home

Zimmerman Trial: Defense Closing

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:25:22 AM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Mark O'Mara has begun his closing argument for George Zimmerman.

He begins with a chart showing the burden of proof in a self-defense case. I happen to have a similar chart, called The Meaning of a Not Guilty Verdict. Here's what's included: [More...]

A Verdict of Not Guilty Includes:

  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury find that the defendant is absolutely 100% innocent.
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury, cannot be absolutely sure that the defendant is innocent.
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury are confident that the defendant is innocent.
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably innocent. [More...]
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury are not really sure one way or the other if the defendant is guilty or innocent.
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.
  • Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably guilty.
  • We the Jury believe that the defendant is guilty but the evidence falls a little short and we cannot find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

O'Mara, who has no burden of proof says he will prove that his client is 100% innocent. (Pretty risky tactic.)

Here's a thread to discuss O'Mara's closing.

Update: O'Mara gets to his animation. He's explaining each scene to the jury.

< Zimmerman Trial: Court Publishes Final Jury Instructions | George Zimmerman: Jury Begins Deliberations >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Zimmerman Trial: Defense Closing | 195 comments (195 topical)
    4 minutes of silence (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    ... That was interesting...

    Really? Really? Really? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by rcade on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    My Mark O'Mara impersonation.

    Seems a rather flippant tactic. (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:43:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by rcade on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    I thought he'd be better, given his performance up to this point. Aside from him playing John Cage - 4'33", he's been REALLY underwhelming.

    Parent
    Or a Seinfeld fan or just (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Tamta on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    done with stupid?

    Really?

    Parent

    I heard the echo of Don West yesterday (none / 0) (#199)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    in reaction -- "really? really, your honor?" -- to the state's last-minute absurdity, its attempt to add the child abuse charge.

    The jury didn't see that, though, yesterday.  So it would not have been effective as a reminder to them.  But it may have resonated for media, too -- and it is a useful rhetorical gambit to cast doubt.

    Parent

    O'Mara's "lack of passion" or seeming (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    outraged on GZ's behalf - I think he'd be treading a line there. No matter what, we still have a dead 17 year old.

    I think being too passionate might have come off as insensitive. He was much more passionate in his JOA I thought.

    That is probably the prosecution's best point.... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    ... about why the screaming stopped if GZ thought he missed TM or that he was still so in danger to pull out TM's arms after the shot was fired.

    I agree, but it is still just a.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    Just a possibility.  

    Were the earbuds in his ears?  That is not known from what I understand.

    Parent

    I am emotionally exhausted. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    I would not want to be on this jury.

    ... so basically (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    If you think GZ lied, no reasonable doubt? If you think GZ lied, you don't need to know what happened other than TM's dead?

    If you think GZ lied (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    you can find plenty of doubt about his self defense claims, IMO.

    Enough for me to hang a jury? Probably not, when sending a man to prison for life is at stake.

    Parent

    Ruffian, I've come back to your (none / 0) (#112)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    post about ten times. I respect you. You're smart, objective and fair. Can you define "plenty" of doubt? I guess by saying probably not enough to hang a jury you don't mean beyond a reasonable doubt?

    That's what O'Mara tried to point out a lot of the time. If you have ANY doubt it wasn't self-defense, it's not guilty. That's a very very high standard to meet, isn't it?

    Having been on a jury, do you think that point got across to them? The instructions don't explain it that simply.

    Parent

    It is a very high standard, as it should be (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    I was on a jury recently too, so I was trying to imagine how I would be. We spent a lot of time talking about what reasonable means to each one of us. In this case I would not pass O'Mara's first test of believing the self-defense plea. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there were means other than lethal force available to GZ. Could 5 other people could persuade me into reasonable doubt range if they were persuasive? Possible, especially if moving me that way were to keep someone out of jail rather than to send him there. I'm not a huge law and order lock'em up type. And of course being me I would read the instructions a few dozen times.

    After that first hurdle in O'Mara's sequence, I would have to look at the prosecution's case, and I do find reasonable doubt there in the Murder 2, even though I believe their version of events. So I would have to look at the Manslaughter again.

    Overall I would probably have to vote to acquit. NOT because I believe the self defense plea, but because in the end I think I would not find enough evidence to send a guy to jail.

    Parent

    But then you would read the instruction re the (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:19:37 PM EST
    jury is not to consider sentencing.

    BTW:  in my experience, prosecutors usually use a peremptory challenge on engineers.

    Parent

    It depends (none / 0) (#146)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    I got on three juries, and told them (truthfully) I was an engineer (even though I don't know how to spell).  How come three cases?  System had a pool active for three months.  Not a new pool for each trial.  Petit crimes, 6 on a jury.  A most interesting experience, how a jury evolves through familiarity.  The courthouse loses its intimidation factor, and "innocent until PROVEN guilty" starts to wear off.  The second of three cases, two of the jurors had no doubt whatsoever the defendant was guilty, but were slow to say so because there wasn't the equivalent of a movie showing the defendant doing what he was charged with.

    Parent
    I'm an engineer (none / 0) (#154)
    by Slado on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    and the second the defense found out I was sitting in the jury box.

    Probably a good move because it was me that informed the jury I sat on that the prosecutions case had to be thrown out on a jurisdictional issues.

    If I had not been in that jury room I think the guy would have been sent to jail on one of the lesser charges because most of the jurors thought he'd done something and didn't want to let him go.

    I think it's a 50/50 chance that happens to GZ.

    Parent

    I would not be surprised at all by a hung jury (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:23:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Good point! (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    I would take it for granted that finding him guilty means sending him to jail - does even that much fall under considering sentencing? Probably I would still err on the side of not guilty if I found myself truly on the razors edge of reasonable doubt.

    Parent
    Thank you Ruffian. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    I was referring to your recent jury experience. I've never been on one, but was selected for one. It was for the UT (U of Tenn) rapist case. Those brave girls were going to testify.

    I was bothered before it started even. I came to court and they put us in a room and then he took a plea deal. I'm kind of glad I didn't have to hear the details.

    Re: this case. I do think there is reasonable doubt it was self-defense so I'd vote acquit. Like you, I'd err on letting someone go free. I think GZ was a bit of a wimp and bit off more than he could chew. He got his butt beat, was terrified and shot. That's my reason for saying self-defense because it's the law. I don't agree with all the laws. I think they should take guns away from people - it gives people the opportunity to even just mistakenly shoot someone. Or get it taken away and be shot. I don't care for CC laws, or handguns at all. That's the societal issue that bothers me the most about this case. But, I'd follow how I interpret the law here, and like you, I'd ask to sit alone and read those instructions many times with a highligher.

    I don't think GZ is a racist based on his past actions and his family history. I think he was a scared person - break ins were happening and he took a wrong action that many people take. (The gun, not shooting TM I mean)

    Parent

    and thank you for that! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    I do respect your opinions too and have been reading them especially!

    Parent
    Doubt? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Irate Scientist on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    I think you have this backwards. GZ is not required to prove BRD that he was defending himself. The State is required to prove BRD that he was NOT defending himself.

    I have to sympathize with Mark O'Mara. The State has not even presented a coherent theory of what they believe took place that night, let alone proven BRD that their theory is correct. Nelson should have directed for acquittal, but of course, she is not going to take that one on.  

    Parent

    We are saying the same thing, just in the (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    inverse way, as O'Mara pointed out. The state has to prove BRD that he was NOT defending himself. I think they did. I think my doubts that he was defending himself are reasonable. YMMV.

    Parent
    Finally someone makes that point.... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    Why would TM lead GZ to his home, when GZ didn't want to so much as give out his address when he thought TM could hear him?

    He had (none / 0) (#95)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    4 minutes.  Plenty of time to get in the house, lock the doors, call the cops.

     Instead he continues to talks to Dee Dee and waits by the T

    Parent

    I couldn't listen to guy (3.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    Although I think he has great style,no moral compass totryandsend someone to jail for getting out of their car

    Curious if he offered any explantation for where trayvon was during the 4 minutes when it appears he was hiding befor attacking Zimmerman

    Parent

    Just that during that time TM was (none / 0) (#100)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    living every child's worst nightmare - having a stranger follow them home. He didn't say why he didn't go.

    Parent
    If you're talking about John Guy, he said that TM (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    was probably afraid and didn't want GZ to follow him home because the only other person there was his soon to be step-brother, Chad.

    Parent
    Oh Angel, yes you're right (none / 0) (#118)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    I remember that now. Thank you!

    Parent
    So where And what was he doing for four minutes (none / 0) (#133)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    Did the prosecution have anything to say about it?


    Parent
    It Was Too Dark for Zimmerman to See Martin (none / 0) (#202)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:04:19 PM EST
    Martin had four minutes to get home in a moonless back yard area between two rows of two story houses maybe 50-60 feet apart.  A witness said only one porch light was on.  There is no way that Zimmerman could have seen him go to Brandy Green's house.  Zimmerman needed his tiny keychain flashlight to navigate the top of the T which was slightly better lit.  Even though O'Mara mentioned the darkness in his closing several times, he failed to mention it in conjunction with the 4 minutes.  That allowed Guy's cheap shot.

    Parent
    child? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by reasonableperson on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    A full grown 17-year-old is not the kind of "child" who watches afterschool specials warning "don't talk to strangers" and "look both ways before crossing the street".  Let's give Trayvon Martin credit for the intelligence and maturity typical of someone that age, unless there is some reason to think he was deficient.

    Parent
    re: 4 minutes (none / 0) (#152)
    by dms on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    guy never did address this in closing. he simply wanted to know why it took gz 2 minutes to walk back to his truck.

    Parent
    He addressed it (none / 0) (#153)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    Guy said something about Martin being afraid, and not knowing it was going to be the last minutes of his life.

    Parent
    Martin was reluctant to tell the person on the ot. (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:01:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Let the defendant "get back to his life" (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by esmense on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    Really struck me as a terrible choice of words. It reminds everyone that their is a dead 17 year who no longer has a life. A human being is dead. Believe that Zimmerman should be found "no quilty" does not, should not, mean that he is a victim. Yet, that is what the defense is saying. When you kill someone, you should expect to have to make a legal (and to the community and those who loved that person a moral) accounting of why you took that life. In this case, a life that no evidence at all shows was anything other than innocent.

    innocent? (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by reasonableperson on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    Plenty of evidence showing that Trayvon Martin violently attacked George Zimmerman for looking at him funny.

    Parent
    What trial have you been watching?? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    eom

    Parent
    probably (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    not watching much at all.  

    Parent
    Jeralyn's post that the prosecution.... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:12:30 PM EST
    sandbagged for the real argument to be made in rebuttal turned out to be what happened in fact, though I don't think the prosecution originally intended to suck in its main closing.

    After today, I will be surprised but not stunned to see a conviction. I thought the "why would GZ lie this many times about this many things if he wasn't guilty?" presentation was about as good as the prosecution could do to get a conviction.

    That is their only evidence pretty (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    much magster, even though the police called them minor and to be totally consistent would indicate lying to them.

    But, like you, I won't be shocked at all with a manslaughter verdict.

    I think they'll successfully appeal it because they brought out GZ's fighting "ability" and the judge prevented them, as allowed by case law, from showing TM's propensity for fighting and seemed to be pretty good at it. She handcuffed them in their defense and lots of attorneys in FL said per case law, that's reversible error.

    Do most people stay in prison during long appeals?

    Parent

    Sounds from comments here that case is slam-dunk (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    for the defense.  

    Minority opinion, but I'm not seeing things that way.

    Not slam dunk at all (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by star on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    If jury decides based on emotion like state is hoping they would, then there will be a conviction . But if they decide to concentrate on reasonable doubt and the fact that other than throwing back more questions, state really have very little proof to all their contentions,then yes there will be acquittal.
    Now Jury is made of real people, with some reason ,some emotion so can never assume slam dunk until they actually pass the verdict.
    IMO , there is very little report on jury reaction etc to hazard a guess which way jury will go.

    Parent
    Now that is demeaning (none / 0) (#169)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    So this is what you are saying:

    • If the jury decides guilty, they are emotional and are not judging the facts.

    • If they set him free, they were looking at the facts unemotionally.

    Why not just say "if they see it my way they are right and if they don't agree with me, they are wrong"?

    I don't care how many hours of trial anyone outside of the courtroom watched.  The jury is the only group that has experienced this trial without the side discussions and ongoing commentary from pro-defense (and pro-prosecution) sites and taken in the case in the way that they have.

    It is highly insulting for those outside to claim to know better so definitively, and I say that even as someone who thinks Martin is guilty but also thinks the jury will let him off.

    So many commenters here are so certain that there is no way any rational person applying the law can come to a guilty verdict, but there is a reason that jurors don't hear the evidentiary discussion, read crime blogs, etc.

    Only they are really in position to determine whose facts are correct.


    Parent

    Freudian slip? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    It is highly insulting for those outside to claim to know better so definitively, and I say that even as someone who thinks Martin is guilty but also thinks the jury will let him off.



    Parent
    You have an error in your comment (none / 0) (#172)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    that you might want to fix.

    I would add that the jury also sees a lot of evidence that we don't see, so we cannot judge their judgment on the entirety of the evidence.

    Parent

    My bad (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    I meant Zimmerman of course, but you get my point.

    They have a jury in the courtroom and not watching on TV or streaming online for a reason.  They have discussions that we can hear but the jury can't for a reason.  They ask the jury to weigh the credibility of opposing witnesses for a reason.

    It is a very dangerous thing to invalidate the supremacy of the jury in the way it is being done here.  Our system depends on respecting their judgment.

    If Zimmerman gets off, I have to concede that the state did not prove their case and reasonable doubt exists. I expect the same respect for the jury if they disagree with the assessment of Jeralyn and the majority of commenters on this site.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    and I am learning a lot from watching the trial as well as watching some wildly wrong statements here, as I have jury duty again next week.

    So, you can bet that I am grateful for the time -- and from all reports, the seriousness -- that these jurors have given, and I also intend to respect their decision.  Respect is not the same as agreement, of course, but even disagreement need not preclude respectful discussion.

    Parent

    WHAT??? (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    "It is a very dangerous thing to invalidate the supremacy of the jury in the way it is being done here."

    I have no idea what you are saying here; nobody here has "invalidated the supremacy of the jury" nor do they have the power to even if they so desired. Jeebus.

    Parent

    Other way around (none / 0) (#173)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    We've seen more evidence than the jury has.  The court has deprived the jury of evidence, based on its rulings.

    You can play juror at home, if you've watched the trial, you have almost everything the jury has.  You may be missing the police reports that indicate a (according to O'Mara) rash of burglaries at RTL, and the autopsy photos, but you have all of the argument.

    Parent

    Nope. Media have restricted (none / 0) (#177)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    us from seeing many of the photos, for example.  One now is online that could have major impact.

    Yes, I have watched the trial.  Yes, I have read the police reports and have seen the photos (I have been on TalkLeft for years).  But no, you and I have not necessarily seen all that the jury sees, as is evident from the leak of the photo and media commentary.    

    Parent

    Evidence wise? (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:38:39 PM EST
    Having watched every minute, it is a slam dunk. What happened prior to the meeting at the T doesn't matter, per law (though I understand the emotional outrage that can come from that).

    Do I think the verdict is a slam dunk? Not at all. I think manslaughter or hung jury is a very good possiblity. I don't care what the jury said pre-trial, they know the societal issues, too, not just the evidence they've seen, or not seen, in court.

    Parent

    I'm going to have to start (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    muting Sunny Hostin - best closing she's ever seen. Jury never took their eyes off him.

    I didn't know that was evidence, but ok.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    Everything they do is magical to her. I hope CNN dumps her. she thought the BDLR masterful. Trayvons family elegant. she believes murder 2 will be the verdict.  The other legal experts got into with her saying she is bringing her own issues to the discussion,- it was great!

    Parent
    they got into it with her? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:51:59 PM EST
    Oh I wish I had seen that!  

    Parent
    She took great offense (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    That another legal expert said that jurors couldn't relate  to rachel who couldnt read cursive.  Her reaction was as if he was elitist or racist.  He replied that she is just bringing her own personal issues in, to which geragos  agreed

    Parent
    Haven't refreshed yet to see if (none / 0) (#134)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    anyone commented on this yet. Watch AC360 tonight at 8:00 and then an hour special at 10:00 (EDT). Garagos and Danny Cevallas(sp) (who is the best legal analyst I've seen, teaches at Drexel).

    They flat out told her last night she's bringing her own emotions and issues to this case and is blinded by the facts (or lack of). Jeffry Toobin is supposed to balance it out by being the prosecution expert, but though the case bothers him, he thinks there's plenty of reasonable doubt. He thinks the jury might come back manslaughter due to the death of a kid, though. I think that's possible.

    Parent

    The media also see what we don't see (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    that the jury does see, and Toobin may know the impact of the photos of Martin dead on the ground -- very much a kid, and a kid not dressed like a burglar but in light-colored khakis.  One got on MSNBC and now is online, and its impact is strong.

    I also saw the shoutdown last night, and it was deserved; that commenter has not contributed a thing.)

    Parent

    Wolf Blitzer was asking her tonight (none / 0) (#206)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    if it was illegal for GZ to follow TM and she couldn't even concede that it was not illegal.  She kept saying that depended on what was in his mind and heart or some such nonsense.
    I think she is shooting for a full time gig on BET TV or something.  There has to be more to this story.  She can't know less about the law that the average person on this web site.  She is supposed to be an expert.

    Parent
    She said Guy "had the jury at hello" (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    And that MOM didn't have much to work with his closing. She is like a teenage groupie enamored with the prosecution. Can't CNN  do better?

    Parent
    yeah, (none / 0) (#207)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    I think that is about the time she said all the had was "reasonable doubt".....HUH?   lol, somebody should have done a spit take.  

    Parent
    Hostin has been.... (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    ....claiming she was looking in the jurors' eyes and knows what they are thinking and feeling the whole trial. She is like Kreskin or something I guess.

    Parent
    What do people think about.....? (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    .... about the prosecution's race argument, and the implication that if it had been TM following GZ that there'd be a conviction and daring the jury to prove to the world that they're racists by letting GZ off?

    That was kind of a "wow" moment in the rebuttal.

    Even if that were true (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    which I don't concede, it doesn't change the presented evidence that GZ acted in self-defense.  

    Parent
    It was offensive (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    it was race baiting and it was something I would not have expected.  I think it is asking for trouble from the public.

    Parent
    Sounds offensive to me (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:59:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I wouldn't have gone there.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:01:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Me neither (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    To me, it sounds like an implicit threat to the jury..."Find him guilty, or YOU must be racist."

    AND

    "Think of the unrest in the community and harassment you personally may receive if you do not find him guilty."

    Parent

    Sheriff gave a GREAT (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    news confernene. NOW the new police chief is saying stuff about things (injustices) from way in the past, etc.

    Wow, he's playing the race card. Downing the police dept from last year. I hope the old Chief gets lots of money from that town.

    Jury has requested something (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    already.

    ABG, I'm sorry I made you mad above. I respect you more than you realize. Very very much. We disagree on that one witness, but I respect your view a lot.

    He meant in the physical fight (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    that the prosecution wants the jury to believe GZ started and participated in.  Are you really outraged about that? Or are you looking for insult? Because he is defending his client just as he is supposed to do.

    We must all be glued to watching.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    Comments will flood once there is a recess.  Thanks Jeralyn!

    I think his best argument is what (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    happened once the fight started, not the 4 minutes before...is he saying TM "must have been thinking" he was going to attack GZ?

    Also enough time for GZ to find the address and (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    get back to his truck.  

    Parent
    zimmerman (none / 0) (#24)
    by morphic on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    was on the phone. When the dispatcher suggested he not do that, there was no wind noise, heavy breathing, just a conversational tone of voice. It's obvious Zimmerman was just standing there, talking to the dispatcher.

    Parent
    And of course (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    No proof that GZ followed TM after that point.

    Parent
    not easy (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by morphic on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    to follow someone with a four minute head start. What happened during the two minutes before the confrontation can be in dispute, but Usian Bolt couldn't have made up the difference, if Trayvon just went home.

    Parent
    No proof he didn't. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:04:03 AM EST


    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    No proof he didn't = not guilty.

    Parent
    GZ's statements are contradictory on that point. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    I believe GZ followed TM.  You believe he didn't.  But it's what the jury believes that matters.

    Parent
    And as MOM (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    so deftly explained, since the state can't PROVE GZ followed Martin, by definition, that is reasonable doubt.  The jury, if they are paying attention, cannot come to any other conclusion.

    Parent
    O'Mara even just used "stalking" (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    of Zimmerman to describe Martin's movements.  

    That's a strikingly strong term to use.  It may work from him, with his quiet manner.  Imagine if it had come from the screeching closer yesterday.

    Parent

    If they believe GZ when he said in one interview (none / 0) (#34)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    that he followed TM then that's the proof they need.  I'm not going to argue with you further.

    Parent
    no, that's not the proof they need (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    following isn't confronting, and isn't assaulting.  Rather than "following in the same direction", as BDLR mocked, GZ clearly says he was following in the same direction to see where he went, not to pursue Trayvon.

    Parent
    Not remotely true (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    The charges (and the prosecution's theory) are not dependent upon GZ continuing to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised against it.

    Parent
    No, not dependant (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    But that is certainly what they have argued and implied, and no amount of disingenuous twisting by you changes that.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    they are dependent on things like, you know, actual evidence.

    Parent
    They are (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    ... like Zimmerman's own words to the dispatcher where he acknowledged following Zimmerman.

    Your claim, OTOH, was that "No proof he didn't (follow him) = not guilty" and "since the state can't PROVE GZ followed Martin, by definition, that is reasonable doubt".  That's simply false.  Following Martin (or, more accurately, continuing to follow Martin, is not an element of the offense.  The jury could easily conclude - regardless of whether they believe Zimmerman continued to follow Martin - that the shooting was not legally justified.

    Parent

    I didn't say it was the whole case (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    But if a juror has questions about a major part of the state's assertions, then they also could questions about other parts of the state's case.

    As they probably should because there are enough holes in the state's case to drive a Mack truck through.

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    And yet, there is nothing in 4 minutes of time, including no wind in the phone, to indicate that Zimmerman continued to follow.

    No evidence.

    Parent

    There doesn't need to be (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    As we've already established, continuing to follow him isn't an element of the charge.  Moreover, there is evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin - Zimmerman's own words.  As far as whether Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, the jury would be free to accept Zimmerman's explanation that he forgot the name of the street he was on (who's name he had just given to the dispatcher) and that he spent those 4 minutes walking through to get the name of the next street  - the one he lived on - or (later) a house number.  They are also free to believe Zimmerman's claim that he stumbled forward approximately 40 ft. after punched by Martin at the "T".

    OTOH, the jury is also free to disbelieve these claims and look at the other evidence.  They are free to believe that Zimmerman's own statements indicate his belief that Martin was a criminal and was going to "get away".  They are free to disbelieve his claim that he was looking for a street sign/house number and returning to his truck during those same 4 minutes.  They are free to look at his statements during those 4 minutes (i.e. "I don't know where this kid is") and conclude that he was still trying to locate Martin.

    They are also free to look at Zimmerman's inconsistent statements regarding the start of the confrontation and draw their own conclusions.  Did the fight start at the "T" when Martin approached him and punched him in the nose, sending him stumbling 40 ft. forward, as Zimmerman claimed on his walkthrough?  Or did the fight start as Zimmerman said in 3 prior (consistent) statements, with Martin jumping out of the bushes, punching him in the nose, whereupon he immediately fell backward and Martin got on top of him.  There are no bushes at the "T", but there are some along the walkway south of the "T".  The struggle and the body were 40 ft. south of the "T".  So it will be up to the jury to decide whether to believe Zimmerman's first three (consistent) statements re: how the confrontation started, which would place it @ 40 ft. south of the "T" near the body and the bushes, or his subsequent, less specific statement during the walkthrough.  All of which is, of course, ...

    ... evidence.

    BTW - Your wind theory might make sense if you believe that the cessation of the wind noise meant that Zimmerman stopped moving a few seconds after leaving his car.  This doesn't make sense, though, since Zimmerman himself said he continued walking to RVC to see a street sign/house number and was returning to his truck.  In theory, a sudden wind could have died down, but that wouldn't explain why his breathing became heavy and his voice wobbled a few seconds after he left his car, then returned to normal a few seconds after the dispatcher advised him not to follow Martin and the wind noise stopped.

    Oh, well - another evidentiary issue for the jury to decide.

    Parent

    no I think he's saying he had more than enough (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    time to go home.

    Parent
    Dunno about that 4-minute mile thing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    Real people don't run 4-minute miles.  If anyone on the jury knows that, the defense's "plenty of time" argument is dead.

    Parent
    Only if it's a mile to home (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    OTOH, the jury heard from Chad, that Chad can throw a football from where Martin was headed to ("home") to the T, where the fight started.

    Even people who can't run a four minute mile can probably make it 100 yards in a fraction of one minute.

    O'Mara had a number of clunkers or clinkers or whatever you want to refer to them as, like the four minute mile being a common feat.  So, does that mean Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

    Parent

    17 year old footballer players do (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by lily on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    daily at practice

    Parent
    Wide receivers, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    but I find sports metaphors unwise with this jury.

    Parent
    This is simply wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Belswyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    There are only five high-school age males in the U.S. who have run a four minute mile. The last one did it in 2011.

    Football players are sprinters; few if any run 4 minute miles, which are middle distances.

    Parent

    4 minute mile (none / 0) (#168)
    by dms on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    A mile is 5,280 feet. the distance from t(sidewalk) to where tm was staying was 450 feet. tm could have almost crawled home in 4 minutes. Do the math.

    Parent
    Seemed an odd way to lead into the break (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    planting the idea of what TM "must have been thinking". I would think the would leave their last thought be a piece of something solid, or at least getting into GZ's head rather than TM's.

    Guess that is why I'm an engineer...very literal minded!

    Parent

    Hi fellow engineer! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    But I didn't have the same take as you did.

    Parent
    I just get hung up on words (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    like what someone "must" have been thinking. And I know it is what they have to do, the way the arguments are made to tell the story..they say it is bad for the opposing attorney to tell the jury what was in their client's head, but perfectly fine for them to say wqaht "must" have been in the victim's head.

    Parent
    So, if I understand, he said this will (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:02:25 AM EST
    drive every defense attorney crazy, and though I have to prove nothing, the state does, I'm going to prove GZ's innocence?

    Is that about right? Do you think he'll tie it up with what he has to prove vs what the state does? And did the state present anything beyond a reasonable doubt this isn't what happened? If they didn't you have to find him NG?

    That's what I took from it anyway. (I think Guy will use those 4 minutes in some way - those were the last minutes of TM's life).

    He'd better spend at least the last half hour or somewhere in there discussing manslaughter and "intent". That, to me, is most important.

    Teresa: Your favorite reporter (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    Kathi Belich, WFTV @KBelichWFTV
    The state does not look happy and neither do the Martins. We are in break. #Zimmermanon9


    Parent
    She also said that yesterday (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    very little note taking. Today, lots of note taking.

    Parent
    Did not see the tweet, but heard from a TH (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    that she also tweeted that jurors taking a LOT of notes today...  they were not taking notes during BDLR's close.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    One juror apparently has 4 legal pads!

    Parent
    Focus is on self defense (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    The "intent" element of manslaughter is trivial, and exists in this case.  The only way to beat manslaughter, in this case, is with justified use of deadly force.  That's is where O'Mara is focused, and should be focused.

    The state has to disprove the justified use of force, and it has to do so beyond a reasonable doubt.  The facts of this case are so out of rig with what they would be if the charge was justified (it wasn't, and isn't - this is a political trial, the evidence doesn't even provide probable cause), that the defense can argue that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's use of force was justified.

    He'll revisit the contrast between what he is trying to do now, and what the state's burden is, before he concludes.  On a spectrum of certainty as to innocence/guilt, he'll show that his argument produces a conclusion at the innocence end - but even if the conclusion budges from there, it does not swing it clear to the other end of the guilt spectrum.

    Self defense defeats manslaughter.  It's the only way to defeat manslaughter.

    Parent

    You explained perfectly what (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:18:25 AM EST
    I was thinking but couldn't verbalize. I do think, though, that he needs to emphasize A LOT that self-defense means no manslaughter. That seems to be where so many people, outside those six people, think it may go and he needs to prevent that.

    He needs reemphasize, ASSUMPTIONS. The state should not ever even mention assumptions.

    Parent

    Aaargh, someone came into my office during (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    the animation. Did he say how they got from the T to where the body was found?

    From what I saw, no... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:57:11 AM EST
    The animation jumped from the "T" to where John Good saw them on his back lawn.  I think O'Mara stated something about this but I, too, was distracted at this point.

    Parent
    not just not guilty (none / 0) (#7)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    I think O'Mara is demonstrating BOTH that the state has not proven its case against Zimmerman AND that the evidence proves Zimmerman's version of why he was justified. Yes, it's a risk, but given all the testimony, very reasonable.  It will also, I hope, diffuse some of the misplaced outrage.

    Nothing will defuse the outrage (3.00 / 2) (#23)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    short of a conviction.  I'm not saying a conviction is warranted here, I'm just saying that I know where the outrage comes from and it's not a place that can be reached by anything the defense has to say short of a video of what actually happened that night.

    In my opinion, in these kinds of cases, there are 3 levels of culpability:

    1.  Actually responsible for the death - here we have that because no one is disputing that GZ shot and killed TM.

    2.  Legally responsible for the death - (what we are all waiting to hear from the judge and jury on).  I haven't reached a conclusion on this yet and am very interested in some of the back and forth discussion here about it.

    3.  Morally responsible for the death - I recognize this is only my standard and no one else's.  That said, I find difficult to take much stock in the arguments of those who believe GZ is not legally responsible because he acted in self defense when those people also want to portray GZ as solely the victim and TM as solely the perpetrator.  I think what happened is more complicated than that and I appreciate those on either side who acknowledge it.


    Parent
    excuses (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by reasonableperson on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    It seems like this is the new tack taken by those who don't want to admit they were WRONG from the get-go, jumped to conclusions and joined the lynch mob against this innocent man.

    Actually responsible for the death: Trayvon Martin, because all the evidence shows that he would not have died if he hadn't violently attacked George Zimmerman.

    Legally responsible for the death: Trayvon Martin, because by violently attacking George Zimmerman he gave Zimmerman the right to use his firearm to defend himself.

    Morally responsible for the death: Trayvon Martin, for violently attacking George Zimmerman.

    "It's complicated" is just a way to avoid admitting you were wrong the whole time.

    Parent

    I assume then (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:18:06 AM EST
    that your handle is meant to be ironic.  Go on believing what you believe.  It is clear that you need to.  

    Unless you happened to have been there that night (in which case, shouldn't you be in the courtroom?), nothing you said has any proof, but you know that.  It is just as easy for me to say that Trayvon would not have died had GZ stayed in his car.  My point about this being more complicated still holds.  

    Parent

    "it is clear you need to" (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:14:31 PM EST
    here we go with the personal insults hiding inside amateur psychoanalysis.  
    So nice of you to be aware of what everyone needs.

    There is nothing complicated about this.  The law is clear. The case is simple.  The media and the town big shots bullied the police in to arresting and making a case against Zimmerman.  Then there was a mob mentality.  A lot of people got all riled up and joined the mob.  Since the case went to court it has not gone as planned and people are getting their balloons burst.  Now it seems complicated....but it is not.  It's just cognitive dissonance you are all experiencing.
    I wonder how TM's family feel about Crump Inc dumping them over the whole "who is that screaming" argument?  I wonder how they feel about the prosecution conceding that it was Trayvon on top doing the beating?  

    Parent

    proof? (none / 0) (#64)
    by reasonableperson on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    The proof is the evidence presented at trial.

    Parent
    Ah, I'm not alone! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    That's what I thought, too, and why he said it would drive defense attorneys crazy.

    He can't prove that 100%, but he doesn't have to.

    Parent

    What is this 10 20 life thing? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    What is this 10 20 life thing?

    Additional required sentence due (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:19:43 AM EST
    to the gun. I don't know how one chooses between the three.

    Parent
    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    Also -- OT, but read your posts last night.  I feel for you and hang in there!

    Parent
    10, 20, life (none / 0) (#209)
    by AghastinFL on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Cashmere here is an abstract regards sentencing guidelines

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    (Not sure if these are exact words - reading a live blog):

    O'MARA: GZ walking back to car. TM, 4 minutes, doing something.  We don't know what.

    Powerful.

    O'Mara says there's 2 scenarios based on.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    ... screaming, it's either TM or GZ. If it's TM, murder.

    Pretty risky argument if the jurors believed TM's mom over GZ's mom.

    Reasonable doubt... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    Even if they lean towards one over the other, they must admit there is reasonable doubt there.

    Parent
    Overconfidence? (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:19:59 AM EST
    Not arrogance, but there seems to be a lack of fear on O'Mara's part that the jurors might not draw the same "obvious" conclusions he has. E.g: "The state would have you believe TM leaned back all of a sudden after having leaned forward for about 45 seconds fighting. Absurd!"  

    If GZ pulled a gun, it's not absurd.

    Not a big deal in isolation, but it doesn't seem like there's a respect to what a "lean prosecution" juror might have going through her mind.

    After Bernie's shrieking yesterday (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    MOM seems much cooler and in control

    Parent
    I agree. I'm looking at argument critically (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    and picking nits because it's MOM's case to lose.

    Parent
    I appreciate O'Mara's manner (none / 0) (#44)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    even more after the screeching yesterday; I had to turn it off, at times.

    A reporter on CNN who was in the courtroom yesterday said that she had not noticed the screeching, though, so perhaps that was just one of those voices not ready for prime time and fine with the jury.

    Parent

    CNN and screeching (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    CNN reports may be accustomed to the likes of Nancy Grace, hence are incapable of characterizing any manner of speech as "shrieking."

    Parent
    I am hearing impaired but I did have the volume (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    turned up when I listened to the prosecutor deliver the closing argument yesterday--the first hour. I did not hear him scream and thought he was very professional and competent.

    Parent
    Swear to God, oculus (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    First hour, I though BDLR did pretty well, especially with his presentation. He got pretty wound up after that and it was a main topic on TV last night about his shouting.

    Parent
    Someone else on the tele yesterday said (none / 0) (#47)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    DeLaRonda sounded like Walter Brennan.  

    Parent
    Bernie looks sick to his stomach... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    eom

    MOM (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    If you think GZ MAY have acted in self-defense, you get to stop right there.

    Parent
    Unimportant point.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    The computer tablet has replaced the legal pad for an attorney arguing to a jury. Looks kinda cool for MOM to hold a tablet while standing in front of jury box.

    But so much walking around to retrieve exhibits, (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    which could have all been scanned and projected from that notebook.

    Parent
    The "downtime" (none / 0) (#51)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    Gives the jury processing time.

    Parent
    Or time to think of something unrelated to (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    the trial.  

    Parent
    from their attentiveness (none / 0) (#59)
    by goddessoftheclassroom on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    I think he kept their attention.

    Parent
    It was a powerpoint that didn't work (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:02:37 AM EST


    Parent
    I called that one! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    The four minutes

    (Guy is doing well. Playing on emotions)

    He keeps asking questions (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    Like "If X happened...."

    Um, Mr. Guy, IF you are asking questions and not answering them, that's called "reasonable doubt".

    Parent

    If I was in the jury, I would be turned off by Guy (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    right now...  Any tweets that you have seen re: the jury reaction(s) yet?

    Parent
    Circled car-that happened while still (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    on phone and before he got out and before TM ran away. (Assuming it happened)

    Reasonable doubt (none / 0) (#73)
    by star on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    I have so much reasonable doubt simply listening to Guy...even with out looking at any evidence.He has only questions and innuendo for the Jury.

    This guy is better than his colleague.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    I think the list of lies presentation is pretty effective.

    For me, it's of a piece with the (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:05:31 PM EST
    whole thing that happened with the George/Shellie jailhouse conversations, the moving around of money, the we-have-no-money assertions.  I thought that whole thing was shady and it was what made me doubt that events had happened the way GZ claimed.

    Parent
    effective, yes (none / 0) (#77)
    by reasonableperson on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    I agree that it's effective emotional suasion but unless Zimmerman is being charged with lying to the police it's really improper.  He's trying to make Zimmerman a "bad guy" without addressing the facts that determine guilt or innocence.

    Parent
    Rachel (none / 0) (#76)
    by star on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    It is prosecution that has continually demeaned that poor girl..MOM was rather respectful when he mentioned her.

    Guy looks like one of my brothers (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    I used to pick him up and shut him out of the living room when he was being a brat.  So far Guy is on shaky ground.  

    I don't like Mark Nejame (none / 0) (#89)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    but he just blasted them a little for totally playing to the emotion of women. He said it's demeaning to expect them not to be able to decide a case riddled with reasonable doubt, just becaue they're (the women jury) emotional.

    good for him then (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    I too find it insulting.  From what little I have heard about them, they sound like an interesting group, several business owners and professionals I think.

    Parent
    Has anyone ever proven the meme, that (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    women are more emotional than men?  Isn't it more likely just a pile of dismissive b/s men tell themselves so they can feel better about their own emotional decisions?

    Parent
    no one has ever proven it (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    I think maybe some women handle emotion differently than some men. Society used to give women more permission to cry etc...

    Parent
    Demeaning (none / 0) (#94)
    by star on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    is what I felt too.. He was clearly playing to their emotion, assuming women are capable or thinking only emotionally. He did not add a shred of evidence or present any conclusion with conviction that Travon was not the aggressor in those last few moments,nor did he have any thing for the jurors that Zimm did not have reason to fear for his life. only plain emotional drama. I am sure the drama loving media will lap it up..I hope the jury will see through the evidence objectively.

    Parent
    Media: (none / 0) (#106)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    McDreamy had them in their hands.

    O'Mara - "oh, did he speak today"?

    Parent

    Playing to women, or playing to.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    THOSE women. Might have worked unless this reporter is full of beans.

    Parent
    I read that on twitter (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    It was emotional to listen to. I'd have to get a grip on myself and read that instruction over and over about taking emotion out of my decision.

    I don't envy them.

    I tell you magster, this country shames me sometimes. We are supposed to be civilized. Does any other civiled country think it's ok for every single citizen who wants one, can carry a hidden gun? Or a gun at all? We are backwoods - guns, death penalty, etc. That part of our country doesn't make me proud.

    (Sunny just said O'Mara is a very good attorney, but he just didn't have anything to work with. Jeez almighty, what is she watching??)

    Parent

    Playing to emotion (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    is a tactic long used by attorneys and isn't only used to sway women.  Men have emotions too--particularly fathers when a minor is involved. That said, it can be a very risky tactic because it can backfire if you lay it on too thick and a juror feels that he or she is being emotionally manipulated.  That can lead to that juror acting in the exact opposite way you want them to.

    Parent
    Do any of the jurors have teenage kids? (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:28:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't know if that's known. (none / 0) (#150)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    They keep saying that 5 out of the 6 are married and that their ages range from 30-60, so it's possible that some have teen-aged kids.

    Parent
    B29 (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    Is Hispanic and has "several children", but I don't know if any are teenagers.

    It is not clear (from this report, at least) if any of the others are mothers.

    Parent

    I think I heard that most are mothers (none / 0) (#162)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    from some commentator or other.

    I also just saw just one of the many photos that the jurors see and that we do not see, except that MSNBC put it up "in error," allegedly, and it is now online.  It's a photo of Martin, dead on the ground.  He looks like a kid -- and a kid in preppy khakis (not dark clothing as would be expected, say, of a burglar).  That photo has major impact.

    It was a reminder that jurors use their eyes and ears, and their brains, no matter their lady parts.

    Parent

    What I thought was odd (none / 0) (#160)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    was the Defense playing the role of the Prosecutors by dealing with facts in evidence and the Prosecutors playing the role of Defense and using emotion, not facts to the jury.

    What can I say.  This whole case seems flip-floppy.  Opinion only.  IANAL.

    Parent

    Manslaughter (none / 0) (#119)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    Since the defense isn't allowed to let the jury know that a manslaughter conviction carries a possible 30-year term, O'Mara should've been more diligent about stressing not guilty on ALL charges. I expected him to hammer that, along with not convicting on a lesser charge to split the difference.

    He told them (none / 0) (#125)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    self-defense covers any charge from littering to 2nd Degree.

    Parent
    I thought he was pretty effective on that (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    and even giving them the easy route to a short deliberation. If they all believe the self defense case, they are done.

    Parent
    I thought was great (none / 0) (#129)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    And hope they latch onto that

    Parent
    Question: (none / 0) (#128)
    by me only on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    If they do not decide today, do they remain sequestered all weekend?

    They hold the key to their own jail (none / 0) (#142)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    The jurors are sequestered until they render a verdict.

    Parent
    I kind of hope (none / 0) (#145)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    they do not render a verdict until Monday at the earliest--particularly if it will be an acquittal.  Late Friday would be the worse possible time for an acquittal to come out.  Not great commentary about our society--but it's the truth.  

    Parent
    If they reach a verdict on Sunday (none / 0) (#156)
    by me only on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    do they turn it in and go home?

    Parent
    I think so (none / 0) (#191)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:11:30 PM EST
    My question is: Can they deliberate on Saturday?  

    Parent
    My understanding is yes (none / 0) (#193)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    ...and that is usually the case with sequestered juries. They sometimes go into the night fairly long too so long as there are people to keep the courthouse open.

    Parent
    I wonder how the alternates (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    feel after devoting their life to this for 3 weeks plus jury selection? Really let down, I'd bet.

    TeresainPA - I wrote you a long post but yours on guns disappeared. I won't repeat it, but I want to say I understand and don't think you're some gun-toting danger to society. I have family in the same situations.

    Does anyone expect a verdict tonight? The analyst on Ch 9 down there thinks it's very possible.

    I think it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    While I have every faith the jurors will take the utmost care in deliberations, they are also human beings who have been sequestered for over a week.  It's Friday, and if they take an initial vote and are close, I don't see it going past tonight.

    That being said, there could be jurors who are having the same heated arguments we've had around here and then it could take a while, especially if they want to consider manslaughter.

    Parent

    Heh, yes, that was... (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    ...my same thought JB. VERY reasonable people have VERY different takes on this case, both as a whole, and sub-parts of it. Suppose they are as polarized inside as we are outside? Ugh.

    It is my experience that six member juries are much quicker than 12 member ones, for obvious reasons. But, in fairness, here in my jurisdiction I only get six member juries on misdemeanors, and they are also just much simpler cases to decide than the felonies where there are 12 member juries. So, I have no real idea how long it will take. Trying to guess what juries are doing or thinking will drive you crazy.

    Parent

    MOM (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    Apparently just told his wife (who is sitting in the gallery) that he expects them to go until 8 or 9 tonight before break or verdict.

    Parent
    Has the court indicated whether the jurors (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    will be able to deliberate on the weekend if no verdict today?

    Parent
    Yes, I believe they will (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    According to the lawyers on Legal Insurrection.

    As an aside, when a verdict is reached, the court's Public Information Officer will tweet at @PIOFLCourts18


    Parent

    Hi Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    thank you.  

    Parent
    Why did O'Mara do the closing? Isn't (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    West the very experienced trial lawyer?

    re: (none / 0) (#180)
    by dms on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    would it have sounded better if mom had just said gz was the only one hurt?

    The term is "a preponderance" (none / 0) (#184)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    of evidence, no?  You're the lawyer, I only watch Law and Order and read TalkLeft.

    I would expect that in a case in which all of the evidence clearly points one way or another, the case does not come to trial.  If all of the evidence shows no reason for a charge, there is no trial.  If all of the evidence shows no way out of a charge, there is a plea.

    It is exactly in these cases in which there is evidence on each side that cases go forward to trial, no?  But then, the jury looks for the preponderance of evidence -- not the evidence of one witness that contradicts other witnesses, plural.

    IANAL, either.... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by vml68 on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    so I may be way off-base on this. But, I thought preponderance of evidence was for civil trials and reasonable doubt for criminal trials.

    Parent
    Correct, yes, -- for the most part (none / 0) (#192)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    according to legal scholarship, which I looked up.  Most of the time, the term is used in civil cases, although it's interesting to read about when it is used in criminal cases.

    Interesting, too, that while I was looking it up, thanks to your comments, the trial came back on the screen, because the jury has asked for a complete list of all of the evidence.

    That may be to allow them to review the evidence to see, as you say, not whether the evidence tends one way or the other but, instead, whether any of the evidence is cause for reasonable doubt.

    (I wonder if, with all of the notetaking that the jurors did, their discussion revealed differences in their individual records of the evidence, and thus the request to have the official record.)

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:40:00 PM EST
    She also saw Zimmerman on top after the shot, which is completely consistent with his version of events.

    They want a list of all evidence (none / 0) (#187)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    by description

    Some protesters/demonstrators (none / 0) (#189)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    outside already. Peaceful, though, and from both "sides".

    Sunny (none / 0) (#196)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    Most brilliant closing she's ever heard. Now McDreamy=McBrilliant now. I didn't get my mute button fast enough.

    I wish she'd address the evidence. She doesn't think manslaughter, she thinks overwhelming evidence of Murder Two.

    She says the jury wasn't with O'Mara and held on to every word McDreamy said.

    I have a question. The jury instructions said they can't share their notes. That seems hard to do if they have a memory discrepancy. Can they not read out what they wrote and see if anyone else remembers it that way? How else would they use their notes except for their own personal memory and opinion. They might have a fact right that someone else has wrong. Maybe why they asked for an evidence inventory list.

    Who would know, anyway (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    Each juror is allowed to refer to their own notes.  I assume this means they can say to the other, "my notes say blah blah blah," which should lead to reviewing that part of the evidence.

    The point is to make the decision from the evidence, not from the notes.  They aren't to directly compare notes, they are charged with discussing the evidence against the instructions.

    It may take them awhile to figure that principle out, maybe not.  Depends on how intimidated and cowed they are by the pomp and circumstance of the courtroom venue.

    Parent

    I've never heard jurors questioned as to pets (none / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    unless the case somehow involves animals.

    You missed di Maio's testimony (none / 0) (#204)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    He performed ballistics experiments on animals.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#205)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:12:27 PM EST


    Parent
    this thread is now closed (none / 0) (#210)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    Please comment on a new one. Thanks. If your comment was deleted, it was because it misstated the evidence at trial or was a personal attack on the participants or commentators. No name-calling or personal attacks please.

    Zimmerman Trial: Defense Closing | 195 comments (195 topical)