As one of the commenters on our forums wrote:
There was no school teacher called to provide some positive educational insights. There was no church pastor to vouch for his spiritual side. There was no coach from football to recollect some team contributions. There was no “best friend” to recall humorous events. The jury may be left to wonder about the “real” TM in their deliberations.
For GZ, there has been a lot of video in the trial from the police interviews and some background information as well. The testimony provided has often had some positive component. He has been present in court and visible to the jury for several weeks, and I would expect them to notice his personality.
In thinking back to other murder trials, prosecutors typically go to great lengths to have the jury see and practically feel the victim -- even playing video montages in closing. The Martha Moxley trial comes to mind as an example, as does the penalty phase of Timothy McVeigh's trial.
Here, the state didn't forget to put on that evidence. It weighed the risks, and decided to steer clear of it. Even the questioning of Martin's parents was carefully curtailed to include nothing but their opinion it was his voice on the tape. The son of Brandy Green, his father's girlfriend at whose home Trayvon Martin was staying, was asked about nothing besides what happened that night. Trayvon's brother was only asked if they were close (yes) and had the same friends (the answer was not really.) Even Rachel Jenteal didn't describe Trayvon the person(although that might be because she also acknowledged that except for the last two weeks of his life, she hadn't been in touch with him for years.)
The state did not even play any recordings of Martin's voice at trial, probably not wanting to take the risk that the jury might decide, based on such recordings alone, it was more likely Zimmerman was screaming for help than Martin.
The public has heard for 16 months about how Trayvon Martin was a wonderful child, a great friend with a good sense of humor, who once saved his father's life, and who had aspirations of going to college. The jury heard none of that.
But the jury did get to spend 6 hours a day for three weeks in the presence of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was a real person to them. They saw him interviewed by numerous law enforcement officers, always cooperative, always mild-mannered and polite. They heard him speak. They saw his respectful demeanor in court.
By contrast, Trayvon Martin was depicted either in cryptic language or in autopsy photos. How could jurors be expected to form an attachment to him? While the Martins, who were present in court every day, were also real to the jury, they were never provided the opportunity to tell the jury about the Travyon that they knew. Had they been given that chance, they would have extolled his virtues and minimized his flaws. There's nothing unusual about that. Everyone is more than the sum of their misdeeds.
Prosecutors, especially, know how important it is to humanize a victim. As defense lawyers, we battle mightily to keep such character evidence out of the trial. It unduly plays on the sympathy of the jurors.
That the state knew it would proceed without good character evidence that humanized Trayvon Martin, except through their opening statement and closing arguments, and that it had no witnesses to testify as to how the encounter began between Martin and Zimmerman, makes it even more perplexing they chose to introduce George Zimmerman's statements, which only served to further humanize Zimmerman in the eyes of the jury. Rather than viewing Zimmerman's inconsistencies as lies as argued by the state, the jury perceived them as natural variations or acceptable exaggerations. And since Detectives Serino and Singleton viewed them the same way -- as no big deal or indication Zimmerman's overall version was not to be believed -- that was another critical misstep.
Had the jurors never heard Zimmerman's voice, it's unlikely they would have empathized with him. Zimmerman would have had to take the stand to get his version of events across to the jury. Otherwise, the court would have excluded his interviews as self-serving hearsay.
Don West called the prosecution a "disgrace." I would call it reckless. The scary part is that but for the skill of two defense lawyers and a jury consultant who picked the perfect jury for the case, another jury might have bought what the state was selling: Assumptions and perceptions about what George Zimmerman may have been thinking and feeling, that it claimed amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent in shooting Trayvon Martin.
Look at the state's affidavit for probable cause filed at the beginning of its case, which I've underlined to make the same point I made here more than a year ago:
Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community, and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious.
....During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these a*sholes, they always get away" and also said "these f*cking punks".
....Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived.
This is the same theme the prosecution laid out in its opening statement and repeated in closing and used to support its refrain, "The defendant didn't shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to. He shot him because he wanted to."
In closing arguments, Prosecutor De La Rionda told the jury the case was about assumptions. Even though he meant Zimmerman's assumptions, it was an invitation for the jurors to substitute their assumptions for proof. Prosecutor John Guy asked the jury to look into George Zimmerman's heart and find hate. He talked about the window into George Zimmerman's soul. He told them to use their "G-d given common sense." Prosecutor John Guy also told the jury, "Race. This case is not about race. It's about right and wrong. It's that simple."
Right and wrong does not translate into legal and illegal. Common sense can assist in interpreting evidence, but it is not a substitute for proof. It's simply frightening to think that a person might be convicted of a crime and sentenced to life in prison based on a determination in which the jury substituted its subjective judgment of what was in a man's heart or soul for objective facts and proof.
This trial will be analyzed by trial observers and law professors for years. Overcharging was just the beginning of the state's perplexing strategic choices.
(Please do not include details of how the defense would have rebutted good character evidence. Since it wasn't introduced into evidence, there's no point in bringing it up now, and it's not necessary to a discussion of the strategic choices the state made and how they impacted the jury.)
