going all "ad hominem" doesn't obscure the fact that you didn't (couldn't) answer my question.

It was a silly question.

People lie in court to get their way. Perjury ain't rare. The end.

I would never knowingly allow a client to lie on the stand and would disclose to them that if they do, I have a duty to inform the court of my client's perjured testimony. The fact is though that most folks don't warn their lawyers before or after they lie on the stand. Try representing a few meth heads and you'll start to get the picture.

I thought it was a rhetorical question.

Clearly not.

I stand by my 'ad hominem' attack.

Sure, but you being shocked =/= no way it's going to happen, especially since the bottom line is it's his choice, not theirs. I've been suprised enough times at what happened in the cases of very competent counsel that I've learned never to say never.

Well, also, "no way it's going to happen" =/= "almost no way it's going to happen." I may have carelessly stated "no way" once, but I've been pretty consistent otherwise.

I obviously am not claiming to have the power to predict the future. I will say that the odds of Zimmerman testifying are somewhere between slim and none though which is a lot like saying almost no way it's going to happen.

Fair enough.

There's not enough in the story to really know what kind of a claim it is. It looks like the jurisdictional allegations point to a civil rights action, but I'd like to see how that was plead.

George Zimmerman is suing NBC. He alleges that they doctored the 911 call. According to records, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if the other person (Trayvon Martin) was "white, black, or hispanic". Zimmerman replied that the "He looks black". NBC News aired the call as Zimmerman saying, ""looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." editing out the dispatcher's inquiry.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...an-mark-o-mara

Listening to closing arguments in GZ/Martin case
 

I realize this is probably the most watched case in this guys' legal career, but he needs to hit reset.

Breathe. His modulation is all over the place (spastic, almost). He's repeating himself and, to be at the outset of his remarks, is waaay too amped up.

The prosecutor didn't have any of his shit together at all.

Still, I will be very upset if this Defendant goes free or gets a light sentence. He is an example of part of what has gone wrong with our country since the rise of the neoconservatives.

I want those burden of proof posters for my own use. Those are awesome. I know a lot of folks want Zimmerman to be guilty. I haven't followed the trial all that closely, but that said, I haven't seen anything which proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I did watch some of the state's forensics expert testify. He was utterly unprofessional. His conduct might raise the jury's concern about the partiality of the evidence derived from the autopsy.

There's been a lot of evidence introduced, but nothing which proves anything by the burden the state's required to prove.

I'm not so sure that Mark O'Mara's video was as effective as he was hoping for, but overal I think he's presenting a solid case. I think the prosecution came off badly in their closing argument-- shrieking and presenting too fast. Mark O'Mara is coming off (at least to me) as calm and confident, which should inspire confidence in the jury.