TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Closing Arguments => Topic started by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 04:07:10 AM

Title: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 04:07:10 AM
Here is a thread to discuss the state's initial closing argument to be made July 11, 2013.

Update: Here is a slideshow I made of some of the states' exhibits used in closing and some photos from the closing.

Graphics From State's Closing (http://s311.photobucket.com/user/TalkLeft/slideshow/zimmerman/State%20Closing%20Argument)
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 11:44:25 AM
De la Rionda starts at about 1:42.  Claims Martin is dead through no fault of his own, and that blame is assigned to Zimmerman on account of assumptions (hmmm, not ill will?) made by Zimmerman.

Zimmerman acted upon assumptions, and because of that, a 17 year old man is dead.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 11:46:02 AM
De la Rionda starts at about 1:42.  Claims Martin is dead through no fault of his own, and that blame is assigned to Zimmerman on account of assumptions (hmmm, not ill will?) made by Zimmerman.

Zimmerman acted upon assumptions, and because of that, a 17 year old man is dead.


An  hour ago they were trying to convince JDN it was child abuse.

Now we're back to "young boy".

I need to not watch this.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 11:49:18 AM
De la Rionda shows the jury a photo, and says this is one of the last photos taken of the young man (I wonder if this is the Hollister teeshirt picture --- just kidding).

Zimmerman didn't attempt CPR.  Zimmerman had a matter of fact tone when he asked Manalo to tell Shellie, I shot somebody (de la Rionda said Zimmerman's remark was that he had just killed somebody, but there is evidence that Zimmerman didn't know Martin was dead until hours later).

Getting into the events leading up - going months before the shooting.  I sense wannabe cop and building frustration story coming on.

I'm headed out to do some chores.  Won't be back before Bernardo is done.  He's so far not as animated as Guy was in opening.  I'll read to see if the show was entertaining enough to watch.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
Said GZ Claimed not to realize TM was dead
did not attempt to render aid

He profiled him as a criminal and assumed he was up to no good and that is what led to his death
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:52:07 AM
What was TM's crime? He bought skittles and some kind of iced tea
Had $40.15
Wearing photo button
minding own business speaking to girl in Miami
But GZ decided victim up to no good
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Redbrow on July 11, 2013, 11:53:09 AM
BDLR told an outright lie stating George said "just tell her I KILLED him" just after stating George did not know he killed him. This is a deliberate attempt to misinform the jury on a crucial point.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:53:39 AM
he was going to watch a basketball game, he was on his way home

wearing a hoodie, last he heard that isn't against the law

He presumed something that was not true

Neighborhood watch: a respected thing we encourage people to do

Called non-emergency no, and then he followed him and tracked him.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:54:48 AM
He stepped over the line. Instead of waiting for police to do its job, he wanted to make sure TM didn't get out of the neighborhood. He was sick and tired of it. So he acted like what he wanted to be, a police officer.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:56:35 AM
He automatically assumed TM was a criminal and that's why we are here.

The defense will say what happened during the shooting. but you can't view it in a vacuum.

Who was more scared? The kid minding his open business being followed by a guy in a truck.

Rachel Jeantel: Maybe he's a sex pervert. It was TM that was scared.

TM can't come in to the courtroom and tell you how he's feeling.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:57:41 AM
He's was upset people got away. That's a good thing.

Driving to Target, calls police but then tracks the guy down. Gets out of the car.
Sees the victim, calls non-emergency: no crime right there.

Important to realize this is what led to TM being dead.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 11:59:07 AM
He had the right to bear arms. He had a concealed permit. Not violating any law.
Victim, 17, unarmed.
States respective sizes
What started this? Assumptions. Incorrect assumptions. On the part of one individual. Shows last photograph of Trayvon Martin.
Title: I find listening to BDLR....
Post by: cashmere on July 11, 2013, 11:59:13 AM
painful! :'(
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
Muttered under his breath, that itself is ill-will and hatred.
He was verbalizing what he was thinking
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:01:35 PM
Prior calls to non-emergency. He was sick and tired of it. But the law doesn't allow you to take the law into your own hands.

The law talks about accountability and responsibility for your actions. Hold him accountable. That's what we're asking.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:03:21 PM
Law doesn't allow you to take it into your own hands.

Didn't give TM to tell him what he was doing

GZ said TM was circling his car. You have to decide if it's true. Assume it is true. Why does he get out of the car when he has something in his hand

Because he's going to take the law into his own hands. He's a wannabe cop.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:06:05 PM
Is it really self-defense?
Because he was wearing a hoodie or not walking fast enough.
Walking in the rain isn't against the law.
He had his hoodie on, it was raining on and off.
Going to talk about GZ's statements. We wanted to put in all the statements and give you the truth.

Not saying he intended to kill him, that would be first degree murder.

Why was it necessary for GZ to do what he did?

He kept denying he had followed him.
He said he didn't know name of the street. Only three streets, lived there four years.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:07:49 PM
Following him shows his guilt. Because his actions led to the death of TM.

Unfortunately, there's only one person left who knew what happened and GZ made sure he couldn't come in and tell you what happened. He silenced TM.

But his body speaks to you even in death and proves this defendant is lying about what happened.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:08:48 PM
Shows photo of hands with no blood.
GZ in an attempt to convince police it was self-defense, he had to exaggerate what happened.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:10:04 PM
This defendant has studied the law and he has all the bullet points of what's required.

Assumptions is the most important word he says.

Assumed TM was going to commit a burglary. Profiled him as a criminal.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:11:57 PM
Assumed he was a f*ing punk.

Assuming isn't against the law by itself.

Let's assume he believed TM might be committing a crime. He called the police. Right thing to do. When TM circled his car and asked what are you following me for? He didn't answer,didn't roll down window and ID himself, didn't explain himself. He had already determined he was a criminal.

He didn't wait in his car or for the police.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:13:11 PM
Moves on to weighing evidence. Inconsistent statement, and use your G-d given common sense.

He wanted to be a police officer. Applied in VA, didn't get in. Going to school, all that is good.

But you cannot take matters into your own hand.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:16:06 PM
Wants to talk about witnesses.

Takes a minute to thank jury for its time and service.

Wants to talk about how to arrive at a verdict.

How do you arrive at a verdict that is just and speaks the truth.

1. Rely on witnesses
2. Rely on the law Judge Nelson would read
3. Rely on your G-d given common sense.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:18:23 PM
Do you believe there's an innocent man sitting over there?
Do you believe he just over-reacted a little bit?
Do you believe this was just a fight that got out of hand.

Perhaps. But who started it? Who followed who? Who was the one who was armed.

Shows his timeline of phone calls with Rachel Jeantel and GZ's calls.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:21:35 PM
Phone records don't lie.
Rachel isn't the most sophisticated
Haitian descent
She's what? 18, 19?
Maybe her speech wasn't the best
She called me a bald headed dude.
But did she speak the truth?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Redbrow on July 11, 2013, 12:22:25 PM
When Jeantel swore and used racist language it was merely "colorful" due to her being "unsophisticated and uneducated" but George swearing is criminal intent.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:23:20 PM
Do you disregard what she says because she's not very educated, Haitian, can't read cursive?

You decide.

Did what she say match up with the other evidence? I submit it did.

Isn't what she said TM said consistent with the evidence?

Is there any dispute GZ profiled (his word he says) TM?
Isn't that consistent with what GZ tells you?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 12:23:26 PM
Has yet to say they actually proved anything.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 12:24:34 PM
God he's paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr (and pathetically).

Witness judged on the content of her testimony and not the color of her personality.

I find that offensive, honestly.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:26:48 PM
Defendant won't admit he was following him, he was just looking for an address.

Repeats RJ's pervert comment.

She did lie about funeral and her age. She's guilty of that. She didn't want to have to deal with the body.

Are you going to disregard her testimony because of that? She didn't want to testify. Maybe she didn't want to admit she couldn't read cursive.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:28:21 PM
He was more than angry. That's frustration. That's ill-will and hatred. "My G-d he's not going to get away." Plays the f*ing punks line from the tape.

Why necessary to utter f*king punks if he hadn't already determined TM was a criminal and he was not going to get away.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 12:29:30 PM
Is it more effective that O'Mara objects to misstatement of fact (like what GZ said to the first cops about call my wife) or mention it themselves in their closing--like "listen, the prosecutor even lied in his own closing...."?

Because Bernie has told a couple of actual lies here.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:31:50 PM
He inadvertently let out that he lied about not knowing the name of the street.
(By telling officer in the car the name of the street in the reinactment? -- I didn't understand that)

Jenna Lauer: this wasn't a sudden attack like GZ claimed. It didn't start at the top of the T where GZ claimed.

Teacher Jane: she had a good view and thought the bigger man was on top.

Voice she heard was a child vs an older person. Is she expert? No. But either are those who came in and said it was TM's voice or GZ's voice.

What she observed is consistent with what happened.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:33:07 PM
You'd have to believe he was just going for a walk and victim just attacked him.

You'd have to believe GZ just took it, he never did anything. Compare the sizes. At the last minute, he was able to take out his concealed gun and shoot him.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
Let's talk about John Good.
He did not see shooting, he saw what happened prior to the shooting
He submits there was a fight. There was struggle.
One of them had 18 months MMA  training. Oh, but he's just pudgy and overweight, Mr. Pollack said.
You can't just take it in a vacuum. What led up to it? Was it necessary to shoot him.
The defense will parade the photos. I don't think I have to show you the most important photo, the ME photo, who got hurt the most?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:37:14 PM
Was TM trying to protect himself from that gun?
Is that what this struggle is about?
GZ claims victim tried to grab the gum. Unfortunately the truth comes out. No DNA on the gun.Told Osterman the next day that the victim had grabbed the gun, not the holster.
Osterman told you he wrote a book about it.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:40:17 PM
Witness Bahadoor who heard "ooh" is consistent with Jeantel saying "get off."

Bahadoor saw them struggling upright.
She say them going from left to right.

GZ claims he pulled him all the way over here. Remember where the items were?

Mrs. Manalo saw biggest person on top. They made a big deal out of having seen photos on TV.

My point is there was a struggle and at some point the victim was on top and at some time GZ was on top.

But what caused it?

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:42:07 PM
Does more "you'd have to believe the defendant was just..."

Manalo told you he went outside and thought the defendant had been beaten up.

Call my wife,  just tell him I shot him.

How does a struggle factor in? Who started it? Who was following who?
Does the victim have the right to self-defense when he's being chased?

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:43:28 PM
No dispute it was raining and dark.

Points to diagram shows where things were.

Says photos don't show blood on sidewalk.

Why is his jacket not torn up? Is he exagerating what happened/
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 12:45:26 PM
Can Bernie actually say that there's no evidence that TM could fight? Just because the judge didn't let it in, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What's that, 5 big lies now?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:45:32 PM
Points out flashlights, told police it wasn't working.
Why was he carrying a flashlight that wasn't working.

As he's speaking he has photo of uncovered body with TM lying on back with mouth open.

No blood on victim's hands. Defense tried to blame on ME. But this is at the scene. Where's the blood.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:49:41 PM
Says a photo shows something is longer than something else. Was defendant pulling on him as he was trying to back away?

Shows sign with street name.

Flashes through daytime pics of scene.
Shows Manalo's photo
Hands under body
What did defendant tell you?
He spread his hands like cops do. It's part of him wanting to be a cop. That's what cops do.
Di Maio said he could move for 15 seconds. (I didn't get his point about this.)


Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:52:09 PM
Talks about DNA on grip. TM is excluded. Inconsistent with what he told Osterman.

Where is his blood out there?
More on DNA.

Was one person screaming or two?

How can he be screaming as he's swallowing blood

How is he able to yell

Or is he lying about that (shouts)

I submit it's a lie.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 12:52:36 PM
Shows exhibit (http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/fingernailscraphings_zpsc755c80c.jpg) of Martin's DNA results.

15 minute recess.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:15:52 PM
Court back in session.

BDLR shows minor injury to TM's left hand. TM is right handed.

One is shot to death, and one lies.
He brought a gun to a site because he didn't want the guy to get away.
Now he wants you to let him off because the only other eye-witness is dead.

TM had the right to defend himself.

Moves to GZ interview to show why GZ is lying and why it happened.

Plays part of his interview with Singleton.


Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 11, 2013, 01:17:17 PM
I think it has been a very weak closing argument so. Bernie has repeatedly misstated facts. He has only scored a few points, and he has failed to connect them into a coherent narrative.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:21:46 PM
Says interview shows GZ knew there was no camera at RATL and refers to Serino having implied there might be a camera. Suggests it shows he is lying. (Doesn't mention that Serino told him TM might have a camera, not that the complex might have one.)

If he was in fear, why did he get out the car?

Speaks in a mocking tone, mimicking GZ, drawing out each word very long.

Repeats the three street meme again and says he walks his dog on that street.

Changed that the guy came out of the bushes, he catches himself. Says he said he was going towards TM and then catches himself and says TM came out from the bushes. Came out of nowhere.

O'Mara objects to him misstating the law and making improper reference to GZ's statements.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:23:22 PM
Plays part of interview where he says he felt TM reaching for the gun.

Says TM had one hand over mouth, one over nose, and his third hand is going for his gun. Does that makes sense?

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:25:01 PM
Shows jury GZ's gun and holster. Says it was not on side towards front, but on sides towards back.

How did the victim see the gun? Is that another lie?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:25:56 PM
He didn't realize he shot the victim? Why is he holstering his gun if he's so scared? Or is that just police jargon. That's what police are taught.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 01:27:29 PM
"Skittles that he didn't even steal."

I wonder if anybody in the courtroom had to suppress a smile.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:28:03 PM
He told the officer he didn't realize he shot the victim. Why is holstering his gun if he's so scared? Or is that just police jargon. That's what police are taught.

Plays GZ saying, "They always come around at nighttime."

That's the assumption he made at the beginning when he profiled TM who had skittles, skittles he didn't even steal. You saw photos of 7-11. He didn't instill fear in the clerk because he was wearing a hoodie.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
Bernie's ratcheting up the crazy now. Maybe he's sensing the desperation like everyone else.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:30:20 PM
Plays: "When I walked backed towards him"

He's the one who is aggressor. He was pursuing the victim. But he catches himself and makes it that TM confronted him. He makes up the story about reaching for the phone.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:32:58 PM
Talks about GZ's injuries. He refused to go have x-rays.

Who was following who? Who started fight?

Shows picture of GZ at station. Circles shoes in pictures. Says there's some grass. Maybe GZ was on top of Martin some of the time.

How small were the lacerations? Why are his hands uninjured if a 17 year old is whaling on him, how come he's not defending himself?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Meni on July 11, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
Bernie's ratcheting up the crazy now. Maybe he's sensing the desperation like everyone else.

"When is the story going to end?"
- My four year old
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:34:46 PM
He's trying to make up one lie after another.

I didn't know the name of the street I was on.
I had already gone to the dog walk, and he came out of the bushes and hit me.

Help, he's killing me.

And then this criminal put his hand over my mouth and said you're going to die tonight.

He's got that training, he knows what he has to say.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 01:36:11 PM
He's trying to make up one lie after another.


Are you describing Bernie or quoting Bernie?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:38:35 PM
He's mocking GZ's version of events as they are being played.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:39:31 PM
Are you describing Bernie or quoting Bernie?

I'm recounting what Bernie says.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:40:03 PM
I'm off to make some graphics. If anyone wants to take over.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: teresainpa on July 11, 2013, 01:40:27 PM
Heads up:  found out on CNN this morning that the juror who is taking so many notes and speaking up for the jurors....may end up as forewoman is from a "gun family".  For Bernies information.  It is not just cop behavior when someone holsters their gun after shooting it.  It is basic safety.  Everyone who carries should be trained in the same safety as anyone else including cops.  This juror should know this. GZ has all the language down because he is a responsible gun owner who got training when he started to carry a gun.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:53:06 PM
Bernie shows picture and tells jurors to notice the sprinkler box.  Asks, "Could that have caused some of his injuries?"


Mentions that some clubhouse video clips are in evidence. Says jurors will see shadow and car by mailbox just like Rachel said.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:55:54 PM
Does not want to admit he is chasing, following or profiling him.
Plays "these as*holes..."
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 01:58:23 PM
Moves onto Hannity. "He tells one lie after another." Plays portions.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 11, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
Does GZ's voice sound much deeper(that it sounded when you or I listened to these interviews?) on the video that Bernie is showing?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:00:16 PM
Hannity asks, GZ, maybe TM was scared of you?
GZ thinks that wouldn't look good for me so what does he do? Makes up "la la la" and says TM skipped away.
Title: Just caught a glimpse as the camera panned on Angela Corey..
Post by: cashmere on July 11, 2013, 02:00:24 PM
She appears to be very disgusted... assuming with Bernie's closing.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:02:46 PM
Is GZ screaming or not? Why would TM tell him to shut up if he's not screaming.

Mocks GZ saying his gun became exposes as his jacket came up.

Before he's incapable of fighting back, now he can shimmy.

plays "I feel it was all G-d's plan" and GZ telling Hannity he can't think of anything he'd do differently. "That speaks for itself."
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 02:03:55 PM
Can Bernie actually say that there's no evidence that TM could fight? Just because the judge didn't let it in, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's an excellent point. The issue came up in Arias v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12952932092347945051&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45). The court approvingly quoted another case:

Quote
The prosecutor's use of the privilege of nondisclosure, first as a shield, then as a sword, unfairly prejudiced the defendant. While the State is free to argue to the jury any theory of a crime that is reasonably supported by evidence, it may not subvert the truth-seeking function of a trial by obtaining a conviction or sentence based on the obfuscation of relevant facts.

Adding:

Quote
In this case the toxicology results showed that the victim had a .21 blood alcohol level, traces of cocaine in the blood, and cocaine metabolites. The State successfully kept the jury from hearing the toxicology results. On cross-examination, the State then attacked the defendant's lay observations of the victim's intoxication on the theory that the defendant was not a qualified toxicologist. Further, the State's parting shot was to make it appear that the defendant's testimony that the victim "was acting crazy like on cocaine" was just an assumption. Of course, the State knew that the toxicology results (excluded on the State's motion) confirmed the defendant's observations. This cross-examination was totally improper. Because this cross-examination deprived the defendant of a fair trial, we must reverse for a new trial.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:07:11 PM
"Armpits? How does he get the gun out?" (Shouted very loudly)

Let's talk about the law. Bernie races over it, speaking so fast about ill-will you can't hear what he's saying. Then goes back to pointing out GZ's statements, and slows way down.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:08:41 PM
Refers to GZ's statement of his injuries: "How is the defendant alive or is he exaggerating that too?"
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 11, 2013, 02:09:47 PM
I loved Bernie's demo of TM 'skipping'.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
Goes back to law, second degree murder, and talks every faster than before, no one could listen as fast as he is speaking.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:18:33 PM
I assume this powerpoint presentation does not go to deliberation.

Bernardo had slides that recited elements of the law, not much of a deal as far as I'm concerned.  He had another slide that listed perfectly legal actions, he didn't talk through them, but the implication is one that West was trying to avoid allowing the prosecutor to make.

He says there is no eyewitness that saw it happen, no movie.  Quite a few slides are just shown, not talked through.  One had to do with the direction of scooching vs.which way Zimmerman's jacket would ride.

Wraps up by requesting a verdict that speaks the truth, a guilty verdict.  You hard from parents of both the victim and the defendant.  But there can't be more photos of Martin.  All because of the actions of Zimmerman, who is guilty of murder.

Judge is recessing the jury for the night.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:18:49 PM
Injuries aren't required if he reasonably believes his life is in imminent danger.

BDLR shows powerpoint slides with his argument

Winding down, asking for guilty verdict

"Unfortunately only photos left of TM are ME photos. They cannot take any more photos. Because of this man. O'Mara objects to playing sympathy card."
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: TalkLeft on July 11, 2013, 02:19:34 PM
4:19, Court in recess until 8:30.

Thoughts: He made the case for reasonable doubt rather than eliminate it.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:24:07 PM
Wildabouttrial has cut to a podium with a blue drapery backdrop - maybe a presser coming up.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:27:26 PM
That's an excellent point. The issue came up in Arias v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12952932092347945051&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45).

But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:27:36 PM
Powerpoint slide..."what if?"

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Powerpoint slide..."what if?"

Yes.  That was a list of all the ways Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome.  I notice there is no parallel "what if" for Martin.  Maybe O'Mara will do one (edit to add) to illustrate how Martin could have avoided the outcome, and (hopefully) use it to illustrate that this is an absurd legal test for assigning criminal culpability, or justifying the use of force in self defense.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:30:13 PM
Yes.  That was a list of all the ways Zimmerman could have prevented the outcome.  I notice there is no parallel "what if" for Martin.  Maybe O'Mara will do one, and (hopefully) use it to illustrate that this is an absurd legal test for assigning criminal culpability, or justifying the use of force in self defense.

Yeah...just doesn't seem like a strong closing to me.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.

I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain better?

As I understand it, it doesn't matter--Bernie can't tell a lie about the facts of the case in his closing, just like he couldn't in the trial.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Gunslinger on July 11, 2013, 02:32:44 PM
I saw part of the prosecution's closing arguments while sitting in a waiting room..most of what I heard was not really an argument at all, more like a raw emotional appeal, and yes, there seemed to be several misstatements of fact.

I got a good laugh out of BDLR's pious claim that the reason so many of the state's witnesses bolstered the defense was that the prosecution team wanted the jurors to hear all of the evidence .

If BDLR landed any telling blows, they concerned GZ's reasons for getting out of his car, but at the same time he had no recourse but to attempt to create confusion regarding how the fight actually got started.

Agree with TalkLeft's assessment that all the prosecution really accomplished was to throw the issue of reasonable doubt into sharp relief, but I suppose much depends on the sophistication of the jury. 
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
I can't believe that at this point they spelled GZ's name wrong.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:37:42 PM
I don't want to misunderstand you, can you explain better?

As I understand it, it doesn't matter--Bernie can't tell a lie about the facts of the case in his closing, just like he couldn't in the trial.

No, it matters.  Lawyers can lie at opening and closing.  The case MJW cited was real evidence, elicited from a live witness, and the defense was prohibited from questioning about the toxicology results in the case in chief.

Bu the jury will be told that everything counsel says at opening and closing is not evidence, and more or less is not to be considered during deliberations.  Opening is just to familiarize the jury with the case, closing is an attempt to put them in a certain biased frame of mind as they begin deliberation.  I mean to use "biased" there in a neutral way, that there is nothing inherently wrong with bias.  Bias is bad when it lacks sufficient basis.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
I can't believe that at this point they spelled GZ's name wrong.

Spelling was okay, I think, if you don't count capitalization errors.  ZImmerman is what the state had cut and pasted in place of "defendant."  Capital "I" after "Z."
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 02:40:12 PM
But, that was evidence, cross exam.  This is closing argument.  Just as Guy promised the state would show that Zimmerman pressed the gun into Martin's chest (and didn't) the jury can compare what counsel says in closing against what it has in evidence.  This goes to counsel's credibility, for what that might be worth as the jurors may conflate (accidentally) evidence with counsel argument or claim.

I don't see the principle being significantly different. The jury can't compare the evidence of Martin's fighting experience with BDLR's closing statement, because the evidence was excluded.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 02:44:49 PM
I don't see the principle being significantly different. The jury can't compare the evidence of Marti's fighting experience with BDLR's closing statement, because the evidence was excluded.

I think the way the law looks at it, is as though the closing statement doesn't exist in the deliberation room.  It can't be compared to anything.  Nothing the lawyers say is evidence, and the case must be decided only on the evidence.

Contrast with Arias, where the unfairly prejudicial imbalance was contained within the evidence.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
Spelling was okay, I think, if you don't count capitalization errors.  ZImmerman is what the state had cut and pasted in place of "defendant."  Capital "I" after "Z."

LOL. You almost sound like NMNM.

 ;)
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 02:46:49 PM
And in any case, the court's objection was to prosecutor's mocking phrasing of the question: "When you testified to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that he was acting crazy like on cocaine, that's just your assumption; is that correct, Mr. Arias?" A prosecutor's question is no more evidence than is his closing statement.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 02:48:16 PM
I think the way the law looks at it, is as though the closing statement doesn't exist in the deliberation room.  It can't be compared to anything.  Nothing the lawyers say is evidence, and the case must be decided only on the evidence.

Contrast with Arias, where the unfairly prejudicial imbalance was contained within the evidence.

What Bernie says isn't evidence, but he's talking about evidence. Or in this case flatly saying "there isn't any".
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 11, 2013, 02:52:21 PM
I decided to watch on TV this afternoon, for the first time, and fell asleep after about an hour of Bernie's poorly modulated shouting.  Did he refute any of the following?  Did he even try?

1.  The relative physical abilities and capabilities of Martin and
Zimmerman were such that Zimmerman could not overcome or escape from
Martin, in the situation in this case, without resorting to deadly
force.

2.  At the time of the shot, Zimmerman believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or
great bodily harm that could only be avoided by shooting Martin.

3.  Zimmerman's belief in the danger he was in was sincere and would
have been shared by any reasonably prudent and cautious person in the
same situation.  (It is unnecessary to consider the actual reality of
the danger.)
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 02:53:55 PM
Also, see Gonzalez v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3298820772056764295&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 774 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where the same issue was analyzed in relation to the closing.

Quote
In closing, defense attempted to summarize the facts that pointed to Cabrera as the C.I. The prosecutor in summation then said, in part:

Quote
Ladies and gentlemen, it's very easy for defense counsel to say that Mr. Cabrera is a C.I. There is no evidence of that. The flip side of that [is that] it's just as easily argued that Mr. Ramillo was the confidential informant. He was arrested and charged. No charges were ever filed against him.

Defense counsel objected and sought a mistrial. Moreover, defense counsel pointed out to the court that the prosecutor had violated a pretrial ruling against commenting on the reason that charges against Alexander Ramillo had been dropped and implying that they were dropped because Ramillo was the C.I.

The prosecutor's use of the privilege of nondisclosure, first as a shield, then as a sword, unfairly prejudiced the defendant. While the State is free to argue to the jury any theory of a crime that is reasonably supported by evidence, it may not subvert the truth-seeking function of a trial by obtaining a conviction or sentence based on the obfuscation of relevant facts.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 11, 2013, 02:57:12 PM
One of the WFTV talking heads said a number of the jurors are gun owners or have family members who are. Getting better acquainted with what is known about the jurors, is one of many things I haven't had time to do since the trial started. I have known for a while that one of the jurors has a concealed carry license. Today I've heard reports from the courtroom that she is one of the more active jurors, and speculation she may be the foreman.

In the closing argument, Bernie tried to make nice about licensed carrying. I think it's way too little, way too late, after the prosecutors employed some of the nastiest of anti-gun memes in their questioning of witnesses. I think this (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2575.msg116034.html#msg116034) was the most egregious example, but there have been others.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 11, 2013, 02:57:56 PM
I am confused about the schedule tomorrow.  Is it O'Mara up at 8:30AM EDT for 3 hours followed by Guy up for 1 hour rebuttal? 
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
Also, Garcia v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17879043952180522175&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 622 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1993), where the issue occurred in the opening and closing statements.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Cylinder on July 11, 2013, 03:00:42 PM
I am confused about the schedule tomorrow.  Is it O'Mara up at 8:30AM EDT for 3 hours followed by Guy up for 1 hour rebuttal? 

Yes. The state presents last to rebut defense arguments and in light of their higher burden.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 03:13:28 PM
Also, Garcia v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17879043952180522175&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 622 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1993), where the issue occurred in the opening and closing statements.

Good cites, thanks.  Maybe I'm so accustomed to hearing the prosecutors make statements in opening and closing that are either unsupported or contradictory to facts, and never get so much as a cross ways look, that I figured the only pressure to be half-honest was to avoid coming off as a bald-faced liar to the jury.  IOW, I figured there was no legal penalty such as creating an appealable issue, or creating basis for finding misconduct.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 03:17:10 PM
Also, see Gonzalez v. State (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3298820772056764295&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45), 774 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where the same issue was analyzed in relation to the closing.

Defense counsel objected and sought a mistrial. Moreover, defense counsel pointed out to the court that the prosecutor had violated a pretrial ruling against commenting on the reason that charges against Alexander Ramillo had been dropped and implying that they were dropped because Ramillo was the C.I.

So, does O'Mara have to move for mistrial in order to preserve the issue?  I think he could safely do so, as Nelson isn;t about to grant a motion for mistrial at this point.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: ding7777 on July 11, 2013, 03:17:56 PM
I have known for a while that one of the jurors has a concealed carry license. Today I've heard reports from the courtroom that she is one of the more active jurors, and speculation she may be the foreman.

That could cut both ways.  Talked to a CCW friend  about the case.  His response was  "...he got out of the truck".  But then again, he gets his news from MSM headlines.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 03:26:30 PM
Good cites, thanks.  Maybe I'm so accustomed to hearing the prosecutors make statements in opening and closing that are either unsupported or contradictory to facts, and never get so much as a cross ways look, that I figured the only pressure to be half-honest was to avoid coming off as a bald-faced liar to the jury.  IOW, I figured there was no legal penalty such as creating an appealable issue, or creating basis for finding misconduct.

Thank you. I think what makes this different than the normal misstating of evidence is the brazen sleaziness of excluding evidence then leading the jury to believe that proves it doesn't exist. Normally, the defense at least has a chance to reply, but in this case, the defense's hands are tied.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
So, does O'Mara have to move for mistrial in order to preserve the issue?  I think he could safely do so, as Nelson isn;t about to grant a motion for mistrial at this point.

That's a good question. I think that trial went about as well as the defense could have hoped, so I doubt they'd want to risk another one. I wish they'd objected when BDLR made the statement. The sidebar would have thrown BDLR off, I think. Perhaps they could have gotten a curative instruction that would put BDLR in an embarrassing position, and would let the jurors know something was hidden from them. I'm quite curious to see if the defense makes it an issue.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: mhorgel on July 11, 2013, 03:45:17 PM
MOM should get GZ's jacket mounted just like TM's hoodie and display them side by side while discussing the testimony of the witnesses who placed the larger figure on top of the struggle.  I've seen several people comment on how large the (in)famous hoodie looks all stretched out in it's frame...betcha it's way bigger than GZ's jacket.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 03:47:01 PM
Since Judge Nelson allowed a next-day objection to O'Mara's question to Serino,  I'll be annoyed if the defense brings up BDLR's "fighting" comment tomorrow, and she replies they should have objected immediately.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 04:00:19 PM
That's a good question. I think that trial went about as well as the defense could have hoped, so I doubt they'd want to risk another one. I wish they'd objected when BDLR made the statement. The sidebar would have thrown BDLR off, I think. Perhaps they could have gotten a curative instruction that would put BDLR in an embarrassing position, and would let the jurors know something was hidden from them. I'm quite curious to see if the defense makes it an issue.

The state took overnight to object to Serino's statement that he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth, and the state got a curative instruction.  That remedy is certainly less invasive than asking for a mistrial.

I think it would be a good thing to ask for.  If Nelson denies it, one more issue for appeal.  If she grants it, puts the state in a rather embarrassing position.  OTOH, it would make an issue of absence of evidence of fighting.  I'm not sure the jurors would figure it out, but absence of evidence of TM fighting ability was a court decision (to keep something hidden from the jury), and a contentious one at that, decided just yesterday.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 05:23:13 PM
Although at this point I could see JDN granting a mistrial and the state cleaning up it's act big time for the next trial.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2013, 05:39:01 PM
MOM should get GZ's jacket mounted just like TM's hoodie and display them side by side while discussing the testimony of the witnesses who placed the larger figure on top of the struggle.  I've seen several people comment on how large the (in)famous hoodie looks all stretched out in it's frame...betcha it's way bigger than GZ's jacket.
That's a great idea!
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2013, 05:44:00 PM
Although at this point I could see JDN granting a mistrial and the state cleaning up it's act big time for the next trial.

The state has the resources. However retrial would allow the defense to appeal the ridiculous decisions to disallow exculpatory evidence contained in TMs phone and social media accounts. Still a lot of squirmy things under that rock just waiting to be exposed.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 11, 2013, 05:48:41 PM
 
Although at this point I could see JDN granting a mistrial and the state cleaning up it's act big time for the next trial.
???  You mean coming up with some real evidence?  What is there to clean up?  Not do the opening with F bombs?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: redstripe on July 11, 2013, 06:15:21 PM
How much time does the prosecution have for rebuttal tomorrow?  It seemed like BDLR went significantly over the two hour mark.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 06:47:01 PM
If I were the defense, I'd consider going through a list of BDLR's misstatements of the evidence, and then point out that he made those misstatements despite having a chance to review the testimony in a quiet office; yet he expects GZ to remember everything that happened after a frantic, terror-filled encounter on a dark night.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 11, 2013, 06:58:55 PM
MJW, could you give us a list of BDLR's evidence misstatements that you remember offhand?  Thanks. 
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2013, 07:00:43 PM
If I were the defense, I'd consider going through a list of BDLR's misstatements of the evidence, and then point out that he made those misstatements despite having a chance to review the testimony in a quiet office; yet he expects GZ to remember everything that happened after a frantic, terror-filled encounter on a dark night.

Good point. Although I think many of BDLR's 'misstatements' were deliberate. No one can be that dumb
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 07:02:11 PM
MJW, could you give us a list of BDLR's evidence misstatements that you remember offhand?  Thanks.

One was when he claimed GZ said "call my wife and tell her I killed him". Another was the one I brought up, where he claimed there was no evidence Trayvon was a fighter.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 07:03:32 PM
Good point. Although I think many of BDLR's 'misstatements' were deliberate. No one can be that dumb

They were absolutely deliberate. Bernardo is anything but dumb. You don't get where you are in his career by being dumb.

Sometimes it's almost like he's throwing the race, that's how not dumb he's been over his career.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 11, 2013, 07:19:56 PM
Can O'Mara tell the jury that neither side was allowed to introduce evidence concerning TM's fighting abilities so they shouldn't consider the issue?  Or can the ask the judge give a special jury instruction on the matter?
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: cboldt on July 11, 2013, 07:20:37 PM
One was when he claimed GZ said "call my wife and tell her I killed him". Another was the one I brought up, where he claimed there was no evidence Trayvon was a fighter.

Here's a real whopper.  "We wanted to tell you all the evidence. We wanted to put in all the witnesses that saw something of value out there because we wanted you to get the truth. We wanted you to get the complete story."

CNN has transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.07.11.html), if anybody wants to scour them carefully.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: redstripe on July 11, 2013, 07:24:56 PM
They were absolutely deliberate. Bernardo is anything but dumb. You don't get where you are in his career by being dumb.

Sometimes it's almost like he's throwing the race, that's how not dumb he's been over his career


He strikes me as someone who's very clever and a master of office politics, however his actual abilities as a lawyer seem to be lacking for someone of his rank.  I could be wrong though, maybe he was just laying the ground work for some sort of elaborate rope-a-dope on rebuttal.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 11, 2013, 07:30:38 PM
He strikes me as someone who's very clever and a master of office politics, however his actual abilities as a lawyer seem to be lacking for someone of his rank.  I could be wrong though, maybe he was just laying the ground work for some sort of elaborate rope-a-dope on rebuttal.

Quote
De la Rionda, the assistant state attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, is the lead prosecutor in the Zimmerman trial. Originally from Cuba, de la Rionda was stowed on a cargo plane by his parents to escape the Communist country when he was 4 years old. He was raised in the United States by his grandparents.

De la Rionda has almost 30 years of experience and has more than 250 trials -- including many homicide cases -- under his belt. De la Rionda was honored in 2010 with the “Director’s Community Leadership Award" by the FBI. When presenting the award, the FBI spoke about de la Rionda’s “legendary” reputation as an exceptional prosecutor.


And this from the FBI:

Quote
Mr. Bernie de la Rionda serves as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida. In Florida, Mr. de la Rionda’s reputation as an exceptional prosecutor is legendary. In his 27 years of service, he has had more than 250 jury trials, 67 of which were homicide cases.  During the last two years, from 2009 to 2010, Mr. de la Rionda was the lead counsel in five homicide trials, all of which were first-degree murder cases. Furthermore, in 22 cases he was successful in obtaining a death penalty recommendation and sentence.

BTW, he's sent more black people to death row than any other prosecutor. Just ironic.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: redstripe on July 11, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
De la Rionda, the assistant state attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, is the lead prosecutor in the Zimmerman trial. Originally from Cuba, de la Rionda was stowed on a cargo plane by his parents to escape the Communist country when he was 4 years old. He was raised in the United States by his grandparents.

De la Rionda has almost 30 years of experience and has more than 250 trials -- including many homicide cases -- under his belt. De la Rionda was honored in 2010 with the “Director’s Community Leadership Award" by the FBI. When presenting the award, the FBI spoke about de la Rionda’s “legendary” reputation as an exceptional prosecutor.
And this from the FBI:

BTW, he's sent more black people to death row than any other prosecutor. Just ironic.

Certainly he's done very well for himself and gotten a lot of convictions, but I'd be willing to bet that most of those 250 trials were against low income defendants with inadequate legal representation. The death penalty thing's also interesting to say the least, but I guess he was doing his part to help Florida stay in the running with Texas for most executions.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Lousy1 on July 11, 2013, 07:48:37 PM
Here's a real whopper.  "We wanted to tell you all the evidence. We wanted to put in all the witnesses that saw something of value out there because we wanted you to get the truth. We wanted you to get the complete story."

CNN has transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2013.07.11.html), if anybody wants to scour them carefully.

Don't forget the diatribe about Zimmerman supposedly claiming that he didn't know that he shot TM. Based I guess on his discussion with Serino? when he was informed that TM was dead,

As I recall from BDLR - "why did he holster his gun if he didn't know that he shot the scary teenager?"
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: MJW on July 11, 2013, 09:00:59 PM
One was when he claimed GZ said "call my wife and tell her I killed him". Another was the one I brought up, where he claimed there was no evidence Trayvon was a fighter.

Greta Van Susteren was talking about this on her show. She thought O'Mara should have objected immediately. I disagree. O'Mara will bring it up in his closing. He'll shove it down BDLR's throat in a way he couldn't do with an objection in court which prohibits speaking objections.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Meni on July 11, 2013, 09:37:45 PM
Good point. Although I think many of BDLR's 'misstatements' were deliberate. No one can be that dumb

I thought they were deliberate-
deliberate uncertainties.

Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Meni on July 11, 2013, 09:43:43 PM
  ???  You mean coming up with some real evidence?  What is there to clean up?  Not do the opening with F bombs?

Lol.
If Bernie gets a do-over he may want to omit suggesting that Martin was not armed with fists and concrete, but that he was armed with skittles.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 11, 2013, 10:12:08 PM
Don't forget the diatribe about Zimmerman supposedly claiming that he didn't know that he shot TM. Based I guess on his discussion with Serino? when he was informed that TM was dead,

Reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4#t=10m39s) 10:39-51
Quote
Zimmerman: And I didn't think I hit him, because he sat up, and he said "Ugh, you got me." "You got it," "You got me," "You got it," something like that. So I thought he was just saying, "I know you have a gun now, I heard it, I'm giving up."
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: jjr495 on July 11, 2013, 10:47:21 PM
BDLR made a big deal today about the bigger flashlight, the button, the string on TM's hoodie being pulled, and the angle of the blood running down the back of GZ's head. Watch from about 2 minutes in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_sCF2nYgU). BDLR says all these things are important but doesn't really explain why.  I expect Guy will pull out some big demonstration of how all these fit together.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: Meni on July 11, 2013, 10:50:54 PM
BDLR made a big deal today about the bigger flashlight, the button, the string on TM's hoodie being pulled, and the angle of the blood running down the back of GZ's head. Watch from about 2 minutes in (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_sCF2nYgU). BDLR says all these things are important but doesn't really explain why.  I expect Guy will pull out some big demonstration of how all these fit together.

And the button Martin was wearing?
Bernie asked Sybrina to identify it on the stand and then we never heard of it again.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: jjr495 on July 11, 2013, 11:00:10 PM
And the button Martin was wearing?
Bernie asked Sybrina to identify it on the stand and then we never heard of it again.
BDLR said the hoodie was large and the weight of the button some how created separation of the clothes from the skin. Without further elaboration, all of this will not be registered as important by the jury. Thus, my guess that Guy will provide the explanation.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: jjr495 on July 11, 2013, 11:04:33 PM
BDLR said the hoodie was large and the weight of the button some how created separation of the clothes from the skin. Without further elaboration, all of this will not be registered as important by the jury. Thus, my guess that Guy will provide the explanation.
Perhaps Guy will say that GZ pulled on the hoodie string and that, with the weight of the button, somehow created separation? Does anyone know which side of the hoodie string was pulled. I am guessing TM's right.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: jjr495 on July 11, 2013, 11:18:39 PM
As I recall, Jon Good testified that he thought the scream voice remained the same after he went in to call 911. If the State is going to argue some kind of switch in positions, it would be good to remind them of Good.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 02:56:00 AM
Below are a list of what I believe to be factual misstatements in de la Rionda's closing argument, up to the break.

CNN Transcripts

Part 1 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/11/cnr.10.html)

Part 2 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/11/cnr.11.html)

Part 3 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1307/11/cnr.12.html) 

First I want to mention three things that aren't strictly factual misstatements, but that I think will hurt the state's credibility with the jurors.

Quote
[TM] is dead through no fault of his own.

The state didn't come close to proving this, in the face of considerable contrary evidence. It's one of the first things Bernie said.

Quote
Recall one of the questions that was asked of Investigator Serino by the defense. "Sir, if you were driving by and somebody was in the front yard and looking through a window, wouldn't you stop your car and kind of investigate that"? His first -- my recollection is that his comment was, his answer was, "I would think maybe he lives there."

As I recall that's an accurate description of Serino's testimony. But GZ said more than once that he knew who lived at 1460 RVC.

Quote
If the police had gotten called out there . . . under the law, they're allowed to ask somebody that's walking the streets. The person can ignore them or not.

That's funny. Try it sometime, Bernie. Try ignoring a cop who thought you were suspicious and asked you a question. You'll be in his patrol car on the way to the station so fast you're head will spin.

Of course he's correct to make the lawyer's point that you haven't committed a crime. But they can hold you overnight for being 'suspicious', I think longer in some jurisdictions. That's not easy to ignore.

Now, as to facts.

Quote
And then apparently Mr. Manalo was taking too long or something and he said, "Just tell her I killed him," just kind of matter of fact.

Quote
He calls 911 non-emergency.

Bernie has been using this meme throughout the trial. I meant to comment on it the first time he said it, but I didn't get around to it. The non-emergency number does't have '911' in it. There is no such thing as '911 non-emergency'.

Quote
What's ironic in this case and what I want to spend some time talking with you about is the defendant's statements because you might think, well, hold on, you're the state, what are you putting on his self- serving statements when he's denying committing a crime, when he's saying it's self-defense? We wanted to tell you all the evidence.

The state actually withheld one of GZ's statements, the preliminary interview before the CVSA test.

Quote
But what does she say before the actual recording, before she called the police, she heard something going on out there. Because, see, this wasn't like the defendant claims that out of the blue the victim just kind of attacked him and knocked him to the ground and he just started beating him. No, this started, I would submit, further down, but it didn't start right at the "T" where the defendant claims it occurred.

GZ reported three sentences passing between him and TM, consistent with Lauer's statement. Lauer put the starting location north of her house and west of the T, also consistent with GZ's statements.

Btw, we haven't heard any more about Lauer's twitter.

Quote
[Y]ou've got to assume that then the victim just hit him and knocked him to the ground and just started beating him and -- and poor defendant, poor George Zimmerman, he just kind of took it, boom, boom, just getting whacked over and over.

He never did anything.

GZ said that he tried to push TM away, between the first punch and the struggle going to ground. Then he yelled for help and tried to sit up. He struggled to get his head off the concrete. When he was being suffocated, he tried to push TM's hands away. That is GZ's story, not that he 'never did anything'. 

Quote
Ironically, of the two, one of the individuals is the one that's had, what, 18 months MMA fighting?

My recollection of the testimony is that GZ got elementary training in at least two 'martial arts', boxing and 'grappling'. (I don't know how the latter differs from wrestling, if at all.) Adam Pollock testified that he was never allowed into the ring for boxing, much less for an actual MMA fight, in which techniques from a wide variety of martial arts are permitted.

Quote
The defendant claims at the very end, right before, unfortunately, he had to shoot the victim, that the victim grabbed the gun.

Claims? Present tense? GZ didn't testify to that. Even taking Mark Osterman's recollection at face value, it was over a year ago that GZ may have said that to him.

Quote
What the defendant told Mr. Osterman not, like, a month later, that same evening meaning the morning after when he picked him up at the police station and drove him to his house. That he -- the victim had grabbed the gun. Not the holster, grabbed the gun.

My recollection is that Osterman testified that he couldn't remember if it was the gun or the holster.

Quote
[R]ecall even the defendant from the defendant's own mouth, they always got away from this exit over here, this other exit.

I don't think it is in evidence that GZ said that.

Quote
Defendant claims that Trayvon Martin is the strongest guy in the world because he grabbed him, picked him up, then transported him, what, 20 yards?

GZ didn't say TM picked him up or 'transported' him.

The '20 yards' is complicated. First, I think the distance between the T and TM's body was between 40 and 50 feet, not close to 60. But GZ didn't say the struggle went even that far before going to ground. In the reenactment, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4#t=08m14s) GZ indicated a point maybe halfway or maybe a little more that halfway from the T to the shooting site (8:14).

I haven't wrestled since high school gym class. I recall often being surprised to find myself at the edge of the ring. I think GZ never realized that the struggle migrated across the ground.

In any case, I think Bernie's '20 yards' is wrong twice, both as an estimate of the distance from T to body, and egregiously so as representing GZ's statement.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 06:22:23 AM
Perhaps Guy will say that GZ pulled on the hoodie string and that, with the weight of the button, somehow created separation? Does anyone know which side of the hoodie string was pulled. I am guessing TM's right.

Except expert testimony establishes that there wasn't a pull to either side because that would've thrown off the alignment of the bullet holes.
Title: Re: State's First Closing Argument
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 06:33:03 AM
As I recall, Jon Good testified that he thought the scream voice remained the same after he went in to call 911. If the State is going to argue some kind of switch in positions, it would be good to remind them of Good.
I hope you can find the exact quote.  Good testified about a diagram he drew for FDLE that showed first M and Z were perpendicular to him with M's back towards Good and then they moved onto the sidewalk with M facing to Good's left, Z to the right.  Both positions had M on top of and straddling Z who was on his back.