M. Bruce – Guest Columnist
George Zimmerman Should Have Testified
In my last column I suggested that, “due to the flawed opening, and overzealous and unnecessary witness badgering, Mr. Zimmerman has been put in an unenviable position where he may have to take the stand in his own defense.” I still stand by that statement and think it was a mistake for him not to speak to the jury directly.
Most defense attorneys concede in voir dire that it is human nature to expect to hear directly from the defendant. But for the protection of the fifth amendment, absent a confession, a defendant has an absolute right to choose not to say a word. Keeping this in mind, attorneys try to weed out those from the jury pool who do not get the very concept of “right to remain silent or not to testify.” But, deep in our hearts we know, human nature is not easily defeated, including the need to hear both sides of the story, which in this case would be hearing from one remaining party, given the dire circumstances of the child’s death.
As we await a verdict, it is clear this Jury was deprived of the most obvious testimony it expected to have, one of the defendant, Mr. Zimmerman. No matter how many pundits may assert that the videos of George Zimmerman will serve as him providing his side of the story, they are wrong. Videos cannot replace a live person who sits stoically in the courtroom, day in and day out, but refuses to plead his own case. Juries instinctively understand that a video statement, even if given to the police, is not testimony that is being cross-examined. Cross-examination makes a testimony real and believable, or not. Simply put, by not testifying, Mr. Zimmerman took out the self from “self-defense.”
Mark O’Mara Should Not Have Performed His ‘Four Minutes of Silence’
Composer Philip Glass presented 4’33’’ to the world to make them understand and listen to the environment around them. Mark O’Mara on the other hand presented his “4 minutes of silence” in an attempt to make the jury think about the victim’s ability to run and get home in that time. At least that was his intention. But he forgot that in those four minutes the jury was potentially filling in the imagined movements of the young man as he was being followed by an armed grown man. In reality, Mr. O’Mara had no control over what the Jury would be thinking, and that was a mistake to let them dabble in their own thoughts.
A good attorney would use each minute wisely and not waste a second unless a reasonable context could be provided as to what that silence must fill. Mr. O’Mara failed to do that. He also brought in a slab of concrete to claim that the child was “armed” with the sidewalk concrete. This is as absurd as a defense attorney can get, without making the jury laugh out loud in disbelief. He insulted the jury’s intelligence, and that is up there with the Knock-knock joke with which he and his co-counsel opened their case. A Knock-knock joke, one year in the making.
Why Attorneys Jose Baez & Mark O’Mara were Treated Differently by Local Legal Pundits
Defense attorneys have to be strategic and zealous in defending their clients; it is expected of them. No matter what the verdict, you cannot fault an attorney for going all out within the realm of legal ethics to do his or her job. But it should be noted that Casey Anthony’s attorney Jose Baez was treated like a persona non grata by the elite of the local attorneys in Orlando. They continually ridiculed him and questioned his abilities openly. Some of these lawyers went on to become legal pundits on local or national media, even though most of them had egg on their face after the verdict.
Consider how much of that had to do with the fact that Mr. Baez, a Hispanic attorney, was just a down to earth person, with a solo practice, but managed to get one of the most high-profile cases in the country. A case so badly wanted by some of the “elite” attorneys in the Orlando area.
Meanwhile Mr. O’Mara, a tall white male with a genteel southern way about him, was given a pass even though he paraded his client in front of the camera since day one, engaging in a media war which in a criminal defense world is largely seen as a bad idea and bad lawyering.
I have yet to hear one local pundit openly criticize Mr. O’Mara’s legal and media strategy. Are they all waiting for the verdict to pounce or be vindicated? That is not legal analysis, it is legal pandering.
