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, below.
Mark O’Mara defense counsel, Florida v. Zimmerman
This morning Mark O’Mara is to present the defense’s closing arguments, striving to raise at least as much reasonable doubt of guilt as the prosecution achieved yesterday in its own closing statement, an analysis (and video) of which can be found here:
State’s Closing Argument: Two Hours of Raising Doubt
Live Stream Video
WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD
[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!.)
Tweets from @LegInsurrection/zimmerman-trial
Live Stream Video Alternative
LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC
Tuesday, July 9 Commentary
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.)
ALERT: A price increase of ~$10 is imminent for “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” on lawofselfdefense.com due to Amazon having raised their price to $45 yesterday (full explanation here). If you’ve already ordered the book, or don’t care to have one, this obviously isn’t of consequence.
But if you’ve been sitting on the fence, you might consider jumping off today. I will maintain my price of $33 on lawofselfdefense.com, until a verdict is delivered in this case. Once the verdict is read — and I hope very much to see that happen today with a verdict of not guilty — the price of the book on my site goes from $33 to $45, to match Amazon .
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. I have also instituted a similar coupon for Legal Insurrection followers LOSD2-LI(Coupons works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.) “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.
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
Question: If jury deliberations were to extend beyond today, would the jury be sequestered for the weekend?
The jury remains sequestered until they are dismissed by the court, which would be after they render a verdict. Unlike during the court week, however, they will probably “work on Saturday” if it comes to that. I think it’s their choice, but I can’t possibly see them saying no.
Yes, sequestered until verdict.
And the planting of the seed that they could get of out there quickly by settling on self defense was done subtly but clearly. Masterful.
I don’t think that was MOM’s point to the jury. What he was doing was letting them know that if they had a reason to believe GZ acted in self defense then the lesser manslaughter charge was to be automatically dismissed and given absolutely no consideration.
1 PM back from lunch
1 – 1:30 – Guy gets rebuttal
1:30 – 2 – instructions, and charge to deliberate
2 – 3 Elect forewoman, review verdict form and instructions together
3 – ?? Deliberate and vote.
They could EASILY return a verdict today.
Went by a hell of a lot faster than that shoe salesman’s “performance” yesterday afternoon. (No offense to shoe salesmen)
It sure seemed a lot faster than yesterday’s, but that’s probably just because I don’t have much patience when I’m being yelled at, especially for no fault of my own. I’ve lost a couple of jobs due to that impatience.
Is there anything left of de la Rionda?
My daily cartoon take on this:
http://bitstrips.com/r/7SD69
I fear a guilty verdict will embolden every thug seeking to beat down creepy ass crackas!
They’d better be careful. As Trayvon Martin learned the hard way, some of those creepy-ass crackas are armed.
Lock and Load
One million concealed carry holders in Florida. . . .the Justice for Trayvon rioters better select their victims carefully.
That was magic.
Somebody in FL – police? gov’s office? media? – asked that the verdict announcement be postponed till after weekend to hopefully minimize violent reaction to an acquittal. Did that request get anywhere?
What a hypocrite the judge would be if this happens. She’s supposedly been hurrying things along for the jury.
The odds of this judge extending sequestration I would put at nill.
I would love to see the jury come back in less than an hour with a self defense verdict. I will be watching the MSM, because if they do find Zimmerman innocent, I was to see all the heads explode.
MSM might be hoping for a not guilty verdict and then riots. If it bleeds it leads.
“But he needs to tell jury what State proved”
Things state proved: Martin was on top; Martin could have gone home, but did not; Zimmerman had injuries that could have been serious; Zimmerman may not have started the fight; Martin had drugs in his system. … yeah, maybe that’s not the right path for the State.
I swear, watching this defense is better than a lot of the legal drama movies that are out there.
wow
I wish I was 1 tenth the lawyer MOM is.
That would make you BDLR
Too generous by half.
Kathi Belich tweets
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump does not look happy.
I’m sure he sees the trash bucket tour and the T shirt sales ending.
Oh they will continue the trash bucket tour if there is an acquittal. They will be able to
exploit the angry and ill informed grievance mongers forever.
I thought he did great. He’s so natural at this, and he spoke to the jury like they’re human beings.
Just up on Drudge: Judge Nelson a “lifelong Democrat” appointed by Jeb Bush. I don’t know about Florida, but in my state, judges are appointed to fill vacancies. The State Bar submits a list for consideration to the governor. If the vacancy was from a Democrat judge, most likely the appointment will be from a list of Democrat applicants. So, it’s not really fair to pin the appointment of this buffoon on Jeb.
Just sayin.
Difficult to believe Democrats would adhere to the same courtesy.
Martins are upset allegation was finally made that Trayvon acted with ill intent and had ample time to avoid confrontation. No one had dared do that to this point and they really had no answer for that other than to walk out.
Fox commentators are complaining that it was too slow and boring. Personally I found his style much more credible and believable than BDLR’s histrionics.
Fox commentators have the attention span of a meth-addicted goldfish.
a lot of the FOX commentators are as biased as CNN reporters against Zimmerman. There are a few unbiased and a couple pro Zimmerman.
I heard Ann Coulter last night on Hannity when I couldn’t sleep. She knows this is self-defense and should not be on trial. Then Kimberly from the Five was on, too, and feels it’s self-defense. A few others do, as well. Can’t think of their names right now.
you get three hours and he used his time well
Including the 4 minutes of silence
Can’t wait to see what shenanigans Guy will pull. I’m afraid he’ll do something he is ‘t supposed to do just to get it in front of the jury.
Actually, if you believe the State’s case, the question that comes to mind is why not a 1st Degree Murder charge? Under Florida law, premeditation occurs in an instant, you don’t have to ‘plan’ anything.
If Zimmermam truely was ‘looking for it’ as the State argues, then the moment he touched his gun he was in a state of premeditation.
I suspect the reason the State did not bring this charge they knew there was no way on God’s green earth they’d get 12 to agree.
Odds on the rebuttal exceeding the time limit?
About the same as those of Guy’s argument exceeding the credibility limit.
oh, dear lord above, please give the jurors the wisdom and courage to justly review the evidence and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
AMEN
Listening to the legal talking heads on Fox about MOM acting like a law professor instead of a shouting advocate. Really? Really? I so disagree. I hope the jury appreciates the calm, conversational and methodical way he presented his defense. Those “animated” pounding the table lawyers are the ones that give the profession a bad name and the reason they are so disrespected.
Seppuku! Seppuku! Seppuku!
I’m such a coward. I can’t stand to listen to the state’s last shot so will depend on comments here.
Same here 🙁
Me three. I have the video up but the audio off. After Omara everything the persecution does just hacks me off.
Same here: Can’t wait for the MOM video to go up. I gotta watch that again.
I guess I am taking one for the team…..Trayvon is still a “child”…and the rest of the talking points….still keeping with the meme that he is a master mind criminal…chasing poor little skittle eating child.
I thought the ‘start with SD’ was very very clever. I have been thinking if I were on the jury, once we went back to the jury room, the first question i would ask is ‘let’s take a vote to see who thinks he’s not guilty/used SD.’ No need to even bother with the rest of the instructions if all 6 think Z is NG. Even if it’s split at that point, I would think it would be hard to move the NG votes to guilty of something.
I know the attempted murder case I was part of a jury the first question we asked/decided was ‘does anyone think defendant is not guilty?’ No one thougt def, in that case, was not guilty so then we started talking. Also, as someone has mentioned, do not underestimate the ‘power’ of the weekend coming up. Who would really want to stay in a hotel over the weekend….not very many.
O’Mara was great. I do wish that the autopsy photo was made public. Not for creepy people to mock, but for information. Having lost 50% of his blood, most all of which was in his lungs (primarily), Treyvon must have looked like a starvation victim more than a gunshot victim, so the jurors were likely horrified. Very good that he explained the issue and showed an image of Trayvon when he was alive and healthy.
Guy’s up. MUTE
Guy keeps calling him “child,” which is stupid.
OK, Andrew. I’ve read your book and here is my take-away for the proper way to handle a self defense situation in which you shoot someone to stop them. I’d appreciate any corrections.
(pg 240 is where I create this summary from.)
———-
You defend yourself. You call the cops. First one to call the cops is usually viewed as the victim.
“Send an ambulance to XYZ.
There is an individual who was shot. I was the one who fired the shot.
My weapon is in a holster on my right hip. I was being attacked and in fear for my life.
He came at me with a knife/club/gun that is on the ground about X feet away.
Those people saw what happened. His buddy ran away in that direction.
I’ll cooperate more fully after I’ve been able to talk with a lawyer.”
(alter to fit situation. And of course, your state laws.)
And then, STFU. This you can do from the outset, if necessary.
===========
Thoughts? I live in Florida, the “Gunshine State” where 1 in 20 Florida adults have their CCW permits.
Guy opens with a discussion of the heart
NOT of the evidence not of the BRAIN
Guy immediately goes for the emotion of the heart rather than the logic of the brain. He knows on logic it’s all over.
Guy has the inflection of a Southern Baptist preacher.
He’s going with the “follow your heart” offense, because the “follow the facts” offense doesn’t go where he needs it to.
no facts, pound the law
no law, pound the facts
no facts/no law, go pound your pud guy
If we really want to know what happened, should we not look into the heart of the grown man, and the heart of that child?
This is going to be a disaster.
He’s talking about everything except the evidence.
Just listening at the beginning of Mr. guy’s speech, you can tell they still have no case, no valid rebuttal.
Guy is making his big TV speech. Use your heart and your imagination, not the evidence…
Well, that is gross emotionalism, which is objectionable.
Yesterday I heard that one juror has a carry permit and another had let their’s expire. Those two will understand what self defense is. They are thinking “what would I have done.” He will not be found guilty.
The jurors with concealed carry experience will be thinking:
“Zimmie should have emptied the clip into this nice young black child.”
Guy starts off with ‘ It ws a dark and stormy night ‘ …
To quote MOM, ‘ Really? Seriously?
he should have Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” playing in the background.
and maybe a little vincent price, too
Hard to believe they are still taking a stab at the murder charge. Guy is wasting his time if he wants to get a conviction for anything. He needs to move on to manslaughter.
MOM did mention effing punks. guy just said he didn’t
I think he was referring to that being the only part of the timeline that MOM didn’t repeat out loud, which would be strictly correct.
excellent job by guy appealing to feelings of jurors.
maybe so….but the jurors want some facts to support Man 2…
Keeps calling him a “child”. After seeing those cutouts it seems pretty disingenuous.
legally, as you so often refer to here, he was a child. Don’t forget that. The jurors won’t.
like the “chile” who invaded the neighbor’s home and terrorized her.
You are SUCH a moron.
Keep it up, Rags. Best way to keep a troll is to respond to them.
There are so few quality trolls here on LI….
So were the “children” who invaded the neighbors home and ransacked it. Obviously some raise their “children” differently than most of us.
The jury will remember the muscle picture and the 7/11 pictures as well as the cut-outs.
They know Martin was a minor but no child. And that is without the gangsta texts and pictures.
Every time Guy says “child” it just re-emphasizes the fact that physically he was an adult even if chronologically a child.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
“fearful child”…who didn’t get off the phone with DeeDee…???
Didn’t go home?
And that “fearful child” who was running away for four minutes, why didn’t he just run home? Shows he was wanting to fight GZ. That’s all it shows.
In other pitches by the state: Guilty is quicker to write than Not Guilty, so go with your heart.
I realize that Guy is “just doing his job”, but it makes me sick listening to him.
John Guy: “What was in the heart of that child that night.”
The Defense was NOT allowed by the court to reveal the evidence of the real heart of Trayvon Martin.
Drugs, fighting, obscene sexual thoughts…
What was in Trayvon Martin’s heart?:
“I’magonna beat this white cracka and teach him to respect my territory.”
“This time, I’m gonna make him bleed.”
Guy: “TM was a frightened child running away from the defendant in the dark. Every child’s worst nightmare.”
Apparently, TM was six years old.
Oh no he. did. not. say. that.
Ooooo, I wish I were in that room. . ..
The prosecution will not utter “the evidence shows” a single time in their closing. If the jury doesn’t realize that, they will make their decision PURELY on emotion rather the facts.
Child is not going to play with the jury.
That is pure treacle.
Do you think in the hour of rebuttal Guy is ever going to even try to point to some evidence and try to make his case from the evidence.
No, probably not LOL
A window into a man’s soul???
Guy, what about Mr. Good and ground and pound?
OK so what “really” happened?
Child’s fear? He would have run home to daddy. He was no child. He came back to confront. Just another of those “children” who invaded the neighbor’s home.
is o’meara an alien?
i bet every time Guy mentions child, i bet the jurors think of the cutout.
Guy knows Trayvon’s history and what he was like and still he makes this argument. There is no justification for that, especially when a man’s life is on the line.
Guy keep talking about doubt
you should be talking about NO DOUBT
“There’s only two people on earth who know what really happened” and one of them can’t testify.
Guy you moron you just forced the jury to acquit by saying that.
So, yes.
The prosecutors are sticking to reasonable doubt.
Andrew Branca, LOSD2 @LawSelfDefense2
#zimmermantrial Guy is using his scary/creepy preacher voice.
MOM warned the jury about the voice even as he noted his own resemblance to a well known preacher
Shouldn’t that be scary/creepy ass cracka preacher voice?
OK, what lies is Guy referring to? Bernie had three hours for that and made no progress. Is that really how they are going to spend this time?
I wanted to ask that question as well. Guy said, “He lied, over and over and over. And not just about the little things, but about the big ones. What does that tell you about his state of mind?”
But he didn’t enumerate any of those lies, little or big.
He just did it again, “So many lies.”
But didn’t say what they were.
Baseless accusations are baseless.
Guy just keeps saying GZ lied.
But how does that rebut all of the physical evidence.
If he had only done what he was “supposed to do”, “see and call”
He DID see and call.
Guy, you’re a moron.
The Prosecution has shown us beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are LIARS and willing to distort, withdraw evidence, etc.
Correction: The Prosecution has shown us beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are LIARS and willing to distort and *WITHHOLD* evidence, etc.
“That child (TM) felt every child’s worst fears … of being followed in the dark by a stranger.”
Bring back the photo of the 9-year old “child” to complete the worst case of railroading seen in modern history.
Poor putz Zimmerman was only allowed to shadowbox in his MMA courses for fear the shadow would win!
This prosecution should be ashamed of itself.
Guy is creepy…
TM may not have blood on his hands – reasonable doubt
See, this is just an appeal to emotion, which should draw an objection.
It’s objectionable but it’s objectionable because it’s pure speculation about what was going on in their hearts and minds.
The jury has been educated by MOM to rely on evidence not speculation.
No, it is actually a violation of the basics of law.
You don’t appeal to emotion overtly like this guy is doing. Sure, we do it, but not this way.
hit the nail on the head
This is such a ridiculously objectionable argument. All that Guy is trying to do is inflame the jury.
M’OM is letting him self destruct obviously
And they are sticking to yelling too.
he’s a no-ass talent clown
“Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
John Guy appears very slick and polished and is speaking in very hushed tones to make his point. #Zimmermanon9”
He looks like no-talent assclown to me.
where did the truth come from guy, certainly not from the state’s case.
These prosecutors are all very good at using verbal tone inflections to imply guilt and wrong-doing. It is a big turn off for me, personally. Not professional IMO.
Once again, WHERE IS THE F’ING EVIDENCE? Geez these guys are irritating.
Keep in mind, Rachel Jeantel’s testimony was manufactured by Crump and the prosecution expressly designed to make George Zimmerman look guilty.
There is NO proof of her testimony, of what was said – NONE at all.
NO PROOF.
Guy: “The defense said, ‘What evidence is there that the defendant continued to follow TM after he got off the phone with Sean Nokfe?’ I’ll tell you.”
*Proceeds to not provide any evidence.*
I dont have video, audio or charts
OR EVIDENCE
LOL I don’t have any charts or videos or audiotapes because I’m a douche and M’OM is Daniel Craig as James Bond
Guy requests that jurors look into the heart of TM when they make their decision. Seems rather odd to request that jurors judge TM by his character when the fought tooth and nail to keep ut out of the case. As for judging GZ by his heart, we had plenty if the prosecutions witnesses even testify that GZ was a swell guy. Only person in the courtroom that said GZ was a bad guy was the prosecution.
A child running home while being chased. His legs were so short he couldn’t make it 400 feet in 4 minutes time.
Why were GZ’s keys and flashlight found at the T where he was punched by TM?
That child went out to buy drugs that night. Nearly $60 dollars worth of drugs.
Here comes the skittles and ice tea defense.
I wonder how women respond to having their emotions manipulated in such an obvious manner?
Women know when men are being insincere and when men are just saying something to get what they want from the woman.
I believe that a lot will depend on how the jury has connected, if at all, with the Martins….. which is of course irrelevant under law, but often not in fact when it comes to a verdict.
It’s worrisome enough to keep me from any predictions, for sure.
How did we get here?
Sanford PD said this is an open and shut self defense case of a citizen shooting a mugger to protect his life.
We got here because of race baiting Obama justice department and corey and incompetent Nelson
Good Lord. I’m glad I’m not playing a drinking game involving Guy’s use of the word “child”. I’d be at 15 shots by now.
i hope every word guy says taste like shit in his mouth
Guy on state rebuttal. Says they didn’t have any cards, posters, video, cartoons. Gee, he doesn’t because they had them during the trial.
Hey Mr. Guy….we are way past calling this 17 year old a “child.”
Guy has practiced his every child speech he prepared for the child abuse charge
takes one to know one LOL
Guy: “Didn’t that child have the right to defend himself against that strange man who was following him?”
This guy is really dumb.
He doesn’t realize everytime he calls him a “child” he reminds the jury he’s physically an adult?
I don’t have all the fireworks, the animation–I’m an unprepared lying douche
Use your heart. Ignore the facts. Ignore the evidence. Just use your hearts.
——- ———— ———–
Gee!!!!
What is happening to the United States of America?
When did this change happen?
When did we start judging and convicting people this way?
We haven’t, yet. The pros. has hopes, though.
these jurors have kids and they probably dread the possibility that some day their child may run into the likes of little thug boy child
Diana Tennis: “I am revising my estimate. Will be not guilty within 2 hours. asking for conviction for armed following and sympathy is not gonna cut it.”
I guess she gets one right every once in a while.
This guy’s voice sounds like a famous actor’s. I can’t think of who it is though.
Kevin Costner
YES!!!!!
Thank you. it was driving me crazy.
This is Guy’s “Waterworld.”
Ben Affleck. Voice is a dead ringer.
If Affleck than trial = “Gigli.”
Guys rebuttal is pure emotion and no fact? He is asking the Jury to “use God given common sense”, while he is not using any common of his own.
The State has NO EVIDENCE. The have not said “the evidence proves” a single time.
Not. A. Single. Time.
GZ had backed up so far he was FLAT ON HIS BACK
“He shot him because he wanted to.”
Yes, he wanted to keep TM from beating his skull to pieces.
He’s leaving a lot of open-ended assertions hanging. I.e. ‘Martin had a right to defend himself,’ but defend himself against what?
It’s also not been proven to be physically impossible for Zimmerman to get his gun.
Still trying to poke holes in Zimmerman’s story. No evidence.
They never proved that getting that gun was physically impossible.
I’d object.
M’OM only needs to object if he believes Guy is making any headway with his b.s. otherwise why not let Guy continue to destroy what little if any credibility the State has left?
If your adversary is driving headlong over a cliff why try to stop him?
not the boy walking home (hate in his heart), the one talking like the defendant. guy forgets about creepy ass kraka, i bet the jury doesn’t, b/c the jury is made up of crazy ass kraka