Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Live Coverage of the George Zimmerman Trial

Aired July 12, 2013 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JOHN GUY, PROSECUTOR: I mean, Mr. Stay-Puft, 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?

Was why it so important to say he spread his arms out? He had to make him menacing, violent, threatening. He had to put his arms out.

They weren't. They were not. They were not. They were clutching the bullet wound on his chest.

The car? He had to make him sound menacing to justify what he had done. Listen to those tapes again. The walkthrough and the 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 about it. "Stand your ground," what's that?

Let me suggest to you, in the end, this case is not about standing your ground. It's about staying in your car like he was taught to do, like he was supposed to do, and he can't now cloak himself with the noble cause of a Neighborhood Watch coordinator, violate its cornerstone principle and expect you to absolve him of his guilt.

He changed his story. This is where he told Detective Singleton he first saw Trayvon Martin and this is where he showed him on the walkthrough.

Watch the walkthrough again. Why did he lie about that? Why was it important he came in through that cut like everybody else he had told the police?

He came through the cut because he had to make Trayvon worse, more menacing. That's why he lied.

He told some people Trayvon Martin said one thing and then it got worse. He told him he said something else. He reached for my gun. Had to make it worse.

He told Mark Osterman he grabbed my gun. He told him between the hammer and the back. Why? Why is he doing this? Told Mark Osterman he circled his car at the clubhouse. He told police he circled it where he parked. He never circled his car.

Told somebody he got his cell phone out and told other people he was reaching for his cell phone. That's what he was taught, don't be a vigilante. Don't. See and call. Don't get out. Don't follow. Don't pursue. Don't try to detain. Just call. Just call.

They gave him a little special book, as a coordinator, 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 onto his back so he could breathe? He just stood there and watched and he waited while Trayvon Martin was face down.

The bottom line is, who is responsible for Trayvon Martin lying on that ground? Trayvon Martin didn't kill himself. Who's responsible for this state not being able to ask Trayvon Martin to step forward so I could put my hand on his shoulder? God, I'd love to do that. Who's responsible for that?

Trayvon Martin is not, was not, will never be a piece of cardboard. To the living, we owe respect, but to the dead, we owe the truth.

It probably seems like a year ago that we were all in here, one by one, and then as a group in jury selection.

One question got a smile from everybody, but it's important. When the attorney's asked you, do you understand it's not like TV. It was an important question because it's not.

And now you know it's not like TV where all the witnesses are well- dressed, well-educated actors and actresses. There are no Rachel Jeantel's on "CSI," and they don't call people like Kristin Benson, who found nothing in a fingerprint from the gun on "Law & Order."

It's not like that in real life. In real life, we give you everything, the good, the bad, the indifferent because, when that defendant is entitled to a trial, he's entitled to fair one, all of it, all of it. And now you have that.

In Hollywood, they write it up the way it happens on Sunset Boulevard, but in real life it happens just like it did on Twin Trees Lane in front of so many good, unsuspecting people.

Remember, if you get back there and you don't like some of the witnesses in the case, you don't like Rachel Jeantel or Shiping Bao or the fact there isn't this evidence or the fact there isn't that evidence, ask yourself, who produced this trial?

Who made up the witness list? Who created the evidence? Who chose the circumstances? Who chose the lighting? Who chose the time? Who chose the weather conditions?

It wasn't me. It was the defendant. He chose everything and that's why we're here. And that's why the evidence is what it is, but it is enough with your common sense. It is enough.

And I'm not asking you to fill gaps. I'm asking you to do what you do every day. Start from the beginning, get to the end and apply your common sense.

Don't misunderstand me. Your verdict is not going to bring Trayvon Benjamin Martin back to life. Your verdict is not going to change the past, but it will forever define it.

So what is that? What is that when a grown man, frustrated, angry with hate in his heart gets out of his car with a loaded gun and follows a child, a stranger, in the dark and shoots him through his heart? What is that? Is that nothing? That's not anything? Is that where we are? That's nothing?

That's not his call and that's not my call. That's your call. I submit to you the oath you took requires it, Trayvon Martin is entitled to it and that defendant deserves it.

Defense counsel went through this with you. I just want to -- real quickly, because it is our burden, so indulge me, please. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

I mean, they can put this picture up, you know? They blew it up for you. It's bigger than life-size. It's color. That's a fact. That's reality. That's what it looked like that night when he wiped the blood away. That's what he looked like.

Did that man -- did that man need to kill somebody, to kill a teenager?

They put up pictures of all the witnesses. They forgot that one.

Defense attorney said it is -- well, ask yourself, is there an issue about who lost the fight? Ask yourself, who lost the fight? Who lost the fight? Who lost the fight?

That's all evidence. Those are all facts.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances he was surrounded at the time the force was used.

He was, they estimated, 18 feet away from John Good. He knew the police were on their way. He knew that people were opening their windows and opening their doors. And when he shot him, he knew Trayvon Martin wasn't on top of him, so he could get his gun. Under those circumstance, under our circumstances, did he really need to shoot? Did he have to shoot Trayvon Martin? No, he didn't. He did not.

Before I get to reasonable doubt, let me just go through a couple of things in the time I have remaining that 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 sentence. He says, I guess, it seems.

Why didn't he go home? Use your common sense. Did he really want to take this guy home with him to the residence where the only person there was 12-year-old Chad Joseph? Did he really want to lead the defendant to that residence?

Just like the defendant said, remember on the phone call, the nonemergency call? I don't want to give out my phone number. Why?

Dennis Root said there's no other option for the defendant. For anybody else there is. He had to admit that. He could have done other things, but 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 this 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 asks? 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. That's why by the time he got to Mark Osterman it was completely different. That's why he kept 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 said he pushed the gun into his chest. He didn't? He didn't? It was a contact wound with his shirt. He didn't push the gun into his chest?

Reasonable doubt. There' not a possible doubt, a speculative doubt, an imaginary doubt or a forced doubt. And it's kind of funny the way they do the instructions. They don't tell you what a reasonable doubt is. They tell you what it's not. But let me suggest to you, 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 isn't it possible this? That's not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt needs to be two things. It needs to be reasonable, common sense, reasonable, 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's about to spell those out for you probably after the lunch break, if it doesn't go to one of those elements, it's not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable --

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'm sorry. I apologize. I need to interrupt and approach the bench maybe for a moment.

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: OK.

O'MARA: Or I can state it now.

NELSON: No. Approach the bench.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: OK. There's an aside happening now at the bench and I'm wondering if this is unusual when it comes to closing arguments because rarely have I seen a - (INAUDIBLE), you know, mostly on television, if someone is interrupted during closing arguments.

I want to bring in Mark Nejame, who's a legal analyst here, a criminal defense attorney. Jeff Gold as well whose a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Paul Callan, listening as well. He is a CNN legal analyst. And then Danny Cevallos is a defense attorney as well.

Danny, let's bring you in here and talk about this. I mean it's been very emotional. It looks like they're going to get back underway now. And if they do, we're going to listen in. Danny - well, jumped the gun. Let's go back to court.

NELSON: After the final arguments have been concluded, I will instruct you on the law that' applicable to this case. You will be taking that law back to the courtroom with you. Thank you.

You may proceed.

GUY: Thank you, Judge.

Listen to the court when you get this law. This is what she'll tell you. A reason - a non-reasonable doubt, something that's not reasonable, a possibility, imaginary doubt or 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 28-year- old George Zimmerman walking home in the rain with a hoodie onto 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's not about race.

To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe the truth. What do we owe Trayvon Martin? Sixteen years and 21 days. Forever. He was a son. He was a brother. He was a friend. And the last thing he did on this earth was try to get home. This is the dead.

The self-serving statements, the lies from his own mouth and the hate in his heart. Words that they can't now take back. The physical evidence, which refutes his lies, and the law that her honor's 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.

NELSON: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to read the jury instructions but I want to give you a choice. Would you like to have these instructions read after lunch or would you like to have them read now and then go to lunch?

JURY: After lunch.

NELSON: After lunch. OK, I will respect that.

Please put your note pads down before you go to lunch. I want to admonish you again, you are not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anybody else. You're not to read or listen to any radio, television or newspaper reports about the case. You're not to use any type of an electronic device to get on the Internet to do any independent research about the case, people places, things or terminology. And finally, you're not to read or create any e-mails, text messages, tweet, social networking pages or blogs about the case. Do I have your assurances that you'll abide by these instructions?

JURY: Yes, your honor.

NELSON: OK, thank you. We'll be in recess until 2:00. If you'll please put your note pads face down.

LEMON: OK. In recess now, you heard the judge, until 2:00 Eastern.

Just to clarify real quickly, Mark Nejame, is it unusual to interrupt during a closing argument? What happened here?

MARK NEJAME, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's unusual, but it's not unheard of. And it happens, in fact, if you really feel something's compelling. And what the defense was believing here was that the state did not represent the law as it related to reasonable doubt properly.

LEMON: Yes.

NEJAME: So the judge abhors speaking objections, so she wanted them to approach. And then you heard a purative (ph), which she said very simply, purative (ph) instructions, she simply said, you will listen to what the judge instructs you as to what the law is and not to what the lawyers are going to be saying. LEMON: So, Danny Cevallos, I'm sitting here, I'm watching the people in the room with me. Not very many. I'm looking around to see people and I'm talking to the people in the control room. During John Guy's closing, it was -- people were quiet as church mice. You could hear a pin drop.

DANNY CEVALLOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. Well, it's because he had so much passion and he echoed the original prosecutor, De La Rionda's passion.

Some the things, though, I thought. There were a lot of - a lot of sayings. As a style point, I think once you start inserting quotations from Bartlets (ph) or Leviticus or whatever, I don't know that that carries the day because you can find a saying for virtually anything that you want to prove. And I don't know that they - they probably spent a lot of time focusing on the common sense issue. I feel like O'Mara already poisoned that by saying, if they're asking you to use common sense -

LEMON: Right.

CEVALLOS: If they're asking you to fill gaps, then they haven't met their burden.

LEMON: Now, Jeff Gold, but this is the last thing the jury will remember. This is what they will be left with.

JEFF GOLD: Absolutely. And that's just what a defense always worries about is that John Guy will come in here with an emotional pitch, tug at the heart strings, and the jury will go out and decide this on emotion rather than the law. I think that O'Mara did a pretty good job but he was as monotonous as Bernie had been screeching. But John Guy had the right tone. I mean he told a story. He did it in an emotional way. He didn't have the facts on his side. As most people watching know that there probably is a reasonable doubt in this case even as to manslaughter. But nevertheless, these are moms. The image of the child being followed in the dark was a specific pitch to these moms. That they should leave these closings with that image in their mind. And I think he did a good job at it.

LEMON: Hey, Jeff Toobin, I have less than a minute here, but, I mean, he brings up a very good point and I - you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but most juries, don't they already make up their mind pretty close to the beginning of a trial? How much weight does -- do closing arguments have?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm a little less cynical than that. I think the juries listen to the evidence and they listen to closing arguments.

LEMON: Mark?

TOOBIN: And I think its -

LEMON: I think Mark Nejame may disagree with you here. I think Mark Nejame may disagree with you here. NEJAME: Well, I really think it's in the middle. I think Jeffrey, I mean, raised a good point. We, obviously we have trial for a reason. But a lot of people have predetermined notions. And sometime - well, I mean, you take a look at the blogs. You take a look at Twitter. You take a look at FaceBook. And people are - you know, very few have changed their mind from their first impressions.

LEMON: Yes.

NEJAME: They lock in and the facts be dammed. They don't (INAUDIBLE) the facts get in the way.

Sorry, Jeffrey.

LEMON: Yes, finish Jeff. Go ahead.

TOOBIN: I love my Twitter people, but I'm not sure they're a cross section of the real world. The - but, you know, we too have trials for a reason. And, you know, what - the thing that -- the real contrast that struck me in both these summations today was, what about Zimmerman's statements to the police and to Fox News, do those lies, are they really lies, and do they matter?

LEMON: Yes. Yes.

TOOBIN: Defense almost ignored the issue, where the prosecution seems to think they're the key to the whole case.

LEMON: All right, gentlemen, I have to go. Thank you very much.

We got to get a break in. We'll be back with more coverage right after this. I'm Don Lemon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)