Zimmerman Defense--Worst Opening Statement Ever

[JimDandy]

The attorney is plodding and boring, and instead of laying out a strong summation, he is laying out minute details of the case.

Maybe he's doing this detailed timeline and essentially arguing the case now, because they aren't going to have George Zimmerman testify in his own defense, and this is the one opportunity to do it for him.

In any case, the attorney is terrible.

[Scuba]

1. Perhaps the defense's plan is to lose, then appeal on the basis of mis-representation.

Happens more often than you might think.

[JimDandy]

4. Very unlikely going for a planned loss, but likely to lose

if this attorney keeps going the way he has.

[H2O Man]

10. It does happen,

though it would be far more likely if Zimmerman had a public defender, or an inexperienced attorney. The quality of his legal defense team reduces the chances of that to about zero. They will appeal on not having enough time to fully prepare for trial, however; that is probably going to be their strongest point.

[JimDandy]

33. 16 months since Travon was murdered.

Zimmerman has had this defense team for more than a year, I believe.

Perhaps they shouldn't have been spending so much of that time: defending him in public on a website and in the media; encouraging and monitoring his fundraising efforts, and probably reviewing George Zimmerman Sr's manuscript for the book he just published in which he defends his son.

[DrDan]

2. watching it off-and-on . . . and agree with you that this is a BORING opening

Not sure why he is going into such detail at this point of the trial.

[JimDandy]

7. Such detail is unusual.

Opening statements are usually limited in length by the court, too. If that is the case here, he is using up valuable time to succintly and in a memorable way summarize for the jury what should be the defense's strongest points.

The best reason I can come up with for doing that, is that Zimmerman is not going to testify.

[DrDan]

22. that little leture by the judge makes the defense attoney look like he is a novice at this

that he does not understand the difference between opening and closing statements

[DrDan]

25. good heavens - this guy looks totally incompetent - constantly needs to be reminded about

opening vs closing statements

[Just Saying]

3. All they're looking for is a reasonable doubt.

And good luck with that.

Have they said GZ won't testify?

[JimDandy]

6. No, and they wouldn't.

I'm sure they'll keep the potential of his testimony open til the end.

They are almost certainly going to say that the state hasn't proven their case, lose on that motion, mount a defense and at the last moment, probably not call their final witness, GZ. If the attorney keeps up with this kind of constant commentary, essentially being a surrogate for Zimmerman, all through the trial, I'd say that possibility gets very likely.

[H2O Man]

12. The claim of self-defense

almost always makes it necessary for the defendant to testify. Because there were no eye-witnesses that can back Zimmerman's claims, it makes it essential that he testify. However, because the prosecution can easily show that Zimmerman is lying, the defense team is at a real disadvantage.

[hfojvt]

15. How can the prosecution show he is lying?

and easily?

[JimDandy]

21. He has given several conflicting statements

to the police and the public. "Conflicting" essentially means, in a nicely stated way, that he is lying in at least one of his statements.

[Voice for Peace]

27. this opening of the prosecution is excellent

[JimDandy]

30. It really was objectively excellent

and the attorney managed to do that in only about 45 minutes. The defense is into his 4th hour!

The attorneys in a criminal case can agree to a limit on the opening statements. I don't know if they did (this is the longest opening I'VE ever seen.) but perhaps the prosecution didn't want the defense to have a reason to appeal based on having his defense opening arguments limited (Defense appeals have been won arguing a too limited time for opening argument).

[Voice for Peace]

36. I've been away from the computer all day so haven't followed the trial any further

I never heard of such a thing, four hours opening defense?
They never do that on Law and Order!
It must be a nightmare for the jurors.

[hfojvt]

34. I thought it went a little bit long

but the prosecutor is trying to do three things 1) trying to smear the defendant, 2) trying to make it look like there is a preponderance of evidence and 3) trying to pull on the jurors heart-strings.

Mission accomplished on all three, assuming people didn't nod off at the 18 minute mark.

A competent defense would have been able, would have been prepared to poke holes in that opening, to create reasonable doubt. First, by pointing out what the prosecution is doing - adding a bunch of trivia to make it seem like there is lots of evidence. For example, do the skittles and the tea really have any bearing on anything? Yet they are constantly mentioned. As if the fact of the skittle proves something. Maybe Zimmerman said it was a Snickers bar.

Second, to create doubt of the defendant because he got some details wrong. Nobody gets every detail right when they are recounting an event.

Third, the prosecutor is telling stories rather than evaluating facts. Did Zimmerman first say he would meet the cops at the mailboxes and then ask them to call him? That much is evidence, but the prosecutor does not just give those facts, he spins a story, He reads Zimmerman;s mind and explains WHY Zimmerman changed his mind about how the cops should find him. A plausible scenario, yes, but NOT something that the prosecutor KNOWS for a FACT.

Same thing with the "fucking punks". Pure emotion there, designed to make the female jurors dislike Zimmerman, and show that Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon. Except for the other fact - Zimmerman called the cops. So, pretty clearly his desire was to see the burglars arrested, not shot.

The other thing about the two minutes between when Zimmerman hung up and when Trayvon hung up. That is enough time for Zimmerman to get back to his truck, but it is also, along with the minute that Zimmerman was on the phone with dispatch after he said "shit, he's running". Those three minutes were enough time for Trayvon to walk home. Zimmerman didn't go back to his truck, because he wanted to play cop. Why didn't Trayvon just go home?

Perhaps the prosecutor could tell a story to explain that?

[bettyellen]

37. Pulling heart strings with knock knock jokes, LOL? And WTF are you talking about- he wanted to see

the burglars arrested? There were NO burglars. Delusional bullshit.

[JimDandy]

19. He is not legally required to testify

though, even if it's a self-defense claim. And based on how the defense is presenting facts on his behalf in opening arguements, I have serious doubts he will take the stand, unless something happens that was unexpected by the defense. As you say, his many conflicting statements would open him up to a destructive cross-examination by the prosecution.

Well see...shall be interesting.

[H2O Man]

40. Sure.

Not only is Zimmerman (or any other defendant) not required to testify, but the prosecutor isn't allowed to comment on it if he opts not to, and the judge has to instruct the jury that they are not to consider his not testifying as a factor in their decision. But, of course, juries are comprised of human beings, and the judge's instruction merely highlights the fact a defendant doesn't testify.

As a general rule, though, when one claims self-defense, the lawyers will emphasis the benefits of taking the stand. This is especially true if there were no other people present, who can testify about who may have been the agressor, etc. In this case, the only "evidence" that Zimmerman was attacked comes from Zimmerman himself. More, it goes against all of the evidence that documents what led up to Zimmerman's encountering the teenager he killed.

Were his defense to keep him off of the stand, there is very little admissable evidence that would support the claim of self-defense. In fact, one of the officers who investigated the killing believed Zimmerman was lying, and advocated charging him well before he actually was arrested. The prosecutor will certainly have him testify. Hence, regardless of the Constitutional right that prevents one from being forced to testify against one's self, it seems very unlikely that Zimmerman will not testify. Indeed, that decision is his alone to make, and everything about him so far suggests that he believes he can convince others that his self-righteousness is justified.

[bettyellen]

38. after Casey Anthony got away with planting "reasonable doubt" through her attorney's

opening statement- none of which he could prove- it's a gambit they are willing to try.
The Zimmerman seems like such a loose cannon- and his stories are so nonsensical and conflicting, I wouldn't be shocked if he sat it out. Or gets up there and reiterates the opening statement and says "I forget" to everything else.

[KurtNYC]

5. Seems he is using the liberties granted during opening statements

to spin the whole story his way, unchecked by objections. All downhill from here.

[JimDandy]

9. Spin in opening statements

is usually strong and memorable...like what the prosecution did. Watched a lot of court cases and sat on one. When the defense goes into this type of in-depth statement, where they can't be interrupted by their opponent, the defense then does not normally call the defendant to testify in their own defense. Happened, too, in the only case in which I was a jurist.

He is making a horrible first impression on behalf of Zimmerman, too.

[pokerfan]

8. and opened with a joke?

I can't imagine why defense thought this was in any way appropriate. But even worse, the joke insults the jury.

WEST: "Let me say, I would like to tell you a little joke. I know how that may sound a bit weird in this context under these circumstances. But I think you’re the perfect audience for it. As long as you don’t — if you don’t like it or don’t think it’s funny or inappropriate that you don’t hold it against Mr. Zimmerman. Hold it against me if you want, but not Mr. Zimmerman. I have your assurance you won’t. Here’s how it goes: 'Knock knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? All right. Good. You’re on the Jury.' Nothing? That’s funny."

[JimDandy]

11. That was such a bad move

and fell terribly flat, too.

The attorney stammers, loses his train of thought, appears to forget where he was headed. Bad call by whoever vetted this guy for an opening statement.

[pokerfan]

16. That joke probably killed

in the O'Mara law offices because, you see, they believe jurors are idiots. This continues a two week pattern of Don West's efforts to alienate potential jurors and now, even the seated jurors.

[JimDandy]

32. West certainly got a good jury

seated, but he may lose them with this kind of defense.

[denem]

13. 'Knock knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman.'

You have to be kidding.

[Phentex]

23. unreal that they even considered this!

What an idiot!

[arely staircase]

14. the prosecutor is way better

he has laid out a devastating case

[Voice for Peace]

28. ++

[JimDandy]

29. He did. Although the devil is in the details,

you just don't let that devil run rampant in your opening. Things tend to go completely amok, like what just happened with the defense.

[KharmaTrain]

17. All He Needs Is One Doubtful Juror...

...this looks like a "tick-tock" timeline defense where they're attempting to establish the "narrative" of what happened that night and challenge the prosecution. The hope is to get a juror or two who will become sympathetic to their story...accepting the timeline and then rejecting any evidence that the prosecution brings to the contrary.

Despite all the hopes of the cables for Perry Mason moments or OJ theatrics, most trials are very methodical...lawyers stick to the tactics that have worked in the past. Call this "info dumping"...putting out a lot of stuff early on and hope that their version of events is what the jurors use as their own timeline...

[Gothmog]

18. It was a horrible opening statement

the joke was not only not funny but may have hurt Zimmerman with the jury

[adric mutelovic]

20. I expect an overwhelming number of DU'ers to see defense stuff as horrible

After all, Zimmerman is very unpopular here.
Whether legal experts and the jury agree is a different story.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Speaking strictly objectively, he's come off very long and boring.

Take opening statements as you will--they are a simple promise of the evidence, not the evidence itself. And quite often attorneys will say things in opening statements that are dropped later down the line. (Think the argument about the father's supposed sexual abuse in the Casey Anthony trial. It was brought up in opening by Jose Baez but he never actually went anywhere with it during the trial.)

But West is dreadfully dull and overly long. Not that opening statements aren't always brief. I recall both the prosecution and the defense in the OJ trial being rather long and detailed. However, say what you will about Johnny Cochran, but he managed to keep it very, very interesting. This guy? Not so much.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

35. Quite a contrast from free republic and stormfront eh? n/t

[arely staircase]

26. if z takes the stand

that prosecutor will destroy him

[JimDandy]

31. Very likely. n/t

[JI7]

39. Does anyone think he is Senile ?

i didn't watch the trial but i'm watching coverage of it now and the few clips they are showing. and i'm thinking he might be senile. i feel kind of bad for him also.