I'm not an attorney but (Zimmerman Trial)

[Pilotguy]

It seems to me if the defense witnesses (Root and Pollack) can testify that George Zimmerman was weak and non-confrontational, can't the prosecution rebut that testimony with Zimmerman's prior history of violence? Specifically:

In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both of which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

[truebluegreen]

1. Not an attorney either, but I did watch Law & Order last night... ;->

Does that "open the door" to bringing in past behavior?

[pipoman]

2. Pretty weak "prior history of violence"

if you are not convicted it didn't happen..I tend to believe every witness (there have been at least 3 maybe more)who knows the guy and says he was not a fighter, and the absence of prosecution witnesses to the contrary.. To "rebut that testimony" means to prove testimony false..the testimony given is something to the effect of, 'what is your opinion of his demeanor'? Nothing you could much say could actually rebut the person's opinion or observations without showing that the person somehow knew of something they were not telling which may lead a "reasonable person" to believe he actually is violent..

[John2]

4. I'm just

going to say, I disagree with this assumption again. Just because there isn't any record of conviction, means he went to trial. He actually got charges reduced on plea bargaining, which is the prosecution's discretion to bring it to trial. The restraining order in domestic violence was approved by both. Zimmerman made a counter charge of domestic violence after the woman filed first. That is typical among male abusers. Especially when the female only wants the restraining order.

He was also accused of tailgating a motorist, where the police agreed not to bring charges, because Zimmerman made a counter charge against the motorist for spitting gum at his vehicle. The motorist denied it and alleged Zimmerman acted like he wanted to attack him.

There is also a news article done by an investigative journalist, which was printed about a source claiming Zimmerman threw out clients in a club as a bouncer and was apparently fired for it. The same article, reported Zimmerman showed aggressive behavior on community watch in following people unecessarily.

The prosecution should follow up on all those allegations or leads. They should also place his ex and wife on the stand about his past behavior concerning such matters. That is why the prosecution needs to be placed under a microscope if they are really doing their jobs. If I was the attorney of the Martins, I would be on the prosecution's back and make sure they do their jobs. If he gets off and those rumors has any factual basis, I would definately sue the state and prosecution for negligence. It almost seems they are covering up. This whole case smells. And I still want to know what happened to this boy and mother, who alleged the police tried to manipulate testimony fitting Zimmerman's story or the officers, Detective Serina claimed placed pressure on him? This whole Trial seems to be prosecuting Martin and demonizing him. And Pollack's testimony seems to open the doors for testimony about racial profiling if Martin was targeted because of his race.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I think they're arguing for the law enforcement officer as a rebuttal witness

right now.