NOTE: Streaming video of the entirety of the State’s closing argument is provided at the bottom of this post.
Today, the State presented their closing argument to the jury in the matter of Florida v. Zimmerman. After 14 months of investigation and discovery, weeks of pre-trial hearings, weeks more of trial testimony, and the expenditure of taxpayer money on the order of a million dollars, this was it–this is where the State would close the deal and deliver their compelling narrative of guilt to the jury.
What the jury got was not a compelling narrative of guilt, however, but a rambling monologue of isolated bits of circumstantial evidence, much of which was consistent with–and even supportive of–the defense’s “self-defense” theory of the case.
Bernie de la Rionda, State Prosecutor, closing argument
When I took my first serious look at this case, some six or so months ago, and worked though the existing discovery file, I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing. But discovery wasn’t complete, perhaps there was critical evidence not yet out.
When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the State’s got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.
When I heard the State’s opening statements, and heard them describe the “facts” they said they would prove–knowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representations–I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing.
When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guilt–much less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing.
And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuse–properly denied by Judge Nelson–I thought to myself, that’s the act of a State prosecution team that’s got nothing.
This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the head–the State has nothing.
This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that I’ve heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.
Maybe later I’ll tell you what I really think about it.
Regardless, we pride ourselves on being fact-based and giving all of you access to the raw information to come to your own conclusions–so let’s get to it.
A Slow Start
Bernie de la Rionda (henceforth “BDLR”) began his opening with a rather remarkably weak opening, stating that “a teenager is dead through no fault of his own, because another man made assumptions.” This does not strike one as particularly consistent with the evidence–the State’s own witnesses have Martin confronting Zimmerman, not the reverse, and surely no reasonable jury is going to believe that Zimmerman caused his own injuries. To say that Martin bears no fault seems simply incredible. Further, to my knowledge no one has ever died yet because a casual observer made some assumptions about him.
Judge Nelson, Florida v. Zimmerman
Odd Missteps: Vague and Aimless
Then BDLR made the first of many apparent “slips” in his closing, by referring to Martin as “a 17-year-old man.” Given the 12-year-old photos of Martin that had been strewn throughout society, and particularly the murder-3-based-on-felony-child-abuse the State sought only hours before, surely he could not have meant to refer to Martin as a “man”? Sure enough, one could almost see BDLR consciously remind himself to use “boy” rather than “man”, and sometimes first using the latter only to immediately correct and repeat the same sentence using the former. He might as well have held up a sign saying, “I am trying to mislead you into sympathy for the victim.”
As vague as that opening was, things only got vaguer. Next BDLR argued that Zimmerman’s “matter-of-fact” attitude after the shooting was indicative of . . . well, he didn’t say exactly, here merely said that “those actions speak volumes.” Volumes of what? Especially as the State’s own witnesses under cross had agreed that Zimmerman appeared to be in shock, not a state of casual indifference at having taken another person’s life.
Bernie de la Rionda
Recounting of Zimmerman’s “Good Neighborliness”
Then BDLR sought to cast the net of causation to include events months before the shooting. He plays audio recording of Officer Singleton interviewing Zimmerman in which Zimmerman describes how the neighborhood had been experiencing a lot of crime, how his wife had become frightened, and how he’d started a Neighborhood Watch initiative to address the problem. How this was supposed to contribute to Zimmerman being guilty beyond a doubt of second degree murder was unclear.
Modest Variations in Zimmerman’s Accounts Held Out As Lies
He then began pointing out slight variations in statements Zimmerman had made at intervals of weeks or months, suggesting that these represented “lies”, and that these lies ought therefore to lead the jury to conclude that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder. In some cases the alleged “lies” were abjectly not lies–such as the fact that on one day Zimmerman claimed not to know an address, but after shooting a man in self-defense and having the location of the shooting become an important investigatory issue, he “suddenly” knew the address. Well, of course.
Bernie de la Rionda
Zimmerman’s Profiling, and Skittles as a Motive for Murder
BDLR then argued that Zimmerman had “profiled” Martin as a criminal–surely true, at least in the context of potential, as it was the rationale for Zimmerman having called the police in the first place. He then went on to claim that Martin’s only “crime” had been the purchase of skittles and a fruit drink, and wearing a hoodie. It struck me that if I had been sequestered among 5 other jurors away from home, family, and work for some weeks, only to be told at closing argument that the Skittles and fruit drink were in any way a relevant issue in this case, I’d be rather unhappy. Even had Zimmerman been some kind of monstrous “Skittles killer,” there was no evidence whatever that he had any idea that Martin possessed the candy.
The Return of Rachel Jeantel: The “Tracking” and “Trapping” of Martin
Next up for discussion was Rachel Jeantel. I know my first memories of this witness was her obstreperous testimony, the sighs and eye rolling, the “that’s retarded, sir,” the “creepy-ass cracker”, the seeming refusal to speak at a normal volume that required constant repetitions of questions and answers, her remarkable facility for remembering dates–even as long as a year prior–favorable to the State, but unable to remember dates only days or weeks earlier favorable to the defense. And, of course, her perjury and many casual lies. Perhaps the jurors’ recollections were more favorable.
He used Jeantel’s testimony to argue that Zimmerman had not only “profiled” Martin, but had “tracked” him, as one might track an animal, and ultimately “trapped” Martin. Zimmerman, BDLR speculated–for there is absolutely no evidence for the proposition–“was gonna be what he wanted to be, a police officer.”
Martin as Fearful Victim Intent on Escape, Safety
Who was more scared, BDLR asked, Zimmerman or the “kid” being followed by a man in a truck? After all, he continued, it’s not like some guy [Martin] just came out of the dark and started beating Zimmerman up.” Except, of course, that the jury had seen extensive testimony–almost all of it provided by the State!–that this was exactly what Zimmerman said happened.
Sabryna Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother
Zimmerman’s Perfectly Law Abiding Actions Preceding the Fight
Then BDLR transitions to an exposition of Zimmerman’s various actions in the minutes leading up to the attack and shooting. Oddly, he notes at each one that there is nothing illegal about this particular step, nor that one, yet somehow we are to conclude that they collectively evidence second degree murder. Seeing Martin and thinking suspicious? Not a crime. Calling police to report? Not a crime. Getting out of car? Not a crime. Zimmerman was armed, had a license, still no violation of the law, he said.
Mocking the Notion that Martin Was Armed With Fists and Sidewalk
Then he noted the apparent disparity in size of the two men–the athletic, fit Martin and the clinically obese Zimmerman, and noted that while Zimmerman was armed, Martin was armed only with Skittles. The defense will tell you, he said, that Martin was armed with his fists and concrete, and mocked the suggestion. But could he really believe that the jury that was time and time again shown the bloody and broken pictures of Zimmerman, who heard his physician’s assistant, Dr. Maio, and others testify to the dangerousness of head injuries, would buy into the notion that Martin was essentially harmless and armed only with candy? They’ve been sequestered for weeks to have that argument presented to them? Really?
“These A-holes” and “F’ing Punks”
Inevitably we got into perhaps the only portion of the evidence remaining that could possibly be referred to as the “meat” of the State’s theory of the case–Zimmerman’s utterances of “these assholes” and “fucking punks.” Curiously, BDLR conceded upfront that Zimmerman had not been shouting these words, as the State had sometimes done during the trial–and which BDLR himself would be doing shortly, and repetitively at the top of his lungs during his closing. Indeed, BDLR argued now, the very fact that Zimmerman muttered the words was indicative of ill-will and hatred.
Bernie de la Rionda
Zimmerman Must Be Held Accountable For His–Lawful?–Actions
At that point BDLR transitioned to a talking point one usually hears at the end of a prosecutors closing argument–that the defendant should be held accountable for his actions, and that he was asking the jury to do just that–hold Zimmerman accountable.
The timing of this statement was truly bizarre, however, because up to this point BDLR had yet to point to any specific action of Zimmerman’s that was a crime. Indeed, the majority of Zimmerman’s actions he’d mentioned he himself had identified as lawful. He’d argued that Zimmerman had profiled, and followed, had called the police, had exited his car . . . were these the “actions” for which he wanted the jury to hold Zimmerman accountable? On what basis, under what criminal statute?
Taking the Law Into One’s Own Hands & the Wannabe Cop
Next up was a talking point about how the law doesn’t allow one to take the law into one’s own hands. Even the police, he noted, would simply have talked with Martin, sought some identification, a reason for being in the neighborhood.
There was, however, no evidence whatever that Zimmerman had shot Martin when casual questioning would have been a reasonable alternative. Surely these same hypothetical police officers would not have continued merely asking questions while Martin broke their nose, drove them to the ground, mounted them in a position of helplessness, and pounded their heads into a cement sidewalk–the circumstances under which Zimmerman fired the fatal shot, after at least 40 seconds of screaming for his life. Did he wish the jury to believe that the police would have idly accepted such a vicious beat down at the hands of Martin? Did he wish the jury to believe the he himself would have?
Bernie de la Rionda
BDLR would later wonder aloud why Zimmerman hadn’t acted more like a police officer–why he hadn’t just explained to Martin that he was a member of community watch, and not a “creepy-ass cracker,” and request that Martin await the arrival of the police.
Had BDLR not heard the testimony of his own witness, Jeantel, in which she described the briefest of verbal exchanges–initiated by Martin–before the apparent onset of blows? Or Zimmerman’s repeated “virtual” testimony of a consistent nature? Martin had allowed no opportunity for such dialogue, nor given the outcome of events would an effort along those lines have been expected to be productive.
The closing then moved into the “wannabe cop” stage. Zimmerman, he postulated, was a wanna be cop who was frustrated with crime in the neighborhood, and this time he was “going to handle it”. And that made it not self-defense. Could it really be self-defense if you follow somebody, he asked the jury, if you profile somebody.
This narrative, however, is entirely inconsistent with the little direct evidence in this case. Would somebody intending to “take the law into their own hands” phone the police and urge them to send officers? Would somebody who had affirmatively decided that he was “going to handle it” leave his handgun holstered, and when confronted by Martin allow himself to be struck to the ground by a punch he never saw coming–and whose state of readiness was apparently so nonexistent that he never so much as landed a blow on his attacker?
“Absence of Evidence is Evidence”
Next up was what I refer to as the “absence of evidence is evidence” part of BDLR’s closing. There was no blood found on Martin’s hands, so this must prove . . . what exactly, he didn’t say. That Martin never struck Zimmerman? Could that be believed, given the photographic evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries? Was there an alternative hypothesis for how those injuries occurred? If so, it was never verbalized.
There was none of Martin’s DNA found on the pistol, BDLR argued. First of all, Zimmerman never claimed Martin had touched his gun, but merely that he had reached for it–no DNA would be expected to be found. Second, people touch objects all the time without leaving DNA. Third, the environmental conditions were not conducive to preserving DNA. Fourth, the quality of the forensics and autopsy under Medical Examiner Bao were not exactly world class, as evidenced by Bao’s own testimony.
Then there was the “Zimmerman had studied the law” argument, presumably the foundation for the notion that Zimmerman had therefore known exactly how to manipulate the evidence and his own statements to coincide with the legal requirements of Florida’s self-defense statute. But this same exact knowledge was possessed (or should have been possessed) by every lawyer in that courtroom, as well as the judge. Did their possession of such knowledge suggest an inclination to murder? Having brought two of Zimmerman’s professors to testify before the jury, had the State elicited any evidence indicating a tendency of Zimmerman to use his knowledge of the law to help avoid legal sanction for deliberately committed crimes? No. It was simply nothing more than speculation.
Weighing of the Evidence: What Evidence?
Them, strangely, after showing little if any evidence up to that point, BDLR began to talk to the jury about matters involved in the weighing of evidence. He urged them to use their God-given common sense” in weighing inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements, for example, but this bolt had been shot when he had made his earlier pointed remarks about the “inconsistency” of Zimmerman not being able to recall a street name before the shooting, and later being shown to have learned the name. Such false “inconsistencies” do not murder 2 make.
Creation of a Uncertainty & a Reasonable Doubt
Rather than actually offer any evidence for the jury to consider, however, he instead offered up a basketful of uncertainties. Who was actually following who? We don’t know. Who was on top of who at particular points of time? Don’t know that exactly either. It was remarkable the sort of argument one expects of a defense seeking to create a reasonable doubt, not a prosecutor attempting to obliterate one.
The Return of Rachel Jeantel, part deux
He came back to Rachel Jeantel, informing the jury that he had brought this admitted perjurer to the witness stand so that he could deliver to them “the truth.” He noted how she had spent hours in the witness stand, and if for what other purpose than to tell the truth?
One could not help but wonder if he was unaware that Jeantel’s presence was compulsory, as she was under subpoena like all the other witnesses. Further, could he really believe that the jury would not recall the exasperated sighs, the eye rolling, the head rocking, the mumbling, the outraged “WHAT!” at learning that she would have to return again the following day? By any objective perception, Jeantel was there against her wishes, not in compliance with them.
Recalling Martin Luther King, Jr.
Then we reached perhaps the single most bizarre moment of BDLR’s already shockingly odd closing argument, when he paraphrased Martin Luther King Jr. to tell the jury that they should not judge Jeantel on the color of her skin but on the content of her testimony. Was he implying that the jurors must take care to overcome their implicit racism? Who knows.
The Uncertainty of the Evidence Emphasized Again
Next was a series of questions in which BDLR not only failed to make a point, he was explicit about not making a point. “Did the operator [sic] tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin, or not? YOU decide,” he told the jury. If the beating of Zimmerman was as severe as he claimed, how did it occur? W can only speculate, he answered his own question.
What? If BDLR had nothing to say about the issue, why bother mentioning it? If there was no evidence on the issue, why point out the uncertainty to the jury? This was literally the creation of reasonable doubt, not its elimination.
Helping the Defense by Recounting Good’s Testimony
BDLR then recounted John Good’s testimony, in which he had described Martin mounted atop Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him MMA-style in a ground-and-pound attack. But, BDLR noted triumphantly, Good did not actually see fist strike face, nor hear the sound of blows landing. Is the jury to believe that Martin merely mimed the motions of punching Zimmerman about the head and face? How does that jibe with the bloody photos of Zimmerman’s injuries, seen by the jury dozens or scores of times? The very notion is ridiculous.
There was at one point a short recess, and when BDLR returned his affect was markedly changed. Counter to his usually energetic style, he now appeared flat and lackluster, as if he’d learned during the recess that, in fact, the State’s got notihng.
Lack of Aggression as Evidence of a “Depraved Mind”
Next, BDLR came to the gun, with some odd points. If Martin was as dangerous as Zimmerman claimed, why didn’t he have his gun out earlier? Why did he later holster it before he knew Martin to be dead? The fact that Zimmerman’s virtual testimony, introduced by the State, had repeatedly made the point that he neither knew he was entering a confrontation nor wanted one, or that a man lying prone on his face in the grass in the rain after having been shot is unlikely to need to be kept at gun point, did not seem to occur to BDLR.
The Powerpoint from 1995
Around this point BDLR transitioned into a Powerpoint that appeared to have been built on templates from 1995, and that simply re-iterated his fact-less talking points from earlier in the close, up to when BDLR mercifully concluded.
What a Prosecution’s Closing is Supposed to Accomplish: Not This
Throughout the entire closing it was as if BDLR had no recognition of the fact that the State was required to affirmatively prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simply raise some doubts or questions about the defense.
Some commentators are suggesting that the State could come back strong with Mr. Guy’s rebuttal closing following the defense’s presentation of their own closing statement. Anyone who can recall Mr. Guy’s cross-examination of defensive force expert Dennis Root, however, ought to reconsider such optimism.
Streaming video of the entirety of the State’s closing today is provided below:
State closing argument, Part 2
State closing argument, Part 3
State closing argument, Part 4
State closing argument, Part 5
State closing argument, Part 6
State closing argument, Part 7
State closing argument, Part 8
State closing argument, Part 9
Well, that’s it for us for tonight. We’ll be back tomorrow morning with live video coverage in Court at 8:30AM to hear the defense’s closing argument, likely the State’s rebuttal., and perhaps hear the jury charged and sent into deliberations in the afternoon.
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. (Coupon works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.)
Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com. They set their own price, and it can very each day, so you might want to check there to see if they are offering the best deal today.
Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!
You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Anything to prevent a White Hispanic riot!
Well done, Andrew, over these two weeks. Well done.
Thank you, sir.
Also, you may not have heard:
Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition– Free access
Table of Contents: http://is.gd/t6hjTx
Introduction: http://is.gd/PRKNEQ
🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Your coverage Andrew is the best on this trial. Thank you.
What Mr. Toombs said. Thank you.
Yes, very well done. Several times as I’ve read your posts on this trial I’ve thought to myself ‘this is what real journalism is like… I wonder if newspapers used to be this way?’ I arrived home from a business trip today to find my copy of LOSD in the mailbox… looking forward to reading it.
Thanks, guys, I really appreciate it. It’s a labor of love.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Let me add my thanks to you, Andrew. Thanks for all your hard work.
Focusing On All The Wrong Things In The Zimmerman Trial
http://tinyurl.com/omkppuu
The State’s got nothing.
Somebody – the DoJ, Obama, the race hustlers, Corey, Scott, the mayor of Sanford – ought to be embarrassed and ashamed.
And if it’s true that a branch of the DoJ actually facilitated the prosecution of this farce, then someone should be charged with prosecution under false pretenses(I doubt that’s a real thing, but it ought to be).
Yeah, I’m sure Eric “Peter” Holder will get right on that.
They don’t do embarrassment or shame.
I kept thinking that the roles have been reversed in this trial. Usually a defense team with a guilty client yells and misinterprets. I hope MOM presents what the prosecution promised at the start, and how it presented various open ended possibilities in closing – in other words, reasonable doubt.
There is clear evidence of blood. In the pictures of GM. That supports the defense. Because there was no blood found on TM doesn’t erase the pictures.
The fact that he called the authorities when he had suspicions erases ill will or bad intent. I have never heard of a bank robber calling the cops before a heist.
The fact that there is none of GZ’s blood on TM is a clear sign that GZ wasn’t on top at all. His nose was broken at the start of the fight.
The get off comment … Was to Jeantel to get off the phone.
“The get-off statement” was to the girl friend to GET-OFF the phone!!! ROFL!
It is likely that the get-off statement was made, but by Zim.
Or a lie made up for Jeantel by Mr. Crump.
Get Off is also a raunchy song by Prince.
I read elsewhere Get Off! was slang for fight! or bring it on! .. makes sense right after the sucker punch.
Maybe the ‘ Get off, Get off ‘ was a request to Dee Dee to quit phoning him.//
only if Jeantel actually heard “get off” and I do not believe she heard anything because TM’s phone had gone dead.
Not that the prosecution has stated the defense’s case, what is the defense to do?
Thanks for your time and expertise, Andrew. I’ve learned a lot reading your ‘post-game’ analysis and real-time tweets. Kudos to Prof. Jacobson for inviting you aboard. It’ll be tough to be up and at my computer tomorrow at 5:30 or 6 a.m. for MOM’s closing, but I’ll be here.
I have to wonder what would happen if the defense lawyer in his closing stood up & merely said this & nothing else: “Distinguished member of the jury; if you find that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt, you must acquit George Zimmerman.”
Would the prosecution be able to say anything by way of rebuttal? Or would such a move mean that the prosecution could put on no rebuttal, but the defense got the last word?
typo
how did it occur?
Indeed, thanks, fixed.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
If the police had arrived in time to break up the ground and pound, would they have charged Martin with battery as an adult?
They would in Texas.
FL often charges teens younger than TM as adults.
dieselhead,
I think it’s that way in FL, too. If the place that I looked up was correct, a 17-year-old can be tried as an adult.
Zimmerman Special Persecutor Angela Corey charged a 12 yr old Jacksonville boy as an adult with murder.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-10-07/story/prosecutor-not-seeking-life-prison-cristian-fernandez
I think the people that were working on the predisposed assumption that GZ was guilty may have heard actual evidence. The rest of us saw a case that was overcharged from the onset.
Andrew –
Received your book yesterday; thanks for the quick ship.
Question on the issue of the State’s last-second M3 bombshell this morning: In your experience, does bringing up an additional charge like this – out of the blue, after both sides have rested – happen often? Seldom? Never?
It seemed preposterous to me at the time, and still does.
Thanks for keeping us to date.
IAP
West’s reaction said it all. The M3 was a preposterous, malicious, and despicable attack on George Zimmerman’s due process rights as a citizen of the United States.
I suspect that had such occurred 150 years ago, West and Mantei would have been meeting at 20 paces in the town square, at West’s challenge.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I’d like to give that assessment more than one thumbs up. 🙂
The State’s got nothing, but on the other hand GZ’s jacket wasn’t torn by the grass. Up to 30 years for manslaughter seems like a reasonable compromise.
You still don’t grasp which side has the burden of proof it seems.
It’s called sarcasm.
If that is supposed to be sarcasm, then I retract my earlier post. People should let us know they are being sarcastic and not just stupid.
I was in fact being sarcastic. I apologize to those who thought I was serious.
How could anybody not think that was sarcasm???
Even our worst trolls would not have believed that!
I cracked up the first time I read it!
Well, anyone who has watched any of the TV coverage might think it was serious, it was no less ridiculous than 90% of what is said on those shows.
Your sarcasm mirrors the mindless parroting of the story created by the progressives.
That’s not reality. Please revisit the evidence.
Here is how Omara wins the case.
“He was only armed with skittles?” (Places B&W photo of bloody George. Here’s the state’s photo to prove otherwise. Oh, sorry, allow me to replace that with the actual photo”.
Then he takes a bag of skittles. “Watch what happens to me in the next 40 seconds”. He then proceeds to hit himself with the bag of skittles. Nothing happens.
I swear on my life, I would do that.
Question. There was audio on the 711 video. He is on the phone saying “Hello”. You can hear him. Why was it not admissible and how can it be referenced that he took 40 minutes to ‘go home’ which completely contradicts the charging document? Just as the affidavit states “He lived there” which he certainly did not.
Can he hint around those lies or only go with what is admitted into evidence? What about the tox report/pot in his system?
And if he were to say “You may wonder about Martin’s history, if he knew how to fight or what he sounded like. So do we. Would you like to know why? John Guy will be here for the final hour to explain that to you”
Is that a punishable violation to do that? I would make a bad lawyer, I know 🙂
“but had “tracked” him, as one might track an animal”
-Yes! Just like those animals that mean Dr. Di Maio shot!!!
Does the defense get to respond to the prosecutions rebuttal of the defense’s closing argument? Is the prosecutions rebuttal done in front of the jury? It doesn’t seem fair if the prosecution gets two opportunities to sway the jury. This the first trial I’ve watch since the OJ trial so I can’t remember the closing argument procedures.
State gets the only rebuttal because they have the burden of proof.
LA LA LA Ronda, and the dance of death.
We know the judge is biased. According to Drudge she’s a tool of the White House. And, the White House wants a conviction. (Again, according to Drudge’s headline.)
The worst performance of a judge, EVER, in the entire history of American jurisprudence. And, six female jurors.
Wanna place an early bet? They either acquit or split.
IMHO Nelson knows this case is a stinker – she’s just trying to look like she’s not at dault for the aquittal.
at fault – sorry
I’m sure there were worse examples of being a judge in Jim Crow days against blacks, or judges who were paid off by the mob, etc.
I mean, I agree she is pretty bad, but lets not go TOO far into hyperbole. 🙂
State’s case.
Thanks Andrew! not sure what was more painful for me today: Listen to BLDR’s pointless ramble or endure the 2 hour fire alarm tests in my building. Between both I am drained, but ready for tomorrow 😉
“a teenager is dead through no fault of his own, because another man made assumptions.”
A teenager is dead because the teenager assumed he could jump and beat a stranger, with no consequences to himself.
_________________________________________________________
“He then went on to claim that Martin’s only ‘crime’ had been the purchase of skittles and a fruit drink, and wearing a hoodie.”
No, the crime was sucker-punching a guy in the face (hard enough to break his nose and knock him down), then jumping on him and beating him MMA-style. The fact that Martin did it while wearing a hoodie, and with Skittles in his pocket, is completely irrelevant.
_________________________________________________________
“Victim didn’t get to choose anything. Or anyone.”
Actually, the victim did get to choose. He chose which stranger he was going to jump and beat on. Unfortunately for Martin, he chose poorly.
awesome post!
Thanks! Check out —> lawofselfdefense.com
As a Legal Insurrection blog follower, you can also use the coupon code: LOSD2-LI for an additional 10% off and free shipping.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Wow, I just missed the extra 10 off, but I don’t care – I’m so grateful for your fantastic coverage which I’ve been glued to since day one. Especially love your tweets!
MKReagan, contact me using the form on http://www.lawofselfdefense.com, and referencing your post above.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Excellent summation.
You got something!
A summer cold, I think.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Is there anyone who could comment on the jury’s demeanor while the State was rambling on? Also can any of the legal types comment on what the defense may focus on tomorrow.
To paraphrase one of my favorite movie lines “Branca you magnificent bastard I bought your book!”
One local news reporter tweeted that a Hispanic woman wasn’t making eye contact with BDLR and was resting her head on her hand. That’s all I’ve heard.
CNN’s Sunny Hostin said the jury was “captivated.” Of course, she also thinks the state made the case for murder 2.
She is the primary reason I have lost all respect for CNN. Of course there are a jillion secondary reasons now..
And as always, thank you Andrew.. Book arrived Wednesday. Although I bought it as a gift for my husband, I am just itching to take a peek.
According to the Youtube videos, the BDLR spent 2 hours, 22 minutes, and 14 seconds on his closing. That means that they only have 37:46 left. Or do they not watch that closely?
i would never had thought so, but it seemed as though 3 hrs. was some sort of agreement btwn the the two teams of lawyers…Diana Tennis also noted (on two different occasions) that lawyers always allow for extra time so they won’t be watch-checked* by the judge..so i don’t know
*holding wrist in the air and tapping on the face
MOM will provide a welcome contrast by speaking cogently and clearly, and exhibiting a levelheaded demeanor. He won’t succumb to hyperbole nor to condescension, since the facts already speak strongly to GZ’s innocence.
To provide an even more refreshing contrast to the State’s closing, MOM should keep his closing to 1.5 hours at maximum. Short, focused, and well organized is the way:
1.) Introduction and review of defense’s compelling scenario (10 – 15 minutes). 2.) Review of important facts of the case and a digest of important testimony in light of that scenario (25 – 30 minutes). 3.) Brief responses to the least unintelligible points in the State’s closing (10 – 15 minutes). 4. Review of laws relevant to jury findings in this case (20 minutes). 5. Brief recap to repeat points made earlier in the closing, and conclusion (20 minutes).
To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “That’s why my belief is the briefer the brief is, the greater the sigh of the jury’s relief is.”
They have to (the defense) stop focusing on the altercation/shooting and focus on the timeline. The world, including the state with their lies, keeps talking about how he was on his way home. He had 40 minutes and < .8 miles.
The defense blew it not harping on that point with Rachel. How did he go from 711 to 'mail thingy' and why is Rachel 'guilty'? You aren't guilty for being the last person on the phone with somebody. But if you goaded them to fight.
Read tray's 2-21-12 bus texts with w8 and see if you can put 2 and 2 together. Compare it to the lies of the parents about how Tracy drove tray and brandi met him half way.
great idea! also I would point out the shortest route to take from the store and which path, walkway he would have been through to get home and overlay that with the evidence.
Listening to the Fox experts after that closing statement was dismaying. Van Sustern and the other talking heads gave that annoying, rambling dishonest statement favorable reviews. Impossible that we watched the same spectacle.
perhaps you missed some of it..the commentary I heard was that BDLR did a good job of driving home the emotional points, but the closing was woefully inept at trying to show the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt any of the states theories
even worse on CNN where piers morgan is raving about the brilliance of the prosecution’s summation. facts be damned…a lot of people are into the drama…and i worry that the jury of emotionally-inclined women may be closer in their view of this case to piers than they are to mr.branca’s legal reasoning.
Mr. Branca,
BDLR could hardly call Trayvon a “boy” could he? I mean, this whole (show) trial seems designed to assuage racialist feelings. Using that word might further stir the pot.
He could have referred to Martin as a “child” or a “kid” or a “teenager” or “youngster” — and he probably meant to do that, but sometimes the truth has a way of slipping out.
For what it’s worth, you can join the Army at age 17 with your parents consent, carry a rifle, kill and die for your country.
Exactly and the United States does not send children to fight her wars. Of course doubtful the military would have even accepted Trayvon.
If GZ is convicted, it could be ironic that defense lawyers might make use of what could come to be known as the BDLR standard re: eyewitness accounts. John Good saw TM from behind, with his hands pumping up and down on GZ, but as he didn’t actually see fists connect to head, in spite of GZ’s obvious beating wounds, we cannot be sure that TM actually struck GZ, per BDLR. Taken to its logical conclusion, if I saw person A point a gun at person B, and fire, and B died, that would mean nothing since I didn’t actually see the round traveling at several hundreds or more feet per second!
It would need to be called “the Ray Lewis defense”, from when a certain football player seemed to get away with murder.
“Victim didn’t get to choose anything. Or anyone.”
— Yet according to BDLR’s own witness Ms. Jeantel, whom he referred to twice in his pathetic hey don’t notice I look like a mean Mr. Whipple closing: “I asked him where he at, he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house”
So if Trayvon just went inside his dad’s house (where he was according to Dee Dee) he’d be alive. Instead he went to punch Zimmerman
He got to choose, and did choose. He just chose wrong.
I have a dear friend at work who happens to be black. I’ve mentioned the case from time to time (and she knows that I believe OJ was innocent), but we haven’t discussed it in any depth. I was concerned that a not guilty verdict might upset her, so I stopped by her cubicle to talk to her.
The conversation went something like this:
Me: I have something of concern to discuss with you. As you know I’ve been following the Zimmerman trial pretty closely.
Her: Yeah, Travyon brought it on himself, didn’t he?
Me: Oh. I didn’t realize you were following the trial.
Her: I’m not, but it’s pretty obvious what happened. He made the mistake of trying to beat up a guy who happened to be armed.
Me: Did I mention the joke I heard the other day about the guy from Cleveland who died?
Her: No, tell it to me.
I’m a lot less concerned about the reaction to the verdict than I was just a few days ago.
The same thing happened in the Duke lacrosse case. All this noise and fervor from black agitators and white libtards, several of whom were professors at Duke, were ready for war at the outset. When it became clear that there had been no crime whatsoever committed and the drug-addicted prostitue made the whole thing up in order to get out of a drug test and get a payday from the white boys, they backed off with a wimper. Just a few diehards hung onto the Big Lie.
+1
Whenever I mention that about Duke Lacrosse, though, someone always pops up to correct me: “She’s wasn’t a prostitute, she was a stripper.”
To which I usually reply: “You really should get out more.”
For some reason I’m not feeling great feeling about this jury, here’s a profile from Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/11/reporter-notebook-at-zimmerman-trial/
On the contrary: I feel good when I read their profiles. Andrew Branca reports that the Black/Hispanic juror who is a nurse avoided eye contact with the prosecutor during closing arguments.
I certainly hope you’re right in your take. I wasn’t really concerned with ethnicity, more with the feeling that there may be a whiff of PETA- esque anti-gun sentiment there.
Then again, my two Goldens are both rescued, so probably an irrational concern.
PETA has a reputation of killing cats and dogs, so I am not sure that the woman who is an animal lover would be interested in them.
You know, Aussie, you’re absolutely right. I forgot about that one.
she probably thought he was a creepy ass cracker
3 of those look like promising votes for acquittal. B29, as noted above, appeared to be turned off by the prosecutor, and as a Hispanic, is probably turned off by the racial nonsense permeating this case after Zimmerman’s relatives testified.
B76 manages rental properties. She knows about the peril of home invasions and burglaries, and is going to understand reasonable suspicion.
E6 is the one I most worry about. If her kids are scared to walk around because of this incident, she’s bought into the media’s nonsense.
B37’s husband is a space lawyer, and they are rare and extremely sharp. After decade of marriage to such a person, his rationality would rub off if it wasn’t there to begin with. She and her husband have had concealed carry permits, so she won’t be swayed by the “he’s guilty because he had a gun” nonsense.
I feel like I am in the middle of a Chris Farley movie.
So the graphic says tray is from out of town yet the affidavit says he was living there IIRC. I have to review it again.
He probably was “living” there …mama kicked him out.
I think the technical term is “be staying in his Daddy crib.”
Dear Mr. Branca,
Look at the second picture of BDLR, doesn’t he kind of look like Hitler? If his arm was a little more out to the front.
Anyway, great update for us.
Kitty – This is who BDLR looks like:
http://www.biography.com/people/dennis-rader-241487
Don’t you profile!
I have no idea what you’re talking about. (Looks off into distance.)
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
*puts on sunglasses* Yaaaaaaaaaa!
Oh — did that woman have some kind of unusual skin color? I was unable to overcome the blinding rays emanating from her of stupid and prevaricating.
Damn – now I have to go review all those snippets until i find the tra la la skipping past the just in court’ timestamp.
I heard it mentioned also on one of the TV shows, I forget which one.
Ladies of the Jury, I will remind you that the state’s medical examiner, an accomplished expert and doctor, remembers nothing on the day of the autopsy. He had to read from prepared notes, and would offer no opinion and recalled no facts. And this prosecutor has the nerve to call the honorable man being accused of 2nd degree murder, who recalled the events many times, under oath, on tape – and essentially told the same story over and over. With no notes.
The nerve of these politicians, pardon me, prosecutors.
Who had the nerve to give me a thumbs down?
Their own lead investigator, Serino, believed Zimmerman.
Remember that Corey & BDLR didn’t do any further investigation at all, they just chose to interpret the facts to suit the political needs.
Does anyone know what the Hispanics are saying about this? Just wondering. I’d think that they should be outraged.
Just the fact that this angle has not been covered anywhere, to exclude their concerns or opinions, I think is racist.
I’ve been watching Univision news very closely in the recent week and there is barely a mention of the trial, I’ll tune in tonight to see if there is any bias but they are certainly no making a big deal of it, gets coverage towards the end of the cast, after the recount of all the daily murders and kidnaping’s in Mexico, and food lines in Venezuela.
The fact that this case is a creation of the progressives and furthers their politic ambitions over rides and concerns that the hispanic organizations might have for one of their own.
Thank you for your analysis.
In academe, one occasionally encounters peers whose arguments are immune to facts (they are known as evidence-neutral theorists). BDLR’s closing argument is a leaf from a branch of their family tree.
Nicely put.
The show was not for the jury, it is already lost there. Instead this is for the media to find great clips they can use to help prepare certain groups to riot, all in the name of helping race relations.
Advice to Racists:
1 – You are a very dumb Racist if you
. call 911
. speak to 911 for almost 5 minutes
. tell 911 exactly where you are
. DEMAND they send an officer there ASAP
and THEN go and shoot someone..
2 – You are a very incompetent Racist if you
. intend to murder someone
. but first get into a Rolling-on-the-Ground fist-fight
. get your head slammed repeatedly on the concrete
. have to wrestle your gun away from the guy on top of you
and THEN shoot him..
3 – It’s so much easier to blast him from 2 or 3 yards away.
. / sarc.
I hope that MOM poses the question, “Who in their right mind, would be contemplating racially motivated murder while on the phone with a police non-emergency dispatcher that he knows is being recorded? Put the timeline of events, the things that were said all keeping in mind that he’s on the phone with the police!”
I mean it’s either that, or he decided quite suddenly. In what world does that make sense?
For a prosecutor that was up there accusing George Zimmerman of being guilty of racial profiling BDLR seems to have a low opinion of black teenagers.
1) Felt compelled to assure the jury that TM had not stolen the Skittles.
2) Felt compelled to rant on and on about Jeantel’s shortcomings.
RE: Buying Skittles, BDLR’s point there was that just earlier in the evening TM had gone to a store and bought, rather than stolen, Skittles and the store clerk hadn’t ‘profiled’ TM, the store clerk wasn’t afraid of TM, etc. He was trying to imply GZ was racially profiling TM without cause. A very limp attempt.
They all seem afraid to mention what he bought along with the Skittles – Watermelon (gasp) Fruit Juice Cocktail. Tea, tea, tea keeps coming up, he didn’t buy tea.
Of course BDLR is free to ramble on about the Skittles and Fruit Juice while knowing the fact that those are 2 of the 3 ingredients along with cough syrup in “Lean” or “Purple Drink” won’t be coming into evidence.
Munchies. And who but a stoned guy could stomach a telephone conversation with that stupid woman.
The black youth are indicating in their tweets and facebook postings that Rachel was “cat fishing” Trayvon.
Can a lawyer inform me as to whether O’Mara in his closing is able to
1. discuss the concept of overcharging as a State strategy?
2. speculate (reasonably) about the less-than-pure motives of the Prosecution?
3. generally talk about the “show trial” nature of this case?
Why would he choose to do that when the defense’s case is so strong?
He can’t address TM’s cell phone and facebook evidence anyway, and it wouldn’t accomplish anything to opine about other misconduct by the State.
(1) I very much doubt the words “overcharge” will come out of O’Mara’s mouth, because the phrase implies that a “lower charge” would be appropriate. It would amount to a request for a manslaughter conviction. He’s way too smart for that kind of prosecution-like blunder.
(2) & (3) The trial has stayed rigorously away from any mention of the background politics, and I don’t expect that to change in the defense’s closing.
I decline to speculate about the politics myself, because I need to go to bed eventually tonight and I don’t want to spike my blood pressure befoehand.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
“I decline to speculate about the politics myself, because I need to go to bed eventually tonight and I don’t want to spike my blood pressure befoehand.”
My wife reminds me of that about every night.
Absolutely the best coverage of this trial in the world. Good job.
Thanks!
Don’t forget about my colleague, “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd”.
Price is jumping $10 tomorrow, for reasons explained here: http://is.gd/CD3JCW
I’m freezing the price tonight, but that’s all I can do.
(All existing discount coupons will continue to be honored, until they’re not 🙂 )
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Done.
I have a question for you, Andrew. What trial are the TV pundits watching? Every damn one thinks it’s a slam dunk for conviction. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people, these self-styled “experts”?
Great trial pix and story from UK Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360397/George-Zimmerman-trial-Jury-asked-consider-lesser-charges-manslaughter-degree-murder.html
“obstreperous”.. Nice…had to look that one up.
How could you pass up the “overloaded gun” George had?
That pretty much makes the case for me.
Haha, yeah, I did OK on the SAT. 🙂
I totally missed the “overloaded gun” line. Every once in a while the immediate environment distracts me for a moment, and it must have been one of those times. Too bad, I definitely would have included it.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
I’m pretty sure the gun had only .17g/ml of intoxicant in its system at the time it shot.
Perhaps, Mapleblood, the “branch” per chance is what struck George Zimmerman in the back of his head?” Gosh, have we let the “academe” go bonkers?
Carol,
Given that BDLR foisted the notion that Zimmerman’s injuries were not caused by Martin, a conceptual branch is as good a weapon as any. 😉
M
GZ’s injuries were surely the mark of a vengeful God who could not allow the vicious observing of his sweet young street-fighting burglar to go unpunished. Because, slavery, duh!
[…] Posting at Legal Insurrection, Andrew Branca has a comprehensive review of the State’s case against George Zimmerman. […]
Bernie de la Rionda delivered exactly the kind of closing statement that I would…if I had nothing.
As the old adage states: When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both are against you, pound the table.
During my 30 years as an attorney (in NY & California) — 25 spent as a trial & appellate prosecutor — I certainly displayed verbal hostility towards defendants, especially vicious murderers, in my closing arguments. But nothing like this guy.
He began off ranting and raving (about Skittles and an allegedly “innocent” young man) and continued to rant and rave for what seemed like an eternity. Never once did he analyze the evidence in a logical, coherent manner. Nor did he discuss the crucial law on justifiable self-defense that is at the heart, the core, of this case.
As I said, when the facts and law are against you … YELL, YELL, and YELL some more.
It will very interesting to contrast this prosecutor’s hyperbole with what I expect will be a polished, from the heart, closing argument from O’Mara.
And, I strongly suspect, that the 6 women on the jury will much prefer O’Mara’s style, delivery and, most importantly, substantive discussion of the law of self-defense.
In the 1950’s it was The Man In The Grey Flannel Suit.
Now, in court it’s The Grey Naked Rubber Man. Since he gets mounted, I wonder if Amazon will have this up for sale, like they do that old book?
And, even though the Grey Naked Rubber Man has no name, I might be tempted to call him a candidate, ahead, for Florida’s governor’s race. The race is around the corner, in 2014. Wouldn’t an Appeal take longer than that?
Don’t forget should there be an innocent man being sent to jail it would be due to the females failing their intelligence test). So, I would think the man who started this charade (Governor Scott) would welcome the chance to come back out on stage so that Zimmerman does not go to jail at all. (I can hope, can’t I?)
I believe they call him Mr. Dahl.
Thank you for writing this summary. I was lucky enough to have another place to be at 4 so I avoided the misery and left an hour earlier. I have no desire to listen to any of the parts I missed the 30 minutes I heard were agony.
Mr. Branca – thank you for your excellent coverage here and on twitter.
Any thoughts on the possibility that both the prosecution and the Judge know that this is a show trial, which must go on to placate the racial hate-mongers, so they are doing everything they can to sabotage the case, and creating either an outright acquittal or clear reversible error?
I know it is far-fetched, but I don’t have another rational explanation for the totality of the dumb lawyering and what is borderline judicial malfeasance in the case. This theory at least explains it.
Moshe – I read about the former Sanford Police Chief’s interview with CNN. He pretty much said what you and others have suggested. He said outside and inside internal forces wanted an arrest no matter how weak the state’s “case” would be. He said that he was fired for refusing to arrest GZ
It will be interesting to see if this “Judge” will wind up with a Federal Judgeship after this trial.
I have to be honest. Bernie de la Rionda was very persuasive today.
He convinced me that the practice of criminal law in Florida is seriously f**ked-up.
No wonder Casey Anthony got acquitted.
And Drs. Bao and Rao were also very convincing – of the poor state of forensics and crime scene procedures in FL.
Instead of spending millions on this show trial, they could invest in equipment, education and better pathologists.
No wonder most murders remain unsolved…and the ones that get to court are further travesties of justice.
Politics, incompetence, racism, political correctness get in the way.
Oh and corruption means tax dollars are going to politicians and cronies rather than training and equipment.
As a surgeon, I have to second that.
Bao and Rao have to rate far and away as the most inept, ignorant, and incompetent Pathologists that I have ever known, seen, or heard.
If the Board of Medical Examiner’s in Florida is functional at all they should have Rao in front of a hearing questioning her medical competence for claiming to be able to assess the extent of inter-cranial injury by examining pictures of scalp and face bruises. That is so far beyond the pale that it would be laughable if it wasn’t for the possibility that a man might spend the rest of his life in prison based on her “medical” expertise.
Besides being intent on providing accurate testimony in an extreme way, what did Bao (not Rao) say or do that was wrong?
Rao was a joke. I have no idea how she is where she is.
Bao’s problem wasn’t so much in what he said wrong, but in what he did wrong.
Witness the problems with not covering the hands of the body, not checking for bruises on the knuckles when the assailant had, as we say, “multiple contusions and lacerations”, and finally saying he didn’t pay any attention at all to what the technicians did, because they weren’t his responsibility.
That is not the way a medical professional functions!!!
Dr. Bao was like a scene out of the movie Memento. He literally claimed to have no functional memory of any past event. The session he spent with the prosecution less than 24 hours before taking the stand? No idea who was even in the room with him, let alone what was discussed.
“All I have is my notes,” and the implication that his notes were correct. He says that Travyon’s sweater was bagged appropriately (in paper). His notes say otherwise. Not only was he markedly incorrect across numerous subjects, he was combative, biased, and generally incompetent. One would only need to watch the first few minutes of his time spent on cross with the defense to see what a train wreck he was.
Narniaman, I think you are confusing the MEs regarding the hands. Also, he said that he did not document what the Tech’s did prior to removing the clothing, not that he wasn’t present. He researched memory, and wanted to remove his bias. He researched other topics, to make sure he provided the best opinion. As I recall, he is performing > 1000 autopsies per year. So we are interested in this particular one.
Of course, there is better information someone would want. But let’s bear in mind that Miami is a killing ground, with the murder rate of 16.8 per 100K, vs. the rest of the US @ 4.8 per 100K. An unknown black guy comes in, he is shot, not much else going on, done. Just another one of the hundreds.
I think people are giving this guy a hard time. I don’t know why. He testified as best he could.
Tempname: he researched the topic of memory, and discovered that memory of a small incident a year before would not be accurate. He said he spent much of his personal time trying to provide the best testimony he could. He tried to understand the ramifications of his testimony.
I’m wondering how anyone can think this is a bad thing after what is happening to Zimmerman, a man who clearly thought he had done nothing wrong, tried to recount events as accurately as he could because he did nothing wrong. Now look at where this poor slob is. Defending himself because the vast machinery of the US race industry wants to grind him up.
Perhaps he should have said nothing at all, then what case would BDLR have? Rachel Jeantel? That’s about it.
edbarbar = Dr. Bao
🙂
@Andrew, well, I suppose I might have some things in common with Dr. Bao, but I am not him, for sure.
Meanwhile, think through my basic tenet. The government with all its power is terrorizing the justice process, by making people who have done nothing wrong, and here I mean Zimmerman, because I don’t see how any fair minded person could think he did, is having his life destroyed. By the state. And it’s not only Zimmerman. It’s many of the people in the retreat who are also fearful, such as John Good. Think it through. This is another attack on a free country. Bao is merely another casualty.
Dr. Bao gave an astounding demonstration of incompetence. Period.
If you don’t want to see it, then just keep your eyes closed.
I don’t think Dr. Bao did anything wrong. I’m wondering if this is an insight into the pressures he and others have had, and perhaps Bao’s Chinese origins. I do not believe he once veered from the facts. Yes, it was painful to listen to his testimony. But I think it was honestly given.
Dr. Rao? She was simply bizarre. But, somehow, she has risen to some level of prominence. How did THAT happen? In a world with people like that making decisions, anything can happen.
To whomever is modding this down, don’t forget that Bao also changed his opinion on whether the THC levels in Martin’s blood could have been psychoactive at that level.
I maintain he was an honest man, trying to do his best. Frustrating to listen to, yes, but an honest man. I also do not know of anything he himself did that was wrong.
He was being very careful in what he rightfully views as a very important trial. I don’t think he hurt the truth. Maybe people who think otherwise can offer up some thoughts as to how he was damaging.
Dr. bao’s shit-eating grin as he volunteered unsolicited, gratuitous bullshit about TM feeling pain and suffering for 10 minutes made me puke. But you, edbarbar, ate it up. And that goes for both his testimony and the puke.
Oh, I see. What you may not have recalled is that there was actual evidence, which will be written up in his field, he supposes, that documents a case where a victim with a heart wound was vocal for ten minutes. The evidence is there. He includes it in his testimony. As with the Marijuana, he is giving his best estimate.
The gunshot wound, from .4 – 14 inches.
The marijuana, could have an effect.
Just trying to be clear and honest.
S
The main point Bao was interested in making was that he knew nothing and remembered less. He had no idea how to testify in a court. His English was substandard and not adequate for his position. He often answered with non sequiturs and talked in riddles. His office and underlings made several errors which he was at pains to explain were none of his concern and certainly not his responsibility. His memory was very good as to who committed those errors though. He did not equivocate about that at all. Not him.
He was not an expert on memory and his main interest in that subject was to explain why he knew nothing and could attest to nothing. Given that his job is to know and to testify he more or less said in his own words that he is useless and unfit to hold the position he holds.
That’s what I have for starters.
Would you want this guy doing an autopsy for one of your loved ones?
I actually think that this has less to do with the practice of criminal law in the state, and more to do with the injection of politics into the legal process.
What about BOTH?
Prosecutors Bernie and Guy: Feeling Hot Hot Hot!!!
Has anyone noticed the head of “Mr. Doll” looks like a hoodie? I wonder if the prosecution intented that as some sort of subliminal message that trademark was the one being beaten?
Just wait until the star-wars super cool video re-creation gets into closing tomorrow.
The jury will forget all about the rubber doll.
At the end of Bernard de la Rionda’s diatribe, George Zimmerman very slightly, very slowly shook his head in denial and disbelief.
Other than the small smile when his criminal justice professor cracked a joke, he has remained stoic, calm, somber throughout the proceedings.
Posted this on the wrong thread, posting the revised version here where I MEANT to put it. Thats what I get for following more than one thread at a time
The begging for an emotional guilty in the states closing argument is disgusting.
I have THE answering closing argument for this case.
First, you play this clip – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bftQ4xxFc
After the objection and completely unrepentant but required apology –
Dear Jurors, according to the State’s closing argument, not a single one of you will ever be allowed to defend yourself if you get attacked.
If you have ever cussed in frustration under your breath, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever watched someone you did not know in your crime riddled neighborhood, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever wanted to serve your community, and sought education to help you do that, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever done something in succession that could not also be done simultaneously, you will be guilty of murder.
If you are ever attacked, and do not state your name clearly and concisely while you are screaming for help and afraid for your life, you will be guilty of murder.
That is all the prosecution has for you to consider after their 44 witnesses and numerous exhibits.
I ask you to examine the evidence.
I ask you to listen to the witnesses.
I ask you to read the charges and realize that Prosecutors in this case have shown you more spite, hate, and ill will in his closing argument, never mind his case, than he has proven against Mr. Zimmerman in this entire trial.
Mr. Zimmerman acted in self defence, The State has proven that for us. He can not be found guilty of ANY charges.
Thank you.
20 Minutes. Tops. Done.
I like the statement – a lot!
but not the clip.
Well done, that video expresses exactly how I felt at the end of BLDRs remarks.
I expect what we saw today was a prosecutor who knows he has no case, but knew he had to play his part for the cameras, for all the Trayvonites and Obamaphiles watching at home. Hence the references to things that make no legal sense, and no sense to anyone who’s watched the entire trial, but will be gobbled up by the casual lefties at home. Stuff about the skittles and tea that never came up at trial, but got tons of media play. Speculation about Zimmerman’s motives or activities that never came up at trial, but is all over Twitter and comment boards. A quiet, more persuasive attempt to look at evidence wouldn’t have mollified the race baiters, even if it would have increased the chance of getting a manslaughter conviction.
The last time Obama/Sharpton/Jackson/Crump and company tried this cr*p, 8 PEOPLE WENT DOWN FOR MANSLAUGHTER:
“This whole case is a repeat of 2006 in the Michael Lee Anderson boot trial case…right down to the letter.
The same characters namely Crump, Jackson, Sharpton, NAACP and then Senator Obama whipped up such a racial furor that a prominent ME and a commisioner were removed from their jobs.
8 guards were charged with manslaughter and the media did their job of fueling the fire.
It is exactly what has happened in this case even the family of the boy using an old picture in the media.” LINK
In the Zimmerman case, Sybrina Fulton’s brother is a ‘community organizer’ (code for CPUSA) in Miami and got the ball rolling. LINK
This isn’t just about racism, it’s also about communism and ruthless ideologues and power-mongers.
It was Martin Lee Anderson not Michael — and he died at boot camp, not “boot trial” — but the rest is spot on.
Apologies for posting an incorrect quote from another commenter.
HERE is a story of the prosecution of a disabled veteran by Angela Corey.
She seems to be anti-gun.
From the article you’ve linked:
I’m sorry, but he was absolutely in the wrong. Despite what Vice President Biden advises, You don’t. fire. warning shots. You just don’t. Pulling out your concealed weapon and firing it is using “deadly force” in Florida, and “deadly force” can only be legally used to stop or prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony, or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person.
The article then goes on to state,
Well. So he did something stupid and illegal, that any half-intelligent adult with a CCW in this state should KNOW is stupid and illegal, then rejected the plea deal Angela Corey’s office offered him, decided to take his chances at trial instead, and lost, and so the State’s mandatory sentancing laws (which Corey neither authored nor signed into law) kicked in. How is that Angela Corey’s fault?
You will have no argument from me that Corey’s performance in the Trayvon Martin case has been atrocious, political and wrong. But I don’t see what she was supposed to have done differently in the case you’ve linked to.
Could you provide some sort of link/reference? Besides another unsourced blog comment, I mean? Especially with regard to Obama’s involvement.
It seems like there are a lot of “facts” being passed around from blog to blog (see also the claim in comments here that “George and Sherri Zmmerman’s daughters had been threatened with rape”…) with no indication where they’re coming from.
BDLR had to paraphrase MLK JR with “they should not judge Jeantel on the color of her skin but on the content of her testimony” instead of his real words of “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. If he had asked the jurors to judge RJ on her character they would have burst out laughing in his face.
The color of her skin was not what the jury was judging…
It was the off-color of her speech and her blatant disrespect for the court and attorneys.
Or are we supposed to take her lack of manners, serial dishonesty, bigotry towards white people, and generally poor education as being characteristic of her people of her skin color and therefore not judge those factors? Hey it’s BLDRs implication not mine.
It was really an insult to all the articulate, intelligent, well-mannered and principled black women out there that BDLR implied that Jeantel only came off as she did because of her race. I mean, really – it’s like he was saying “She’s black… what do you expect?”
Go up to the Naval Air Station near me and the first half-dozen 19-year-old black women you see will prove BDLR wrong. What an embarrassment he is.
Exactly. There could have been an opaque screen between her and the jury, and her lack of credibility would still have come through loud and clear.
So, is the actual closing statement scheduled for 8:30, or was there court business?
I hate to get up at 5:30am if I don’t have to…. This trial is killing me….
judge said 9 AM
Thanks!
A small but welcome reprieve.
If the racial hucksters were 1/50th as concerned about black on black violence as they are about the TM case (and Brawley, and Duke Lacrosse etc…) I might actually listen to them on occasion.
If the State did not present an affirmative theory of murder in their closing, are they not able to in the rebuttal? My understanding is that they can only directly rebut defense arguments. I’d be interested in a discussion about what Guy *cannot* talk about tomorrow, in light of the absence of any meaningful arguments in BDLR’s closing.
Could turn out like their 3 rebuttal witnesses that no one heard. It may be filled with objections from defense b/c I’m sure Guy will try to bring up TM’s age, Skittles, iced tea wanna be cop……
Trayvon was old enough to join the military and the Left still considers him a child? The # of teenagers we have recruited and sent oversees to defend this great nation matters not. BUT…In this case, he is a child!!
Just a note for clarification, one can join the military as a minor but he can’t go overseas to combat until they are 18. But yeah that does mean we have guys younger than Rachel J fighting our wars.
And thank God for them.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
The small amount of the prosecution’s closing statement that I did watch left me feeling frustrated and deeply concerned for George Zimmerman.
I don’t think the jurors will have the intelligence to see through the BS that the prosecution is presenting. I hope the Zimmerman legal team is on their game tomorrow and that they give an amazing closing.
I think the juror who wouldn’t look BDLR in the eye probably thinks he’s a small man and a loudmouth bully in a position of power. Thats my impression of him.
Creepy-ass cracka, rapist = cultural patois
Fucking punks, assholes = Murder 2
LOL. That was good. Especially the use of “patois”.
Don’t know much French so let me ask: could Angela Corey be considered a “Toit?”
After reading this summary of the prosecutor’s closing argument, it struck me how similar this trial is to the one in the film To Kill a Mockingbird.
I was literally just listening to Atticus’ closing argument and drawing comparisons with what I hope we get from MOM tomorrow. For those who are not familiar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TgqenWW0I
One of the greatest speeches in cinema history.
‘I did not have sexual relations with that mannequin.’
If BDLR ain’t gettin it from the mannequin, he ain’t gettin any at all.
Fabi, you crack me up. 😉
Can someone be so kind as to explain to me how the prosecution gets to have a defense closing rebuttal? Seems unfair as it would give them the first and last word on the matter. I’ve never heard of a prosecution being able to give a rebuttal to a defense’s closing before. Is this unique to Florida?
At least in part, it comes from the fact the State has the higher burden of proof. However, the rebuttal should be confined to points raised by the defense.
I can’t believe BDLR said to the jurors that GZ should have acted like a LEO and confront TM and tell him who he was and wait for police with me. Then he tells them he was a wanna be cop and shouldn’t have followed TM. Well which is it dunderhead.
Kinda hard to act like a LEO when he was separated from TM and was taken to the station immediately afterwards. And when TM was alive when GZ left him.
And who says GZ’s nose was bleeding during the fight when TM covered his nose and mouth The ME testified that it would bleed into the throat, when GZ was on his back. If you feel like you are being killed, you will scream even if there is blood in your throat.I don’t think it bled onto his face. until he got out from under TM.
And TM’s hands were under his body for 35 minutes in a hard rain? GZ was inside shortly after thee incident.
Zimmerman said he moved Martin’s arms/hands out from under his body (to ensure he couldn’t reach for a weapon) after he shot him. Martin fell face down into the wet grass. When the first cop arrived, Martin’s hands were back under his body — indicating Martin had pulled his hands back (through the wet grass). Then the cop turned Martin’s body over to try to perform CPR (likely moving his arms/hands aside, again into wet grass). Then paramedics showed up, and did the same. Later, Dr. Bao showed up, and he tried to fingerprint Martin’s dead hands (which requires holding the hands and manipulating the fingers). Martin’s body remained in the wet grass for a couple of hours. When it was finally picked up and removed to the ME’s office, the hands were not bagged to preserve trace evidence. That means that anything still on the hands (which would likely still be wet, given the weather conditions) could have been rubbed off by the body bag, by the people handling the body (putting it in the body bag, removing it from the bag, putting it on the autopsy table, etc.). In other words, it’s not surprising at all that there was no blood observed on Martin’s hands, given the conditions/activities at the scene and the improper handling of the evidence.
Has the term ‘profiling’ ever been defined by the prosecution or the defense ?
Or, is it one of those words, like ‘racist’ that mean whatever the leftist chooses it to mean ?
Hi everyone!
Bernie’s close sucked and offended me on so many levels. If his close was all that the jury had to consider then George is a free man! No doubt at all.
But there is more to this than what George explained in his “recreation video.” Maybe Dee Dee – Rachel will get paid and tell some reporter what Treyvon really said toward the end on their conversation, or what she really heard being said by George; you can pretty much bet on that coming very soon. Can’t wait!
Did Treyvon sucker punch George? Everyone here believes that, and so do I. But what really happened before that, and then after that. Most folks seem to just be happy to believe that “time just passed” and “things just happened” that George cannot recall fully and will never be able to recall, fully. But I wonder if that is true, and I have no answer to my curiosity.
Perhaps George did what any person would do if they were sucker punched, he defended himself. Perhaps the more experienced fighter, Treyvon, took George to the ground and used the cement or the sprinkler boxes as a weapon against a heavier and stronger opponent (George); that would have been a smart tactical thing to do. And George “shrimped” the two of them in to the grass to stop the blows. Now Treyvon has to punch like crazy to keep George in control. Contrary to popular belief, 158lbs and 5’11-6’2″ is pretty dam skinny and lightweight! George had had enough, but Treyvon is still trying to knock him out, win the fight, so George draws his pistol and fires.
The women on the jury probably don’t have my questions about filling in the blanks, but the ME images of a dead 158lb 17 year old may make the Manslaughter charge look tempting.
Just a post to get people to label me with ugly names again – second night in a row!
Maybe you could re-read what is known.
Starting with GZ was a soft wimp and TM was an athlete.
Yes I know George was described as ‘soft” by his athletic trainers. But after losing 75-90 pounds (feeling much stronger now and feeling great about himself) and practicing grappling and basic boxing punching techniques for about a year, George had a basic proficiency that would kick in if he was attacked. Why don’t you start by reviewing what George said he did not know or could not remember – easy outs for an embarrassing defeat in a fight that he wanted to participate in.
Even if everything you theorize is correct, once George started screaming for help, he regains his innocence. Basically, it is as though a new confrontation has occurred. At that point, he is legally entitled to use deadly force if he is in fear of great bodily injury.
^^^^THIS^^^^
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
After losing the weight, and still being obese… Yes, your point is?
Perhaps I don’t understand some of your points. George said he was hit and staggered to the ground. That would put him in the grass where he eventually rolled to where his head and possibly shoulders were on the concrete.
To my knowledge there is no missing time. George went to check for a street sign and was waylaid at the T. Martin had plenty of time to go home and return or lay in wait while he was whispering to Rachel.
Martin had a history of street fights and according to George got in the first punch. Martin apparently fought often in just such situations. George’s own trainer said he was a wuss and wouldn’t be allowed in a ring.
It’s not relevant to his defense. Once Trayvon commmitted aggravated battery on him, he had the legal right to shoot him. It doesn’t even matter if George “started it” (although there’s no evidence of that), because once Trayvon escalated the violence, George had the legal right to defend himself.
Perhaps you missed the testimony. While George was heavier, he was also 4 inches shorter and incapable of defending himself. After 18 months in the gym, his trainer was still afraid to have him engage in combat because he feared he would be hurt.
If you’ve ever watched MMA fights, two things should come to mind immediately. The opponent with longer arms always has an advantage over his opponent, and weight is not the deciding factor, skill is.
I would have shot him after he jumped on top of me.
You don’t give those women much credit. Have you ever been on a jury? I’ve been on two. I find the women are much more attuned to the evidence than the men. Of course that’s anecdotal. Maybe these women are emotionally motivated just as you suggest they are.
Hi Tex! I am also a Texan! I have read many of your posts and have really loved them! Unfortunately I am not as astute about how to manipulate the quality/content of my postings here as you are to make them as professional as yours.
You brought up many good points, but: George was definitely “not” incapable of defending himself! And I am confident that he did, but he used grappling. The reason that I say that is because: if George had done nothing, his head would have been in pieces at the T, or very near there. George fought, and the two ended up two town house lengths away (maybe 30- 45 feet or so down the dog trail), on the grass.
Now that the prosecution and defense is rested the facts of this case a known to all. It is a fact that Zimmerman was beaten by Trayvon . That Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was wailing away at his head. That Zimmerman’s head was bashed into the concrete sidewalk. It is a fact Trayvon was untouched before being shot. From these facts it is clear that Zimmerman shot Trayvon in self defense.
Only the ignorant, lazy, idiots and evil would think otherwise.
Why would anyone call you names?
I suppose in your alternate reality, Zimmerman, who had up to the point of confrontation had studiously attempted to avoid that confrontation, could have initiated the fight. Remember, rather than get out of the truck when Martin approached him and walked around the truck, eyeballing him, he did not leave and confront the “ute”. Even though he was armed.
I suppose that Zimmerman could have thrown the first punch. Except Martin had no defensive wounds nor any injury, except to his knuckles. So, if Zimmerman did throw the first punch, he proved to be so inept that he never laid a finger on Martin. And, if he was that inept, what kind of a threat can we expect him to present that required Martin to throw him to the ground, straddle him and land 40+ seconds worth of punches to his face and head? Wouldn’t it have been better tactics to simply run away while your opponent is lying stunned on the ground, than it is to attempt to find sprinklers and a sidewalk to beat his head against?
And, I suppose that in your alternate universe, it is legal to take violent action past the point of self defense to inflict punishment upon an attacker who had been rendered nearly harmless. However, in the great State of Florida, there is no legal authority for an individual to physically punish another. That is reserved for the state. So, when Martin is punishing Zimmerman, he is in effect committing a crime under the laws of Florida. This fact actually permits Zimmerman to exercise his right to self defense.
As for Dee Dee writing a tell-all book, it would never get off the fiction list. Being a serial liar tends to reduce your credibility to below zero; unless you have unimpeachable evidence to back it up.
Your last paragraph sums up life in your alternate space-time continuum nicely. All the acts of a person under the age of 18 are to be automatically forgiven simply because that person has not yet reached an arbitrarily set majority. In your world, there is no personal responsibility, someone else has to assume that. In this case, Trayvon Martin, just a few months shy of his 18th birthday, allowed, by law, to operate a motor vehicle, an instrument which is responsible for more deaths and injury every year than any other cause, made a decision. He decided not to go to the apartment where he was staying. He chose, instead, to confront a man whom he suspected of following him. He engaged in beating that man far beyond any reasonable point of self defense. And, when that man defended himself, young Mr. Martin died. So, who is responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death? I think the jury has a pretty good idea.
It is late and as I scan your post you keep typing “alternate universe references,” which is just plain weird. So I am going to skip your post and let you and your alternate universe theories, THC, LSD, or whatever else enjoy the rest of your evening.
Next contestant!
Someone called him a concern troll last night because he started off saying he does GZ then progressed into making comments that pretty much matched BLDRs closing comments this afternoon. Nothing wrong with presenting an alternate viewpoint, just admit what you are instead of hiding behind a false pretense.
Wow! Seriously?! Liar liar pants on fire! There is a minority here that rivals Charlie Manson’s disciples! Yuck
That was me, and I stand by my statement. His initial postings all had some variation of the statement that “I’m on George’s side” but he had all these questions and concerns. Some of it was semantics, like repeatedly referring to George “getting off” rather than being not-guilty or being acquitted. “Getting off” carries the implication that someone is getting away with something.
As time went on, the “on George’s side” statements lessened, and the questions increased, but still maintaining that George should get off. That’s some serious cognitive dissonance, right there. If you don’t believe his story or the evidence that supports it, then why would you want him to be acquitted. To quote the Chewbacca Defense, “It makes no sense!”
If Trayvon were 5’11” and 158 lbs that gives a BMI of 22.0. That is NOT scrawny. That is NORMAL for an athletic young male. Just because one-third of the US is overweight and another third is frankly obese does not make a NORMAL person magically scrawny. Look at the cell-phone self (presumed) portrait from a few days back. Trayvon was an athletic-looking guy.
Besides, that’s irrelevant to the issue of self defense.
Just a post to get people to label me with ugly names again – second night in a row!
Since you’re taking it down to this level, it seems you’re the one slinging around terms like “redneck”
Next contestant!
Concern troll much?
Your premise is wrong. We all know that Treyvon was 6’2″ tall, not the 5’11” length from when the ME measured him after rigor mortis had set in and contraction occurred throughout his musculature. Do the BMI again and use common sense! He was a scrawny kid that had some basically sound fighting skills and knowledge.
It would concern me if the non cursive writing, reading, person AKA D Diamond told her story to anyone..I doubt she would/could tell the truth..that’s IF she knew it….I would ask her if she was drinkin during ” getting hair done” and lord knows whatelse..during that “call”… But, then, the tray$$$ crew probably would throw her a few $s to tell …eh ummm the rest of the story”
If Nelson let in the texts and photos there would be no doubt that Zimmerman would be found innocent
And that fat ugly walrus knew it
Before the sucker punch, you can believe Rachel (who may not actually be the person who owned the phone at the time of the incident, but another person chosen by the Crump group) or you can believe George Zimmerman.
George most likely tried to get up and get away from Trayvon and moved toward John Good’s door to get help(staggering, scrambling, crawling) after he was punched. That’s why the ‘action’ moved in that direction.
Thanks for the pungent commentary and summary, Mr. Branca. Indeed, you make a great point in observing “…it was as if BDLR had no recognition of the fact that the State was required to affirmatively prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simply raise some doubts or questions about the defense.” Very true, and yet, whatever valid criticisms can be levied against BDLR for his excessively bombastic and histrionic courtroom demeanor, the weakness of his arguments ultimately are rooted in the fact that the State, for all its bluster and vitriol and mischaracterization of the facts, has no substantive evidence whatsoever to support the charges. This is what happens when an indictment unsupported by probable cause (and without presentment to a grand jury) is brought against a defendant.
Interestingly enough, BDLR inadvertently provided a factual framework and motive for Martin to have attacked Zimmerman without provocation, when he noted that Jenteal had suggested to Martin over the phone that he was being followed by a “pervert” (aka “creepy-assed cracka”).
The thing that amazes me is that the fanatical pro-Trayvon crowd seem incapable of accepting the likely possiblity — as yet, not refuted by any contrary evidence — that Martin, perhaps frustrated and angered at being followed around by Zimmerman, decided to confront him and teach him a lesson with his fists. This, of course is the crux of the case, and the State has utterly failed to show one scintilla of evidence that shows Zimmerman to be the aggressor. Thus, BDLR focuses on utterly irrelevant, non-criminal behavior — alleged “profiling,” following Martin; observing Martin; deeming him to be suspicious, etc. etc. None of which behavior is criminal, of course.
Wow, the irrepressible ignorance of some of these TM supporters is unbelievable. One was lecturing me on Twitter on how the “reality” is that Trayvon wasn’t capable of dominating Zimmerman because he didn’t put him in a chokehold. I pointed out that the reality is that Martin, did, in fact, dominate Zimmerman because Zimmerman was the one with all the wounds while Martin had none. To which I received the reply that it wasn’t a “beat down” (Whatever the hell a “beat down” means in this idiot’s mind). I had to point out that receiving a “beat down” isn’t the legal measure for when you can act in self defense, but I doubt it’ll sink in…
Attempting to reason with the pro-Martin crowd is as unavailing as banging one’s head against a brick wall. They are unwilling to dispassionately evaluate the facts and evidence in a reasoned and objective manner, preferring instead to cling to arguments rooted in emotion, racial hysteria and histrionics. Any evidence which contradicts their pre-ordained narrative that Martin was an innocent, blameless, saintly victim, is simply ignored. Racial solidarity on the basis of skin pigmentation trumps facts and logic.
Freakin’ racist redneck! Read my two posts again. I am not a Trayvon Martin supporter, I am a George Zimmerman supporter! But I do not believe that he has told the whole story of what happened that night. I am also a conservitive Republican, a gun rights enthusiast (Constitutionalist) American; and I have a brain in my head and and I am somewhat skeptical about the childish and sheepish mental capacity of people who just follow along with a group and don’t ask appropriate questions. Grow up, or at least allow your intellect to do so.
Wait, are you talking to me? Because I wasn’t talking to you. My comment wasn’t a reply to anything you’d said, idiot. And “racist redneck”? Where’s the racism in my comment? How does a discussion of injuries amount to racism? And “redneck”? On what do you base that on? Your amazing psychic abilities? Because I’m a Hispanic Cuban-American in Miami. My neck is brown. So you have a “brain”, huh? Well where is it? Because so far I haven’t seen any evidence of it in action.
I’m seriously laughing out loud right now read up a few comments and DriveBy complains about being called names last night then a few minutes later ambushes you Trayvon style with this long list of nasty things to call you.
Somehow given the context, this reply doesn’t make a lot of sense. . …
@Narniaman No kidding. I was talking about someone I was arguing with on Twitter, and somehow DriveBy decided it was a response to him AND that pointing out that Zimmerman was the one with all the wounds while Martin has none somehow makes me a “racist redneck.”
Actually you’re just a rather unskilled troll
Case in point, DriveBy’s comment directly below yours. Talk about “preferring instead to cling to arguments rooted in emotion, racial hysteria and histrionics.”
It is like trying to argue with the racists white southerners that blacks deserved equal rights. Now the blacks and progressives are functioning like the Jim Crow southern whites.
But you don’t know and I don’t know whether or not George acted in self defense without his firearm and became overwhelmed, whether or not he fought with Treyvon of his own choice (in self defense, granted), but found himself on the losing end and them overreacted with a firearm. Is that possible?
Does not really matter, our banter, the jury will decide and that will be it…
Funny though that here, just like on the “pro Treyvon” sites, people refuse to be logical and ask questions about: What do I not see and what do I not know? What is missing in this picture that is being painted for me?
Exactly, and the uncertainty which you described is also known as “reasoable doubt.” The State’s failure to provide any evidence to prove that Zimmerman initiated the violence in the encounter between he and Martin means that he should be acquitted. Simply put, the State has not even remotely come close to meeting its burden of proof, i.e., proving each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you Guy, but I am not arguing guilty or not guilty, not at all. I just want to know what really happened, because I believe there are key things missing here from both sides including by George, IMO. But I realize that I won’t know for quite some time…
So basically you are saying that you automatically assume the worst out of people. In your world because you doubt portions of GZs story he is automatically guilty (maybe not legally, but in your personal judgement) until he proves he is innocent.
Really want to know? Then ask the Truth because, as was revealed today, the Truth doesn’t lie. But resist we much… we must… and we will much… about that… be committed. Makes as much sense, no?
“Driveby,” everyone who is following this case, irrespective of opinion, wants to ascertain the truth of what happened; that’s a given. Indeed, we will likely never know the truth, beyond the testimony of Zimmerman, which has not been contradicted and appears truthful. My point merely is this: in the absence of evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt which supports the notion that Zimmerman committed a crime that night (i.e., initiated an unprovoked attack upon Martin), he should be acquitted. Uncertainty as to what actually transpired = acquittal. It is not Zimmerman’s burden to prove his innocence; it is the State’s burden to prove that he committed a crime.
You can’t guess about what happened in a trial. Good goes out his door and sees TM on GZ pounding the crap out of him, runs into the house to call 911 and hears bang. We hear on the 911 call GZ screaming for about 40 seconds then bang. At the beginning GZ tells NEN that TM circles his truck w/ hands in waistband eyeballing him, then says he ran. 20 or so seconds later he tells NEN he lost him/can’t see him and 1 minute and about 59 seconds go by after he hung up phone till the gunshot. GZ says he walked past T to end of sidewalk look up and down street then walked back to just after T and gets sucker punched while trying to fish phone out of pocket to call 911. Over 2 minutes went by from the time GZ says he ran to when the gun is fired if TM was running home about 500 feet away he could have made it in probably less than 1 minute. Only thing that makes sense is TM was hiding in wait to ambush GZ. Or as RJ said he was in his fathers girlfriend’s backyard which means he walked back up to T to confront GZ b/c thats where incident took place. That is what we know. Thats all we know.
Hey Styro! Great post. This is the weirdest thing: You can love the people here and their mutual support of George and the polital persecution that has been unleashed upon him, you can believe (most of) what they believe, but if you dare to ask a question that might be even mildly contrary to George’s stories, you are automatically the Anti Christ and anti 2nd Amendment. Strange that people (here) cannot have a conversation and explore possibilities, especially since not a single person here has any damn input on whether or not George walks, which to a person we all want. Oh well…
Just to let you know, I share some of your questions.
I believe that the majority of what George states is true.
I really only have two issues…
I do think he got out of the car to keep an eye on Trayvon. I don’t think he had any intention of confronting him, but I think he might have looked around for him a little longer than he said he did.
As far as the fight, I definitely think Trayvon started it (I mean he could have been home if he wanted to) and really have no idea what happened to move the fight 30-40 feet down the sidewalk. I think it is very possible that George doesn’t know either. When stuff like that happens, you can’t accurately remember what went down. Your body gets a rush of adrenaline and all your senses are affected.
What I am certain of is that George was the one screaming for help. Really just no question about it.
With that being the case, legally, it does not matter what led up to that point. George wanted help, he was reasonably afraid Trayvon was going to knock him out or kill him, and he legally used lethal force to stop him.
That’s not entirely true. There are a couple of things in GZ’s story that don’t quite mesh for me either, but the holes in the other side are a HELL of a lot bigger.
I try to put myself in the jury box though, and the state simply hasn’t proved anything except that a fat bald man can not fly no matter how loud he screams or how hard he flaps his arms (speaking as a fat man soon to be bald, I note these things).
Pretty irrelevant at the end of the day though. What matters is:
If GZ deserves to go to jail for 30 years, then prove it. That’s the State’s responsibility and with their (our) resources they should be able to do so IF there’s actually any “there” there. They have not done so. In fact they’ve tried to sell everyone a case which is completely backwards. They’re trying to create reasonable doubt in the story which the defense has constructed out of evidence and testimony. Reasonable doubt is supposed to be the defensive tool to poke holes in the narrative constructed by the state. What’s going on here, well… This is simply not the way it’s supposed to work.
Other opinions are welcome as far as I’m concerned but this isn’t my house. As to your original question though- I DO know where you can find TRUE intolerance if you’re looking for it, though and that’s just about anywhere you see an NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT, etc… banner. Go talk to those guys and see how big their tent really is. I think most of us are simply tired and maybe prone to knee- jerkery …
P.S.
I agree with fogflyer’s post above and, looking at the time stamps, can’t believe it took me so long to write something semi-coherent.
G’nite.
If you are asking if people think GZ tried to defend himself physically from Trayvon before drawing his weapon, my response would be “Of course he tried”. As you point out, the end of the fight wound up 10-15 yards away from the T. From the extent of the injuries to both parties, though, it is pretty apparent that TM physically dominated GZ.
As others have pointed out, though, that does not negate GZ’s self-defense claim.
Nor do I think GZ drawing his weapon was an “over-reaction” as you claim. We can hear on the 911 call that he was screaming for help – several times. He obviously wanted no part of the physical altercation at that point, and TM had plenty of time to stop the beating. He could have easily gotten up, looked down on the “creepy-@SS cracka”, made some derogatory comment and walked away.
He chose not to. His failure to relent after GZ was screaming like a girl would leave anyone in that position fearful that TM would not relent until it was too late. At that point, GZ was fully justified in drawing his weapon in self-defense. I do not think it was a matter of “GZ should have just taken his beating and left” (not saying that you said that, but I have seen that come from others) – as we allow people to defend themselves.
Besides, if TM was under the influence (as GZ suspected, and as autopsy reports tend to confirm), even if TM WANTED to stop just short of grave bodily injury of GZ, he may not have had the ability to distinguish that point. Heck, a person of his age and inexperience probably could not distinguish that point if they were stone cold sober.
So, in summary answer to your question – do I think GZ tried to physically defend himself before shooting TM – Of course I do. His meager defense is probably the only reason he was able to scream out for help.
Do I think GZ over-reacted? Actually I don’t know, since I did not witness the blow by blow – and an “I don’t know” to that question has to equate to a “not guilty” verdict.
Everyone is focused on 40 seconds of screaming (Lauer 911)–but the time between RJ’s call being disconnected (the fight had just begun) to the gun shot Is one minute and ten seconds.
Oh, and I pretty much agree with fogflyer’s post above mine, 100%.
I’m pretty sure that many or most people who are murdered are never choked.
The worst thing about choking a murdered man is that you never really know when to stop.
lol
Choking is not the right word. Choking is when you’re eating and you get a piece of food lodged in your throat and it cuts off your air and someone has to do the Heimlich maneuver. Strangling is squeezing the throat to close off air supply, breaking the hyloid bone. Suffocation is covering someone’s nose and mouth to cut off air supply. What we have here is an attempt at suffocation. I think TM was trying to both shut up GZ and make him pass out–which would have been mortally dangerous to GZ.
anyone twittering about that arrogant Doc Bao?? and his failure to look under the skin for bruises???Um guess that would make a pros witness maybe ummm .. Remember he was initially a John Doe..black male
Bao didn’t look for bruises because they would have been damaging to the state’s case: the production of such evidence is primarily beneficial to the defense, not the prosecution.
I was going along OK till I got to ..
He urged them to use their God-given common sense
As my son likes to point out, “common sense” is over rated and frankly, polluted with nonsense (AKA BS).
The standard should always be “good sense.”
On further reflection, the term “God-given common sense” is an oxymoron.
Smart kid.
“Common sense… Isn’t”
BDLR told the jury to “most importantly, rely on your God-given common sense. You know, that common sense that we just kind of use automatically without even having to think about it…. And then when you rely and apply your common sense… you will come back with a verdict… that this defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. I mean, do you believe that there is an innocent man sitting over there right now?”
So he essentially says: Use your common sense, which says whatever I tell you it says.
Also interesting was BDLR’s attempt to downplay and trivialize the import of Jeantel’s prior lies, one regarding her stated reason for not attending Martin’s funeral (and another one I don’t recall). BDLR was obviously in damage-control mode here, and yet, I question the efficacy of his statements and attempts at salvaging Jeantel’s credibility. Frankly, if I were a juror listening to the testimony of a key witness, and it was demonstrated that that witness had lied on multiple prior occassions, the fact that the lies were made with regard to allegedly trivial matters would be utterly irrelevant to me — they would still call his or credibility into question.
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
This really is “pound the table” time.
For BDLR it was. It will be interesting to see MOM pound both the facts and the law tomorrow.
He had to. The voice recognition thing favors the defense, after the Uncle’s testimony and particularly Donelly’s testimony, how can anyone think it was TM screaming. His expert witness, Rao, was a joke. I can’t think of another witness that had anything real that went for the prosecution, except Zimmerman’s forthright representation of what happened.
So it’s down to Zimmerman and Rachel. With Zimmerman, there isn’t much except ifs and buts. The only thing he has is “A little bit of ‘Get off, Get off.'”
Which is why in the imitation MLK appeal, BDLR had to change it from “content of her character” to “content of her testimony.” Her testimony’s credibility is seriously undermined by her character problem. She admitted having lied under oath to a law enforcement officer and prosecutor–they are on HER side of the issue.
No one has yet highlighted how mean RJ was to SF with her deceptive behavior. And she didn’t go to the funeral because she was catfishing him, and if she showed up, TM’s friends would laugh at her. TM was perhaps trying to impress this (he thought) hottie with the fight she could hear over the phone.
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar:
But, but… skipping! And tra-la-la!
This whole trial has been bizarre from start to finish. I firmly believe the state wants an acquittal. Why else would they put on the stand John Good who’s testimony shot the state’s case down to the ground? He was the only witness on the scene who was not hysterical and unsure about the actions of both Zimmerman and Martin. The state has been pressured by the feds to put forth such a ridiculous case that only an acquittal is merited. The feds (or I should say obama and holder)want riots. They started this farce in order to work up the blacks into voting for him and now have to finish this somehow. They certainly couldn’t drop the case since the media had kept it so alive for more than a year. (obama’s orders?) It probably has something to do with gun control also. Although how they can use this when most likely Zimmerman would be dead if he had not had a gun is beyond me. You will ntice obama and holder have had nothing to say about all the flash mobs hits or knock-out beatings of innocent people ever.
The state had to put him on the stand. If they didn’t, then the defense calls him the jurors would have wondered why was the state hiding him, the only witness to see any of the incident.
This trial has been so bizarre your hypothesis is as probably as reasonable as the possibility that they are just mean and inept.
wasn’t Dzokhar Tsarnaev only 19 when they did the Boston bombing? He’s pretty scrawny as well. The guy had an entire city on lockdown and it took a virtual army of special forces and SWAT to go after him and take him down.
So the idea that Martin was only 17 shouldn’t really be an issue.
A 17 yr old is plenty capable of doing damage.
Also is anyone else wondering why if Zimmerman is this depraved killer who was profiling and stalking Martin, he was on the phone with the police minutes before he killed him? Does that make sense?
Someone will be calmly talking to the police for a few minutes, identifying himself, his location, etc…describing the scene and the victim, and then he goes right out and kills the guy? That strikes me as a little odd.
Does anyone know any more about these 3 lie detector tests Zimmerman says he took and passed? I know they’re not admissible but I’d be interested in finding out more about them
I realize this may not be totally in line with the topic, but I’ve watched nearly all the testimony. It’s riveting, and I’ve decided O’Mara is my personal hero. An ordinary person rising to the occasion in a watershed moment.
However, I can’t help but shake the feeling of the disease in the US. On the one hand, you have good people supporting Zimmerman. Even the state’s witnesses. I really liked Singleton, and Sereno. John Donnely showed a peak into a time of men lost in this country, and often diminished. Is Al Sharpton half the man?
On the other hand, I felt people who did not care about the truth. Who merely wanted their base emotions satisfied, without taking the responsibility of their own actions. A press intent on further division of this country. A prosecution intent on further divisions.
I do not think the Jury was the audience for BDLR’s closing arguments. It was the black community. When he said “You decide,” he was feeding the speculation I’ve seen where facts are discarded to support a belief.
I’ve noticed BDLR’s attempts throughout the trial to add doubt, yet that’s the defenses’ job. Because throughout the trial, he wasn’t talking to a jury intent on justice. He was talking to a group of people who want to subordinate justice to political ambition of racial division. It’s simply disgusting.
Meanwhile, the trial itself has shown some of the cost of trying a man who is guilty of nothing, to maintain a racial narrative. John Good mentioned he didn’t make 9/11 calls prior to the TM incident, but has made many subsequent to it. People have moved out of the Retreat at Twin Lakes. People do not want to know where the live. As Mr. West mentioned, this is an unusual trial in that only the defendant did not seek counsel, whereas half of the witnesses did, presumably to protect their identities and retribution.
Sereno lost his job because he was unwilling to push a murder 2 charge. So did the chief of police.
And there is the real, and potential meddling of political concerns in the trial.
I only hope the jury does not understand the threats to their well-being if they acquit. Because if they do, they too will be targets.
Excellent post, thank-you.
Incidentally, this whole thing makes me realize the justice system isn’t about justice at all. If I’m ever in a situation in which I’m being questioned for any reason whatsoever, I’m getting a lawyer. This isn’t justice.
[…] of what is presented here, as he repeated the same things over and over and over again. As usual, Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection provides video for the strong of mind and stomach, and he took the approach I decided to eschew in […]
I thoroughly enjoy this site. I read everyday, I do not comment. I wanted to Thank you Andrew for your coverage of the trial. It is the best daily account I have come across. I visit every night, read your updates, and watch the videos provided….You have done a superb job…
Thank you Mr. Jacobson for inviting Andrew on.
Actually, I would bet the BDLR is a nice guy in real life… (Guy and Mantia, maybe not so much). I just think he is stuck with a stinking pile of a case that runs counter to anything he has had to deal with before… the manner of charging GZ, the heavy politicization, heck, POTUS weighing in…. and he is beyond frustrated.
You can’t be a nice guy when you try to put someone in jail who you know is innocent. That is what your “nice guy” is doing.
One of my personal favorites from BDLR’s closing, “And all he had on him were some Skittles and a Watermelon Arizona Drink or whatever … that he didn’t even STEAL!!!”
Talk about low expectations of a young black male. That’s quite a racist statement.
That’s a perfect example of the ‘ soft bigotry of low expectations ‘.
some crazy guy made a re-enactment video
.
http://imgur.com/r/WTF/Slor2PQ
Actually the video said 4chan which is an internet group if it really is 4chan. I think they were the group suspected of crashing the feed on the Zimmerman trial.
I think that’s a pretty accurate depiction of what BDLR tried to argue in his closing arguments today. All they need to do is make the black guy 12 and make it so the punches don’t actually hit GZ.
I had an discussion with a neighbor about Affirmative Action recently and I said I don’t believe in it and I thought it was unconstitutional. My neighbor a loony liberal called me a racist then said that blacks and hispanics need it b/c they aren’t as smart as white people. But I’m the racist! I pointed this out to him and he said that b/c I won’t admit they need help is worse b/c he wants to help them. Couldn’t believe my ears.
Next time, point out that American blacks are substantially genetically white. You can tell this by looking at pictures of them and comparing with actual Africans.
Affirmative action is discrimination based on race. It is racism.
If the mannequin didn’t hit, you must acquit. This trial is a travesty.
!@#$
i’m curious to see if the mannequin is still in the courtroom today. i suspect guy will take his toy and go home.
Jeralyn at Talk Left: ‘The prosecution gets the last word because they have the burden of proof. De la Rionda’s closing was so weak, I’m wondering if it wasn’t planned to be that way, to keep the defense from guessing what John Guy will unleash in his closing. It’s Guy’s rebuttal, not O’Mara, that I’m focused on now.
I think John Guy is going to pull out some exhibit that was admitted by stipulation but not focused on at trial, and make some grandiose claim it shows something it does not — but the defense will have no chance to rebut him. All of the exhibits that were admitted into evidence go back to the jury room for their review in deliberations.
There were a lot of exhibits the parties admitted in a hurry at the end of a long trial day or right before a recess. Some of the court’s daily minutes and exhibit lists (available here) individually list the exhibits admitted that day, but others don’t.
What’s the state hiding? I have some theories, but I need to do some fact-checking of the trial record, so check back later or before tomorrow. In the meantime, let us know if you come up with anything.’
I wouldn’t put it past them. They are unethical and have a win at any cost mindset.
I agree 100%. Guy is a weasel with something up his sleeve.
She has more here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/224258/656/crimenews/Zimmerman-Anticipating-Mark-O-Mara-s-Closing
Weasels are going to be objecting to that comparison.
Was the state able to get the fact that Zimmerman was arrested in the past for fighting or anything else? If so, and MOM comments about what a nice guy Zimmerman is, can Guy come back with that? Or can he bring up something like that w/out it being a rebuttal statement?
That’s what they tried to get into evidence in their 3-witness rebuttal.
They asked the first witness one question, objection, he was dismissed, and they decided against the other two.
The last of which would have been the ATF cop GZ “assaulted”. O’Mara’s, uh, “offer” of 30 or more witnesses of Zimmerman’s good character should the state insist on calling their one bad character witness seems to have settled the matter.
Or to put it in simpler terms, O’Mara “Trayvoned” the State, and they’d left their gun at home.
Boom.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Thank-you, Andrew.
If I am not mistaken, in most states the final or surrebuttal is limited to issues already raised in the closing statement or defense rebuttal. You aren’t allowed to raise new issues or arguments on other aspects.
Have you seen Godot?
I was raised in Florida, and theres always been a total disconnect between the average citizens view of firearms and self defense, and the media/justice system view.
Many thanks to Andrew Branca for the excellent and comprehensive coverage of the trial, the best out there IMO.
Brian Lowrey had nothing good to say about the TV coverage, noting they are a bunch of lawyers no one wants to hire, all hoping to be the next Nancy Grace. He mocked Grace’s “Still ahead: explosions in the courtroom in the Zimmerman trial this afternoon!” with the devastating “which would be sensational if Grace didn’t introduce every segment with the same breathless excitement” (or words to that effect).
I don’t expect any rioters where I live, but I am prepared and suggest everyone be, too. Read Andrew’s book – just in case!
Strangely, none of the MSM have asked me to be a guest on their programs.
🙂
Well, I guess that’s not totally, true, NPR called this morning. I declined, but only because they wanted to meet with me while the trial was actually in session. My primary obligation here is covering the trial, not speaking on NPR, so that was an easy decision.
But I would have appeared on their show. Would have been pure joy to mock them on their own airwaves. 🙂
But, frankly, there’s no question that the MSM is looking for a particular spin on this issue, and I’m not part of that spin. Can you imagine me talking with Bashir on MSNBC, or any of the others? The cognitive dissonance would make his head explode. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Mr. Branca, are you covering the trial from inside the courtroom?
Absolutely not, I’m afraid. The courtroom is tiny. There are hundreds of people following the trial, and there’s maybe room for 30 of them in the courtroom. If I were in Sanford, FL, I’d be sitting in a Starbucks watching the trial exactly the same way I am in Boston–on the internet on my laptop.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Then thank you for your most excellent “Boston-on the internet” laptop coverage!
I am looking forward to the arrival of your book in the mail.
I second Andrew’s “Starbucks on my laptop” comments. I am local, and I thought about driving up and sticking my name in the lottery for a gallery seat, especially for the day(s) of closing arguments, because that’s when the attorneys get to strut like peacocks. But as the trial went on, I realized that sitting in my comfy desk chair with an adult beverage and looking at people’s faces was far preferable to sitting on a hard bench with a bunch of strangers and staring at the backs of people’s heads.
The only thing gained by actually being there would be to see the reactions of the jurors, and that was not enough of a benefit to tip the scales.
You should’ve gone on NPR. Lehrer and Lopate are pretty good. NPR is not MSNBC.
You neglected to use Nancy Grace’s ol’ standby- BOMBSHELL!!
I once saw her go on a rant about semi-automatic handguns, saying that once you pull the trigger all rounds are fired. She went on and on about why anyone would want to own a “semi”. She thinks semi-automatic means fully automatic. She was saying this to a member of law enforcement or some such person who did not even correct her.
Her fiancée is ‘gunned down’ 20 years ago and she is still on a crusade to label firearms as tools of the devil. Wh
You neglected to use Nancy Grace’s ol’ standby- BOMBSHELL!!
I once saw her go on a rant about semi-automatic handguns, saying that once you pull the trigger all rounds are fired. She went on and on about why anyone would want to own a “semi”. She thinks semi-automatic means fully automatic. She was saying this to a member of law enforcement or some such person who did not even correct her.
Her fiancée is ‘gunned down’ 20 years ago and she is still on a crusade to label firearms as tools of the devil. Wh
Just read meet the jurors. Now to speculate. Juror E40. A safety officer? She knows statistics. She deals with a job that requires precision. She deals everyday with proof, and invstigates accidents in the workplace. She knows what evidence is, and knows she hasn’t seen any.
B29. A hispanic nurse, who wouldn’t meet the prosecution’s eye today according to reports. The prosecution steted that Zimmermans head injury and busted nose weren’t serious injuries. Many times. Over and over throughout the trial. Each time she has thought, “WTF does he know about head injuries? How does he know they’re not serious?”
B76. Once co-ran a construction company with her husband. Manages rental properties with him now. Is familiar with Section 8 rentals, probably. Self-employed business people, her and her husband. Probably really strong feelings on property rights- and the right to defend both one’s self and one’s property. She hasn’t seen any evidence from the state at all. And she knows what details mean- she’s run a business.
B37. From the description, I get no feel for her.But, teh fact she had a CCW permit bodes better for Z then teh prosecution.
B51. Retired. Unmarried. Bad news, IMHO, for the defense. But the most likely to be swayed by fellow jurors, who we hope see the State has no case.
E6. Family owns guns- and uses them. God sign, again IMHO, for the defense.
A good closing, and the defense wins.
Nice analysis gospace, I concur.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Let’s just pray the jury posts the ‘not guilty’ verdict in cursive so we can have a peaceful weekend.
The lead article could read – Zimmerman gets what he deserves then in cursive (not guilty verdict).
Post of the Day! Heck, maybe even the whole trial LOL!
Mr. Branca, Andy McCarthy has an interesting article out today where he sings your praises as well as the praises of Professor Jacobson and Legal Insurrection.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/07/11/reversible-error-in-zimmerman-before-we-even-get-a-verdict/
I have great respect for McCarthy as a lawyer, and a prosecutor and he’s calling foul on Judge Nelson.
And when you have lost Alan Durshowitz, do you, as a prosecutor, really have a case?
Thanks for all you have done to keep us readers informed on this case. And the thought occurred to me today; did BDLR train at the Marsha Clark/Chris Darden School For Prosecutors?
Haha, yes, Mr. McCarthy and I have exchanged some communication. I’m a big fan of PJ Media in general.
I DID feel a couple of weeks ago that Mr. McCarthy had misinterpreted one of my blog posts, but I took the opportunity to post my questions in a comment on his blog, and as far I’m concerned the matter is forgotten. Believe me, I know what it’s like to produce a lot of content on a deadline, mistakes and misinterpretations happen. It’s a function of the work process, not ill-will (or hatred or spite haha).
In any case, Mr. McCarthy is many floors above mine in the skyscraper of commentary. I’m pretty sure he looks out his windows and sees waterfront. I look around and see the mailroom.
So, I think I’ll just stick to my desk and churn out what I can churn out, and hope that folks, including Mr. McCarthy, can gain some enjoyment from reading it.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew -Do you as an attorney feel as worried and stressed about this as I do? I’m losing sleep about this.
I was appalled that Judge Nelson said that if the defense disagreed with any of her rulings, and GZ was convicted, that he could just appeal the verdict? WHAT? “I don’t want to argue the matter – if I mess up, it’s OK if GZ has to wait in prison for 2 years before getting an appeal.”
Why is the Court so aligned with the State? I thought justice was supposed to be impartial.
Listening to McCarthy on XM yesterday, and while he made some good points, he also made one or two where I had to say that he really was working on MSM information. He made a statement or two based not on what has actually happened in the case, but rather how it was being reported. Which is not all that surprising since no one can be an expert on every thing. I have little doubt that if he were still a federal prosecutor, and if this were his case, he would have gotten his head into it.
And that is the difference with Andrew – he knows more than almost anyone ho is not directly involved what the facts and law are in the case. He has had his head into the case long enough that he understands what is there and what isn’t.
p.s. Thanks for all the great work.
wonder how the Vegas odds for guilty changed after Bern’s ????….I don’t know what to call it
.
“don’t judge her by the curve of her cursive”
How I would present closing arguments: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, first I want to thank you for the service you are providing this community by participating in these proceedings. Over the past several weeks the prosecution was supposed to be presenting you with evidence that would convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder in the second degree. So I ask you today, after all this time do you feel that you know that Mr. Zimmerman was not acting in self defense that night? Because if you can’t answer that question in the affirmative, then I am urging you that you must acquit. Yesterday during their closing arguments the prosecution told you that we don’t know a number of key things about this case. Contrary to the hard evidence provided by their own witnesses, they told you we didn’t know whether or not my client was told to stay in his car, that we didn’t know who initiated the fight, and that we don’t know how my client received his injuries. Personally I believe his witnesses all gave excellent testimony that showed my client was not given clear clear direction by the dispatcher, that Mr. Martin initiated the the attack on my unsuspecting client, and that if Mr. Martin had continued his assault, it could have resulted in severe brain damage or death. But let’s put these things aside for a moment and let me ask you, if Mr. De La Rionda is not certain about these things, than how can he expect you to be? And if he is not certain that my Client initiated the fight, or that my client did not fear for his life that night, then why has he been wasting your time for the past several weeks, because these are the exact elements that he needs to prove to you with certainty in order to show my client did not act in self defense that night. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will not waste any more of your time arguing my case further. This would be completely unnecessary for as I have just explained, the prosecution argued my case for me yesterday. Thank you the defense rests.
A couple of things I noticed:
When idiot was mounted on the doll with his knees by the armpits, where were the dolls hands. Down by it’s waist, where they’d be normally.
One of the slides has a quote from Sherlock Holmes, about once you eliminate the impossible, then what is left, however improbable, is the truth.
My prediction of the defense’s closing tomorrow:
This is the strangest case I have ever seen. Normally, the state provides evidence that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is responsible for it. Then the defense tries to poke holes in the state’s case, in order to create reasonable doubt.
The defense does not have to prove anything. The state has the burden of proof to prove the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the state has not done so. They have flipped things around. They have been trying to poke holes in George Zimmerman’s story, which was told repeatedly with no substantial differences since the moment of the shooting…
I can’t believe the state chose to close with BDLR. I know he’s lead counsel but he is probably the worst litigator in a publicized trial…I’m guessing Guy or Mantei wanted to close but were overruled.
It is disturbing, not surprising, that these creatures from Bernie to Bao are so pathetically inept. They are time servers, nothing more. From Bao through Mao, Rao, Bernie and all they are the worst of the worst and yet they have accumulted such power to do evil; because they are “public servents.” I almost wrote public serpents but that’s just because I’m using an iPhone.)
These are the very people who are socially engineering us, taxing us, administering our health care, guarding our borders, and representing us to the world. As Perfessor Reynolds would say, “We are in the very best of hands.
I do not take counsel of my fears however. First of all this world is not my home so there is that. But it has been darker than this at times in our history. Conrad Black enumerates many in his new book. George, alas, is not taking the long view.
Someone above analyzed the jury and wrote that one juror is a property manager. There are some Obama phone property managers these days ( stimulous money) but that aside, this is a hung jury at worst. I’m guessing the property manager will not let the one guilty vote out of the jury room without acquittals on both counts.
Nailing my flag to the mast, thanks Andrew. Kindle, faster please.