Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Defense Gives Evidence-Rich Closing, State Appeals to “Heart”

Zimmerman Defense Gives Evidence-Rich Closing, State Appeals to “Heart”

This morning saw the defense give its closing statement in Florida v. Zimmerman, the last opportunity for them to deliver their compelling narrative of innocence to the jury. And boy, did Mark O’Mara deliver. In a closing rich with evidence, facts, and the law, O’Mara focused the jury on their legal obligation to deliver a verdict consistent with the State’s burden to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

O’Mara stepped them through every significant piece of evidence, and every single witness that had appeared in court. He reminded them of their duty to come to a verdict using only the evidence actually presented at trial, and that any “filling in the gaps” must be seen as contributing towards reasonable doubt, and therefore towards a not guilty verdict. He urged them to do the opposite of what the State had suggested in BDLR’s fact-free closing, when the State seemed to suggest that the jury not be overly concerned with the evidence but rather apply their “common sense.”

Mark O'Mara shows cell phone photo of Trayvon Martin

Mark O’Mara, defense counsel, delivers closing argument

O’Mara’s last few sentences were particularly powerful. He urged the jury, when they went into deliberations, to consider self-defense first. Because unless the State has disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find George Zimmerman not guilty.

It was, in short, a masterful closing of the highest order, appealing to the civilized qualities of the jurors and their legal and moral charge.

In response, Mr. Guy delivered the State’s rebuttal closing in a manner that was even more fact-free than had been BLDR’s–something I hadn’t imagined possible. He started an immediate emotive appeal to the “human heart”, and never looked back. He referred to Martin as a “child” at least a half-dozen times, and Zimmerman as a “grown man”. What he did not do, what he could not do, was argue facts in evidence to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. This was yet another childish and histrionic “performance” by the State in a prosecution that had long since become their Gallipoli.


Mr. Guy, State prosecutor, delivers State rebuttal closing

OK, wanted to get that up quickly. A more detailed analysis to follow within a couple of hours.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


PROSECUTION REBUTTAL: The prosecutor’s rebuttal opens with an exhortation to the jury to look into the hearts of Zimmerman and Martin. Wow – the jury can determine that beyond a reasonable doubt?

As to what was in Martin’s heart, geez, is this the same prosecution team that quashed all the evidence of Martin’s interest in street-fighting?

Yes. That.

What was the Defenses objection during State’s rebuttal? Fox (in their infinite wisdom) thought i would rather hear the announcer’s rambling, nonsensical commentary as the judge issued her ruling.

I brilliant close by O’Mara!
I was practically applauding as he hit all the relevant points!

The state on the other hand….

Please use your heart, you emotion, your god-given common sense….
Anything but the evidence and the law….PLEASE!

    smokefan in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    As someone commented on the live thread, “When you have the facts in your favor, pound the facts. When you have the law in your favor, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.”

    MOM pounded the facts AND the law. BDLR and, from what I hear (I missed it) Guy, pounded the table.

    iRain in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    If the jurors do use their hearts, their emotions, surely they will find Zimmerman not guilty. These are, after all, female jurors who would have taken to heart, and reacted emotionally, to the testimony of the young mother who, with an infant in her arms, had only a rusted pair of scissors with which to protect herself and her child.

    Sally MJ in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    I did applaud.

I find it particularly egregious when the state lies and the state tells jurors to disregard facts since the state is the only entity that has the legal ability to deprive citizens of life, liberty and property. It really turns due process into one big joke.

David Dennis | July 12, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Why shouldn’t the human heart be equally sympathetic towards Zimmerman, who has had his life turned upside down for over a year? And for the Jury, who had to sit through this mess?


    The human heart is an organ that pumps blood through your body. Hopefully the jurors will use their brains, not their hearts.

Good overview. I cannot help feeling a lot rests on the Judge’s instruction to the jury regarding the Manslaughter charge. Murder 2 is toast.

I bet they are fuming over at the DOJ.
(Especially since the murder 3 surprise they suggested to the prosecution got shot down.)

    fogflyer in reply to Musson. | July 12, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Both charges are toast.
    There is just no way the are coming back guilt on anything. Hung jury at the worst, and I find that even highly doubtful.

    Seriously, has anyone ever seen a man being tried for murder with less evidence against him???

      Spiny Norman in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      You have more faith in the courage of the jury than I do. If they vote to acquit, they will need full-time police protection. The safety in anonymity they enjoy now won’t last long. Bet on it.

        fogflyer in reply to Spiny Norman. | July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm

        Hopefully, the jury is unaware of the danger, or if they are, will not let it influence them.

        Personally, I think the danger is overblown.
        First off, they will not disclose their names for quite some time, and as we all know, the American attention span is pretty short. There will be another travesty for the race-baiters to march behind soon.

        Is there even a case of a jury member being attacked because of a controversial verdict?

          fogflyer in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm

          In my best O’Mara voice….

          Really? Thumbs down? Really? REALLY? 😉

          Sally MJ in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 4:47 pm

          The threats and fears of riots were not stated by the MSM or people in Sanford or FL until the jury was already sequestered. I believe they came around July 1-3, which is when the jury would have been sequestered for maybe 7-10 days.

          So hopefully they don’t think about that. What a travesty to convict an innocent man as a method of preventing riots.

          Observer in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 5:21 pm

          A couple of the jurors in the Jodi Arias case (a death penalty murder case recently tried here in Arizona) reported receiving death threats after the jury was unable to agree in the penalty phase.

        Mac45 in reply to Spiny Norman. | July 12, 2013 at 2:12 pm

        Another reason to acquit GZ. Then the jurors can arm and protect themselves without fear of ending up in GZ’s shoes.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Spiny Norman. | July 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm

        Hopefully, these women are thinking about their city if they compromise and yeild law and order to political and racial pressure…if no one has the right to self-defense against thugs.

      Socratease in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 2:16 pm

      I’m not as sure as you. I was only on a jury once, and all the women on the jury wanted to vote for conviction against a Hispanic male not because of the evidence but because they figured he had probably done something wrong other than what he was charged with and got away with it. If an all-woman jury gets it into their head that Zimmerman should be found guilty of something, they could very well vote that way despite what the law says.

      MegK in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm

      I wish I was that confident. Unfortunately I have seen way too much ignorance and stupidity (Obama’s re-election being exhibit 1) the last several years to have that much faith. Hopefully these jurors are some of the smart people.

Just ordered your book to Thank you for your excellent coverage of this trial. You might want to add that there is a Paypal option amidst checkout. Thank You Andrew!

Last night FOX news showed that the state won fewer than 20% of these cases in Florida.

I think it’s always bad when a plaintiff fails to address questions raised by the defense about the quality of the plaintiff’s case, especially when it comes to the burdens of production and proof. When the defense is noting its own witnesses which the state would be expected to call and/or the absence of such witnesses, it’s pretty compelling. I admit, my experience is with civil juries, but I would think the same thing is true in criminal cases.

    Sally MJ in reply to Shermlaw. | July 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    I hope the jury understands what “burden” means in a legal sense. I don’t believe it was ever defined specifically.

For me, the strongest part of MOM’s summation was the charge to the jury that if they believed that GZ might well have acted from SD then they must find him Not Guilty. Simple and to the point. The prosecution certainly did not demonstrate that GZ did not act in any other way but SD.
However, juries are fickle and I am sure that GZ will now spend a painful period waiting to hear their decision.

    kentuckyliz in reply to bernie49. | July 12, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I thought MOM was brilliant in showing the jury how to make their process quick. Unless they are absolutely convinced that is was NOT self defense (beyond a shadow of a doubt), then they acquit on all charges. Wonder if they’ll be done by tea time.

    How’s Hurricane/Tropical Storm Chantale/Jeantel coming along? Are the rioters poised and ready to rumble? Are the Korean store owners locked and loaded? (Korean store owners–referring to 1992)

    fogflyer in reply to bernie49. | July 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Yes, that was huge.
    I also agree with the odd wording of the double-negative in reasonable doubt for self defense

    It would be much clearer if it said…

    If you have a reasonable belief that the defendant might have acted in self defense, you must find him not guilty..

Andrew, you must have been watching a different close.
HLN commentators called OMara’s close “SNOOZEVILLE”

    kentuckyliz in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    A media tweeter said he was teaching college. I thought, yeay, he respects their intellectual ability and discernment. State appealed to the Jerry Springer crowd.

      Barnestormer in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 12, 2013 at 2:32 pm

      Did you catch that, Jeantel? Here’s the contact information (in helpful typeface): The Jerry Springer Show, 454 N Columbus Dr Chicago, IL 60611.

    Pablo in reply to fogflyer. | July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Not enough screaming and swearing for them, apparently.

I missed Guy’s rebuttal as I had to actually go practice law (bankruptcy 341 meeting day). Looking forward to a link to streaming video so that I can kick back with popcorn and laugh.

Meanwhile, O’Mara’s argument was a clinic in how to present a closing.

kentuckyliz | July 12, 2013 at 1:43 pm

I had O’Mara on in the background while at work today…and our databases are down so there was nothing I could do for callers/visitors…so I did other things and listened uninterrupted. O’Mara was masterful. I think he had a lot more respect for the intellect and judgment of the jurors, whereas the state’s rebuttal treated them like emotional gyno-Americans. It was insulting to me as a woman.

I shouldn’t be Florida v. Zimmerman it should read Florida, Scheme Team, Obama DOJ and Media vs Zimmerman.

CPT. Charles | July 12, 2013 at 1:45 pm

The State’s position: Justice *must* remove her blindfold.

One more check-mark for our upside-down world…

Breaking News: Break in Boston Strangler Murders! Thank god, I hope they catch the guy so he isn’t roaming the streets anymore. Whats that they caught him in the 60’s. D’oh!

Andrew or anyone else who was attending the trial: a commenter at the Washington Post said a juror “wiped away a tear” during rebuttal. Is that true? God, I hope not.

If I lived in Florida I would be very concerned about the State’s ability to perform a competent prosecution.

    Exiliado in reply to Fen. | July 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    I live in Florida, and I am worried.

    But I am worried about the state having the power to prosecute without a scintilla of evidence, by manipulating not only the facts and the evidence, but the Law itself.

    Observer in reply to Fen. | July 12, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    I would also be worried about the inability of the ME’s office to follow basic protocol in evidence collection/preservation.

Something else that struck me by Guy’s closing is that…if you buy any that…you are wondering why Zimmerman was not charged with murder one.

You have to see the Central Florida Svengali as have a premeditated intent to off some random “child”.

I hope this latest verdict from a politically driven Flori-duh court is not a predictor of the Zim trial outcome.

Flori-duh mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots…

    moonstone716 in reply to Twanger. | July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    And you believe the news story? Even knowing it’s coming from CBS? Dig deeper and you’ll see they left out a LOT of details.

    So after we see what the media has done with Zimmerman, we are supposed to be up in arms about CBS’ version of this story.


    different case, different conditions. She went to the car and got her gun. That is nothing like what happened in this case.

Of the many apparently deliberate misrepresentations by Guy – did anyone else notice he told the jury that TM “was 16 years and 21 days old” instead of 17?

    styro1 in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    I thought he said 6 years and 4000 days old

    Cheerful in Marin in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    since an infant (year 0-1) counts as the first year of life, technically TM lived 17 years and 21 days or was in his eighteenth year of life. either way is tragic loss of life although I believe that GZ should be acquitted.

Anybody know of a site that will text or email you when the verdict is in???

Mystery Meat | July 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm

Drudge linked to an article in a Florida newspaper speculating that Miami would be “ground zero for riots and looting” in the event of a Zimmerman acquittal. Anyone with a brain and a grasp of history should know that there will likely be disturbances if Zimmerman is acquitted, ginned up by the usual people. Do jurors consider something like that when they make deliberations? They must know what happened in the first Rodney King trial when the LAPD officers were acquitted. Maybe that will be balanced out by the prospect of white hispanics arising in fury and laying waste to southern Florida in the event they convict Zimmerman.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Mystery Meat. | July 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Miami has just as many Hispanics – actually probably more Hispanics than AA’s.

    Believe me the two factions do not necessarily hold each other high regard

    Spiny Norman in reply to Mystery Meat. | July 12, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Acquittal – riots! Conviction – no riots.

    Acquittal – harassment and death threats, Conviction – go back to a normal life.

    You decide.

    BubbaLeroy in reply to Mystery Meat. | July 12, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    They are not looters. They are undocumented shoppers.

    antonb in reply to Mystery Meat. | July 12, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    I live in a middle class Cuban neighborhood here in Miami and I am not one bit concerned about any rioting in any pre-dominantly Cuban neighborhood. In fact, I would be shocked to see that go on in any of the various Latino neighborhoods. None of them seem to put up with that kind of nonsense. Miami Beach would be the only place I think where there might be some concern.

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm

So….Napolitano resigns today.
Any chance she doesn’t want the blood on her hands from all the riot gear and ammunition recently stockpiled by DHS?

    archtyrx in reply to inquisitivemind. | July 12, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    it doesn’t have anything to do with this trial, I can assure you. This trial isn’t the center of the universe for most people

Thanks for the summary, Mr. Branca. Interesting to note that Mr. Guy made a statement to the effect of, “A dead boy’s body demands the truth.” An ironic statement, given that this entire farce — from an indictment made without a scintilla of probable cause to support the charges, through a show trial intended to appease mob bloodlust and popular opinion, and made on the basis of political pressures, as opposed to the facts and law of the case — has been a mockery of the truth. Let’s face it — Zimmerman was charged because of political pressure, and because our politically correct climate demanded that the tragic death of a young black man — due to his own violent conduct in attacking another man without provocation — could not go unpunished, even if the facts indicated that no criminal conduct took place on Zimmerman’s part.

I have a real pit in my stomach over the rebuttal closing. Guy essentially told the juror to fill in all the gaps in evidence with assumptions against George Zimmerman.

This is totally lawless and emotional, but I really fear this will happen.

    fogflyer in reply to Nessuno. | July 12, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    O’Mara did an awfully good preemptive strike against such thinking in his close.
    I really am confident we will see an acquittal here…which frankly is surprising, as I usually have very little faith in my fellow man. Just goes to show how overwhelming I believe this case is in favor of the defense.

The prosecutors shouldn’t be upset when they lose

At least they’ll have a foam dummy they can take home and fuck..

First time I heard a 17 year old described as having lived 16 years and 21 days! Has simple arithmetic gone the way of cursive?

So, the prosecution basically made an argument in favor of nullification — is that a first? This has just been the weirdest prosecution all the way around (which is probably to be expected, really, since the State had no actual case).

    inquisitivemind in reply to BrendaK. | July 12, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    It appeared Bernie was going for a nullification yesterday as well – they know it’s over, O’Mara won’t give them what they want, he’ll wait until verdict comes out before motioning

I hope the jurors don’t have to punch a hole in card with their verdict choice.

Phillep Harding | July 12, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Is there a self defense instructor in the area the jurors can be referred to?

When the law is favorable, pound on the law. When the facts are favorable, pound on facts. When neither law or facts are favorable, pound on the table. The prosecutors are pounding on the table with a megaton hammer.

I have to mute the judge. Her voice is really starting to grate on me.

    inquisitivemind in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    If I were sitting there I’d be irritated and ready to get back in the room and take a vote on self-defense

poppa india | July 12, 2013 at 2:12 pm

The driving force behind this trial has been the belief I’ve seen floating around for years, especially with people in the teaching and social work fields. If a black guy feels racially insulted by a white guy, he is allowed to react violently without any consequences. The other way around, not allowed. This is just a reverse of the bad old days of lynch mobs that I’d hoped we’d moved beyond.

    tkdkerry in reply to poppa india. | July 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    I think this is rooted in the reparations mind-set. I have relatives who insist reparations for various past acts are a necessity, but they never understand the point when they are asked how society decides when everything’s even.

      ReallyVeryObnoxious in reply to tkdkerry. | July 12, 2013 at 3:59 pm

      It may be worse than that. There are features that make it more like a continuation of Segregation/Jim Crow era politically motivated ethnic terrorism, than like a counter to said terrorism.

      That ‘Authenticity’ is ‘White Supremacism’ with a fresh coat of paint, with narratives like ‘Reparations for Jim Crow’ replacing narratives like ‘Tyrant Lincoln’ and ‘Monster Sherman’.

      The whole edifice may kill a lot of minorities and terrify the rest into political compliance. Then, into not voting against Democrats, now into voting for Democrats.

      Trayvon Martin reminds me of Steve Renfroe. Given what is now known about his past and future, it seems like it might be in Steve’s character to have committed the politically useful murders that those who denied his guilt directly benefited from. With Obama et al being the local Democrats who helped end Reconstruction (hence starting Segregation) by using Renfroe’s ‘innocence’ as a campaign point.

      Obama here is Henry II, again, with Guy, Corey, et al as le Breton, de Morville, de Tracy, and fitzUrse.

Thats because the “tolerant enlightened” crowd on the Left believe that blacks will “go Ape” at the slightest provocation. They believe blacks should be held to a lower standard of conduct because they are not civilized.

    antonb in reply to Fen. | July 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    That is another point of irony about this case. The (argument that “Zimmerman should have just stayed in the car like the operator told him to do”, aside from being a complete mis-characterization of the interaction, avoids the underlying reason why someone would be told to stay in their car in that situation. The operator might give that instruction because the person being approached could possibly be dangerous putting the “approacher” in a dangerous situation. Yet the media would have you believe that you are not allowed to approach a young AA male in a public place and that is why he was instructed to avoid Martin.

Do you think when Mr. Bumble of Oliver Twist said “the law is a ass – a idiot” he could have been talking about Judge Nelson, The Scheme Team, Corey, BDLR, Guy and Mantai?

Prosecution wins on these points:

1 – Most convincing arguments, if you just ignore the facts
2 – Most skillful histrionics, including arm waving and shouting
3 – Shiniest head
4 – Presented best case for the Defense

Saw this tweet:

Prosecution to Zimmerman jury: “follow your heart.”
Translation: “the mob outside knows where you live.”


    mariner in reply to avwh. | July 12, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    That is the only real argument for conviction.

    Unfortunately it will probably carry the day.

[…] The prosecution it’s all about “feelings” — The defense it’s all about substance and facts: Zimmerman Defense Gives Evidence-Rich Closing, State Appeals to “Heart” […]

PackerBronco | July 12, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Stand up, Mark O’Mara’s passing.

People scoffed at my last comment to this blog because I didn’t point out it was snark. Really – what is the prosecution’s case?

Remember – he got out of the car!!! Guilty! What other evidence did they need?

    Browndog in reply to labrat. | July 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Snark doesn’t really fly here.

    Trust me, as a snarky kinda guy, I know. Don’t take it personal.

    not_surprised in reply to labrat. | July 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    They forgot the add-in charge of jay-walking when he got out of his truck..

    Sally MJ in reply to labrat. | July 12, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    GZ was already out of the car before he hung up with the dispatcher.

    Remember he was following at first, on foot – before dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and he said “OK.”

    GZ then said he needed to get the address (go to the northeastern edge of the complex.) That other resident testified that she too didn’t know the streets either without checking. Which is why he told Serino, when asked if he followed TM, that he “walked in the same direction as ” TM. It WAS the same direction. He didn’t know TM was still there instead of GOING HOME LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE.

WTF! County Sheriff and COP again on TV pleading for peace.


Are we Egypt? Are blacks the MB?

I have never heard appeals for calm directed at the white community.

I am tired of this thuggish threatening behavior.

    Matt in FL in reply to wyntre. | July 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Well, that’s not all there was to it, but it was part of it.

    It was also more of a warning: “We will not tolerate people using this verdict as an excuse to break the law.”

      wyntre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 12, 2013 at 3:14 pm

      Understood. But name one time a predominantly white community has been warned against breaking the law after a trial.

      After the news this week that the DOJ helped finance protests against GZ back in 2012 and considering the “one in the WH” saying if he had a son he would look like Trayvon I am beyond disgusted and more convinced than ever riots are hoped for.

      Look how LSM is stoking the fire. Look how GZ has been labeled a “white” Hispanic. These are not coincidences.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Matt in FL. | July 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm

      I guess Footlocker, Best Buy and Smitty’s Liquor, Beer & Wine Emporium are hiding all the good stuff. Hell, hide it all in a public library.

    Sally MJ in reply to wyntre. | July 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    And “First Amendment Zones” in churches and parks. Hello, the Constitution applies to the whole country.

I wasn’t able to see Guy’s rebuttal.

Was he as effective as everyone on tv is saying he was?

(be honest)

    He was very effective at ignoring the facts. Same as the TV people you are watching.

    Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    He is a good arguer.

    He almost exclusively appealed to emotion, which is wrong, objectionable, and could be insulting to many jurors.

    He continued the hyperbolic meme that Zimmerman is the Central Florida Svengali…that he all BUT premeditated the murder of a “child”, and then led the LEOs by their noses.

    He presented the “rebuttal” to “why didn’t Martin just go home?”; he was protecting baby brother from the “creepy-ass cracker”.

    He was insulting to me. Dunno how he appeared to the jury.

    MegK in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 3:16 pm

    He was effective in drawing out emotion, but he presented no evidence that refuted Zimmerman’s story.

    Sally MJ in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    Very emotional, very dramatic. Not factual. Could be an actor.

    DennisD in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    He’s very persuasive in the moment if sometimes a little too dramatic. He has a future in the movies.

TrooperJohnSmith | July 12, 2013 at 3:13 pm

The Left has moved “reason” and “evidence” from the LOGIC column into the EMOTION column.

That’s why we have the government we have. In the arena of ideas, facts and substance, the Left is bereft of even one scintilla of these. However, when it comes to feelings, intuition and fantasy, they are able to muster a formidable array of same. That’s all they have, and it is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, ‘the mob’.

Ann Coulter was right.

I for one will not be happy with a “not guilty” verdict.

Media, politics aside,, the manner in which this case was brought is a permanent stain on those that are charged with administrating legal justice in America.

Advise to those associated with the judiciary;from police officers to attorney generals-


If you claim “a few bad apples” are spoiling your reputation, then feel free to rid yourselves of these apples, instead of circling the wagons.


I have not seen what “everyone” on tv said, but I have seen a commentator give it a B- and the co-commentator agree. They also said that the case should not have come to trial and that the prosecution was theatrically effective, but that they did not make their case.

They gave O’Mara an A. BDLR received a “generous” C+.
In this context, is a B- effective?

    Browndog in reply to Mapleblood. | July 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    You know, that’s a great point.

    It just dawned on me that the prosecution engaged in a bit of misogyny.

    Meaning, playing to an all women jury, they’d ignored reason and facts, and base their verdict on feelings and emotion.

    I’d find that offensive, but then again, I’m a man, so I’m not allowed to really speak to this.

      AZ_Langer in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      This woman finds it offensive as well. I definitely have an emotional side but logic always takes precedence. A logical argument elicits my attention while an emotional appeal elicits my disdain.

        TrooperJohnSmith in reply to AZ_Langer. | July 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm

        My wife is a very logical thinker. Where her emotion comes into play is when I don’t quite follow her logic. 😆

        She just smacked me over the head with my mouse pad…

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 4:28 pm

      They forget women are very security conscious.

      If given a choice between which they would want to meet alone on the sidewalk at night:
      A. Neighborhood watch, criminal justice major, defender of homeless beating victim, mortgage fraud agent George Zimmerman.
      B. Tattooed Gangsta, obscene talking, druggie, burglar, violent, angry, fighting aficionado, Trayvon Martin

      Guess who would be chosen by the majority of women of any race and age?

MouseTheLuckyDog | July 12, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Does anyone know if the slides with the pictures of the witnesses and a summation of their testimony was submitted as evidence?

I think the defense should not have let the prosecution forward the weak claim that it was physically impossible for Zimmerman to access his gun during the struggle.

They had two witnesses with combatives expertise in the building at the same time. The two could have demonstrated the dynamics of a full-mount situation, which would have shown all of the twisting, turning, and bucking that occurs when you are trying to get someone off of you.

It would have accounted for the movement on the ground. It would have accounted for the opportunity to access the weapon. It would have accounted for Zimmerman claiming 25 strikes because his defense prevented most of Martin’s strikes from hitting or hitting squarely.

    Bryan24 in reply to Mapleblood. | July 12, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    When the prosecution said it was physically impossible to get his gun, I thought “Well, how did he shoot him then? Duh!”

    My next thought was, “Well did he lie, or did the defense provide a reasonable alternative?” I thought MOM covered that thoroughly during the testimony phase of the trial.

    DennisD in reply to Mapleblood. | July 12, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    I wondered why O’Mara didn’t address the holster position, but he did have Root say that getting to the gun was possible, so the jury will have to go over the evidence. Being that there were note takers they shouldn’t take the state’s word on it.

not_surprised | July 12, 2013 at 4:16 pm

5 – Best LA LA LA skip demonstration!

The defense argues the facts and the law, the prosecution argues dangerous emotions.

Mansizedtarget | July 12, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Anyone know name/function of the cute girl with dark hair behind Guy? I know, shallow of me, and tained with this evil prosecution, “but she was only following orders!” haha

God, this jury’s making me sick and nervous taking too long.

This guy looks like he may have gotten in early on the post verdict violence. Sad story, but I just cant help but think it might have been related to the Zimmerman case. AA male walks up to a guy at a bus stop and puts a bullet in the guys head at 5:30PM. Victim was a father of three with no apparent relation to his killer http://

It was not an appeal to the “human heart”, it was an appeal to the heart of darkness.

Was O’Mara a little brief with showing reasonable fear? I thought he could’ve done a little more. Andrew sells Guy a little short I think. While he may have been a little too dramatic at times, he’s very persuasive in the moment.

I hope the jurors review the evidence because Root said the gun was accessible, but I wonder why O’Mara never spoke to that, especially since unknown DNA, Martin not excluded, was found on Z’s holster. I don’t remember the gunshot and cessation of screaming being addressed at trial and I wonder what the jury will make of that.

    antonb in reply to DennisD. | July 12, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    What about addressing the jury about not coming in with a compromise verdict? Didnt seem that O’Mara was very strong on that point other than saying that self-defense is a defense for everything. Anyone else concerned about the jury deciding “we have to convict him of something”?

      DennisD in reply to antonb. | July 12, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      Jeffrey Toobin on CNN just made the same point. It is true though that self-defense is a defense to any charge and O’Mara did say exactly that.

If Andy Bernard, Dwight Shrute and Pete Miller had a baby together, that baby would be John Guy.