What Z said to O is admissible, but O’s writing of it is not. Unless the prosecution (or the defense?) can use the book to impeach O’s testimony.

“I have the feeling, per many of the comments on this blog, that the prosecution does not feel the need to explain exactly what happened. AFAIK, the SPD has never done a thorough canvas of the neighborhood to see if anyone saw GZ walking between the time he left his truck and the time of the confrontation. Establishing where exactly he was during that time could be of crucial importance. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the prosecutors to ask, given that this is a major case costing the State a lot of money, and likely a make or break moment in the careers of everyone involved.”

I don’t know what the prosecutors are thinking, but I do know that experienced prosecutors generally try to Keep It Simple when they put on their case. They do that by focusing on proving the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and ignoring everything else.

The elements of Murder 2 are:

1. That on or about February 26, 2012 in Seminole County, Florida;

2. The defendant unlawfully killed another person;

3. By committing an act that was imminently dangerous to another person;

4. Evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life;

5. Although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual,

As you can see, they are not necessarily required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether Zimmerman approached Martin from the south or from the north or their exact location when physical contact first occurred, or what were their exact positions relative to each other when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.

Nevertheless, to the extent that the jury might expect or require the prosecution to answer one or more of those questions before it would find the defendant guilty, erring on the side of attempting to answer those questions may be the wiser course of action.

This is an example of why I loved trying cases. No matter how long you do it and no matter how good you get, you never stop learning new stuff.

I sure don’t because one could come back and say he could impulsively shoot a gun and kill someone without considering the implications – not somewhere that he would likely want to go.

Well, I won’t disagree with your theory because I’m think you may be right.

Welcome back.

* W2 who reported vaguely seeing someone running North toward the T.

* DeeDee’s report that ‘the man was following Trayvon again’ for a number of seconds before Trayvon turned to ask him ‘Why you followin me for?’, and her report that both men seemed winded during their brief verbal confrontation. Both indicate they covered some distance, and if they wound up on the North end it’s logical they started at a more Southerly position.

* When GZ changes his mind about meeting the arriving officer at the mailboxes, and instead asks the officer to call him, I believe he has realized that he has moved far enough away from his truck (by walking South down RVC) that he might not get back to the mailboxes before the police arrive.

I have the feeling, per many of the comments on this blog, that the prosecution does not feel the need to explain exactly what happened. AFAIK, the SPD has never done a thorough canvas of the neighborhood to see if anyone saw GZ walking between the time he left his truck and the time of the confrontation. Establishing where exactly he was during that time could be of crucial importance. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the prosecutors to ask, given that this is a major case costing the State a lot of money, and likely a make or break moment in the careers of everyone involved.