Replies

Isn't his trial strategy pretty much out in the open as it is???

Well, did any of us figure that MOM was suckering in Judge Lester to show Lester's bias right out in the open? I certainly don't think Lester saw it coming. We all thought that that MOM was a wuss at the last hearing, at least I did. J I think he may have a lot more up his sleeve than we know.

As I said, I don't know if he would have to take the stand in a Dennis hearing

There is no risk to Zimmerman moving for a Dennis hearing. The "trial strategy" is the same there, as it would be in a trial. Put on evidence that establishes Martin initiated physical action without being provoked; and describe the actions that produced a fear of death or serious injury. The state will attempt to rebut that with whatever evidence they have, and the fact finder reaches a decision.

I don't think there is a requirement for Zimmerman to take the stand in order to produce evidence. He can produce, within the Motion to Dismiss on account of 776.032 Immunity, statements of fact that he swears to be true. This is effectively the same as taking the stand, but not being subjected to cross examination.

The general rule is that a witness cannot use affidavits in lieu of taking the stand, with the objective of that general rule being to afford the fact finder an opportunity to view the witness's demeanor during questioning, and submitting the witness to cross examination.

I don't have the impression that Zimmerman is a good witness on his own behalf. He has at least minor inconsistencies among his several tellings of events, and one more telling is bound to introduce yet another set of inconsistencies. The state will be able to generate all sorts of smoke from that. Ultimately, I don't think that (not good witness, lots of smoke generated from defendant's inconsistencies) would affect a jury outcome.