Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerTank77
Because the prosecution has little to no evidence to overturn what Zimmerman's defense has put forth. This thing with the DNA on the gun was a MAJOR thing for them, so they think, and it does absolutely nothing to take away from Zimmerman's statements. Especially since the spent round was not ejected, meaning that there were hands on the gun when it was fired. This is the only logical explanation for why that would have happened.
|
To the best of my knowledge, the defence hasn't presented its case yet (nor should it at this case, seeing as we are still in pre-trial discovery), so I'm not sure what you're referring to by "what Zimmerman's defense has put forth". We have a request for a stand-your-ground-law hearing and speculation as to a self-defence argument, but as far as I can see that it is thus far. As such, I'm not sure to what extent, if any, we can assess evidence against a defence which hasn't actually been presented yet. You also seem to have overlooked my major point, which is that the defence has to affirmatively overturn the prosecution's case by way of a defence, not vice versa. As things currently stand, Zimmerman has fulfilled the
actus reus and
mens rea for second-degree murder. The burden is therefore on the defence to argue their case sufficiently, and until they present their evidence (particularly Zimmerman's account) and it is tested under cross-examination, I feel any other assessment is purely speculative. Hence why I have refrained from offering much opinion since the initial charge stage.
Also, do you have a source for the cartridge claim? I have not been able to find this elsewhere.