So the evidence in favor of Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is powerful. What has the state mustered on the other side? 1) The testimony of a friend of Martin’s who was talking with him on the phone shortly before the fight started. That testimony, if anything, helped Zimmerman; in any event, she did not “witness” anything that bears directly on who started the fight. 2) DNA evidence which proved nothing, one way or the other. 3) Various irrelevancies about Zimmerman’s character and personality. 4) The testimony of Martin’s mother, who said the screams in the 911 tape came from Martin. Apart from the mother’s obvious and overwhelming bias, the foundation for her testimony approaches zero. Has she ever heard Trayvon scream, as though in fear for his life? Presumably rarely, if ever. But in any event, she certainly has never heard Zimmerman scream. For all she knows, the screams on the audio sounded exactly like Zimmerman. I am a little surprised, frankly, that the judge admitted such shaky testimony. 5) The testimony of Martin’s brother to the effect that it was Trayvon screaming on the 911 recording. His testimony suffers from all of the defects of his mother’s. In addition, he admitted that two weeks after the shooting, he said in a television interview that he couldn’t tell whether the screams were Trayvon’s.
How could a jury rationally find that this meagre evidence–contradicted by eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the fact that the police investigation was fully consistent with Zimmerman’s account–proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense? I don’t think a reasonable jury could so find, and if that is the case, the defense motion should have been granted, and the case should not have been allowed to proceed.
