Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial: Defense’s Closing Argument LIVE

Zimmerman Trial: Defense’s Closing Argument LIVE

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.

Screen Shot 2013-06-11 at 10.53.41 AM

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


[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


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 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, 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 “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at

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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yes it makes sense he would get an address.

Why wouldn’t he get an address?

Well, the prosecution sucked the whole trial. I guess it only makes sense to end it sucking too.

listen to when the screaming stops

When the State rests

If you want proof positive that GZ is not an angry and spiteful man, the proof is his behavior during this trial. That dude is zen-like to sit impassively through all this crap for three weeks. At some point, I’m not sure I could avoid at least facial expressions.

Mister Natural | July 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm

gee! a 17 year is a child? i started my second year of college when i was 17
and i wasn’t the “good student” that baby trayvon was

wow, blatant mischaracterization of the physical evidence in the state’s closing. not surprising sadly.

i thought we were here because gz got out of the truck, not because he lied guy

Uncle Samuel | July 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm

The ladies are now asking themselves:

Who would I want to meet on the sidewalk if I was walking alone on that dark rainy night, Trayvon or George Zimmerman?

Common sense.

I know you all don’t want to hear it, but Guy is making a very very effective rebuttal. Look out.

    Ragspierre in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Yah, but we’ve established you are a moron.

    Sanddog in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    Not seeing it from here. It seems an effective rebuttal would include some actual evidence.

    Bryan24 in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    When the Prosecution uses the words “The evidence proves”, let me know.

    Dr Stiffy in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    I think you comments have set records for their number of disagrees.

    Wrathchilde in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Not that we don’t want to hear it, we’re still waiting on some proof. On anything.

    This re-close is again all – What do you think? Use your heart… Pablum. All pablum.

    Give us a fact or three, something that has been proven that detracts from a self defense claim. Don’t ask us to suspend rationality and dive deep into the sea of emotion.

    Mister Natural in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    what is the derivation of your nametag.
    what language is it ?
    it must translate to “the author of this comment is a certifiable schmuck”

So what if we believe it was Trayvon yelling? Was he screaming for help while beating Zimmerman? No explanation for that?

More complete conjecture.

What a weak-assed close.

self denial?

HAHA…Guy IS like the ‘prosecutor’ in “Idiocracy” Just should be like..Guilty! peace out….

The whole theory that George could have never got his gun out with Travon mounted on him is ludicrous. I kind of wish the defense would have countered that a bit.

I guarantee you that if I was in fear for my life with someone mounted on me, I could wiggle around enough to get me hand on the gun. No question in my mind.

Uncle Samuel | July 12, 2013 at 12:25 pm

Again no facts from the Prosecution, just Accusations and Assumptions and Asinine Attitude.

So, if he was an expert MMA fighter how come Trayvon had no injuries?

Of course he WANTED to shoot him. Why did he want to shoot him? Because his head kept being whacked into the ground.


LOVE IT!!! Guy suggest only trained fighters could remove an attackers hands from their mouth.

“Use your common sense” …

If you do you are impatient for this idiot to stop instructing you to use common sense which indicates Zimmerman is totally innocent.

Shame on him!

Uncle Samuel | July 12, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Why did (GZ) lie so many times?

GZ didn’t lie.

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

    It is the Prosecution’s accusations and the Crump and PR Firm’s narrative that are lies, and the Martins are lying.


“Jurors seem completely captivated by JohnGuy”

’cause he’s not speaking to their intellect, but to their heart. It matters.

So because he didn’t remember the exact words in the NEN call that means he’s lying? Ridiculous.

LOL, his watch didn’t come off so… huh?

Ear buds are a better point.

Guy is half-heartedly imitating the “really” by O’Mara.

    s c in reply to Voluble. | July 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Weren’t the earbuds found in TM’s pocket? I thought I read that in police report.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Voluble. | July 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    The ear buds and phone were in TM’s pocket.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      Like TM was planning for some action.

      Voluble in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 12:31 pm

      Shouldn’t there have been an objection there? I didn’t hear the original testimony on that but you aren’t allowed to make up facts even in summation.

      mwsomerset in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 1:04 pm

      I think TM’s cellphone was found on the grass….not in his pocket. If had been in his pocket the defense would have been all over that regarding Rachel’s testimony…who claimed she heard the phone “fall.”

    MegK in reply to Voluble. | July 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    I have teenagers, they don’t remove their earbuds to go to the bathroom.

    Guy is half-heartedly imitating the “really” by O’Mara.

    I think he thinks he’s effectively mocking Mr O’Mara by doing that, but he’s just coming off as petulant and smarmy.

    I like the way his accent drifts between syrupy-Southern and bland-as-paste CNN. Yeah, no, that’s not put on at all. AT ALL.

I wish he would demonstrate head bashing concrete with his own.

All the lumps on his head weren’t “serious”.

Where is the blood evidence…at all…???

CONCRETE…just denial. That is not proof.

    archtyrx in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    rags pull yer head out of your limited intellect and see the bigger picture. It’s more than that, as you will see.

      CTimbo in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:36 pm

      You are correct. The bigger picture is about inciting blacks for political purposes. That’s why Obama’s DOJ organized the protests, and may very well be organizing the riots.

The state spent the whole trial keeping out the evidence of what TM was and wanted to be (tweets, phone pictures, etc, toxicology report).

Now, they want the jury to convict GZ because of character issues they never proved AGAINST GZ and that they hid from the jury about TM??

Mister Natural | July 12, 2013 at 12:29 pm

i think that the female jury will realize they are being condescended to by these guys who are just playing to emotions.

Guy is telling them to ignore all of the evidence as to the concrete now… even the state’s own witness’. I would be so pissed at this guy if I was sitting on the jury I could spit.

How much longer does Guy have?

i think o’meara blew guy’s closing out of the water, because this all seem to be last minute ad-lib

Is it over yet?

When I listened to the beginning of de la Rionda’s and Guy’s closing statements i just couldn’t take it long because it sounded so cheap provincial theatrical acting for me (i’m neither a native english speaker nor resident of the us, btw). I’ve missed the beginning of O’Mara’s speech, but the main part sound like honest talking and not acting. I wonder is it because I’m biased or just because prosecution is that bad in oratory (as in all aspects: both proving the case and their moral)?

VetHusbandFather | July 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Yes and he responded like any child that fears the creepy old man pursuing him in the dark, he ran home and told his daddy, oh wait he didn’t? He circled back and jumped the guy he was so afraid of? Well shoot, i got nothing then.

mr stay puff… lol

It isn’t about what the jury thinks.

Where is the evidence?

    archtyrx in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    Then what is it about? What YOU think? You call yourself an attorney? You need some further schooling. Try a few Perry mason episodes until you start to get it. What a moronic comment – the jury doesn’t matter…

      Ragspierre in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      Eww… I am being critcized by a moron…

      Whatever will I do.

      I never said the jury does not matter, moron. I said the jury should be presented evidence, not told what they “think” is determinative of the essential facts.

        mwsomerset in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        The verdict in this case will most definitely be based on what the jury thinks… doubt about that. Hopefully what they think will be based on the actual evidence.

        Mister Natural in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        oy vey! you was just criticized by a dimwitted schmuck that got his legal education from a fictitious lawyer TV show.
        i bet archdickhead doesn’t even know the author’s name.
        oy vey1

TM told RJ to “get off” took earbuds out placed in pocket then ambushed GZ.

I don’t even think where TM’s arms were is anything other than a red herring anyway.

How does stretching his arms out after he’s on the ground make TM menacing?

I should never be on a jury. How do you let this guy insult your intelligence without shouting out “bullshit” ?

… They just called him Mr. Softee? Well, I’m done. This is beyond parody.

Physically impossible a 17 year old football player could run a few hundred yards in four minutes?

Um OK guy.

No, it’s not about staying in your car. He has no legal obligation to stay in his car.

common sense tells me this will be a quick not guilty verdict

The media has crowned this guy, GUY, McDreamy. The women of the jury love him. Gawwwd I hope not.

    Matt in FL in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    That’s because the media has to put labels on people, so they can keep the characters straight in their tiny little brains. Kinda like Nancy Grace referring to Casey Anthony as “Tot Mom” which is about the stupidest nickname I have ever heard of.

    Fen in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Well that pretty much explains how he’s gotten so far in life. What Law School has the embarassing distinction of passing this moron out into the real world with a law degree? The Sally Struthers School for Morons?

    Mister Natural in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    the are correct. everybody knows that women love to be talked down to by a self-important little shit like guy

    mwsomerset in reply to rotate. | July 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Oh come one…he is cute and he does sound like Kevin Costner. I bet he wears his necktie real tie too…so his foreskin won’t droop.

Oh, I’m supposed to stay in my car at all times? What a load of crap.

He was supposed to stay in his car.

If he got out of his car, it’s his fault if he was attacked by a mugger.

Oh, goodness… he had to put Trayvon’s arms out to make him menacing looking? LOL!!!

So the jury will decide if whether they believe the evidence and reasonable doubt or whether they will believe demagoguery and emotionalism.

Hopefully the jury will decide based on facts and evidence but we shall see.

Mr Guy has made the most effective case yet. Excellent rebuttal. The jurors are captivated, according to several tweets in the courtroom.

    Matt in FL in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    De. lusional.

      Mister Natural in reply to Matt in FL. | July 12, 2013 at 1:47 pm

      nah, he’s not delusional. it’s just that he gets off on thinking that he’s upsetting other folks with his contrarian opinions.
      you know that they say tha opinions are like a**holes, everybody’s got one. this guy’s picture is next to that quote in the encyclopedia; he’s he prototype
      i had, at first, thought that his opinions reflected his culture or race, but i have since concluded that he is overcompensating for a remarkably small penis

    Wrathchilde in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    People are captivated by the movie Jackass, too…

    Bryan24 in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    They are shocked he isn’t yelling at them…

    angienc in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Well, it’s about time the prosecution “made” a case because they haven’t in 3 weeks. Too bad they had to wait until the rebuttal and are doing it without evidence or any regard for the fact that *they* carry the burden of proof not the defendant. If the jury is made up of a bunch of illogical, emotionally-driven half-wits, such as yourself, then we’ll get a guilty verdict.

    mwsomerset in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    Captivated as in…incredulous? Or captivated as in…that’s a handsome fella…wonder what’s under his pants? Definitely not captivated because they were riveted by all the compelling evidence he was reviewing in this case that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that GM did not act in self defense. I’ll going with the incredulous.

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

    Captivated or aghast? //
    I’m sure Crump/Martin et al are tweeting furiously. You should broaden your timeline.

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 12:36 pm

TM is not a piece of cardboard??? WTF

guy: GZ is guilty b/c he didn’t give the person beating the shit out of him CPR

Wow, Trayvon is not cardboard. Who knew?

“Trayvon is not, was not, WILL NEVER BE, a piece of cardboard.”

WTF? Chewbacca offense?

I don’t remember the defense arguing that Trayvon was a piece of cardboard. But I guess he had to point that out.

Here’s the kicker to that question, Guy. You asked, Who is responsible for Trayvon Martin laying on the ground?

Answer: Trayvon Martin is responsible because of his actions. He wouldn’t be dead if he had not instigated the fight, beating, injuring GZ. It’s a difficult truth to swallow, but it’s true.

    DriveBy in reply to kittycat. | July 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    George is going home tonight, just like he did that night of the fight and the shooting. I think that what Guy is arguing is that if Trayvon menaced George by circling his car then George should have protected himself by putting distance between himself and the menacing teen, and not following near where he last saw Treyvon because he knew he was walking in to danger. But George was too stupid to use his own fear as a guide and seek a safe distance until the police arrived. I would not have followed on foot like George did, but that is just me, I have common sense. The police were on the way.

    Anyway, we will all have very like to chat about in a few hours when the jury comes back with a quick not guilty verdict. George’s defense has proven him not guilty, but they did not prove that he is an intelligent person, IMHO. FloriDuh.

certainly seems like a year ago when the state started their closing

Guy: GeorgeZimmerman says TrayvonMartin covered his mouth and nose. Really?” Wouldn’t blood be under TM’s nails? “That was a lie.”

Maybe the ME would have found blood under Martin’s nails if the ME had not left Martin’s body lying in the rain and wet grass for a couple of hours after he was shot, and/or if the incompetent ME had not been handling Martin’s hands while he tried to fingerprint him at the crime scene, and/or if the ME had bothered to follow basic protocol and bag Martin’s hands to preserve trace evidence.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Observer. | July 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Dr. Vincent DiMaio:

    The ABSENCE of evidence does not bear as much weight as the PRESENCE of evidence.

    That goes for blood, DNA, etc.

    The testimonies of the witness have shown that the State of FL does not have good procedures and processe for collecting and protecting evidence.

Henry Hawkins | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Guy has no future in Hollywood. These blatant attempts at evoking emotionalism in the jury cannot be working. He’s trying to act and failing, which shows he doesn’t believe it either.

I hope the female jury members all have children, because they’ll have heard bullsh*t like this before.

Uncle Samuel | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

REMEMBER – Nothing whatsoever was verifiable of Rachel Jeantel’s ALLEGED conversation with TM.


We only have her word.

Going for the race card in the most inelegant way possible now.

I can’t believe what I am hearing.

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm

In Hollywood they make up stories – just like in the prosecutions case

So…. his argument is in real life, self defense cases are always politicized from the White House down?

Fred Thompson | July 12, 2013 at 12:39 pm

Guy: “Television is not like real life. In a real life murder trial, you can’t expect to have evidence of guilt.”

I LOL when Guy claims they have been given the good and the bad and this has been a fair trial

Who produced this trial?

Very, very, interesting questions.

Trayvon Martin is not cardboard, and George Zimmerman is the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man!

… I’ll have what he’s having.

None of this hyper-beta-gamma-emotionalism by Guy negates self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. No one cares if you want to put your hand on Trayvon’s shoulder.

The difference between MOM’s closing and this rebuttal is MOM’s closing was all focused on the pertinent objective: The state can’t negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

So many “good” unsuspecting people…like Mr. Good who testified as to the ground and pound, TM on top, GZ getting his creepy cracka ass beat down.

I think they are insulted.

Guy-Who produced this trial?

Obama, Holder, Angela Corey, race baiters….

Fred Thompson | July 12, 2013 at 12:39 pm

Guy: “The defendant controlled the weather and made it rain that night.”

“Who CREATED the evidence?”

LOL guy the state wasn’t even very good at fabricating oops I meant creating oops I meant “marshalling” the evidence was it?

Guy: “Television is not like real life. In a real life murder trial, you can’t expect to have evidence of guilt.”

— Is that a real quote?

“Who created the evidence?” LOL, a bit of a Freudian slip there for Mr. Prosecutor.

“I am not asking you to fill the gaps.” But I am not filling the gaps either… so gaps… yeah there are gaps… ummm….

wow GZ has control of lighting, weather, and all other sorts of phenomenon.. The state must think that they are trying to convict God.

Fred Thompson | July 12, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Guy: “You can’t bring TM back to life. But at least you can ruin the defendant’s life.”

The evidence is ENOUGH? ENOUGH?

“The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt…” (crickets chirping)

He got out of his car. A little child is dead. He lied. His wounds weren’t serious. He didn’t follow instructions. He followed and pursued a little child.

Guy sounds more like a Hollywood Lawyer than a real Lawyer.

“To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe the truth.”

Slight misquote — and misapplication — of Voltaire there. “To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth.”

I don’t think he understands the context of that quote.

Guy: GeorgeZimmerman “chose everything” in the case. Lighting, time, circumstances, evidence, etc.

Actually, it was Trayvon Martin who chose the time and place of the attack. And it was Martin who chose his victim.

Unfortunately for Martin, he chose poorly.

Guy argues with conviction, but without any real substance.

OK I’m done so skittles and iced tea will be served in the lobby as refreshments.

I am reminded that Athens fell to sophists and demagouges. We have too many of those already.

I sincerely hope “Mr Dreamy” is disbarred.

Please…PLEASE don’t judge this case by the evidence. Please use your prejudice, your intuition, your common sense. ANYTHING but the evidence and the law! LOL

You don’t have to have great bodily harm you numbskull…you just have to be in fear of it.

Oh so now its a “little” child. barf.

Was the judge pressured by the Obama admin.? I’m sure you’ve seen that on Drudge.

Who lost the fight…


Who lost the fight?

Justice lost the fight.
Due process lost the fight.
The Rule of Law lost the fight.
The citizens of Florida lost the fight.

Who lost the fight?


If there was a “fight” then it doesn’t matter who won or lost it. The existence of a “fight” = you failed to negate self defense by a reasonable doubt.

Merely characterizing the altercation, even possibly, as a “fight” = acquittal

The prosecution simply cannot connect “A” to “B” to “C”.

I pray to God that the jury sees this. This trial is a travesty.

    Marco100 in reply to Bryan24. | July 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    The cannot even connect A to A.

    Guy is incoherent.

    It doesn’t matter what GZ said.

    It doesn’t matter what Jeantel said.

    Unless he has some way of negating Mr. Good’s testimony the jury has to acquit based on a reasonable doubt.

    There’s no way Mr. Good’s testimony can be effectively impeached beyond a reasonable doubt.

Dreamy should bring out a cute little puppy named Trayvon and then kill it

If that “little child,” who was 17 at the time, would have committed an adult crime, that “little child” would be tried as an adult.

Did he have to shoot trayvon martin?

He did not, he could have taken a chance on trayvon crushing his skull or getting bored and walking away.

However that’s not the legal standard. GZ doesn’t have to wait to see what tm decides to do at that point.

ProfessionalSpectator | July 12, 2013 at 12:44 pm

I am a lawyer and I know plenty about the State’s burden. I personally (and objectively) think that there is insufficient evidence to support any type of conviction. However, I am very scared of what this jury might do. I sincerely hope they behave as the law dictates they should and acquit. That being said, a conviction of any type would be an absolute miscarriage of justice and completely rattle my faith in the legal system to which I belong. This verdict deliberation, specifically due to the way the State has chosen to present their “case,” has me very very nervous.

    Any lawyer prosectuor or defense knows this is a completely shyte case and never should have brought it to trial.

    This argument is so bad that it’s almost insulting to the jury.

    I am curious, perhaps you can provide some clarity for me.

    Where does the obligation for a member of the bar who becomes aware of ethical violations play into this case? Personally, I would not have been able to honestly put on this defense, but I understand that many lawyers are able to put on defenses that they do not personally agree with, or believe in. This appears to be a case in point.

    Does this case cross any ethical lines?


      ProfessionalSpectator in reply to Wrathchilde. | July 12, 2013 at 1:12 pm

      Ethically, a lawyer can’t knowingly put up false evidence. In a civil case, a lawyer can’t knowingly bring a frivolous claim. The standard used is a “good faith” basis. For a criminal trial, there must be probable cause to arrest the defendant and indict. That’s typically the check for prosecutors and why they have prosecutorial immunity.

      I’m a civil attorney. In cases that I’m involved with, when there’s absolutely no evidence behind a case after the plaintiff has presented, the judge grants a JMOL (or summary judgment, which is before the case even goes to trial and based on discovery produced). In this criminal case, the equivalent is the JOA, which should have been granted. But, once again, there’s technically no ethical breaches because there was initially found to be probable cause at the outset. Now, the question of whether there was probable cause at the outset and whether Angela Corey breached ethical guidelines in her presentation of the charges is another thing altogether. But for the purposes of the Prosecutors in this case, they technically didn’t breach any ethics in putting on this embarrassing case (unless, of course, they knowingly suborned perjury or withheld evidence).

        well I am not a lawyer but have studied some law subjects in my degree.

        I do think that the Persecution has suborned perjury in this case because they knew Rachel Jeantel was lying. On top of that they did hide the evidence on Trayvon Martin’s telephone.

Why are people surprised the jury is paying attention? Isn’t that… their job? It always surprises me when watching trials to see commenters making a big deal about whether they’re paying attention.

guy: GZ knew the police were coming so he should have laid there and got beaten until they showed up.

why did TM not go home

Has anyone been timing this? It feels like he is at least 10 minutes over.