Seems to me the prosecutor went for all or nothing. Now he’s beginning to see what the rest of us saw all along. He’s about to wind up with zip. Desperate, he now seeks to add in the charges others were saying he should have from the onset.
What bothers me most about this late in the game tactic, is that the defense didn’t have the ability to address these lesser charges throughout the trial.
They provided a defense against the charges brought. Now the prosecutor is trying to change the charges after the fact, and after the defense has nearly rested their complete defense.
How is that fair? Witnesses could have been asked questions, evidence could have been submitted, and the tactics of the defense could have been different realizing they had to impress the jury that lesser charges were not applicable too.
People have made a big stink out of the fact the judge asked Zimmerman himself if he was going to testify. That seemed to them to be prejudicial. Judges do this. They want to hear from the individual themselves that they are making this decision of their own free will. It helps shut down a defense move later on that the defendant wanted to testify, but was not allowed to by his attorney.
Point is, I don’t understand everything that goes on in court. Perhaps it’s reasoned to add in these extra charges. To me, a lay person, it doesn’t seem fair at all. That said, it may be something that happens all the time.
Doesn’t seem reasoned to me.
This is not a “late-game” tactic. This stage of trial is often when the parties start making motions about what sort of instructions the jury will and will not receive. And, manslaughter is a “Category 1” lesser-included offense under Florida law, meaning (as I understand it) that if one party requests an instruction for it, the judge MUST give it.