Rumpole: poll idea - what "theory of the case" will the State present in their closing argument?

They didn't present a theory in the probable cause affidavit, in their opening statement, or in their case presentation. What theory (of many) will they use, finally, in their closing argument?

That's a good question, isn't it? Since the State hasn't actually articulated anything?

1) Zimmerman and Martin were standing; Zimmerman grabbed Martin's shirt to keep him from getting away. After Martin screamed for 40 seconds, Zimmerman shot him.
2) Zimmerman was on top of Martin. After Martin screamed for 40 seconds, Zimmerman shot him.
3) Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating the crap out of him. After Zimmerman screamed for 40 seconds, Martin relented; but as he was leaning back to end the assault, Zimmerman grabbed his shirt, pulled him back toward himself, and shot him.

Variations of the above three, with:

a) Zimmerman started the physical altercation, by menacing Martin. Martin was "standing his ground"
b) Martin started the physical altercation, but made an attempt to cease aggression before Zimmerman escalated to deadly force

At this stage... I think the State have to concede that TM was on top?

All they can try is TM relenting (screaming), and GZ shooting anyway.

They can also try and cloud the juror's minds with the "Zim should have stayed in his truck" Traybotism, and ask for manslaughter on that basis. That is not the law, but perhaps the Jury can be imprinted with the notion that some sort of compensation verdict is desirable?

Since the State hasn't actually articulated anything?

I added an option... and prior votes vanished... who knew that would happen

So... those who voted get to vote again

Yep, I went with Option #3, with a dash of "Martin relented, but Zimmerman escalated"

So, even after the State concluded its closing argument, I still can't articulate what their theory is.