Why offer a witness who may hurt your case?
June 28, 2013 5:05 PM   Subscribe

Martin/Zimmerman filter: Why did the prosecution call John Good to testify today, knowing Good would say Martin was on top of Zimmerman making 'downward motions' with his arm? IANAL, but if you are, or not -- help me understand the calculation.
posted by LonnieK to Law & Government (17 answers total)
 
IANAL. My guess is that they would rather call a "bad" witness and try to mold his testimony than only have a shot at him on cross examination.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:09 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


They tried to suggest that Zimmerman had done some MMA training, and Good testified that the person on the top was doing "Ground and Pound", MMA style moves. There is speculation that this will now open up the ability for the defense to introduce Martin's history of street-fighting, so it was probably yet another mis-step by the prosecution.
posted by jenkinsEar at 5:13 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Best answer: IAL and a trial lawyer but I haven't defended a criminal case for a LONG time and have never been a prosecutor. In the civil cases I handle, if there's a witness with something to say, and you know the other side will call them you often consider calling them in your case and on direct having them say the things, even though they are bad for your case.

Does a couple of things:

1) Bolsters your reputation with the jury as a truth teller "He told us the whole story, even parts that hurt his case, so we will trust his closing argument more;"

2) Dilutes the effect of the bad evidence. Stick that witness in the middle of your case between a couple who are good for you and natural tendencies cause the jury to internally downplay the significance of the testimony.

3) Steals the other side's advantage. They don't get to make a show with this witness "ah HA!! Soooo, fancy pants on the other side didn't tell you that Schmoe saw THE THING!!!"

4) Limits their ability to cross examine schmoe and score points. If you bring it out on direct, even if the other side cross examines on the same issue to reinforce it the jury often things "We've already heard this, why is that lawyer wasting our time."

Not following the Zimmerman trial closely enough to have any clue what the prosecution is thinking.
posted by BrooksCooper at 5:32 PM on June 28, 2013 [30 favorites]


It could be a step in attacking Zimmerman's claim of self defense. If the jury believes Zimmerman:

- had Martin pinned to the ground
- was aware neighbors were alerted to the fight
- asked for 911

Why shoot Martin?
posted by maggieb at 6:00 PM on June 28, 2013


I've been reading about the trial here, and the prosecution in this case has been painfully inept. Almost every witness they've summoned has ended up being an asset to the defense.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:05 PM on June 28, 2013


Defense had the worst opening ever though.

I would also suggest you have no idea which way a witness will fall. I am pretty sure the prosecution thought the girlfriend would bolster the case as well, and all she did was reinforce stereotypes and come off like a lying liar.

This case looked like a slam dunk to me before it started. Now it looks like Keystone Cops in a courtroom.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:15 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


At Hot Air, Ed Morrisey said:
Some people on Twitter wondered why the prosecution called Good at all, given the damage it does to the case they want to make of second-degree murder. Generally speaking, the prosecution has an obligation to address all of the evidence in a case, not just the pieces they like best. Practically speaking, the prosecution knew that the defense would call Good to the stand if they did not, so the best strategy would be to take the surprise out of the testimony, and hope that a direct examination could possibly put this in a better context. After all, they had another eyewitness testify that the positions were reversed, and the prosecution might hope that the jury would find that witness more credible than Good — although that looks like a long shot, given Good’s performance on the stand so far. Bear in mind that the prosecution has not yet rested, and may have more witnesses that will incorporate Good’s testimony into the overall theory of their case. It’s usually a mistake to take too much out of context in trial testimony while the case is still unfolding.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:39 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Patrick Frey (himself a prosecutor) says:
Sounds to me like the prosecution knew this guy was going to be called and did their best to put a positive spin on it, as best as they could. Problem is, his testimony is devastating to the prosecution any way you spin it.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:37 PM on June 28, 2013


That's about right; the prosecution didn't have the option of this guy never appearing on the stand. The only choice they had was when he'd appear on the stand and who would get first crack at questioning him.

maggieb: I think you misread the witness being talked about. He puts Martin on top of Zimmerman not the reverse.
posted by Justinian at 7:50 PM on June 28, 2013


gotta call him or the prosecution looks shady. they're doing the best they can with a real dog of a case.
posted by jpe at 7:50 PM on June 28, 2013


It's a good strategy, and not just in law. If you know bad news is coming, it's best to frame it first yourself. Good's testimony is coming in no matter what - you might as well present it first, so that you can preemptively mitigate its damage, to the extent that you can.
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:56 PM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


Also, no matter how well you prep your case, you never know what your witness is going to do or say on the stand. So, you are making a judgment call based on the factors BrooksCooper listed and hoping for the best.

Witnesses are who they are-- as one of my friends has said, they haven't been through the Law & Order casting call or associated makeup/wardrobe departments.
posted by Schielisque at 8:12 PM on June 28, 2013


Interestingly, since one witness says Zimmerman was on top and one witness says Martin was on top, John Good's testimony regarding the use of MMA "Ground and Pound" suggests that it is more likely Zimmerman was on top (as he would be familiar with "Ground and Pound"), and might tip the jury into thinking John Good was incorrect in his recollection of who was on top.
posted by davejay at 9:52 PM on June 28, 2013


I haven't seen/heard much of the actual testimony, but my understanding of this particular witness was that he saw the fight seconds before the gunshots but did NOT see Zimmerman getting his head slammed into the concrete. The prosecution was possibly trying to discredit some of the defense's timeline there since they are adamant about the head-slamming, as Zimmerman claims that's what prompted the shooting. Good would have seen that happen but he did not.
posted by dogwalker at 1:07 AM on June 29, 2013


Response by poster: Several good points here. BrooksCooper was first to lay it out clearly, so I marked it best answer. Thanks all!
posted by LonnieK at 6:15 AM on June 29, 2013


What BrooksCooper accurately describes is a rhetorical device called "drawing the sting." As in, if you're gonna get stung no matter what, you can make the sting hurt less by strategically placing it within your own argument.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:19 AM on June 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


davejay, I'm not sure how much you know about MMA but "ground and pound" is just another way of saying that I'm beating the shit out of you with my fists/elbows while I'm on top of you. In MMA, the only real difference is that I'm also making sure I'm in the proper position to not enable you to submit me or escape while still beating the shit out of you.
posted by Qberting at 10:52 PM on June 29, 2013


« Older A la recherce de temps perdu in Rockaway Beach   |   How accurate is the white house siege in the film... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.