As the prosecution rested its case last week, and now the defense is continuing to present its case in State of Florida v. Zimmerman this week, here is one of the observations that I made at the end of the State of Florida’s case in chief and I asked the following question (s):
1) Why didn’t the prosecution of the call the representative of the department of agriculture of the State of Florida who issues the licenses for concealed weapons holders? If you remember, the State of Florida introduced into evidence the Sean Hannity/Fox news interview conducted sometime after the February 26, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin. In that interview when asked if the defendant Zimmerman was aware of Florida Statute 776.013 the so-called “stand your ground” statute” prior to the shooting, Zimmerman said in the interview that he was not aware of the “stand your ground” statute.
Later in the trial, Prosecutors presented the testimony of a former Seminole State College teacher and now U.S. Army Capt. Alexis Carter Jr. to contradict the statements made by Zimmerman from the interview aired on Fox News with Sean Hannity where Zimmerman said he did not have knowledge of the stand your ground law. Carter testified that the subject was covered in the college class that he taught, which contradicted the statements made by Zimmerman on the Hannity interview, and he testified that it was Carter that taught Zimmerman and the class that Florida’s stand-your-ground law says a person has no duty to retreat and can invoke self-defense in killing someone if it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
Yet, for this writer, in order to also show the contradiction of Zimmerman’s statements in the Fox/Hannity interview, one could also argue that the State of Florida by calling the representative of the department of agriculture of the State of Florida who issues the licenses for concealed weapons holders would also bolster the prosecution’s case in that the representative could also testify that Zimmerman had actual notice of the “stand your ground” statute because every concealed weapons holder who receives his or her license from the Department of Agriculture from the State of Florida also receives a copy of the so-called “stand your ground statute” in the licensing packet once the license is delivered by U.S. Mail to the successful applicant.
Additionally, if the State of Florida had called the representative of the department of agriculture of the State of Florida who issues the licenses for concealed weapons holders, that person could also testify as to who issued the training certificate indicating the successful training of the defendant, Zimmerman, and then call the person who issued the training certificate for the license, because then they could also testify as to not only the actual knowledge of Florida Statute 776.013 “stand your ground”, but also testify as to what was taught in the licensing training class that is required for the license application to be filed by any concealed weapons applicant in the State of Florida. Every applicant for a concealed weapons license in the state of Florida must get their training class, also known as your “concealed weapons class” from a State of Florida licensed concealed weapons trainer or training facility vendor. You take the class, and after successful completion of the class, you are issued a certificate from that training vendor, you send that certificate along with your money and finger prints and application to the Department of Agriculture at the State of Florida.
So my point here is that the representative of the Department of Agriculture of the State of Florida can testify to the packet sent to the concealed weapons holder and the actual knowledge of Florida Statute 776.013 and the vendor could testify to the training of the concealed weapons holder thus establishing both the actual knowledge of Florida Statute 776.013 and the standard of what is the “reasonably prudent law abiding citizen gun holder.” It is my belief, because I am also a concealed weapons holder here in the State of Florida, that the testimony of the training person would establish that trainers for the license train applicants to not avail themselves to dangerous situations or “suspicious situations” and therefore not pursue the suspicious matter in those situations. I have introduced previously the “reasonably prudent law abiding citizen gun holder” issue because, arguably, this is what the prosecution may need to re-characterize the issue in their summation to the jury in light of how this trial has gone for the prosecution and how the defense, arguably, has continuously turned witnesses presented for the State of Florida for the benefit of the defense.
2) Why was Tracy Martin not called as a witness in the State of Florida’s case in chief?