Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 12: Live Video, Analysis of Defense’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 12: Live Video, Analysis of Defense’s Case & Witnesses

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed. We have brief summaries of the previous day’s events (including last night’s fireworks!) along links to detailed more posts below the second video feed at the bottom of this post.

Also, a quick note, in thanks to the Professor and all of you I’ve put in place a 10% discount/free shipping coupon for Legal Insurrection followers interested in “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition”–use code LOSD2-LI at checkout.

Live Stream Video


[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)

Live Stream Video Alternative


Wednesday, July 10 Commentary

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY to post a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.
After the normal trial business yesterday, and after the jury had been dismissed for the day, the Court decided to hear a number of evidentiary matters and proffers. Among these was the animated video prepared by the defense. Another proffer of evidence involving Trayvon Martin’s cell phone led to considerable “fireworks”, with loud accusations and protestations between the State and defense, as well as between the defense and the Court, and ultimately Judge Nelson walking out of the courtroom while the defense was still speaking, and the defense announcing to her back that given the late hour (10:00PM) it seemed unlikely that they would be prepared to continue the next morning as scheduled.

Judge to rule in morning about Trayvon fighting texts after contentious nighttime hearing

Our end-of-day wrap-up and analysis of yesterday focused on the forensic pathology testimony of Dr. Vincent Di Maio, and the announcement by the defense that they expected to rest their case today:

Noted Forensic Pathologist Says Zimmerman Story “Consistent” with Evidence, As Defense Case Nears End

Monday’s end-of-day wrap-up and analysis focused on the collapse of the State’s “scream” theory of the case, which imploded with the disclosure that Tracey Martin had initially denied that the screaming on the Lauer 911 recording was that of his son, Trayvon Martin. It also noted that the Court had decided to allow Trayvon Martin’s toxicology report to be allowed into evdience. Also, of course, it contains video of all the other testimony and hearings caught on camera throughout the day. That can be found here:

Implosion: Police Testify Trayvon’s Father Originally Denied Son Was Screaming

This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

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

Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at  They set their own price, and it can vary 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!

FYI, I have instituted a special Legal Insurrection discount coupon for purchase of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” good only at, for 10% off and free shipping: LOSD2-LI

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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Live stream link is from yesterday, says “This live event has ended.” Please fix so I can stop listening to Bill Sheaffer and the other WFTV dude bloviate.

It is weird that MSNBC is not streaming anymore.

Are they bailing on the story?

    Matt in FL in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 9:09 am

    Thank you sir. Somebody poke Andrew and tell him his page is broken. I don’t have Twitter, which might be the fastest way.

      Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:25 am

      Thanks to any of you who tweeted Andrew about his broken page. It’s fixed now. That other NBC page that Exiliado linked does have a slightly larger embed, but I prefer this one, so I can see the video and tweed feed on the same page.

      Thanks again.

    Mister Natural in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 9:10 am

    thank you, kindly

    kentuckyliz in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Thank you for the link. I like it there better–bigger embed.

    Judge just disallowed TM’s phone content, but allowed animation not as evidence but as a demonstration. She advised GZ of his rights to remain silent or testify. Sounds like the last day of witnesses.

    Can’t wait to hear these closing arguments.

    pjm in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 9:17 am

    Thanks for that ! My other links are dead.

    IMO, her ruling on the animation is correct – it is NOT EVIDENCE, it is an illustration THEORY of the case.

    I DO wish the reator had gotten the punch correct – he shows it as a LEFT, when clearly to cause the injury to Z’nose, pushed to his RIGHT, the punch was right-handed.

    On the texts – reversible error.

    WHere’s the tox data about THC she admitted ? I didnt’ hear it yet ?

Mister Natural | July 10, 2013 at 9:07 am

looks like NBC has packed it in | July 10, 2013 at 9:14 am

Wow, reversible error right out of the gate re: text messages.

Surprised Angela Corey is in court so much. Doesn’t she have other responsibilities?

OH, BIG surprise!!!!
Defense loses on both items!!

The animation was iffy, but the ruling on the texts I think was very unfair and obstructs Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial.

Judge B*tch will not allow the texts in. What a bunch of crap! Can defense attorneys do anything now about this?

with what Prof. Jacobson posted this morning, GZ now can rest easy, if there is a conviction, he will only be in jail through the first appeal

Has her Honor just committed reversible error?

    ProfessionalSpectator in reply to MarkS. | July 10, 2013 at 9:19 am

    Judge definitely just made a reversible error. In a murder case where the defendant has asserted self-defense, the victim’s reputation relating to violence and aggression is at issue and extremely relevant. Any type of reputation evidence pertaining to a victim’s proclivity for violence is absolutely admissible. Huge error here.

      Mansizedtarget in reply to ProfessionalSpectator. | July 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

      Similarly, when you have unarmed “victim” the two fighters’ relative skill and experience in fighting is directly relevant. The authenticity thing was a red hearing; the fact it was his phone was a prima facie case, particularly given two passwords. State could have challenged, if a basis to do so on cross. At least some, particularly reputation stuff, the stuff about half brother seeking insruction, should have come in.

      They should have subpoenaed at least some of these witnesses, though, but that obviously is expensive and risky.

      Except the objection was over authenticity and not relevancy.

        Voluble in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 10, 2013 at 10:17 am

        She apparently dropped the ridiculous authenticity objection last night and fell back to her original ruling on admissibility. Obviously, she was casting about for an excuse to rule as she wished.

        ProfessionalSpectator in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

        Except the authenticity argument has no legal basis. Text messages from a person’s phone are regularly entered into evidence. Furthermore, the Mr. Martin’s phone were already introduced in the case.

So I suppose whether or not the defense strings their case out for an emergency appeal depends on whether MOM thinks they really need that stuff in evidence to secure an acquittal. It’s now preserved for appeal, so if he judges they don’t need it, there’s really no reason to string this out, right?

    Mansizedtarget in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:48 am

    Evidence issues related to inadmissibility almost never support an emergency appeal. If he’s acquitted, it’s thought of as “all’s well that ends well.”

Since the animation is now only allowed as a demonstrative tool, can they use the original version with the full animation?

Mister Natural | July 10, 2013 at 9:19 am

anyone surprised at nelson’s ruling for the persecution(sic) ?
can this ruling be appealed in time to be of value?

    Jazzizhep in reply to Mister Natural. | July 10, 2013 at 9:27 am

    To be honest, I am. Surprised it took her that long, she could have ruled in the first 5 minutes last night.

      DrKyleJones in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 10, 2013 at 11:31 am

      But then she couldn’t have wasted all the time that the defense could have used to prepare for other things going on today.

moonstone716 | July 10, 2013 at 9:20 am

Why the big fight over the animation? If I were on the jury, that would mean nothing to me.

    Exiliado in reply to moonstone716. | July 10, 2013 at 9:25 am

    A visual presentation is a great tool that allows you to see all the pieces together and how they fit and interact with one another.

    Not everybody has the same analysis and critical thinking abilities and it is very easy to overlook or forget some details.

      moonstone716 in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 9:31 am

      I’m sure you’re right….but since it’s just based on testimony we’ve already heard..I guess I’m just saying it doesn’t prove anything. I would feel they were wasting my time.

      I guess it might be helpful in mentally locating where the eye- and ear-witnesses were, etc.

The original error was in forcing this to trial when the judge did.

It just snowballed from there…

    rotate in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Why was this toxic case assigned to this judge? Seems the most experienced, top criminal jurist would be selected. Wasn’t she a family court judge?

Here’s what Jeralyn at Talk Left has to say about fighting text messages:

‘Trayon’s texts about fighting are relevant to his state of mind and a hearsay exception. They also go to his physical condition. These are relevant areas for Zimmerman to bring into evidence. It’s not character evidence, instances of prior bad acts or reputation evidence. Even if they don’t have a live witness to authenticate them, they have an excellent expert who can do that through similarities of content.’

‘This trial is running ahead of schedule. There’s no time limit. She needs to ease up and give the lawyers time to finish their depositions, prepare their witnesses, research their issues and argue motions during the workday and make timely rulings.’

I think thats the least the judge should have done. The state went on for 2 weeks with the presentation of it’s pathetic “case”. To force the defense to rush thru it’s defense is a denial of the defendants constitutional rights to a fair trial. But no sweat off Judge Nelsons fat ass she won’t be spending time in jail if GZ is found guilty. Will she really care if she’s overturned on appeal. I think not.

    kentuckyliz in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Well, there’s a hurricane coming…Chantal (sounds like Jeantel).

      moonstone716 in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 10, 2013 at 9:34 am

      I’m in south Florida and we’re getting the bad weather from Chantal already. How great would it be if they reach a verdict while the bands of the storm are hitting Central Florida? I don’t think they’ll like rioting and looting in the rain.

      Of course, that won’t stop them in LA or where ever.

        Judyt2013 in reply to moonstone716. | July 10, 2013 at 10:34 am

        Working in DC I am very worried about the potential for riots or just retaliation attacks but people screaming “Justice for Trayvon” the way terrorists scream “Allah Akabar”.

One thing we CAN say…Zimmerman has had a hell of a fine defense, given their constraints.

Heres more from Jeralyn:
‘Unless the state can prove the texts were not sent to or written by Trayvon, since they were on his phone (and needed a double password to delete) the fact that someone else might have used his phone to send them is a matter that goes to the weight the jury gives the evidence. If otherwise admissible as a state of mind hearsay exception, or some other exception, they should come in.’

‘Don West, in oral argument, gave Nelson far more circumstantial evidence than necessary to get these texts in. I won’t repeat his arguments, you can watch the last 20 minutes of last night’s hearing.’

The Judge needs to recess this trial until Monday, so the defense can do the research it needs as it prepares for its final witnesses, and have time to find and subpoena Lavondria and Mike F., Demetrius Martin and Rachel if need be, to have them verify these were texts they received from Martin. If they can’t do that, the texts should still be allowed through all the circumstantial evidence that supports Martin sent and received the texts on his phone.’

    kentuckyliz in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 10:55 am

    When there was such a crass, coordinated PR campaign in the media presenting TM as a child, which obviously tainted some witnesses’ interpretations of their perceptions (Jayne Surdyka and Ms Manalo), TM as angel, such a loud and public and sustained PR campaign–even if this jury all say they don’t watch the news, you can believe that taint overhangs everything. Those texts, photos, tweets, and fb posts are REQUIRED by this situation and the arguments the State is making.

Diana Tennis continues to make idiotic and largely irrelevant observations.

    Matt in FL in reply to swlip. | July 10, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Yeah, as I’ve watched the attorneys involved and around this trial, I’ve made a few mental notes if I ever need an attorney. For instance, MOM and West are “Retain this guy for sure,” etc. Tennis started off pretty good, but at this point there are commenters on this forum that I would retain to represent me before I called her.

      Browndog in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

      yea, but she has “spidy sense”

      Diana Tennis @TennisLaw

      My Spidey senses are telling me this witness is bad idea for defense.

    moonstone716 in reply to swlip. | July 10, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Well, she just used “effect” when it should have been “affect” in a tweet, so I am not impressed wit her.

    Matt in FL in reply to swlip. | July 10, 2013 at 9:41 am

    She just tweeted: “My Spidey senses are telling me this witness is bad idea for defense.”

    Well, my considered opinion of your Spidey senses is that if that’s what you think, then MOM should leave this guy on the stand for the rest of the week, because your judgment is clearly not great.

I believe Root will address the fact that GZ was pinned down or trapped, having no options available but to use his weapon.

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 9:37 am

Defense witnesses are much higher quality experts than those for the prosecution.

Moreover, the pleasant, courteous manners and unflappability of both West and O’Mara are sure to impress the women of the jury.

Whereas, the prosecution attorneys are ill-tempered, loud, and not appealing at all.

    styro1 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 10, 2013 at 9:50 am

    I agree Mantei and BDLR especially. I watched BDLR’s cross of Leanne Benjamin this morning and he was like a 4 year old who tried to get a rise out of adults w/ a swear word he just learned. Continually repeating the curse words GZ had said to NEN in a very loud voice. Little men in a big job.

      kentuckyliz in reply to styro1. | July 10, 2013 at 10:52 am

      That was bad optics of the day prize, right there. BDLR yelling “Fucking punks! Assholes!” at sweet grandma lady repeatedly.

      Didn’t that arouse everyone’s “don’t harass my grandma!” instincts?!

A lot of tweets from 30ish white females very anti GZ. I was surprised. They hold he attacked and shot all GZ’s fault. They want manslaughter at least. Wonder if jury women are same mindset? I kinds feel this could be hung jury.

    Alan Cain in reply to rotate. | July 10, 2013 at 9:46 am

    That’s scary and makes me concerned.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to rotate. | July 10, 2013 at 9:48 am

    They have been poisoned and biased by the DESPICABLE, CRIMINAL Crump/Julison fictional propaganda narrative and the political race-baiters, including Obama and his gun control propaganda.

    caambers in reply to rotate. | July 10, 2013 at 9:58 am

    There are 20-somethings here are work of the same mind BUT…and this is a big one..they haven’t been paying attention to the trial so all they know is what they heard from the Scheme Team via the media since last year. I think the women on the jury who have heard the evidence will do the right thing.

    Karla1953 in reply to rotate. | July 10, 2013 at 10:00 am

    This case has been so driven by outside biased media it is not a shock to me at all. Most are not from here and have no clue about all the aspects of this case nor do they take the time to do minimal research and think for themselves. I am so thankful for the Twitter feed on this page and the comments as I am at work and not able to access much…………but for the most part I find that Twitter is the devil.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to rotate. | July 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    How do you know they’re really thirtyish white women?

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 9:46 am

Officer Root is brilliantly humanizing law enforcement and use of weapons for defense and preventing injury!

With regards to the tweets, most people are not following the case closely and only going by what the biased media and social sites tell them. The jury has to see this differently than your average person.

Wow Diana Tennis is really slamming this guy. I don’t know I trust this defense team to not screw up.

    Matt in FL in reply to bizbach. | July 10, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Yeah, she’s really opinionated this morning.

    “One-too-many-witness-syndrome. There is a cure, unfortunately it involves extracting the boot of your opponent from your arse.”

    What the hell does that even mean? Does she think the prosecution is kicking the defense’s ass?

    swlip in reply to bizbach. | July 10, 2013 at 10:01 am

    She’s an idiot.

      archtyrx in reply to swlip. | July 10, 2013 at 10:10 am

      I think she’s a hard working judge. She’s got more stamina than West, who weakly said “I can’t keep up this pace anymore”
      Perhaps West should go get him and his daughters some more ice cream cones.

        Matt in FL in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 10:14 am

        @archtyrx: OK, I know you’re trolling, but I’ll play.

        First, you responded to a conversational thread about Diana Tennis with a comment about Judge Nelson.

        Second, as far as Nelson being a hardworking judge with more stamina than West, keep in mind that while yes, they’d both been in that courtroom all day, West had spent a significant portion of it standing up and arguing, while Nelson spent the whole day wearing a hole in her super-tech chair.

        Now get back under your bridge, and next time, at least respond to the appropriate comment thread.

          archtyrx in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 10:34 am

          Ummm OK, out from under the bridge.
          Everyone is tired, and everyone has been in that courtroom for the stretch. The judge has also been up looking at case law all night to rule on the two issues. West was probably just looking for a stall. Just my opinion, and this forum does allow ‘other’ opinions does it not?

          Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 10:45 am

          “West was probably just looking for a stall.”

          On what do you base that? You can’t deny that the State took almost two weeks to present its case, two weeks of days that ended mostly about 5:30, and in one case as late as 6:30. In the last two days Nelson suddenly put the case in high gear, with two extremely late nights by comparison. West was reacting to the sudden change in pace, because now they’re not only going 7 days a week, they’re going 10-12 hours a day in court.

          Also, his comment that he “can’t go on like this much longer,” was a plea, not an argument. It was the plea of a mentally and physically exhausted man, asking for some mercy. It was not a legal tactic.

        Karla1953 in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 10:35 am

        Except no one is speaking about the Judge. Rather then commenting on West not keeping up a suggestion might be that if one cannot even keep up with the comment section perhaps one should consider taking some notes.

          archtyrx in reply to Karla1953. | July 10, 2013 at 10:38 am

          could you please answer the question? Your attempts at insult fall well short. Again: This forum does respect ‘other’ opinions that may differ from the overwhelming majority here?

          Aridog in reply to Karla1953. | July 10, 2013 at 11:22 am

          I repeat, this thread *section* is about @bizbach’s comment at 10:00 am today:

          ” Wow Diana Tennis is really slamming this guy….”

          To which you responded with remarks about Judge Nelson and Attorney West. Non-sequitur at the least, no? Criticism here has nothing to do with a differing opinion, in fact many of us here have different opinions.

        Karla1953 in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 11:13 am

        Simply an observation of comprehension…..not trying to insult….simply pointing out it was not about the Judge initially. Nelson however brought much of this on herself by in many ways rushing this trial from the beginning rather than dealing with some of the issues before seating the jury. So I do not see where she is so hard working in this…..if anything the exact opposite. That may be your definition of hard working it is not mine

Diana Tennis, like most of the punditry, are crying about about the defense taking too long; i.e., defending their client.

Funny, I never heard any such cries when the prosecution were presenting their case.

    DerHahn in reply to Browndog. | July 10, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Probably because (as a lot of people pointed out here) they couldn’t tell if it was the prosecution or the defense presenting the case for the first two weeks.

    Aridog in reply to Browndog. | July 10, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Which is why I’m listening and watching only the live feed without commentary,[Thank you for that feature LI and Andrew] and skipping tweets and MSM television on this case. I am surprisingly capable of forming my own opinions, and when I need an answer on a point of law, I can ask it right here and be answered by an attorney.

Curious…Is the jury identifiable in the court room?

the movie Vantage Point is not as good as Rashomon

Just saw this piece….it does to me anyway point out so many of the things that I hope others are finally coming to realize. It kind of breaks some things down in an almost simple way while in actual fact none of what has happened has been simple at all

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 10:15 am

West is not in the court room today – Appeals Court?

why Root. He should be able to explain HOW TO ANALYZE the information, even if he is not able to provide his conclusion itself. If the jury follows his methodology, then they should arrive at his conclusion.

Root’s testimony I believe will be significant and brilliant. Getting into the heads and perspective of GZ, TM, and the witnesses will help everyone, especially the jury, to understand what lead up to the confrontation and what happened through out.

Root’s testimony is “closing argument via witness.” Establish his bonafides as someone who knows what he’s talking about, and then he gets to say, “Here’s what I think.”


screams – high level of fear – the money quote

State maintained that the shot to the heart itself was evidence of spite hate and illwill

O’Mara is tired.

When TM said you got me and gave up, GZ stopped defending himself.

    what if TM actually said “you got it”; that would put a whole different angle on what took place. It would also support GZ that TM was attempting to get his gun.

Does the jury receive any instruction on the legal definition of ill-will and malice?
It worries me because it is fair to say that anyone who shoots someone has “ill will” toward the person he shoots. Obviously though, this is not what the law means, but I am concerned how this is presented to the jury.

When GZ gave up or tapped out by screaming for help, TM continued the assault.

I think Judge Nelson doesn’t really know how to control her courtroom too well.

I haven’t listened to Root very much but what particular relevance does this generalized testimony about law enforcement best practices have to do with this case?

This is really stupid…she lets Root testify, but she doesn’t let in the txt evidence which is directly relevant to TM’s aggressiveness?

“Is it a gun? Does it shoot? Hell Yeah!!!”

Thanks Mr. Root.

Omara suggests a break, looks tired, and jury says “let’s do this”
Love it.

“The most important safety feature of any firearm is the person carrying it.”

That’s an ouchie for the defense, it makes the jury focus on whether Zimmerman was competent to carry the weapon on night watch.

    Mansizedtarget in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I’m not so sure. I think the media is making this “Neighborwood Watch” out to be more than it is. It’s just a commitment to keep an eye on things and call police. The police explain what to look for and who to call. It’s not like there is a series of patrols scheduled with a rotating watch. It’s not like anyone is required to do anything. It’s voluntary, and it’s mostly a pushing out of information to neighbors about what’s happening, recent break ins, etc. It is not a job, like “night watchmen.” And it certainly does not mean anyone who is involved loses his right to carry concealed if legally permitted to do so, nor his right of self defense. I don’t think this is too hard for the jury to understand.

      archtyrx in reply to Mansizedtarget. | July 10, 2013 at 11:07 am

      So with your logic it follows then that it also certainly doesn’t mean following/pursuing a suspicious person, like a cop would, correct? And not disregarding advice from police dispatch to not pursue?

        DrKyleJones in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 11:57 am

        The “advice” from dispatch is solely about liability and not about best practice. If they suggest to a person to follow someone, and then the suspect is violent and say, tries to beat their face in, then the dispatcher and the city would be liable. So they always say “we dont’ require you to do that” to avoid liability. It has nothing to do with telling the citizen “NOT” to do something.

        Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 12:52 pm

        Try to keep up, archie. It has already been shown that GZ was NOT told to not follow. Following breaks no laws.

        You have a lot of catching up to do.


    Zimmerman was NOT on nightwatch

“A firearm is as safe as the person holding it.”

Oh my goodness, not good for the defense at all.

= if Zimmerman is unsafe (read: inadequately trained), then firearm is unsafe.

This is possibly going to bamboozle the jury, now they might be thinking about whether or not Zimm was properly trained in carrying/using the weapon which if not would possibly go to “culpable negligence” (manslaughter charge).

    Dr P in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 10:57 am

    He was trained well enough to have a concealed carry permit.

      Matt in FL in reply to Dr P. | July 10, 2013 at 11:03 am

      Well, speaking as someone who has a Florida concealed permit, and who has not only taken my permit class, but has sat in on several others, I can tell you that the quality of instruction can vary wildly depending on the instructor and the course structure. My personal class, the one that got me my permit, honestly left me with more questions than answers. I was frankly astonished at how little information I came out of that class with. Luckily I’m someone who is very interested in learning for myself, and so I’ve done extensive reading since then, but not everyone is like me. It was only me and one other guy in my class, and for all I know that guy is carrying a concealed weapon with no more knowledge than he got in that four hour course. If I’m honest, I’ll say that makes me a little nervous for him, and for those around him.

        archtyrx in reply to Matt in FL. | July 10, 2013 at 11:10 am

        excellent point. Getting a concealed does not indicate much in the way of training. This issue of inadequate training and lack of respect for firearms starts to get at some important points for the prosecution.

          Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 12:55 pm

          Didn’t witness MO, the air marshal, testify that he teaches CCW and that he regularly trained with GZ?

    inquisitivemind in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:14 am

    I believe(from coworker who formerly resided in FL) that a class is required for CCW permit.
    He also consulted an additional friend, air marshal , in acquiring a weapon and how to use it – seems like due care of responsibility to me

Judge to allow testimony from MSNBC pundit Michael Eric Dyson..

My attorney advised me to include this, for some reason

As Foghorn Leghorn says:
“That’s a joke, ah say, that’s a joke, son.”

Stupid cross-examination coming up.

TA is an @zzhole & effing punk

If he didn’t know him, a perfect stranger, how could there be ill will. Root: good explanation how the frustration was directed at the prior fellas who always get away.

This is a really really stupid cross. This is all argument. “Did he call you a fucking punk/asshole?”

Wow these prosecutors are morats, and they love to say “asshole.”

    Matt in FL in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:07 am

    It really seems to me that the prosecution has passed the benefit peak on the cursing, and is on the downhill slide to it hurting them. I’m not a middle-aged white mom, and profanity doesn’t bother me, and it’s starting to get on my nerves.

    Alan Cain in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:24 am

    They are assholes.

      MURDERER !!!!! You said ‘Assholes’ without saying ‘Pardon my language’ !

      20 years for you ! And no soup !

    fogflyer in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    When they keep asking, “isn’t it true he called Trayvon a F’n punk and an A-hole?” I always want to hear them respond, NO! He was calling all the past criminals who have gotten away those terms, not Trayvon!

So the entire basis of this case is that using an expletive means that you are meaning to murder someone?

BDLR likes to curse. I would have trouble not rolling my eyes at him.

Guy falling back on the “asshole” offense.

“An irresponsible person can be really really dangerous.”

The manslaughter issue–why didn’t the prosecutor follow up???? O’Mara opened the door to this on direct, as I pointed out–gun is only as safe as the person who is carrying.

Cross-exam should ask about Zimmerman’s gun training or lack thereof, try to prove Zimmer was inadequately trained to be safely carrying a gun under these circumstances, WTF, why did prosecutor drop this line of questioning????

    Voluble in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:09 am

    We are so far past that point now that it doesn’t matter. They either believe George was fighting for his life or not. What the hell would it matter what his training was? What would it matter whether he had all of the skills of Barney Fife? All that matters was that he was able to discharge his firearm when he needed to and he never endangered anyone he did not intend to shoot.

      Marco100 in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:16 am

      Maybe it wouldn’t matter but it’s just the witness gave a door to argue manslaughter by saying a gun is only as safe as the person carrying it.

      At least it would give the jury something to think about, they might still decide it’s all self defense, but it clouds the issues.

        inquisitivemind in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:20 am

        The gun would be unsafe if not properly holstered – or if he was shooting willy-nilly in the direction of TM.
        Removing it only when your life depends on it is as responsible as it gets.

        Matt in FL in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

        @Marco100: You generally give really good comments, but I think you’ve now left at least 3-4 comments, maybe more, making the gun safety-manslaughter link. We get it. You don’t have to keep repeating yourself.

I would love to testify in this case so I can say “asshole fucking punk asshole fucking punk asshole” on T.V., in court!!!!

Yeah baby!!!!

George Carlin rules!!!

“If the defense wins this trial my hourly goes from $125/hour to $1,250.00/hour.”

    healthguyfsu in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Not sure why anyone would pay you that since you weren’t part of the trial and you are sitting here making comments on a comment board.

It is left out that GZ had just been approached by TM with his hand in his waist band in threatening manner to intimidate GZ.

    Observer in reply to vmic. | July 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Martin’s act of circling Zimmerman’s vehicle menacingly and trying to intimidate him doesn’t quite fit with the state’s theory that Martin was just a scared kid who was desperately trying to escape the “crazy-ass cracka” who was stalking him.

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 11:07 am

Root is very effective on Cross. Very believable, articulate, rational.

Makes Guy look like the south end of a north-bound horse.

    Exiliado in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 10, 2013 at 11:25 am

    I noticed there’s a big difference between Mr. Root and Mr. Shumaker from yesterday.

    Mr. Root if very confident and fluent. He does not look intimidated at all by the prosecutor’s questions or attempts to manipulate or discredit his expertise.

I wonder if any law firm would want to hire any of the prosecutors?

would not lie to GET INTO TROUBLE – LOL

This is frickin’ incredible. This witness opened the door to possible manslaughter on direct–gun is only as safe as the man carrying it.

This entire cross should be asking Root about Zimmerman’s level of training with a firearm to prove he was a numnutz with a gun and shouldn’t have been carrying it on night watch = at least an argument for manslaughter.

Cross shouldn’t be cutting down this witness, should be respecting him but getting witness to talk about Zimms lack of gun training–similar to the Martial Arts guy who said Zimm was a .5 on a 1 to 10 scale, a physically inept boob.

    Voluble in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:17 am

    I think you are the only one seeing any door worth walking through. We all know he discharged his firearm and never endangered anyone but the person he intended to shoot. There is no room there to find any irresponsible actions.

      Marco100 in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:21 am

      Maybe it’s a door into a closet, but that’s better than anything else the prosecution has had.


    CENTFLAMIKE in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

    “shouldn’t have been carrying it on night watch”

    This overstates the neighborhood watch activity. The vast majority of people involved in neighborhood watch are not “on duty.” They are not out there patrolling the perimeter of the neighborhood at specific times. They are just asked, and somewhat trained, to be more observant in their day-to-day activities within the neighborhood.

    GZ was not “on watch” he was just going to the grocery store.

GUY: “Isn’t is true you’re doing this to get free publicity for your company?”

Isn’t is true that Guy is putting on this show trial for *his* publicity with the liberal and black communities?

GZ tried to spot TM heading out the back gate looking south on RVC to relay TM’s position to police. GZ was trying to spot TM and had stopped following TM at the T.

Uncle Samuel | July 10, 2013 at 11:16 am

Root just stated that Jeantel’s testimony and claims about the phone calls DO NOT LINE UP.


Carol Herman | July 10, 2013 at 11:19 am

DRUDGE has up the Defense testimony can’t come in. And, then he has another headline discussing if GM will testify, or not.

The Defense Team would be nuts to subject GZ to this foul courtoom.

It is only after this case is over, IF nelson’s judicial antics will ever get exposed.

Not good news for flordia. Maybe, case is the SACCO and VINCENTI case of the 1930’s? No one knows the name of that judge. Only that SACCO and VINCENTI were tried and executed.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Carol Herman. | July 10, 2013 at 11:22 am

    Sacco & Vanzetti. More ice. Less vodka.

    Milhouse in reply to Carol Herman. | July 10, 2013 at 11:56 am

    Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty as hell, you lunatic. And Sinclair, who promoted their claim to innocence, knew they were guilty, but wrote his book anyway because he was afraid the communists would kill him if he told what he knew.

Why do they not ever ask state witnesses where they get their money and if they think they can advance politically based on their testimony? Why is there a presumption they are acting in the public interest whereas private witnesses are not? But private witnesses always get questioned on what they are paid.

    Hodor in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:28 am

    Perhaps it’s been shown that that’s a line of questioning that doesn’t really matter to jurors…? That they understand that experts get paid for their work and that it’s to be expected…? That then presumes that (more sophisticated- these sure are) defense lawyers understand that and that it’s (maybe only rarely) a worthwhile thread to pursue.

Okay here we go with Ms Jeantel. I Believe she was cleaned up by Crump. When she said something about GZ being a rapist I was waiting for a response from TM. NOTHING. No way that kid would not have said something back. Something like “I’ll kill him”. He would have responded to that.

I don’t think anyone has any idea why the prosecution is holding up a flashlight. I don’t think they do either because Trayvon had no impact injuries.


    Henry Hawkins in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:24 am

    I think their suggestion is that GZ had a less lethal weapon available.

      he had other less than lethal weapons available such as his hands, but as Dr De Maio noted the flashlight would not have been very effective

      inquisitivemind in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 10, 2013 at 11:28 am

      Yeah because beating someone off with a flashlight that is in your pocket(not holstered/easily accessible) and testified to by the wonderful Dr. as lightweight makes a lot of sense when you’re in a submissive position and have access to a firearm instead.

      The flashlight was dropped near the T when GZ was punched. GZ didn’t have Possession when TM was on top of him.

    Marco100 in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

    So, maybe inching towards the manslaughter? Of course in FL it requires culpable = gross negligence, I don’t really see any evidence of that at all, even if Zimmy wasn’t particularly well-trained as a gunslinger.

Oh my… saying A$$holes and f’king punks is evidence of a depraved mind and ill will. I will now self report to the local mental hospital or police station because I obviously represent a danger to society as a whole and at least a couple of hundred people specifically.

Gee I wonder how much company I will have, especially if the racebaiters decide to stop being hypocrites.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 11:26 am

I would be objecting all over the place. Where is defense counsel?

    I believe that the defense recognizes, as many of the viewers here do, that the manner of the prosecutor is going to work against the state’s case as it turns off the jury.

      eaglesdontflock in reply to Dr P. | July 10, 2013 at 11:32 am

      Yes, it’s a turnoff. But the jury folks are not lawyers and the number of I don’t know or I didn’t ask questions might stick. Even though the questions are bogus.

    Marco100 in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 11:29 am

    OMara by not objecting either thinks the witness will gobsmack the prosecutor or else wants to show jury there is nothing to be concerned about on cross….

    ProfessionalSpectator in reply to eaglesdontflock. | July 10, 2013 at 11:55 am

    You’re typically taught in law school to be very judicious with your objections. If you object too much, you appear as if you are trying to be deceptive and hide relevant evidence. The jury could also grow to dislike you for appearing overly combative and slowing down the trial proceedings.

Let’s fight over waist and belly button like it matters now…

It is almost like these questions are picked at random.

    Marco100 in reply to Voluble. | July 10, 2013 at 11:31 am

    The problem with the prosecution questioning both on direct/re-direct & cross, is that they don’t really seem to have specific points they are trying to make as a series of conceptual building blocks to prove their case. Others have questioned “What is the theory of the case” because it seems incoherent.

      Voluble in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:33 am

      Exactly, they are begging someone to give them reasonable doubt and provide them with a story because they don’t have a consistent one themselves. They are willing to accept anything… even a tree branch if one can be conjured up.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 11:29 am

Badgering the witness.

Did you have the defendant stand on his toes and whistle The Internationale’? Why not?

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:32 am

State seems to imply the weapon was unreachable as described, but two men fighting are generally thrashing, twisting, etc., and windows for access to a hip holstered would open and close.

Are we sure this isn’t a law school scrimmage trial?

O’Mara is smiling.
Is he amused by Guy’s attempts to create reasonable doubt again?

    Marco100 in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 11:39 am

    He’s smiling cause Guy didn’t walk through the open closet door of manslaughter–although when he talked about the flashlight it seemed like he was on the trail, then he dropped it.

    This is all random cross. Who really cares what this witness has to say about what the bullet entry angle was or wasn’t? It was RELATIVE 90 degree angle based on the entry wound, nothing this witness could say is going to change that.

    No one said TM “touched” the gun.

    Now he’s trying to impeach via Osterman’s testimony, that’s probably objectionable as totally extrinsic, OMara is just letting the witness deal with it.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Exiliado. | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    I guessing they’ve totally abandoned Murder 2 and are seeking manslaughter – whatever degree they can get by discrediting subtle notions of self-defense

Why does the state keep harping on what COULD have happened? Isn’t it the state’s job to prove what DID happen?

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:37 am

This is all bullshit. The human arm has two points of articulation below the shoulder – at elbow and wrist. A 90 deg angle can be achieved no matter what the positional relationship between h two parties.

    Marco100 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 10, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Now you’re being logical and scientific.

    Dr. Bao would disagree about your view of the human anatomy. He would need to refer to his notes to remember what an elbow is, in his case, it’s up his….[cue prosecutor] “asshole”!!!

I am beginning to wonder if the jury, like myself, is beginning to get fed up with BDLR. He has this unshakable notion that one cannot use two curse words without showing hate. Additionally, when he uses them as in his questioning of the witness, he not only shows extreme disbelief that people could believe anything he does not want them to believe, but he uses those words with such an insane inflection in his voice. If anything, BDLR’s use of those words in court should seem to put an exclamation point on the resignation in GZ’s voice when he uses it on the tape.

BTW, am I the only person who seems to think that this judge is very much biased towards the prosecution? She keeps making these rulings that just make no sense at all. Why tell a self defense expert that he cannot testify on anything involving self defense? Why maintain that text messages on a person’s phone are not admissible even though it takes two passwords to get to them? Am I nuts or is this judge going to be reversed should a conviction be found?

    Marco100 in reply to Cleetus. | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

    (Almost) all trial judges except really liberal ones in very liberal jurisdictions are very pro-prosecution. This is nothing at all unusual except for the huge publicity factor and the huge defense skills and resources rather than an overwhelmed public defender + indigent defendant.

    Most defendants are guilty, so that’s always the working assumption a judge goes into the trial with.

    Voluble in reply to Cleetus. | July 10, 2013 at 11:45 am

    She gave up on that rationale and fell back on her original ruling this morning. So the reason for exclusion was not verification of who made the texts.

    And I only have audio but I think Mantei is talking now, not BDLR but I think I made the same mistake earlier. Yeah, he is obviously using the words in a totally misleading manner and I think the defense should object.

    vmic in reply to Cleetus. | July 10, 2013 at 11:47 am

    The judge and prosecution object to the defense of self defense.

Guy looks like he’s committing some kind of sexual crime with that poor dummy.

eaglesdontflock | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

We know the purpose. These kinds of responses.

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:41 am

TV trials need more commercial breaks. I’m about to piss my pants here.

IMO MOM, with this “expert” witness, is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

    Marco100 in reply to MarkS. | July 10, 2013 at 11:44 am

    The cross exam is so random that I think it’s just going to result in clouding not clarifying whatever the prosecutor thinks he’s asking the witness about–which I don’t have a clue as to.

I am disappointed in the current demonstration. I would rather watch the dummy on top of Guy, pounding Guy’s head into the floor.

This witness is nuking the prosecution lol

The aggressor goes for the weapon, not scream for help

OUCH!!! Root says as aggressor which all the evidence points to he was, I would have gone for gun and not scream for help.

If a person were pointing a gun at me, I would not yell for help, I would yell “don’t shoot”, “I give up” or something like that.

    Dr P in reply to Pauldd. | July 10, 2013 at 11:48 am

    there were no other viable options

    he has screamed for help, struggled, etc

    archtyrx in reply to Pauldd. | July 10, 2013 at 11:48 am

    I would slam his head into the concrete – over and over

      Marco100 in reply to archtyrx. | July 10, 2013 at 11:51 am

      That’s actually an interesting theory–GZ pulls gun on TM FIRST–TM responds by taking him to the ground and ground and pounding.

      Now why is the prosecution too stupid to actually highlight this possible theory rather than clouding it up in mud????

        DerHahn in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 12:07 pm

        That would highlight TM as an aggressive and probably experienced fighter to be willing to go after an armed man with just his fists. Very much at odds with the innocent boy bringing candy and soda back to his brother narrative.

    Marco100 in reply to Pauldd. | July 10, 2013 at 11:49 am

    Honestly if someone pointed a gun at me at point blank range I would vomit, cry, shit myself, and piss myself.

    Sorry but guess I am just an ordinary coward neither a night watch hero nor a no limmit ni**a.

      this talk of “nightwatch” is aggravating.

      Please stick to the facts as they were presented. George Zimmerman was going to the store in his truck. He was not on nightwatch. There is no such thing in NW, in the world.

    ProfessionalSpectator in reply to Pauldd. | July 10, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    I’m guessing most people here wouldn’t yell “help.” I’m also guessing that they wouldn’t yell it more than five times…The prosecution’s theory seems to be that Zimmerman held Martin at gunpoint for 30+ seconds while he cried for help before unceremoniously executing him. Makes lots of sense.

      If I were on the jury, I would be getting really weary of all the time being spent on “who was screaming?”

      It is, and always has been, painfully obvious that it is the guy on the bottom, with all the injuries that was the one screaming.

      Nothing else makes sense!

Witness talks too much. It is OK to just say “yes” to whatever ridiculous scenario the prosecution proposes.

This is two edged for defense–defendant was untrained MMA, didn’t have any other options–maybe he should have made sure he had more options?

Is shrimping technique what prosecutors’ girlfriend think he is trying to do during sex?

    inquisitivemind in reply to Marco100. | July 10, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Shrimping should not be comingled in any heterosexual context – what Mantei and BDLR do behind closed doors is none of our business

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:48 am

Watching BDLR examine this witness is like watching a blind doctor attempt a colonoscopy.

I like that he was looking at the jury when he said women are more reasonable in evaluating these kinds of situation.

Sybrina Fulton looks concerned. I think she is worried her financial gain from this case may be declining.

Why doesn’t the Judge step in and bring the cross to a close? If Officer Root keeps pummeling prosecutor Guy, there won’t be much left of him at the end of the day.

I think he’s a good witness because he is retelling the defense narrative every time the prosecutor asks a question.

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:53 am

Finally. Approach. Bath room break.

Did the prosecutor just screw up by insinuating that TM’s only experience in athletics was middle school football? WIll THAT finally let in the fighting evidence?

State asks witness please discuss what we know about the skills and conditioning of Martin. This should be open season on Martin now

Henry Hawkins | July 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

Using video equipment I zeroed in on the writing on the legal pad BDLR just referred to with co-counsel. It’s polling results from MSNBC.

Holy crap, here we go. This is going to epic.

MOM just called Guy’s mannequin “Your doll.” Priceless.

Hey Guy, I got your dolly now.

And get some better shirts.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend