I’ve been on the phone almost all day today and I’m only just now getting to absorb much of the State’s filings recently released.

However, that said, a cursory review shows both intent and direction the State plans on taking with the case.

We’ll be highlighting some of the motions, individually, from not only a “what” perspective, but also based on the knowledge and depth of previous, and ongoing, research into the mix we will be presenting the more important “why” factors.

As with all discussions considerations of “timing” are key to a greater understanding of “intent”.   Example:  With the discovery phase still ongoing why would the state present blanket motions to “exclude” information from the trial.   One can only logically apply a “predictive sense” or trying to “get out ahead of an issue” to diminish the importance or value of it.

Remember the State has a goal of conviction.   Therefore the State wants to “bring in” facts which support their position/goal and “stop” discovery facts from entering the case which diminish their position or goal.    Hence the motion to block Trayvon’s toxicology report being used.  Along with other blocking maneuvers…..

Remember also, the discovery phase is still ongoing….  So many of these motions can be applied toward what is already known as well as that which is yet to be known.

The state’s motion to quash the use of them “failing to call a witness” is revealing also.

Who would be so invaluable to the defense construct for arrest, that the absence of their testimony would be perceived as wholly  damaging to their case?    Only two people come readily to mind:  Detective Serino and Dee Dee.