The two witnesses he calls in is George's mom.  And, his uncle, who says he's known George since the day he was born.  Jorge is George Zimmerman's mom.  Both identify the screams as coming from George.

MY QUESTION:  Does the judge know in advance whom the Defense will be calling in as witnesses?  Or is this portion of the trial, like cards, only shown when the witness actually comes in?

It seems to me that Mark O'Mara committed malpractice--maybe not by a the strict legal definition--by putting his client on the Hannity show and thus allowing the state to paint him as a convincing liar with the requisite knowledge to fabricate a plausible self-defense claim.

As we saw today in the motions for acquittal the state is planning to paint Zimmerman as exactly that, and while the defense may be able to manage  by showing that Zimmerman's story seems in line with a good deal of the physical evidence there's still a problem because some jurors may feel his injuries are insufficient and thus his reasonable fear relies on his claim that Martin went for his gun.

Has O'Mara made it easier for the state to send his client to prison?

A question if anyone could or would be so kind. What are the chances that O'Mara can convince jurors that Martin committed aggravated battery and thus was justified that way?

On a side note, I think the media and blogs are looking at this case from a slightly misguided view and I wish they would cover it a bit differently. That is, the state doesn't think it can obtain a murder 2 conviction, nor have they ever; they've used it in the hope the jury will compromise. I wish the coverage would be from a manslaughter aspect so we could see a discussion about excessive force in this case, because in the end, isn't that what will be the deciding factor.

It is not.

And yes, carrying an illegal firearm is illegal (bravo!), but the massive, random sweeps that you propose for those other urban folk are not.

"Ta Da!"

One reason was technical: The latter's testimony came close or after the 5 p.m. (EDT) news. Today, more media outlets have it.

Nevertheless, I find the coverage inexcusable. The media should have mentioned that judges very rarely grant the motion MOM made. Not mentioning that implied the prosecution's case was stronger than I think it is.

Second, Fulton has given many interviews and news conferences.  There was nothing new in her testimony. Of course, it should have been part of coverage, but why make it the lede? On the other hand, Jorge Meza's testimony was very compelling because he identified GZ's voice before he knew what was on the news, and his desire to tell the truth was very convincing.

Gladys Z's testimony, while expected, was still new, and I'm guessing most people have not seen her before.

It is established that Z called the police and that the police were on their way.  It seems to me that this helps Z defend against murder 2.  If he had some animus toward Martin and planned to hunt him down and shoot him, he probably wouldn't have called the police.  They might have been witness to his committing of murder.

Who's screaming?

Sybrina: Trayvon Benjamin Martin

Gladys: That's my son.

I don't know about how it is in your family but in mine you get your full name treatment when Mom is pissed.

Then he could bring in an expert who really understands Florida's very specific SYG law, and have them explain exactly how it changed Florida's original law that required a person who wanted to defend themselves from a criminal to retreat as far as possible and announce that they were going to shoot. Florida's SYG says lethal force is justified without retreat or notification when a reasonable person would believe that a criminal intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. In other words, if an armed burglar is in your house waving their gun around, you don't have to climb out a window with your kids to escape and risk exposure to another burglar outside or risk getting shot at as you run away. You can stay in the safety of your house and legally protect yourself and your family. (Zimmerman's defense is not SYG related because he claims Trayvon Martin was holding him down. He was pinned on his back on the ground and had no option to retreat.) O'Mara could have the expert spend time citing examples where SYG was appropriately used. Once the jury's eyes start glazing over from the details, he could bring in a final witness to discuss the unlikeliness of someone being able to think about the SYG law they may have heard about years ago in a class, and decide if it's applicable in this case, and make a decision to shoot their attacker based on that law while they're on their back being pummeled by an attacker.

I live in a large apt complex, and I could only guess what the names of the other streets are. I don't know how many of you live in communities the size of the RTL. But I know my street address, of course. But when I give people directions to my home, I tell them to turn at the large sign for the community, then take a left, right, etc. When talking among ourselves, we never use street names. We reference geography, saying, for example, he lives near the pool or she's on the side facing (other apt complexes).

One was why GZ's jacket wasn't wet and have grass on the back. Multiple officers and others testified that it did and that's why they believed he was on his back.

The other was about TM's DNA under his fingernails and why, if TM was banging GZ's head on the concrete, there was none.

First, we don't know that for sure because of the way the fingernails were tested. One stick for five fingernails which is apparently an issue since the defense has asked so many times. I guess their expert will explain why that's important. Second, they didn't take fingernail clippings for a better kind of DNA testing (per TV forensics experts) than the Florida lab uses, and they didn't even take pictures of that side of his hands to show if he had any length to his nails to even be tested/clipped.

One of the only places TM's DNA did show up was on GZ's back right shoulder. If TM was grabbing him by his shoulder/neck area and slamming his head down, his scratched up left finger could have left that DNA. It got there somehow.

You asked about pants. TM's pants were very wet in front with grass stains. They weren't tested.

So, I again ask, is defense pathologist's report and or deposition transcript (if any) available now on line?  

I think the state is also hurt by trayvons brother giving an interview saying he couldn't really tell whose voice it is

I am assuming the defense will call Tracy martin or the police officer to whom he admitted not recognizing the voice as trayvons.

The defense will also seek to introduce evidence concerning Martin's fighting. ... He mentioned the state's decision not to introduce good character evidence about Trayvon so as not to open the door to contrary character evidence the defense would then introduce.

To all the folks out here.  I've been following this mainly through the TL forums.  Isn't there an argument that Sybrina Fulton opened the door to character evidence when she stated: "My youngest son is Trayvon ... Martin, he's in heaven." (Emphasis Added)

Youtube Recording (Goto 2:10)

While it may just be a figure of speech, her statement introduced into evidence presumes that he was of such good character as to "be in heaven."

Maybe a bit weak to hang the hat on to push to introduce evidence of fighting etc, but what are folks thoughts.

The other thought I had was that the fighting evidence is less character that ability.  A lot of folks have made hub-bub about the fact that GZ weighs(ed) 50 pounds more than TM.  It seems that TM's history of fighting/being in fights would be relevant to a defense argument that TM was capable of getting GZ onto the ground, etc.

However, the real "impairment" might have been that the marijuana metabolite levels were TOO LOW.  If TM was a daily user, he might have developed a significant dependence upon marijuana to stay chilled out.  Recall that TM had been shipped away from his Miami home for a few days prior to the GZ encounter.  He may well have had little or no access to his usual marijuana hit for that time.  And as a consequence he might have been unusually edgy and aggressive.

Now I know some commentators will reply that marijuana isn't addictive, and if you compare the effects of chronic use of cannabis to opiates they are quite different.  No one dies from cannabis withdrawal (at least not directly).  However, many putative authorities will grant that cannabis is at least "psychologically" addictive or dependence-inducing.  In my experience (non-professional; I spent a number of years on college campuses and knew several daily users as friends and acquaintances) chronic potheads need that regular recurring hit to remain mellowed out.  The kind of calm disposition that most of us would consider normal could only be maintained with regular self-dosing.