@farmerman,
Quote: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.
The state cannot eliminate some witnesses, particularly material witnesses or eyewitnesses, without being accused, by the defense, of deliberately withholding evidence that might exonerate the defendant. The state has much less leeway in picking and choosing their witnesses than the defense. There are certain witnesses, like those neighbors, they
must put on. They had lengthy discussions about that issue on HLN every night last week after the trial finished for the day.
The state has to win by proving their case, not by withholding evidence, or by withholding material witnesses or eyewitnesses because they might give mixed testimony. In that regard, the system bends in favor of fairness to the defendant.
The prosecution knew Jeantel had lied in the past about some things (like her age), and they knew her description had varied slightly with each questioning by attorneys, but her basic story never varied, and her testimony is crucial to their case. I'm not sure that anything that Jeantel said on the stand was any surprise to the state. And her demeanor wasn't something they could control.
Her literacy and letter-writing ability is absolutely irrelevant as to whether she was credible, and honest, in reporting her conversation with Martin on the witness stand at trial. The letter was a brief statement to Martin's mother that involved no questioning by anyone as she wrote it. I wouldn't expect it to be as detailed as things she said in later formal depositions, or on the witness stand. And neither side doubts she authored the letter.
It wasn't a blunder putting Jeantel on the stand, she's the only person in the entire case who can speak for what Martin was feeling and thinking as Zimmerman followed him--and what she said is favorable to the state and bolsters their case. Either the jury will believe her or they won't. If they believe her, that's a significant gain for the state. If they don't believe her, the state's other evidence will have a bigger burden and have to carry even more weight. But she didn't damage the state's case, she just might not wind up strengthening it if the jury doesn't believe her.