The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

you and I seem to be the only ones then.
A case in court is fluid, and its a game of persuasion. The jury is the one that needs the persuasion and what every one else has to say is kitchen gossip.
The lawyers Im familiar with all say that the successful case develops a rhythm in which item after item is presented and fails to be successfully challenged. I don't see that happening by the state at this point, and Im getting more respect for the defense's way of countering the state prosecutor and thereby breaking his "rhythm"

Same here, except I'm only following on a2k.

On Robert's thread, I post my opinion on murder 2 on the first page - 20 April 2012. Here's a link, for those who insist everyone but themselves is a liar.

http://able2know.org/topic/188223-1

One of the things West was asking her was why she didn't say Treyvon called him a "creepy ass cracker". He had disposed her 2 times previously. She knew this guy and he was constantly demeaning her. Now you know why she said he was retarded. IMHO she totally schooled this dimwit. She fully won the day.

Does the jury see this? I have lived overseas for many years, I spent time talking with poor black kids in Houston. I was once talking with a kid (16-17) on a bus in Houston and I was trying to take our short time together and motivate him. I of course told him it was so very important to get his schooling. He told me he didn't like school and it didn't like him - he was stupid. We then went on a 20-30 talk about basketball and the NBA. As I got up to get off the bus I told him he isn't stupid, that we had just had a very complete, complex discussion with number, stats and very complicated memory recitals. He look at me and gave me a very understanding smile. I dearly hope he went and applied the same in school - that was 25 years ago!

But this case isn't a whodunit. We know Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. So the rhythm in this kind of case is different. But I can sense a rhythm.

First the prosecution established Zimmerman's mind-set with his 911 call--he regarded Martin as a suspicious character, like all those punks in his housing development who committed crimes and got away. And he didn't want this one to elude the police, that's why he followed him. So, at the very least, Zimmerman was annoyed with Martin being there, and he didn't want to sit in his car and wait for the police--he took it upon himself to follow him. He was acting somewhat impulsively. Was he acting recklessly...

Then they established Martin's mind-set through the phone call Rachel Jeantel related--she's the only one who can give any indication of Martin's mind-set. She reports Martin being apprehensive about this guy watching and following him, and trying to avoid the guy. And, he may have thought there was some racial reason that the man was following him, because he referred to the "white cracker"--also I think that indicated Martin's sense of vulnerability as a young black male. And what Jeantel reported suggested Zimmerman confronted Martin--without identifying himself as a neighborhood watch--and it sounded like he was the aggressor, because she reported Martin's last words she heard as, "Get off." She doesn't describe anything Martin said that suggested Martin was looking for a fight, or getting ready to fight.

Then they brought out, through medical testimony, that Zimmerman had MMA training...and his injuries were not serious at all...

Now, this week, they are going to get into the inconsistencies in the accounts Zimmerman gave to the police...

All the defense has to do with each of these witnesses is neutralize Zimmerman's actions. He wasn't really stalking Martin, he wanted to be able to give the police a precise location. Jeantel might have embellished or altered her original recollection of the phone call...why didn't Martin go right back to where he had been staying after he went to the store...was he really up to no good...etc.

The defense job is only to raise the possibility that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. They don't have to prove he acted in self-defense. If there is any doubt about whether it was self defense, the jury must give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. And they have already raised the possibility he acted in self defense by their cross-examination.

Now it really depends on whether the state can make a case for second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They've started making it, but, so far it's not strong. But, as you say, trials are fluid. Some of the most important witnesses are still to come.

So I sense a rhythm, but it's not building in a linear fashion. But there really is no smoking gun or climax to build to--it's not that kind of case.

I read this about Trayvon Martin's use of the word "cracker" to describe Zimmerman, and I found it interesting.

You can see in that letter that someone wrote the cursive and she printed her name to sign it. It's her letter, she authored it.

I felt she was very authentic and credible. I could understand why she omitted the "cracker" reference from the letter to Martin's mother.

I've known lots of kids just like Rachel Jeantel. And there was a huge cultural and generational gap between the defense attorney and this witness. West was trying to impugn her credibility, and to confuse her, and I thought he was somewhat patronizing to her, and she started getting an attitude. He was doing his job--he doesn't want the jury to believe her, she's a crucial witness for the state. But West really didn't rattle her, she stuck to her guns and to her story. And I thought she was being honest. It depends how all that "attitude" on her part affected the jury.

I agree; it's not against the law to walk in the neighborhood of your father's residence. Suspect and intent to burglarize are all in Zimmerman's imagination, and no place else. The altercation happened because Zimmerman approached Martin - for no reason other than personal suspecion. Zimmerman did not have the authority nor justifiable cause to apprehend and murder Martin.

Martin didn't commit any crime.

I submit that you are one of those who has their minds already made up. (You are the antithesis of gunga).
I started out respecting the case for the state. Ive since seen several opportunities go sliding by the prosecution by failing to respond on some basic evidence. Key state witnesses are changing stories under cross. WTF. They've lost serious ground for the states case
We all know the particulars, I don't need a lesson about what the case is NOT about. That's all immaterial because the prosecution HAS made some pretty serious tactical blunders and remember, its not you or I. Its the jury that's the only audience that counts and during voir dire of the jury, don't think that every one of them is not now fully known to each
attorney. Im sure each attorney knows about each jurors favorite movie and breakfast cereal. Particular items that the defense has carefully picked apart have left the prosecution with nowhere to respond other than "No further questions your honor"
That kind of stuff must be erased by the other side or it dangles there like a mustard stain on a white shirt. Its all in the jury 's notes (they can take notes in Fla?).


I was always told by those who know that Cross examination is only about doing damage to your opponent's case. All these points that the defense has made on cross, WILL be resurrected in summation, you watch and see.

When the defense's case is made, the prosecution is at a disadvantage because the defense will have Tailored its direct to include some "beating the dead horse" of the prosecutions direct testimony where the defense scored some points.

It all depends what the jury has been fed and what they pick up.

When I see a movie for the first time, I try to dispense with my world and, instead, jump into theirs and enjoy the ride.
Im sorry if I don't take this as seriously as I should (perhaps). Its all circus and 24 hour news cycles being exploited.
The issues of "justice" that you nd gunga have disagreed on are news clips to me.

At this point Im guessing

7to5 for acquittal
2 to 1 a hung jury
4 to 1 for guilty

(These numbers change daily as the performances are evaluated by the off screen "experts")

I submit that you are one of those who has their minds already made up. (You are the antithesis of gunga).
I started out respecting the case for the state. Ive since seen several opportunities go sliding by the prosecution by failing to respond on some basic evidence. Key state witnesses are changing stories under cross. WTF. They've lost serious ground for the states case
We all know the particulars, I don't need a lesson about what the case is NOT about. That's all immaterial because the prosecution HAS made some pretty serious tactical blunders and remember, its not you or I. Its the jury that's the only audience that counts and during voir dire of the jury, don't think that every one of them is not now fully known to each
attorney. Im sure each attorney knows about each jurors favorite movie and breakfast cereal. Particular items that the defense has carefully picked apart have left the prosecution with nowhere to respond other than "No further questions your honor"
That kind of stuff must be erased by the other side or it dangles there like a mustard stain on a white shirt. Its all in the jury 's notes (they can take notes in Fla?).


I was always told by those who know that Cross examination is only about doing damage to your opponent's case. All these points that the defense has made on cross, WILL be resurrected in summation, you watch and see.

When the defense's case is made, the prosecution is at a disadvantage because the defense will have Tailored its direct to include some "beating the dead horse" of the prosecutions direct testimony where the defense scored some points.

It all depends what the jury has been fed and what they pick up.

When I see a movie for the first time, I try to dispense with my world and, instead, jump into theirs and enjoy the ride.
Im sorry if I don't take this as seriously as I should (perhaps). Its all circus and 24 hour news cycles being exploited.
The issues of "justice" that you nd gunga have disagreed on are news clips to me.

At this point Im guessing

7to5 for acquittal
2 to 1 a hung jury
4 to 1 for guilty

(These numbers change daily as the performances are evaluated by the off screen "experts")

This would be totally correct if summation started tomorrow. But, where/who are the witnesses to turn the case around?

as I said, I will frequently change the odds prior to Post Time.

I was involved as a juror in the rape-murder case that lasted three months. Some of us felt that the more than a few circumstantial evidence made it clear that the defendant raped and murdered the girl, but we almost had a hung jury.

The judge told us to go back into session and find a judgement.

It took us over a day to go over the evidence provided by the prosecution, and we were finally able to convince the other two jurors that he was guilty.

The defendant is now serving his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

It was one of the most difficult decisions I have made in my life.

Nobody knows what the jurors are hearing or how they perceive the witnesses - even when it looks like one side or the other is winning.

I rest my case.

In a self-defense case, the defense just has to use cross-examination to raise the mere possibility of self defense. Under Florida law, the mere possibility this was self-defense is enough to let Zimmerman walk. That's how they damage the state's case. And they have been successful in using some of the state's witnesses to raise that possibility.

What real blunders has the state made?

There are witnesses the state must put on--like the neighbors who made those 911 calls--they have no choice about it. Their testimony is not going to be one-sided for the state. And they may say things helpful to the defense, and these witnesses may even contradict each other. But the state must put them on the stand--legally, they cannot eliminate them. But these are not crucial witnesses for the state either.

I don't think the state has yet zeroed in on second degree murder. They've only laid the bare groundwork.

Maybe I'm not following you. What tactical mistakes and blunders have you seen?

I too was on a murder trial case that we found the person guilty. In this one, people also had to be walked through so they could understand how all the evidence should be linked together. I found that I went back and forth all through the trial and it wasn't over (evidence) till it was given to the jury. Then everything was to be weighed.

This guy got 25 years - but, he got 9 years for the 1 year he was in jail awaiting trial. Also, when the Judge was thanking us she was very appreciative of our giving him 25 years because he had refused her plea bargained 15 years. She was great, actually so were the lawyers!

I rest my case.....

Having a witness removed is done all the time. That way the defense would call the same witness and the prosecution could alter the impact by impeaching them.
All the areas where the prosecution seemed to have been hurt are in the areas where the old statement is
"A lawyer doesn't ask a question of a witness of which he doesn't already know the answer"

If a witness changes a story on which they've been deposed or you find out in trial that they cant write is STUPIDITY on the prt of the attorney. It may be the works of a LAw and Order episode but usually the facts available to the attorneys is gathered by exhaustive research . Someone will need to get fired or demoted on the prosecutions trial team. (Im assuming this whole thing is Multidisciplinary)

There is also a different style of questioning the lawyers are required to do depending on if it is or isn't their witness. The lawyer can also declare the witness hostile and then can question differently.

Farmer, I don't think the State is as far behind as you do. I do think they aren't even close to Murder 2 - but, that may have been a smoke screen to begin with. They have to prove a "depraved mind" for that.

And, MMA - both had MMA training - therefore, they are equal here so defense can't say Z needed deadly force because of this. I also think Z got cuts to the back of the head when T smacked him in the face a few times when he was on top. Just a regular fight not deserving deadly force.

Z got up and walked around after gun shot = thinking, inventing a story, which got changed a couple of times. He lied, therefore - 1 lie, 2 lie, 3 lie - you don't have to believe anything he says.......

The biggest thing for both sides in summation is timelines. They will put all evidence and testimony together in timelines, the most believable wins.

So far, man slaughter is proven. Defense has a job to make Z innocent of this.

I am with you. If my cursive is older than 8 hrs I cant make it out which is why I print when I write something I want to keep for later. Where is it written that only intelligent people write in cursive. ROGER Its not me that dident get the point of my blond blue eyed post. You intentionally misstated my post to suit your own idea. That makes you a lier.

The screaming stopped as soon as the gun was fired because that bullet went into Martin's heart.I think those awful terrified screams came from Martin.

My wife fell in our house and sustained more damage than that. But she dident run into the street and blow away the first person she saw. I would like to describe the kind of person I think you are but it would get me thrown off this site.