No. I didn't say that this was the only thing that I would file a MIL on. We were talking about a specific bit of evidence.

/eyeroll

What do ASA or AG stand for?

The lying about money is not coming in. Florida has really restrictive evidence rules on when evidence of untruthful conduct can come in. Unless he is convicted of perjury, that's not coming in.

I don't know about his record, but it's a good point. How bad is it?

To me, this case is primarily a swearing contest in which you believe Zimmerman or you don't. It's going to turn almost entirely on Zimmerman's credibility. If he is a decent witness at all, I would think about putting him on. That's big "IF," though.

I have to admit to seeing this case with the eyes of a prosecutor. My bias makes me see him as guilty.

If the state's case is a swearing contest, essentially a tie, ties should go to the defendant. Juries can do anything, but absent something else in this case, there's a reason that just about no prosecutor in the state of Florida wanted anything to do with this case.

Without the Defendant testifying, it won't be about whether the jury believes Zimmerman, but whether the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not use self defense and murdered Mr. Martin. As I've said over and over, that's a tough burden to overcome when all of the evidence is conjecture.

When the lead investigator has once gone on the record saying there was no evidence as to who started the struggle, it's not going to be the defense which is going to strain credulity.

A good skill to learn as a prosecutor is to be able to see the holes in your own case. This case has some big 'ol holes. Zimmerman may actually be guilty, only one person on Earth really knows. The state actually has to prove it before they can lock him up and throw away the key.

Ties should go to the defendant, but they often don't. You know that. Actually that's a good reason to keep Zimmerman's record out and keep him off the stand. If he's scummy or a lousy witness, he won't help his case. That's a huge reason that defendants don't testify. They're usually guilty of something, just maybe not what is in front of the jury.

Actually, there is evidence as to who started it. Martin's girlfriend was on the phone. She heard the scuffle start. Her version of what she heard does NOT match with Zimmerman's version. Martin told her that he was running away and then she heard a scuffle start. That is completely contradictory to what Zimmerman testified. Taken with Zimmerman's comment: "These assholes. They always get away." and you've got a decent case for Zimmerman starting the confrontation.

I believe the evidence will show that Zimmerman started the confrontation but then was losing. When he started losing, he shot Martin. I don't think that Martin is both bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground and reaching for the gun at the same time. Despite your belief, that just isn't credible.

Thank you for teaching me to suck eggs, son. I'm aware about seeing both sides. My point about prosecution bias was intended to be a gentle way of suggesting that we BOTH may be biased. You're showing quite a bit of defense bias and not seeing both sides. Clearly, I need to be more direct.

She has about as much of a reason to lie as Zimmerman. We'll see what kind of a witness she makes. An eye witness is pretty unreliable. Now we're talking about an 'ear-witness' to coin a term. Defense counsel should have a field day on cross.

I really don't see how it's not credible. I also don't see how the state proves otherwise.

I'm just calling things as I see 'em. It's a weak case.

Why? Specifically.
Is she looking at whatever time 2nd degree murder or manslaughter carries?

You don't think she wants Zimmerman in jail and might be willing to not tell the truth to make that happen?

I don't think that's a hard sell to a jury.

Upon what (beyond your own suspicion) are you basing your contention that she'd consider risking perjury to jail Zimmerman? To date, I've not, (and doubt you have either) heard either side even allege she's been anything other than truthful.

Setting aside all of that, you're saying you see her desire to see Zimmerman punished as equal to Zimmerman's potential to lie (again, considering the bail money lie to the court) to spare himself the possibility of 20 years to life, or whatever the sentence might be.

are you serious?

Kevin is right. Anyone can and potentially will lie (or conveniently forget details).

Yes, some people who feel strongly and passionately about something and feel as though they are fighting a greater cause will sacrifice themselves to commit perjury. That applies to both the prosecution and the defense. That is why certain laws and legal procedures exist.

Oh you are so wide eyed and naive. I want to just eat you up.

Gross. LOL.

She didn't answer, but I would assume Assistant State's Attorney and (Assistant) Attorney General.

I would never say "just no way." Best practices should never be confused with possible practices.

That's why any defense attorney worth his salt will offer up a strong cross examination which will leave the jury wondering who is being truthful here. Certainly no one is going to convict based on the word of a teenage girl whose boyfriend was shot shortly after he hung up the phone with her.

It won't be her word against Zimmerman's because as I mentioned, I would be shocked if Zimmerman testifies.

I consider his defense team to have done a fine job to date.

I'd be shocked if they called him.