tv MSNBC Live MSNBC July 12, 2013 8:00am-9:01am PDT
dr. bao, that was the state's decision to bring him before you as a medical examiner. not really their decision. he was the one who did the autopsy. so although there was some interaction there that might have best been just redone, the reality is the only injuries were the injuries that we know about on trayvon martin and that the wet clothes should not have been -- should not have been bagged in paper and that the hands should have been bagged and we will talk about the hands in a little bit. this witness told you that it was her son as i'm sure you expected before she ever got on the stand. mrs. zimmerman. mesa, sitting at a computer and listening and hearing in the background the voice he knew
without question and immediately to be that of his nephew george zimmerman. i think he came across very credibly. i think he came across of his oath and of his word and i will ask you to consider the testimony in that regard. mark osterman a buddy of his and talked about the weapon use and how you holster a gun. he's good at what he does. he was helping george figure out how to fire a gun. sondra osterman, friend. definitely george zimmerman screaming for help. explain away some of what the state was trying prove to you through the nonemergency call about the anger and hatred and all that, that just isn't there. same thing with geri russo. no question in her mind, george's voice. same thing with leann benjamin. heard him scream and yell and that was george zimmerman.
john donnelly was interesting. i'm not sure i could, if i thought about trying to figure out who in the world talks to people they know and then hears them scream for their life. i just -- there's no profession that does that. maybe a corner man in a boxing ring but they don't scream for help there. a medic in vietnam a person who hangs out during the day with his buddies of 6,200 people, figures out who they are, what they are, who they left behind at home, when they want to go back and when they might go back and you know what? that they might never go back because he is the guy who grabs a medic back and a rifle i think he said and heads out towards the screams and that even before he gets there, sometimes, he knows who it is is screaming. wow.
didn't want to testify. i don't think a guy who has been in vietnam wants to come before people that break down a little bit but i think that his testimony was quite credible when he believed it was mr. zimmerman. doris singleton and, by the way, chris serino both say the same thing. unfortunately, when martin did first hear the tape he said what he believed to be true then. it would seem from the officers and that is, that is not my son's voice. it just wasn't his voice to him. and his mind has changed now. but it is interesting for you to consider when you're trying to figure out that issue of who said what and what witnesses said what because you're going to give them credibility and you're going to weigh them and decide to dismiss their testimony or decide to accept
their testimony and try and figure out. remember always, as we will talk about in a moment, the benefit always goes or the doubt always goes to my client's benefit. adam pollock. i'm not sure i would advertise i trained george zimmerman for year and brought him from a .5 to a 1 but he did. but he did. not a fighter. mma, you know, george, i think said it was 18 months that george is mma training, three days a week! aarrgghh! really? come on. really? in light of the testimony of the trainer who said i wouldn't even let him do anything but shadow box for fear the shadow might win? and hit a bag. tracy mart, we talked about. chief bill lee.
he was there for the whole part of it, but most importantly, he was the officer who said whatever you do, separate them. don't in fact, witness testimony with other witness testimony. it is cop 101. i understand sensitive its of family members listening to the possible voice of their son and definitely the gunshot that ended their son's life, but law enforcement, ongoing investigation, just put them in one at a time. they -- the way it was handled infected the evaluation of that testimony horribly and who gets the benefit of that? george zimmerman. dr. di maio, has done this whole life. came in and gave you some really good information about everything having to do with gunshots. really good because he failed and refused to go beyond
gunshots even when -- i think we tried to take him a little bit. he said, no. the state tried to take him a little bit. he said no. i'm good at what i'm good at but i'm only going to talk about what i'm the good at and what he is good at is gunshot wounds and suggesting that it made perfect sense that the can in the jacket would do what it did. does it make anything less than perfect sense as to what happen happened? it's in there and he is leaning over and his loose billowing shirt falls forward and he gets shot and it's contact to the fabric. it is not pressed against the chest. i think that little play in opening statement has been dismissed. and it was four inches from his
chest. as it turns out, the forensic evidence is fairly significant because it completely supports the contention that mr. zimmerman was on the bottom, trayvon martin leaning over the top when he got shot. now, here's a theory of guilt for you. are you ready? this is the state's presentation so listen carefully. he might have been backing up. he could have been backing up. could have been. if i was arguing that, i would be arguing to you reasonable doubt. you know, it could have happened this way. it could have been that he was backing up. i don't know. i almost made light of it when i said, well, he could have been backing up to strike another blow but the could have been's don't belong in this courtroom.
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. he was leaning over him. nothing to suggest anything else but that. he could have been leaning back? at some point, after 45 seconds of attacking george zimmerman for no other reason, let's not forget, he didn't back up when john good told him to, right? so for some reason, just before the shot takes off, at that moment, the state wants you to believe trayvon martin retreated. really? really. one piece of evidence, just one i ask for. just one piece of evidence that is the course of that contention. where is it? where is the eyewitness say, "i
saw him back up." where is the forensic evidence? he got all the way back up, chest and shirt are tied together and shot is through and through. where is that piece of evidence? where is one shred of evidence to support the add surbsurdity they are trying to have you buy? one. mr. guy can tell you about it when he closes, if it's there. assumpti assumption, supposition, could have been. thrown apart. part of the absurdity of how this thing happened with the phone call -- with the tape. i don't think it matters too much. miss dilligard. bonaparte. he has a light voice and it
sounded like his voice. dennis root. now we have prosecutors attacking sort of impeaching. lifetime law enforcement officer. dedicated to life to the pursuit of perfection in law enforcement. perfection. my god! he is trained in everything! he takes something on, he becomes a trainer. and now we have the state impeaching him. well, hold on a second here. could have been this way, right? not really. well, let me ask you this question, mr. guy says. at that moment, george zimmerman decided to shoot trayvon martin. what other options did he have? none. he had none.
from a use of force expert who has been doing this his entire career and who has become proficient in assisting others n learning how to use force and when to use force and learning when to use force and they asked him the question of whether or not george zimmerman had alternatives. tell me the piece of evidence that contraindicates that. just give me one. give me a shred of evidence that contradicts that he had any other option. because now we have an expert who is qualified, who gave you that opinion. dismiss it if you want. the judge will tell you just because you're an period of time doesn't mean it's gospel that you have to listen to them.
but if you believe him, if he can well qualify and give an opinion, if it's an area of inquiry which will help you, then accept it. i hope he doesn't come across i was just seeking sympathy for this woman but the reality is i think when you put a face on what was happening at retreat view, bertalan is it, she really is. thank god nobody came upstairs. i'm not sure the scissors would have really helped. but that is the face and i'll tell you this. i'll give you this much. that is the face of the frustration that i think george was feeling a little bit of. you know? that's something that end to
help out with. that's why he walked over and didn't say, i'm going to go get this guy! no. that's why he said, here's a lock for the back of your door. here's my telephone number. and here is my wife's number. you need her help, this is what we do, we help. dad. you know? he said it early. give you this much. he said it right away. he went down to sanford police department to talk to him. they put him under oath. they put him under oath and said, okay now. you're under oath. you got to tell the truth. is that your son? yes. we talk about a few other points, if i might.
oops. because this is not working. it might come back. if not, i'll just read it to you. any chance it will come comeback up, that will be great. if not, i'll just work without it. you want to consider when you look at this case is the forensic evidence what it does and doesn't support. here was an interesting thing that i didn't make a big deal about in the trial but i want you to focus on because a lot has been said about the lack of blood and what happened to the
blood and if trayvon martin was doing what george zimmerman was saying, where is the blood? where is the anger? where does it show up on the hands? state 28. gunshot wound. see the blood? trickling down and across the chest. see that? three-inch swath of blood all the way over there. state 95. it's gone. not there. yet, everybody who handled that body said they didn't touch it or they didn't wipe it. they may say, well, that was when we moved the sweatshirt up and moved it back down and the blood is all gone, but let's not forget, the blood was there when they moved the sweatshirt up so
why isn't it there if they move the blood down and it was still oozing in this photograph. so -- oh, some big moment. i proved my case. no. but the idea that they want you to assume or they want you to believe, just connect the dots that there was no blood because there was no blood when they failed to properly preserve items like the sweatshirts? items like the body, it seems. items like the hands that were to be bagged but weren't. they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they bagged the hands. that's not an element they have to prove. but if they are going to try up to come up with conclusive evidence that supports no other reasonable hypothesis of innocence but guilt, then they have to have a better case and this is just some evidence of
it. so let's talk about other things you had to consider about that event. a couple of graphics. george zimmerman, the way he s was. trayvon martin, the way he was. now, let's do it life size. trayvon martin that night, wearing shoes i have to show you. he had the hoodie on and on top of the hoodie, this is from the
picture that we showed you. it's not in evidence. just have you look at it. don't even have to believe it's accurate but just take a look at it. remember how much taller i was than andrew gauga when he was standing next time tom and he testified that he was 5'10". then there is george zimmerman. and how tall he is. take a look at him prepared to my eye height. george, kou stand up a minute, please? thank you. relatively physical ablegs is what you have to look at in a defense case.
you look at that guy this night. don't look at him today all over the place how much weight he gained. he doesn't matter. what matters is how he looked that day and how trayvon martin looked that day. just so you get a clue -- not a clue. an indication. november 15th, 2011, about two months, three months before trayvon martin passed away, that is what he looked like. a young kid. a nice kid actually if you look at the picture. not bad. the problem with it is that when we show you autopsy photographs, is there two things you need to know about autopsy photographs. one, they are horrific and they are meant to have negative impact. i dealed with when i was a prosecutor and prosecutors do it all the time, a dead person on a slab has an impact on you. i would say that maybe one of you, maybe have looked at a picture like that before this trial. maybe one.
it has an impact. the other thing about autopsy photographs is that there is no muscle tone because there is no nerves, there's no movement. he lost half his blood. we know that. so on that picture that we have of him on the medical examiner's table, yeah, he does look emaciated. but here is him three months before that night. so it's in evidence. take a look at it. because this is the person and this is the person who george zimmerman encountered that night. this is the person who, all of the evidence, was attacked or attacked george zimmerman, broke his nose or something close to
it, and battered him on something. the state now may say maybe it was just a drain box and it was no intent to hurt there by trayvon martin because it was just coincide that he was bashing his head on something hard and it was a drain box. really? come on! really? those injuries? you've seen this before. it was out of this darkness that trayvon martin decided to stalk, i guess, plan, pounce. i don't know. all i know is that when george zimmerman is walking back to his car, out of the darkness, be it bushes or darkness or left or behind, or somewhere, trayvon
martin came towards george zimmerman. out of this. and we know what happened. the big picture is what happened. and it's supported by evidence. you know, we talked a moment ago about ignoring george's statements. find inconsistencies in them and see what you think about them and take him in context what he was going through that night and how voluntarily he gave all of those statements and decide whether or not as dennis root said, as chris direno said and as i believe singleton said, if anyone is giving me the same example story twice, they are probably lying. they are probably pathological
liars. gause when you lie, i guess since you're making up a fantasy, you can tell the fantasy twice, the same exact way. but if you are getting your nose smashed and head smashed and trying to do what you can and answering every question they ask of you, then, okay, deal with the inconsistencies however you want to. but maybe i would suggest you begin by dealing with them the way chris serino did, since it was his case and what he said to you was, yeah, there was some inconsistencies. 25 times. it seems hit 25 times. did it feel like he was getting hit 25 times? maybe. is that the embellishment, the
exaggeration the state is talking about when they say to you he is exaggerating, he's a liar. he's a liar? really? come on. those are lies -- if you lie, it's normally with intent to deceive, isn't it? isn't that the essence of a lie? if george zimmerman had the intent to deceive, why would he give six statements? if you're going to give him credit for anything about going to school and going through legal studies, here is one. miranda. he knows self-defense. he knows stand your ground. he knows whatever the state wants you to think he knows, but he doesn't know miranda? no, no, no. he knows miranda but he was such the master mind that he could, without knowing any of the evidence, who was watching, who
was videotaping? who was doing anything? they don't know any of that. he had all figured out. really? it defies explanation. what doesn't defy explanation are things like this. the mud on the knees. evidencing the mounting. what doesn't defy explanation is f officer tim smith's testimony that he had mud all over his back evidencing i would opine that he was on his back in the grass and he was getting beat up. manalo, tim smith, wagner. everybody else who saw those injuri
injuries. okay. you don't need a graphic but you do still get me going over some of the instructions with you. reasonable doubt. what is it? can't tell you any more than we have. the judge read it to you a couple times already and you'll get it again. reasonable doubt, don't start with the premise. presumption of innocence sticks and stays until it is taken away by evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that it is no longer appropriate to consider mr. zimmerman innocent. then and only then do you get to convict my client of anything. reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt. if you got to make it up, it's not a reasonable doubt. we talked about me proving my case as though i had to.
it's not a -- speculative doubt or forced doubt. if you have a gout and you say i'm going to force myself to believe it, that would be a forced doubt. a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt or speculative or imagery or forcive. such a doubt would not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty. if have conviction of guilt on the other hand and this is the meat of it. if after carefully considering, comparing away all of the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or of having that conviction, it is one that is not stable. one which waivers and vacillates. then the charge is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, every reasonable doubt and you must find george zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. i almost wish -- i've never said this in a criminal trial before and never heard it said before -- i almost wish that the
verdict had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent because i would ask you to check that one. you got to check the not guilty. check the innocent then too. a reasonable doubt as to george zimmerman's innocence may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or a lack of evidence. if you have no -- if you have reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. if you have absolutely -- if you have no reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman guilty. weighing the evidence, you'll have all of this before you. judge nelson is going to read it to you and she is going to give it to you but just to focus what do you about these witnesses, whether the question is whether or not they have the opportunity to see and know the things they are telling you about, obviously. that is that vantage point.
concern how they really can look at it. perception you had to see. for example, somebody came in, wasted off their mind and give them less credibility. we don't have that here, but you have to look at it and decide whether or not they had an opportunity to see what they are talking about. that they have an accurate memory and we know memory is affected by traumatic events. i think miss dyker is an example of that. she was frantic what is happening outside and i think it might have an impact on her recall. honest and straightforward, i would put up on that pedestal miss bahadoor. you're calm, but as to whether or not she presented in a way that made some sense. compare her to miss mora who seemed to be saying what she just remembered and very wrong to show you. did they have an interest in the
outcome. well, let me tell you something. when george zimmerman gave those statements to law enforcement, he didn't know it, i don't think. didn't seem normal that he would have ever been charged in this case, but in his mind, at that time, i presume you could say that he had an interest in telling the story as good he could for himself. an interesting outcome? absolutely. people taking away his liberty? absolutely. consider that when you look at those statements as well. and whether his testimony agrees with other testimony that is the global view. dennis root kept saying to you you have to look at it in the totality of the circumstances. don't give me one sheet and go what do you think now? i want to read everything i can. that is the same thing. that is that totality of the circumstances. so rules to deliberate under and
here they are. the case must be decided upon the evidence. sort of makes sense. but that was -- i started on a note about two and a half, three hours ago, i started with the idea that you need to be very careful not to do the assumptions that you might otherwise do at the state's request. it is only the evidence and the witnesses that you can look forwards for that. upon the evidence that you've heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of exhibits, all that really means to you is those you can use your common sense, don't bring your assumptions, don't bring your premsumps and don't say i don't think that guy will cut in front of me as i drive to work today. you don't have that luxury in a criminal courtroom. you don't. you only get to decide upon what you are certain of. something that you do not have a reasonable doubt about.
don't do it because you feel sorry for anyone. you know, i said to you -- and i think you realized why did y-- the significance comes back home. i said if the state didn't prove their case, you'll be able to say something to announce the verdict of acquittal even though that verdict has to be heard by the martin family and you said you could. i meant that for a very significant reason. it is a tragedy truly, but you can't allow sympathy to feed into it. when i say that to you, you should sit back and raise your hand and go, are you nuts? how dare you tell me to leave sympathy out of my life. how dare you tell me to leave my emotions besides. how dare you. i don't do that ever in my life. welcome to a criminal courtroom because, unfortunately, you have
to be better than your presumptions. you have to be better than what you do in everyday life. better. at least different. at least unique. shoon should not be influenced by bias and sympathy. must be based on the law and the judge will tell you what the law is. and now we have to talk for a moment about self-defense. we have talked all around it and let's tell you exactly what the judge will instruct you as to what it is. a person who is justified in using deadly force for his life to cause death if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent eminent death or great bodily death to himself. the alternatives i'll go through this and tell you what he eyou need to consider whether george
reasonably feared. he didn't have to think he was going to die. he does not have to think he was going to die. he does have to think that he was going to be injured greatly and since the alternative, if either matches, it's been met. in deciding whether or not george zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances which he was surrounded with, at the time the force was used. the moment of using the force and what was happening. the danger of facing george zimmerman may not have been actual. now, getting beat up sort of takes that in context but he doesn't have to be actual. in effect, i guess, knife coming at you, could it be rubber? as long as you perceive it to be steel. or the next blow of a fist could be a fake one.
but as long as you perceive it could continue to be a blow upon blow upon you then that is enough. the danger that george zimmerman faced may not have been actual, but however to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under those circumstances, you got to put yourself in the mind of what george zimmerman was going through, the circumstances that he was going through, and then decide yourself whether or not a reasonably and kaursus person under those circumstances could believe the danger could be videoed for the use of that force based upon appearances, george zimmerman must believe the danger was real. in considering self-defense, and again, it's called justifiable
use of deadly force. we shorthand the defendant to deadly defense. he may take into account the physical abilities of george zimmerman and trayvon martin. if your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. and let me show you what that means in layman's terms, because i don't like the fact that i'm trying to prove to you a double negative. just seems awkward. if you have a reasonable doubt on the question whether or not george zimmerman was justified in the j use of deadly force, have you a reasonable doubt as to whether or not he was justified in the use of deadly
force. he's not guilty. anywhere along this graph, were in along this graph, if you believe this is where i went a little while ago. anywhere along this graph, then he not guilty. that's why i say this was a bizarreo case. showing awe case like this and wondering whether or not there's a reasonable doubt as to whether or not he had to use that deadly force to protect himself from great bodily harm. the other thing that i think we probably have gotten past but i want to be clear about is this one. you're going to get all of the
law that applies in this case. every shred of law that applies to this case, you will have before you. what you won't have is any law that suggests something like following somebody is illegal, because it's not. following somebody in a car or foot in order to report their whereabouts to the police is not unlawful activity in the florida law. if it was, you would be instructed on it. they would have a statute as part of your jury instructions that says something that george zimmerman did was unlawful and you won't have it because it's just not there or it's just not true. i'm over my time. i'm going to finish your quicker than i would like to. i can't imagine that i've been here three hours but i want to do a couple of quick things to
show you to the state's burden what they haven't proven about -- i don't think it's a big deal if they stied not to give you the sixth nonemergency call. they should have just to be complete. or whatever. i don't know, you know, the fact that i had a call to tracy martin to have him testify to that, on the state's case, i guess they didn't have to do that but if you're really seeking justice, why have me do it? why not even have serino testify? why did i have to have him testify that tracy martin said it wasn't his son or did i have to have singleton testify? certainly they are available to me and i did. t. i guess if i can do it, the state doesn't have to except, you know, it really and always will be their burden, into the knot mine. they didn't tell you about all of the other burglaries that happened at retreat view. i did.
they are there. haven't highlighted them but, trust trust me, they are there. where is the use of force? where is their guy? all we have on use of force now is dennis root. again, they don't have to bring use of force expert. i did. they don't have to. but if that is their issue, where is their nvergs? same thing with dr. di maio. i guess they -- no, no, gunshot. but where is that? again, they don't have to. but this is their case. it's their prosecution, it's their burden. that he pushed the gun into trayvon martin's chest. you know, justice and emotions you have to be careful with it because we all have emotions as human beings and we have
justice. you sit back and say what are they trying to do? does it really help you decide this case when somebody who is not george zimmerman's voice screams at you or yells at you and curses at you? no. i would contend. listen to the tape. don't listen to mr. guy. i'm sure people say that i look like joel and mr. guy is trying to sound like him with this really odd f'ing punks! you know, do we need that? i do a little bit, i guess. but do we need that type of anger coming out from a prosecutor rather than from a defendant? is that really the way we are going to present this case to a jury of my client's peers? assholes. really? is that the way he said it?
one piece of evidence that my client attacked trayvon martin landed one blow, for that matter. did anything to justify in any form or fashion the onslaught of injury perpetrated upon him by no one other than trayvon martin. he actually had something else because george zimmerman was, in fact, armed with a firearm and we know that. we know he had the right to have it and then it was said -- how many times was it said that trayvon martin wasn't armed? now, i'll be held in contempt if i drop this. so i'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. but that's cement.
that is a sidewalk. and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skilli skittles trying to get home. that was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. not that it was necessary for self-defense, but great bodily injury against george zimmerman and the suggestion by the state that that is not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody? that that can't cause great bodily injury is disgusting.
even if we presume rachel jeantel was completely accurate in whichever version of what she first heard happened you want to believe, what she said was that george zimmerman said, "what are you doing around here?" that's just for a moment presume that we had that on audiotape. let's say they were recording their phone call and you heard her voice. you heard george zimmerman's voice on the tape that said "what are you doing around here?" what did mr. root say about that? what is the only expert that talks about the evolution of force tell us? well, you say something like that, i might say whatever i
want or who you ask, or what do you mean? or get out of my face. but dennis root didn't say that the appropriate response it to break somebody's nose, did he? did he suggest that that was even near the spectrum of violence allowed, spectrum of force allowed in a situation like that? unfortunately, you know, there was some anger and hostility and ill will and spite maybe that night that just had nothing to do with george zimmerman. well, that's not true. it had something to do with george zimmerman. he was a victim of it. because you can't look at those pictures and say that what was -- upon george zimmerman was not evidence of ill will, spite, and hatred. had trayvon martin been shot through the hip and survived,
what do you think he would have been charged with? aggravated battery, two counts? the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt. have you no doubt in your mind that my client is guilty of anythi anything. i really -- you get trial hypnosis. you think you say the right thing when you talk as a lawyer. within that context, i really feel i may have convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. zimmerman is innocent. but, of course, we know that has nothing to do with it. the state will get up and finish in couple of minutes and tell you he is a liar again and maybe
not because mr. de la rionda spent most of his time convincing you my client lied. but here is the standard. you go back there. first thing you might want to consider doing, do you have a reasonable doubt that my client may have acted in self-defense? go back through and say to yourself -- forget the crimes and let's just talk about self-defense. do we think he might have acted in self-defense? not convinced. have some doubt. have some concern. that he just may have acted in self-defense and if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. you really do. why? because self-defense is a defense to everything, to littering, to speeding, to
battery. if it mattered, to grand theft, to assault, to manslaughter, so-to-second-degree. you go no further than a determination that the state, now that we're done and there is no more evidence, that the state is not convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman did not act in self-defense. it's an easy decision and i don't say that out of hubrus or ego, ha, ha, ha. i'm saying it because of the facts of the case. you look at these facts. you look at all of this evidence and you have to say, i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the state convinced me he didn't act in self-defense. that's all you have to do. you don't have to write innocent on the bottom of the verdict form. we don't go anywhere near those in this courtroom.
the state never, ever loses their responsibility to take away reasonable doubt from you. don't let them do with enu wen dough and don't let them do it with sympathy and don't let them do it with yelling and don't let them do it with screeching. because none of that matters. because we have a definition of reasonable doubt and now you do. you look at that definition, go back to that room and say, let's talk first about self-defense. if i think george may have acted in self-defense, we are done. so thank you for the time. thank you for the attention. again, we talked about it way in the beginning. an amazingly difficult task that we ask you to take on. and we often have had jurors who -- a couple of of whom we had to wake up on occasion. you certainly are not those.
the note taking and the interest, it's been apparent. i appreciate the time. my client does. the state does, i'm sure. the court does. and seminole county does because you've given us what we needed from you which which is your attention. i want one more thing from you. i want you to really, really look at the instructions, apply them and just say he acted in self-defense, find him not guilty, let him go back and get back to his life. thanks. >> thank you, mr. o'mara. ladies and gentlemen, do you want a brief break before mr. guy gets -- let's take a ten-minute recess. please follow deputy jarvis back into the jury room. put your notepads face down. >> hi, everybody. good morning. i'm thomas roberts and watching the final chapter here of the zimmerman trial tops our agenda today. the defense presenting its closing argument there in the murder trial of george zimmerman saying his client is not a mastermind ee mastermind, even asking his client to stand up at one point,
asking the all-female jury to disregard any sympathies they may have. >> maybe he is a defendant. maybe he has something he has to defend. maybe in fact because the city attorney's office has decided to charge him, he has to have done something wrong. how many "could have beens" have you heard from the state in this case? how do you actually get to a level necessary for second degree murder when you don't know the person. defense attorney mark o'mara also played an animation there, depicting george zimmerman's version of events the night trayvon martin was killed. the animation judge deborah nelson ruled the defense could not introduce as evidence. o'mara began showing pictures of the witnesses and highlighted either how little they had to say or some of the testimony that they gave that may have actually bolstered his client's case, including the moefrs george zimmerman and trayvon martin who both asserted it was their son screaming for help on that 911 tape. o'mara also took out these
cardboard cut-outs to show the size difference between martin and zimmerman and also show jurors a photo of what martin looked like months before the shooting to contrast the autopsy photos that jurors saw earlier in the trial. >> because this is the person and this is the person who george zimmerman encountered that night. >> now the other dramatic moment that we just witnessed moments ago was o'mara bringing out that concrete slab claiming that that was the weapon that trayvon martin used on zimmerman that night. joining me now and who's been watching with me this whole hour, msnbc legal analysis lisa bloom, joy ann reid and veteran prosecutor, paul henderson. lisa, start with you. how do you think mark o'mara did in leaving the jurors with the defense and setting in their mind that reasonable doubt is established with what they've presented? >> well, his strength was
staying on his strongest argument starting and ending with it and that is reasonable doubt and hitting very hard throughout his closing argument that there is a lack of a prosecution theory in this case, that the prosecution did not connect the dots. he said, for example, where is the prosecution evidence that trayvon martin was pulling away and george zimmerman was pulling on his shirt. where is one shred of evidence. that's their responsibility. that was his consistent theme throughout. i thought he had wonderful visual aids. a very clear description in particular of each witness with a nice photo and his summary for each one. >> joy ann, your impressions of how mark o'mara did in tying up what their case has been the whole time that george zimmerman was defending himself from an aggressive team. >> i mean it was definitely he went back through sort of recreating the entire defense, line by line, person by person. he definitely did that. and i think what mark o'mara wanted to do was to leave those jurors with the impression that
they, too, might have been afraid of trayvon martin. a lot of his defense hinges on the idea that trayvon martin would have been frightening to a reasonable person and that that's why george zimmerman's self-defense claim makes sense. >> did it show to you at all how much o'mara was bringing up the word sympathy or bringing up emotions and trying to almost be paternal to this all-female jury -- you're women, you're going to be emotional about it, you got to put that at the side. >> he realizes five or six of these jurors are mothers and that trayvon was 17-year-old high school student with snacks, no weapon, walking home from the store and as a mother you expect that your child can walk to the store and come home okay and be safe and not shot and killed by someone. so he wants to address the sympathy head-on and not leave that on the table and say, i know he's 17, i know there's going to be emotion there but don't decide this case on that, decide it on the law. let's see how successful he is at that. >> if you're john guy how do you come out of the gate after this ten-minute recess? where do you want to start with
where mark o'mara left off? >> i think i want is to start with the big picture to try to give the jury a theme to follow which is the reminder to them that, look, you can go back and forth about the little details and the versions of the stories that you hear but at the end of the day this is a 17-year-old child that was killed by one person -- the person in this room that is guilty of killing him and don't you let him walk away from his responsibility. don't you let him walk away from this life. don't you let him walk away because he is not innocent. he is responsible. he kill trayvon martin and it is your responsibility to make sure he's accountable. that's what i would start with. >> we are going to know here in a couple of minutes when the ten-minute break they are taking is over. that's when john guy will give the final closing remarks for the prosecution. he has one hour to do that, then the case will be handed over to the jury where they can decide the guilt or innocence of george zimmerman based on the charge of either second degree murder or manslaughter. i want to thank faith jenkins and joy ann reid who have been sitting by my side, as well as
lisa bloom and paul henderson. "now" with alex wagner is next. stacey: my daughter zoe had her first open heart surgery... when she was only fifteen hours old. handing her over for surgery is the hardest thing i've... ever had to do. before obamacare, insurance companies could put lifetime... caps on your health insurance. once you hit that cap... they don't pay anymore. zoe was half way to her cap before her first birthday. anncr: obamacare ended lifetime caps stacey: thanks to obamacare, we can now afford the care... that zoe needs. and for her, that's a lifesaver. what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'.
[ woman ] hop on over! (announcer) at scottrade, our clto make their money do more.re (ann) to help me plan my next move, i take scottrade's free, in-branch seminars... plus, their live webinars. i use daily market commentary to improve my strategy. and my local scottrade office guides my learning every step of the way. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade... ranked "highest in customer loyalty for brokerage and investment companies." there's a new way to fight litter box odor.
introducing tidy cats with glade tough odor solutions. two trusted names, one amazing product. closing arguments in day 24 of the george zimmerman trial. it's friday, july 12th, and this is "now." the defense in the george zimmerman trial just finished their closing statements. we are now awaiting a rebuttal from the prosecution. following that, the judge will give the jury instructions on making their decision, and deliberation will begin. this morning defense attorney mark o'mara argued that there are too many many unknowns to convict george zimmerman on the charges brought by the prosecution. he asserted that the state had not provided or proved beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. >> i don't think they get to say
to you what do you think? no, no, no. no, no, no. what have i proven to you? what have i convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case, so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt? george zimmerman is not guilty. if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. >> the defense also played a controversial animated video based on zimmerman's deposition. one that the judge had prevented the defense from entering as evidence during the trial. yesterday prosecutor bernie de la rionda -- >> a teenager is dead. he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another man-made