decision to bring him before you as a medical examiner -- not really his decision. he was the one who did the autopsy. although there was some interaction there that might have been best been redone, you the only injuries were the injuresies we know about on trayvon martin, and that the wet clothes should not have been -- should not have been bagged in paper, and at the hands should have been bagged. we'll talk about the hands in a little bit. she told you that it was her son, as i'm sure you expected, before she ever got on the stand. mesa, interesting, because -- if you believe his testimony, he had are a computer listening, and the voice that he knew without question, and pleadly to be that of his nephew georger man. again crossed, very credibly.

i think he came across of his oath and of his word, and i ask you to consider the testimony in that regard. marcoser man, a buddy of his, talked about the weapon used, how you holster a gun, he's good at what he does. he was helping george figure out how to fire a gun. sandra oster man, friend, definitely george zimmerman screaming for help. and explained away some of what the state was trying to move to you through the nonemergency call about the anger and hate tres that just send there. same with russo, no questions it's george zimmerman's voice. same with benson, and that was george zimmerman. i'm not sure that if i had thought about trying to figure

out who in the world talks to people they know, and then hears them scream for their life. i just -- there's no profession that does that. maybe a cornerman in a boxing ring, but they don't scream for help there. a medic in vietnam, a person who hangs out during the day with his buddies of 6200 people, figures out who they are, what they are, who they left behind at home, when they want to go back, when they might go back, and you know what? that they might never go back. he has a medic bag, and heads out towards the screams, and that even before he gets there sometimes, he knows who it is that's screaming. wow. didn't want to testify, i don't think, a guy who's been in

vietnam wants to come before people and break down a bit, but i think his testimony was quite credible when he believed that it was mr. zimmerman, singleton, and by the way chris sarino say the same thing. unfortunately when mr. martin did first hear the tame, he said what he believed to be true then. it would seem from the officers, and that is, that's not my son's voice. it just wasn't his voice to him, and his mind has changed now. but it is interesting for you to consider when you're trying to figure out that issue of who said what, and what witnesses said what, because you're going to give him credibility, you're going to weight them, decide to dismiss their testimony or accept their testimony and try to figure out, remembering always, as we'll talk about in a moment, the doubt always go to

my client's benefit. adam pollock, animated, big guy, george is soft, he's a 1, i don't care that he's been here for a year. i don't know that i would have advertised that i trained george zimmerman for a year and he went from a 0.5 to a 1, but he did. so this mma, you know, george, i think he said it was 18 months, that geologist is mma training, grr. really? c'mon. really? in light of the testimony of the trainer who said i wouldn't even let him do anything but shadow box for fear the shadow might win? and hit a bag. tracy martin we talked about. he was there for the whole part of it, but most importantly he was the officer who said, whatever you do, separate them,

don't infect witness testimony with other witness testimony, it is cop 101. i understand the sensitivities, listensing to the possible voice of their son and definitely the gunshot that endened their son's life, but law enforcement, ongoing investigation, put them in one at a time. the way it was handled infected the evaluation of that testimony horrib horribly. and who gets the benefit of that? george zimmerman. vincent dimaio, a grandfather, he's done this his whole life. he gave really good information on everything having to do with gunshots, really because he failed to go beyond gunshots, even when he said, no, and the state tried to take him a little

bit, and he said no. i'm good at what i'm good at, but i'm only going to talk at what i'm good at. and he's good at gunshot wounds, suggesting that it made perfect sense that the in his jacket, would do what it did. does it make anything less than perfect sense to what happened? it's in there, and he's leaning over, and his loose billowing shirt falls forward. and he gets shot, and it's contact to the fabric. its for the pressed against the chest, i think that good old play in opening statement has been dismissed. and it was four inches from his chest. as it turns out, the forensic evidence is fairly significant,

because it completely supports the contention that mr. zimmerman was on the bottom, trayvon martin leaning over the top when he got shot. here's a theory of guilt for you. are you ready? this goes the state's presentation to listen carefully. he might have been backing up. had could have been backing up. could have been. if i was arguing that, i would be arguing reasonable doubt. you know, it could have happened this way. it could have been that he was backing up. well, i don't know. i almost made light of it when i said, well, they could have been backing up to strike another blow, but the could have been's don't belong in this courtroom. proof beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

he was leaning over him. nothing to suggest anything else but that. is he could have been leaning back. at some point after 45 seconds of attacking george zimmerman, for no other reason, let's not forget he didn't back up when john good told him to, right? for some reason just before the shot takes off. at that point the state wants you to believe that trayvon martin retreated. really? really? what piece of evidence, one -- just one piece of evidence that supports that contention. where is it? where is the eyewitness who said i saw him back up? where is the forensic evidence? well, he got all the way back up, chest and shirt are tied

together and shot is through and through. where is that piece of evidence? where is one shred of evidence to support the absurdity that they're trying to have you buy? one. assumption, supposition, could have been. >> just part of the absurdity of how this thing happened with the phone call -- with the tape. i don't think it matters too much. nice laid,saw him that night, saw him beat up, and that he has a light voice and it sounded like it was his voice. den knit root, you know, it's interesting, again, talk about

the case, now we have prosecutors attacking, sort of -- impeaching lifetime law enforcement officer, dedicated his life to the pursuit of perfection in law enforcement. perfection. my god, he's trained in everything. you take something on, he becoming a trainer, and now we have the state saying, hold on a second here, it could have been this way, right? not really. let me ask you this question, mr. guy says. at that moment what other options did he have? none. had el had none, from a use of force expert who's been doing

this his entire career and has become proficient in assisting others in learning how to use force, learning how not to use force, learning when and where to use force. and they asked him the question of whether or not george zimmerman had alternatives. tell me the piece of evidence that contraindicates that. just give me one. give me a shred of evidence that contradicts that he had who's qualified, who gave you that opinion. just list it if you want, just tell you, just because they're experts doesn't mean it's gospel action that you have to listen to them, but if you believe him, you think you're well qualified

to give an accept it. 6 you see you hope he does not come across that i was -- but the reality is i think when you put a face on what was happening at retreat, she's it. she really is. because thank god nobody upstairs. but that's the face, i'll tell you this, i'll give you this much. that's the face of the frustration. i think george was feeling a bit of, you know? that's something that he wanted to help out with. that's why he walked over and didn't say, i'm going to go beat that guy. no.

that's why he said here's a lock for the back of your door. here's my telephone numb bher, and here's my wife's number. this is what we do. we help. d dad, you know. he said it early, give him this much. he said it right away. went down to spd, talked to them, put him under oath. put him under oath and said, okay now you're under oath, you have to tell the truth, that he was on -- we -- talk about a few other points, if i might.

because this is not working for me. it might come back. if not, i'll just read it to you. if there's any chance it would come back up, that would be great. otherwise i'll just work without it. >> i want you to consider when you look at this case, the forensic evidence, what it does and doesn't support. here's an interesting thing. i didn't make about a big deal in the trial, but i want you to focus on, because a lot has been said about the lack of blood and what happened to the blood and if trayvon martin was doing what he says he was doing, where's

the blood? where's the anger? where does it show up on the hands? 28. gunshot wound. blood, trickling down and across the chest. you see that? three-inch swath of blood, all the way over there. state 95, it's gone. not there. yet everybody here handled that body, said they didn't touch it or they didn't wipe it. they may say, well, that was when we moved the sweatshirt up and moved it back down and the blood is all gone, but let's not forget it was there when they moved it up, and there's

actually saluting in this photograph. so oh, some big moment proving meyer case? no, for the idea, they want you to assume that they want you to believe just connect the dots? that there was no blood, because there's no blood when they fail to properly preserve items like the sweatshirts? items like the body, it seems, items like the hands that were to be bagged, but weren't? they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they bagged the hands. that's not an element they have to prove, but if they're going to try to come up with conclusive evident that supports no other reasonable hypothesis of innocence or guilt, then they have to have a better case. this is just some evidence of it. so let's talk about other things

they have to consider about the event. a couple of graphics. george zimmerman, the way he want. trayvon martin the way he was. trayvon martin that night, i had to show you, he had the hoodie on. we talked about the hoodie. this is from the picture we showed you. it's not in evidence. don't even have to believe it's

accurate. just take a look at it. remember how much taller i was than andrew gaugh, and he testified that he was 5'10". and then there's george zimmerman and how tall he is. take a look at him compared to my height. could you stand up for a moment, please? relative physical abilities. that's what you have to look at to determine in a self-defense case. so you look at this guy that night, don't look achad the

today to how much weight he gained. it doesn't matter, what matters is how he was that day and how trayvon martin looked that day. in evidence, just so you get an indication, november 15th, 2011, about two months, three months before trayvon martin passed away. that's what he looked like. a young kid, nice kid actually, you look at the picture, not bad. the problem is when we show you autopsy photographs, there are two things to show you about autopsy photographs, one, they're horrific, and meant to have negative impact. i did, when i was a prosecutor, prosecutors do it all the time. a dead person on a slab has an impact on you. i would say that maybe one of you, maybe have looked at a picture like that before this trial. maybe one. it has an impact. the other thing about autopsy

photographs, is that there's no muscle tone. because there's no nerves, there's no movement, he's lost half his blood. we know that, so on that picture that we have of him on the medical examiner's table now, it does look emaceated. but here's him three months before that night. so it's in evidence. take a look at it. because this is the person and this is the person that george zimmerman encountered that night. this is the person who all of the evidence was attacked, or attacked george zimmerman, broke his nose or something close to it. and battered him on something, and the state now may say, oh,

maybe it was a -- and no intent to hurt there, because it was just coincidence that he was bashing his head on something hard. it was a drain box. really? c'mon. really? those injuries? you've seen this before, it was out of this darkness that trayvon martin decided to stalk, i guess, plan, pounce, i don't know, all i know is that when george zimmerman is walking back to his car, out of darkness, be it bushes or darkness or left or behind, or somewhere, trayvon martin came towards george zimmerman. out of this.

and we know what happened. that the picture is what happened. and it's supported by evidence. you know you know, listen to him. find the inconsistencies, see what you think about them. take them in connection of what he was going through that night and how voluntarily he gave those statements, and decide whether or not as dennis root said, as chris serino said, as i believe singleton said, if anyone is giving me the same exact story twice, they're probably lying. they're probably pathological liars. because when you lie, i get since you're making up a

fantasy, you can tell the fantasy twice the same exact way. but getting your nose smashed, your head smashed, and you answered every question they asked of you then, yeah, okay. deal with the inconsistencies however you want to. but maybe i would suggest you begin by dealing with him the way chris serino did, which is his case, and what he said to to you, yeah, there were inconsistencies. he got hit 25 times, yeah, i don't believe it. it seems he didn't get hit 25 times. did it feel like he was getting hit 25 times? maybe. is that the embellishment, the exaggeration the state is talking about, when they say to you, he's exaggerating, he's a

liar. he's a liar? really? c'mon. those are lies -- if you lie, it's not only with the intent to deceive, isn't it? isn't that the essence of a lie? if george zimmerman had the intent to deceive, why would he give six statements? if you're going to give him credit, if anything about going to school and going through legal studies, here's one. miranda. he flew it was self-defense, he nose stand your ground. he knows whatever the state wants you to think he knows, but he doesn't no miranda? no, no, he knows miranda, but he was such the mastermind that he could, without knowing any of the evidence, who was watching him? who was videotaping him? who washington -- we don't know any of that. he had it all figured out. really.

it defies explanation. what doesn't defy explanation is this. evidence mounting. what doesn't defy explanation is officer tim smith's testimony that george zimmerman's back was wet, and he had grass all over his back. evidencing, i would believe, that he was on his back, in the grass. he was getting beat up. tim smith, wagner everything else saw those injuries. okay. you do still get me going over some of the instructions with

you. reasonable doubt. what is it? can't tell you any more that what you have. the judge has read it a couple times. reasonable doubt, don't start with the premise, presumption of innocence, sticks and stays until it is taken away by evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that it is no longer appropriate to consider -- innocent, then and only then do you get to convict my client of anything. reasonable doubt is not a mere possibledoubt. if you've got to make it up, it's not a reasonable doubt. we talked about me proving my case, as though i had to. it's not a speculative doubt or imaginary doubt or forced doubt. you have a doubt, and you say to

yourself, i don't buy this doubt, i'm going to force myself to believe it. that would be a forced doubt and isn't reasonable, but a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, speculative or imaginary. such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty. if you do have an abiding conviction of guilt. on the other hand, and this is where -- this is the meat of it. if after carefully considering preparing and weighing all the evidence, there's not a conviction of guilt or having that conviction, it is one which is not stable, one which wavers and values lace, then the charge is not proved beyond a reasonable -- every reasonable doubt, and you must find george zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. i almost wish i had never said this in a criminal trial, i had never heard it being said before, i almost wish that the verdict had guilty, not guilty, and completely innocent.

because i would ask you to check that one. you've got to check the not guilty, but check the innocent then, too. reasonable doubt to george zimmerman's innocence may rise to the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or a lack of evidence. if you have no -- if you have a reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman not guilty, if you had no reasonable doubt, you should find george zimmerman guilty. weighs the evidence, you will have all this before judge nelson will read it to you, she's going to give it to you, but just to focus on these witnesses, the question is whether or not they had the opportunity to see and know the things they're telling you about, obviously. less a vantage point concern, how they really can look at it.

for example, somebody came in, wasted off their mind, give them less credibility. we don't have that here, but you have to look at it and decide whether or not they had an opportunity to see what they're talking about, if they have an accurate memory. we know that memory is affected by traumatic events. ms. dyska was frantic about what she perceived was happening inside and i think it may have impacted on her ability to recall. not calling her anything but a person affected by the circumstances. were they honest and straightforward? i would put up on that ped australia misbobadoor, your call, about you whether or not she presented in a way that made sense. ms. moore, just showing what she remembered. did it have an interest in the outcome? when george zimmerman gave those statements to law enforcement,

he didn't know it, i don't think, didn't seem normal that he would have been charged in this case, but in his mind at that time, i presume you could say he had an interest in telling the story, as good he could for himself. so sure was he interested in the outcome? absolutely. these people trying to take away his liberty? absolutely. and does the witness's testimony agree with other testimony? that's the view den knit root kept saying you have to look at it in the totality of the circumstances, don't give me one sheet and what you think now. that's the totality of the circumstances. so rules for you to deliberate under, and here they are.

the case must be decide d startd with the idea that might otherwise -- only the evidence that the you can look towards for that. upon the evidence that you've heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of exhibits, all that really means to you is that you can common sense, don't bring your assumptions, don't bring your presumptions, and don't sit bake and just go, i really think that guy is not going to cut in dprof me as i drive to work today. you don't have that luxury. you only get to decide upon what you are certain about, something you do not have a reasonable doubt about. s don't do it, because you feel

sorry for anyone. now, i said to you, and you may not have realized -- i think realized why, but the significant comes back home. i said if the state doesn't prove their kay, we may have to say something to announce the verdict of acquittal, even though that verdict has been to be heard by the martin family, and you said you could. i meant that for a very significant reason. it is a tragedy, truly, but you can't allow sympathy to feed into it. when i say that, you should raise your hand all go, are you nuts? how dare you tell me to leave sympathy out of my life? how dare you tell me to leave my emotions aside. how dare you? i don't do that ever in my life. welcome to a criminal courtroom, because unfortunately you have to be better than your presumptions. you have to be better than what

you do in everyday life, better, at least different, at least unique. . may not be influenced. by sympathy, mu based on the evidence of the law, period. and the judge will tell you what the law is. and now talk for a moment about self-defense. we talked all around it. let's tell you exactly what the judge will instruct you to what it is. a person is justified in using deadly force, force likely to cause death, if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. the alternatives, somebody -- i will go through this and tell you what you need to consider, to whether george reasonably believed, reasonable fear of great bodily harm. he doesn't have to think he was going to die. he does not have to think he was

going to die. he does have to think that he was going to be injured greatly. and since the alternative, if either matches, it's been met. ? decide whether or not george zimmerman was -- you must judge him by the circumstances the moment of using force, what was happening. the danger facing george zimmerman need not have been actual. getting it doesn't have to be actual. in effect it couldn't be rubber rival, as long as you perceive it to be steel, or the next blow to the fist could be a fake one, but as long as you perceived it to continue to be a blow upon

blow down upon you, then that's enough. the day that george zimmerman may not have been actual, but the appearance of danger must have so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person, under those circumstances, reasonably prudent and cautious person until those circumstances have put yourself in effect in the mind of what george zimmerman was going through, the circumstances he was going through, and then decide yourself would a reasonably and carb person until those circumstances would have believe the danger could only be avoided through the use of that force. based upon appians, george zimmerman must have actually believed the danger was real. in considering self-defense, justification use of deadly force. he may take into account the relative physical abilitieses

and capacities of george zimmerman and trayvon martin. if you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. and let me show you what that means in lay man's terms, because i don't like the fact that i'm trying to prove to you a double negative. it just seems awkward. if you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether or not george skipper man was justified in the use of deadly force, if you have reasonable doubt to whether or not he was justified in the use of deadly force.

he's not guilty. anywhere along this graph, anywhere along this graph, if you believe, this is where i went a little while ago. anywhere along this graph, then he's not guilty. that's why this case, of showing a case like this, and wondering whether or not there is a reasonable doubt to whether or not he confused that deadly force to protect himself from great bodily harm. the other thing that i think we have probably gotten past, but i want to be clear about is this one. you're going to get all the law that applies in this case.

every shred of law that applies in this case, you will have before you. what you won't have is any law that suggests something like somebody with a -- it's not. following somebody in a car or foot, in order to report their whereabouts to the police is not unlawful activity. if it was, you would be instructed on it. it would have a statute as part of the jury instructions that says something that george zimmerman did was unlawful. and you won't have it, because it's just not there, because it's just not true. i'm over my time. i'm going to finish up quicker than i would like to. i cannot imagine i've actually been here for three hours, but i want to do a couple quick things and to show you, since it is the state's burden, what they

haven't proven. i don't think it's a big deal if they decide not to give you the emergency or nonemergency calls, they should have, just to be complete, but whatever. i don't know, you know. the fact that i had to call tracy martin to have them testify to that. i guess they didn't have to do that, but if you're really seeking justice, why have me do it? why even have sybrina testify -- why did i have to have him -- why did i have to have singleton testify? sshl they're available and i did it. i guess, if i can do it, the state doesn't have to, except it really and always will be their burden, not mine. they didn't tell you all the other burglaries that happened. i did. they're there. i trust me, they're there.

where is the expert counter use of force? where is their guy? so all we have on use the force now is den knit root. again, 24th don't have to bring a use of force expert. i did, they don't have to, but if that's their issue, where is their information? 6 same thing with dr. dimaio. i guess -- where is that? again, they don't have to, but this is their case. i mean -- it affects george zimmerman, but it's their prosecution, their burden. that he pushed the gun into trayvon martin's chest. you know, you have to be careful. we all have emotions as human beings, and we have justice, and you sit back and go, what are they trying to do? does it really help you decide

this case, when somebody who is not george zimmerman's voice screams at you or yells at you and curses at you? no. i would contend -- listen to the tape, don't lynn to -- i'm sure people say i look like joel osteen, i think mr. guy was trying to sound like -- with this really -- i do it a bit, i guess, but do we need that type of anger coming out from a prosecutor rather than from a defendant? is that really the way we're going to present this case to a jury of my client's peers? [ muted ]. one piece of evidence that my client attacked trayvon martin.

landed one blow for that matter. did anything to justify in any form or fashion the onslaught of injury perpetrated upon him by no one other that trayvon martin. he actually had something else, because george zimmerman was in fact armed with a firearm. we know that. we know he had a right to have it. and then it was said how many times was it said that trayvon martin was -- now, i'll be held in contempt if i drop this, so i'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. but that's cement. that is a sidewalk.

and that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. that was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. great bodily injury against george zimmerman. the suggest by the state that that's not a weapon? that that can't hurt somebody in that that can't cause great bodily injury? is disgusting.

even if we presume rachel jeantel was completely accurate in whichever version of what she first heard happen, you want to belie believe, what she said was that george zimmerman said what are you doing around here? let's just for a moment presume that we had that on auld yeo tape. let's say they recorded a phone call, and you heard her voice -- you heard george zimmerman's voice on the tape that said, what are you doing around here? what did you hear mr. root say about that? the only expert that talks about the evolution of force tell us? well, you say something like that? i might y, whatever i want, or who are you to ask? or what do you mean?

or get out of my face. but dennis root didn't say the appropriate response is to break somebody's nose. did he? did he suggest that that was even near the spectrum of violence allowed, the spectrum of force allowed in a situation like that? unfortunately, you know, there was some anger and hostility, and ill will and spite maybe that night. it just had nothing to do with george zimmerman -- well, that's not true. it had something to do with george zimmerman. he was the victim of it. because you can't look at those pictures and say that what was visited upon george zimmerman was not evidence of ill will or spite and hatred. had trayvon martin been shot through the hip and survived, what do you think he would have been charged with?

aggravated battery? two counts? the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, you have no doubt in year mind, that my client is guilty of anything. . i really -- you could try hypnosis, you think you say the right things when you talk as a lawyer, so within that context, i feel like i may have convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. zimmerman is innocent, but of course we know that has nothing to do with it. the state will get up and finish in just a couple minutes, and they will tell you that he's a liar again, maybe not, because mr. de la rionda spent much of

his time convincing you that my client lied. but here's the standard. you go back there. first thing you might want to consider doing -- do you have a reasonable doubt that my client may have acted in self-defense? go back there and say to yourselves -- forts the crimes. let's just talk about self-defense. do we think that he might have acted in self-defense? i'm not convinced. i have some doubt, have some concern, that he just may have acted? self-defense. with if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. you really do. why? because self-defense is a defense to everything, to littering, to speeding, to battery, if it mattered, to grand theft, to assault.

to manslaughter, to second degree. you go no further than a determination that the state not -- and there is no more evidence, that the state has not convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that george zimmerman did not act in self-defense. it's an easy decision. and i don't say that out of hue brings or just ego, ha, ha, ha. i'm saying it because of the facts of the case. you look at these facts, you look at all this evidence, and you have to say, i have a reasonable doubt to whether or not the state convinced me he didn't act in self-defense. that's all you have to do. you don't have to write "innocent" on the bottom of the verdict form. we don't go anywhere near those in this courtroom. the state never, ever loses their responsibility to take

away reasonable doubt from you. don't let them do it with innuendo, with sympathy, don't let them do it with yelling. don't let them do it with screeching. because none of that matters. because we have a definition of reasonable doubt and now you do. you look at that definition, you go back to that room and say let's talk first about self-defense. if i think george may have acted inself defense, we are done. so thank you for the time, thank you for the attention, again, we talked about it way in the beginning, and amazingly difficult task we have asked you to take on. and we often have had jurors who -- a couple of whom we've had to wake up on occasion. certainly not those -- the note-taking, the interest has been apparent. i appreciate the time.

my client does. the state does, i'm sure. the court does, because you've given us what we needed from you, which is your attention. one more thing from you. i want your attention. i want you to look at the instructions and say he acted in self-defense and find him not guilty. let him go back and get back to his life. >> thank you. do you want a brief break before mr. guy? let's take a ten-minute recess. follow deputy jarvis back into the jury room. put your note pads face down. >> don lemon live in sanford, florida. you're looking at pictures inside the courtroom. his fate, he'll know it very soon. it could come today, tomorrow or or sunday.

it could come as early as today. the judge saying she'll give a ten-minute recess and they'll get back to this. i want to bring in paul callan. he's a cnn analyst. jeff gold is a attorney. before i get to george i want to find out what the jury is thinking. i want to get to you mark. how did he do? >> i think he did very good. i expected a little more passion to be interjected throughout. he was very professorial. he was very folksy. he was trying to contrast that with the fiery rhetoric of the state. he was made his points. he was very measured. he showed pictures of the witnesses which is a good idea. very easy to forget their names. he set the background as to what

reasonable doubt was. i would expect a little more passion. >> he was one gear as we were sitting here watching. you don't want to just be one gear. >> i think he was two gears. he needed three or four. >> before i get to george, i want to get to jeffrey toobin standing by. same question. do you think that what mark o'mara did today was effective? >> i do. he made a different bet than the prosecutor did yesterday. the yesterday put an enormous emphasis on the issue of zimmerman's statements saying that zimmerman lied, he contradicted himself, he was inconsistent. basically, mark o'mara blew off that issue. he said there's a few inconsistencies that no one tells the story the same way twice. it will be interesting to talk to the jurors later to see if that different approach had an

impact because i do think that it was effective to go through each witness the way o'mara did. he made a bet that the jury is not going to care that much about those inconsistencies if they were major and that was a risk. >> yeah. you're right. it was a very nuanced day in cord. you bring up a good point, the jurors. it all comes down to them. george howell was in that courtroom. was there any information to portray what the jurors might have been thinking as they will get their instructions and probably start deliberating. >> reporter: fair to say they were paying close attention to everything brought in this courtroom. you have to consider that o'mara brought in charts and that video reenactment.

he showed people in there, the people watching television, people in that courtroom showed th that the charts would explain what it would take the find a person guilty or not guilty. he went through the process of showing the reenactment giving the jurors zimmerman's account of what happened. that will be an image as they take back into the jury room. they took a lot of notes. you see them taking notes. they pay close attention to the props. they pay close attention. here is the other thing. he involved the jury. he involved everyone in the courtroom when he took that four minutes of silence and that's four minutes of silence between the last time rachel jenteal talked to trayvon martin and the indications of a struggle. everyone involved in that four minutes that you can imagine will stick with jurors as they think about this. >> all right george howell, stand by. my other guests stand by.

you at home i want you to stand by. we're going to talk about this case probably in a way that you've never talked about it. we're going to pretend this camera isn't here and speak the way that mark nejame and i are talking. we're going to talk about race why many people think it's so important to this case. we're going to talk about the props, the drama, the sympathy, the witnesses. we have other news for you as well. the judge will be back. the court will be back in session in about five minutes. we'll be back after a short break right here on cnn. with tums freshers. concentrated relief that goes to work in seconds and freshens breath. tums freshers. ♪ tum...tum...tum...tum... tums! ♪ fast heartburn relief and minty fresh breath. [ slap! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium-rich tums starts working so fast you'll forget you had heartburn. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums

you'll forget you had heartburn. she's always been able it's just her way.day. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

in miami, coca-cola is coming together with latino leaders to support hispanicize, and the adelante movement. teaching tools for success, and fostering creativity. these programs are empowering people to lead positive change, and helping them discover how great a little balance can feel. through initiatives like these, our goal is to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make, together. : don lemon here live in sanford, florida. very warm and george zimmerman's fate could be in the hands of this jury soon. they could be deliberating any minute now. we're waiting on court to come back in session. showing the seal real quickly. nothing is going on in court

now. the judge said she'll be back and give a ten-minute break. i want to talk about the drama. this will come down to ill-will, spite, self-defense, filling in the time line. that's what mark o'mara spoke about this morning. i want to bring in danny callan, mark nejame and jeff gold. they all join me now. i'm going to rely on mark a little bit here. he's sitting next to me. i'll get to the other guys in a moment. he spoke a lot this morning. he talked about reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt even explaining to the jury on and on about what reasonable doubt is. what he believes is a textbook definition of reasonable doubt. is there? >> it's a sliding scale. it's a very subjective in a lot of ways. if you're scratching your head, you've got reasonable doubt. it doesn't have to be proved but

you can't leave any anything. if it's reasonable doubt you walk. i like what he did with the ver reverse. he said it's not my burden. i'm going to take a risk and show you why my client is innocent. he said i'm going to prove he's innocent but if you don't believe it, there's still reasonable doubt. >> let's listen to him and bring the others in. >> george zimmerman is not guilty if you have a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. we're going to spend about ten minutes bringing you up to here. the state needs to convince you all the way down here, self-defense likely. it's a reasonable doubt as to

self-defense. self-defense suspected? well, you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense but it might be. you have a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. less than likely is it self-defense. this was a 50/50 i wouldn't vote self-defense. if this was a civil trial. highly unlikely that it's self-defense but i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. the state has p