Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Also, saden1 ...

The youtube clip is simply the prosecutor's response to GZ's motion for acquittal. In that instance, the standard of review by the judge is just the opposite of that needed for a jury instruction on self defense. In opposing a motion for acquittal the prosecution is the one entitled to having the facts viewed in a light most favorable to them. It's all about generating a question of fact and only tangentially related to the closing. Hell, he argues that in front of the jury, it's a concession speech - Just one example, the prosecutor says forensics concerning the bullet wound "is, at least, as consistent with [the State's] version of the events as it is with the Defendant's". Equally consistent versions comporting with provable forensic evidence? How can that not be reasonable doubt? I am just not getting it.

If there were two plausible stories with TM as the survivor - would you convict him?