Here's a timeline:

00:00 Media Arguments 11:18 Bond Hearing Starts
14:15 Adam Magill Financial Guy
56:05 O'Mara Moves George's audio and video evidence in
1:00:34 Video where George talks about injuries
1:03:38 O'Mara continues entering evidence regarding George's injuries
1:07:46 Kevin O'Rourke EMT on George's injuries
1:21:15 O'Mara enters George's medical records
1:24:48 O'Mara tries to enter lie detector results
1:26:44 O'Mara Enters Witness Statements #6, #11 and #20
1:37:20 O'Mara Enters Trayvon's Medical Examiner's Report
1:38:30 O'Mara Enters 711 Video Photo's
1:39:21 Adam Vincent Probation Officer
1:44:10 O'Mara Presents and Enters 911 Call with yells
1:51:49 O'Mara calls George's dad to testify
1:57:54 O'Mara Addresses bond issue, tries to get judge to allow George to address the court without being cross examined
2:03:02 O'Mara Arguments
2:17:30 Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda Arguments

I think O'Mara did a pretty good job. He got in a lot of evidence about self-defense. The prosecutor mis-stated some evidence, which the Judge will easily see -- such as that Witness 6 never changed his account as to who was on top during the struggle -- all of his statements say it was Trayvon on top.

What won't be apparent to the judge now, but will be eventually, is that the state doesn't have "witnesses" who observed a chase. The only witness it has disclosed claiming at one time to see a chase, W-2, later retracted, saying she only got a glance and didn't have her contacts in. He didn't even attempt to claim he has a witness who could say who was chasing who -- he said it was his opinion George Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon.

Prosecutor de la Rionda did give out the crux of the state's theory: that Zimmerman wasn't truthful when he said Trayvon tried to smother him, because if Trayvon was smothering him, he wouldn't have been able to scream. (He ignores that Zimmerman said Trayvon removed his hand before reaching for his gun and that Zimmerman said he began crying out for help before Trayvon tried to smother him.) He produced no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's father it was George who was crying out for help.

Prosecutor de la Rionda also admitted yesterday that Trayvon struck Zimmerman. He seems to think it was justified because Zimmerman had profiled him as a criminal. He also thinks Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough for Zimmerman to fear serious bodily injury. And that bald people bleed more than people with hair.

What de la Rionda never addressed: Even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, how he could have extricated himself from the beating or Trayvon's reaching for his gun. So long as Zimmerman's fear was reasonable, and he couldn't extricate himself, he was entitled to respond with lethal force. All these profiling and hot pursuit arguments look destined for the red herring pile.

The 7-11 picture was introduced to show how tall Trayvon was compared to the clerk. The prosecutor's response was it showed the clerk treated Trayvon as a customer not a threat. (Once Trayvon whacked Zimmerman in the nose, how is that relevant to defeating self-defense?)

O'Mara said Zimmerman is looking forward to testifying. Although he didn't say whether it would be at a stand your ground hearing or trial, it seems to me he's leaning towards filing a stand your ground motion.

The state said again yesterday it wasn't going to try its case at the bond hearing. It has never filed a motion asking that Zimmerman be detained based on the Arthur standard that proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great. It has never tried to meet that standard.

Here's a recap on Arthur hearings and Florida bail and pretrial detention laws and procedures.

To me, the state seemed unprepared. De la Rionda probably spent all his time preparing for a cross-examination of Zimmerman, which never happened, and the accountant. And he agreed to let all the evidence from witnesses who support Zimmerman's version into evidence, without putting in evidence of witnesses he thinks refute Zimmerman. His closing argument is not evidence. Why? Either he thought the only issue was respect for the law; he was confident the judge would rule in his favor and Zimmerman would stay in jail pending any appeal; or he knew he was going to lose the bond hearing and really doesn't care, he's just putting on a show for the victims' family and supporters.

The Judge, in revoking bond, wrote in his order:

Furthermore, "[i]f no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained." Art. I. 5 14. Fla. Const.

It is apparent that Shelly Zimmerman testified untruthfully at the bond hearing. The Defendant also testified, but did not alert the Court to the misinformation. Therefore, this Court is authorized to revoke or modify the Defendant's bond.

All the judge was interested in was an explanation for Zimmerman's staying silent at the last bail hearing. He even said to O'Mara, assuming all the other factors go in his favor, he still has that issue. The judge said as he understands it, O'Mara's explanation is that Zimmerman was afraid and confused about what would happen at the bond hearing. O'Mara agreed, his point being that his client had trusted the system before, cooperated in every way, and ended up with the state charging him with second degree murder, trying to deny him bond and imprison him up to life. That made him distrustful of the court and the system.

As to the evidence O'Mara introduced, the Judge made it clear during his closing argument it wasn't necessary for the defense to introduce evidence about the offense. (Translation: they already had that hearing on April 20 and there was no finding the state met its burden under Arthur.) O'Mara deftly responded that the evidence was relevant to the bail factor of weight of the evidence, which the judge had referenced in his order, when he said the state's evidence was strong. The judge also confirmed that at the first hearing, the only evidence before him was the state's affidavit and some testimony. Even though he had read, heard or watched Zimmerman's statements and those of other witnesses, they weren't in evidence for purposes of the bond hearing.

Based on what has been disclosed to date, I see no case on second degree murder. I doubt second degree murder will make it to the jury, even if this judge rejects stand your ground. The manslaughter charge also seems weak at this point, because the self-defense evidence seems strong.

One thing to keep in mind: While O'Mara has the state's second round of discovery, we don't. It's still under redactment review. But since O'Mara seems more confident of the strength of his self-defense claim, I would be surprised if the state has much more than we've seen. And O'Mara said if there's a witness that said Zimmerman "challenged" Trayvon, he hasn't seen it.

Also coming out yesterday: There are more jail calls each side will want to introduce. De La Rionda mentioned the number 30, but how bad can they be if he didn't introduce any at yesterday's hearing? They obviously don't go to deception or obstruction (a point O'Mara made when saying he also would be introducing more jail calls at some point.)

But back to bond, the one thing the judge wanted from yesterday's hearing was a demonstration that Zimmerman properly respects the law and judicial process. I don't think O'Mara gave him that. None of O'Mara's witnesses addressed why he stayed silent or misled the court, and the judge might be thinking, what's to stop him from not respecting the law in the future if he again became confused and scared ?

If the judge wasn't required to consider all the bail factors, I think it's likely he'd conclude he feels the same now as he did on June 1 and deny bond again. He told O'Mara that's what this hearing is about, and I don't think he learned anything on those issues -- other than all the money is accounted for and there's no hidden pot of gold anywhere that came from the website donations.

On the other hand, the Judge said he didn't expect at the April 20 hearing that Zimmerman would stand up and say his wife was lying. He said he could have tugged at O'Mara's sleeve. Nor did he mean on April 20 that Zimmerman would have to testify at yesterday's hearing. He merely said he would give him that opportunity and he absolutely had a right not to testify. Keeping someone in pre-trial detention for what may be a year for failing to tug at his lawyer's sleeve seems excessive, to put it mildly.

At times, it sounded like O'Mara was making a record for appeal, and the Judge was complying, allowing him to introduce evidence he didn't really care to preserve the record. Maybe they all know how this is going to turn out.

At least if bond is denied, O'Mara will have made a good record for his habeas petition, unlike last time, when he was blindsided. And this time, there will be a written order if bond is granted or denied.

Listen to the closing arguments, and take a look at the law on bail in the links above, and let us know who you think made the better case yesterday. I think O'Mara did -- I just think the judge may have wanted more. Even so, I think he'll grant Zimmerman bond, probably on the same conditions as before.