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 proven to me, to

you, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. i have no doubt, a reasonable doubt, that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have then he's guilty. >> cnn legal analyst paul callan, what's reasonable to me or you or the next person may not be reasonable to another person. >> absolutely. mark o'mara tries to make it look like reasonable doubt is mt. everest and it's a mountain which can't be climbed. he makes it so hard with all of these points saying to the jury you'll find reasonable doubt here, here and here. we know from trying cases that jurors get by reasonable doubt very, very easily. they step back and look at the

big picture, what happened here? why did it happen? did it have to happen? he's like a skilled carpenter. he's building the structure of reasonable doubt. he's not doing the rhetorical flourishes. it's not a grand speech about innocence. it's more of a carpenter at work. what i thought it missed in some respects was an adequate explanation as to why trayvon martin had to die. i didn't see a real -- i suspect these jurors will be saying did he really have to kill this 17-year-old. couldn't he have just pointed the gun and said back off. it didn't get into -- >> you don't the animation and the props with the concrete and the things that shows the size of trayvon martin and george zimmerman, you don't think that had any effect on the jury at

all? >> i think it has a big effect. i think frankly, prosecutors got a very weak case here. most lawyers looking at i think defense is winning but when i talk to people about the case, especially when i talk to women about the case and mothers they all come back to this, did he have to kill him. couldn't he have pointed the gun and said back off. i would have like to have seen him dealing with that issue. if i'm defending be case that's the thing i'm going to worry about. one of those mothers saying he was acting in self-defense but it was disproportionate force. did he really have to kill him? that's the thing you have to grapple with as a defense attorney if you're summing up this case. >> okay. looks like the judge is coming back in. court will be back in session now. back on the record. we'll be back. let's listen. >> defense ready?

>> thank you.

>> please be seated. mr. guy, you may proceed.

>> may it please the court, counsel, good afternoon. the human heart it has a great many functions, but is not the most important purpose what it causes us to do. it moves us, it motivates us. it inspires us. it leads us, and it guides us. our hearts. be things like what we choose to do for a living and in little things like what we do every day at any moment of the day. if we really want to know what happened out there behind those homes on that dark, rainy night should we not look into the

heart of the grown man and the heart of that child. what will that tell us about what really happened out there. that's what was in george zimmerman's heart and the defense attorney can make fun of the way i say it. it's not my voice that matters. it's yours. we're about to hear from you. what does that say to you? was he just casually referring to a perfect stranger my saying fing punks. that doesn't evidence to you anything. that's normal language? is that not what was in that

defendant's heart when he approached trayvon martin. what does that tell you? it's funny, he put on a time line that was ten feet long and the only thing he skipped was those two words at the bottom of the screen. the only thing. you think there's a reason for that? think the reason he didn't want you to think about that again, how powerful that is, what that defendant was really feeling just moments before he pulled the trigger. think that was a coincidence. what was in trayvon martin's

heart? was it not fear that mis miss jenteel told you about. the witness that didn't want to be here. the witness that didn't want to be involved, but the witness, the human being that was on the phone with the real victim in this case, mtrayvon martin, rigt up until the time of his death. was that child not in fear when he was running from that defendant? isn't that every child's worst nightmare to be followed on the way home in the dark by a

stranger? isn't that every child's worse fear? that was trayvon martin's last emotion. there's an old saying, as a man speaks so is he. the words on the screen were the last thing these people said before trayvon martin was murdered. before this defendant had a motivation to lie to justify his actions. what were his words? what was in his heart?

if ever, if ever there was a window into man's soul it was the words from that defendant's mouth on that phone call. if ever there was a question about who initiated the contact between that grown man and that child it was again those defendant's words when he told sean to have the officer call him on the cell phone and i'll tell him where i am. george zimmerman was not going back to the car or the clubhouse or the mailboxes. if there was ever any doubt

about what happened, really happened, was it not completely removed by what the defendant said afterwards all of the lies he told. what does that tell you? there's only two people on this earth who know what really happened and one of them can't testify and the other one lied. not about little things like his age or whether or not he went to the hospital but about the things that really, truly matter and not one lie over and over and over again. what does that tell you about what really happened out there? why did he have to lie if he had

done nothing wrong. the bottom line is, the bottom line, think about this, if that defendant had done only what he was supposed to ed to do, see call, none of us would be here. none of us. that's not who he was. that's not where he was that night in his heart after months of these people getting away. not tonight, not this one, not that guy. that's why he got out of the car. if he really wanted the police to get trayvon martin, what would he have done?

he would have stayed in his car and driven to the back gate where he had told them so many times they always go through the back gate. he would have waited for the police. that's not what he had in his heart. trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hands, but george zimmerman will forever have trayvon martin's blood on his forever. let me give you one more old saying. maybe the most important one you're going to hear. that is to the living we owe respect but to the dead we owe

the truth. on behalf of the state of florida i submit to you that trayvon benjamin martin is entitled to the truth, and it didn't come from the defendant's mouth. it didn't. he told so many lies. that's why we're here. by the end of the night that is what was in trayvon martin's heart. the defense attorney said what evidence is there that the defendant followed trayvon martin after he said okay. he challenged the state. i've got an answer.

what happened after 19:13:43? when that defendant hung up with sean noffke. at 19:15:44 when rachel jenteel heard the thump and the end of trayvon martin's life. the defense attorney gave us a nice demonstration of what happens in four minutes. well what was that defendant doing for those two minutes? watch the walk through again. watch it. he tells you exactly where he hung up. he's walking back in the direction of the t and he says i got off the phone and i continued to my car.

maybe, maybe ten seconds before he got to the t. it was two minutes. two minutes. he wasn't going back to his car. four minutes is not the amount of time that trayvon martin had to run home. four minutes is the amount of time that trayvon martin had left on this earth. i don't have any audio clips for you or video clips or charts or big long ten-foot long time lines. i'm asking you to use your

common sense. use your heart. use what you know is real. use what you know you've heard and the law in this case. for the defendant it's kind of like they're little animation, the cartoon that they put up. everything they want you to think in this case starts from the t just like their little animation starts from the t. don't do that. that's not fair. that's not fair. it would be like reading the end of the book, the last chapter only and you'd be asking yourself why are we here? how did we get here? who are these people? you can't do that in real life and you shouldn't do it here. let me suggest to you you start at the beginning. let's start at the 7-eleven where that child had every right

to be where he was. that child had every right to do what he was doing, walking home. that child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him first in his car and then on foot. and did that child not have the right to defend himself from that strange man? did trayvon martin not also have that right? i don't have all the fireworks, all the animation but come back

with me. dock back to me with that scene where it happened that night. come back with me and bring with you your god given common sense. the common sense that tells you it's the person talking like the defendant who had hate in his heart not the boy walking home talking to the girl in miami. wow. the common sense that tells you if trayvon martin had been mounted on the defendant as the defendant claims when the defendant went to get his gun, he never could have got it. i don't have to pull out that mannequin again and sit on it. you remember. if you have to, do it in the

jury room. if he was up on his waist, his waist is covered by trayvon martin's legs. he couldn't have got the gun. he couldn't have. they wanted a reason. it's a physical impossibility. he couldn't have grabbed it. the only way that defendant gets to his gun, the only way trayvon martin was getting off of him or he had backed up so far on his legs that he couldn't hit him. he couldn't touch him. the defendant didn't shoot trayvon martin because he had to. he shot him because he wanted to. that's the bottom line.

the common sense that tells you if trayvon martin had already run off like he claimed in his interviews, why would he go through the end of the t to get an address. if he had already run off. does that make any sense? of course not. it's self-serving. it's justification. it's false. the yelling, listen, listen to that tape again. listen to when the screaming stops at the instant of the gunshot, silence, nothing. if that defendant thought he

missed trayvon martin, thought trayvon martin was still alive so much so that he had to get on his back, splip him over, spread his arms out, why would he stop yelling for help. why? if he was in fear. does that make any sense? of course not. if he was yelling that loud and that long, would he have sounded the way he sounded on the recordings. he wouldn't have had a strained voice if that he was him? really. that's why common sense is so important. it's not a complicated case. it's a common sense indication and it's not a case about self-defense. it's a case about self-denial.

george zimmerman. the common sense that tells you if he was the neighborhood watch coordinator, not anyone, the coordinator who lived there for four years he'd know the name of twin trees lane. the common sense that tells you if he was so afraid of the real suspicious guy with his hands in his waistband, he'd never have got out of the car. that's not what happened. the common sense that tells you if he really was soft, didn't know how to fight, in his own

words he wouldn't have been able to get wrist control of trayvon martin. those were his words. he wouldn't have been able to move his hand off his mouth or off his gun. was trayvon martin putting on such a blow that little plastic, flimsy, kids watch on his wrist wouldn't have come off. it didn't. the common sense that tells you if trayvon martin was the one on the hunt, would he still have been on his cell phone with the ear buds still have been in his ears if he was getting ready to attack somebody? really?

the most important one of all, the common sense that tells you in your every day life really, if he hadn't committed a crime, why did he lie so many times? why did he lie? let me remind you sean noffke told me to get an address. that didn't happen. listen to the tape. listen to the walk through. he never said that. i told the police i was going to meet them at my car. that's not what he told them. why? why lie about that? it's so important that's why. because he wasn't going back to the car. he was going back to trayvon martin just like he said on that

tape when he slipped up. just like he lied about when he was confronted. it wasn't ten seconds after wards, it was two minutes. trayvon martin covered his mouth and nose. really? they want you to believe the blood was washed off by incompetent medical examiners. yet he told the police not just the police, his best friend, his best friend in the world that trayvon martin was squeezing his nose. do you really think if that were true there wouldn't be george zimmerman's blood on these sticks that they pried under his

fingernails? do you really think that true? that was a lie. concrete, it's heavy. it's hard. if his head have been slammed into something like this, slammed, bashed over and over. he wouldn't look like he did in those photographs. think about it. that would be it. dozens of times he said, dozens of times punches in the face. that would be it? was he injured? yes. was he injured seriously? not close. not close. they can call their expert and

show them the pictures of the lumps on his head. were any of those serious? didn't trayvon martin have a right to defend himself too? remember, lindsay folgate. he didn't have so much as a headache the next morning. not nausea, not vomiting, not a headache. he didn't come to see me for treatment. he came for a note for work. it wasn't that bad. it wasn't bad at all. would trayvon martin's hand look like that if he had been pummelling him? he said trayvon martin saw his gun. first of all, it wassed inside

waistbands. inside. second of all, trayvon martin's legs were covering him. do you think for a second, do you think for a second that if trayvon martin had seen that gun ever there would be a gunshot at 90 degrees in the center of his chest? do you think that? mr. softy was going to be able to get a shot directly through the center of hi chest with trayvon martin knowing that gun was there fighting for his life. do you think that? was why it so important to say he spread his arms out? he had to make him menacing,

violent, threatening. he had to put his arms out. they weren't. they were not. they were not. they were clutching the bullet wound on his chest. the car. he had to make him sound menacing to justify what he had done. listen to those tapes again. the walkthrough and the nonemergency. play them side by side right after each other. it's physically impossible the way he told the police, impossible, that trayvon martin ran behind those homes, cam back and circled his car. why is he lying?

he didn't want to know about stand your ground. didn't want the police to know about it. stand your ground, what's that? let me suggest to you in the end, this case is not about standing your ground. it's about staying in your car like he was taught to do, like he was supposed to do and he can't now cloak himself with the noble cause of a neighborhood watch coordinator violate its corner stone principle and expect you to absolve him of his guilt. he changed his story.

this is where he told detective singleton he first saw trayvon martin and this is where he showed him on the walk through. watch the walk through again. why did he lie about that? why was it important he came in through that cut like everybody else had he told the police. he came through the cut because he had to make trayvon worse, more menacing. that's why he lied. he told some people trayvon martin said one thing and then it got worse. he told him he said something else. he reached for my gun. had to make it worse. he told mark osterman he grabbed my gun. he told him between the hammer and the back.

why? why is he doing this? told mark osterman he circled his car at the clubhouse. he told police he circled it where he parked. he never circled his car. told somebody he got his cell phone out and told other people he was reaching for his cell phone. that's what he was taught don't be a vigilante. don't. see and call. don't get out. don't follow. don't pursue, don't try to detain. just call. just call. they gave him a little special book. as a coordinator whatnot to do.

what did he do? think about this. the defense referred to george zimmerman as a responsible gun owner in their opening remarks. a responsible gun owner. what did he do after the shot was fired? did he yell for an ambulance, call 911? get an ambulance here? i had to shoot somebody? did he roll trayvon martin onto his back so he could breathe? he just stood there and watched and he waited while trayvon

martin was face down. the bottom line is who is responsible for trayvon martin lying on that ground. trayvon martin didn't kill himself. who's responsible for this state not being able to ask trayvon martin to step forward so i could put my hand on his shoulder? god, i'd love to do that. who's responsible for that? trayvon martin is not, was not, will never be a piece of cardboa cardboard. to the living we owe respect but to the dead we owe the truth.

it probably seems like a year ago that we were all in here one by one and then as a group in jury selection. one question got a smile from everybody but it's important. when the attorney's asked you do you understand it's not like tv. it was an important question because it's not and now you know, it's not like tv where all the witnesses are well-dressed educated actors and actresses. there are no rachel jenteel's on csi and they don't call people like kristin wo found nothing in a finger print from the gun on law and order.

it's not like that in real life. in real life we give you everything, the good, the bad, the indifferent, because when that defendant is entitled to a trial he's entitled to fair one, all of it, all of it. now you have that. no hollywood they write it up the way it happens on sunset boulevard but in real life it happens just like it did on twin trees lane in front of so many good, unsuspecting people. remember, if you get back there you don't like some of the witnesses in the case, you don't like rachel jenteel or shiping

bao or the fact there isn't this evidence or the fact there isn't that evidence, ask yourself who produced this trial. who made up the witness list? who created the evidence? who chose the circumstances? who chose the lighting? who chose the time? who chose the weather conditions? it wasn't me. it was the defendant. he chose everything and they why we're here. that's why the evidence is what it is, but it's enough with your common sense. it's enough. i'm not asking you to fill gaps. i'm asking you to do what you do every day. start from the beginning. get to the end and apply your common sense.

don't misunderstand me. your verdict is not going to bring trayvon benjamin martin back to life. your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it. so what is that? what is that when a grown man frustrated, angry with hate in his heart gets out of his car with a loaded gun and follows a child. a stranger in the dark and shoots him through his heart.

what is that? is that nothing? that's not anything? is that where we are? that's nothing. that's not his call and that's not my call. that's your call. i submit to you the oath you took requires it. trayvon martin is entitled to it and that defendant deserves it. defense counsel went through this with you. real quickly. indulge me. a person justified deadly force if he believes force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

they can put this picture up. they blew it up for you. it's bigger than life size. it's color. that's fact. that's reality. that's what it looked like that night when they wiped the blood away, that's what he looked like. did that man, did that man need to kill somebody, to kill a teenager? they put up pictures of all the witnesses. they forgot that one. defense attorney said it's, well, asking yourself, is there an issue about who lost the fight? ask yourself, who lost the fight? who lost the fight? who lost the fight?

that's all evidence. those are all facts. in deciding whether george zimmerman was justified in use of deadly force you must judge him by the circumstances he was surrounded at the time force was used. he was, they estimated 18 feet away from john good. he knew the police were on their way. he knew that people were opening their windows and opening their doors. when he shot him, he knew trayvon martin wasn't on top of him, so he could get his gun. under those circumstance, under our circumstances, did he really need to shoot? did he have to shoot trayvon martin? no, he didn't. he did not.

before i get to reasonable doubt, let me go through a couple of things in the time i have remaining that the defense meant to you. he said innocent itself is no protection. exactly. it wasn't for trayvon martin. he said he could have gone home. the guy could have gone home, i guess, it seems. why didn't he go home? use your common sense. did he really want to take this guy home with him to the residence where the only person there was 12-year-old chad joseph? did he really want to lead the defendant to that residence? just like the defendant said,

remember on the phone call. the nonemergency call. i don't want to give out my phone number. why? dennis root said there's no other option for the defendant for anybody else there is. he had to admit that. he could have done other things but for the defendant there wasn't another option but consider this. this is so important when you consider his opinion. the only evidence he had, the only evidence he had about what was happening at the time this shot was fired was from who? self-serving statements from the defendant. that was his opinion based on that. when i asked him, when i got on

the floor, how could he get the gun with trayvon martin on top of him? the words were somehow. somehow. like i said, if y'all have to do it, get on each other. you won't get the gun. you won't until you get off. why give so many statements the defense attorney asks? if he was guilty why give so many? he had to justify his actions and that's why it kept getting worse. that's why when he got to mark osterman it was completely different. that's why he kept increasing. that's when he got to sean

hannity, wow. it was god's plan. it was god's plan. defense attorney mocked me. that's fine. i said he pushed the gun into his chest. he didn't. he didn't. it was a contact wound with his shirt. he didn't push the gun into his chest. for reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speck ulative doubt and the forced doubt. they tell you what it's not. a reasonable doubt is something you can attach a reason to. use this definition as

guardrails for your deliberations. if you get back there and one of you says maybe this happened or couldn't this have happened or isn't it possible this. that's not a reasonable doubt. a reasonable doubt needs to be two things. it needs to be reasonable, common sense, reasonable. it needs to go to an element of the crime. if you have a question about something that doesn't go to an element of the crime and judge nelson is about to spell those out for you probably after lunch. if it doesn't go do one of those elements, it's not a reasonable doubt. >> i apologize. i need to interrupt and approach the bench for a moment. >> approach the bench.

>> okay. there's an aside happening. i'm wondering if this is unusual because rarely have i seen someone is interrupted during closing arguments. i want to bring in mark nejame who is a legal analyst. jeff gold as well is a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. paul callan is a legal analyst. danny, let's bring you in here and talk about this. it's been very emotional. looks like they're going to get back under way now. if they do we're going to listen in. danny, go back to court. >> final arguments have been concluded i'll instruct you on

the law applicable. you may proceed. >> listen to the judge when you get this law. a nonreasonable doubt, something that's not reasonable but not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty. let me address one more thing before i close. it was brought up by the defense. it was brought up by the defense in their summation this morning and brought up by the defense in the trial. not by the state but by the defense. race. this case is not about race. it's about right and wrong. it's that simple. let me suggest to you how you know that for sure. ask yourselves, all things being

equal, if the roles were reversed and it was 28-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie onto protect himself from the rain walking through that neighborhood and a 17-year-old driving around in a car who called the police who had hate in their heart, hate in their mouth, hate in their actions, and if it was trayvon martin who had shot and killed george zimmerman, what would your verdict be? that's how you know it's not about race. to the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe the

truth. what do we owe trayvon martin? 16 years and 21 days forever. he was a son. he was a brother. he was a friend, and the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. this is the dead. the self-serving statements, the lies from his own mouth and the hate in his heart. words that they can't now take back. the physical evidence which

refutes his lies and the law that her honor is about to read to you. the law that applies to all of us and the law that applies to each of us, this is the truth. thank you for your time. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to read the jury instructions but i want to give you a choice. would you like to have these instructions read after lunch or would you like to have them read now and go to lunch? i will respect that. please put your note pads down before you go to lunch. i want to admonish you again, you're not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anybody else. you're not to read or listen to any radio, television or newspaper reports about the case. you're not to use any type of electronic device to get on the internet to do any independent research about the case, people places or things or terminology. finally, you're not to read or

create any e-mails, text messages, tweet, social networking pages or blogs about the case. do i have your assurances you'll abide by these instructions? thank you. we'll be in recess until 2:00. if you please put your note pads face down. >> okay. in recess now. just to clarify real quickly. is it unusual to interrupt during a closing argument? what happened? >> it's unusual but it's not unheard of and it happens if you real feel something is compelling. what the defense is believing that the state did not represent the law as it related to reasonable doubt properly. the judge wanted them to approach. she said you'll listen to what the judge instructs you as to what the law says and not the lawyers. >> danny, i'm sitting here and watching people in the room with me. i'm looking around to see people

and talking to the people in the control room. during john guy's closing, people were quiet as church mice. you could hear a pin drop. >> yeah. he echoed the original passion. there were a lot of sayings. as a style point you start inserting quotations i don't know that carries the day because you can find a saying for virtually anything you want to prove. i don't know that they probably spent a lot of time focusing on the common sense issue. i feel like o'mara already poisoned that and saying if they're asking you to fill gaps then they haven't met their burden. >> jeff gold, this is the last thing the jury will remember. this is what they will be left

with. >> absolutely. that's just what a defense always worries about is john guy will come in here with an emotional pitch, tug at the heart strings and the jury will decide this on emotion and rather than the law. i think o'mara did a good job but he was monotonous as bernie screeching. john guy did this in an emotional way. there probably is a reasonable doubt in this case even as to manslaughter but nevertheless these are moms. the image of the child being followed in the dark was a specific pitch to these moms. they should leave these closings with that image and i think he did a good job at it. >> i have less than a minute. he brings up a very good point. correct me if i'm wrong but most juries don't they already make up their mind pretty close to the beginning of the trial. how much weight do closing arguments have? >> i'm a little less cynical

than that. i think the juries listen to the evidence and listen to closing arguments. >> i think mark nejame may disagree with you. >> i think it's in the middle. we have trial frs a reason but a lot of people have predetermined notions. you take a look at the blogs. you take a look at twitter and facebook. very few have changed their mind. they lock in and the facts be dammed. >> finish jeff. >> i love my twitter people but i'm not sure they're a cross section of the real world. we too have trials for a reason. the real contrast that struck me in both these summations is what about zimmerman's statements to the police and to fox news, do

those lies, are they really lies and do they matter? defense almost ignored the issue where the prosecution seems to think they're the key to the whole case. >> all right. i have to go. thank you very much. we got to get a break in. we'll be back with more coverage after this. [ female announcer ] what if the next big thing, isn't a thing at all? it's lots of things. all waking up. connecting to the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪ it's going to be amazing. and exciting. and maybe, most remarkably, not that far away. we're going to wake the world up. and watch, with eyes wide, as it gets to work. cisco. tomorrow starts here.

this is cnn news room. i'm suzanne malveaux. it's judgment day for george zimmerman. the court has recessed moments ago. they're in a lunch break. when the jurors return the judge will give them their instructions. after that the wait is on as the six-woman jury decides zimmerman's fate for the shooting death of unarmed teenager of trayvon martin. we'll take you live back to that sanford, florida courtroom. attorneys from both sides delivered their final arguments. you had lead defense attorney mark o'mara setting out to convince the jury of what he called zimmerman's absolute innocence. then john guy delivered the rebuttal insisting that trayvon martin was the one who feared for his life on that faithful day. george howell is outside the courthouse i