They say they want to protect their witnesses. I don't know enough about how this works to know if this is a ruse, or a strategically good move.

But it appears that there are no simple answers to any aspect of this case.

IMO, Zimmerman got into a tight situation that was way too complex for him to deal with, panicked, and shot Martin out of fear.

The only reason I say that is that the actions of Zimmerman's family have been pretty bizarre and they've changed their story more often than they change their socks.

If you suspect unfavorable evidence, you would want to know as soon as possible, not wait.

Doubtless the lawyer knows already what the unfavorable items are; after all, the shooter knows what he did, himself.

...because it's my understanding that a defense lawyer doesn't ask his client what he/she DID, but rather what the police will SAY he/she did.

The client doesn't have to tell his lawyer the whole truth, and might not.

Defense definitely wants to know all all the cards the prosecution has. The sooner the better.

But what is even more important is that witnesses don't change their testimony out of fear of retaliation. And they would be in fear If the public knows. If the media is entrusted to keep the names safe, would you REALLY trust them to not leak? I wouldn't.

If the defense fears this, this implies they already feel they are in a good situation and don't want things to change. Patience over dangerous expediency.

time to refute it?

We are not in the courtroom and under courtroom rules.

They actually might like it we keep arguing about it. keeps the legal defense coffers full. The minute we lose interest the money stops flowing in.

So what if we refute? We going to twitter all the thousands of ideas we have to the prosecution how they can outsmart O'Mara? We aren't even sure if they are serious.

concerns. There has been a lot of animosity and emotions caused by incomplete and premature disclosure of information," the website reads.


This sounds to me like whatever it is, they don't want it released to the public because it's going to piss people off even more than they already are. This can't be good for Zimmerman or they wouldn't be pushing so hard to keep it away from the general public.

I think it means that the witnesses or a witness is exculpatory. The defense and prosecution can and do talk. If there is a witness(es) who corroborate Zimmerman's story, that person could become a target. Zimmerman wasn't arrested for many days, it is possible his arrest was the product of public pressure and not a good case. maybe both the defense and prosecution agree that it would be best if public outrage waned before Zimmerman is either offered a minor offense plea bargain or charges dropped.

This is the Prosecution's evidence and witnesses not the Defense. You did the article did you not? The article is talking about the Prosecution not releasing evidence after the 15 day wait...not the Defense's side of the story. For instance no one has any information on the girl except for her phone records and there are still many other witnesses against Zimmerman who have yet to be made public...such as the woman on CNN. She never made herself public and her information would have to be made public. There could be many others. I'm a bit puzzled why you think this is from the Defense's side. The Defense simply does not want to push the Prosecution to release evidence...but the evidence is on the side of the Prosecution not defense.

they record the witness perspective. Witnesses can be exculpatory. The prosecution is required to release ALL evidence, even exculpatory evidence. The defense would protect any exculpatory witnesses.

The article is talking about the Prosecution not releasing evidence after the 15 day wait...not the Defense's side of the story.

No, the story is about the defense agreeing not to require the prosecution to turn over their evidence in the time required. This is the defense's decision. Perhaps the prosecution agrees for the safety of the exculpatory witness(es).

The Defense simply does not want to push the Prosecution to release evidence...but the evidence is on the side of the Prosecution not defense.

How do you know what the evidence is?

You presumed quite a bit yourself in regards to what the evidence may be..which by your estimation is leaning in favor of Zimmerman and implying quite heavily on the incompetance of the prosecution as though his arrest was really for show due to public opinion rather than for any concrete proof.

"I think", meaning is is purely speculation. Your posts are extremely authoritative, as if you know more than the rest of us. My opinion is based on 20 years working on criminal defense teams, but it is still speculation..And don't kid yourself, prosecutors are very political..

And they don't want it public record to be discussed on 24/7 cable news.

Making her appear incompetant or not aware of the law. Now more information is released showing that it was actually the defense who delayed a demand. Thanks for some clarity...but I'm tired of these biased newspapers who want to make the prosecution look negligent.

Um... that's weird. Discovery data isn't just all made public. Maybe this is a Florida thing, but I strongly doubt it.

I think this all pertains to their Sunshine law. So all aspects of the case and evidence is normally released and when there is a trial, the trial is videotaped.

was a stupid thing to do, now we know why. O'Mara's no fool, he's going to play it like a fiddle. He knows that before trial he has to take some steps to win this in the media, or at least get it to a draw.

When polling is about 50-50 for/against his client, he'll be ready for trial.

My guess is that this is because they think that at least some of those witnesses are crucial to their defense, and so they don't want them to be hounded or possibly even harmed. They plan to file motions to prevent such a feeding frenzy. Not really that hard to understand.

The 911 tapes were damaging to Zimmerman. Seems this would be more of a concern for the defense. What witnesses currently need protection? I don't think there are any right now needing protection. So it makes no sense why now. The concern over witness protection, seems out of place.

Before the commotion about this case got dangerous there was a witness willing to speak to the press freely. Probably didn't realize the potential risk to himself.

Remember the young black guy out walking his dog? At one point he stated he thought he saw that the person on his back being beaten was wearing a red jacket. I don't recall how sure he was but it seemed rather significant considering he was on the ground and the other witnesses weren't that night. Haven't heard from about since. Seems to have been forgotten for the moment.

Could you imagine being the person that acquits the person that killed someone of your community or family? The pressure and shame would have to be intense.

Zimmerman is never coming back to this place. He has the bucks now. This poor guy probably doesn't have a choice and will have to live with the consequences of his testimony in a very personal way.

He claimed that he only saw one person, the one lying on the ground. He was asked what color the person was wearing and said he didn't know. Then he was asked, "Was it red?" and answered, "I guess it was red." His mother said he felt really pressured by police to answer to things he hadn't witnessed or wasn't sure about. His mother has been interviewed on TV and in newspapers, but for obvious reasons, she is protecting her son.

according to the media interview he did early. Didn't hear of any police trying to control what he said then.


On the otherhand I can understand why his mother wants to to make his testimony appear more nuanced NOW.

Of course she is protecting her son. In her situation I would advice him to do the same or or provide the nuance myself.

Better to lie and live, than be truthful and die. Police is one thing, having to LIVE with your peers is something else.

to be the death of this case. All we're going to hear is "fear, fear, fear" and it's because of that moronic dead or alive nonsense. And I'm afraid to say, it's going to work.

Though, admittedly, the article I linked to turned out to be less than accurate. The point, however, is valid, as we are now seeing how it can be used against us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002621266

when you have something to say. If they can't handle it, the problem is them, not you. When we give them a reason to ignore the problem (as the Black Panthers do because THEY become the story), they will use them every single time. Anyone who doesn't see that is either very young or very naive.