

LilMissSpellcheck | July 2, 2013 at 9:22 am

Please tell me that the prosecution hasn’t asked any questions of any of their witnesses that would either denigrate or vouch for another witness’s credibiity?

Because that would be wrong, right?

Anyway, going forward, they’re committing themselves to not do so, yes?

That’s retarded, sir.

Is the State seriously trying to argue they want to offer a video as direct testimony, w/o the opportunity for a cross b/c defense missed a meeting.

    Jazzizhep in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 9:26 am

    especially considering the slow-footing on discovery.

    Mister Natural in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 9:29 am

    so much for “truth, justice and the American way”

    fogflyer in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    Betcha it is allowed by the judge.

    Oh, I loved the state saying they wanted to play the video direct and MAYBE the guy would be available via Skype for cross. Yeah, like that would ever happen if they got the video in… Gimme a break.

      Matt in FL in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm

      Yeah, somehow I suspect that once that video was in, their efforts in getting hold of that witness would drop off dramatically.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 9:45 am

    The Trayvonites or Crumpites remind me of the legion of really nasty little Romney demons on the blogs during the GOP primary.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 2, 2013 at 9:48 am

      They must be ex-OWS denizens of Mamma’s Basement that are paid by word or comment, sitting for days on end in their soiled T-shirts, with lists of expletive-laced talking points ready to copy and paste.

So MOM still hasn’t actually argued against the motion to strike, but she’s already getting the court reporter to queue up the “last question and answer.” Is there any doubt which way she’s going to rule, before defense even argues the motion?

LawatStPenn | July 2, 2013 at 9:28 am

I’m thankful to be part of this site and look forward to the insightful coverage of trials and the comments of others.

    hesperus in reply to LawatStPenn. | July 2, 2013 at 9:48 am

    insightful, as in favorable to your opinion that zimmerman is innocent?

      Zimmerman is considered innocent until proven guilty. The weirdos aren’t the people who accept that, the weirdos are those who’ve arbitrarily decided the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to white hispanics.

      txantimedia in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 10:16 am

      hsperus, do you have some evidence to refute the testimony so far? Or are you simply not going to listen to anything, because your mind is already made up?

        TrooperJohnSmith in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 11:00 am

        The mind of a bigot is like the human eye, because the more light shined on it, the tighter it closes. I think that O.W. Holmes said that originally.

        You know that it’s the fault of the low-information types that we have the government we have. To add irony upon irony, the supposed “liberals” who have helped create this easily-led, easily-manipulated creature, at one timed believed in the true tenet of liberalism, which was the pursuit of truth, regardless of where it took them. Of course, since “truth” began its death spiral with the election of Bill Clinton, perhaps it is no longer worth pursuing or, more likely, it has become unrecognizable to those on the Left, with whom “truth” is now a political position, rather than a destination on the road to enlightenment.

          Mister Natural in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 2, 2013 at 11:21 am

          !-“You must all know… people…”(LIKE MISS DEE DEEl…” who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself”—GB Shaw

          2-We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes….Three generations of imbeciles are enough”.—OW Holmes

cover up Serino’s hair, and you have Michael Chiklis

    Mister Natural in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 9:40 am

    i was thinking russell crowe in “L A confidential”

    kentuckyliz in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Serino should have an acting coach. I think he can ditch the department and go Hollywood once this is all over. He’ll probably end up with bigger checks than the Martins and the Zimmermans.

The ultimate question is: Why is the State of FL so desperate to exploit a legal system for the purpose of lynching an innocent man? The only rational explanation is that the Northern Leftists having invaded FL over the past Century now have secured their Power over that State.

    hesperus in reply to aposematic. | July 2, 2013 at 9:45 am

    so you’ve made up your mind that he is innocent after hearing only one week of this case? I’m glad you’re not a judge.

      Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 9:47 am

      It took you less time to decide to come here to troll the site.

        hesperus in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 9:53 am

        oh rags, you intellectual powerhouse you. I get entertainment from this, by observing people who are obviously cheerleading for zimmie under the guise of being intelligent, unbiased observers. It’s a farce. I also enjoy watching faux news, too – fair and balanced.

          Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 9:59 am

          Very few people here have made ANY claim to being unbiased, you moron. Or was that just a lie?

          And you are no less biased. You are trolling, and you know it.

          Look up the term if you are too ignorant to understand.

          If you have an ACTUAL opinion respecting the case, you are as welcome as anyone to state it.

          txantimedia in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 10:19 am

          hesperus, enlighten us with your manifest powers of observation. What has the testimony so far told you about the case?

          TrooperJohnSmith in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 11:13 am

          Ultimate Lefty-Truth #902:

          When a Leftist plays the “Faux News” card, he/she/it has reached the ultimate depth of their argument, where facts are not available or are so tenuous, they will not sustain the stated position. In small children, this is accompanied by a stomping foot, slamming of doors or, in extreme cases, by a voluntary, yet temporary, cessation of respiration. In persons recognized by law as adults, the aforementioned reactions may be displayed along with the throwing of expensive cups of coffee into a garbage receptacle (eschewing the nearby recycling bin), the bullying of minimum wage employees in public and/or posting stream-of-conscious comments on Twitter or Facebook.

          Solomon in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 12:33 pm

          Hesperus, you seem to have difficulty discerning fact from fiction. May I suggest you only watch TV for the weather from now on. It will also benefit your vision, since your other “activity” has been said to lead to blindess.

      gxm17 in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 9:52 am

      Hearing the state’s side of the case! If you want to be generous and call it a case because the state has got nothing. Once the defense presents their case, there will (likely) be no doubt left whatsoever (except for those who must cling to their bias and hate).

      Frank_Underwood in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 10:45 am

      I suspect Zimmerman is glad you are NOT on the jury, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

    ConradCA in reply to aposematic. | July 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    The only point of this trial is political. The progressive fascists use this case to scare blacks, to make them angry so they would vote for Tyrant Obama and the progressive fascist party in 2012. Obama’s if I had a son he would look like Trayvon and this persecution are to so them that the progressive fascist party is on their side. This is how the Dems operated in the Jim Crow days except they preyed on the weaknesses of racist whites then.

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 9:43 am

Bad Faith Bernie is a sneaky little shit with that comment on a previous opinion

Are most of you here truly unbiased in your opinion of this case or do you WANT one side to fail?

    Mister Natural in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 9:50 am

    sure am, and that’s because rooting for GZ is rooting for JUSTICE.
    you are a wreck, aren’t you

    Uncle Samuel in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 9:52 am

    Again, the hope is that actual evidence and facts will be what drives and decides this case, not a racist narrative and character lynching concocted by Crump and Parks, a PR firm’s campaign, the race industry and the media.

    Aridog in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Answer your own question. You have no idea of the mindset of other participants. However, you are projecting your own opinions rather regularly, and your suppositions about any of us who don’t immediately agree with you.

    Tell us what you think a positive outcome will be? Is the state of Florida obligated to prove guilt, or is Zimmerman and his defense team obligated to prove innocence?

      Hesperus doesn’t understand or doesn’t accept the concepts of presumption of innocence or burden of proof. That much he’s made perfectly clear.

    CrustyB in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 10:03 am

    I’m waiting to hear one piece of actual evidence–not imagination–that proves George Zimmerman acted out of something other than self defense. Last time I checked, the sentence for following someone for 30 seconds and returning to your car was not death. The violence started with Trayvon Martin lethally assaulting Zimmerman. Zimmerman acted out of self defense. Give me something that contradicts that and I’ll listen but so far I got butkis.

    BDLR: “Is f**king punks a nice thing to say?” Serino: “No.” Goodness, he said something that wasn’t nice! Let’s lynch the bastard!

      Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a creepy-ass cracka and a n*gga. Those weren’t very nice things to say either, as long as we’re going all Miss Manners on these guys.

    MegK in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Just following the facts and evidence. So far I see nothing that has disproven a self-defense claim, and lots of evidence that supports one. I’m open to hearing any and all evidence.

    rantbot in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Bias? What is that? Just progressive doublespeak, or does the concept have meaning?

    The whole American judicial system is biased, as it should be. The defendant is Not Guilty until proven otherwise. That’s a monumental bias right there. I share that bias. Zimmerman is not guilty until the State proves otherwise. But in this case, the State doesn’t seem to have started yet. Until they do, the bias remains – Z. is not guilty.

    kentuckyliz in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    I will be the first to line up and spank the defendant if it is shown that he committed some crime before the shooting that would mean he’d lose his access to self-defense; or if there is conclusive proof of GZ’s guilt for murder 2 or manslaughter beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. So far I am skeptical but I am open to whatever blockbuster BLDR has queued up and waiting in the wings. My concern is that of a person who may have to defend herself someday. I would never initiate a hostile confrontation because it’s bad manners. I’m the kind of person who would talk you down–and I have done that with hostile and/or suicidal people before, so I know I can. However, I will not hesitate to defend myself.

BDLR is asking argumentative questions, and the judge is sustaining O’Mara’s objections.

Now BDLR is asking a series of purely leading questions. A few is no biggie. But this is not OK.

Do you file charges of second degree murder in every homicide?
When do you not file charges?
When the evidence does not support those charges
Did you file charges of second degree murder in this case?

O’Mara needs to object to the State leading its own witness.

Using words like “f**king punks” and “a**holes” to describe a category of criminals (burglars) isn’t nice, but calling a stranger a “crazy ass cracka” and a “nigga” is akin to giving him a big warm hug!

    kentuckyliz in reply to Observer. | July 2, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Quick poll, who thinks people who burgle houses are punks? (Regardless of race) — I do. It’s happened to me. Yeah, they are f***in’ punks.

Robbers, burglars & thieves ARE “assholes” & “fucking punks.” GZ didn’t say Trayvon was, he was investigating whether or not he was and insuring that if he was, he didn’t simply commit a crime (as he seemed to be getting ready to do, and then did)and escape.

I believe that it has dawned on the prosecutor that he will not have the opportunity to cross examine Mr. Zimmerman, and he is trying to get those questions in on his “cross” of his own witness, Mr. Serino.

Uncle Samuel | July 2, 2013 at 10:10 am

Are there actual recordings and transcripts of the alleged* phone conversations and texts between Trayvon’s phone – Rachael Jeantel’s phone?

In other words, is there any unimpeachable proof of what was said and when it was said between Trayvon and Jeantel/Diamond?

Or is all Jeantel’s testimony in court and in depositions only her word?

txantimedia | July 2, 2013 at 10:11 am

Read this –,0,6433011.column

Then tell me you didn’t roll your eyes and mutter under your breath.

Question for the lawyers here, is this how re-direct is usually done? Is this how prosecutors usually interact with police investigators?

    Tertullus in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Absolutely not. The prosecutor is treating Mr. Serino as a “hostile witness” though there has been no ruling on that. I question why the prosecutor is allowed so many leading questions of his own witness. My first guess is it is because the defense does not believe that this testimony is hurting them at all.

    Ragspierre in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 10:17 am

    You don’t get to lead your own witness, unless you have permission to threat them as a hostile witness.

    A few leading questions are hard to avoid, especially as you lay a predicate for a line of questioning. And objecting to all of them is petty.

    BUT this was wrong, and I sure would have objected.

    Haha, no.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    myiq2xu in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 11:19 am

    The only time I have seen the prosecution try to impeach their own witness is in domestic violence cases where the victim testifies that she lied when she said she was beat up. Then they impeach with her prior inconsistent statements and the arresting officer’s observations.

    I have never even heard of a prosecutor impeaching their own law enforcement witness.

#Zimmerman Trial: Clearly “fucking punks” and “these assholes” = Murder 2

Andrew – isn’t this a little disingenuous?

Appreciate the coverage. Keep it up man.

Jason…no, this is a case from an alternative universe.

LilMissSpellcheck | July 2, 2013 at 10:23 am

Hesperus: Can you build a case for Zimmerman being the racist aggressor, initiator of violence, WITHOUT using “facts” not in evidence? Because Crump’s imagination is the only source for most of your premises. And the jury is sworn to consider ONLY the evidence presented in court.

I’m still trying to figure out exactly what the state is trying to argue?

Here are some of the things they have argued:

Zimmerman was the one on top.
Trayvon was on top but didn’t beat him as bad as George said he did.

Trayvon was the one screaming.
There is no evidence that Trayvon was smothering George when George was screaming.

Shouldn’t they pick a scenario and stick with it?

    KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 10:48 am

    Trayvon was on top screaming for help while Zimmerman held him at gunpoint and then shot and killed him. Then, after realizing what he did, he beat his own face and back of the head with the gun before anyone saw anything. I also think Bernie imagines Trayvon was begging to go home and finish his homework and then after Zimmerman fires the kill shot, he mutters off a killer catch phrase, like, “Looks like your dog just ate it.”

      cazinger in reply to KrazyCrackaEsq. | July 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm

      You joke about it (I’m assuming that was sarcasm), but I have seen comments on some other boards that have seriously suggested just your scenario. I have even seen crazier scenarios put forward, like “GZ shot Trayvon in front of Brand Green’s townhome and then DRAGGED the body back to where it was found. And THEN he hit himself in the nose and the back of the head to support his own self-defense theory.” Sadly, the person who put forward that theory was NOT trying to be funny or sarcastic.

        kentuckyliz in reply to cazinger. | July 2, 2013 at 4:29 pm

        That has been since the Mora and Good eyewitness testimony? That’s just entirely divorced from reality and crying out for meds.

    PackerBronco in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Shouldn’t they pick a scenario and stick with it?
    The state is just trying to introduce reasonable doubt that GZ is innocent, hoping to get a conviction that way.

    Fen in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Simple Answer: The prosecution went to the Sally Struther’s School of Law where they are taught that the defendent is innocent unless you can provide reasonable doubt. Or something like that.

    Does State know they have become a joke?

MOM didn;t make it clear that GZ could have gone straight through the “T” and attacked on way back, or at least couldn’t get Serino to understand or acknowledge

LilMissSpellcheck | July 2, 2013 at 10:40 am

At some point after Pam Bondi took this case away from the local jurisdiction, she surely had investigators of her own to develop edidence to overturn the locals’ decision not to prosecute, yes?

Why are we hearing from the local cops and not from the staties who reported directly to Bondi?

Does Serino seem a lot more hostile to the defense today than he did yesterday?

    Matt in FL in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 10:47 am

    I think “a lot” is overstating it, but a little bit, yes.

    Ragspierre in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Knowing you’re knee-deep in quick-sand can be stressful.

    Knowing that the alligator’s are about to get their turn when you’re knee-deep in quick-sand can make a fella downright cranky…

    Tertullus in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 10:55 am

    I thought so at first. But Mr. O’Mara has calmed things down and getting a series of agreements. I admire Mr. O’Mara’s style. He is not so confrontational, but asks a series of seemingly easy, obvious questions getting the witnesses in the habit of agreeing with him. Excellent style.

    MegK in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 11:11 am

    I didn’t really get that impression. I get the impression that he’s a guy doing his best to answer truthfully but these just aren’t black and white questions. He can believe Zimmerman is basically telling the truth while still believing there were a few exaggerations/misstatements. That’s pretty much the way I see it as well. I think Zimmerman may have embellished or exaggerated his story a bit to portray himself in the most positive possible light, and Trayvon in the most negative. However on the basic facts the evidence supports his story.

I thought Zimmerman was looking for a street name and not a number. What good would it have done to have a house number without the street name?

    Matt in FL in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 10:48 am

    You’re correct. He didn’t know the name of the street he was on, but he knew the dog walk cut through to Retreat View Circle, so he walked through to find an address on Retreat View Circle.

      Voluble in reply to Matt in FL. | July 2, 2013 at 10:58 am

      It was a mistake for the defense not to point this out. We have to hope the jury catches it now. Conflating a house number with a street address seems like it could plant the wrong idea in the mind of the jury.

      Wish defense would point out that Z didn’t REMEMBER the street, not that he didn’t KNOW it. I know all the streets in my townhouse complex, but out on the street at night in the rain? I would need notes or a map or something if I wanted to direct police to me.

    KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 10:51 am

    Ya I thought that was bizarre. I mean was Zimmerman suppose to say, “Ya I’m at 1211, get over here fast.”

      Mansizedtarget in reply to KrazyCrackaEsq. | July 2, 2013 at 11:13 am

      I didn’t think this was so weird. He probably knows the layout of his neighborhood, but doesn’t think much about street names. It’s one of these new complexes where all the houses look the same and all the street names are similar sounding, Retreat Circle, Twin Lakes Lane, Winding Path, etc. I’ve lived in lots of subdivisions like this; I rarely know the street names. I think a Seminole County jury won’t find it so hard to believe; after all, witness Jenna Laurer said she didn’t know name of some streets either, and she was a very credible witness that favored defense.

        Karla1953 in reply to Mansizedtarget. | July 2, 2013 at 11:39 am

        I live in a small condo complex and while the Street names are not that difficult the actual numbering is very confusing. I have lived here 10 years and even with a number on my unit if a Fed Ex person or others come to my home in error I usually still have to walk outside and almost walk myself through where the home they are looking for is/at night in the rain it would be like a comedy act I am sure. At times IMO our direct surroundings are more baffling as we do not use names etc we simply know where we are. I know where certain people live/do not know their house #’s or even last names at times.

        KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to Mansizedtarget. | July 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm

        I am saying it was bizaree for the State to point this out like he was some damning piece of evidence in the case. Having the numbers 1211 does you no good unless you have the actual street. Even if you say he should have just guessed – well, then you take the risk that the police go searching for you at the wrong street and it takes even longer to locate you. So, arguably at this point, it makes even more sense for Zimmerman to want to ensure the correct street in order to speed up the response time of the police. You also could argue that Zimmerman wasn’t scared to get out of the car because he thought the police were close. So, he didn’t think there would be time for TM to confront him before police arrived.

Surprised defense is not emphasizing that Martin is unscratched except for his knuckles when the prosecution tries to emphasize how slight Zimmerman’s injuries are.

So if George started it he got the worst of it before doing any damage himself. I guess that might come when the forensic examiner testifies.

    Jazzizhep in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 10:56 am

    that will come in with medical examiner, or defense’s case

    Tertullus in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 10:58 am

    There is no evidence, NO EVIDENCE, that Mr. Zimmerman “started it”. If not for Ms. Jeantel’s testimony I think the prosecution would have a difficult time getting to the jury on the issue of depraved mind or evil intent.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Tertullus. | July 2, 2013 at 11:13 am

      UNLESS there actual recordings and transcripts of the alleged* phone conversations and texts between Trayvon’s phone – Rachael Jeantel’s phone, any unimpeachable proof of EXACTLY what was said and when it was said between Trayvon and Jeantel/Diamond Jeantel’s testimony in court and in depositions is only her word and she is NOT an impartial witness.

      Her testimony have varied as to what and when events occurred.

      Even if there were recordings of the phone conversations, she cannot testify to WHERE Trayvon confronted George Zimmerman only that TM did confront him.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 2, 2013 at 11:15 am

        The two strongest testimonies to what occurred were John Good’s and George Zimmerman’s, especially the GZ response to Officer Serino’s Challenge session claim to have a film of the fight.

        “Thank God, I hope they got it all!”

Emil de Blatz | July 2, 2013 at 10:59 am

BDLR: “Do you like gladiator movies, Timmy?”

BDLR: “Are you saying it is against the law for someone to wear a hoodie at night?”

What a stupid question. This is the best attorney the prosecution could find?? What an assclown.

    Pauldd in reply to CrustyB. | July 2, 2013 at 11:10 am

    I was also struck by how inane many of the prosecutors questions were?

    Also, I would have done some cross on the profiling issue. My understanding of profiling as it is used in a derogatory sense is that it occurs when one takes into account person’s skin color when interpreting his actions. I saw no evidence of that. Taking into to account the suspicious activity of an individual is what a neighborhood watch volunteer is expected to do and I don’t see that by itself as evidence of “profiling”.

    Fen in reply to CrustyB. | July 2, 2013 at 11:54 am

    Its not stupid, its red meat for the Libtards out there. State is acknowledging they don’t have a case so they are scattering soundbyte crumbs for the low information Leftists.

Final question by BDLR really weak, considering his whole case is based on speculation.

BDLR is copying MOM’s line of questioning regarding what is legal (is following someone illegal? etc…) MOM was matter-of-fact, BDLR was smug and sarcastic and posing like he was in deep thought at the question “is wearing a hoodie illegal?” it seems like MOM came off better

    Voluble in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 11:10 am

    That question was purely playing to the cameras. The hoodie thing was big in the media but really isn’t part of the trial so it was a complete irrelevancy to throw that in and the only purpose was to get a sound bite on tv.

    Scummy thing to do.

      Pauldd in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 11:33 am

      There is an old saying among courthouse lawyers that “If you cannot bedazzle the jury with brilliance, then you should baffle them with bull___.” Usually this is a tactic used by defense counsel who have been dealt a lousy hand. I think that is what the state is trying to do with some of the stupid questions asked.

Ashleigh Banfield is an exception to the general rule that wearing glasses makes you look smarter.

So TM turned left when he got to the T and disappeared from GZ’s view and was last seen by GZ heading to the south. GZ continues past the T to the east, heading for Retreat view circle. Then he turns around, and heads back to the west, towards his truck. As he passes the T, the altercation occurs between TM and GZ.
Nowhere in there is there any evidence to indicate that GZ ever turned south to follow TM in the last direction he was seen moving in.
So why do people keep saying that he was following him?

Missed all but the end of the testimony? Did the defense bring out the Martin lived way down at the end of the walkway and would have had plenty of time to get there?

    fogflyer in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Nope, not yet.
    Gotta save something for the actual defense’s case.

    Fen in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 11:56 am

    That will be critical – pointing out that whatever your opinion on being “stalked” by a creepy guy, Martin dis-engaged.

    He RE-ENGAGED to launch his assualt. That makes Z’s claim of self-defense air tight.

      fogflyer in reply to Fen. | July 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm

      Yes, I have said all along that the timeline and the location of the confrontation will be impossible for the prosecution to explain.

      Why is Trayvon back at the T two minutes after he started running when the house he was staying at was only 400′ away in the opposite direction???

Suggestion for re-cross: BDLR asked you if there was any evidence Trayvon had committed a crime? Isn’t it true that according to GZ’s statements Trayvon assaulted him?
Didn’t GZ state that TM indicated he would kill GZ?
Wouldn’t battery be an unlawful act?
Wouldn’t a terroristic threat be a crime?
Wouldn’t attempted murder be a crime?
in the course of your interviews did you find ANYTHING that lead you to believe GZ was lying?
So you concluded GZ was truthful to you & cooperative at all times?

Mark Buehner | July 2, 2013 at 11:26 am

Now Prosecution bringing forward character witnesses for Zimmerman? Makes sense given how this trial has gone so far.

How does the state get to bring character witness?

The prosecution is calling GZ’s best friend?

This oughta be good.

    pmasters in reply to myiq2xu. | July 2, 2013 at 11:35 am

    So this witness retells Zimmerman’s testimony so now George has the same story told seven times. No reason to put George on the stand. The story does not seemed to have changed.

    What is the prosecution going to claim? That Osterman would lie for his best friend? Couldn’t the same be said about Rachel Jeantel trying to lie to help her “boyfriend”?

      Mark Buehner in reply to pmasters. | July 2, 2013 at 11:38 am

      Ever see the movie Sleepers? Wonder if BDLR has. Doesnt look much like Brad Pitt though.

        pmasters in reply to Mark Buehner. | July 2, 2013 at 11:43 am

        I thought about that movie while watching this trial. At times it is hard to tell if the state is throwing the case or if they are actually this inept and incompetent. I often wondered if the prosecution were given the case and forced to prosecute despite not having such evidence to warrant a trial but since they work for the state, they have no choice but to do what they are told even if it means pursuing a conviction for someone who is innocent.

Friend’s testimony isn’t hearsay?

    Ragspierre in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 11:34 am

    It all depends on the question.

    Mansizedtarget in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    Statements by a “party opponent” are not hearsay. So if Prosecutor asks anyone “what did Zimmerman say” it’s not hearsay by definition. On other hand, defense can’t ask same questions of people during defense case, but can ask them, “What did investigator/cop/prosecutor say to you re: X?”

    Hearsay is an out of court statement by someone other than a party opponent offered for the proof of the matter asserted. So, he could not ask this witness, “What did Zimmerman’s wife say about the fight or who started it?” There are also exceptions to hearsay, such as “spontaneous utterances,” death bed confessions, and much else, all called “803 testimony” based on the rule number addressing various hearsay exceptions.

    rhorton1 in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    The friend’s testimony about what Zimmerman told him is hearsay, but some hearsay is admissible. Zimmerman’s out-of-court statements are admitted under an exception against the non-admissibility of hearsay because they are statements of the defendant. All such statements are always admissible by the prosecutor.

Why is following someone against the law? If I’m suspicious of someone I’ll follow. Go to hell telling me I can’t use common sense. But media, twit’s all saying since Z followed and shot = excessive force= manslaughter.

Wouldn’t all of Zimmerman’s best friend’s testimony be classified as “hearsay”?

marshahallet | July 2, 2013 at 11:34 am

Chris Serino stated in court yesterday that George Zimmerman is telling the truth. The defense couldn’t hope for a better prosecution witness. Watching to see if that “truth” is unraveled, or not today.

    Ragspierre in reply to marshahallet. | July 2, 2013 at 11:37 am

    Not exactly. I think you’ll find what he said was he found his accounts believable, and that he believed him.

    Which is pretty freaking cool if you are the defense.

How is this not hearsay? This guy is talking like he was there. He wants to help but it would be easy to get a contradiction being so earnest and sure.

On the flip side, I am not sure why the prosecution wants to tell George’s story over and over again.

    Mark Buehner in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Why should defense object though? Never get in your opponents way when he’s making a mistake.

    Rick in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    It looks to me as if the prosecution is going to argue that Zimmerman has failed to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore must be convicted.

HLN just referred to the next witness as “the best friend of the most hated man in America”. No bias there at all.

OK. Now I see what you are asking about hearsay.

Yep. I MIGHT be hearsay (look up the definition) BUT it comes in under an exception, apparently.

    JasonI in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 11:46 am

    Read that section of my Evidence book yesterday and I’m no less confused. LOL

      Ragspierre in reply to JasonI. | July 2, 2013 at 11:55 am

      First, for it to be hearsay, the general legal definition is…

      “A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

      A statement by a party opponent is generally a hearsay exception. That is, anything that Zimmerman said to someone is hearsay IF used to prove the matter asserted, BUT it is admissible under one of the several exceptions to the rule regarding hearsay.

      Generally. I have not memorized the Florida rules of evidence.

        Pauldd in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 12:04 pm

        An admission of a party opponent is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule only when the statement is against the party opponent’s interests. Here the statements of Zimmerman being offered are exculpatory and DO NOT fall within the exception. The are not statements by Zimmerman against his interests. This testimony is being permitted only because the prosecutor has chosen to present it and the defense is not objecting for obvious reasons.

        The defense can only seek its admission if it is considered a prior consistent statement used to rebut evidence that the defendant has recently fabricated his account. Under this exception, the statements cannot be used to prove the matter asserted in the statement, but only to rebut evidence of recent fabrication of the account. Here where Zimmerman’s statements from the get go have been essentially consistent, I do not think that the defense could offer it over the state’s objections.

        In short, this witness’s testimony is a gift to the defendant offered by the State.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm

          There is also the question of whether BDLR is asserting that any of this is the truth.

          If he isn’t, it isn’t under the hearsay definition.

    Cecil Turner in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 11:54 am

    Seems like a catch-22. If the statement is against GZ’s interest, it’d be an exception (admission against interest), but this doesn’t seem to qualify. The defense just isn’t objecting (and I don’t see why they would).

    I don’t know where BDLR is going with this. He seems to be looking for an inconsistency with the version of where and when TM grabbed the gun. If that’s it, he didn’t get much help here. It seems of a piece with the rest of his witnesses (where credible, they support the defense more than the state)

      Tertullus in reply to Cecil Turner. | July 2, 2013 at 12:03 pm

      I think it goes something like this. It is hearsay, but the defense is not objecting to someone telling the defense story. In addition, the broader the scope of direct examination, the more the defense can ask on cross. He’s telling the defense story, so why should the defense object?

Are they trying to find something amuck and using the book this guy wrote to do it? Is that what the exception to heresay is I wonder. It still seems like they(Prosecution)are really reaching with this.

I really, really didn’t see the prosecution scoring any points with Mr. Osterman. Maybe they’re saving the good stuff for redirect.

legacyrepublican | July 2, 2013 at 11:50 am


Simple legal question. Should BDLR send GZ a bill for GZ’s defense before or after the “not guilty” verdict is read?

Prosecutorial Malpractice = beating a dead horse hoping for a whinny at any cost.

legacyrepublican | July 2, 2013 at 11:50 am


Simple legal question. Should BDLR send GZ a bill for GZ’s defense before or after the “not guilty” verdict is read?

Prosecutorial Malpractice = beating a dead horse hoping for a whinny at any cost.

Given their sexual orientations, I suppose it is only fair that the prosecutor lead the witness in this dance.

Does anyone have a clue why BDLR put this witness up? For the life of me, I can’t see how it helps the prosecution. Of course, I may be missing something.

    Lisa_PA in reply to Jim. | July 2, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Force of habit?

      legacyrepublican in reply to Lisa_PA. | July 2, 2013 at 12:05 pm

      I tend to think BDLR wants an autographed copy of Osterman’s book, but is too shy to ask.

        Or he’s looking for the guy to write a sequel called “Most Hated Man in the America Prosecuted by Most Clueless Man in the America” 🙂

        Actually, I don’t blame the Prosecutor any more than I blame the police, although he is being a jerk. They all seem to be pretty much forced into this.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Lisa_PA. | July 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm

      Part of a plea bargain pursuant to and preceding Zimmerman vs Crump, Parks, Corey, CNN, NBC, ABC, Ferrakhan, Sharpton, Obama and Holder, et alia.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm

        Rumor has it that Officer Serino, who was demoted because he refused to file Murder 2 against Zimmerman, has also got a crackerjack lawyer to look into filing a suit against those who allowed this to become a political and not a legal case and ruined his distinguished 30 year career.

        If I were them, I’d be afraid, very afraid.

      Jazzizhep in reply to Lisa_PA. | July 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm

      the comment rivals Branca in its hilarity! like someone with OCD, they don’t want to wash their hands, they just can’t keep from doing it anyway. very funny!!!

    JasonI in reply to Jim. | July 2, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    I thought they were going to imply this guy coached GZ on what to say to police to justify self-defense. But they didn’t go there. Now I have no idea why they called him.

Mister Natural | July 2, 2013 at 11:54 am

Mr. Osterman sounds like a GUN NUT!!

How the hell is ALL of this testimony not considered hearsay?

    Jim in reply to pmasters. | July 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    Any testimony relating to what the defendant said to the witness is admissible because it is made by a party to the matter, i.e., the defendant. A party statement is an exception to the hearsay rule.

This seems like a HUGE SECOND FLUCK-UP by BDLR.

He is getting Zimmerman’s testimony before the jury without Zimmerman EVER taking the stand.

Very nice for the defense. Very good humanizing. Very good character depiction, and from TWO LEOs.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Again, my simple legal question.

    Does BDLR send GZ a bill for GZ’s defense before or after the “not guilty” verdict? 😉

    fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    I think the Hannity interview was even worse!
    One more chance for Zim to testify, while being interviewed by a pretty friendly guy, that you cant even ask questions of!

    I guess there must be some little piece in there they are hoping to weave into their closing. Perhaps that he said he was never more than 100′ from his car? Pretty minor if that was it.

Is the testimony of George’s friend a hearsay exception as an “excited utterance” by George?

    Ragspierre in reply to raider3. | July 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    On the night, pretty strongly, depending on the case-law in Florida.

    Next day is very iffy.

      raider3 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 12:21 pm

      Thank you Ragspierre. Is there a hearsay exception you believe defense would have been able to use to get in friend’s testimony?

        Ragspierre in reply to raider3. | July 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm

        Yeah. But the State did such a masterful job of exquisite exposition here, why…???

        I mean, the re-direct was a defense dream, as BDLR just hammered Zimmerman’s defense story to death.

        This was gob-smacking.

I was unaware until Andrew’s tweet (if I understood it correctly) that Officer Serino had been demoted from detective to patrolman as a result of this case. It certainly did seem to me his attitude on the stand changed after yesterday.

    Matt in FL in reply to raider3. | July 2, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Serino described it as a “lateral transfer,” which I thought might just be him being politic about it, but then he said that he’s gone back and forth several times. He indicated that it was his “third tour.” I’m unclear on whether that meant that this was his third tour as an officer (implying he’d been an investigator twice) or if that had been his third tour as an investigator (implying this was his fourth tour as an officer).

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Matt in FL. | July 2, 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Can’t speak to Serino’s department, but many of the larger police departments, probation & parole offices, and prison units will rotate staff frequently to help prevent any number of bad things, such as bribery, overfamiliarity with parolees/inmates/local criminals/etc. I work with a local county probation office with 6-7 probation officers whose staff completely turns over within a year or so. In and out. They don’t want any PO spending too long with the same probationers, lest unethical or illegal relationships develop.

      It is a basic tenet of industry to cross-train as many staff employees as possible, which could be beneficial to a police department as well; having a percentage of cops experienced in patrol, investigations, drug crime, gang crime, etc., would seem more valuable than nothing but specialists.

      CLINTON/RUBIO 2016

      hoglaw in reply to Matt in FL. | July 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      It may be a lateral transfer, but you can bet a homicide investigator makes a hell of a lot more overtime than an officer in patrol.

Allow me to ask this question. Tracy Martin said the last time he saw Trayvon when he filed the missing person’s report was at 8:30pm the night before. Which is impossible since Trayvon died before that time.

Yet, he and Brandy arrived home late that night. How in the hell could you not see crime tape, flashing lights, etc… and your son be missing? All of this does not add up.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to pmasters. | July 2, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    None of the Crump/Martin Narrative passes the sniff test.

    legacyrepublican in reply to pmasters. | July 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    Don’t worry.

    I tell you, if there is a rule blocking that kind of question being brought before the jury, BDLR will find a way around it for you.

    Their front door and garage are on another street. No reason to drive by crime scene area, which was out their back door and several homes off to the side. Very possible.

    kentuckyliz in reply to pmasters. | July 2, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    The cell phone timestamps don’t match up either. RJ couldn’t overhear what was going on because their call had already ended a minute or two minutes before. That was before TM emerged from the darkness and spoke to GZ.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Nothing to get excited about, jus’ a little white on white MMA.

    cazinger in reply to styro1. | July 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Frankly, I find the tagline more stunning/shocking than the picture. “Prosecutor tries to pick apart lead detective’s testimony”.

    Seems innocuous enough, until you realize that a prosecutor and a lead detective are supposed to be on the same side.

I am left with the impression after this witness that the prosecutor is not attempting to win this case. He has offered a witness who testified favorably for Zimmerman and whose testimony could not have been offered by the defense over his hearsay objection.

It looks to me that the prosecutor is attempting to lay all the cards on the table so people will not be angry when the jury inevitably comes back with a verdict of not guilty.

Does anyone else have an better explanation for his highly unsual trial tactics?

    cwillia1 in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    I think you are on to something. BDLR is being aggressive. He is exploring every angle in this case in public. He comes up with nothing – in public. He is making the case for Zimmerman to a hostile, ignorant, uninformed mob, which includes Martin’s parents. He is also making the case for the public authorities who will be seen to have done their best. The prosecution knows there is no case against Zimmerman and they want to convince the mob of this fact. They know the state will be sued by Zimmerman when it is all over. They expect to settle and consider the cost of this whole fiasco to be cheaper than race riots.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    The only thing I could figure is that it was an attempt at laying a foundation for impeachment.

    Which is not the way it is done.

    But, hey…

Some idiot on Fox just opined that top-cop’s “believed him” was struck because it was “bolstering”.

Which is utter BS. It was top-cop’s take-away from his interaction with Zimmerman.

    Pauldd in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    I think it is a well-established rule that it is improper for a witness to testify regarding his assessment of the credibility of another person. It is for the jury alone to assess credibility. It is, however, proper for an expert (investigator) to testify as to facts that the jury should consider in assessing credibility. MOM got those facts in so I think he has made his point.

      Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      “I think it is a well-established rule that it is improper for a witness to testify regarding his assessment of the credibility of another person.”

      I take your larger point. I think the bolstering rule is limited to “another witness”.

      But, again, I know not the worf and woof of Florida case-law.

      ConradCA in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      The cop is an expert at evaluating evidence to determine what happened and who should be charged. As an expert it seems reasonable that he should be able to give his informed opinion.

Boy I think that Zimmerman’s “best friend” did more damage to him today than at any point in the last 6 days. I think he came off as a moron who sounds like a suck up. If anyone knows any FAM’s, they wouldn’t last one day as a street cop in a major department. The constant sweating was impossible to miss by the jury, and I cringed every time I looked at him. He sounded like he plays loose with the truth. Now this is not to say that the prosecution is winning by any means–I think they are losing big time. I am so impressed with the skill of the defense attorneys!

Have no clue why they called his friend, I guess just to try to show that GZ did not get the details exactly right when he retold it. But I like the concept too that Prosecutors know they are going to lose so they are going to lay it all out and show everyone know why they can’t win.

    Mister Natural in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    wasn’t that a carly simon song.
    Bad Faith Bernie D is going under for the 3rd time w/o a life guard in sight.
    a/k/a/ grasping at straws, any port in a storm, i don’t care if she’s fat & ugly, she’s easy, etc and so forth

Anyone here think Z has to get on the stand now? If I am defending, unless something comes in in the prosecution’s case very harmful, that only Z can rebut in person, I would advise him not to testify. So far, there has been no evidence of which I am aware that GZ was not reasonably in fear of great bodily harm when he shot TM. Why subject GZ to cross?

    Ragspierre in reply to Jim. | July 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    It is always Zimmerman’s call to make, but…

    he’d do it over my dead body.

    The State has made no case thus far.

    Well, FOR the State. They seem to have done a really masterful job of establishing a self-defense case, and butt-loads of reasonable doubt for the jurors.

    fogflyer in reply to Jim. | July 2, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    While there may not be good legal reason to put George on the stand, I still think it might happen.
    In general, I think a jury wants to hear the story from the accused. Not putting George on gives the impression that he is afraid of something.

    Also, the jury has already heard the “challenge interview” where two cops asked intimidating, leading, antagonistic questions that went way past what an attorney can do in court. I would say that there is little that could be done on cross that would sound worse that what we heard in that interview.

    Do they need to put George on to win the case? I would certainly hope not, but with a jury, you just never know. I think it would be a show of integrity and good faith if George got up to tell his story directly to the jury.

      Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm

      Here is ONE of the places Robert Hirschhorn might earn his money.

      Personally, I think the jurors feel like they have heard Zimmerman to a fair-thee-well via the testimony of two LEOs, one of which was clearly…and properly…professionally skeptical of the story at points in time.

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

        I will be the first to admit that I am probably WRONG and that it is unwise to put Zim on the stand. I realize that this goes against conventional wisdom.

        However, this is anything BUT a conventional case.
        I believe it is quite rare that you have someone on trial that is as “innocent” as George is. George seems well spoken, extremely consistent in his story, and I doubt the state would do much damage on cross.

        Don’t you agree that it would impress the jury to see him take the stand?

          kentuckyliz in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 6:30 pm

          The risk of CX is too great. I think there is great CX risk (to the state’s case) with Sybrina and Tracy, too. Maybe that’s why BDLR will put them on the stand. 🙂

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to Jim. | July 2, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    I think it’s highly doubtful: He’s already gotten his re-enactment version on the record. Plus he has defended it ably during the “challenge” interview, which mitigates any claims he’s ducking to avoid cross-examination.

I see no reason for GZ to get on the stand at this point.

This is the sort of thing that would drive me insane if I were on the jury.

Two attorneys spending hours arguing about Trayvon Martin’s hands and how they got under him.

Jesus Christ, people don’t die instantly from a gunshot would to the chest.
What is the great mystery? After George got off Trayvon, Trayvon pulled his arms back to his chest as you might expect. Kind of natural to put your hands on your wounds.

Of course the defense will have experts testify to this as well, so there goes another hour or so.

If I was on the jury I would have dismissed the whole hand location as meaningless in about 30 seconds.

HEADS UP: WFTV said they have developing news about a motion filed by the state regarding defense Atty. West and a pic of his daughters. They will talk about this later in their news broadcast.

I’ve certainly not seen all the trial, but I am surprised at how overtly biased the judge seems. I believe MOM was about to begin re-recross. She puts a time limit on him of five minutes. Since, at that point, Bernie had asked questions three times and MOM only twice, should not the time limit have begun when Bernie got back up?

    Ragspierre in reply to raider3. | July 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm

    Listening to her rulings on objections, she seems to be playing it down the middle, and following the rules.

    Judges often limit your time in ways that are NEVER fair (from your POV). Sometimes, it is an act of mercy, as here, perhaps.

“WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.”

Is there any way the defense can get this into evidence? The undertaker had lied about this early on.

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to Bettijo. | July 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    The Medical Examiner is on the defense witness list, so even if the prosecution declines to call him, the defense certainly will.

    txantimedia in reply to Bettijo. | July 2, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    He had one small laceration on one finger. That’s not proof of much of anything. It certainly doesn’t support Zimmerman’s contention that he was being pounded by Martin. I think it’s a minor fact that doesn’t really change much one way or the other.

      Skookum in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm

      That devious GZ obviously repeatedly pummeled TM’s knuckle with his face and head.

      Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 1:58 pm

      Just an anecdote…

      I’ve been in fist-fights where I was hit, and did some hitting. (Don’t ask…)

      I came away without a mark and never bruised a few times.

      kentuckyliz in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      The coroner’s report references the cut, and notes that there are no signs of healing or clotting or swelling or bruising, indicating it happened shortly before death. A dead body doesn’t heal.

I certainly see no reason for GZ to testify. I think MOM can explain all of the alleged inconsistencies in closing.

I had a question yesterday that i will repeat. Can the defense call the prosecutors who did not want to file charges (assuming they are not participating in this case)? And, does anyone (specifically lawyers) think this is a good idea in this case.

    Pauldd in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    The well established rule is that an “expert” cannot offer an opinion on the ultimate issue that the jury must decide in the case (i.e. guilt or innocence.) Accordingly, the defense cannot offer the former prosecutor’s opinion on the strength of the State’s case.

txantimedia | July 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm

I missed the friend’s testimony. Can somebody tell me why he was called and what he said? Has MOM done his cross yet?

    CrankbaitJohnson in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    If you had caught the testimony, you would STILL be wondering why he was called. He gave a “telephone game” version of GZ’s account, with the main discrepancy being whether Trayvon was reaching for, or as Ostermann recounted in his book (written four months after the fact entirely from memory, no notes), that TM had his hands on the gun. Under cross, he stated that he would defer to evidence or GZ’s own official accounts on any points of difference.

    Jazzizhep in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Yes, his testimony for the State has concluded. As to why he was called, I think it was b/c the State believes the other witnesses have yet fully corroborate GZ statements.

    Seriously, I think it was to show that the statements the witness wrote in his book was different that what GZ told the police. Specifically whether he grabbed or reached for the gun. As usual, the witness was more beneficial to the defense

      kentuckyliz in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      Osterman said he wrote the book four months later…so there is room for attributing any discrepancies to Osterman and not Zimmerman.

MOM in closing arguments. “Many of you may be wondering why Mr Zimmerman did not testify.”

“Why should he?”

“There have been at least 7 people who have testified as to what George Zimmerman told them immediately after the shooting. You heard a detailed explanation from George Zimmerman himself on video 2 different times and on audio. You heard the lead investigator, a man with access to all the evidence, tell you that ALL of the accounts had no meaningful discrepancies.”

“The jury has heard his story.”

“No, the question you should be asking is ‘Why was George Zimmerman ever brought to trial?”

    bizbach in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    It was a private posting but made it to Twitter, and State is asking for an inquiry into the picture

    txantimedia in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    This smacks for all the world of vindictiveness and retaliation. I’m sure this isn’t normal, but has anyone ever seen this sort of thing in a trial before?

    BubbaLeroy in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    In over 25 years of practicing law, the state’s motion is the most chicken shit pleading I have ever seen. “Mommy, his daughter was being mean by being happy and eating ice cream. Make her stop!”

    KrazyCrackaEsq in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Poor form by the State – just plain poor form. Truly a douche move to file this motion.

    Matt in FL in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    For fun reading, here is the defense’s response to the State’s motion about the Don West Twitter photo. Upshot: He asks for a court inquiry into why the State is being a bunch of petulant jackasses. (My words, not his.)

    cazinger in reply to bizbach. | July 2, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    Clearly, since the State Attorney’s Office is winning this case so handily, they obviously have extra staff and extra time to commit to such motions.

    And it is not like the subject of such motions would be speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or anything.

    (for those with zero sense of humor, this post is sarcasm)

I do wish MOM had not asked the question of Serino about intangible evidence. He had a good response from Serino that he had not tangible evidence and should have left it there.

Mansizedtarget | July 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm

The specific exception–I was wrong above, it’s not “definitional” as it is in the federal rules–is Fla. Stat. 91.803(18):

(18) ADMISSIONS.—A statement that is offered against a party and is:
(a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;
(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;
(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;
(d) A statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or
(e) A statement by a person who was a coconspirator of the party during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Upon request of counsel, the court shall instruct the jury that the conspiracy itself and each member’s participation in it must be established by independent evidence, either before the introduction of any evidence or before evidence is admitted under this paragraph.

I would like to make a brief comment regarding the alleged “inconsistencies” in Zimmerman’s story.

An “inconsistency” in the defendant’s statements is most relevant when a later version of the defendant’s statement is more “exculpatory” (i.e. tending to prove innocence) than an earlier version. When this happens it is reasonable to infer that the defendant is embellishing his story in his later statement to show his innocence—thus the later version is less trustworthy than the earlier version that was less exculpatory.

Let me apply this thought to one of the alleged inconsistencies of which some commentators are attempting to make an issue. In his earliest statement, Zimmerman states that Travon was hiding in the bushes and came out and surprised him. In a later statement, he says that Travon came out from the darkness and he did not see where he came from. It seems to me that both versions are equally exculpatory. It doesn’t really matter which is correct because in either event both statements equally support Zimmerman’s position that he was surprised. It strikes me that this type of inconsistency is irrelevant because the main point is that Zimmerman was surprised. Travon’s exact position is neither here nor there and is the type of minor discrepancy that is expected when a person under duress gives multiple accounts of the same incident.

The prosecutor is also making a big issue of another type of inconsistency. Zimmerman has stated that he spread out the defendant’s arms after the shooting. Zimmerman has been consistent throughout on this account. The physical evidence, however, suggest that Travon was found with his hands under his body. Zimmerman has no explanation of the discrepancy between his account and the apparent physical evidence. He has not attempted to fabricate an explanation in any of his statements such as I saw Travon move his hands. While the physical evidence is puzzling, I do not see how one can infer that Zimmerman would be more likely guilty if he had not spread out the defendant’s arms.

The only relevancy of this point that I can see goes to the question of why Zimmerman and blood was not found on Travon’s hands. If his hands were exposed to the rain, Zimmerman can more easily argue that the rain washed off any traces of Zimmerman’s DNA. The lack of DNA, however, could have many alternative explanations so again it does not seem to me to be a significant point. It is also possible that Travon was still alive and moved his hands, perhaps trying to place them on the gunshot wound. It does not seem to be the type of fact that Zimmerman would make up because at the time he made the statements he had no idea what the forensic DNA evidence would show.

All this seem obvious to me, but I offer the analysis to those who are struggling with these issues.

    bizbach in reply to Pauldd. | July 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    I agree with you regarding the inconsistencies, nothing that really changes anything. As far as the hands, makes a lot of sense that TM was still alive and moved his hands. After all we now know that GZ didn’t realize TM was dead, so he thought he was still alive post shooting and maybe he was for a few moments.

West’s daughter may not even have been referencing the trial at all with her comments. Maybe they went to an ice cream shop that wouldn’t serve them b/c of who West was and got free cones elsewhere. Could be a thousand reasons for her comments. BDLR is desperate and is losing badly and knows it. Do you smell the Scheme Team’s involvement here.

Best thing the prosecution can do is illuminate enough of the many inconsistencies in Zimmermans account, making the jury absolutely want to have him testify. And, of course when he doesn’t…It’ll be at least manslaughter. Then the real justice is served as zimmie goes to prison w/ the brothers.

    Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    Wow. That fairly DRIPS with neutrality.

    No hate there, either, huh?

    Cite to your “inconsistencies”. Please. That should be fun.

      hesperus in reply to Ragspierre. | July 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm

      Uh, yeah like the rest of these posts drip with neutrality, eh? Read up a little rags darling, and you will become enlightened.

        Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:04 pm

        I’m as neutral as anybody I know. I have the scars to prove it.

        And I note with extreme pleasure your whimper of surrender.

    JasonI in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    So you are ok with vigilante justice, “taking the law into one’s own hands” if it serves your purpose?

    Lisa_PA in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    So you are under the impression that the jury gets to decide whether George testifies? You should see if you can get on Vinnie Politano’s jury on HLN, where you will be allowed to spin whatever tale your imagination can dream up. You can yell that George is the aggressor because he got out of his truck. You can say George wasn’t injured enough to justify shooting Trayvon, and then you too can be a national laughingstock.

    Voluble in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    None of the evidence contradicts Zimmerman’s story and his version of events has been remarkably consistent. Pretty much every witness the prosecution has brought out has confirmed as much. Why would he be convicted of anything under those circumstances?

    And why do you think black people are so racist, stupid and unreasonable as to not be able to understand all of this if it is explained to them rather than having people like you egg them on towards violence by misrepresenting the facts?

    Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Gimme a B, an I, a G, an I, a T.
    What’s that spell?

    Man, he has the self-awareness of a head of lettuce.

    Remember when he was trying to pretend to be impartial and just follow the evidence.
    Remember how we laughed at him we he wrote that stuff?

    Good times, good times.

    txantimedia in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    Hey bozo…..I mean hesperus….if you would please watch the trial, George has already testified several times; the Singleton interview, the Serino interview, the Serino/Singleton interrogation, the walkthrough, his friend Ostermann’s testimony and the Hannity interview. The defense could not possibly ask for more.

    cazinger in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Because that would prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? How exactly?

    I understand that it is possible that they might not find George’s statements credible, but how does that equate to the State proving manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?

So the lawyer on the local NBC station covering the trial says Sabrina did not seek the spotlight in this case. Are you kidding me?

Question from a non-lawyer: They are talking about Sybrina Fulton testifying.

Yet in other places, some people are saying that if someone is called to testify, they aren’t allowed to “watch” any of the proceedings up until that point (as in – “not supposed to talk/read about the case”, since it might prejudice their testimony).

My understanding is that Zimmerman’s lawyers didn’t want his family to be in the courtroom for that very reason (I could be wrong about that, though).

If Ms. Fulton is called to the stand, wouldn’t her testimony be “tainted” by her having heard everything that preceded her being questioned?

    Witnesses normally cannot be in the court room but since they are the victim’s parents in the state of Florida they can be in the courtroom the whole time and still testify.

    Matt in FL in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 2, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Statute allows (among other exceptions) that the parents of a minor child (or their representative, Crump) are allowed to be in the courtroom.

    “My understanding is that Zimmerman’s lawyers didn’t want his family to be in the courtroom for that very reason”

    If you’re referring to Zimmerman’s parents, you’re mistaken. At the beginning of trial, MOM tried to argue to allow them in, but it was disallowed by the judge, according to statute. In the presser he did later that day, his comment was that he didn’t mind everyone being in. I think the quote was, “If it was up to me, I’d let ’em all in. Zimmermans, Martins, Crump, everyone.”

    rhorton1 in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 2, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    At he beginning of the trial, Zimmerman’s lawyers argued unsuccessfully that his parents should be allowed in the courtroom.

Zimmerman told Hannity that Martin was “skipping”, not running.

    Lisa_PA in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    I saw that. I’m laughing at all those people who jumped to the defense of Jeantel, saying her lies were “her truth and she was keeping it real”, and how ridiculous it is to expect someone to say the same exact thing every time because that would mean they rehearsed it. The same people who are now trying to say that the case hinges on the difference between running and skipping. Ridiculous, isn’t it?

    AFSarge in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Just a quick question/observation: Could the “skipping” while running been because TM’s pants were around his knees, typical of “thug wannabes” dress?

inspectorudy | July 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm

I asked yesterday if anyone had heard the answer to why TM’s hands were photoed under him by a resident while lying face down. GZ stated taht he pulled them out to the sides to check for a weapon. This was brought up by BDLR but was not responded to by O’Mara.

    Lisa_PA in reply to inspectorudy. | July 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    I haven’t heard an answer but I guess it depends on exactly when Martin died. I heard somewhere that someone would only live about 20 seconds after that shot, but who knows? After Zimmerman got off him, he might have still been alive long enough to change position.

    JasonI in reply to inspectorudy. | July 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    People often continue to move after being shot, even after losing consciousness.

    Darkstar58 in reply to inspectorudy. | July 2, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    “During an interview March 24 with agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Livingston said: “He had a small bullet hole in his chest area that wasn’t even bleeding,”

    Not on the outside.

    Inside, however, his chest cavity had filled with 2,300 milliliters of blood, according to the autopsy. That’s about one-third of a healthy person’s total blood volume, Anderson said.

    Trayvon’s heart had kept pumping, both pathologists said, but with each contraction, blood was leaking or gushing into his chest, depending on the size of the bullet hole.

    The two doctors agreed that Trayvon remained conscious for a time. Anderson suggested the teenager may have been conscious for several minutes. Manion estimated it at just 20 to 30 seconds.

    “He certainly would have experienced pain,” Manion said.

    The Miami Gardens teenager would have remained alive for a few minutes, both doctors agreed, as his wounded heart continued to pump.

    One piece of evidence that Trayvon did not die instantly, both doctors said, was the color of his fingernails.

    Shiping Bao, the associate medical examiner in Volusia County who performed the autopsy, wrote that Trayvon had “cyanotic nail beds.” That means they had turned blue, something that happens when there’s not enough oxygen in the blood.

    Because Trayvon’s heart was weakened by blood loss and dropping blood pressure, it could no longer pump blood to his lungs. That means vital organs, including the heart, were no longer receiving the oxygen-rich blood they needed.”

    Voluble in reply to inspectorudy. | July 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    That would be a problem were Trayvon dead when Zimmerman got off him. But he wasn’t. The paramedics (or first responder) said as much and they got there much later.

Because of the nature of this prior statement, the defense will not be able to cross-examine the person to whom Zimmerman was talking, unlike with previous statements. Any perceived inconsistencies will, therefore, go unchallenged.

The latest “theory” I heard – Zimmerman chased Martin almost back to his house, but Zimmerman caught him, dragged him back to the sidewalk T and then shot him.

Martin supporters are getting crazier.

    Darkstar58 in reply to rokiloki. | July 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    I also know that the State will argue, seeing that the gun shot wound proves without doubt Martin was facing downward when the gun was fired, that Zimmerman actually tossed Martin into the air before firing, which is quite possible since Martin was just a little boy barley out of diapers at the time.

    caambers in reply to rokiloki. | July 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Yes those sneaky marks on the wet grass that don,t appear in any photo.

    cazinger in reply to rokiloki. | July 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    I saw that theory. It was in a comment under one of the HLN stories, wasn’t it?

    That site is quite informative. It is really enlightening to look at the comments to see exactly how misinformed some members of the public can be. Frankly it explains a lot about our society – sadly.

    Their audience is the epitome of what is now called the “low-information voter”.

Zimmerman told Hannity that where he parked was at the back of the townhouses where he could not see the addresses. This is not accurate. Theprosecution will use that statement to argue the Zimmerman was “following” Martin. Unless I missed it the prosection did not bring in the “skipping” remark.

    txantimedia in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    rhorton1, you really would benefit from actually watching the trial.

    “Theprosecution will use that statement to argue the Zimmerman was “following” Martin.”

    The prosecution has been arguing this since their opening statement.

    Please try to keep up, at least on the major details.

      rhorton1 in reply to txantimedia. | July 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm

      To expand, the prosecution will argue that Zimmerman’s comment supports its position that Zimmerman was following Martin for nefarious purposes and not just that he walked across the “T” position on his way to the other street to get an address that he could give to the police.

    Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    rhorton, no, it is true. Look at a map. The townhouses to the right of the T all face onto another street. Their addresses would be on that far side.

      You’re just not correct about this. Where Zimmerman finally stopped his vehicle it was on a street where the front of the houses were facing that street.

    Voluble in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Once again, a house number is not an address. Once you acknowledge that then there is no inconsistency in what Zimmerman said. He can’t say “come to house 112” and expect anyone to show up. He needed a street name. He had already tried indirect directions.

      rhorton1 in reply to Voluble. | July 2, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      I know that. All I’m saying is how the prosecutor will use Zimmerman’s statement that he was in the back of the townhouses, when he was not.

        cazinger in reply to rhorton1. | July 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm

        This so easily cleared up that I feel kind of silly even responding.

        Zimmerman has said (consistently) that he could not remember the name of the street he was parked on. Therefore, getting house numbers for houses on that street would be useless.

        He has also said (consistently) that he knew that the street on the opposite side of the dogwalk was Retreat View Circle, therefore, if he could get a number off of one of THOSE houses, he would have a complete, and useful, address/landmark to give to the responding officer when he called.

          rhorton1 in reply to cazinger. | July 2, 2013 at 2:49 pm

          You have to understand the nature of a jury trial. The issue is cleared up for you, but that does not mean that the issue is necessarily cleared up for the jury. All I’m saying is the Zimmerman’s statement regarding the back of the townhouses gives the prosecution ammunition for its arguments; not that the jury will automatically accept those arguments.

          Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to cazinger. | July 2, 2013 at 3:10 pm

          But don’t misstate the facts to prove a point, rh. if you had gone to that map then you would see that the townhouses in question face away from him and onto a different street.

          kentuckyliz in reply to cazinger. | July 2, 2013 at 6:54 pm

          The jury has seen the neighborhood diagrams where the streets are loops inside loops, and the street names change but resident Lauer couldn’t figure out where the street names changed. Even Sgt Raimondo was confused about the neighborhood and street names of the next neighborhood over and it was a new development and had changed lately blah blah blah. A police sargent and a neighbor witness both have difficulty with the same thing that GZ was. Removes any suspicion of nefariousness and deception. GZ gave the wrong street number for the clubhouse at the beginning of the NEN call and didn’t answer properly when the dispatcher asked follow up questions because he was focused on trying to formulate directions for the dispatcher to give the responding officer…which he stumbled over about three times. This is all before TM came up to his car or anything. It was before he was stressed by TM’s intimidation.

    You would also benefit from studying the area on Google Earth. Where Z parked was actually behind some units that formed the top left portion of the cross of the “T”, whose addresses faced the other street. Entirely consistent. The outside units with addresses facing him which were on the closest leg of the “T” were nearby, but Z wasn’t parked in front of them.

I am not familiar with court proceedings, but what allowed BDLR to show that video? I was under the impression that evidence had to be introduced via a witness. How is that different than the prosecutor just holding up a photo and saying “here is a photo of [whatever]” and having it admitted?

Henry Hawkins | July 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm

After forty years of Perry Mason and Night Court reruns, I feel qualified to point how often the prosecutor is able to dramatically carve up a defendant’s testimony on the stand, then to rip out an on-the-stand bawling confession from his lying heart. Seen it over and over again.

Therefore, based on this and general risk/benefit assessments, I do not think Mr. Zimmerman ought to take the stand in his own defense (especially in the last five minutes of the hour). Sixty years of Hollywood jurisprudence back me up on this.

    JasonI in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Jack McCoy would have gotten GZ to proclaim his guilt from his seat by now.

    cazinger in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 2, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Night Court? You got that from Night Court?

    I watched that entire series and the only thing I got out of it was that Markie Post was a very attractive woman (which is, of course, WHY I watched the entire series). 😀

Some are saying TM’s arms/hands were under body before CPR. But if you look at only photo of him before he was rolled over for CPR his arms look like they’re out and down towards feet. It’s a bad photo, light not very good. Also check out the pictures of GZ’s wound on face and head are more than I thought. They are on chin, on top of head and on the sides. They aren’t real bad but could have been caused by hands hitting a hard head. Abrasion like wounds. Warning graphic images. Please be aware, I am not trying to shock anyone.