The jury will have dig into "nuance." Just read "Lily's" post above, and Jeralyn's explanation of what the issue the jury will have decide. To a fan the case is "open and shut." An injury, with blood even, is proof that Z felt his life was in danger. But, an "injury" to a fan is but a minor scratch to the prosecution. The key word, of course, is "reasonable. The defense is going to do everything in their power to imply the "injuries" were administered in a savage beating, and were of such severity that, of course, any reasonable person would be in fear for their life or of severe bodily harm. And, the prosecution is going to work just as hard to show that it was a minor scuffle, the injuries didn't amount to a hill of beans, and the "fear for his life" is just a made-up story to cover up a 2nd degree murder.

Has this note appeared in any of the previous (public) disclosures?

That is a separate question from whether Zimmerman's gunshot was justifiable self-defense.

So far there is no factual answer to why Martin was still up around the T, only opinions.

Zimmerman's reasons for being in that area, given after the fact, seem not entirely to mesh with what we hear on the NEN call, although, of course, interpretation of that is at least partially, if not largely, opinion as well.

But nobody gets out and goes on foot in search of an address they've been asked for prior to having been asked for it, so I'm assuming that his after the fact memories got jumbled around, chronological order-wise.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to dismiss the notion that he was attempting to keep Martin in sight, and to do that on foot in the dark and the rain with regard to someone suspicious looking enough to have prompted a call to the police seems rather unwise.

We have one surviving eyewitness to how and why things turned physical, but hardly an impartial one, and one whose memory of the rest of the evening seems at least a little jumbled.

Perhaps he remembers getting punched, but doesn't remember that it was in response to grabbing Martin's other arm to hold him for the police.

Of course it could be the case that the only thing that matters to the question of was it legally self-defense, regardless of how the physical encounter began, or by who it was begun, is the brief period prior to the gunshot.

But regardless of the answer to that, we do not know enough to lay the entire blame for Martin's death on Martin.

Many people who have formed the opinion that GZ is innocent of the charges against him believe that all, or enough, of the information needed to support that position is already out in the public domain. But, I think that belief works in the prosecution's favor. By remaining silent, it's looking more and more to me like the prosecutors are laying a trap for GZ, and his defenders.

All these speculations: "beat the living hell out of GZ,"....."Smashed his head into the concrete over and over again,"....."beating him in the face, MMA style, over two dozen times,"....."GZ was screaming for help,"....."Blood pouring out of GZ's head,"...... " TM's bloody hands."

When the prosecutors put their experts on the stand, actual police & military experts in hand to hand combat, and they refute each of these charges as utter nonsense, the defense's position that a reasonable person would be in fear for his life or great bodily harm, will really be put to the test. The ironic part of this is that GZ may actually have been in fear for his life, but, by showing that all those descriptions of "the fight" were wild exaggerations, the jury will be left with the question, "if GZ lied about the extent of "the beating," what else did he lie about?

Most of this comes across to me as kabuki, albeit a very necessary part of the process. Look, I think Mark O'Mara is doing a yeoman's job here. but he has his work cut out for him. And quite honestly, as the parent of a teenager I'm not favorably disposed toward his client, who I believe showed remarkably poor personal judgment as the adult in the situation which occurred that tragic night.

That said, while I think George Zimmerman may have unconsciously succumbed to the temptation to profile the deceased prior to pursuing him, I certainly don't have any sense of malice aforethought at play on his part, which leads me to believe the prosecutor overcharged in this case. This was a negligent homicide or manslaughter charge, at best. Media notoriety is not a valid rationale for inflating the charge to second-degree murder.

Mark O'Mara is right to pull out all the stops. He's raised a valid point in his motion for reconsideration, and the State's Attorney needs to address the contention with something other than a condescending sneer. They raised the ante to the point where the defendant's life is at stake, and George Zimmerman enjoys the presumption of innocence and should be given every due consideration by the court.

Headline:
Zimmerman prosecutor: O'Mara is a grandstander guilty of 'craven conduct'

First Paragraph:
In a sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case on Thursday called defense attorney Mark O'Mara a "craven" duplicitous grandstander who "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera."

Second to last paragraph:
O'Mara's request for sanctions is just grandstanding, de la Rionda wrote, the act of a lawyer guilty of "craven conduct." O'Mara "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera," he wrote, and should understand the awkwardness of other people making misstatements.