Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Just read through prosecution's witnesses regarding Z's "wannabe cop" status. Again, tell me how putting an African-American law professor on the stand who clearly likes the defendant (He waved and said "Hey George" when he took the stand), gave him an A in his class, and says Z was "one of the smarter students", is helpful to the prosecution. I am missing that.

On top of that, on Cross-X, the professor gives the defense a gold mine of good stuff:

- Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries. "You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West. "No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

- "It’s fluid, the law [on self-defense] as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter.

- Carter says he taught his class: "When stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard, objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt." Carter also says part of self-defense is the individual's subjective feelings of facing death or "grievous bodily harm."

So, you put up a guy to testify about the applicable law who (1) is an African-American professional that likes your defendant and thinks highly of him and (2) opines on the law in a way that calls into question (by saying self-defense relies on subjective belief) the relevance of your medical expert's (Rao's) testimony about how, objectively and in-hind sight, Z should not have been reasonably in fear of his life.

Mind you, the prosecution fought to put this guy on the stand. I admit, I don't get it. Can someone from the pitchforks & torches mob inform me how Prof. Carter's testimony supported your belief that Z committed murder? Is it just - He studied law, he should have known better? He was a wannabe lawyer/cop? How does that alter the underlying speculative nature of the key legal elements of this case?