This message was self-deleted by its author

[JDPriestly]

141. That "fact" may or may not be in quesition.

It is to the defense a "fact," but the evidence is now being presented. Much more will be presented, so the defense "fact" may or may not be disproved.

An opening statement is generally the first occasion that the trier of fact (jury or judge) has to hear from a lawyer in a trial, aside possibly from questioning during voir dire. The opening statement is generally constructed to serve as a "road map" for the fact-finder. This is especially essential, in many jury trials, since jurors (at least theoretically) know nothing at all about the case before the trial, (or if they do, they are strictly instructed by the judge to put preconceived notions aside). Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial. Attorneys generally conclude opening statements with a reminder that at the conclusion of evidence, the attorney will return to ask the fact-finder to find in his or her client's favor. See, http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/RealLifeScenarios/TextingWhileDriving/DifferencesBetweenOpeningAndClosingArgs.aspx.

Opening statements are, in theory, not allowed to be argumentative, or suggest the inferences that fact-finders should draw from the evidence they will hear. In actual practice, the line between statement and argument is often unclear and many attorneys will infuse at least a little argumentation into their opening (often prefacing borderline arguments with some variation on the phrase, "As we will show you...&quot . Objections, though permissible during opening statements, are very unusual, and by professional courtesy are usually reserved only for egregious conduct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_statement

"Though such statements may be dramatic and vivid, they must be limited to the evidence reasonably expected to be presented during the trial."

The defense will present its evidence and claim that evidence means that Martin hit Zimmerman. If there is evidence to the contrary, the prosecutor will present that.

The jury is also known as the "trier of fact." (The judge is the trier of law.) The jury reviews the evidence and decides which facts are "true." The judge reviews the law and decides what law applies.

That's how trials work. If the prosecutor and defense attorneys agreed on all the facts, the trial would be very simple. The jury would not have to decide so many facts.