State started this morning with an FBI voice analyst. Says recording of a neighbor's 911 phone call not sufficient to ID who was screaming. Says that people (like family members) more familiar with the voices of TM and GZ are in a better position to ID screams, but that also introduces an element of bias. Looks the whole purpose of this testimony is for the state to lay foundation to ultimately put on TM's mom to identify the screaming as that of her son. Really not sure that's going to help, especially since TM's dad first told police the screaming wasn't his son, and GZ's parents say it's him screaming.
State next puts on officer who interviewed GZ the night of the shooting. Plays parts of the recorded interview, and defense will undoubtedly play the rest on cross. The state's aim is to highlight that Martin is racist in the way he talks about "those guys" and "them" and had a motive because he expresses frustration that they always get away (same as in 911 call, I think). I get what the state is doing, but I think it's probably going to backfire on them. Playing GZ's interview essentially allows him to testify and tell his story to the jury without ever taking the stand and submitting himself to cross.
