>> growing up in san francisco dubuild bon fours on the beach. >> i don't think we were allowed to. apparently we can't anymore. >> thanks for joining us, everybody. >> america lives starts right now. >> fox news alert for you out of florida. we are expecting closing argument in the george zimmerman murder trial to begin shortly. but first getting you up to speed on major events that occurred that could determine the final outcome of the case. good morning, everybody. i am allison came rot in for megyn kelliy. prosecutors asked the judge to let the jury to consider lesser

charges. manslaughter can be on the table. they want third degree murder that george zimmerman committed child, bows, and the defense calls this outrageous. >> oh, my god. just when i thought the case couldn't get anymore bizarre, the state is soaking third degrees murder based on child abuse? is the court going to give contention and consideration? if so, we have a lot of talking to do. we can start with mr. manti dumped this on us at 7:30. oh, by the way i changed the lesser request from lesser degrees assault based on child a

bows. and 10 or 15 cases that obviously he spent hours and if not days and maybe more than a year plotting for this moment when he can spring it on us and the court? >> the court is just getting back in session and arguments over that third degree charge are ongoing. as we await the judge's decision on whether or not the jourors can consider third degree murder. and the judge's testy exchange with the defense. and first, check in with phil coating who is live in sanford, florida. a lot of new wrinkles today, phil. >> absolutely allison. and the last element outside of closing arguments are currently underway. the state is live inside of the courtroom right now telling the judge deborah nelson he came up with two more cases to support

the lesser charge for the jury to take with them in the deliberation's rom. lesser charge of third degree felony murder and zimmerman's attorneys don't want that entered into the jury's instructions which are critical and they help formulaate what is beyond a reasonable doubt and what is the burden of prove and what is justifiable self homicide. overnight prosecutors abandoned aggravated battery in the defense and now felony third degree murder that the judge said could carry 10-20 years in prison or more. but she made sure zimmerman was adequately represented by counsel. >> are you aware that your tarns don't want lesser included charges brought before the juriy?

>> yes, your honor. >> you had discussion with your lawyers about that? >> yes, your honor. the defense attorney could hardly contain himself when the prosecutors said third degrees fit because it was child abuse. >> this is outrageous. it is outrageous that the state seeks to do this at this time in the case. if the court wants to recess several hours that we can research and draft the cases and draft a memo of law, we can do that and we are entitled to respond in a moaningful way. it is hard for me to imagine that the court will take it seriously. >> judge deborah nelson going a head and disallowing third degree murder to be included in the jury's instruction. tomorrow afternoon after the

rebuttal case, they go in the deliberation's rom, six women, they will either convict zimmerman of second-degree murder or manslaughter that carries up to 15 years in prison and they will not be considering any other charges and we are about to get underway with the state, and the two hours or so closing arguments. >> phil, thank you for covering that breaking nows. the judge decided not to allow third degree murder considered by the jury but will allow manslaughter to be considered. we'll go back to the beginning, to march of 2012, the issue of race was brought into the mix and protest erected around the country with everyone from the president to a l sharpton to sweatshirt sharing law makers weighed in on it and it turned

from a tragic fight tone two people in to a tangled story of race and violence. trace attacks us back through it, hey, trace. >> ally, stories like this context is everything. and in the early days, in the media it was reporting not fair and balance. president obama commented on the case, listen. >> you know, if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. and you know, i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans will take this with the sourceness it deserves. >> in the days that followed, people around the country wearing hoodies to support trayvon martin. and then rev repped sharpton who

organized protest and calling for the arrest of george zimmerman,ine city lead ares in sanford but theed heads over whether zimmerman should be arrested or not. >> you look at initial media coverage in the early days, it was a much younger picture of trayvon martin that wassoused by several people instead of a current picture that you so on the right hand side of the screen. and despite the contrary, early reporting said that george zimmerman had no noticeable injures and remember, the pictures shed a different story. and then the sound byte by n pc news. >> this guy locks up to no good and he locks black. >> and that was a misedit and now look at what was said. >> this guy locks up to be no

good. he's like on drugs and it is raining and he's just walking around, looking about. >> okay, and this guy is white black or hispanic? >>o locks black. >> jobs were lost with that edited coverage. remember when zimmerman told police he was following trayvon martin and they said you don't need to do that and he saidoc? a lot of people said he continued to follow trayvon martin and the tape told a different story. this is what it said directly after he said okay. >> do you live in the area? >> yeah. >> what is your apartment number. >> it is a home 1950. oh, crap. i don't want to give it out loud. i don't know where this kid is. >> you want to mote them by the mail boxes, yeah, that is fine. >> the tape shows he stopped

following him and lost him for a certain amount of time. the entire story is every bit important. and of course, the jury will decide the final out come of this. >> and of course, the case is more complicated than at first blush. trace, thank you. what role did washington d.c. rush in the judgment about race. chris from fox news.com. well, way, rushing to judgment is the speciality down here. if you want to rush to judgment washington d.c. is a great place to come for it. >> from the get go, chris, this case sort of captured washington d.c.'s attention and became a political football in the way that criminal cases don't. >> in america we have often said that race is not everything and

everything is to some degree about race. and the president, so many defenders a cows his detractors of having racial motive and it is in there and the president whose administration famously doesn't like to talk about ongoing investigations when they relate to themselves. in this case, the president came out with a voice of sympathy from mr. martin and on and on. and the president tock it to heart and made it possible. if i had a son, it would look like trayvon. and things are word and fast and then what happened? >> it was less than advertised. we didn't get what we were promised. we were promised with a story that dealt with race and white privilege and black youth and all of these things. we were promised a bonfire of vanities. and we didn't get that. and we were promised that we

would have something like what we saw in los angeles with the rodney king era. what we had two minorities the new york times called mr. zimmerman a white hispanic. but you end up with two moirnities in a sad story with no winners and it was not as advertised. there was not only a rush to judgment but a rush to hype. is everyone in capitol hill and the white white knew it was a s if fight and george zimmerman's nose was brokeen and cuts to the back of his head and debate of who was on top and the evidence suggests that trayvon martin was on top, would the president come out and said trayvon martin could have been my son? >> he knew this would be the only place that clip was played today, it was depend politics at the moment.

he identified with this young man, a victim who was held up as this. and he made him part of his family rhetorically. and he probably would have done it again knowing that that clip would not get a lot of air time now. >> chris, thank you for giving us the washington d.c. perpective on this. >> we just got word from the courtroom. we expect closing arguments in 30 minutes. keep it right here. one of captivating crime stories in the known 60s is back in the head loins. the investigation of the boostop strangler confession turned up new evident in the case after all of these years. and republican law makers are proposing a bill that cuts off funding to punish schools that play with imaginary guns. students as young as six years old faced stiff consequences for

using pint- sized mjdz. we have our hands on the frantic 911 calls made after the asiana flight plane crash in california. hey linda!

what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support gularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'.

>> fox news alert to you. to florida and the george zimmerman murder trial. closing arguments will begin in 20 minutes. the prosecution we understand will go first. judge nelson just finalized the jury sdprkz ruled that manslaughter will be the only lesser charge that the jury may consider and not third degree murder. and we'll bring you live when we get to it without interruption. >> there is a story and new calls for a controversial. >> a pro-life group claims that the woman who visited the clinic has been rushed to the hospital.

this comes five months after the doctor's patients died if a botched late term abortion. they are live with more, hey, doug. >> pro- life protestors were outside of the clinic just this morning and two days after one of them filmed a video that purports to she a patient wheeled out of his clinic in en route to a hospital. he is under the investigation of the state of maryland. carhart operates clinics in many states and a stanch defender of late- term abortion rights. >> how many women are in emergency roms in ohio, florida and massachusetts have been butchered by leroy carhart that we will never know about? >> their protest is a microca sym of what is happening in the

country after the conviction of dr. gosnell. they are calling on regulators to strengthen abortion regulation. we see a battle in texas that may so a battle tomorrow to limit late term abortions to 20 weeks and require clinics to meet standards. they are soaking to protect the live was women. but opposition said it will put the clinics out of accident. >> you are making a class separation here for the wealthy who can afford it and travel in the united states and within the state and for the poryou are up the croak, without a pedal. and you can go to the back alleys where the coat hangar is used. >> and pro-choice so the gosnell case as an outliar.

many believe his practices are not that uncommon. legislators are imposing new rules on abortion clinics. >> thank you for that update. >> and stunning research approximate one of the most popular dietary supplements in the country and may increase a deadly form of cancer. dr. mark segal talked to them. and as we wait for the closing arguments to begin in the zimmerman murder trial, a growing number of legal experts say what we saw in court, suggest that the prosecution may be getting nervous. that debate just a head. >> i have seen your client questions, plose, mr. west. >> i object and court inkwoiry to. >> your objection is overruled. how mu protein

does your dog food have? 18 percent? 20? new purina one true instinct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learmore at purinaone.com (announcer) at scottrade, our cexactly how they want.t with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to.

plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everi'm with scottrade. me. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine.

>> fox news alert, expecting closing arguments in the george zimmerman case to start in ten minutes from now. lawyers sparring over charges in the case after prosecutors ask if the jury might be allowed to consider lesser charges. in florida, third degree carries same amount of prison time as the manslaughter charge. we are keeping a close eye there. we'll look at closing arguments getting underway. >> a bombshell medical study raising serious questions about fish oil. and the now research shows that in some cases.

and more than cent percent. and dr. mark segal. fox news medical correspondent, joins me now. doctor, thank you for being here. this is a stunning discovery. it is rick of aggressive prostate cancer. >> this is the first time the study shed the correlation of omeg three and low grade prostate cancer. >> it is the third study. and the 40 percent increase of low grade and we are starting to see more and more of an association between omega three fatty acids and prostate cancer. this is not the supplement, but it is a lot of fish. the study told me that they are estimating by the amount of omeg threes that he found here, more than 3 or 4 portions of fish

a week and supplements more than ever third day, if you tock everyone of them once or twois a week, you are increasing your risk. that is pretty dramatic. i think eating fish is great. you are eating fish instead of something that may be terebl to you. but do you need the supplements? >> we have some evident they decrease depression and improve the elderly. but the supplements may not help the heart as much as we thought. we are studying the supplements more and more. and dr. crystal said a huge study is coming out with a randomized trial and prove once and for all that there is a prove that omega throw fatty a acids may be bad for you. we believe that there is a connection tone inflammation

and illness and cancer. if it cuts down inflammation why does it cause cancer? >> we all know inflammation is associated with cancer and it gets more complicated and omega three decrease immune function and mole cowls that break up dna. there may be a spectacular way they act the prostate gland. believe in the hype. there is a billion dollar industry. they say it is great for you. and maybe it is good for some people and not others. and people at risk for prostate cancer. we have to be discerning about these. get it in your food and have a well balanced diet. >> my opthomollologist said to take it for my eyes.

>> we thought omega three protected the heart. if there is protection with the eyes, it may be worth taking. but that puts you in one spectacular group. this is a warning for men and people who think take the supplements and it is going to help me and put me in good health. it may or may not. you should know what you are taking. fif you are a man, you are so no longer to take the fish oil supplements. >> eat sell monand other fish and watch out as i told pregnant women, beyond two or throw portions a woke. men at for pon on risk for prostate cancer need to watch that. >> and the start of closing arguments in the zimmerman murder trial.

there is breaking news out of washington, the white house was asked if the president watching the case and concerned about the verdict. we have that response for you, next. and republican law makers arero proposing a funding for schools who punish children with imaginary gun. and little kids who face source consequences and new developments in the san francisco plane crash. one of the pilots saw a blinding bright light moments before the impact and access to 911 calls after the plane went down. >> people are injured on the tarmac. >> we have reports of it. >> there are no ambulances here. and we have been here on the ground 20 minutes. critical injuries. hello? . >> yes, i am still here. oc. >> were you on the plane, yes, i

was on the plane. we have been on the ground 20 minutes or half an hour and people are laying on the tarmac with head we are almost losing a woman here, woer trying to cope her alive. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. [ mike ] when i was taking the chantix, it reduced the urge to smoke. [ malennouncer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if y have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams.

it feels wonderful. i don't smoke. i don't smoke. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

>> the trayvon martin and george zimmerman trial. is the president watching the trial and concerns over the response might be? >> i think the president as you

know does not spend a lot of time watching television in the day, but his comments on that are what they were. we'll not say anything in the midst of the trial in that nature. >> that was the white white spokesman jay carney folding the question on the legal drama we are watching unfold in florida. moments from now the zimmerman murder trial will get back underway. motorin's parents just walked in. and earlier today, the judge agreed the jorcan consider manslaughter but not third degree murder. as son as those closing arguments begin woe take you there live. dug burns is a former federal prosecutor. doug, closing arguments will start in a now moments. are there rowels about what they

say? >> good question. >> the rowels are you can argue that which is reasonable. what you got in evidence and many trial lawyers said i should have put in evidence that there is a football field behind the school and you can't do. that you can't say there is a football fold. >> only objection outside of the scope. and outside of the scope, your honor and you get shut down. closing argument and this is one time you get to argue your case, opening statement and closing arguments. and the first time and last time you get to so the jurors. last thing they want to be shut down and you have to be careful and still yet tell an amazing story. >> we believe that the attorneys are bringing in exhibits and

we'll cope the you posted. >> they will come out and character otherwise it as a s if fight with superficial injures and no one would have died and to the a grave threat of death and the loser of the fight, ladies and gentlemen, pulled out the gun and killed this person. >> is that a compelling argument? >> it is if you hadn't watched the trial. when they came out in the opening statement with the expletives and everything zimmerman said. zimmerman had a dpun and trayvon martin was not and he ended up dead. as the prosecutions's case came on it was weaker with the evidence. >> two things were a, pretty significant evident that it was the defendant who was being straddled and mum pelled and

a big, big dust up on the best day prosoutors tied to a tie. and no juror on this planet can resolve that when earnestly each parent and family said that is their son. >> and now for the prosecutions side. everything else is kicked out. all aggravated and child abuse which should not have been allowed. with the manslaughter, if the prosecutions can she acts zimmerman committed caused the death of martin, then there is a possibility of manslaughter conviction and not the second-degree submit. i don't think they have shown depraved intent and malice. and in this case is depraved. >> in he did do an act that

caused the death of trayvon martin. they are lucky that the judge went long with the manslaughter. and so don't forget defense wanted all-or-nothing. we'll take our shot here and we fell they haven't. and they were kicking and screaming and if any reasonable vow of the evident that leaded the juror to conclude. >> we'll go from the defense perspective. they will argue self defense and so it doesn't matter. whether it was intentional, it was committed in self defense. look for the defense to be arguing that again and again and again. it doesn't matter what they charge. >> it covers everything. >> and if it was in self defense, the jury cannot convict? >> they make the determination and you are right. if they determined that the man

was justified in defending himself and using an argument of force. it would she second-degree murder. >> therein loys the rub. this was a s if fight. sometimes they end up dad. but the jorhas to decide whether it is acceptable. >> or excessive force. if they find that self defense they are to manslaughter by default. >> i know the judge did not allow the third-degree murder and child a bows because trayvon martin was 17 years old rather than 18 years old. does that suggest a level of desperation on the prosecutions? >> it is a great point and i agree with you. there was orth procedural aspect. the judge felt and the judge was right they sand bagged on that. >> and the reason from the prosecutor's point of view, you

have that charge. you put it in the charging argument and don't try to come in the understand of the trial and say now i want to put this in? >> and maybe it was plotted out and if you look at the charging document. the death of trayvon martin and moirn under 18. it is not a part of second-degree murder. why did they put that in there. >> the question that allyson put in. >> and the defense called it a trick. >> it is ripping mad and west was saying your honor, i don't see how you can consider entertain this. >> technically the charge applies. >> and it could. but you can't come and it didn't give the defense notice. >> ripping mad. there is testy exchanges tone

don west and the judge. >> i have gone in front of the judges and it is a begin to absorb a bows from the court and they are the authority figure and you are the advocate and mr. west has ripped in to the judge. it is both ways. you know, when he was whining, i am working so hard and all of those hours and she said it is nine time time 56. and she asked the defendant before the evident had closed. are you going to testify and the lawyer goes i object to that. >> and that was testy. >> and i think the judge was misled on that. you wait until the defense is done before you ask the cloint. >> she redid it. >> and she did. we are going to need your help and closing arguments are going to begin any second now. and stick around. and meanwhile, as it unfolds,

we'll bring it to you live. and one of the most captivating stories. one man's evidents to vindicate the boston strangler turned up now evidence in the case.

>> closing arguments are starting. >> he is dead through no fault of his own. he is dead because another manmade assumptions. that man assumed certain things. he's dead not just because the manmade those assumptions, he's dead not just because the manmade those assumptions but because he acted on those assumptions and unfortunately, unfortunately, because his assumptions were wrong, trayvon benjamin martin no longer walks on this earth. the defendant in this case,

george zimmerman, acted upon those assumptions, and because of that, a young man, a 17 year old man, a barely 17-year-old man, three weeks past his birthday, is dead. unfortunately this is one of the last photos that will ever be taken of trayvon martin. and that is true because of the actions of one individual. the man before you, the defendant, george zimmerman. a man who after shooting,

trayvon martin, claims to not have realized that he was dead and what did he do? do you recall what the testimony was about what he did after? did he render or attempt to render the same aid that those heroic officers from the stanford police department did, who didn't wear the mask they norpally would wear but gave mouth to mouth and performed cpr and an attempt to bripg life back to that young boy. did he do that? . recall also what happened when mr. manaldo came out and recall

also what happened when the officer came out? . and they hand cuffed and recall what he told mr. menaldo, and please call my wife and apparently he was taking too long and he said just tell her i killed him. just coined of matter of fact. those acts, those actions speak volumes of what occurred that evening, sunday evening and they speak volumes of this defendant's actions. sunday, february 20th, 0 february 26th, 2012, at

7:09:00 p.m. at retreat at twin lakes town homes, you are absolutely aware that the shooting actually happen minutes later. in fact, i think because of the recording that was made, we were able to precisely determine when that fatal shot occurred. it occurred in 7:16 and 55 seconds. but i would submit that is the events leading up to this murder, actually occurred not just earlier that sunday evening, but months before. and why do i say that? ine though trayvon martin was not there months before, why do i say that the events leading up to this occurred months before? .

you recall the testimony of several people, but most importantly, the evidence that you heard from this defendant's mouth when he was being interviewed by investigator singleton. when she said something to the affect of what happened out there. i wasn't out there. i haven't gone to the scone. what did he first say. (inaudible) she was at 19502 circle. you tell me the story and what happened tonight,oc. >> tonight? >> oh, whatever led up to this. is there anything you want to tell me and what ended up to you for this by to get shot. >> the neighborhood has had a

lot of crimes. my wife saw our neighbors get broke into. >> you talking about a residence or vehicle. >> it was a residence while occupied. i decide to start a neighborhood watch program in my name. >> what is the name of the neighborhood? >> retreat at twin lakes. >> now, those actions weren't sinister or terrible or evil or ill will. those were actions that occur throughout the united states in many cities unfortunately where crimes occur in a neighborhood and people get together and form neighborhood watches or other associations to deal with it. there is nothing sinister or wrong with that.

but in this particular case, it led to the death of a innocent 17-year-old boy, because this defendant made the wrong assumption. he profiled him as a criminal. he assumed certain things, that trayvon martin was up to no good, and that is what led to his death. trayvon martin, he was there legally. he hadn't broke in in or sneaked in or trespassed. he was there legally. he went to the 7-eleven store earlier that evening. he brought what?

what did he buy? what was his crime? he bought skittles and some kind of watermelon or iced tea or whatever it's called. that was his crime. he had $40 and 15 cents in his pockets. he was wearing a photo button and he was speaking to a girl in miami. he was mineding his own business. but apparently this defendant decided that he was up to no good. that the victim was up to no good.

what had trayvon martin planned for that evening? watch a basketball game with his younger, i guess you'd call him stepbrother or friend, the son of his father's fiance. that's where he was headed back home. you know, this wasn't at 2:00 in the morning or partying somewhere, not that that would in any way minimize it but he wasn't -- he was just doing a normal everyday thing. he went to the store, got something, got some skittles and some tea or drink and was just walking back. it was raining. he was wearing a hoodie. the last i heard, that's not against the law. in this man's eyes, he was up to no good.

he presumed something that was not true. now, what's ironic about this, neighborhood watch, you heard from the officers, et cetera, that's a respect thing we encourage citizens to do. but in this particular case, he didn't even bother to find out if he thought he was up to no good. he called the police. the non-emergency number, but then he followed him, he tracked him because in his mind, the defendant's mind he was a criminal and he was tired of criminal criminals committing crimes out there. again, that's not a bad thing. it's good that citizens get involved but he went over the line. he assumed things that weren't true. instead of waiting for the poli police, instead of waiting for the police to come and do their job, he did not.

he, the defendant, wanted to make sure that trayvon martin didn't get out of the neighborhood. you might recall the prior testimony about the prior incidence. what happened? they would commit some kind of crime apparently and they would all flee. by the time -- i think one guy was caught -- the rest of them would flee and this defendant was sick and tired of it. that night he decided he would be what he wanted to be, a police officer. police officers are trained. recall one of the questions that was asked of investigator serino by defense, sir, if you were driving by and if somebody was in the front yard and maybe looking through a window, wouldn't you stop your car and investigate that? his first -- my recollection is his comment was, his answer was, i would think maybe he lives there. but, see, in this defendant's mind, because of the prior crime out there, he automatically assumed that trayvon martin was

a criminal. that's why we're here. that is why we're here. because the defense is going to argue to you this was self-defense. they're going to say what actually happened at the time of the shooting. i'm going to talk about that obviously. but you can't just take that in a vacuum. it's not like this defendant was just walking home and some guy came out of nowhere and just started beating him up. i mean, when you think of it, when you really honestly think about it, who was more scared? the guy, the kid that was mineding his own business and going home and followed by another guy in a truck, in an suv and kept following him. recall what he told rachel jeantel, this guy, said something to the effect of well

maybe he's like a sex pervert or something and referred to a cracker or whatever word he used and used the "n" word, too. when you think of it, that is a person that was scared, i would submit. now, trayvon martin unfortunately can't come into this courtroom and tell you how he was feeling. that's true because of the actions of one man, the defendant. let's talk about the defendant that night. no dispute he lived there at the retreat of the lakes. no dispute he was part of the neighborhood watch. that's good, a good thing. he was upset burglars got away. that's also a good thing. that's good that people get involved. apparently, according to his statement, he was driving the target. now, he's driving to target.

it's raining and what does he do? calls in to the police something suspicious. he tracks this guy down. tracks trayvon martin. doesn't just call the police, okay, stay in your car, keeps following him. he goes even further and gets out of the car. he sees the scrimmagvictim, sus of the victim and calls 911. all those actions, no crime committed there. there's no crime right there. but it's important to realize this is what led to trayvon martin being dead. >> the defendant 28 years old, 5'7", 240 pounds and armed. let me stop right here.

he had the right to bear arms. 204 pounds. the second amendment allows people to carry a firearm. he had a permit. he had the right to have a concealed permit, concealed firearm. he is not violating any law. the victim in this case, 17 years old, 5'11", 158 pounds. he was unarmed. well, i guess if you would consider skittles or tea a weapon. not trying to make light of it. the defense saying, oh, it's that concrete. we'll talk about the concrete. but what started this? asuchlsumption assumptions, incorrect assumptions on the part of one individual. again, that's the last photograph we have of trayvon martin.

this innocent 17-year-old kid was profiled as a criminal. to quote the defendant, and pardon my language [ bleepmutem. zimmerman didn't scream that out. defense will argue, that shows he didn't have any ill will or hatred. i would submit to you he uttered it under his breath. that itself indicates ill will and hatred because he was speaking to the 911 or non-emergency person. but what he was doing is he was

verbalizing what he was thinking. that's why that's important. because in his mind, he already assumed certain things. [ muted ]. >> you recall the prior calls, we brought in five, i think defense brought another one and put in six within the last, five or six months, where crimes have been committed in the neighborhood. he was sick and tired of it. but the law doesn't say, okay, you know, take the law into your own hands. oh, i'm sorry. i've got the wrong guy. i'm so sorry, i thought he was a criminal. mr. martin, tracy martin, sybrina fulton, i'm so sorry, i made a mistake. i didn't realize trayvon martind

was minding his own business. i am sorry. the law doesn't say that talks about accountability for one's actions. that's what we're asking for in this case. hold the defendant responsible for his actions. hold him accountable for what he did. m if the defendant hadn't assumed that, trayvon martin would have watched the basketball game, george zimmerman, i'm assuming would have gone to target and done whatever he does on sunday evenings and we wouldn't be here. the law doesn't allow people who take the law into their own hands. it doesn't allow, quite frankly, even the police to take the law into their own hands. the police had gotten called out there, would have done -- okay, what are you doing here? can i ask you what you're doing?

do you mind telling me? under the law they're allowed to ask a person walking the streets. the person can ignore them or not, that's not a crime. the person could say, i live right here, i'm going right home. you want to come? this defendant didn't give trayvon martin a chance. recall the testimony of this defendant in terms of the interviews. i'm going to play certain parts for you. recall how he says at one point that trayvon martin is circling his car. my point in saying that is number one, you have to determine whether that's true. let's presume that part is true, and he says he's got something in his hands. why does this defendant get out of his car if he thinks trayvon martin is a threat to him? why? why? because he's got a gun! he's got the equalizer. he's going to take care of it. he's a wannabe cop. he's going to take care of it. he's got a gun. my god, it's his community and he's not going to put up with

it. either the police are take doing long to respond, he's going to handle it. now, did he go over there and say, i'm going to kill this kid? no. this isn't first-degree murder. it's not premeditated. but his actions resulted in the death of a 17-year-old boy, did they not? i mean, do you have an innocent man before you? is it really self-defense when you follow somebody? first of all when you profile somebody incorrectly, when you automatically label him a criminal because he's acting, in your mind, in his mind, excuse me, as suspicious because he's wearing a hoodie, because it's raining and walking the streets or not walking fast enough. i thought in this great country,

no matter how stupid we might think somebody's acting because it's raining and he's walking or doing whatever, that that's not against the law. he did have his hoodie on. it was raining off and on. 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 putting on a crime, he's saying it's self-defense. we wanted to tell you all the evidence. 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. but in doing so, i want to analyze, dissect with you the defendant's statements. why was it necessary for the defendant to exaggerate everything that happened? why was it that it took him a

while, even at the very end, he kept denying something. what? obviously he kept denying he intentionally killed him, that he said self-defense, but what was important before that? what did he keep denying? that he followed him. the defendant knew if he admitted he followed him then that showed that ill will hatred [ mute ] that's what we have here, ladies and gentlemen. that's why he kept talking about, oh! i didn't know the name of the street. i was looking for an address. remember that video? i will show it to you again, the part he's walking to the detectives, the investigators like they're fools or something. look the back of the houses here there's no addresses, right in front of him is an address.

by the way, there's only three streets. how difficult can that be? he's the neighborhood watch guy, living there four years and takes his dog down to the dog walk but he doesn't know the names of the street, doesn't know the main street that you go in? because, you see, when he admits something like that, then it proves one thing, that he was following him, that he had profiled him and he was following him. that shows his guilt, because it shows that his actions led unfortunately to the death of trayvon martin. so you can't just say, okay, what happened at the actual interaction between them? again, we're going to talk about that, because unfortunately, and i stress unfortunately, there's only one person -- two people. one person's not with us anymore, but there's only two really people who knew what really happened out there. and he, the defendant, made sure that other person couldn't come to this courtroom and tell you

what happened. he, the defendant, si lepsed trayvon martin. silenced trayvon martin. i would submit to you even in silence, his body provides evidence as to this defendant's guilt. why do i say that? because from dna, from lack of blood, other stuff, his body speaks to you. even in death, that -- and it proves to you that this defendant is lying about what happene happened. >> do you recall one of the witnesses that came down, dr. di maio, a very distinguished doctor about this photograph the defendant keeps parading. do you recall what i did? what do you expect? blood. i will show you the photographs. not just of the medical examiner

say no that dr. bao, he was incompetent. he didn't know what he was doing. i will show you the photographs at the scene that will show what? no blood on his hands. oh, it was raining that night. wow. i guess the blood on the defendant's head just stuck there, right? but on the victim, it kind of vanished? can't have it like that. what's important is the defendant in attempt to convince the police he was really shooting this man, this boy in self-defense, he had to exaggerate what happened. that's why he had to at some point say, oh, he he was threatening me, almost like the levels of fear escalated. we'll talk about that how then originally he hit him and got him on the go around and then there was a struggle, and then he got the upper hand, and then, let's see. it got worse and then he threatened to kill him and then

he put his hand over his mouth suffocating him and pinched his nose and then he went for the gun. see how he's exaggerating everything. you don't believe this stuff? he's even more dangerous, because you know why? this defendant, as you heard, has studied the law. iron terms of what's required for self-defense and he has all those bullet points in terms of what's required. so if you take one word out of here that i would submit to you shows this defendant's guilt, it's assumptions on the part of the defendant. the defendant assumed that the victim didn't belong at the retreat of twin lake, didn't he? that the victim was committing or about to commit a burglary. he assumed and profiled the victim as a criminal.

one of those that got away. he assumedals that he was [ muted ] als that he was [ muted ]o that he was [ muted ] let's assume he was assuming that. assuming something is not against the law by itself. unless you're wrong. let's assume he thought trayvon martin may be committing a crime. he called the police on the emergency number, a good thing. what did he do? when this victim came up to him, he claims, circling his car, what are you doing? following me for?

hold on. i'm sorry. i'm with the neighborhood watch. can i assist you in some way? you look lost? can i help you? can i give you a ride? he could have said, do you live around here? can i call the police? call a friend? he didn't do that. he didn't take any action because he in his own mind assumed he was a criminal and he wasn't going to give him any benefit of the doubt. he rolled down the window and identified himself as neighborhood watch. listen, i've called the police. i'm not a bad guy, not a pervert, not following you for anything whatever your name is. do you mind waiting? the police are on their way, may be here in 30 seconds or a minute, sometimes take a little longer. would you mind waiting here? i'm a little suspicious of what you're doing. what you mind waiting he didn't do that. did he wait for the police? no. did he wait inside his car? no.

he -- so let's talk about weighing the evidence, in terms of weighing the instructions the court will give you an opportunity to see and know the answers that the witness gave straightforward? did anybody have an interest in the outcome and did the evidence agree with the other evidence? are there prior inconsistent statements? again, use your god-given common sense. what do we have here? what does it boil down to? we put evidence of the fact at one point the defendant wanted to be a police officer. i've been in law enforcement 30 years as a prosecutor. there's nothing wrong. that's a good thing. we ought to encourage people to be police officers. that's an honorable profession. he applied in virginia and didn't get in, doing other stuff, taking criminal justice credits. that's good! but again, it doesn't say the

law allows a person to take matters into their own hand. if not, why are we here? why do we have courtrooms? guy we have jurors? let's just let people handle it outside. oh, they're wrong, well, you know, sorry. i want to talk about the witnesses. before i do that, i want to take a moment to thank you for your time an service. i think we started over four weeks ago, in this process that we're all so fortunate to be able to live in, live the constitution in terms of asking people to come from their everyday lives and give up a lot, from work and from family

to serve as jurors. so i think i speak on behalf of everybody, defense, the court, everybody, we thank you for your time and your patience. this case is very important to the state of florida, important to the victim's family and important to the defendant. it's also important obviously to you. you probably realized as you all are watching the juro jurors -- witnesses and the trial, periodically the attorneys will watch you and the court will. you guys were very attentive. some took more notes than others. without a doubt, nobody was falling asleep. it's a long process. you've been here a long time and were towards the end. i want to take a few moments and talk about what i would submit is how you arrive at a verdict. we ask in this great country for

people to serve as jurors without really any legal experience. in a lot of countries they don't have -- they have lawyers or judges that are already automatically plugged in, as such. that's what they do, they have professional people that sit as jurors. we ask people to come from their everyday lives and sit as jurors. that is what i would submit, makes this country great. how is it that if you're asked to come and you really don't have any legal experience, how do you arrive at a verdict that speaks the truth? how do you arrive at a verdict that is just? i would suggest you do three things, number one, rely on witnesses and testimony and physical evidence you saw and able to digest more if you want to, recordings, all that other stuff. number two, you rely on the law the judge nelson will read to you and you'll actually be provided a copy of it. number three, perhaps most importantly, you rely on your

god given common sense. that common sense that we kind of use automatically without even having to think about it, to make decisions at home and at work, the law encourages you to do that in evaluating the evidence and determining what's valid and what's not and what makes sense. when you do those three things and really on the witness' testimony and physical evidence and the law and your common sense, i would submit to you, you come back with a verdict that speaks the truth and a verdict that is just and that verdict is that this defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree. i mean, do youibleyouible -- yo believe there is an innocent man sitting over there right now? he just assumed something but kind of overreacted a little bit but it really wasn't his fault that trayvon martin is dead?

do you believe this was kind of a struggle or argument or discussion or fight that kind of got out of hand? perhaps. but who started this? who followed who? who was mineding their own business? again, of the two, who was the one that was armed? and who knew that they were armed. i hope you can see that from there because i've got it right here, too. it's a timeline. it's going to kind of tell you a little bit about what happened there. it's a timeline showing the phone call. you'll be able to take it back there. it's in evidence. a timeline showing the phone

call between rachel jaeantel an trayvon martin. it's color-coded and we made it fancy so you can decipher it. i'm old and getting used to the computer systems and hopefully it makes sinc s sense. you have george zimmerman's call and the exact time and length of the call. you also have it broke up originally jarksz you recall, miss jeantel lost contact and got it back up and you have another call and you kcan see equivocally when the gunshot occurred. you hear the call and hear the gunshot unfortunately in that call and you here miss syrdyka and then mr. good's call. i suggest that's the timeline. are people off?

maybe, but the phone records don't lie. because my recollection was that we spent, i think, half a day one day and possibly half a day the next day hearing from one witness. her name was rachel jeantel. now, this young lady, i would submit to you, is not a very sophisticated person, not the most educated, but she's a human being and she spoke as best she could. she happens to be what, haitian or of haitian descent, made a big deal about you can't read cursive, she can't, unfortunately. she weig she's what, 18, 19. but what did she tell you as best she could and maybe her english wasn't nebest, he language and speech a little colorful. i think she referred to me as that bald headed dude and other

phrases that describe other people? but did she speak the truth? because when you think of it, she was the person that was speaking to the victim. really, the conversation she had with the victim, nobody would know whether she was telling the truth or not other than her. we have the phone records that establish the it, there was no dispute they were talking. what i'm saying is she didn't have to -- she could have embellished. she could have lied about what the victim said and when she referred to the guy following him, that creepy guy when she said to him, he's probably a per vent or something. why is this guy following you? trayvon martin said, he's what? white ass, whatever cracker, whatever. she didn't color it. yeah. when she talked to the victim's mother she didn't use that language but she didn't come in here and lie to you about that. she could have and nobody would

have known the difference. it wasn't like her conversation was being recorded. but, see, her use of colorful language doesn't mean her testimony is less credible. just because she's not a highly educated individual. again, we have records that establish that that conversation took place. so there's no dispute about that. those records are up there. let's talk about she spent hours on that witness stand. why? i guess attempt to discredit her in some way. you decide whether she was telling the truth. disregard what she said because her family's from haiti, because she isn't sophisticated and because she can't read cursive, unfortunately? i mean, is that what you should

do? i don't think the instructions are going to tell you that. you could decide, well, she's not very educated. i don't think she a's -- i'm no saying that you will -- but, i mean, why do we take so long in asking her questions? because we're trying to get to the truth, both sides. but i think the other witnesses, i guess, were maybe more sophisticated and didn'tx hours. anyway, you decide. but did what she say comport or match up with the evidence that the other people were talking about? i would submit it did. i mean, think back. it happened a while ago. think about what she said, what she said trayvon martin said. isn't it consistent with the eviden evidence? i mean, is there any dispute that this defendant profiled, my word, you can use whatever word

you want to use, but isn't it true that this defendant assume ed that trayvon martin was a criminal? i mean, he even tells the police that. isn't that consistent with what rachel jeantel tells you? didn't even the defendant, in his statements to the police say, yeah, the kid or however he referred to him, the guy, whatever, he's running away. didn't she say that? i had a dream a witness will be judged not only on the color of her personality, on the content of their testimony. just because she has a colorful personality and referred to me as a bald headed dude or whatever, that doesn't mean her story, her statements aren't accurate. was the evidence consistent with

what she said? wasn't she on the telephone with the victim? isn't it true the defendant was following the victim? didn't the victim attempt to get away? didn't the defendant confront the victim? i don't think the defense will admit that. the defendant, and the police didn't admit that. what did he say? oh, i was just looking for an address. oh, i was just looking for the street. oh. you were minding your own business and all of a sudden this victim you were following decided to attack you out of nowhere. she went a little further, i will submit. she warned the victim maybe he was a sexual pervert. again, colorful words were used by her to describe the defendant, in terms of what the victim had described the defendant as. i would submit to you that

that's an example that she's telling the truth. now, she did lie about the funeral and her age originally to the police, to me. to the mother. why? okay. she's guilty of that. she didn't want go have to see the body. she didn't want to deal with it and she lied to the mother of trayvon martin. so, you can disregard her testimony because of that. she lied about her age because she didn't want to come forward. maybe she realized that she might have to testify and people will find out she can't read cursive. unfortunately. we have the defendant's non-emergency call, no dispute

about that. that's recorded. i believe there might be a dispute as to whether the operator told him not to follow or not. you decide. what was in that recording? [ muted ] why was it necessary to say that under his breath? doesn't that kind of show, demonstrate what the defendant was feeling at the time? i mean, that wasn't information he was providing to -- the officer could identify him, was

it? why is he uttering that word? other than that's how he feels. the defense may get in here and tell you, oh, he was just angry. well, you decide. i would submit to you on behalf of the state of florida that's more than angry, frustration, ill will hatred you've made up your mind as a criminal and tired of these criminals committing crimes and my god, he's not going to get away. [ muted ]. >> tier, whsir, what is your na? >> why was it necessary to again utter the words f'ing punk?

if he hadn't already in his mind determined that he was a criminal, that trayvon martin was a criminal and he was not going to get away? recall the testimony in terms of the entrance and we talked about the fact there's only three streets. this is one. this is one that circles all the way around and another one. he claims to go in the street he comes in every day in and out, he claims to not know that street. ladies and gentlemen, i will show you, in that interview with one of the interviews with the detective, in the car, leading up to it, he makes reference to the street name! then like a minute later, he's talking about, i don't know the name of the street.

he inadvertently let out he was aware of the street and that was a lie he told the police so it would justify why he is followi following, why he is profiling, why he is tracking a young man. again, that's a close-up where this happened right here. obviously a very well familiar with it. we've got some more exhibits for that. we have miss lauer's call, the 911 call and really, miss lauer, what did she say? she didn't see anything. she stayed inside. i think at some point in that phone call she's telling her husband to be -- they're married now, jeremy weinberg, jeremy, get -- get away from the window or do something, don't go out there. the bottom line is she recorded it. what did she say before the actual recording, before she

called the police, she heard something going on out there. see, this wasn't like the defendant claims out of the blue the victim kind of attacked him and knocked him to the go around and started beating him. no, this started, i would submit, further down, but it didn't start right at the tee, where the defendant claims it occurred. miss syrdyka, you heard from her, too. you have the vantage point in terms of where her place was. my recollection was she's got a cat, i think his name was leo, he was on the ledge and she was looking out and reading at some point she looked. she had a good vantage point. she did observe something. what did she tell you? in her opinion, based on what she saw, she thought the bigger man was on top.

and she told you that the voice she heard, she thought was of a child versus an older person. is she an expert? had she ever heard these voices before? no. she's just telling you what she believes, just like you've had a bunch of other people come in and say that is george zimmerman voice and that is trayvon martin's voice. you decide. she told you, as best she could, what she observed. what's consistent in terms of what she observed and what happened. because, see, the issue is, at that time, when there was contact between the defendant and the victim, did it occur as the defendant claims? first of all, you'd have to believe he really wasn't following you and kind of minding his own business, she was going out for a walk. his walk got interrupted because some guy attacked him. you've got to believe it. you've got to believe he wasn't following anybody, he wasn't up

to do anything, he was just kind of minding his own business. as he was walk back, the victim, for some reason, decided to go attack him. you have to have that assumption. it has to be accurate. you have to assume the victim just hit him and knocked him to the go around and started beating him and poor defendant, poor george zimmerman, he just kind of took it, boomer esiason, just getting whammed over and over. he never did anything. compare the sizes. then, oh, at the last moment, he was able to take out that gun, his concealed gun and was able to shoot him. you had the testimony of john good, did call 911, in terms of when his call was made.

i think in opening statements the defense told you th that -- represented to you he is the eyewitness. he is the crucial eyewitness. he's the only eyewitness. i beg to differ, but again, what's important is what you think. let's talk a little bit about john good. what did john good tell you? he saw what he believed was the victim on top of the defendant. now, he did not see the shooting. he saw prior to the shooting. i would submit to you when you kind of put all the witnesses together, that there wasn't just like the defendant knocking the victim down to the go around and staying on top of him and beating the hell out of him, i submit to you there was contact between them, that there was a fight, there was a struggle. ironically, of the two, one of the individuals is the one that's had, what, 18 months mma

fighting? oh, but, of course, he's just a pudgy overweight man. is the think what mr. pollack said. he really didn't progress beyond the first level. he's the one that had mma training of some type. anyway, they interacted and rolled around and fought. but, again, you can't just take that in a vacuum. why did this occur? what led up to this? at the time of the shooting, was it necessary to shoot him? the defense is going to parade the photographs of the injuries. i don't think i needed to show you the one photo that counts, do i? the me photo?

whether suffer who suffered the most serious injury of all? you heard from miss b-- i apologize, mr. good. he saw a struggle out there. he saw a victim he believes was a victim based on clothing description. didn't know him, on top of the defendant and saw the victim doing something to the defendant. originally said it was mma style but when asked specifically did you see blows? no. i saw movement there, he may have been hitting him. i don't know. what's important about what mr. good told you? he sotold you he could not see e defendant's hands. so did the defendant have the gun out at that point? was he trying to get it out? and was trayvon martin at that point, which is about what 25, 30 seconds or so before the shooting, was he trying to protect himself from that gun?

is that what the struggle was about? at some point this defendant had the gun? the defendant claims, at the very end, right before, unfortunately he had to shoot the victim, that the victim grabbed the gun unfortunately for him, the truth comes out and refutes what the defendant said. recall the testimony of the dna? there wasn't any on the gun. recall what he told his best friend, mr. osterman, 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, the victim had grabbed the gun, not the holster, grabbed the gun. excuse me. in fact, mr. osterman told you

he wrote a book about it, with his wife. you were told by miss bahadoor or miss syrdyka heard something like no. i think that kind of matches up with what rachel jeantel told you, about like get off of me or something to that effect. again, you all took great notes. i'm sure you paid attention to when the witnesses were up there, so i'm not going to cover every little minor point. but it's consistent with what rachel jeantel told you. and she described, my recollection, was that she described she lives right here at 2841, she described movement this way. was the victim headed home, as miss jeantel told you? i need know you the bigger one now. you know what's ironic?

is recall even the defendant from the defendant's own mouth they always got away and this exit over here, the other exit. the victim, you might recall, was staying right here. was he headed there? did the defendant kind of cut him off? it's consistent with what miss bahadoor told you, in terms of her back, left to right. what did she see? she saw them struggling. that is the defendant and victim struggling upright. the defendant claims that trayvon martin is she strongest guy in the world -- is the strongest guy in the world because he grabbed him and transported him what, 30 yards? you saw the pictures. i'll talk about the diagram. he claims he pushed him, pulled him all the way over here. recall where the items are in connection to where the victim

ended up? the manalos, i'll talk to you about what they observed, or didn't observe. my recollection is miss manalo said the bigger person was on top. they made a big issue in cross ch examining her, you saw some photographs on tv and it showed trayvon martin playing football, a football uniform. yeah. that's true. i still think the person on top was the bigger person. now, she didn't see the shooting. my point is that there was a fight there, there was a struggle, at some points, it appe appears, based on the evidence the defendant was on top and some points the victim was on top. struggling, wrestling, whatever

you want to call it. why did it occur? why did it occur? if you believe he's an innocent man, you believe the victim decided to come up and just smack him. smack the defendant and the defendant fell on the go around and the victim started beating him up for -- we don't kn know -- but for some reason. and that the defendant really wasn't following him, the defendant really was just kind of walking back to his car. the defendant was truthful when he was telling the police that he was trying to find out what the address was or trying to find out what that street name was. i apologize, mr. manalo told you he went outside, within seconds, i think it was like 20, 30 seconds. when he stepped outside, he observed the defendant and he said -- he thought the defendant was beaten up. he said the defendant was doing

something, acting, and then he said he asked him about the phone and talking about calling his wife. that's when he made that remark, just tell her i killed him or i shot him. you might be thinking, hold on, if there was a fight, if there was a struggle, how does that factor in? wel well -- and who started it? who was following who? who was chasing who? who had the right, if they were being chased? does the defendant have the right to self-defense -- i'm sorry, does the victim? when he's being chased by this person? you'll hear the facts in this case and you'll hear, in terms of whether the defendant was chasing him or not.

it was dark out there, no dispute about that. it was raining. no dispute about that. that's what these photographs show. it shows the distance from one -- the sidewalk or dog walk to where the body was. it shows where several items were. you've got the diagrams and you've got the photographs. one thing i would submit that these photographs show is the absence of blood on that sidewalk. the other big thing is if the defendant was really having his head bashed in, as the -- he claims to the police, and he has some injuries to the back of his head. we'll talk about that but i think they were what, centimeters or less, why isn't his jacket all torn up or at

least scratched up, if he was being picked up over and over, why is his jacket all right? the back of his jacket? you think about that? or is he exaggerating what happened? and that was the key ring and that's the one that was still on. state's exhibit 10 shows another angle in terms of the evidence out there. in terms of there apparently was some slope. we'll talk about the significance of that because based on what the defendant told poli police. this is showing state's exhibit 15, the body was covered up. that's the other flashlight the defendant had. i think he's told the police had stopped working or something. if you want to, check again his statements to the police. was he carrying it in one hand? why was he carrying it in one hand? i guess he took it out there to

see, track down trayvon martin, and then it just stopped working so he didn't put it in his pocket. i guess he was carrying it in his hand. that's the victim's phone, no dispute he was talking on the phone and the attempt to save his life, he was turned over. i show you that photograph because i want you to focus on this. he was speaking on the phone. he had earplugs, whatever you call them. state's exhibit 22 is a close-up of where the gunshot was and also this photograph button. one thing i'd suggest to you might be important to note on that, there was a big deal made about the jacket or hoodie or sweatshirt, how it had to be

consistent with the can and had to do that. that button might have to do something with the way that sweatshirt is kind of hanging. it's a little big on him, but also that might affect the angle how much it's sticking out, the sweatshirt, you decide. state's exhibit 23. why is that important? see any blood on the victim's hands? state exhibit 24, do you see any blood on his hands? is there any dispute the defendant's mouth, nose -- i'm sorry, he had some blood on it? how come there isn't any blood on the victim's hands? because the argument was made or suggested to you in temps of the cross-examination of the medical examiner. he had to wash his hands. y'all didn't know what you were doing there. right at the scene, where was the blood?

the other interesting thing is, i would submit to you, based on the evidence, i don't know what you call this, i don't know if it's a drawstring or what, why is one of them a lot longer than the other one? was the defendant maybe pulling on that, as the victim was trying to back out? it's ironic, see how one is pulled all the way down? and which side is it on? state exhibit 29 shows some of the other exhibits out there. state's exhibit 33. i put this in here because i thought and we talked about it, believe it came out during the testimony there's a street address right there. that's where the defendant claimed he didn't know a, the street name, or couldn't find an address, even though he's lived out there four years, he takes his dog out there, dogs out

there to walk but he doesn't know that there's streetstree s addresses. this isn't a neighborhood where the houses are different, this is cookie cutter, they're all the same and he didn't know the address out there and why he had to walk that long distance to find the address or street for the police. state exhibit 36, those are daytime photographs in terms of what happened out there. state exhibit 76, there's been a big issue about that photograph. shows how the defendant was bleeding. i believe mr. manalo took that photograph. why was the blood still on there and why would the blood not be on the victim's hands? interesting, too, the direction of the blood. we'll talk a little bit about that. in terms of what happened.

state's exhibit 77, mr. manalo, before the police got out there. where are the victim's hands? but under his body? what did the defendant claim to you? he used police jargon in terms of suspect and the police, of course, they always spread out the arms, hands, to make sure there's no weapon there. he's trying to tell police what happened is he was squared at one point i thought he had something in his hands and i was checking for that weapon. that's what i was doing. seems consistent with the physical evidence out there. the defense may argue, hold on, didn't dr. di maio say you could take out a person's heart and could live for 15 seconds and the person could walk and do all this stuff? you take out his heart and the moves them and spreads out his hand and taking more blood pumping out. the victim happens to lift himself up and put the hand

underneath? i don't know. you decide. why did he have to say that? because it's part of him wanting to be a cop. that's what police officers do. even when they shoot somebody, they usually handcuff them, even if the person is dead, they handcuff them just for security purposes. the other interesting thing is you recall the flashlight the defendant had in terms of relation to where the body was? again, the photograph, state's exhibit 79 that was shown, i think a few witnesses out there and state's exhibit 80, two photographs shown out there tak taken. the defendant's gun, do you recall what we heard about that, from an expert regarding dna?

swab from the pistol grip matches the defendant. and trayvon martin's excluded. that's inconsistent with what the defendant claimed to mr. osterman. told the police he was going for the gun. the gun. the gun. grabbed the gun, and no determination made. and the holster. you have also the victim in this case. no dna results for trayvon martin at all, so the victim in this struggle the defendant had with him when he was basically trying to kill him or shut him up so he couldn't speak, where did all the blood go? where did all the defendant's blood go?

while we are on that subject, the defendant claims he was the only one yelling out there. so, all the cries for help were only him. you have to decide whether it was him or trayvon martin or both of them. had to be one of them or both. but if he is yelling and is down and has all this blood and swallowing the blood, how is he able to too all that? and why is there consistent -- yells, help, help, help. why is it muffled? why is he able to yell if the defendant claims the victim was -- how is he going to talk? or is he lying about that? i would submit to you, it's another lie. you saw what the hoodie jacket was checked, and there's no --

in exhibit there. to demonstrate to you how thorough the investigation was in terms of the florida department of law enforcement doing their thorough analysis of the case in terms of the evidence. -- >> you're ready to take a break? we'll take 15-minute reassess, ladies and gentlemen, plead but your note pads on your chair and follow the deputy back into the jury room. >> you heard it, 15-minute recess. we have been listening to the closing arguments of the prosecutor, bernie de la rionda, making the final points he would like the jury to hear and understand about the defend, george zimmerman in a nutshell what the prosecutor was saying is that if zimmerman had followed followed trayvon martin that night, trayvon martin would still be alive, and said that

george zimmerman falsely profiled trayvon martin. i want to bring back in our legal panel. doug burns, former federal prosecutor, and the judge alex. what do you become the prosecutor? >> they came out dramatizing the death and pausing, this young man died, and they had to do that. but on the core issue, the only thing they have to work with is he somehow followed him and the reality is, and i've been saying this all along, just because he may have followed him does not preclude him from using self-defense if he was met with serious force. >> i agree with you in that it's still fairly weak but a the have a theme. a frustrated cop, a wannabe cop. hatred. he talked about, didn't just happen that one instance, this horrible thing. it had been planned because zimmerman was profiling martin.

>> not martin you mean there were burglaries in the neighborhood -- >> exactly. had it in mind. this frustration, and he said he's tired of criminals committing these crimes, and repeated the expletives to the jury, zimmerman was ready to unleash his anger. >> judge? >> actually it's interesting that the defense in this case requested from the judge a specific instruction on provocation. they wanted the judge to tell the jury that following is not illegal and that's important because there is a case where the a conviction was reversed because the jury did not receive -- were not told what provocation is. >> the point the judge is making, is that they're arguing something rhetorically that isn't support evidence by the objective law. one thing he said, he trapped

him. because at least that sort of like criminal negligence. >> he acted on the assumption. that was the people. >> i don't find that powerful. >> the whole idea of telling the jury, he profiled this guy as a criminal. jurors are people. people profile. i'm not talking racial profile. you see somebody coming out of your neighbor reside house through a window, your say that's a burglar. >> they're arguing it's more than a profiling. the words, this one is not going to get away. >> the judge said following are ore profiling begs the question, on whose part. >> doesn't negate self-defense. >> something the prosecution tried to throw in the face of the mel examiner, -- dimaio, and they said, you don't know who threw the first punch, and i

thought, that's funny, you don't either. >> in this closing argument do you think that the prosecutor is making it more digestible. >> trying to. started out with the theme. dead for no fault of his own. starting out with a very nice soft theme, appealing to these women jurors, and then coming back and forth, and peppering through witnesses and use your common sense, use your common sense, ploy that all prosecutors use. >> this is not powerful closing argument. they are saving their best for last. >> rebuttal. >> the defense cannot respond. >> i heard you say you predict we'll hear the defense and then the rebuttal possibly tomorrow. >> in the morning. >> and then overneath in order -- >> to prepare. >> that's what the judge said. >> well, doug, thanks so much. it's great to see you. judge alex, thanks for your expertise, and thank you for

watching today. i'm in for megyn kelly. "studio b" with shepard smith right after this short break. [ male announcer ] this is kevin.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

>> shepard: breaking news at 3:00 in new york city and in florida, where closing arguments are resuming in the george zimmerman murder trial after morning of the surprise when the defense accuse the prosecutor of showing a last-minute curve ball. when the closings resume we'll join them and not interrupt them with commercials. while they're in recess, earlier today the state asked to charge george zimmerman with murder in the third degree. the court defines that as unintentionally killing a person while committing a felony. prosecutors said the felony was child abuse. talk about a curve ball. trayvon martin was 17 years old. the defense? listen to this.