The red letter edition:
If the prosecution does not present the video to the jury during the trial (and they won’t want to unless there are other videos out there in stark contrast to make this video look dishonest), here is what I would do as the defense lawyer for Zimmerman: I would make sure the police officer in the re-enactment video with Zimmerman was asked about it on the witness stand when called as a witness to discuss the investigation. By doing that, I would make sure the jury was aware that the video existed. I would specifically ask the officer (detective) if the re-enactment had been taped (and of course the answer is yes.) I would also ask if the prosecution / police have the tape (and the answer is yes.)
Then…in closing argument….assuming the prosecution had not shown the re-enactment video, I would, as Zimmerman’s lawyer, argue to the jury: ”why didn’t the prosecution show you this re-enactment tape in their possession…taken on the day after the shooting when Zimmerman did not yet have a lawyer? There is a reason and you Members of the Jury all know it….are they hiding something from you?”
oh...you’re already here :) I like Greta’s approach to this.
As Greta points out, GZ's reenactment video puts the prosecution in a Catch 22. The defense can't use it unless GZ takes the stand, which he's not required to do, and which most defense lawyers in most cases advise against. The prosecution can use it, but doesn't want to, because it damages their case. But if the jury knows it's being kept from them, that's reasonable doubt right there!
BTW, Greta is a lawyer. She got into TV as a result of appearing as a legal analyst for CNN during the OJ trial.