Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
With the evidence as it is as far as we the public are aware, I just don't see the state proving their case. As far as Zimmerman testifying, there's just no way. Without him getting up on the stand, the jury never hears about his record and a lot of bad stuff never comes in. If you're the defense attorney and you know the state really doesn't have any sort of smoking gun, there's nearly never a reason to recommend that the Defendant testify. It's always his decision at the end of the day, but so far, Zimmerman has a pretty good track record of following his attorney's advice except with the whole bail money thing. That was really stupid.
Putting your defendant on the stand is like throwing a Hail Mary pass at the end of a losing football game. It almost never works and often leads to the other side gaining some sort of advantage.
You have to understand that out of everyone testifying, the Defendant has more reason to lie than anyone and the fact that he's already lied about money means most jurors would have no problem assuming he'd lie about murder.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
