TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Closing Arguments => Topic started by: TalkLeft on July 12, 2013, 06:01:44 AM

Title: Defense Closing
Post by: TalkLeft on July 12, 2013, 06:01:44 AM
Mark O'Mara will deliver the closing argument for the defense this morning. Here's a thread for both live updating and comments. If you are reading this before it begins and want to comment about what you expect, please post in thread for the defense closing in Trial Expectations.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 06:52:51 AM
whole Martin family walked in and sat down ten minutes in two MOM's closing.

O'Mara talking about standard set for "Reasonable doubt".

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 06:53:19 AM
I started listening about 10 minutes late and 10 minutes later O'Mara is still talking down to the jury.  I am unimpressed.  When is he going to get down to business?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 06:55:43 AM
I started listening about 10 minutes late and 10 minutes later O'Mara is still talking down to the jury.  I am unimpressed.  When is he going to get down to business?

How should we know?  How do you know everybody (or anybody!) shares your definition of "get down to business?"
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 06:57:17 AM
O'Mara telling jury they are living the constitution, impressing them with fact that they are the wall against the government and the injustice of finding some one guilty because they might be guilty. 
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 06:57:51 AM
How should we know?  How do you know everybody (or anybody!) shares your definition of "get down to business?"

Or even his definition of "talking down". I think O'Mara's connecting with the jury in a way Bernie certainly didn't with his screeching and hollering.

Ricky would b*tch if he were hung with a new rope, as my best friend (a Texan) would say.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 07:00:41 AM
I disagree RickyJim, I think he is doing exactly what he needs to say and that he has been somewhat inspiring in reminding jurors of their part in a great system of justice as written by the founders.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 07:01:34 AM
Anybody can make out the markings on O'Mara's thermometer?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:05:36 AM
O'Mara showing a "reasonable doubt" chart, with not guilty at the bottom, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at the top, and a set of maybe 10 in between grades, including "maybe guilty" and "guilt highly likely."  Guilt highly likely is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then he produces another chart which is the inverse for disproving self defense.  "Unlikely self defense" = not guilty.  "Less than likely self-defense" = not guilty.  "Highly unlikely it was self defense" = not guilty.  The state has to prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.

He offers to the jury, that if he (O'Mara) is misspeaking the law as far as burden of proof, prosecutor Guy can correct him later.

O'Mara says that he will now show why, beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman acted in self defense.  He tells the jury not to confuse this with the state's burden.  Starts with "cop wannabe."
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 07:06:52 AM
I have been thinking for years about what reasonable doubt means.  It is a confusing concept.  He should have emphasized that the state must show all innocent explanations are unreasonable while the defense must just make you aware of one reasonable innocent explanation of events.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:07:13 AM


He offers to the jury, that if he (O'Mara) is misspeaking the law as far as burden of proof, prosecutor Guy can correct him later.

Which is what about all the "experts" said if only Bernie had said yesterday it would've helped when he started spinning fiction.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:14:07 AM
While he is talking about Zimmerman's wannabe cop, etc., he has left the burden of proof chart, as it relates to self defense, on the easel, in view of the jury.

What else did they show you to demonstrate ill will toward Martin?  Five phone calls to NEN.  You heard them, and there is a sixth one you can listen to it, the state didn't play it for you because it didn't support their case.  The state doesn't have to show you good stuff about Zimmerman.  Also put into evidence, but didn't show it during trial, police reports of what happened in RTL.  Those will show burglaries, and you will see a rash of burglaries, and the only people arrested were young black males.  He'll get to that later (but it shows reason for having suspicion, and fits Zimmerman's NEN call).

O'Mara mocks the sound of an angry caller, and says to not let the prosecutor put their tone into Zimmerman's voice.  Asks the jury to consider if Zimmerman's tone is appropriate, or inappropriate.

Moves on to events of Sunday, February 26th.  Describes shopping for food to make sandwiches

Oh, and what witness said that Zimmerman patrolled the neighborhood?  There is not ONE who will say that they know Zimmerman as the guy wandering around the neighborhood, policing garbage cans.  The prosecution may want you to assume that, and you would have to assume it, because you can't find it in the evidence.  There is not one fact in evidence.  "Another point for Mr. Guy, if I am wrong about that, he can correct me."
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 07:16:58 AM
MOM is too good.  I will try to blog this but I am enthralled.

"Not one witness said GZ patrolled the neighborhood as some sort of crazy cop wanta be"
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:17:27 AM
I have been thinking for years about what reasonable doubt means.  It is a confusing concept.  He should have emphasized that the state must show all innocent explanations are unreasonable while the defense must just make you aware of one reasonable innocent explanation of events.

This case isn't even close to that confusing line.  O'Mara is describing this case, and he said he was going to show that Zimmerman was justified in use of force, in self defense, and even though he doesn't have to, he will prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think he'll close that line of argument by saying, and referring to the chart, but even if you don;t find this to be "here" (pointing at the white end of the chart, innocent), what I have shown is at the other end of the state's burden, to disprove justified use of force.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:18:35 AM
MOM is too good.  I will try to blog this but I am enthralled.

"Not one witness said GZ patrolled the neighborhood as some sort of crazy cop wanta be"

That's the thing, he's really good with his presentation and mannerisms, he's drawing you in instead of repelling you like Bernie did with his hollering and high pitched squealings.

I want to know where O'Mara's going, I wanted Bernie to shut up and stop assaulting me.

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:22:06 AM
MOM is too good.  I will try to blog this but I am enthralled.

Yeah.  Good cadence.  Pauses, give evidence, gives state's spin and says the state is asking you to leap from the evidence to guilt.  On "fscking punks", the fact that he was willing to say it is evidence of non-guilt.  There is no aniumus, spite, hatred or ill will in the tone of Zimmerman's voice.

Puts phone call timeline on easel, covering only the lower part of the "reasonable doubt as to self defense" chart.

Anyway, his presentation exudes confidence in the case and arguments.  If Guy comes in "agitated," showing flop sweat, you will know the state's case is cooked.  O'Mara is giving the jury certain points that Guy either addresses, or concedes to the defense.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:24:39 AM
LOL. He says he was going to play a tape of Guy and Bernie over-doing it with their versions of what GZ said.

Nice.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:30:08 AM
On the NEN call, the state doesn't want you to remember Sean's "let me know if he does anything else" (which is on the timeline, which goes back with deliberations.  Tells the jury to listen to how Zimmerman says "fscking punks" and "they always get away."  Says he was going to play (in closing) a tape of Guy and de la Rionda using those words as a contrast, decided not to, tells the jury to listen to the NEN call for Zimmerman's tone.

He says, keep in mind, when Zimmerman and Sean were talking, they had no idea this would be dissected in court.  They were just talking.  Where is he going?  Which way is he going now?  He says maybe at this point Zimmerman cracks like the guy in the movie "Network" (I'M mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!).  No, he says, listen to Zimmerman later in the call.  he says "OK" and stops following.

O'Mara put the weather report in so you can hear that the wind was up that night.  Zimmerman isn't running after Martin, was he tracking him?  You, the jury get to decide that.  But he draws back to the ill will, spite, hatred.  Referring to the NEN call, "what's your name" "George" and so on.

Is there any evidence in this case that supports the contention that he ran anywhere, or that he ran after Martin after he said "OK"?  Let Guy tell you that there is even evidence that Zimmerman walked after Martin.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 07:35:03 AM
O'Mara says over and over "listen to the tapes, you will hear the real GZ".

"Is there any evidence that GZ either ran or followed TM after he said "Okay" to "we don't need you to do that".
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:36:13 AM
animation domination!
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:36:53 AM
Which witness told you that Lauer's lights were on, so Zimmerman saw the house number as he walked by?  The state never asked "Please tell the jury, your lights were on that night."  Is that a sneaky play by the defense, no.  The state has a burden to prove, to produce every point, every dot, and connect them.

Next step on proving justified self defense, innocence.  Working backwards from Lauer's call - what was Zimmerman doing?  He didn't know he had to protect his story.  He's walked to RTCircle, walking back with a little baby flashlight, which was on.  It was really dark, notice the photos with flash.  Evidence seems to support that George is heading back to his car, and there is not one shred of evidence to support otherwise.  What is the evidence it started around the T"  The flashlight, Lauer heard it, Manolo heard it, Surdyka said it started sort of outside her window.  Which is where Zimmerman said it started.

O'Mara is going to play the animation for the jury.  It runs a minute - minute and half, has 911 Lauer call.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:39:35 AM
animation domination!

Animation SNAFU

It won't run?  Edit to add -- It runs!!
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:42:31 AM
Animation SNAFU

It won't run?  Edit to add -- It runs!!

Why doesn't O'Mara have a little tech geek to handle this stuff for him?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 07:46:00 AM
Animation shows Zimmerman's head off the concrete at the time of the shot.  :o   Didn't Zimmerman say the head was above the concrete but the lower body on the grass?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 07:47:29 AM
animation domination!

lol
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:48:54 AM
Bernie looks miserable.

During Bernie's close O'Mara was smirking most of the time.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:49:49 AM
Animation shows Zimmerman's head off the concrete at the time of the shot.  :o   Didn't Zimmerman say the head was above the concrete but the lower body on the grass?

Did you hear any of what O'Mara said about the animation?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 07:50:44 AM
Did I just hear O'Mara say that he was going to prove his client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?  Why?  Suppose he fails to convince the jury of that, they might jump to thinking he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Doesn't sound like a smart strategy on O'M's part.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:52:29 AM
Did I just hear O'Mara say that he was going to prove his client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?  Why?  Suppose he fails to convince the jury of that, they might jump to thinking he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Doesn't sound like a smart strategy on O'M's part.



He set it up this way early on. There's a reason. He articulated it.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: AghastInFL on July 12, 2013, 07:54:12 AM
Wow, trayvons timeframe.... powerful silence.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:55:49 AM
O'Mara coordinates Mora's timing to view, with Zimmerman being on top, consistent with Zimmerman's narrative.

Animation over.  O'Mara said that it includes some assumptions as to detail, but it gives an idea, a perspective that is fully consistent with the evidence in this case.  The event started at the T, Zimmerman getting hit in the face, fight moves, and the only person injured, other than the gunshot, is Zimmerman.

Now we get into what happened.  You can argue all you want about wannabe cop, seething anger, but if you don;t prove it (BYD), it doesn't exist.

It's been about a minute and half since Zimmerman concluded his NEN call.  Maybe Zimmerman is trying to keep a visual.  What was Martin doing?  The evidence is he was on the phone with Rachael.  O'Mara coordinates Zimmerman's "he's running" with call drop between Martin and Rachael.

Going to take a break - he didn't realize he'd been talking for so long.  Nobody is moving.  You could hear a pin drop in that courtroom.  After a LONG time, he says, "That's how long Trayvon Martin had to run."  WOW.  Very effective.

I see cutouts leaning on the wall.  Probably show the relative sizes of Zimmerman and Martin, for later use.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 07:57:48 AM
It was 4 minutes in pitch darkness that Martin had to go home.  Zimmerman couldn't have seen him.  O'Mara missed that important point.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 07:58:02 AM
Now he's pointing out the actual distances to the jury, and pointing out that the state didn't bother to provide any actual distance or information about the distance or what TM was doing.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:58:28 AM
Did the state tell you anything about what Martin was doing for those four minutes?  Do you have a doubt as to what Martin was doing, and what he must have been thinking for those four minutes?

Calls for recess.  15 minute recess.

So far, pretty good closing argument, IMO.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: AghastInFL on July 12, 2013, 07:59:12 AM
nice timing for the recess, time to chew on the silence of the States missing evidence.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 07:59:35 AM
It was 4 minutes in pitch darkness that Martin had to go home.  Zimmerman couldn't have seen him.  O'Mara missed that important point.

Maybe the jurors have memory longer than a goldfish, and recall that it was a dark and rainy night.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 08:00:25 AM
It was 4 minutes in pitch darkness that Martin had to go home.  Zimmerman couldn't have seen him.  O'Mara missed that important point.

He's already mentioned the pitch blackness about 7 times. Maybe 27 times. What closing statement are you watching?


Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 08:01:55 AM
Maybe the jurors have memory longer than a goldfish, and recall that it was a dark and rainy night.

Isn't that part of this? O'Mara is talking to the jury, treating them as intelligent people who've been there this whole time.

That's got to be helpful, especially compared with Bernie hollering at them. Not many women appreciate men hollering at them as though they're morons.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: Redbrow on July 12, 2013, 08:04:51 AM
It was 4 minutes in pitch darkness that Martin had to go home.  Zimmerman couldn't have seen him.  O'Mara missed that important point.

Wouldn't overstating the obvious be "talking down" to the jury?

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: Meni on July 12, 2013, 08:07:20 AM
Did the state tell you anything about what Martin was doing for those four minutes?  Do you have a doubt as to what Martin was doing, and what he must have been thinking for those four minutes?

Calls for recess.  15 minute recess.

So far, pretty good closing argument, IMO.

I second that.

I thought I caught Bernie look up and around, then sigh as if in a moments acknowledgement of defeat.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 08:12:58 AM
O'Mara's closing isn't as strong as I expected. I was surprised that he would claim GZ was still at the clubhouse when GZ started to approach the truck. 

Seeing the animation when O'Mara presented it, I realized something I overlooked before. It puts the punch right at the T, consistent with where the keychain flashlight was found, but inconsistent with what GZ indicated in the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4#t=07m28s) (7:28)
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 08:17:41 AM
O'Mara's closing isn't as strong as I expected. I was surprised that he would claim GZ was still at the clubhouse when GZ started to approach the truck. 

Seeing the animation when O'Mara presented it, I realized something I overlooked before. It puts the punch right at the T, consistent with where the keychain flashlight was found, but inconsistent with what GZ indicated in the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4#t=07m28s) (7:28)

At 8:08 looks a lot like being at the T when he says he got punched.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 08:31:16 AM
Four minutes.  That felt like a long time for you.  We get to ponder what Martin was thinking.  Zimmerman said "he's running."  Four minutes to walk home, run home.  Four minute mile.  With the opportunity to go home, he did not (or at least he didn't stay there).  Somebody decided they were angry, ticked off, or had ill will spite or hatred.  Somebody decided it wasn't over with the running.

The person who decided this was going to become a violent event was the guy who didn't go home.  When the state told you that Martin had no decisions, that Zimmerman planned this?  Really?  Four minutes of planning (by Martin) and they want you to ignore it.  With those four minutes, let's use your common sense.

Zimmerman going back to his car with that little baby flashlight.  Martin on the phone, talking with Rachael (she didn't want to be involved in this case).  Throw out everything Zimmerman said - he should have shut up and not told anything to law enforcement.  So, let's make believe all his self serving statements are out.  What do we have?

Show picture of Zimmerman bloody face.  Good thing we have it, because otherwise all we would have is the cleaned up picture.  But we have the bloody face, smashed nose picture.  We have 40 seconds of screaming.  O'Mara figured, once you find out who is screaming, case over.  Challenges the state to produce a theory of why Martin would be screaming while he's beating on Zimmerman.

On the voice, now you do get to decide (or not) who was screaming.  Under reasonable doubt, who gets the benefit?  Zimmerman.  Then the statement by Manalo.  De la Rionda's "I killed the guy", well, use your memory.  Zimmerman actually said "I shot somebody."  What should he do, think about how his remark is going to be used 1 year and a half later?  Smith says, right away, "Zimmerman said he was screaming for help."  So this mastermind criminal knew, at that moment, that he better say he was the one screaming?

Hard to do justice to this closing in paraphrase form.  O'Mara is doing much better than my notes reflect, I'll say that.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 08:36:11 AM
O'Mara pointing out that the state is trying to invert the burden of proof, so that Zimmerman has to prove he is innocent.

Goes to slide show, photo of each witness, bullet points for each witness.  Chad, throw a football that far.  7-11 clerk is 5'10", Noffke ... LOL.  This is the state witnesses proving Zimmerman's innocence.

Emphasizing that cop wannabe Zimmerman turned down an offer to get a uniform, yellow-cop-light car, cop computer (or clipboard).
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 08:37:12 AM
I admit--I laughed when he said 'little cop clip board'.

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 08:41:30 AM
O'Mara pointing out that the state is trying to invert the burden of proof, so that Zimmerman has to prove he is innocent.
But previously he was boasting that he was going to prove Zimmerman innocent.  Now I am not sure what he is claiming.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 08:42:50 AM
But previously he was boasting that he was going to prove Zimmerman innocent.  Now I am not sure what he is claiming.

Sounds a lot more like an issue with you than with O'Mara.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 12, 2013, 08:45:49 AM
PLEASE stop feeding the "attention troll" and keep this focused on recapping for those of us who can't watch it.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 08:48:57 AM
O'Mara reinforces that the jury is not allowed to speculate.  It must use the evidence.

O'Mara acts out Zimmerman being jealous of the stucco guy for catching the juror.  Says the state hasn't produced any line to connect.  Stucco guy caught the burglar, Zimmerman is frustrated.  has the state connected those two at all? (underpants gnome, sez me).

Smith, crime scene process.  Missing evidence, who gets the benefit of the doubt?  Zimmerman.  Hammers Bahador's credibility.  Play the prosecutor's trick, maybe what she heard, "left to right," was Martin going after Zimmerman.  Surdyka not lying when she says 3 pops, she remembered wrong.  She also got wrong the big guy was on top (Ummmm).  Ms. Manalo.   She assumed Martin looked like he did when he was 12.  Well, if you used a picture of O'Mara when O'Mara was 12, then O'Mara will be the guy being beat up.

Rachael Jaentel.  She didn't want to be involved.  O'Mara thinks Rachael's mom told Rachael to go talk to Sybrina.  He talks about the time delay of three four weeks - you don't have that kind of recall three weeks later, from a phone call.  "Oh yeah, you want that too?"  O'Mara is sorry that she had to involve her life with our lives in this way, but she's a witness.  On "close to dad's place" O'Mara says he thinks that means close relative to the 7-11, not that it was literal.  Get's into the inappropriate taking of statement by the state, with Sybrina on the couch next to the witness.

Lauer ... and he'll continue making points with evidence elicited from each witness.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:00:58 AM
I skipped many of the witness and their summary significance.

O'Mara describes the extent of injuries that have to be present, by law, in order to justify self defense.  ZERO.  He repeats, ZERO.  No injury is necessary to respond with deadly force.  The statute is clear, reasonable fear of bodily harm (misstatement by omitting "great bodily harm").  What you  (jury) have to consider is Zimmerman's state of mind.

DNA experts - rain, preservation of evidence.

Carter (JAG officer) - not a good idea to wait for injury, before responding in self defense.

DNA analyst - O'Mara talks about how little blood was probably around.  Will later have some precise points (that support self defense)

Sybrina - O'Mara says he knows mom's believe with their heart and soul it was their child, it's part of how you get through it.  Classy treatment of the witness.

Dr. Bao - it was the state's decision to bring him in.  Injuries on Martin, hands should have been bagged, clothes wern't packed so as to preserve DNA.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:09:58 AM
Tracy Martin's "not my son's voice" - up to you to decide how to deal with that.  Credibility?  weight?

Kokopelli's gym - advertised Zimmerman, mocks that as Zimmerman going from a 0.5 to a 1.  Zimmerman afraid to shadowbox because the shadow might win.  LOL.  Good line.

ex-Chief Lee on tainting testimony of witness testimony by allowing the family to listen together.  That infected the evaluation of the who screamed testimony - who gets the benefit of the doubt on that?  Zimmerman.

di Maio - stuck to the gunshot, even though both sides tried to take him outside of that.  Martin is leaning over, his loose billowing shirt is away from his skin.  This completely supports the contention that Zimmerman, on the bottom, Martin leaning over when he was shot.

The state says "he could have been backing up."  He might have been backing up.  If he (O'Mara) was arguing that, it would be reasonable doubt.  He could have been backing up to strike another blow.  At some point, after 45 seconds of being attacked, he didn't back off when Good came out, so some reason, just before the shot came, the state wants you to believe that Martin retreated.  Really?  Really!  Just give me one piece of evidnece for that.  Where is it?  One eyewitness.  Where is one shred of evidence for the absurdity they are trying to get you to buy.  Mr. Guy can tell you about it when it's his turn.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:13:49 AM
Root -  the state is impeaching lifetime law enforcement officers.  Guy asks "at that moment, what other options did Zimmerman have?"  Response, from a use of force expert, "none."  This from a person who teaches how to use force, when to use force, when not to use force.  And they asked him if Zimmerman had alternatives.  Just give me one shred of evidence that contradicts that he had any other option.  Just because the expert says it you don't have to believe it, but if you do believe it - if it helps you, then accept it.

Bertalon - put a face on what was going on in RTL.  Thank God nobody came upstairs, the scissors would not have helped.  That is the face of frustration.  That's why Zimmerman was helping.   He's a lock, here's my number, here's my wife's number.

This is a powerful close, at this point.  REALLY powerful.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:21:11 AM
Lights back on.  Blood not on the hands?  Not on his chest either, even though nobody admits any cleaning.

To the lifesize cardboard cutouts.  These show a remarkable difference in height.  O'Mara refers to himself standing next to the 7-11 clerk, this is how the cutout of Martin was developed.

Shows pictures of Martin in 7-11, and the picture off the phone, buff Martin.  Says that ME photos don't show the person.  There is no muscle to them, no nerves, no movement.  The picture of Martin on the ME table does look emaciated, but this picture, in evidence, shows what Martin looked like 3 months earlier.  This is the person that attacked Zimmerman, and battered him for 40 seconds.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:25:45 AM
O'Mara points out that Zimmerman voluntarily gave all sorts of statements, and if anybody gives the same story twice, they are probably lying.  They are probably pathological liars (that'll trigger a memory of Serino).  What Serino said was he doubted Zimmerman got hit 25 times.  Maybe he did - is that the embellishment the state is pointing out to make Zimmerman a liar?  If you lie, it is an intent to deceive.  If he had an intent to deceive, why did he give so many statements?

Zimmerman knows whatever the state wants you to think he knows, but he also knows Miranda. 
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
Back to burden.  Presumption of innocence stays attached until the state takes it away with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Recapitulates the if you have an abiding conviction that vacillate, then you have a reasonable doubt.  I have never said this is a criminal case - I almost wish that the verdict had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent, because I would ask you to check the completely innocent box. (it takes guts to make that claim).

Goes a bit on memory and credibility, indicia for credibility.  Surdyka, Bahadoor, Mora.  Did they have an interest in the outcome?  When Zimmerman gave statements, in his mind, at that time, he had an interest in telling the story to his own advantage, of course.  Global view - Root says you have to look at the totality of the circumstances.

Case has to be decided on the evidence.  Don't bring assumptions, presumptions.

Don't decide because you feel sorry for somebody.  You said you could deliver an acquittal faced with the Martin family.  I asked that for a reason.  This is a tragic loss for them, but that should not influence your decision.

Talks about the use of deadly force instruction - did Zimmerman reasonably believe, have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm.  He does not have to think he is going to die.  You must judge him by the circumstances at the time, at the moment the force was applied.  The risk doesn't have to be actual, but in this case, with a fight, it is - but rubber knife.  The appearance of danger must have been so real, reasonable and prudent and cautious person in those circumstances, put yourself in his predicament, would you believe the danger could be avoided only by the use of force.  Zimmerman has to actually believe the risk.   You can take relative abilities into account.  If you have a reasonable doubt that he was justified, you should find him not guilty.

Two slides / posters on the easel to explain reasonable doubt in justified use of deadly force.

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 09:51:09 AM
O'Mara presents the instruction that Nelson denied, as a poster.  Following is not against the law.

O'Mara says he is running over his time, and wishes he had more.

Defense called Tracy Martin.  If the state is seeking justice, why should the defense call Tracy?  The burden is on the state.  Did the state tell you about all the other burglaries at RTL.  Where is the state's expert on use of force?  Who was their rebuttal to di Maio?  The burden is on the state to prove.  Did Zimmerman press the gun into Martin's chest?  Emotions vs. Justice.  Does it help you to decide this case when somebody who is not Zimmerman;s voice yells and screams and curses at you?  Listen to the tape, not to Guy.  O'Mara says "I look like Joel Olsteen, I guess Guy is tryinbg to sound like him"  ROTFL.  O'Mara mocking the prosecutors a few times on their repetition of exaggerated tone of Zimmerman's voice.

How many times was it said that Martin was unarmed?  O'Mara pulls out the concrete slab.

That is not some unarmed teenager, with skittles, on his way home.  The suggestion by the state that that is not a weapon, that it can't cause great bodily injury, is disgusting.  (O'Mara's word).

Even if we presume Racheal was accurate, Zimmerman said "what are you doing around here."  What did Root say about that, what about evolution of force?  You might come back "get out of my face," but Dennis Root didn't say that the appropriate response was to break the other guy's nose.  There was some anger, hostility, ill will, and it had nothing to do with Zimmerman except he was the victim of it.  had Martin been shot through the hip and survived, what do you think he would have been charged with?  Aggravated battery?

The state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that my client is guilty of anything.  I may think I have convinced you.  The state is going to stand up and tell you again that Zimmerman is a liar.  But, here is the standard, you go back there, if you have a reasonable doubt that my client acted in self defense.  Do we think he might have acted in self defense - just maybe, if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop.  self defense is a defense to everything.  Littering, speeding, grand theft, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder.  If the state has not convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman has NOT acted in self defense, you are done.  You don't have to write "innocent" on the form.

Don't let the state win on innuendo, yelling, screeching.

If you think Zimmerman acted in self defense, you are done.  Thanks jury for their time, their attention, it is a difficult task, their interest.  O'Mara and Zimmerman appreciate.  he wants one more thing, find Zimmerman not guilty and let him get back to his life.

Ten minute recess, then Guy.

On a scale of 1-10, I'll give that close an 8.5 or higher.  It's an "A"  (I grade hard)
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: teresainpa on July 12, 2013, 09:56:01 AM
Good job MOM.  I hope the jury is smart.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cashmere on July 12, 2013, 10:03:58 AM
O'Mara certainly scored high marks from my "vantage".   I just like his style, soooooo much more than BDLR's.  Now for "Guy", the handsome dude..............curious about what he will do.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:04:49 AM
At 8:08 looks a lot like being at the T when he says he got punched.

At 8:08 is when GZ started talking about TM approaching. It's not when he stopped to show the point he was standing when he was punched.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:05:37 AM
O'Mara certainly scored high marks from my "vantage".   I just like his style, soooooo much more than BDLR's.  Now for "Guy", the handsome dude..............curious about what he will do.

heh.  I'm not going to cover Guy's performance.  Last time he was up, he looked like he was on drugs or something, maybe one pot of coffee too many.  His eyes were bugging out.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: woodchuck64 on July 12, 2013, 10:26:02 AM
At 8:08 is when GZ started talking about TM approaching. It's not when he stopped to show the point he was standing when he was punched.

"He was here and he punched me in the face", as Zimmerman is standing about 3 feet from the sidewalk "T".  Then "Right up around here to be honest with you... I don't remember exactly..."

Really, this counts as an inconsistency?
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 11:03:06 AM
Zimmerman is standing about 3 feet from the sidewalk "T"

If you think that's three feet, you are entitled to your opinion.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 11:06:35 AM
If you think that's three feet, you are entitled to your opinion.

Basing on GZ's height, the probably height of the cop on the other side, and the little tree there, three feet more or less (about three feet I think was the quote) is reasonable.

Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 12, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I'll get the Treehouse to invesigate this contreversy
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 11:14:21 AM
I'll get the Treehouse to invesigate this contreversy

Make sure you tell them I'm involved. They love me over there.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: Redbrow on July 12, 2013, 03:24:34 PM
I'll get the Treehouse to invesigate this contreversy
Maybe the kos kooks can help them out.
Title: Re: Defense Closing
Post by: unitron on July 13, 2013, 10:13:10 AM
Make sure you tell them I'm involved. They love me over there.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D