During the Zimmerman trial, we have had DUers argue for his acquittal, which, of course, happened...

[avebury]

123. The instructor's testimony shot a canon shot thru GZ's

credibility because it proved 100% that he will tell a bold face lie. He stated in a nationally televised interview that he didn't know anything about stand your ground law. Once you figure out that he is not a credible witness, in my mind, you should totally throw out his story.

I was really frustrated by the poor quality of the jury panal. I really think that the woman whose husband was an attorney (and initially seemed to have a really fast book deal) exerted influence and control on the jury to achieve the not guilty verdict. The other women just weren't intelligent enough to thoroughly analyze everthing. I would have been - Wait a minute. In phone call X, GZ said Y, but consider this and then just picked apart what he said for its inconsistencies and holes in logic. While he never got on the stand, he did testify in the form of the interviews and phone calls with the 99 operator. I am a very analtical thinker and love putting puzzes together so, as I listened to the trial I was consistently putting pieces together from different testimony and evidence and could see that, for example A, B C just did not jive with D, E & F. One extremely analytical person on the jury could have sat there and knit the pieces together to justify a guildty verdict.