George Zimmerman Prosecution's Woes: Analysis

Prosecution witnesses also helped the defense.

ByABC News
July 1, 2013, 7:49 AM

July 1, 2013— -- By most accounts, last week was not what the state in the George Zimmerman case would have hoped for. In one way or another, more than half of the prosecution witnesses supported Zimmerman's account of what happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed.

Prosecutors started strong with a powerful, concise opening statement from Assistant State Attorney John Guy, in contrast to the silly knock-knock joke and seemingly disorganized and meandering defense argument.

Photos of the final candy and drink that Martin, 17, purchased minutes before his death riveted the jury, followed by haunting images of his dead body, the end result of a quick visit to a 7-11.

But then something happened that many would have thought improbable as this case received wall to wall coverage leading up to Zimmerman's arrest.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

What the state hoped would be proof that Zimmerman initiated the altercation and that he, not Martin, was on top as they grappled on the ground, did not appear to proceed as planned. A variety of eye and ear witnesses of varying credibility, did offer testimony to support the prosecution theory that Zimmerman was the aggressor before the shot was fired. They either heard what they thought was Zimmerman instigating the encounter or in one case heard a chase (which Zimmerman insists never happened).

But with each witness there were either facts that we now know are not true (like hearing three shots, when there was only one) or indications that their memories have somehow become clearer since the incident itself.

While those sorts of attacks on witnesses, in particular eyewitnesses, are standard fare for cross examination, the state's troubles seemed to extend further than minor inconsistencies.

George Zimmerman Case in Pictures

Even the prosecution's effort to show that Zimmerman was an over-eager, wannabe cop backfired when a witness from the Sanford Police Department, testifying as part of the prosecution's case, admitted that she tried to recruit Zimmerman for a citizen's patrol and that "George was very professional, a little meek, really wanted to make community better."

Then came the state's star witness, Rachel Jeantel, who recounted those final moments on the phone with Martin.

"He told me the man kept following him," Jeantel testified. "I say, 'Trayvon,' and then he said, 'Why are you following me for?' And then I heard a hard-breathing man come say, 'What you doing around here?' ... And then I was calling, 'Trayvon, Trayvon.' And then I started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off.'"

If jurors believe her, that Martin said "get off," then there seems to be little question that Zimmerman at least initiated the incident.

The problem? She admitted to lying on certain matters, and most importantly she was confronted with an earlier account, where she had recalled Zimmerman uttering the far more innocuous response, "What are you talking about," rather the more menacing "What are you doing around here" The difference between bewilderment by Zimmerman as opposed to a veiled accusation is a significant one.

But the ambiguity surrounding her testimony was nothing compared to the clarity of neighbor and witness John Good. His vantage point and detailed account may be more definitive than that of any other witness to date, and rather than supporting the prosecution's case, he seemed to bolster Zimmerman's claim that Martin was beating him.

Good testified that the lighter skinned man was on the bottom. He also described to the jury the clothing that he saw.

"The color on top was dark and the color at bottom was ... red," Martin said. Zimmerman is a white Hispanic who was wearing a red jacket while Martin, who was black, was wearing a dark sweatshirt.

"The person on the bottom, I could hear a 'Help,'" Good said.