Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

Aired July 13, 2013 - 22:00   ET

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

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON, SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA: I wish to advise you of very special privileges enjoyed by jurors. No juror could ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room except by court record. For system centuries our society has relied upon juries for consideration of difficulty cases. We have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury as a deliberations, discussions, and votes should remain their private affair as long as they wish it.

Therefore, the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work. Although, you are at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, you are also at liberty be to refuse to speak to anyone. A request to discuss either your verdict or your deliberations may come from those who are simply curious from those who might seek to find fault with you, from the media, from the attorneys or elsewhere. It will be up to you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror.

Is there anything we need to take up before the jury before they're sent back to the jury room to be discharged?

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, STATE PROSECUTOR: No, your honor.

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, your honor. Thank you.

NELSON: Ladies, is thank you very much. You will be taken back to the jury room to be discharged.

Please be seated.

Mr. Zimmerman, I have signed the judgment that confirms the jury's verdict. Your bond will be released. Your GPS monitor will be cut off when you exit the courtroom over here. And you have no further business with the court.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: Thank you.

NELSON: OK. Thank you.

Is there anything else this court needs to take up before we recess for this case?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, your honor. Thank you.

NELSON: Thank you all very much. Court is -- the evidence will be released. The evidence will be released.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: And there you heard it, live here on CNN. All woman jury coming back saying George Zimmerman, not guilty in the death of teenager is Trayvon Martin. There you see a smile on face of George Zimmerman. Obviously, his defense team very happy and when they showed the prosecution the prosecution obviously not happy with this verdict.

There is George Zimmerman's wife with tears in her eyes obviously tears of relief. His dad and his mom also in the courtroom. His mom with a smile on her face, is the first time I have seen her smile the entire time actually since this has happened. The dad obviously very relieved.

Trayvon Martin's parents we are told not in the courtroom, not in the courtroom.

And there is a smiling George Zimmerman. Obviously very happy. The judge telling him we're going to release your monitor. Have you no more business with this courtroom. You are free to go. Very big smiles of relief on the face of George Zimmerman's family.

And, of course, George Zimmerman now speaking to Mark O'Mara, his defense team, and also to Don West, also part of his defense team. And we're going to stay with these pictures just a little bit longer until George Zimmerman and the folks leave the courtroom here, but this is very interesting to watch.

There has been so much anticipation and so much attention to this case. And now the reaction. How will America react? What will the families have to say on both sides as we look at these pictures inside the courtroom of George Zimmerman's loved ones?

David Mattingly, I hate to leave these pictures but David Mattingly is standing by outside the Seminole county courthouse where demonstrators have been gathering all evening. People are extremely emotional.

David, take us there.

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Don, the word about the acquittal made its way through the crowd very slowly. People only now are coming to grips with what happened in there. We are seeing some people reacting very emotionally. Some with anger, some with disbelief. But there are a lot of people here who are just standing in stunned silence.

There was a brief period where we heard a chant of no justice, no peace. But since that time, there has been just individuals walking around expressing their opinion very loudly just as this man is right over here. People attracting crowds around individuals right now as they express their opinion. I want to talk to one person here.

Sir, why was it important for you to be out here tonight? I notice you brought your son. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wanted to be a part of a historical event you know, I know that there has been just so much attention to the case. And you know, we just wanted to be here to support the Martin family and hope for justice.

MATTINGLY: Do you believe justice was served tonight?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that there's a family whose heart is broken who probably feels that once again, the system has faced them. On the other hand, you know, we have been praying for both families that because we know that it has been just a hard time for everybody that's been involved. But as far as justice, personally, I think that the system failed the Martin family.

MATTINGLY: You brought your son with you tonight. Why was it important for you to do that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I wanted my son to understand just what happened. He had questions. They had been talking about this with some of his friends even last year at school. And you know, and I'm a father. I have a son who is an African-American and you know, I could just imagine what Trayvon Martin's father feels like.

MATTINGLY: What do you think about all of this?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that they did the right thing. I mean, I think that he should have went to jail.

MATTINGLY: Why was this case important to you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I wanted to be a part of the and I wanted justice.

MATTINGLY: Thank you very much. Thanks for your thoughts tonight.

And Don, that sort of crystallized a lot of what we've been hearing tonight. So many people here bringing their children with them, making this a family event tonight and so many people now just milling about in disappointment. There are great deal -- many people here who were seeking some sort of guilty verdict for George Zimmerman that they believed that the family of Trayvon Martin deserved justice and that's who they were here to support.

So the we're not done here. The emotions are still working their way through the crowd and everyone's still trying to process what they heard. So we'll be back to you a little bit later --Don.

LEMON: David Mattingly, thank you very much. David Mattingly outside the Seminole county courthouse, obviously emotions running high.

As David was speaking there, you saw George Zimmerman left the courthouse with his family. He has been in this courthouse now through jury selections through 13, 14 days of court through jury selections for weeks. And now it has all come to this. He has been found not guilty, not guilty, very exciting moment, obviously for George Zimmerman, his family the first time I've seen his mother smile since this all started. Since we have seen his mother and found out who she was.

I want to go now to CNN's Martin Savidge who is in the courthouse now.

Martin, take us inside the courthouse.

Martin Savidge, are you there?

OK. We'll get Martin Savidge. Obviously, the connection inside the courthouse getting cell phone service is very tough. We'll get to Martin when we can. Our team of players, Jeffrey Toobin is here, Sunny Hostin is here, Mark Nejame is here, Paul Callan is here, Holly Hughes as well as Faith Jenkins.

First to Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, there are many people who would say they're not surprised by this. They believe the prosecution did not do a good job presenting their case and the burden is on the prosecution.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via phone): Well, those of us who covered this trial recognized that the prosecution had a lot of problems. Fundamentally, the issue was, I think, they didn't have a witness. They didn't have the someone who could describe what happened who took the first swing, who started the fight, who was the aggressor in the fight between the two the people. All of that is true.

But it is a somber reflection on this country, on this justice system that Trayvon Martin went out there to buy skittles and a can of iced tea and he came home dead. A very troubling thing, and now, no one is going to pay in the criminal justice system for it. I understand it. I'm not saying the verdict is wrong, but it's still a somber moment.

LEMON: Yes. I think what people sort of were confused about in this particular case is that they saw the entire time line of who pursued whom, when what was actually being litigated in court was the moment of confrontation and what happened in that particular moment of confrontation where only two people witnessed and that was Trayvon Martin and that was George Zimmerman. The verdict for George Zimmerman read off moments ago not guilty in court. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the circuit court of the 18th judicial circuit in and for Seminole county, Florida is, state of Florida versus George Zimmerman, verdict, we the jury find George Zimmerman not guilty. So say we all, foreperson.

NELSON: Does either side want to poll the jury?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We would, your honor. NELSON: OK, ladies and gentlemen, I mean ladies, I'm sorry, as your juror number is called please answer whether this is your verdict.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror B-29, is this your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror B-76, is this your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror B-37, is this your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror B-51, is this your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: E-6, be is this your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror E-40, is this your verdict? Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: To Mark Nejame now, attorney here and CNN legal analyst. Mark, you're not surprised by this. You predict this had all along.

MARK NEJAME, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, but you know, it's not a time for jubilance. It's not a time for high fiving. This is a time for being somber and reflective and to put blessings on everybody and figure out how we can do better as a people.

You know, there's no joy in calling a case right when you have a 17-year-old teenager dead. This is just a tragedy and we need to figure out a way to do better. So yes, it's not a surprise to me. I thought the case was full of reasonable doubt. But what I'm proud of is that the time and attention these jurors spent, they did not rush through this. And I'm very proud and am honored to be a lawyer and to be with you all as we're bringing this to the country and the world because as we've said before, justice is about the process, not about the outcome. And we saw a fair jury selection. We saw a great advocates on both sides. Couldn't have the fought any harder for their respective sides, and a jury came back with a verdict.

Understand, this doesn't mean that he was not guilty -- I mean, innocent. We don't have that in our system. It means that the state didn't meet its burden. That's our constitutional system for other issues. We have civil courts and all that, but today the jurors said that our constitution withheld this. It withstood it. And we were able to go ahead and have a fair hearing, an open trial and the constitution survived. Tragedies exist so how do we do better as a people rather than kick this under the rug. This is not a time for jubilance. This is a time for reflection, blessings and hope that we do better.

LEMON: Yes. I want to go quickly to Paul Callan.

Paul, as we are watching here moments ago inside the courtroom where the verdict was read that George Zimmerman was found not guilty, have you been saying all along, as well that you don't think that the state proved its burden of guilt here.

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: That's right. I had always felt even if their sympathy had caused a conviction to be brought in, an appellate court would probably reverse it. Then I think, you know, Mark makes a very important point that the everybody should remember. This is not a comment on the morality or even the right and wrong of what went on that night. If George Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him that night, this might have just been a brutal fistfight in which two people were hurt. But the everybody came out alive. He had a gun on him that night, and under Florida law, he was justified, says this is jury in using the gun in self-defense.

The prosecution always had a very weak case because they were not able to be prove what happened in the moments leading up to the physical confrontation, and the only piece of important evidence really on that issue was the fractured nose of George Zimmerman which would indicate he was struck by Trayvon Martin, giving him the right this jury obviously felt to self-defense ultimately.

But obviously, he was wrong in what he did to Trayvon Martin 37 Trayvon Martin lived in that community. He had a right to be there, but there's a difference between right and wrong and morality and what can be proven in a court of law sometimes. And it's kind of a sad thing and in some respects maybe it's a good thing because we have a system that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They could not prove it here. And the jury I'm sure quite reluctantly had to return be this verdict.

LEMON: OK we want to listen now to Angela Corey speaking. Let's listen.

ANGELA COREY, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: The charges 15 months ago, we also promised that we would seek the truth for Trayvon Martin and due process for George Zimmerman that we would get all of the facts and details of this very difficult case before a jury and that we chose to do it that way because we felt that everyone had a right to note everything about this case. That for a case like this to come out in bits and pieces served no good to no one. As Mr. Guy told the jury yesterday, to the living we owe respect, to the dead, we owe the truth.

We have been respectful to the living. We have done our best to assure due process to all involved. And we believe that we brought out the truth on behalf of Trayvon Martin. There are so many people to thank starting with sheriff Eslinger (ph) and his entire sheriff's office. They've been so good to us as has Michele Kennedy and all of the people here.

As you know, we traveled from our own circuit to be here, and that has not been easy but it's been made so much the better by having so many people be gracious. You have respected our privacy, you the media, because we said after the press conference that we were going to try this case in the courtroom, not in the media. And we appreciate your respecting our privacy in doing that.

I have an amazing team of lawyers, paralegals and investigators who put their lives on hold and with me accepted the governor's assignment to take on this difficult investigation and this difficult case. And I'm so proud to stand here with them and to be part of the historical aspect of this case to show that the American justice system can and should only be done in a court of law.

I don't believe it helps anyone for us to be out espousing opinions about our cases. And I think, as you see, we put this case in front of a jury, and that leads me to thanking the jury for the 16 hours of deliberation that they took to go over all of the facts and circumstances.

What we always believed was that this was a case of details that had to be analyzed very, very carefully. I never could quite understand people even people with law degrees who not read all of the police reports who had not read all of the witness statements, yet who came up with opinions one way or the other. And this team of people standing with me who stand with me every day in the 4th circuit and try tough cases like this all the time knew that we had to do the best to get the entire facts and details of this case out and before a jury.

I think this jury worked very hard. We honor them for their service. Judge Nelson worked very hard. We want her to know that we appreciate all that she did to keep this case on course. And, of course, our hearts as always go out to our victim's family and to all victims of crime. But as long as they know that there will always be prosecutors fighting for the truth, I think that will victims will continue to rely on this justice system.

I'll turn it over, Bernie, would you like to say a few words?

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, STATE PROSECUTOR: I want to thank you all for respecting our privacy. I am disappointed as we are with the verdict. But we accept it. We live in a great country that has a great criminal justice system. It is not perfect but it's is the best in the world and we respect the jury's verdict.

COREY: John?

JOHN GUY, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR: I would also like to thank you for your time and attention that you've given this case, both sides are deserving of your attention. We have from the beginning just prayed for the truth to come out and for peace to be the result and that continues to be our prayers and we believe they have been answered.

COREY: Rich?

RICHARD MANTEI, ASSISTANT STATE PROSECUTOR: I would just like to say to the family of the dead teenager Trayvon Martin that I appreciate the way they have handled this matter. They have been dignified. They have showed class. They have kept their pain in check when they needed to, and they have grieved when this he need to, and I think that they have handled it like ladies and gentlemen. It can't have been easy and it won't be easy. So I ask that I know you all have a job to do, but when you approach all that, keep them in mind, too. Thank you.

COREY: I also want to thank the thousands of people who sent prayers our way. Held us in their thoughts throughout this entire process. We got a lot of encouragement from a lot of people. But again, this is something that we do in our circuit. We try a lot of murder cases. We never know what a jury is going to do. We go into every case putting our best case forward and leaving it in their hands and that's what we did in this case.

Is it appropriate to take questions?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Why did you overcharge?

COREY: Well, we charge what we believe we can prove based on our Florida standard jury instructions and based on the facts of the case. So that's why we charged second degree murder. We truly believe that the mind-set of George Zimmerman and the words that he used and the reason that he was out doing what he was doing fit the bill for second degree murder.

Second degree murder is a general intent crime unlike first- degree murder which requires specific intent and sort of a design on the -- I'm sorry, I wasn't finished with my answer. I didn't finish my answer. And so because it's a general intent crime, you look at the way the crime is committed it doesn't have to be between two people who know each other.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: What was the greatest challenge that your team faced in getting a verdict?

COREY: Well, I think one of the greatest challenges we faced is taking over a case that had already been being investigated for as long as it was before we stepped in and were able to start conducting our own investigation. It was a challenge but it's one we took when the governor assigned this case to us. And we did everything we possibly could.

Yes, ma'am I'm sorry. Would you just let me know and I'll answer what you say. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Times of London and "the Daily Beast." I just wondered if you're able to pinpoint one aspect of the case or one item of evidence or witness evidence that let you down on this.

COREY: We never would say anything let us down. We are used to the imperfection of both witnesses and evidence in criminal cases. And we have all been trying criminal cases for a very long time. And you just can't guess before you take a case to a jury how something's going to turn out. So you work very hard. You put your witnesses on the stand. You argue your case to the jury. And then you focus on the law and the arguments and then you leave it in the hands of the jury. What we promised to do was to get this case in front of a jury and give George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin each a day in court. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Ma'am, I'm sorry. Lisa (INAUDIBLE) NBC News. Can you tell me if you and the prosecution team have had a chance to speak with face to face Trayvon Martin's parents?

COREY: I spoke with Sybrina earlier today. Do you mean since the verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Yes, ma'am.

COREY: No, we have not. We actually came straight down her after the verdict.

DANA SHEBON (ph), WSTV: Dana Shebon (ph), WSTV. I was wondering, do you think that the judge got it wrong with the felony murder based on child abuse or were you just disappointed with that ruling? .

COREY: Thank you for asking about the lesser includes. Schedule 2-lesser includes are a part of the standard jury instructions. Once you have tried your case, then you are to look at obviously second degree murder, manslaughter is a necessarily lesser included. It's a schedule one and then if we believe the facts of our case fit any of the schedule 2-lesser included, then we ask for them.

A charge conference is usually a very of basic part of a trial. And doesn't require a lot of drama, be quite frankly. So because Trayvon Martin was 17 at the time he was killed, we believed because we believe it was an intentional killing, that the facts fit the third degree felony murder. Third degree felony murder is a none numerated felony. It's a complicated concept but it is a schedule 2-lesser included which is why we requested it. We request our lesser includes. The judge gives what she believes is appropriate and that's how we try cases.

DAVID OVALLE (ph), MIAMI HERALD: David Ovalle from "Miami herald."

COREY: Hi, David.

OVALLE (ph): Can you talk about Florida stand your ground law and whether the changes in the law in 2005 affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won perhaps pre the changes in the law?

COREY: Well, justifiable use of deadly force has changed to a certain extent. Stand your ground is a procedural mechanism where we fully expected because of what we were hearing that the defense would request a stand your ground hearing and we would have put on the same evidence. It would have been in front of just a judge instead of a jury.

Well, the duty to retreat aspect actually had sort of disappeared before stand your ground kicked in. You're talking about the castle doctrine basically and then how that got extended into public areas? Yes, it's a very complicated and difficult area of the law. I think I did allude to that pretty specifically when we first announced the charges. Justifiable use of deadly force is one of the most difficult areas of the law and one of the most difficult affirmative defenses to which we respond in our criminal cases. Yes.

CHRISTIE O'CONNOR, REPORT: Christie O'Connor.

In the beginning of this case, as you know, the country felt that there was such a strong likelihood that you would prove that that voice was Trayvon's and then obviously things turned around. Talk about that voice tape, whether and also any other evidence that you thought was strong and what happened to it and how it affected.

COREY: what was convincing to us when we listened to the tape is that the scream stops the moment the shot is fired. That's the kind of common sense evidence that prosecutors rely on every day. That scream stops when the shot is fired. And so we always believed after hearing that tape that it was Trayvon Martin.

MIKE GALANOS, REPORTER, HLN: Mike Galanos with HLN.

COREY: Yes, Mike.

GALANOS: Could you backing off that that the argument or one of the key ones you thought you had to win? Who was screaming for help? Maybe it was the severity of George Zimmerman's injury. Did you feel you had to win those?

COREY: Well, you know, that's another interesting point because a lot of people said why didn't we produce the photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries, the blood on the back of his head. Well, one of the reasons is because we didn't also produce the picture of his physician's assistant who said the cut was this big. So see, when you put together a case you have to analyze all of it, not just what was going on right at the time of the crime. So those injuries we believed did not rise to great bodily harm. Children across this country athletes get injuries like that every day and go right back into the game or their parents kiss them after they've fallen off their bike and they go right back in. I'm not trying to minimize this but we did not believe that what the statements were made by George Zimmerman comported with injuries of great bodily harm. And one of the other key pieces of evidence as Christie asked earlier was we don't believe that he could have been straddled and had the gun on that will inside back holster and gotten it out if he was truly being beaten at the time the shot was fired. And so that's another key element in our decision to file charges. Yes, ma'am.

LISA LUCAS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Hi, Lisa Lucas, New York daily news. COREY: Hi, Lisa.

LUCAS: Let's talk about Rachel Jeantel's testimony. Were you disappointed in the result of that testimony? Do you think that damaged the cases?

COREY: Lisa, we deal with witnesses to our homicides on a regular basis who are sometimes friends of the defendant who are sometimes friends of the victim. A lot of them may or may not be educated. A lot of them may or may not have the good memories. Eye witnesses and ear witnesses come with just a realm of issues. You so, can't say that you're disappointed in them as long as you've asked them to take the stand and tell the truth and you believe that your witnesses have done that so --

Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I keep -- I apologize for messing up the protocol. I apologize. Yes, ma'am.

BARBARA LISTON, REPORTER, REUTERS: Ms. Corey, I'm Barbara Liston from Reuters. You said earlier one of the greatest challenges of this case was taking over an investigation that had been handled by another agency for so long.

COREY: Yes.

LISTON: Are you saying that the Sanford police department messed up this case.

COREY: Absolutely not.

LISTON: Might have been different if you handled it from the beginning?

COREY: Absolutely not. I don't -- what I'm talking about the burden it put on us to come in after the fact. The way we work shootings in our jurisdiction is we work side by side with the police from the time of the shooting. That's not a criticism of anybody. It just made it more difficult for us than what we're used to. No, I think during the press conference I told you all we believe the Sanford police did everything that they could that night.

Let me remind people again that when a citizen does a shooting and it's not in the commission of a felony, a full-blown felony like they're being robbed, they're being raped, it's sort of an encounter that happens like this in a mutual territory, those are a lot more difficult. And we have to look at those very carefully. Justifiable use of deadly force is a defense that we look at when police officers have to take a life or have to apply deadly force, when citizens have to do it, and when it happens inside their dwelling or inside the store that they own or during the commission of a forcible felony, that is so much easier of a decision to make.

When two people are on mutual ground and make no mistake about it, Trayvon had every bit as much the right to be on the premises that they were on as did George Zimmerman. Then that then goes to all the facts and circumstances behind the case. And that's why this case was unique in that sense and that's why it was difficult.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Kathy (INAUDIBLE) with channel 9 in Orlando.

Once you determine that you could not -- well, once you found out that you could not determine who started that confrontation, why did you decide to go forward because isn't that a key point of a case like this?

COREY: I'll let Bernie answer that.

DE LA RIONDA: I think we have to go back to the beginning. Who was following who? Who was following who? I mean, isn't that what this case boils down to? That was our theory. Now, we respect the jury's verdict but really what will it boiled down to is a kid minding his own business being followed by a stranger. And so I would submit that's when it started. I don't know if that answered your question or not.

(INAUDIBLE)

DE LA RIONDA: That's not the theory. That's the facts. Jury obviously disagreed at some point and you'll be able to hopefully inquire of them what they thought. What it boils down to is you've got a 17-year-old kid who is minding his own business wearing a hoodie and gets accosted, gets followed by an individual who wants to be a cop.

COREY: I do want to mention one more thing. This case has never been about race, nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms. Not in the sense of proving this as a criminal case. But Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt that he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race was one of the aspects in George Zimmerman's mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin.

But the right to bear arms is a right in which we all believe. I especially believe in that right. What we want is responsible use when someone feels they have to use a gun to take a life. They have to be responsible in their use and we believe that this case all along was about boundaries and that George Zimmerman exceed those boundaries.

Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Quick question for you. You mentioned you were disappointed in today's verdict. Talk a little bit. You guys put a lot of effort, a lot of time, grilling schedule, 17 months, talk a little bit about that frustration that you might.

DE LA RIONDA: Let me make sure I say it clearly. I respect the jury's verdict. This is no criticism of the jury verdict. I believe wholeheartedly that we live in the greatest country in the world but I am disappointed. I have been trying a lot of cases. I have tried 300 something cases about, 80-something murder cases. This is only my second murder case that I have lost. And I'm disappointed, yes, because I thought he was guilty. But what matters is what the jury said and I accept it. I don't know if that answered your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Mr. De La Rionda, could I get your impression of the 2005 expansion of the Florida self-defense statutes? Does this make your job harder?

DE LA RIONDA: You know, self-defense has existed for a long time and we have dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We've tried a lot of self-defense cases. I personally have tried, you know, 10, 15 self-defense cases. There are tough cases but we accept it. So, the law really hasn't changed that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing but really the law hasn't changed. And we believe in the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense. We felt in this case that it was not appropriate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Hi, I'm (INAUDIBLE) with "USA today." John Guy talked about the fact that this was going to be a verdict that will sent a message and that it was going to be about what happens when a guy follows a young child and then shoots him. Could you tell me what you think about what this verdict means to the nation and what it says?

GUY: I don't believe I ever said it was going to send a message. I mean, criminal cases are about defendants and victims. Most instances unlike this one a one-on-one confrontation. So, it was a determination about what happened between what happened between those two individuals. I certainly didn't mean to characterize this ascending a message outside the courtroom.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One more question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Prosecutor Corey, this question is about Ben Creidboss (ph). Since testifying in that pre-trial hearing about discovery evidence, we understand that he was terminated. Can you talk to us about why he was terminated from your office.

COREY: I believe we have released a letter that details why he was terminated. And again, we want to keep the focus on what we promised 15 months ago, which was to get all of the facts of this case in front of a jury or in front of a judge if it had been a stand your ground hearing. And I believe that's what we've done. I believe the focus needs to be on how the system worked and how now everyone in this country because of you all covering this case can say that they know the facts that were allowed in front of the jury and now them know and can make up their own minds about the guilt of George Zimmerman and know that this jury gave it a lot of time and attention. I don't think anybody will tell you that they don't appreciate how much the jury did.

One more thing that I did forget to mention earlier is when you asked about second degree murder, remember that the definition of that is an act or a series of acts. And we believe that the series of acts of Mr. Zimmerman and what he did leading to Trayvon Martin's death or why we were able to file second degree murder.

And I'm sorry, Jackie, was that the last question? Again, we want to thank all of you. We want to thank all of the people hole have sent prayers our way. We want to thank, again, the people of Seminole county for allowing us to come in here and try this case. God bless you. And we do ask for peace and for privacy to the extent that Trayvon Martin's family wants that privacy.

Thank you very much.

LEMON: OK. There is state's attorney Angela Corey speaking with Bernie De La Rionda, John Guy and Rich Manti, members of the prosecution. Angela Corey and members of the prosecution here. And we should also tell you that the jury has passed on responding tonight. They're not going to do media interviews. We are being told perhaps we will hear from them in the coming hours, perhaps in the coming days. We are getting reaction from all over the world. I want to read some of it real quickly here.

The first one -- let's go to Mark O'Mara now.

MARK O'MARA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: -- to sheriff Eslinger. And I just think it needs to be spoken, it's not -- it was meant as a letter to him personally but he was OK with me reading it to you. So, Don and I want to take a minute just to can an knowledge not only the court system and, of course, what judge Nelson did in making sure this trial got moved forward in (INAUDIBLE) conclusion, but I don't think anybody here realizes what effort was put into by the sheriff's office and Sanford police department to make sure that everything that we had to do in this case was done properly and was done in a way that insured the safety of the community. So, if you would indulge me for just a minute you will notice in my arguments I can get a bit verbose.

So dear sheriff Eslinger, I want to take a moment to express my and my team's sincere thanks and appreciation for the way your organization has handled the George Zimmerman matter. I want to get this letter to you before the verdict, this was July 8th last week because I did not want its message to be impacted one way or the other by the eventual outcome. I know that your involvement preceded my involvement back be in April 2012 and that you used the entirety of your department's resources to properly address the reality of where this case was and that the potential where it might go on any given day.

While I understand I am unaware of most of the work your department has done, I'm very aware of at least some of the results. I also want to stand by virtue of the confidential nature of a lot of the efforts you will never receive true recognition for the unseen work that insured each positive result.

I have what I perceive to be a unique perspective on the county- wide impact of this case and your responses to it, the integrity and the dedication that you and the entire sheriff's office has brought to the this difficult and complex situation has in large part helped direct it towards a more rational and peaceful unfolding.

I'm not sure what the next couple of weeks may bring but I'm confident you will continue to protect your county, its citizens and its institutions particularly the now often assail judicial system.

I also want to express my gratitude for the way that you handled me and my team throughout the difficult times, the men and women of your department have treated all members of the process from my team to the Martin family to the prosecution to the public in a completely professional and respectful way. And we have done it in such a organized and seamless manner that their presence went almost completely unnoticed.

What I have noticed is your department's calm certainty that they know what to do, how to do it and how to protect all of those involved including the process while accomplishing their tasks.

Personally, this made my job much easier because I can focus my team's efforts on the proper presentation of our case without concerns for outside influences or logistical concerns. We come to the courthouse every day knowing that you have that covered.

I do not know what awards or commendations are available to acknowledge is the pure perfection with which you and your department have handled the entire event but I am certain that you have the vote of every member of my team, the prosecution team, the judicial staff, the media and every citizen who has interacted with your department in this case. Thanks again.

Anyway, I just thought that was appropriate because both sheriff Eslinger and Sanford PD has done an amazing job in making this process as peaceful and successful. Having said that, we appreciate the jury's time and effort. We really do. They will spent an enormous amount of time during the trial listening. They were very intent. I mentioned at one point that some jurors you have to wake them up by shouting or dropping a file. Not this jury. They listened. They took notes as engaged as everybody else in the process. And it made for the type of verdict that we had to have which was a verdict that listened to all available facts not all of the facts but all of the available facts. The evidence, the law and the timed consideration that the jury gave to it before making that final decision.

Obviously, we are ecstatic with the results. George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self- defense. I'm glad that the jury saw it that way and I hope everyone who thinks particularly those who doubted George's reasons and doubted his background now understand that the jury knew everything that they knew was enough for them to find him not guilty. You know even more than the jury knows about both parties' past and we know that George is the type of individual from what you know his involvement in this community, this was not a unique event for George to try and be involved with this community or to be involved with the police when necessary. I'm just glad that the jury saw it that way. Very, very happy with the results.

DON WEST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sometimes I can be a little more blunt. I think the prosecution of George Zimmerman was disgraceful. I am gratified by the jury's verdict, as happy as I am for George Zimmerman, I'm thrilled that this jury kept this tragedy from becoming a travesty. For that we are eternally grateful. But it makes me sad too that it took this long under these circumstances to finally get justice.

O'MARA: Sure, absolutely.

AMANDA EVANS, NEWS 13: Thank you. Hi there. Amanda Evans, News 13. I have a question for you, Mr. West.

This case became a little personal for you. There were some threats made to your family, some jabs about opening statements. We watched as things got heated between you and judge nelson. Can you talk about what this was like for you this trial these last few weeks, just personally?

WEST: Sure. Stop me if you heard this one before. No, I'm not going to talk about that. No.

This trial is about George Zimmerman. Not about pictures of ice cream cones or -- I still think the joke is funny. I'm sorry about that. I'm sorry I didn't tell it better. But there was an important reason for it. There needed to be a disconnect frankly, a disconnect from an act that was hard to follow. But I knew, Mr. O'Mara knew and you all soon found out that it was indeed just an act.

I couldn't follow that act with that kind of passion and glaring and staring and all of that. We needed facts. Unlike what Miss Corey said they brought the facts they didn't. Everybody that watched knew the defense put on the case. We proved George Zimmerman was not guilty. So no, I won't talk about that. Thank you.

BEN MONTGOMERY, TAMPA BAY TIMES: Yes, sir. Ben Montgomery, Tampa Bay Times. Can you give us any insight into Mr. Zimmerman's state of mind upon hearing the verdict in.

O'MARA: I don't know exactly how you can feel when you're in trauma and stress for 16 months and he's very, very happy with the result. Obviously, there's just a release that happens, an emotion release and endorphin release and adrenaline release. I think it's probably going to settle on him tonight when he's with his family and can actually realize that he doesn't need to come back to the courthouse tomorrow or ever again unless he wants to under his own free will.

So I think he's going to be great. I think he's still worried and hopefully, everyone will respect the jury's verdict as they should and most have said they would and we'll take it day by day, but he's doing good.

GRACE WONG, IN SESSION: This is Grace Wong with "In Session." I know this is a yes or no question but I want you to expand on it after I ask the question. Was this a fair fight for you?

O'MARA: You know, let me say it this way. I need to apologize to every public defender in the state and for this reason because I said that the way that we were treated in the discovery process and the fights that we he had to go through in the discovery process made me think that maybe the prosecution thought they were dealing with a couple of young overworked public defenders. And that insulted public defenders, Don West was one. I learned my craft from public defenders because when I was a prosecutor, that's who I learned from. So to the extent that there was some insult there, I apologize for it. What I meant to say was it seemed as though the prosecution is used to getting away with some of what they got away with the enormous demands they put upon us to try and get discovery that in 30 years of experience I've always gotten on the table right up front.

So yes, it was a fight that we had to fight. They out-funded us. They made it extraordinarily difficult if only we had the time back that it took us to fight for the stuff, the information discovery the just result that we had to fight for, this case might have been tried six months ago and certainly I wouldn't have the hundreds of hours wasted in a situation where they never should have made us waste time. Was it fair? You know, it was a little bit David and Goliath, but we won.

DANNY MORALES, VALENCIA VOICE: Danny Morales of Valencia Voice. George had a very good poker face on when the verdict came in. At what point did you express his gratitude to you and how excited he was to finally be able to go home?

O'MARA: I think it was after everyone sort of left the room when you can actually show a little bit more emotions. You know, when you have an emotional outpouring like that, sometimes you get that on a camera or something like that, it's not really what you want to see. But he certainly thanked us obviously and I think he was finally emote as it became a realization he truly is done.

LISA LUCAS, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Lisa Lucas, New York Daily News. I would like to ask you what you feel was your best moment and your weakest moment and ask the same of you to say that for the prosecution.

O'MARA: I think the best moment was when they said not guilty. I think that was probably the best moment right then.

WEST: I agree with that.

O'MARA: So that's it. And during the trial? If you haven't heard of trial hypnosis, I'll explain it to you. I absolutely believe that every time I open my mouth it was a great moment. Nobody else thought so. But I always did. So it was the whole -- it's a trial. It's where we live. It's really like a surgeon on being in surgery. It's what you want to do. Everything we did was with a purpose and a plan. Most of it worked out how we wanted. Every motion we filed, every argument we made, it's just what we do as decent trial lawyers.

LISA LAMB KIN, NBC NEWS: Lisa Lamb Kin, NBC News. A couple legal questions. One is, speaking about the state attorney's office now that you've gotten the not guilty verdict you wanted, are you still going to pursue the sanctions number one and second of all, hopefully not upsetting your wife because I'm sure you need a vacation but are you going to address the civil aspect of this now? As far as the stand your ground and keeping George Zimmerman from being liable?

O'MARA: Yes, there's a sanctions hearing to be set. There is not only that, but of course, the state is then responsible for a lot of the costs that we've incurred to acquit George Zimmerman. So we're going to have a hearing on that, as well. We're not quite done yet. And on the civil aspect, if someone believes that it's appropriate to sue George Zimmerman, then we will seek and we will get immunity in a civil hearing. And we will see just how many civil lawsuits are spawned from this fiasco. So.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) of FOX NEWS. Mr. O'Mara, Mr. West.

What happens to -- I know it seems like a basic follow-up. What happens now to Mr. Zimmerman? Are we going to hear from him? What does he do now? Where does he go? What's next for your client?

O'MARA: I don't know what you will do after 16 months of this. I'm really not sure. I think you need just to go somewhere, relax, get your bearings back. You know, I think that he would like to, once he settles in, let you know who he really is. Since that couldn't be told except through us and even in that way quite limited. But I'm sure that if he could wave his magic wand he would just sort of get his life back and I know it always brings up the idea of the life that's lost forever and I'm not comparing the two but now that the jury decides that he acted properly in self-defense, maybe we can give him a little bit of that understanding, as well that he now needs to get on with his life after having suffered several traumas.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Hello, sir. A two-part question. (INAUDIBLE) with the L.A. Times.

The first part is, the prosecution raised this question about whether the outcome would be different if the races of the defendant and the victim were different. Do you think it would have been different if George Zimmerman was black and the other part of my question is, does he fear for his safety have precautions been made surrounding his security?

O'MARA: I think that thing would have been different if George Zimmerman was black for this reason. He never would have been charged with a crime. It seems as though what happened was an event that was being looked into by Sanford police department and quite honestly as we now know looked into quite well. I have taken advantage of police departments who have not done a good advantage of crimes because that's what I do for a living.

When I looked at the Sanford police department investigation, they had done quite a good job and you can compare what they did across the country to see who does good or bad jobs with their investigation but they were doing quite a lot.

What happened was, this became a focus for a civil rights event which again is a wonderful event to have, but they decide that George Zimmerman would be the person who they were to blame and sort of use as the creation of a civil rights violation, none of which was borne out by the facts. The facts that night was not born out you the that he acted in a racial way. His history is a nonracist and you know all the anecdotes about the children living in his home when he was young and the incident.

So, the if only those who decide condemn Mr. Zimmerman as quickly and as viciously as they did would have taken just a little bit of time to find out who it was that they were condemning, it would never have happened. And it certainly wouldn't have happened if he was black because those people who decided that they were going to make him the scapegoat would not have.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about.

O'MARA: I'm sorry? She did have a two-part question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: I'll ask her question because I wanted to ask that, too. First of all, how concerned is he? Is he going to sort of stay in hiding for a while and sort of feel it out and see what happens? And then the second question is, is I've never seen jurors thank defense attorneys for giving them instructions on the law before. As what happened to you during jury selection. My jaw dropped open. What was your reaction when they thanked you for explaining the law?

O'MARA: As to the first question, yes, he has to be very cautious and protective of his safety because there are still a fringe element who have said at least in tweets and everything else that they want revenge. That they will not listen to a verdict of not guilty although I think everyone in this room would agree this was a very fair trial. More fair to the state maybe on occasions than to the defense, but certainly it was a fair enough trial in that the state got to present everything that they could. So in that sense, those people who have their anger just are going to have it because they're angry people, not because it's based, in fact. Can't help that but we need to be worried about it.

Second question, I mentioned it earlier. Everything I do I think is done well. It was -- yes, it was -- I don't remember a juror actually verbalizing thank you to me when I'm trying to help them understand an area of law that as we talked about is utterly unique and we dragged them in off the street and asked them to take on our mantle of how we work our lives in these courtrooms and do it well. But maybe I will take that as a compliment that they were listening and obviously, they got at opportunity to put that in the practice with their verdict.

MIKE GALANOS, HLN: Don West, Mike Galanos, HLN. You had to cross-examine Rachel Jeantel and (INAUDIBLE). Did you relish the challenge or was it a nightmare?

WEST: No question it was a challenge. What I think we needed to establish with Miss Jeantel, all it took several hours to accomplish and there were those challenges within that itself. We showed through her testimony when the phone call -- the second to last phone call ended with Trayvon Martin. What was it? 7: 1248, something like, 7:1148 and when the next one started and when the event itself occurred. Through that testimony corroborated by the phone records we could show as Mr. O'Mara clearly pointed out in closing, there were four minutes. There were four minutes in between the time when Trayvon Martin ran off until he reappeared in the confrontation with George Zimmerman occurred.

As well as the circumstances under which Miss Jeantel was asked to answer questions. For extraordinary challenging for here. My goodness, she wanted to be left alone. She didn't volunteer anything until she was pulled out of this and the first interview she gave was with the family lawyer, with the family present on the other end of the phone. It was an interview made for TV, not for law enforcement. That was then followed by an interview with the state attorney's office on April 2nd under the most extraordinary circumstances. It took place in Miss Fulton's living room with Miss Fulton sitting next to Ms. Jeantel. That set the stage for the witness herself saying I was uncomfortable. I changed my testimony to, really, to accommodate the feelings of Miss Fulton. That was the setting for all of this.

Plus, as Mr. O'Mara, she really didn't want to be there. Was that a challenge? Of course, it was. But I think ultimately, when you distill it to its important parts that we did accomplish ultimately what we wanted. As to doctor Bao, did you hear Dr. Dimaio's testimony? Much of my cross-examination of the doctor Bao was to set the stage for that indicating where they would clearly disagree trying to identify why and how they would disagree and then offering I think the foremost expert in the country on the very issue we had in our case.

VALERIE BOEY, FOX 35 NEWS: Hi. Valerie Boey, FOX 35 news. Two questions. Do you think the judge was fair or unfair to you? And my other question is, do you think this verdict will hurt race relations?

O'MARA: Judge Nelson runs her courtroom very well. And she moved this case along at a pace that I appreciated. Obviously, we were asking for motions to continue along the way not because of her time line as much as because the state's concerns over discovery. It turns out we were able to accomplish what we needed to in the time she gave us.

Within the context of the courtroom herself as I mentioned a couple times, I appreciate that she reminds me when I do things like speaking objections or somehow no, no, no, comes out of my mouth and that's OK. She needs to run a strict courtroom. And I think that she did. So I sort of appreciated that. And I'm OK with that. We certainly had some concerns of the rulings as they occurred but we respect them as the rulings they are. You had a second part to that?

BOEY: Do you think this will affect race relations?

O'MARA: I kept saying a year ago I really hope that they don't. I kept suggesting to Mr. Crump on three separate occasions that we not suggest that this is a civil rights case of the century because it's just not. It was a self-defense case. Did it brick to the forefront the conversation that young black males are treated a certain way in the criminal justice system? Absolutely. Is that positive? Absolutely. Do we need to have that conversation? Absolutely.

However, if portending that conversation on top of the Zimmerman verdict is going to affect our ability to have that conversation, shame on them. Because that conversation needs to be had. And now it may not be had because we have sort of artificially separated the two camps, if you will, over this verdict. This verdict still has nothing to do with civil rights. Civil rights needs to be talked about but not in the context of a George Zimmerman verdict.

GEORGE HOWELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: George Howell with CNN.

This question specifically to you, Mr. West. As far as the relationship with the judge, the back and forth, can you talk to us a bit about that. Do you feel that you were getting fair treatment and a second question that's similar to both of you, what do you say regarding the tension, you know, what do you tell people have dug in on one side or the other?

WEST: I would like to keep my bar license for a couple more years. And the second part of the question?

HOWELL: Second part of the question was, what do you tell people this has become, you know, people have watched around the country and have dug in on either side of this. What do you tell people just to give them the tension that could follow this verdict?

WEST: You know, that's been such a challenge for me. Obviously, while I've tried a number of cases over the last 33 year or so, a number of them would extremely at my state, death penalty cases. Nothing, of course, like this with the media attention