Following opening statements, the prosecution normally produces a succession of fact witnesses, people who can testify to the facts–the evidence–necessary to establish the elements of the offense and to prove that the defendant committed it. Their ultimate job is to leave no room for reasonable doubt.
But this is the George Zimmerman prosecution: the backwards case.
Normally, prosecutors are careful to fully question each prosecution witness, to obtain all of the evidence their testimony can produce, and also to avoid allowing the defense to reveal evidence left unmentioned, making it look like the prosecution was trying to conceal something. But during the first week of this case, the prosecution has established a pattern of asking only the bare minimum of their witnesses. In virtually every case, defense cross-examination reveals a great deal the prosecutors avoided bringing to light, and in virtually every case, that information either fully supports George’s Zimmerman’s…
View original post 6,079 more words