About the alleged, self-inflicted wounds of the Zimmerman prosecution

[KurtNYC]

I have seen many asking why the Prosecution's witnesses are not more cleanly, strictly helping the prosecution. Or put another way, why put someone on the stand who could testify to thing which may help the defense?

If Prosecution does not call these witnesses then Defense still has the option to do so. And that looks worse to a jury. It could make the jury assume that even the prosecution believes that these witnesses don't help their case and that they were simply cherry picking witnesses to tell the story their way.

It diffuses any potential "game changers." Imagine if the prosecution did not call the guy who saw TM on top. Well, the prosecution lays out their whole case, rests and then the defense calls that guy to the stand, he says TM was on top and Defense can say "Look! This blows their whole case apart. That's why they didn't want this guy testifying. The truth is on our side!"

The prosecution may look weak to some at this point but I think it has a lot to do with getting EVERYTHING out before resting their case. (And again, the prosecution's case relies heavily on Zimmerman's calls to non-emergency and to the tapes of his interview; NOT on witnesses who saw little to nothing.)

[dkf]

1. But they haven't made the case yet with their witnesses.

What is the strongest part of their case and has it already happened?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Well --

some people on the internet are pretty teed-off about this; and, frankly, what more is needed? Why we haven't moved on to the sentencing phase yet is beyond me.

[KurtNYC]

4. the strongest part of their case is Zimmerman's words

He claimed to be in fear but his actions say otherwise -- he got out of the car, chased and shot. He says he was being smothered but the 911 calls has no gaps in the screaming. He says he was hit in the face 20+ times but had no bruising. Zim knows the law, he has an AD in Criminal Law so he knows what it takes to justify a shooting but the other evidence doesn't fit with his story. In effect, Zim seems to believe that the truth, even part of if (that he was chasing TM) is enough to convict him.

Zim's calls to non-emergency and the interview tapes, in light of the physical evidence, are the strongest evidence against him.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Does this theory require the prosecution having anything that reaffirms their charges

or does it suffice to simply have them look ethical by allowing the defense to co-opt all their witnesses before the defense presents its own case on its own terms?

[KurtNYC]

5. If I was the prosecution I would have been fine to just go with Zim's phone

calls to non-emergency and the Serino interview but reality is you have to deal with all the witnesses even though they muddy the core issue -- was Zim acting out of fear or malice when he got out of his car? Zimmerman knows that if he got out to chase TM then he can't claim fear so he said he needed to look for a street sign (!) in his own neighborhood which has only 3 named streets.