Reply #41

...an effective defense without personally testifying. Because no living person besides Zimmerman actually saw what happened and there is no video, he really can't get around testifying. His lawyer can present a narrative, but anything his lawyer says is not evidence. A videotaped interview not done under oath does not have to be admitted as evidence.

I don't believe Zimmerman will have much difficulty surviving cross-examination on those questions. His biggest problem IMO will be producing a coherent explanation of the exact sequence of events that happened in the about 90 seconds just prior to the shooting. There is really no direct way to test his account - No physical evidence that he threw the first punch, no eyewitnesses to the entire physical fight, no video, no high-quality audio; and no evidence (that I've seen) that indicates that he was brandishing his weapon prior to the physical scuffle. It's basically Zimmerman's story vs. whatever holes the prosecution can punch in it.

Poisoning the jury pool is an underhanded strategy, but it's common in high-profile cases. We can only hope that the court can pick out enough TRULY unbiased jurors and that the process reveals the truth.