as the medical examiner. really actually a decision, he was the one who did the autopsy. is although there was some -- so although there was some interaction there that might have been best been redone, the reality was the injuries were the only injuries we know about on trayvon martin and that the wet clothes should not have been, should not have been bagged in paper and that the hands should have been bagged, and we'll talk about the hands in a little bit. ms. zimmerman told you that it was her son as, i'm sure, you expected before she ever got on the stand. jorge mesa, interesting because that was unplanned by him, it would seem, if you believe his testimony sitting at a computer listening and then hearing the background voice that he knew without question and immediately to be that of his nephew, george zimmerman. i think it came across very credibly.

i think he came across a man of his oath, of his word, and i would ask you to consider the testimony in that regard. mark osterman, buddy of his, talked about the weapon used, how you holster a gun. he's good at what he does. he was helping george figure out how to fire a gun. son da osterman, friend, definitely george zimmerman screaming for help. and explained away some of what the state was trying to prove ty call about the anger and hatred and all that that just isn't there. same thing with ms. geri russo, same thing with leanne benjamin, that was george zimmerman. john donnelly was interesting because i'm not sure that i could if i had thought about trying to figure out who in the

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

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

doubt always goes to my client's benefit. adam pollock, animated, good guy. george is soft, he's a 1. i don't care that he's been here for a year. i'm not sure i actually would have advertised that i trained george zimmerman for a year and brought him from a .5 to a 1, but he did. not a fighter, so this mma, you know, george -- i think the state said it was 18 months of george's mma training. really? come on. really? in height of the testimony -- in light of the testimony of the trainer who said i wouldn't even let him do anything but shadow box for fear the shadow might win? and hit a bag. tracy martin we talked about. chief bill lee, he was there for the whole part of it, but most importantly, he was the officer who said whatever you do,

separate them. don't infect witness testimony with other witness testimony. it is cop 101. i understand the sensitivities of the family members listening to the possible voice of their son and definitely the gunshot that ended their son's life, but law enforcement, ongoing investigation, just put them in one at a time. the way it was handled infected the evaluation of that testimony horribly. and who gets the benefit of that? george zimmerman. mr. demayo, just a grandfather. he's done this his whole life. came in and gave you some really good information about everything having to do with gunshotsful really because he failed and refused to go beyond gunshots even when, i think, we tried to take him a little bit, and said no.

the sate tried to and he said, no. i'm good at what i'm good at, and what he's good at is gunshot wounds and suggesting that it made perfect sense that the -- [inaudible] does it make anything less than perfect sense as to what happened? it's in there, and he's laying over. and his loose, billowing shirt falls forward. and he gets shot, and it's contact to the fabric. it is not pressed against the chest. i think that will play in opening statement had been dismissed. and it was 4 inches from his chest. as it turns out which other forensic evidence is very

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

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

through. where's that piece of evidence? where is one shred of evidence to support the absurdity that they're trying to have you buy? one. mr. guy can tell you about it when he closes, if it's there. assumption, supposition, could have been. bonaparte, just part of the absurdity of how this thing happened with the phone call -- with the tape. i don't think it matters too much. ms. delagarde, nice lady, didn't want to bring her here sick. george zimmerman, saw him that night, saw him beat up. then hit the light voice, and it sounded like it was his voice. dennis root, now we have

prosecutors attacking -- sort of impeaching lifetime law enforcement officers who have dedicated their life to the pursuit of perfection in law enforcement. perfection. my god with, he's trained in everything. he takes something on, he becomes a trainer. and now we have the state impeaching him. well, hold on a second here. could have been this way, right? not really. well, let me ask you this question, mr. guy says. at that moment george zimmerman's desire to shoot trayvon martin, what other options did he have? none. he had none from a use of force expert who's been doing this his entire career and who has become

proficient in assisting others in learning how to use force, learning how not to use force, learning when to use force. and they asked him the question of whether or not george zimmerman had alternatives. the el me the piece of evidence -- tell me the piece of evidence that contraindicates that. just give me one. give me a shred of evidence that contradicts that he had my other option. because now we have an expert who's qualified who gave you that opinion. dismiss it if you want. the judge will tell you just because they're experts doesn't mean it's gospel, that you have to listen to them. but if you believe him, if you think he's well qualified enough

to give an opinion, if it's an area of unquirely which will -- inquirely which will help you, then accept it. ms. bertalan, i hope it does not come across that i was just seeking sympathy for this woman, but the reality is i think when you put a face on what was happening at retreat view, she's it. she really is. because thank god nobody came upstauers. -- upstairs. i'm not sure the scissors would have really helped. gnaw ooh's the face -- but that's the face. and i'll tell you this, i'll give you that much, that's the face of their frustration that i think george was feeling a little bit of, you know? that's something that he wanted to help out with. that's why he walked over and didn't say i'm going to go kick their butt.

no that's why he said here's a lock for the back of your door, here's my telephone number and here's my wife's number. need our help? this is what we do. we help. you know? he said it early, i give him this much, he said it right away. he went down to spd, sanford police department, they put him under oath and said, okay, now, you're under oath. you've got to tell the truth. is that your son? yeah. we talk about a few other points, if i might.

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

where's the anger? where does it show up on the hands? state 28. gunshot wound. see the blood trickling down and across the chest? see that 3-inch swath of blood all the way over there? state 95, it's gone. not there. yet everybody who handled that body said they didn't touch it or they didn't wipe it. and they say, well, that was when we moved the sweatshirt up and put it back down and the blood is all gone. let's not forget the blood was there after they moved the sweatshirt up, so why wasn't it there if they moved it down? and it was actually still oozing

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

considered about that event. a couple of graphics. george zimmerman the way he was. trayvon martin the way he was. now let's do it life size. [background sounds] >> trayvon martin that night, he was wearing shoes, i have to show you, he had the hoodie on. the top of the hoodie, this is from the picture that we showed you. it's not in evidence. just have you look at it.

don't even have to believe it's accurate. just take a look at it. remember how much taller i was than andrew gaul when i was standing next to him, and he testified that he was 5-10. and then there's george zimmerman. look how tall he is. take a look at him compared to my eye height. george, can you stand up for a minute, please? [inaudible] have to look at and determine in a self-defense case. so you look at this guy that night, don't look at him today as to how much weight he gained.

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

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

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

the big picture is what happened. and it's supported by -- [inaudible] you know, we talked a moment ago about ignoring george, but you know what? listen to him. find inconsistencies, take into context of what he was going through that night and how voluntarily he gave all of those statements and decide whether or not as dennis root said, as chris spend serino said, as i believe singleton said, if anyone is giving the same exact story twice, they're probably lying. they're probably pathological liars. because when you lie, i guess since you're making up a

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

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

it defies explanation. what doesn't defy eczema nation are things -- explanation are things like this. the mud on the knees of the mounting. what doesn't defy explanation is tim smith, officer tim smith's testimony that george zimmerman's back was wet, more wet than in the front, and that he had grass all over his back. evidencing, i would pose to you, he was on his back in the grass. he was get withing beat up. getting beat up. manalo, tim smith, wagner, everybody else who saw those injuries. okay. you don't get graphic, but you

do still get me going over some of the instructions with you. reasonable doubt. what is it? can't tell anyone. judge has read it to you a couple of times, you're going to get it again. reasonable doubt, don't start with the premise, presumption of innocence sticks and stays until it is taken away by evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that it is no longer appropriate to consider mr. zimmerman innocent. then and only then do you get to convict my client anything. a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt because you've got to make it up. that's not a reasonable doubt. we talked about me proving my case as though i had to. it's not a speculative doubt or a imaginary doubt or a forced doubt.

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

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

perception, for example, if somebody came in wasted off their minds, it would give them less credibility. we don't have that here, you have to look at it and decide. if you had an opportunity to see what they're talking about. did they have an active memory? and we know that memory's affected by traumatic events. i think ms. srdyka was a permit example of that. she was frantic. and i think it may have impacted on her ability to recall. not calling her anything but a person affected by the circumstances. were they honest and straightforward? if i would put up on that pedestal ms.-- [inaudible] as whether or not she presented in a way that made some sense. just seemed to be saying what's your memory and very willing to show you. did they have an interest in the outcome? well, let me tell you something, when george zimmerman gave those statements to law enforcement, he didn't know et, i don't

think -- it, i don't think, didn't seem normal that he would have ever been charged in this case, but in his mind at that time i imagine you could say that he had an interest in telling the story for himself. so, sure. was he interested in the outcome? absolutely. people trying to take away his liberty? absolutely. consider that when you consider those statements as well. and does the witness' testimony agree with other testimony? that's the global view. dennis root kept saying to you, well, you have to look at it in the totality of the circumstances. don't just give me one sheet and say, well, what do you think now? i want to read everything i can. that's that totality of the circumstances. so rules for you to deliberate earned, and here they are.

the case must be decided upon the ed. sort of -- evidence. sort of makes sense. but i started doe, two and a half, three hours ago. i started with the idea that you need to be very careful not to do the assumptions that you might otherwise do at the state's request. it is only the evidence and the witnesses that you can look towards for that. upon the evidence that you've heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of exhibits, all that really means to you is though you can bring your common sense, don't bring your assumptions, don't bring your presumptionings, and don't sit back and just go i really think that guy's not going cut in front of me as i drive to work today. you don't have that luxury in a criminal courtroom. you don't. you only get to decide upon what you are certain of, something that you do not have a reasonable doubt about. don't do it because you feel

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

better, at least different. at least unique. jury should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy. must be based on the evidence in the law, period. and the young will tell you what the -- the judge will tell you what the law is. and now we'll talk for a moment about self-defense. because we've talked all around it, and let's tell you exactly what the judge will instruct you as to what it is. a person is justified in using deadly force, force like that'll cause death, if he reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. there are alternatives. death or great bodily harm, whether or not george reasonably believeed, reasonable fear of great bodily harm. he doesn't have to think he was going to die. he does not have to think he was going to die.

he does have to in this think tt he was going to be injured greatly. and the alternative if either matches, it's been met. in deciding whether or not george zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances which he was surrounded with at the time the force was used. the moment of using the force what was happening. the danger facing george zimmerman may not have been actual. now, getting beat up sort of takes that out of context, but it doesn't have to be actual. in effect, i guess a knife coming after you could be rubber as long as you perceive it to be steel. or the next blow of a fist could be a fake one, but as long as you perceive it to continue to o

be blow upon blow upon blow down upon you, that's enough. the danger george zimmerman may not have b deadly, however, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under those circumstances, reasonably and prudent and cautious person under those circumstances -- you've got to put yourself, in effect, in the mind of what george zimmerman was going through, the circumstances that he was going through and then decide yourself whether or not a reasonably and cautious person you under those circumstances would have believed the danger could only be avoided for the use of that force. based upon appearances, george zimmerman must have actually believed the danger was real. in considering self-defense -- and, again, it's called justifiable use of deadly force, we shorthand it to self-defense -- you may take into account the physical

abilities and capacities of george zimmerman and trayvon martin. if your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find george zimmerman not guilty. and let me show you what that means in layman's terms, because i don't like the fact that i'm trying to prove to you a double negative. just seems awkward. if you have a republican doubt on the question of -- reasonable doubt on the question of whether or not george zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not he was justified in the use of deadly force, he's not guilty.

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

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

that they decide not to give you the six emergency or nonemergency calls. they should have just to be complete. but whatever. i don't know, you know, the fact that i had to call tracy martin to have him testify to that when it's the state's case, i guess that they didn't have to do that. but if they're really seeking justice, why have me do it? why not even have serino testify? why did i have to have him testify that tracy martin say it wasn't his son? why did i have to have singleton testify? is certainly, they're available to me, and i get it. and i guess if i can do it, the state doesn't have to. except, no, it really and always will be their burden, not mine. did he tell you about all the other burglaries that happened at retreat view? i did. they haven't highlighted them but, trust me, they're there.

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

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

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

teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. that was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fists to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. -- [inaudible] self-defense be, but great bodily injury against george zimmerman. and the suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon, that that can't hurt somebody, that that can't cause great bodily injury is disgusting. [background sounds]

>> even if we presume rachel jeantel was completely accurate in whichever version of what she first heard happened you want t. let's just for a moment presume that we had that on audiotape. let's just say they were recording the phone call, and you heard her voice -- you heard george's, george zimmerman's voice on the tape that said what are you doing around here? what did mr. root say about that? what did the only expert that talks about the evolution of force be tell us? well, you say something like that, i might say whatever i want or who are you to ask or what do you mean or get out of my face. but dennis root didn't say that the appropriate response is to

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

the state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, you have no doubt in your mind that my client is guilty of anything. i really -- you get hypnosis, you say you think you say the right things when you're a lawyer, so within that context i really think i may have convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. zimmerman is innocent. but, of course, that has nothing to do with it. the state will get up and finish in just a couple minutes, and they will tell you he's a liar again. mr. de la rionda spent most of his time convincing you that my client lied. but here's the standard. you go back there.

first thing you might want to consider doing, if you have a reasonable doubt that my client may have acted in self-defense. go back there and say to yourself let's just forget the crime, let's just talk about self-defense. do we think he might have acted in self-defense? not convinced. have some doubt. have some concern. that he just may have acted in self-defense, and if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. you really do. why? because self-defense is a defense to everything. to littering, to speeding, to battery, if it mattered to grand theft, to assault, to manslaughter, to second-degree. you go no further than the

determination that the state now that we're done. i'm saying it because of the facts of the case. you have to say i have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the state convinced me he didn't act in self-defense. that's all you have to do. don't have to write innocent on the bottom of the verdict form. we don't go anywhere near those in this courtroom. the state never, ever loses their responsibility to take away reasonable doubt from you. don't let them do it with innuendo, with sympathy, don't

let them do it with yelling, don't let them do it screeching. because none of that matters. we have a definition of reasonable doubt, and now you do. you look at that definition, you go back to that room and say let's talk first about self-defense. if i think george zimmerman acted in self-defense, we are done. so thank you for the time. thank you for the attention. again, we talked about weight at the beginning, an amazingly difficult task that we've asked you to take on. and we often have had jurors who, a couple of whom we had to wake up on occasion. you're certainly not those. the note taking and the interest, it's been apparent. i appreciate the time, my client does, the state does, i'm sure, the court does and seminole county does because you've given us what we needed from you which is your attention.

i want one more thing from you. i want you to really, really rook at those -- hook at those instructions, alie them and say he acted in self-defense, find him no guilty, let him go back and get back to his life. thanks. >> thank you, mr. o'mara. ladies and gentlemen, do you want a brief break before mr. guy gets some -- let's go ahead and take a ten minute recess. please follow deputy jarvis back into the jury room. put your note pads face down. jenna: well, the defense concludes its case in this three week trial as george zimmerman, the man on your screen there, and you heard it from the judge, a ten minute break, and then the prosecution has time to come back with its own rebuttal. and we believe that'll last just under an hour. so we have about ten minutes until that begins. but george zimmerman, his lawyers just making the case for his incidence -- >> in recess for ten minutes. jenna: you heard it, recess for

ten minutes. phil keating's outside the courthouse in sanford, florida be, so, phil, just catch us up on what's transpired over the last few hours. >> reporter: well, the ending by mark o'mara, zimmerman's attorney, flourishing with drama as he brought out that heavy chunk of concrete to bring out to this jury's attention that was a weapon that they claim trayvon martin was using against george zimmerman. to say that he was unarmed, just with skittles and a soft drink, mark o'mara saying that's disgusting. that's not what it was, it was a 17-year-old kid who sprang from the darkness, who ambushed george zimmerman, attacked him, punched him in the nose, broke the nose and was bashing his head into the sidewalk, into that concrete, forcing, forcing zimmerman -- who e said had no choice but to use self-defense. the morning began with mark o'mara beginning his presentation very gently, very

casually and conversationally, a folksy manner as opposed to the fiery moments bernie de la rionda, the prosecutor yesterday. so george zimmerman there standing up next to mark o'mara. tried to humanize his client, the defendant here charged with second-degree murder, who really has pretty much just sat there across the room from the jury this entire three week trial. pretty much not making many expressions. finally, mark o'mara got to show this jury that computer animation he tried so hard to get into the trial earlier this week, but the judge wouldn't allow it except for losing arguments as a demonstrative exhibit, so they saw that computer animation clearly showing trayvon martin throwing the first punch. that's why prosecutors objected to it, because there was absolutely no evidence that that was exactly the way the whole altercation's claimanted in the beginning. so now we'll have a short rebuttal in about ten minutes by john guy with the state prosecutors, and then this afternoon the judge will give the jury their 27-page jury

instructions which include second-degree murder as well as manslaughter or, as mark o'mara argues, they should find him not guilty based on a preponderance of evidence of self-defense. jenna: we'll look forward to the prosecution's defense. phil, stand by. back to phil as news warrants. but we're going to talk a little bit more about what we saw over the last few hours. jon: let's get, i guess, an expert's take on what's gone on this morning. arthur aidala joining us now. fred tease is also former -- tecce is also joining us, and susan constantine, a jury consultant. i've heard a little bit here in the studio as we've been watching the summations from fred and arthur. susan, i want to go to you first. this is an all-female jury. all right, we don't have susan just yet, so we'll get back to her in a minute. arthur, your take on the, what we have heard so far from mark o'mara. >> are -- so as great as the

defense was, in my opinion, at putting their case in and knocking the defense's case out during direct examinations and cross-examinations, and as much praise as i give them for that, they did not live up to that standard in their opening statements and their closing statement. i believe mr. o'mara, everyone eat got a different -- everyone's got a different style, and you've got to be yourself, but he gave a lecture to a law school class. he didn't give advocacy. he didn't give a passionate argument as to why his client should be found not guilty beyond -- because there's tons of reasonable doubt. he said things like, well, whatever, and this happened. no, that's not my style. his style may work, he knows those injuries, he's been with them in that room for three weeks. so, but it was not what i think the world was expecting when they woke up this morning to watch his closing arguments. jon: but, fred, as you know arthur is a fiery new york attorney. does that play well in a courtroom in sanford, florida?

>> well, he is a fiery new york attorney. but, you know, your job is to be an advocate. if you want to be a law school professor, go be a hall professor. when you tell the jury about reasonable doubt, you don't sit there and read from the jury instruction, you tell them, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence in this case to meet the standard of reasonable doubt. let me explain to you what reasonable doubt. could haves, would haves and should haves. again, these are all style itselfic things and, yes, he's there, and we're watching from, you know,1100 nautical miles away. but at the end of the day, your job is to advocate, and when you talk about would haves and could haves and should haves, i'd have gotten a black magic marker and a big piece of paper, and at the end i would have said they spell reasonable doubt, and i would have driven it home. jon: so you both seem to think the final presentation by the defense was lacking. let's go to susan con stand steven teen, she -- constantine. she's been in the courtroom for much of this trial.

susan, how did these closing arguments play with the jurors? >> well, you know, with mark o'mara he was slow, steady methodical all the way through, but at the very beginning, you know, his tone, his local tone was -- vocal tone was a little bit low, harold to understand sometimes. watching the jury, i felt that they felt the same way. most of them were somewhat deflated. i felt that looking at their facial expressions that their faces were kind of more melting off. you know, juror fatigue is taking over. there is only one juror who was e6 in the back that took periodic notes. but for the most part, everyone was laid back, heads tilted in a listening position. but you could tell that they're ready to go into deliberations. they've already made up -- all of them made up their minds. jon: you think so. well, it's an all-female jury, and i just wondered if you take a different approach with an all-female jury than you might with some men on it? >> well, and that's very true because what we looked at yesterday with the prosecution was that they were literally

yelled and screamed at, not so good, you know? but i think that the very beginning when mark o'mara started off, he was -- his misdemeanor was very soft, he was very likable, very approachable, very conversational. and i do think that tends to connect with a jury. but the problem being here, and it's not really necessarily a problem, it's just they're tired. you can see on their faces, you know, their faces are long, they're tired, they're ready to start deliberations and start to move on. jenna: and yet they still have more of a job to do. fred, back to you on this. we talked a little bit about the length of the closing argument by the defense. they took all three hours. talk to us a little bit about length versus content when you look at the defense, but also about the prosecution because they're going to come back in. are they going to take the full time? do they take just a few moments? what do they do? >> i'm a firm believer, and i live by the theory that less is more. you pick your theme, you drive home, and you make your important points. interesting, i read someplace

the other day that peoples' attention span is actually about six minutes. do i advocate a six minute closing in this case? no. i found, yes, he was thorough, but i found to march are's closing to be scrambling -- hammer it home. all he has to do one point of reasonable doubt, pick that one and really drive it home. that is -- jenna: kept your answers short so we keep the segment -- >> that's right. under 90 seconds. jenna: losing your viewership. arthur, your thoughts as well? in all my trials, i've never summed up for more than an hour, maybe an hour and five minutes, and i've been in trials much more tedious and complicated than this. i agree with fred. i think three hours is excessive, but it's been successful. everyone has a different style. they could get an acquittal in five minutes and fred and i look like two finish. >> exactly. [laughter] >> but i think he needed to be a little bit more animated and get those jurors awake a little bit. jenna: so, susan, you're nodding

your head. inside the courtroom, what did you think about the props that were used? the piece of cement. the big long boards, the cutouts. did that seem to be effective or add any value? >> yes. 61% of our jurors are visual. the more you connect with visual images that is a powerful statement. in the casey anthony trial, all those visual images that jose baez presented at very end is leaving a visual imprint in their minds. when they were showing the visuals the jury was starting to pick up. they weren't so bored. changing voice inflection after they came back from break and he was more fired up and not so focused and quiet and started engaging the jury. jon: originally the state of florida took a look at this coast, it wasn't the state the county took a look at this case.

decided under the stand your ground law george zimmerman should not be charged. only after hullabaloo and protests that the state stepped in, said yeah, we've got to prosecute this guy. i wonder based on arguments you've heard, which approach do you think was the correct one? >> well, it is interesting, jon. i say this all the time, when you're line prosecutor, your boss tells you go prosecute the case you prosecute the case. jon: right. >> what you saw the prosecution in the state's case did the best they could with what they had to work with, quite frankly it really wasn't enough. that is why the decision was made not to prosecute the guy. this is the manifestation. this is logical conclusion of that. jon: arthur, i've seen the photographs of the back of zimmerman's head. someone did that to the back of my head i would be in a world of pain, yet the prosecution is trying to say he didn't even need stitchs. >> i think both sides did the best they had. the trial is a quest for the

truth. we decided in this country to put the burden on the government. they have a higher standard. they have to put all the evidence in and meet the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. i just don't think the prosecutors had what it took under that narrow florida law, no duty to retreat when you're out in an open area. in new york, george zimmerman would have a duty, tried his best to get away. that is not the case in florida. i just don't think they have enough for six women to say yes, i mean, there is no way i could see them coming back on murder two. possibly manslaughter. that would be my opinion we call a compromise verdict. jon: susan, we talked about the defense attorneys and even prosecutors presentation in the courtroom and how they're being received and perceived by the jury. what about george zimmerman himself? >> well, you know when you look at george, i always said from the very beginning he looks like he is sedated. long eye closure.

darkening around the eyes. sadness in the mouth. depleted body language that says volumes but i don't believe the jury will look at him and find contempt or liking sarcasm or arrogance. i don't see that in george zimmerman. he doesn't portray that. i'm sure the jury is feeling the same thing. jon: our esteemed counselors were telling us as we watch the trial underway, had he been their client they would have him sitting up and not slouching so much, because at the center of this is a teenage boy who lost his life and they file like his body language is sort of suggesting that he doesn't care? >> well, that does but also too, you know, keep in mind that he is a shorter guy. so slouching back makes him a little bit smaller. >> that's a good point. >> that is a good point. i was esteemed guy saying that. putting that aside, it makes him look disinterested. jurors perceive things based on who they are and their life experiences.

yes, some jurors may read him exactly the way he is talking about but, you always worry about some juror reading him as being uncaring. that is what i worry about. one juror you always worry about. >> i like the idea, look small. look small. jenna: that is easy. we'll put you guys on all equal ground. for those viewers, joining us, fred, we have to get you ready to go. this is just after noon eastern time. we want to play a little sound what we heard the last few hours so we get an idea what the prosecution will come back and talk about. here is what mark o'mara said about george zimmerman and the description of him as a wannabe cop. take a listen to this. >> you can argue and the state will all you want that george wanted to be a cop and george's calls to law enforcement in the past just had some seething anger of buildup? but, don't assume it.

prove it? believe it. don't prove it? it just doesn't exist. and don't expect those dots if they're not connecting to you beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. jenna: we set ourselves up pretty good because now we'll hear from the prosecution before we get back to fred and arthur and susan as the court is back in session after the 10-minute recess. now the prosecution has its chance to come back and talk about what the defense presented to the jury. as you see in the court right now, just waiting for the prosecution to kind of get itself together. if i could just real quick, i'm hearing silence right now, arthur, what do you think the prosecution will come back and say to that type of description? >> they have to come out to be tight and strong and just highlight their strongest, strongest points. the points that they want to drive home. we know the jurors are tired. we know there is juror fatigue. we know they're losing attention span. attention span is waning. you have to come out and say, he was a wannabe cop. he should have stayed in his

truck. he knew what the address was. he didn't need to leave the truck to tell what the address is. the 911 operator told him not to do it. he didn't listen to anyone. he went out there. because of him he had this altercation and asking for jurors nullification. put law aside, look at moral values. if he hadn't done this trayvon benjamin martin would be here today and hold him guilty. jenna: the defense in their three-hour closing arguments that trayvon martin, in their words, was the one that made the choice to be violent. that is how they described this young man, fred. so now, again -- here's the judge. the judge nelson is back. let's listen in to see where we go from here. >> 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. in big 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. so if we really want to know what happened out there behind those homes, on that dark, rain any 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?

245's what was in george zimmerman's heart. and the defense attorney can make fun of the way i say it but it is not my voice that matters. it's yours. and we're about to hear from you. what does that say to you? was he just casually referring to a perfect stranger by saying f-ing punks. that doesn't evidence to you anything? that's normal language? or 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 timeline that was 10 feet long. and the only thing he skipped was those two words at the bottom of the screen, is the only thing. you think there was a reason for that? i 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 miss jeantel told you about? the witness who didn't want to

be here. the witness who didn't want to be involved? but the witness the witness, the human being that was on the phone on the phone with the real victim in this case, right trayvon martin, up until the time of his death. many 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 worst fear? that was trayvon martin's last

emotion. there is a old saying a great one though. 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 a man's soul, it was

the words from that defendant's mouth on that phone call. and if ever there was a question about who initiated the contact between that grown man and that child, it was again those defendant's word when he told sean noffke, just had the officer call me on my cell phone. and i will tell him where i am. george zimmerman was not going back to the car, or the clubhouse, or the mailboxes. and if there was ever any doubt about what happened, really happened, was it not completely removed by what the defendant said afterward?

all of the lies he told, all of them? 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, mattered, 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 do, see and call, none of us would be here. none of us. but 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 much. that is 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 and he would have waited for the police but that's

not what he had in his heart. trayvon martin may not have the defendant's blood on his hand 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, an 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 that defense 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 says what evidence is there that the defendant followed trayvon martin after he said okay? he challenged the state. well, i've got an answer. what happened after 19:13:43, when that defendant hung up with sean noffke and 19:15:44?

when rachel jeantel 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. when he, because he tells you exactly where he hung out. he's walking back in the direction of the t and i says, i got off the phone and i continued to my car. maybe, maybe 10 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, i don't have any audio clips for you, or video clips or charts or big, long, 10-foot long timelines. i'm asking you to use your common sense, use your heart, use what you know is real, use what you know you have heard and the law in this case. you know and for the defendant, it's kind of like their little

animation, the cartoon that they put up, everything they want you to think in this case starts from the t, just reich their-- 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 a book, the last chapter only, and you're 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 started a 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 245 right? i don't have all the fireworks on the animation but come back with me. come back with me to 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 he 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, 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's getting off of him, or he had backed up so far, on his legs that he couldn't hit him. 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 is self-serving. it is justification. it's false. >> the yelling. listen, please, please, listen to that tape again. jen lauer's 911 call. 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, flip 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 selling that loud and that long, would he have sounded the way he sounded on the recordings that you have? he wouldn't have been hoarse? he wouldn't have a strained voice if that was him yelling. really? that is why common sense is so important. this isn't a complicated case. it's a common sense case. and it's not a case about self-defense. it's a case about self-denial. george zimmerman's.

the common sense that tells you that if he was the neighborhood watch coordinator, not anyone, the coordinator, who had lived there for four years, he would 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 hand in his waistband, he would have never got out of the car. but 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. if trayvon martin was putting on such a blow, that little plastic, flimsy, kid's watch on his wrist, it 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 ear buds still have been in his ears if he was getting ready to attack somebody? really? and the most important one of all, the common sense that tells you in your everyday 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 tapes. listen to the walk-through and listen to the non-emergency call. sean noffke never said that. i told the police, i was going to meet them at my car. that is not what he told them. why? why lie about that? it is 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 10 section afterwards. it was two minutes. -- 10 seconds. trayvon martin covered his mouth and nose. really? you think, they want you to believe that the blood was washed off by incompetent medical examiners. but yet he told the police, not just the police, his best friend, you remember 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 pride under his fingernails? do you really think that's true? that was a lie.

concrete. you're kidding me. it's heavy. it's hard. if his head had 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, punch in the face. that would be it? was he injured? yes. was he injured seriously? not close, not close. i mean they can call their expert and show him all 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 lindzee folgate? he didn't have so much as a headache the next morning. not nausea. not vomiting. not a headache. and he didn't come to see me for treatment. he came for a note from work. it wasn't that bad. it wasn't bad at all. would trayvon martin's hand look like that? if he had been pummeling him? he said trayvon martin saw his gun. first of all, it was inside his waistband, inside. second of all trayvon martin's legs were covering it. he couldn't have got to it. trayvon martin couldn't have seen it. do you think for a second,

seriously, 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? i mean, mr. sta-puff, mr. softy, was going to be able to get a shot directly through the center of his chest with trayvon martin knowing that gun was there? fighting for his life? do you think that? why was it so important to say he spread his arms out? because he had to make trayvon martin menacing, violent, threatening. so i had to put his arms out. they weren't. they weren't. 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. only two you have to listen to, the walk-through, and the non-emergency. 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, came 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 he knew about it. stand your ground?

what's that? and let me suggest to you again, in the end, this case is not about standing your ground. it's about staying in your car. like he was talked 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 cornerstone principle, and expect you to absolve him his guilt. he changed his story. this is where he told detective singleton he first saw trayvon martin. and this is where showed him on the walk-through. watch the walk-through again. why did he lie about that?

why was it important that he came in through that cut, like everybody else had, he had told the police? that he came through the cut, because he had to make trayvon worse, had to make him worse, more men's nagging. that's why he lied. he told some people trayvon martin said one thing. and then it got worse. he told them he said something else. he reached for my gun. had to make it worse. so he told mark osterman, his buddy, no, he grabbed my gun. he told him between the hammer in the back. why? why is he doing this? told mark osterman he circled

the car at the clubhouse. told the police he parked it. he never circled his car. told some people he had his cell phone out. told other people that he was reaching for his cell phone. that is what he was taught. don't, don't be a vigilante. don't. see and call. see and call. don't get out. don't follow. don't pursue. don't try to detain. just call. just call. and they gave him a little special book. as the coordinator what not 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 on to his back, so he could breathe? , he just stood there and he 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. and who's responsible for the state not being able to ask trayvon martin to step forward so i could put my hand on his shoulder, wow, i would love to do that. who is responsible for that? and trayvon martin, is not, was not, will never be a piece of 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 attorneys asked you, do you understand, it's not like it. v? it was an important question because it's not. and now you know. it's not like it. v. where all the witnesses are well-dressed, well-educated, actors and actresses. there are no rachel jeantel's on csi. and they don't call. they don't call people like kristin benson who found nothing and a from time to time on the gun like "law & order." it is not like that in real life. in real life, we give you everything. the good, the bad, the

indifferent. when that defendant is entitled to a trial, he's entitled to a fair one, all of it. all of it. and now you have that. in hollywood they write it 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. if you get back there and don't like some.

witnesses if you don't like rachel jeantel. or shipping bao. or 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 that's why we're here. that is why the evidence is what it is but it is enough. with your common sense. it is 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. and 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?

well that's not his call and that's not my call. that's your call. and 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. because it is our burden, so indulge me please. a person justified using deadly force reason bring believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or grade bodily harm. they can put this picture up, you know. they blew it up for you. it is bigger than life-size. it's color. that's a fact. that's reality. that is what he looked like that

night. when you wipe the blood away, that is what he looked like. did that man, did that man, need to kill somebody? need to kill a teenager? they put up pictures of all the witnesses. they forgot that one. defense attorney said in his, well, ask yourself, if there's 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 the use of deadly force you must

judge him bit circumstances by the which he was surrounded and the type of force that 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. and when he shot him, he knew trayvon martin wasn't on top of him. so he could get his gun. under those circumstances, under our circumstances, did he really need to shoot? did very to shoot trayvon martin? no, he didn't. he did not. before i get to reasonable doubt, let me just go through a couple of in the time i have

remaining. now the defense mentioned to you, i wrote down a quote. he said innocence itself is no protection. exactly. it wasn't for trayvon martin. he said he could have gone home. the guy could have gone home. in the same he said 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 non-emergency call. i don't want to give out my phone number. why?

dennis root said there's no other option for the defendant. for everybody else there is. i mean he had to admit that he could have done other things but he said 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 the shot was fired, was from who? self-serving statements, from the defendant. that was his opinion based on that. and 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 asked, if he was guilty? why would he give any statements? why give so many? because he had to justify his actions and that's why it kept getting worse. by the time it got to mark osterman it was completely different. that is why he department increasing. that's why when he got to sean hannity, wow! it was god's plan by the time he got to sean hannity, it was god's plan.

the defense attorney mocked me. that's fine. because i say 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? reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt or speculative doubt, imaginary doubt or a forced doubt. that is kind of funny the way they do the instructions. they don't tell you what reasonable doubt is. they tell what you it is not. let me tell you that 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, well, maybe this happened, or couldn't this have happened? or if it possible this?

that's not a reasonable doubt. a reason ab doubt needs to be two things. it needs to be reasonable, common sense reasonable. and 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 this out for you, probably after the lunch break, if it doesn't go to one of those elements, it is not a reasonable doubt. a reasonable -- >> your honor, i apologize. i need to ininterrupt. approach the bench for a moment or i can state it out? into no. approach the ben. -- bench. jon: conference at the bench

among the lawyers. obviously an objection from george zimmerman's defense team to some of the presentation, the final rebuttal presentation by the prosecution in the george zimmerman case. the burden of proof lies with the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt second-degree murder which is what they are hoping to prove here. so they get the last word. jenna: how typical is this, fred? frred tecce is standing by watching these closing arguments, fred. we're getting near the end of the prosecution's rebuttal? >> i'll tell you, jenna, you always try not to object in someone else's closing or opening but you have to protect your clients legal rights. if there something made not illegal. you have to put it on the record. jenna: we'll listen back in. expect a few more minutes here from john guy of the prosecution. >> listen to the court when you get the law. this is what she will tell you. a non-reasonable doubt, something that is not reasonable, possibility, imaginary, doubt, forced doubt

must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty. let me just address one more thing with you before i close. and that was, it was brought up actually by the defense. it was brought up by the defense in their summation this morning and it was 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. and 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 2-year-old george zimmerman walking home in the rain with a

hoodie on to 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 is 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. this 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 the instructions read after lunch or like to have them read now and go to lunch? >> after lunch? >> after lunch? i will respect that. put your notepads down before you go to hundred. you admonish you are not to talk to the case amongst yourselves or to anybody else. you're not to read or listen to any newspaper, television reports or about the case. you're not to use an electronic device to get on the internet to do independent research about the case about people, places things or terminology. finally you're not to create any e-mails, text messages tweets, social networking blogs about the case. do i have those assurance you will abide by these instructions? thank you.

we'll be in recess until 2:00. if you would please put your notepads face down. jon: so winding down to the very last moments of the george zimmerman trial. there he sits, the man charged with second-degree murder and potentially lesser offenses, if the jury should so find. in the murder of trayvon martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed after the confrontation between the two of them in that complex. our legal guests are with us. arthur aidala, former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. and also frred tecce, also a former federal prosecutor. you heard the closing summations from both sides. which side, arthur, won the morning? >> wow, that's a tough question. you know, the defense in my opinion had more to work with. they had more substance on their side. as powerful as the prosecutor tried to be and i thought he was

by saying george zimmerman had hatred in his heart, i just don't think there's enough evidence there with him using a curse word, punks and, another curse word i don't think that's enough for six people to agree that someone who has hatred in their hearts. he did the best he could with what he had but i just don't know if the substance is there. jon: fred, same question? >> well, i agree with arthur. i actually think, as passionate as he was and i thought he did an excellent, excellent job, we were saying at break almost like he is playing a defense lawyer in the case and the defense lawyer was playing the prosecutor. i thought he overplayed his hand a little bit. but that is consistent with what little evidence he has. hatred in his heart based on what they say, i don't see enough. calling this trayvon martin a child is a little bit of a stretch. and he is trying to tug at people's heartstrings and, bottom line is, that the lady who holds up the scales of justice is blindfolded for a reason. you're supposed to put emotion

aside. jon: we will find out what jury instructions are. we will be back for that a bit later on and also the jury likely to get the case this afternoon. more coverage straight ahead.

... ... ... members of the american postal worker's union

handle more than 165 billion letters and packages a year. that's about 34 million pounds of mail every day. ever wonder what this costs you as a taxpayer? millions? tens of millions? hundreds of millions? not a single cent. the united states postal service doesn't run on your tax dollars. it's funded solely by stamps and postage. brought to you by the men and women of the american postal worker's union.

>> we'll get you back to florida as the news is there. outside of paris, france while we were on the air, a horrific train crash and from initial reports, the train was moving to fast and there was construction on the track. bottom line we confirm there are seven people dead in this accident. throw 50 people on the train and many, many injured and a lot of questions asked about what transpired in france in the holiday week.

>> it was a field day woke week and a lot of people on the rails. thanks for joining us. namerica live starts right now. >> we start with a fox news alert. three weeks and 53 witnesses, prosecution and defense are done and the jury is approximate to start deliberating a murder trial that began with a confrontation between two people and turned bo a debate on race and self defense. welcome to american live. i am allyson camerota in for megyn kelliy. a look in the courtroom. they said that trayvon martin had a right to defend himself that night. the defense attorney made his ch