Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Live Coverage of the George Zimmerman Trial

Aired July 12, 2013 - 11:30   ET

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

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely. These people trying to take away his liberty? Absolutely. And does the witness's testimony agree with other testimony? That's the view of Dennis Root kept saying you have to look at it in the totality of the circumstances, don't give me one sheet and what you think now. That's the totality of the circumstances.

So rules for you to deliberate under, and here they are. The case must be decided, starting with the idea that might otherwise do at the state's request. It is only the evidence of 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 that you can common sense, don't bring your assumptions, don't bring your presumptions, and don't sit back and just go, I really think that guy is not going to cut in front me as I drive to work today. You don't have that luxury. You only get to decide upon what you are certain about, something you do not have a reasonable doubt about. Don't do it, because you feel sorry for anyone.

Now, I said to you, and you may not have realized -- I think realized why, but the significant comes back home. I said if the state doesn't prove their case, we may have to say something to announce the verdict of acquittal, even though that verdict has been to be heard by the Martin family, and you said you could. I meant that for a very significant reason. It is a tragedy, truly, but you can't allow sympathy to feed into it.

When I say that, you should raise your hand all go, are you nuts? How dare you tell me to leave sympathy out of my life? How dare you tell me to leave my emotions aside. How dare you? I don't do that ever in my life. Welcome to a criminal courtroom, because unfortunately you have to be better than your presumptions. You have to be better than what you do in everyday life, better, at least different, at least unique. May not be influenced. By sympathy, but based on the evidence of the law, period. And the judge will tell you what the law is.

And now talk for a moment about self-defense. We talked all around it. Let's tell you exactly what the judge will instruct you to what it is. A person is justified in using deadly force, force likely to cause death, if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The alternatives, somebody -- I will go through this and tell you what you need to consider, to whether George reasonably believed, reasonable fear of great bodily harm. He doesn't have to think he was going to die. He does not have to think he was going to die. He does have to think that he was going to be injured greatly. And since the alternative, if either matches, it's been met. Decide whether or not George Zimmerman was -- you must judge him by the circumstances the moment of using force, what was happening.

The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual. Getting it doesn't have to be actual. In effect it couldn't be rubber rival, as long as you perceive it to be steel, or the next blow to the fist could be a fake one, but as long as you perceived it to continue to be a blow upon blow down upon you, then that's enough. The day that George Zimmerman may not have been actual, but the appearance of danger must have so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person, under those circumstances, reasonably prudent and cautious person until those circumstances have put yourself in effect in the mind of what George Zimmerman was going through, the circumstances he was going through, and then decide yourself would a reasonably person until those circumstances would have believe the danger could only be avoided through the use of that force. Based upon assumptions, George Zimmerman must have actually believed the danger was real. In considering self-defense, justification use of deadly force. He may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. And let me show you what that means in layman's terms, because I don't like the fact that I'm trying to prove to you a double negative. It just seems awkward. If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether or not George Zimmerman man was justified in the use of deadly force, if you have reasonable doubt to whether or not he was justified in the use of deadly force.

He's not guilty. Anywhere along this graph, anywhere along this graph, if you believe, this is where I went a little while ago. Anywhere along this graph, then he's not guilty. That's why this case, of showing a case like this, and wondering whether or not there is a reasonable doubt to whether or not he confused that deadly force to protect himself from great bodily harm. The other thing that I think we have probably gotten past, but I want to be clear about is this one. You're going to get all the law that applies in this case. Every shred of law that applies in this case, you will have before you. What you won't have is any law that suggests something like somebody with a -- it's not. Following somebody in a car or foot, in order to report their whereabouts to the police is not unlawful activity. If it was, you would be instructed on it. It would have a statute as part of the jury instructions that says something that George Zimmerman did was unlawful. And you won't have it, because it's just not there, because it's just not true.

I'm over my time. I'm going to finish up quicker than I would like to. I cannot imagine I've actually been here for three hours, but I want to do a couple quick things and to show you, since it is the state's burden, what they haven't proven. I don't think it's a big deal if they decide not to give you the emergency or nonemergency calls, they should have, just to be complete, but whatever. I don't know, you know. The fact that I had to call Tracy Martin to have them testify to that. I guess they didn't have to do that, but if you're really seeking justice, why have me do it? Why even have Sybrina testify -- why did I have to have him -- why did I have to have singleton testify? They're available and I did it. I guess, if I can do it, the state doesn't have to, except it really and always will be their burden, not mine. They didn't tell you all the other burglaries that happened. I did. They're there. I trust me, they're there. Where is the expert counter use of force? Where is their guy? So all we have on use the force now is den knit root. Again, 24th don't have to bring a use of force expert. I did, they don't have to, but if that's their issue, where is their information? Same thing with Dr. Di Maio. I guess -- where is that? Again, they don't have to, but this is their case. I mean -- it affects George Zimmerman, but it's their prosecution, their burden. That he pushed the gun into Trayvon Martin's chest.

You know, you have to be careful. We all have emotions as human beings, and we have justice, and you sit back and go, what are they trying to do? Does it really help you decide this case, when somebody who is not George Zimmerman's voice screams at you or yells at you and curses at you? No. I would contend -- listen to the tape, don't listen to -- I'm sure people say I look like Joel Osteen, I think Mr. Guy was trying to sound like -- with this really -- I do it a bit, I guess, but do we need that type of anger coming out from a prosecutor rather than from a defendant? Is that really the way we're going to present this case to a jury of my client's peers? (AUDIO PROBLEM).

One piece of evidence that my client attacked Trayvon Martin. Landed one blow for that matter. Did anything to justify in any form or fashion the onslaught of injury perpetrated upon him by no one other that Trayvon Martin. He actually had something else, because George Zimmerman was in fact armed with a firearm. We know that. We know he had a right to have it. And then it was said how many times was it said that Trayvon Martin was -- now, I'll be held in contempt if I drop this, so I'm not going to do some drama and drop it on the floor and watch it roll around. But that's cement. That is a sidewalk. And that is not an unarmed teenager with nothing but skittles trying to get home. That was somebody who used the availability of dangerous items from his fist to the concrete to cause great bodily injury. Great bodily injury against George Zimmerman. The suggestion by the state that that's not a weapon? That that can't hurt somebody in that that can't cause great bodily injury? Is disgusting.

Even if we presume Rachel Jeantel was completely accurate in whichever version of what she first heard happen, you want to believe, what she said was that George Zimmerman said what are you doing around here? Let's just for a moment presume that we had that on audio tape. Let's say they recorded a phone call, and you heard her voice -- you heard George Zimmerman's voice on the tape that said, what are you doing around here? What did you hear Mr. Root say about that? The only expert that talks about the evolution of force tell us? Well, you say something like that? I might 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 the appropriate response is to break somebody's nose. Did he? Did he suggest that that was even near the spectrum of violence allowed, the spectrum of force allowed in a situation like that?

Unfortunately, you know, there was some anger and hostility, and ill will and spite maybe that night. It just had nothing to do with George Zimmerman -- well, that's not true. It had something to do with George Zimmerman. He was the victim of it. Because you can't look at those pictures and say that what was visited upon George Zimmerman was not evidence of ill will or spite and hatred. Had Trayvon Martin been shot through the hip and survived, what do you think he would have been charged with? Aggravated battery? Two counts? The state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, you have no doubt in year mind, that my client is guilty of anything. I really -- you could try hypnosis, you think you say the right things when you talk as a lawyer, so within that context, I feel like I may have convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman is innocent, but of course we know that has nothing to do with it. The state will get up and finish in just a couple minutes, and they will tell you that he's a liar again, maybe not, because Mr. De La Rionda spent much of his time convincing you that my client lied. But here's the standard. You go back there.

First thing you might want to consider doing -- do you have a reasonable doubt that my client may have acted in self-defense? Go back there and say to yourselves -- forts the crimes. Let's just talk about self-defense. Do we think that he might have acted in self- defense? I'm not convinced. I have some doubt, have some concern, that he just may have acted? Self-defense. Well, if you reach that conclusion, you get to stop. You really do. Why? Because self- defense is a defense to everything, to littering, to speeding, to battery, if it mattered, to grand theft, to assault, to manslaughter, to second degree. You go no further than a determination that the state not -- and there is no more evidence, that the state has not convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. It's an easy decision. And I don't say that out of hubris or just ego, ha, ha, ha. I'm saying it because of the facts of the case. You look at these facts, you look at all this evidence, and you have to say, I have a reasonable doubt to whether or not the state convinced me he didn't act in self-defense. That's all you have to do. You don't have to write "innocent" on the bottom of the verdict form.

We don't go anywhere near those in this courtroom. The state never, ever loses their responsibility to take away reasonable doubt from you. Don't let them do it with innuendo, with sympathy, don't let them do it with yelling. Don't let them do it with screeching. Because none of that matters. Because we have a definition of reasonable doubt and now you do. You look at that definition, you go back to that room and say let's talk first about self-defense. If I think George may have acted in self defense, we are done.

So thank you for the time, thank you for the attention. Again, we talked about it way in the beginning, and amazingly difficult task we have asked you to take on. And we often have had jurors who -- a couple of whom we've had to wake up on occasion. Certainly not those -- the note-taking, the interest has been apparent. I appreciate the time. My client does. The state does, I'm sure. The court does, because you've given us what we needed from you, which is your attention. One more thing from you. I want your attention. I want you to look at the instructions and say he acted in self-defense and find him not guilty. Let him go back and get back to his life. DEBRA NELSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE: Thank you.

Do you want a brief break before Mr. Guy?

Let's take a 10-minute recess.

Follow Deputy Jarvis back into the jury room. Put your note pads face down.

(END LIVE FEED)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Don Lemon, live in Sanford, Florida.

You're looking at pictures inside the courtroom. His fate, he'll know it very soon. It could come today, tomorrow or Sunday. It could come as early as today. The judge saying she'll give a 10-minute recess and they'll get back to this.

I want to bring in Paul Callan. He's a CNN analyst. Danny Cevallos is a defense attorney. Here with me in Sanford, Florida, is Mark Pajama, a legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. Jeff Gold is a attorney. Also George Howell is in the courtroom. Before I get to George, I want to find out what the jury is thinking.

I want to get to you, Mark. How did he do? How did Mark O'Mara do?

MARK NEJAME, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think he did very good. I expected a little more passion to be interjected throughout. He was very professorial. He was very folksy. He was trying to contrast that with the fiery rhetoric of the state. He was made his points. He was very measured. He showed pictures of the witnesses which is a good idea. Very easy to forget their names. He set the background as to what reasonable doubt was. I would expect a little more passion.

LEMON: He was one gear as we were sitting here watching. You don't want to just be one gear.

NEJAME: I think he was two gears. He needed three or four.

LEMON: Before I get to George, I want to get to Jeffrey Toobin, standing by.

Same question. Do you think that what Mark O'Mara did today was effective?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I do. He made a different bet than the prosecutor did yesterday. The yesterday put an enormous emphasis on the issue of Zimmerman's statements saying that Zimmerman lied, he contradicted himself, he was inconsistent. Basically, Mark O'Mara blew off that issue. He said there's a few inconsistencies that no one tells the story the same way twice. It will be interesting to talk to the jurors later to see if that different approach had an impact because I do think that it was effective to go through each witness the way O'Mara did. He made a bet that the jury is not going to care that much about those inconsistencies if they were major and that was a risk. LEMON: Yeah. You're right. It was a very nuanced day in court. You bring up a good point, the jurors. It all comes down to them.

George Howell was in that courtroom.

Was there any information to portray what the jurors might have been thinking as they will get their instructions and probably start deliberating.

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fair to say they were paying close attention to everything brought in this courtroom. You have to consider that O'Mara brought in charts and that video reenactment. He showed people in there, the people watching television, people in that courtroom showed that the charts would explain what it would take the find a person guilty or not guilty. He went through the process of showing the reenactment giving the jurors Zimmerman's account of what happened. That will be an image as they take back into the jury room. They took a lot of notes. You see them taking notes. They pay close attention to the props. They pay close attention. Here is the other thing. He involved the jury. He involved everyone in the courtroom when he took that four minutes of silence and that's four minutes of silence between the last time Rachel Jeantel talked to Trayvon Martin and the indications of a struggle. Everyone involved in that four minutes that you can imagine will stick with jurors as they think about this.

LEMON: All right George Howell, stand by.

My other guests stand by.

You at home, I want you to stand by. We're going to talk about this case probably in a way that you've never talked about it. We're going to pretend this camera isn't here and speak the way that Mark Nejame and I are talking. We're going to talk about race why many people think it's so important to this case. We're going to talk about the props, the drama, the sympathy, the witnesses. We have other news for you as well. The judge will be back. The court will be back in session in about five minutes. We'll be back after a short break right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Don Lemon, here live in Sanford, Florida. Very warm.

And George Zimmerman's fate could be in the hands of this jury soon. They could be deliberating any minute now. We're waiting on court to come back in session. Showing the seal real quickly. Nothing is going on in court now. The judge said she'll be back and give a ten- minute break. I want to talk about the drama. This will come down to ill-will, spite, self-defense, filling in the time line. That's what Mark O'Mara spoke about this morning.

I want to bring in Paul Callan, CNN legal analyst; Danny Cevallos, criminal defense attorney; Mark Nejame, also a legal analyst and criminal defense attorney; and Jeff Gold, criminal defense attorney and prosecutor. They all join me now. I'm going to rely on Mark a little bit here. He's sitting next to me. I'll get to the other guys in a moment.

He spoke a lot this morning. He talked about reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt even explaining to the jury on and on about what reasonable doubt is. What he believes is a textbook definition of reasonable doubt. Is there?

NEJAME: It's a sliding scale. It's a very subjective in a lot of ways. If you're scratching your head, you've got reasonable doubt. It doesn't have to be proved but you can't leave any anything. If it's reasonable doubt you walk. I like what he did with the reverse. He said it's not my burden. I'm going to take a risk and show you why my client is innocent. He said I'm going to prove he's innocent but if you don't believe it, there's still reasonable doubt.

LEMON: Let's listen to him and bring the others in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'MARA: George Zimmerman is not guilty if you have a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. We're going to spend about ten minutes bringing you up to here. The state needs to convince you all the way down here, self-defense likely. It's a reasonable doubt as to self- defense. Self-defense suspected? Well, you have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. May not be self-defense. You're not quite sure. Not guilty. Unlikely self-defense but it might be. You have a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. Not guilty. Less than likely is it self-defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)