Day 14 concluded the closing arguments in the trial of George Zimmerman.  Mark O’Mara gave the closing argument for the defense and then John Guy gave the rebuttal closing argument for the prosecution.  The jury went to lunch and at 2 p.m. EST will return for jury instructions and then deliberation.

Below is a paraphrased version of some of the highlights of Mark O’Mara’s closing argument.  An animation was played, several graphic/chart poster boards were used and a PowerPoint.

Remember:  What attorneys say is not evidence or instruction on the law; it is merely intended to aid the jury in understanding the evidence.  Basically, it is a persuasive speech on their position.


The whole system only works with you.  The system has worked for 100s of years.  We intentionally ask people who know the least to come in and make the most important decisions.  Very few trials last this long and very few juries are sequestered.  We do this everyday, us attorneys, like a doctor, we’re used to it.  We ask you to come in here and get rid of everything, but your common sense.  It may seem strange, but it is the only way this works.  We ask you to use this standard that you don’t normally use and my fear is that you will default to your first impression and just make split second decisions.  That’s all it takes sometimes, an impression.  We all do it and then we take it with us.  You may have an impression of Mr. Zimmerman because he sits at the defense table you may automatically think he did something wrong.  We want you to use your common sense, but be careful.  We use our common sense everyday to make split decisions.  Subtly and unintentionally you are going to minimize this standard that must be applied.  Not only are you going to hurt my client and I don’t want that, but you are going to make a compromise verdict.  Life is much like a civil case; it was likely, 50/50, probably.  The standard you use most throughout your life except the very important decisions.  I think what you have to do today is be mindful and diligent.  What matters is did the state prove their case?

Mr. Zimmerman’s fear is you will do what the state asks you to.  You will make assumptions.  They yelled words at you that you know were not yelled.  They want you to make presumptions and that is a lack of evidence.  If it hasn’t been proven you can’t connect the dots for them.  What do you know about Mr. Zimmerman?  He went to college, he was in neighborhood watch, he is married and his parents are still here.  You don’t know a lot about him.  You’re not getting anything else, don’t fill in the blanks.  If you’re not careful you will make assumptions, it’s natural.  It is inappropriate.  Don’t fill in facts.  Do not presume, assume, or give anyone except for the defendant the benefit of the doubt.  That’s the only way the system works, you promised to do it and it’s the only way to return a just verdict.

Reasonable doubt comes from a lack of evidence as well as a conflict in the evidence.  If you want to take away someone’s liberty, the burden is on the state. 

John Adams said:  “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

And Thomas Jefferson in 1789 believed, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”   

We don’t make assumptions and we don’t fill in their case.  We talk about living the Constitution that is what you are doing here today.  This is a serious matter.  How many ‘could have beens’ did you here from the state?  How many ‘maybes’?  I don’t think they get to ask that of you.  I think they need to convince you.  They are supposed to use words like, ‘without question’, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, ‘no other explanation’, and ‘definite’.  I know because I used to be a prosecutor.  I used those words.  ‘Maybe’, ‘what if’, ‘could have been’, and ‘you figure it out’ are all assumptions and they want you to make them.  Don’t cheapen this case.  That’s more based in defense work, in creating reasonable doubt.  That reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the ‘could have been’ is where defense attorneys learn to practice.  I don’t want you to presume anything.  We are going to do something in this case that will enrage defense attorneys everywhere.  I’m going to take on an obligation; I don’t have to, and prove to you my client is innocent.  I want to know what happened that night too.  The reality is until you get to the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence does not dissipate.  We have gone from the days when a King would decide the verdict to today when you decide.  Is self-defense likely?  That’s reasonable doubt.  You may not be sure?  That’s reasonable doubt.  Small doubt?  That’s not guilty.  Less than likely or maybe 50/50, even highly unlikely is still not guilty.  My client is beyond a reasonable doubt innocent, beyond question.

Let’s start with cop wannabe.  He did want to continue his education, help his community, people like Ms. Bertalan, and he wanted to be involved.  Yes he wanted to be a cop and a prosecutor.  You heard all the cops get up here and say it is a noble profession, protect and serve.  He wanted to be in that.  They had the obligation to show you everything that would tell you he had any inappropriate actions.  They brought you two professors.  These professors said they taught him, but couldn’t be sure he read the book.  They said they talked about self-defense.  They said they like him, he was easy going.  This cop wannabe, he knew about self-defense.  This guy didn’t make it as a cop; he was a fraud guy at the mortgage company.  The state brought you what about his hatred toward Trayvon Martin?  The state brought calls.  I put the 6th one into evidence where he calls concerned about unsupervised children in the neighborhood.  The state didn’t bring that one in, they aren’t obligated to put anything into evidence that helps George Zimmerman, but still.  If we are seeking justice as they promised, then why not?  Now you have all the calls.  I also entered records about the crimes in the neighborhood.  What else did they say about Mr. Zimmerman’s past?  That’s about it.  Listen to those calls.  Do you hear anger, frustration, ill will, spite, or hatred?  Listen to them, don’t let the state give you words, and instead listen to them yourself.  Think about what people came home to there, what happened to Ms. Bertalan.  Think about whether frustration is warranted.  What witness told you that George Zimmerman patrolled the neighborhood?  Not one person got up here and said yeah this strange guy; this crazy wannabe cop did this and that.  They want you to assume that.  The defendant went around and looked for people to harass.  Let Mr. Guy show you somebody when he gets up here, someone who says he was always looking around.  What do you have?  He bought a crime victim a lock for her door.  He extended her a helping hand.  That’s pure innocence.

He was on his way to Target that night and he saw someone suspicious.  What did he do?  Did he get out, pull his gun, track him, and then kill him in cold blood?  No, he did what he was told to do.  He saw the person outside a home that was burglarized previously.  I just saw a white truck the other day in my neighborhood, I didn’t recognize.  I went out of my driveway to the right instead of the left and I looked.  It had a pool sign on it, so I said okay.  In that call, he cursed those people.  Maybe Martin, who did match the description, perhaps it was happenstance.  Follow those calls.  The state says he’s a wannabe cop because he called before, he knew he was being recorded.  He says it under his breath because you need to assume it was guilt.  That’s absurd.  The fact that he was willing to say it on a recorded call to law enforcement is evidence that it wasn’t laced with hatred.  The assumption here is this wannabe cop is filled with hatred and then he broke.  Maybe it was where they asked him what Martin was doing?  They want you to concentrate on where Zimmerman somehow violated this police command, do not follow him.  He was so filled with hatred that he asks for a police officer to come?  They don’t want you to concentrate on how the operator asks him twice where Martin has gone.  Tell me if he does anything else.  Which way did he run?

In that call, neither of them knew that we would be here today.  They were just talking.  It’s difficult to gain that level of second degree murder that ill will, spite, or hatred of a stranger.  When he said we don’t need you to do that, what was his response?  Screw you, I’m not taking it anymore?  No. 

I put into evidence the weather report for that night and the next day when the reenactment was done.  It tells you the wind speed.  You can decide was it running or was it the wind.  Is there any piece of evidence that supports George Zimmerman ran anywhere or ran after Trayvon Martin?  I have a challenge for the state; let them show you where the evidence is that George Zimmerman ran after him after saying okay to the operator.  I must have missed it.  Assumption, presumption, and connect the dots, don’t let them let you do that.  Is that the point where he snapped?  Have them call me I’ll tell them where I am. 

The reenactment video, the numbers they want you to believe that George Zimmerman knew were there, but just mislead the police so he could go after Trayvon Martin.  What witness got up here and even said, for instance, that Ms. Lauer’s lights were on?  This is their burden.  They have to look at you and say that we’re satisfied and we have created this line that connects all these dots and there is nothing, but conviction left.  He hung up.  He had this little flashlight.  He went all the way to the end of the sidewalk.  He had this other flashlight that was an impact weapon as the state pointed out, but was never used as one.  The darkness that night is stunning, just look at the pictures.  He had this little flashlight.  The evidence seems to support he was going back to his car.  If they had evidence otherwise wouldn’t they show you?  We have this keychain flashlight dropped at the T, how did it get there if it didn’t start there?  Ms. Lauer heard noises off towards the T.  Ms. Manolo heard noises off towards the T. So did Ms. Sudekya.  That’s exactly what George Zimmerman said.

(Played animation)  The flashlight is dropped at the T, how did they get the 30 or so feet to Mr. Good’s house?  George Zimmerman said he was trying to push Trayvon Martin away.  They made their way down there.  Mr. Good said he came out and saw one on top of the other, Trayvon Martin on top.  They turned more parallel to the sidewalk.  Then Mr. Good said as he left, they moved away from the sidewalk slightly.  Mr. Zimmerman said that he shimmied away from the sidewalk.  Trayvon Martin leaning over George Zimmerman is consistent with the gun shot evidence.  In the crime scene photos, you can see that Trayvon Martin’s legs were in a bicycle position.  Then Ms. Mora saw what is consistent with George Zimmerman being on top after the gunshot.  When he said he was moving Trayvon Martin’s hands out.  This animation gives a perspective.  There is no video although Mr. Zimmerman wished there was.  The probability, if not the certainty, that this started at the T and that Trayvon Martin punched Mr. Zimmerman is there.  We know who had the injuries.  If it’s not proven then don’t assume it, it isn’t there.

What’s really interesting is what was Trayvon Martin doing for 4 minutes?  Did they show you what he was doing?  What he was thinking?  Do you have any doubt as to what he was doing?  You get to think about what he was doing.  4 minutes, he could have walked home or run home.  He didn’t.  He had the opportunity and he didn’t, why?  Let’s talk factual innocence.  Somebody decided they were angry.  Somebody decided it wasn’t over with the running.  It had just started.  It wasn’t that he didn’t tell Sean Hannity he knew about stand your ground, so let’s convict him.  It wasn’t that he took a class about self-defense.  They dare to tell you that Trayvon Martin had no decisions, that my client planned all this.  They want you to ignore the factual undeniable 4 minutes.  With that common sense you can use, let’s look at what really happened.  George Zimmerman looking around with his baby flashlight and Trayvon Martin not going home.

Interestingly and thankfully, we have Jenna Lauer who asked for a photo of George Zimmerman because she didn’t want to approach the suspect.  If not for that, all we would have is the cleaned up version.  This is undeniable.  This is significant.  I don’t know who put his nose back.  When I first got this case, I thought it would be done in 20 seconds.  Figure out who is screaming and that’s it.  Those 45 seconds, that’s it.  It couldn’t be done.  Now you have to decide or maybe not, maybe it can’t be done.  My client gets the benefit of the doubt.  When Mr. Manolo took the phone that George Zimmerman dropped because the officer was following protocol, get your hands up, and secure the firearm.  He told Mr. Manolo to call his wife, he did.  He told her that her husband had been involved in a shooting and he said, just tell her I shot somebody.  A year and a half later, looking back maybe he should have said something different.  I don’t know.  What do people do though?  Their first thought is are you okay?  Not is the other person okay or if it is a car accident, is the car okay.  He didn’t want his wife to think he was shot.

He was affected by Mr. Martin’s death.  You need to tell the state that they shouldn’t do this to us.  Don’t ever bring a case like this again.  There is factual evidence of innocence here.  You could go back there and flip all this on its head.  Make me prove he is innocent.  That is not the standard, but you couldn’t convict because he is innocent.  Sean Noffke acknowledged he might have misunderstood his command.  Ms. Dorival called George Zimmerman meek.  Interesting thing about this cop wannabe, they have this citizens police.  Where you get to drive around in a uniform with lights and a cop clipboard and be a cop.  He said no thanks.  I don’t want your cop car.  I’ve got my wife and school and my own things.  Thanks, but not thanks.  This is the guy they tell you is a cop wannabe and he has ill will because of it.  Really?  It’s all speculation.  Speculation isn’t evidence, you can’t speculate.  Were their any complaints brought before you of people saying George Zimmerman ticketed them or yelled at them for parking their car in the wrong place?  He was on the parking committee.  The stucco guy got the criminal.  They want you to believe that that frustrated him.  Oh, I wanted that one, are you kidding me?  The government is making that argument?  He’s frustrated because he wanted the glory? 

Let’s get off this lying thing inconsistencies are not lies.  A witness heard three pops, is she a liar?  It was a stressful time.  I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it, but a witness referenced it, the movie Vantage Point describes this particularly well.  The president is shot and a couple of people witness this and the movie shows all their different perspectives.  People can all see the same event and see completely different things.  Are they lying? Not necessarily.  Ms. Manolo had the wrong perspective as well.  She thought Trayvon Martin was a 12-year-old because of some pictures she saw.  If someone showed you a picture of me as a 12-year-old you’d automatically think I was being attacked too. 

Ms. Jeantel she didn’t want to be involved.  I think her mother made her talk to Ms. Fulton, told her to tell her what happened to her son.  She didn’t think much happened that night originally.  If you ask me to explain the conversation I had with my wife three weeks ago or Mr. West last week, I wouldn’t remember everything.  When you start asking questions, you want that to?  Sometimes that happens.  She admitted to being concerned about Ms. Fulton’s feelings.  She smoothed things over.  When you have a potential witness with no law enforcement and a crying mother next to them, that is a horrible blunder.

Ms. Lauer heard a three-part exchange.  It sounded agitated then moved toward Mr. Good’s house.  She said one person was yelling for help.  There is no evidence more than one person was yelling for help.  All of this is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman’s statements.  If you are concerned about Mr. Zimmerman saying he moved Trayvon Martin’s hands out, not only is this possible, but probable.  If you look at the photos, his hands aren’t both under his body completely.  The statements are what they are. In the challenge interview, Detective Serino bluffed George Zimemrman and he said thank God that a camera might be there.  The state argues that super cop knowing everything knew that there was no camera.  Because he took community college classes?

There doesn’t have to be injuries.  The statute is clear, reasonable fear of bodily harm.  The injuries are just icing on the cake.  You must look at state of mind when he did what he did.  It doesn’t matter how many hits, just the fear of imminent or ongoing bodily injury.  I think they missed some DNA by packaging evidence incorrectly.  It’s not significant.  There’s no blood on Mr. Martin’s hands?  I don’t think Mr. Zimmerman bled out much until he stood up.  He was on his back; you wouldn’t expect blood there. 

I know both moms believe their son was screaming, they believe it in their hearts and souls.  You have to believe that to deal with this.  Some people hear what they want to hear.  Mr. Zimmerman’s uncle, a very credible man, I think.  He’s a man of his oath and word, he heard it inadvertently and believes it was his nephew.  I don’t think you could think of a profession where someone would know a person’s voice and the way they sound screaming for their life, except for a Vietnam medic.  Mr. Donnelly didn’t want to come here, he’s a vet, and he didn’t want to break down in front of everyone.  Mr. Manolo testified that George Zimmerman looked like he got his butt beat.  Mr. Martin, he changed his mind now, but he didn’t think it was his son before.  Adam Pollack testified that George Zimmerman was soft, he didn’t even want him to shadow box for fear the shadow would win.  He progressed from a 0.5 to a 1. 

I’m not going to allow you to ignore the reality.  Mr. Bonaparte, the way the call was played to the Martin family was horrendously handled, just incorrect.  The absurdity of what happened with that call.  It infected their testimony.  Dr. Vincent Di Maio, that’s just as good as it gets when it comes to experts.  The can was in Trayvon Martin’s shirt, it weighed it down, when he leaned over George Zimmerman, the loose shirt came away from his body.  The evidence completely supports the contention that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin as he was on top of him.  It was a contact wound with the clothes and 2 to 4 inches from the chest.  It was touching the clothes, not his chest.

The state’s theory is he could’ve have been backing up.  Could’ve happened.  That doesn’t belong inside of a courtroom.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is all that belongs.  For some reason just before the shot Trayvon Martin backed away, he retreated.  That’s what they want you to believe.  Where is one piece of evidence that suggests that?  Where is it?  Any witness?  All the witnesses back up George Zimmerman.  If the shirt was tight it would have been different, the evidence would have been different.  Where is the shred of evidence?  Assumption and supposition.  Could’ve been.  Speaking about absurdity, the state was trying to impeach a police officer.  Mr. Root is trained in everything you can think of in law enforcement.  What other options did George Zimmerman have, they asked.  What was the answer?  None.  This from a use of force expert who has made a career out of this.  Where was their use of force expert?  Did George Zimmerman have alternatives?  Where is the evidence that he did?  You don’t have to believe any expert, the judge will tell you.  But, we have an expert who told you this.

When you put a face on what was happening in that neighborhood, Ms. Bartalan is it.  That’s the face of the same frustration George Zimmerman felt.  That’s whom he wanted to help.  He didn’t say I’ll go beat up the guy.  He did what he did.  He helped her.  Thank God no one went upstairs, I don’t think a pair of scissors would have helped.  Something you want to consider is the forensic evidence.  What does it show and what doesn’t it show?  They say where’s the blood, where is George Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon Martin’s hands?  The idea that they want you to believe that there is no blood because there was no blood when they failed to preserve evidence is bizarre.  They didn’t bag the hands, in one photo of the gunshot wound there is blood and in the next one there isn’t.  They say it’s the sweatshirt, they claim they didn’t clean up, but I ask you if it were the sweatshirt soaking up the blood then why didn’t it soak it up in the first one when it was lifted for the picture? 

(Mark O’Mara used life-sized cutouts to demonstrate the size of Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman.)

Physical capabilities matter, it matters how they looked on that day.  Prosecutors show you autopsy photos to get that negative impact.  They’re terrible.  I did it when I was a prosecutor.  Another thing, there is no muscles or nerves.  That picture on the slab at the M.E.’s office, he does look emaciated.  This is a picture of him a few months earlier.  This is the person George Zimmerman encountered.  The person who attacked George Zimmerman, the person who battered him that night.  The state would say it was just a drain box, accident in the melee.  Those injuries?  Really?  It was out of the darkness, the pitch darkness that night, that Trayvon Martin decided to stalk, pounce, plan, something.  We know the big picture of what happened.  He attacked George Zimmerman.  Take Mr. Zimmerman’s statements in context.  How was he feeling that night?  The detectives said if someone gives them the same story exactly they’re probably lying.  A made up fantasy, they can repeat.  Deal with the inconsistencies however you see fit.  It seems he didn’t get hit 25 times, did he feel like he did though?  The state says he is a liar.  If you lie it is normally to deceive.  If you are going to give him credit about going to a legal studies program, here is something, what about Miranda?  It defies explanation.  If he is such a mastermind, like the state says, I guess he didn’t need Miranda.  What doesn’t defy explanation?  Evidence that George Zimmerman was more wet on the back then the front and there was grass on his back, evidence from a police officer that witnessed it.  Perhaps evidence that he was on his back.

Presumption of innocence sticks and stays until you don’t think it is any longer appropriate to consider George Zimmerman innocent, then and only then can you consider him guilty.  I almost wish that the verdict form had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent.  The reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence, the conflict of evidence, or the lack of evidence.  When you go back there consider a witness’ vantage point could they have seen what they said they did, heard what they said they did.  Consider perception and accuracy of memory, were they honest and straightforward?  Consider their interest in the outcome.  When George Zimmerman gave those statements to police, absolutely, he had an interest in the outcome.  Someone is trying to take away his liberty.  So, yes, he has an interest, but he didn’t know at the time we would be here.  You can bring your common sense, but don’t bring your assumptions or presumptions.  You can’t make your verdict because you feel sorry for someone.  You must be sure and certain.  There is no question this case is a tragedy.  I asked you if you could announce a not guilty verdict to the Martin family in voir dire.  You said that you could.  You have to be better than you are in everyday life; you have to be better than your assumptions.

Did George Zimmerman reasonably believe, did he have reasonable fear of great bodily injury?  He doesn’t have to think he was going to get killed; he just has to think he was going to be seriously injured.  The danger doesn’t have to be actual.  The knife in the robbery might be rubber, but if you think it’s steel, that is enough.  A reasonably prude and cautious person under those circumstances would believe the danger is real enough to believe that only self defense was applicable.  That’s the standard.  Following someone to report a crime or someone’s whereabouts is not illegal.  If it were illegal to follow someone to tell the police where they are then it would be in your instructions.  It isn’t true and that’s why it isn’t there.  The fact that I had to have Tracy Martin, Chris Serino, and Doris Singleton all testify to Mr. Martin not identifying his son’s voice should say something.  If your seeking justice, why would you put that information out there?  They didn’t tell you about the crimes either, they don’t have to, but I did.  It is their burden, their prosecution it affects George Zimmerman. 

Does the prosecution’s yelling and cursing help you analyze this case?  Does it tell you anything about the evidence?  Do we need the prosecutor getting angry rather than the defendant?  Is that the way he said those words?  That’s the way they are presenting their case to a jury of my client’s peers?  (Put a piece of cement in front of the jury) This is a sidewalk.  That is not unarmed.  That isn’t a teenager walking home with skittles.  The suggestion by the state that isn’t a weapon, that can’t hurt someone, is disgusting.  Trayvon Martin used a variety of weapons, including his fists to attack George Zimmerman.

Let’s presume what Rachel Jeantel said is true, George Zimmerman said what are you doing around here?  I might say, get out of my face, whatever I want, or why do you ask?  Mr. Root didn’t say it was appropriate to break someone’s nose or punch them in the face, did he?  Is that an appropriate response?  You can’t look at the pictures of my client’s injuries and say what happened to George Zimmerman isn’t ill will, spite, and hatred.  If Trayvon Martin had lived, what would his charge have been?  Aggravated battery, 2 counts?

Do you have no doubt in your mind that George Zimmerman is guilty?  You go back there and you consider, do you have a reasonable doubt that my client acted in self defense?  Do you think he might have?  Do you have concern that he may have?  You can stop there.  Self defense is a defense to everything from assault to speeding to second degree murder.  You have already decided that the state hasn’t proven their case.  If you look at all the evidence, you have to say that you have reasonable doubt.  You don’t have to write innocent on that page, but don’t let them take the presumption of innocence from you with screeching, yelling, and sympathy.  Look at the definitions.  I ask that you let my client get back to his life.


Below is a paraphrased version of some of the highlights of John Guy’s rebuttal closing argument.  A PowerPoint was used.

Remember:  What attorneys say is not evidence or instruction on the law; it is merely intended to aid the jury in understanding the evidence.  Basically, it is a persuasive speech on their position.

Our heart has many functions.  The most important is what it makes us do.  Your heart motivates you, inspires you, in big things and little things.  Should we not look at what was in the hearts of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin that night, a grown man and a child?  The defense can make fun of how I say things, but that isn’t important.  Those words were in the defendant’s heart.  They don’t want you to think about that because it is powerful.  Was it just casual language about a stranger?  Really?  Wasn’t fear in Trayvon Martin’s heart?  The real victim in this case.  Was that child not in fear when he was running away?  Isn’t that every child’s fear to be followed in the dark on the way home by a stranger, in a truck and then on foot?  That was Trayvon Martin’s last emotion.  There is a saying, as a man speaks so is he.

If ever there was a window into the soul, it was those words.  If ever there was a question as to who started this, there it is.  Just tell them to call me.  He wasn’t going back to his car, to the clubhouse, or the mailboxes, I’ll tell them where I’m at.  Any doubt was removed when the defendant told lies.  There were only two people in this world who could tell us what happened.  One is dead, and the other is lying.  Not about little things, like his age or whether he went to the hospital, but about big things, why?  The bottom line is if he had done only what he was supposed to do, see and call, we wouldn’t be here.  But that wasn’t where he was that night.  After months of all these people getting away.  Not that night, not that guy.  If he really wanted to see the police, he would have waited and watched Trayvon Martin near the back gate where he knew they always went.  George Zimmerman will forever have the victim’s blood on his hands. 

To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe the truth.  Trayvon Martin is entitled to the truth and it didn’t come out of the defendant’s mouth.  At the end of the night, do you want to know what was in his heart?  A bullet.  The defense challenged the state.  What happened in those 4 minutes?  It was a nice demonstration, but what was the defendant doing?  He wasn’t going back to his car, he only needed 2 minutes at most.  4 minutes wasn’t the amount of time Trayvon Martin had to go home, it was the amount of time he had left on this Earth.  I don’t have audio or 10 foot timelines, I’m asking you to use your common sense.  Their little cartoon starts at the T, that’s what they want you to do, that’s where everything starts for them.  It’s like reading the last chapter of a book.  It isn’t fair.  Why are we here?  Don’t do that, start at the beginning.  At the 7-11, when that child had every right to be there, to walk home, to be afraid of a strange man following him first in a car and then on foot.  Did he not have the right to defend himself?  Come back with me to that night, bring your God-given common sense.  The common sense that tells you that if he was mounted on the defendant he couldn’t get his gun.  Try it in the jury room.  His waist covered his legs.  He couldn’t have done that, it is physically impossible.  They want a reason there it is.  The only way he could get his gun is if Trayvon Martin was backing off or backed up so far he couldn’t hit him.  He didn’t shoot him because he had to, he shot him because he wanted to.

If Trayvon Martin had run off, why would he need to get that address?  It doesn’t make sense.  It is false, self-serving justification.  Listen to Jenna Lauer’s call, the screaming stops at the instant of the gunshot.  If he thought he was still alive and had to get on his back and move his arms, if he was so afraid, why would he stop yelling for help?  If he was yelling that loud and that long, he wouldn’t have a hoarse voice that night?  This isn’t a complicated case, it is a case about common sense.  It isn’t a case about self-defense, but about self-denial.  The common sense that tells you the neighborhood watch coordinator would know the name of Twin Trees Lane.  Common sense tells you he wouldn’t get out of his car.  Common sense tells you if he was so soft, he wouldn’t have been able to take control of Trayvon Martin’s hand and get wrist control.  Why did he lie so many times?  Sean Noffke told him to get an address, never happened.  He told the police to meet him at his car, never happened.  That’s important, just like when he slipped up on that tape and said the name of the street.  They want you to believe it is just incompetence, that’s why the evidence isn’t there.  The defendant told his best friend that Trayvon Martin squeezed his nose, do you really think that if that happened George Zimmerman’s DNA wouldn’t have been found when they plied those sticks under Trayvon Martin’s fingernails?  That is a lie.

If his head was slammed, he wouldn’t look like he did.  You’ve got to be kidding me.  Was he injured?  Yes.  Seriously?  Not even close.  They can show you all the lumps on his head, but didn’t Trayvon Martin have the right to defend himself?  He didn’t even have a headache the next day, no nausea, nothing.  He came for a note to go back to work, it wasn’t that bad.  Wouldn’t Trayvon Martin’s hand look like that if he pummeled the defendant?  Trayvon Martin couldn’t have seen his gun.  Do you think for a second if he had seen that gun there would be a gunshot directly in the center of his chest?  Why is it so important to say he moved his arms out?  Because he was menacing, threatening, he had to be safe.  They weren’t spread out, they were clutching his heart.  At the car, he had to make him look menacing.  Play that call and walkthrough side by side, one right after the other.  It didn’t happen that way.  He didn’t want anyone to know he knew about the stand your ground law.  In the end, this case is about staying in your car, not standing your ground.  He can’t now cloak himself as a neighborhood watchman and nobleness and have violated the cornerstone principle of that and then have you absolve him of his guilt.

He was taught not to be a vigilante.  Do not pursue, do not detain.  Just call, but what did he do?  The defense called him a responsible gun owner.  What did he do after he shot Trayvon Martin?  Did he yell call 911 I had to shoot someone?  Did he roll him over and let him breathe?  He watched and he waited.  He left Trayvon Martin face down.  The bottom line is who was responsible?  Trayvon Martin didn’t kill himself.  Who is responsible that Trayvon Martin can’t come forward?  That I can’t put my hand on his shoulder?  I would love to do that.  Trayvon Martin will never be a piece of cardboard.  The attorneys asked you at the beginning do you understand it isn’t like TV?  They wouldn’t call on law and order an expert who found no fingerprint.  They get actors and actresses who dress nice and are always educated.  In real life, we give you the good, the bad, and the indifferent.  The defendant is entitled to a fair trial, all of it.  In Hollywood, they write it up perfectly.  In real life, it happens just like it did in that neighborhood in front of those good unsuspecting people.  If you go back there and don’t like the witnesses and you don’t like that there isn’t this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence.  Ask yourself, who chose this?  It wasn’t me, it was the defendant.  He chose the lighting, he chose the time, the place, the witnesses, what happened, everything.  It is enough.  I’m asking you to do what you do everyday, apply your common sense.

Your verdict won’t change the past, but it will define it.  What is this?  Nothing?  Is that where we are?  Is it nothing that a man shot a child?  That’s your call, but I submit to you that you took an oath.  Trayvon Martin is entitled to it and that defendant deserves it.  Did that man need to kill a teenager?  If there is an issue, ask yourself who lost this fight?  These are all facts and all in evidence.  The defendant was 18 feet from John Good, he knew the police were coming, he could get his gun, so Trayvon Martin wasn’t on top of him.  Under those circumstances, did he have to shoot Trayvon Martin?

The defense is right, innocence itself is no protection, it certainly wasn’t for Trayvon Martin.  Why didn’t he go home?  Did he really want to take this defendant to his home where his younger, future stepbrother was all alone?  The defendant always made it worse.  When he got all the way to Sean Hannity it was God’s plan.  The defense says he didn’t shove the gun in Trayvon Martin’s chest.  A contact wound to the shirt, really?  A reasonable doubt needs to be reasonable and go to the element of a crime. 

(Objection – Judge Nelson instructed the jury she will give them the law they must follow.)

This case is not about race, the defense wants it to be, but it is about right and wrong.  It is that simple.  All things being equal, and the roles were reversed.  And 28-year-old Goerge Zimmerman was wearing a hoodie and walking home and a 17-year-old was riding around with hate in his heart, mouth and actions.  If he shot George Zimmerman, what would your verdict be?  What do we owe Trayvon Martin?  He will be 16 years and 21 days forever.  The hate in his heart those are words he can’t take back.  All the self-serving lies.  The laws that apply to all of us, apply to each of us.  This is the truth.

Judge instructed the jury at 2:00 p.m. and sent them back for deliberation.  Deliberations will continue tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.


Join the Discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s