Get PJ Media on your Apple

Zimmerman Closing Arguments: Detailing What the Mob Ignores

No intellectually honest protester — or jury — could have convicted. Challenge the mob's assertions with this summary.

by
Mike McDaniel

Bio

July 15, 2013 - 9:15 am

He was again misrepresenting evidence. Zimmerman did not testify that Martin was always in that position, quite the opposite, and the fact that he was able to draw the gun — and the forensic evidence fully supports his account — negates de la Rionda’s assertion.

Just as the prosecution was not able to produce any evidence to prove the elements of the crime in the charging affidavit or to produce any evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s self-defense claim at the beginning of the case, they failed to do either in the closing as well.

The prosecution theory of this case remained the narrative, which is nothing more than leftist, racist philosophy about how things ought to be rather than a coherent code of law or social conventions.  Trayvon Martin is innocent, childlike, helpless, and a victim because he’s black and was wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles, and that is all that should be necessary to convict a “white-Hispanic” of murder, because racial grievance-mongers anticipating an enormous payday and political advantage say so.

A detailed account of de la Rionda’s closing is available here.

The defense closing argument:

The defense closing ran a bit over three hours. It was a model of decorum, effective tone, organization, adherence to the law, and honest and precise analysis and presentation of the evidence. Mark O’Mara led the jury through a comprehensive tour of the evidence, just as a highly competent prosecutor normally does in a normal case. But this is the bizarro case, the backwards case, and de la Rionda had already delivered the B-movie defense closing.

O’Mara, speaking in a calm, measured voice, never screaming at the jury, explained that the prosecution’s closing was full of “what if,” and “could have been” — which have no place in the courtroom — and asked the jury to make assumptions and to rely on “common sense.” Whereas he asked the jury to rely on the law and the evidence.

He further told the jury that rather than prove reasonable doubt, he would prove that Zimmerman was absolutely innocent.

Some highlights:

– Ill will, spite, and hatred: O’Mara ridiculed de la Rionda’s obsessive recitation of these accusations, rightly noting this was nearly all he said, and de la Rionda produced no actual evidence in support of these claims. O’Mara often challenged the prosecution to rebut him; they never did.

– The phone call: O’Mara asked what Zimmerman did when he saw Martin. Did he immediately chase him, draw his gun, and shoot him? No, he immediately called the non-emergency police line.

Zimmerman knew he was being recorded, O’Mara said. He acknowledged that Zimmerman used a few obscenities toward criminals, perhaps even including Martin because he matched the descriptions of the criminals plaguing the neighborhood.

He pointed out that Zimmerman provided Martin’s race only after being asked. This fact is of primary importance to the case, and was deliberately excluded in NBC’s reporting last year, which helped fire up the protesters. O’Mara has already initiated a suit against NBC since the verdict was announced.

O’Mara said that the jury should remember that it was de la Rionda and prosecutor John Guy who screamed obscenities — not Zimmerman. He noted de la Rionda wanted the jury to think Zimmerman guilty because he spoke a few obscenities under his breath on a recorded call to the police. O’Mara asserted that was evidence of innocence, and surely not of ill will or hatred. O’Mara told them there had been enough swearing, and that he would not do it again. He sharply stung the prosecution by saying that he had a tape of the prosecution screaming obscenities, but decided not to play it.

He encouraged the jury to compare their obscene screams with what Zimmerman actually said and how he said it.

– The “T”: O’Mara asked if there was any evidence that Zimmerman ran anywhere or ran after Martin after Zimmerman told the dispatcher “OK,” or even that he walked anywhere after Martin. There was not, and O’Mara again challenged the state to show that. They did not. O’Mara recited the credible witnesses, who in support of Zimmerman’s account, placed the beginning of the action at the “T” in the sidewalks.

– The four-minute gap: O’Mara produced a brilliant bit of courtroom theater, reminding the jury that Jeantel said that Martin was running for home. He gave the jury four minutes of silence to make the point. It seemed a very long time. After the time elapsed, he said: “That’s how long he had to run, about four minutes.”

The point: Martin had far more than enough time to be indoors and gone, but he chose otherwise.

O’Mara paused before a brief recess by asking if the prosecution showed the jury what Martin was doing for four minutes before the fight began at the “T”. Of course, they did not, a point the jury took with them as they left.

After the break, O’Mara told the jury they have to think about what Martin was doing for those four minutes. He said the first man ran a four-minute mile when he was about 12, and the distance Martin had to cover was only about the distance one could throw a football. He told the jury that they knew Martin had the opportunity to go home, but he didn’t.

“Somebody decided they were angry,” he observed. “It wasn’t over with the running; it only just began.”

O’Mara said it wasn’t about a cop wannabe or “stand your ground.” Martin didn’t go home when he had the chance. He laid in wait. O’Mara asked the jury to use their common sense.

– O’Mara made the point that Zimmerman gave the police six voluntary statements without the benefit of counsel. He emphatically asked the jury : “Tell the state: don’t ever come back before us with a case like this. Don’t ever do this to us.”

– Witness photos: O’Mara then began a PowerPoint series of photos of every witness that testified, along with brief text either explaining how their testimony supported Zimmerman’s account — most of the slides — or why they lacked credibility. Most of those slides were actually prosecution witnesses, whose testimony either fully supported Zimmerman’s account or who managed to destroy their own credibility.

O’Mara treated all of the witnesses gently, particularly Rachel Jeantel, saying that she didn’t want to be involved at all. He suggested — admitting it was conjecture — that it was her mother that wanted her to write a letter to Sybrina Fulton, but Rachel didn’t want to do that.

He pointed out that virtually no one can remember the specific contents of a phone call made long ago, saying: “Oh yeah, you want that too … ” just as Jeantel did in the interview with de la Rionda, a comment suggesting that her testimony had been coached.

O’Mara said: “Some of her frailties came out on TV and in the courtroom which she never wanted to come out.” He then took off the kid gloves, noting that her interviews were badly handled by attorneys, saying it was “horribly inappropriate” not to get her immediately to law enforcement (Benjamin Crump’s fault), and also to place her on a couch right next to Martin’s mother (de la Rionda’s fault). O’Mara did not specifically identify them.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
By what Legal/Moral Authority?

I’ve been having this conversation with leftists since Highschool…the Legal and Moral Authority that THEY should be allowed to operate by a different set of rules, that’s what.

The “mentality” that allows for Political Bombings by some (while calling the expression of mere opinion by others “terrorism”) will naturally allow for store windows, merchandise, and the occasional Reginald Denny to “pay” for any dissatisfaction this self-appointed class of “Politically Immune from their own behavior” adherents feel is appropriate.

The Left has long ago perfected this double standard through the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectation, Blacks have been culturally indoctrinated by The Left to EXPECT an acceptance of their violence, because its “owed” to them by “creepy ass crackers”.

They EXPECT (and are given by the media) an allowance for Riots, Flash Mobs, and “wilding sprees” because they ARE EXPECTED to behave by a different set of rules for social behavior.

Which makes me certain a certain wannabe hood-rat, conspiring to obtain an ILLEGAL handgun, was the aggressor in that altercation, and the guy who submitted to the rigors and responsibility of obtaining a Carry Permit, was NOT.

But that matters not to the Left . Who was he to DARE prevent his further beating, at the hands of a righteously insulted, politically immune, Federally Protected, Democratic Species?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's what's relevant.

Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman was told by the police to stop following Martin. Let's further suppose that Zimmerman was a complete a$$hole, that he confronted Martin and was rude, disrespectful and generally awful.

So if we assume those things to be true (despite there being no evidence of any of it) I'd like the Justice-for-Trayvon crowd to answer four questions:

1) By what legal / moral theory was Martin justified in initiating the physical conflict?
2) By what legal / moral theory was Martin justified in continuing the physical conflict after he'd won it? (If you're straddling someone and pounding their head on the pavement you've won the fight).
3) By what legal / moral theory was Zimmerman obliged to lay there and take a beating that could easily have resulted in permanent disability or death?
4) Here's the big one: explain how your answers to questions 1-3 don't give people like me (six feet tall with boxing and martial arts training) license to just go around beating up smaller people who piss us off.

These aren't rhetorical questions, I'd genuniely love to hear the answers. I want someone to explain how the person who initiates an assault can be considered a victim.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Are you aware that special Prosecutor Angela Corey also "misrepresented the facts" by gathering info and then leaving out details and facts so as to leave room for "probable cause" to go to court?
This is where it began in earnest; someone sent her there to do just that; and it's so illegal. Where are the reports that keep this front and center?????????
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (49)
All Comments   (49)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
New here and wish to say thanks Mike McDaniel for this article and to many here who have offered good tips on how to refute the deluded altho
it will ONLY help in maybe one of a hundred debates.
Every opening mind is a step toward peace. :)
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
seems the only person that had his civil rights abused was Zimmerman, after speaking of the creepy ass white cracker following him, that is racial profiling, and now we can hear Trayvon's girl friend speaking of how she thought Zimmerman was gay and that Trayvon should run away,

So why didn't Trayvon run when his girl friend told him to go, probably because he heard Zimmerman gay and was going to punish the gay man, another hate crime.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trayvon's case has been remanded to a higher court where he'll get all the justice he deserves. Case closed. Mr. Zimmerman can move to any Latin American country and have a wonderful life with his family and new friends. The Demokkkrats are out for blood and they'll never rest until he's dead.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
and with the settlement from the law suits against the media for journalistic malpractice, bet he can pick and choose anywhere he wants to live, as I see the settlement in 7 figures plus and at least one media outlet has already acknowleged the wrong because they fired one person already in a sorry attempt to make it right?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have been listening to talk radio today and the people who disagree with the jury's verdict go on to express evidence and events that did not get proven in court. One is that GZ could not get to his gun which was inside of his waistband in a holster. This is nonsense because anyone who has ever wrestled knows that if you are on top you spread your knees as far apart as possible for stability and you NEVER clamp them onto the lower person. Two, if TM was the frightened kid on top yelling for his life, why when Mr. Good came out and told them to stop and that he was going to call the police did not TM jump up and run to him? And three, how much must a person who has been knocked down by a blow to the nose and then mounted and being beaten and head being pounded into the concrete withstand before he decides that his life may be in danger? TM advocates are expressing the fact that GZ wounds were not life threatening and therefore he should not have fired his gun. That is after the fact and they were not there in the rain being beaten by a black man sitting on top of them not knowing who he was or why he was attacking. The other big complaint from this same group is that GZ should have not followed TM. There is no evidence that he did but if he did there is no crime there. In fact unless GZ hit TM first, which there was absolutely no evidence of, nothing he could have done to TM would warrant an attack by TM. They seem never to explain how TM sitting on top of GZ would be yelling for his life. Why would he scream for someone to help him? He was winning hands down.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
you make a logical and cogent response which means that libs/dems won't be able to understand or comprehend the facts or what you posted.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
What these people are unable or unwilling to understand is that self-defense, both legally and morally, doesn't require that you take ANY damage. You only have to reasonably assume that failing to stop the assault could result in severe injury or death. Indeed, the whole point of self-defense is to not get injured... not to take 20 punches and then calculate "hmmm, the 21st blow might kill me, time to pull my gun".
I really just want them all to answer that simple question: how many times do I get to bang your skull against the pavement before you feel entitled to defend yourself?

The only possible justification for thinking Zimmerman guilty of causing a wrongful death would be to say that he threw the first punch (something there is -zero- evidence of). And even then I think you're on shaky ground because Martin continued to press the attack after he'd already gotten the upper hand.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
" The only possible justification for thinking Zimmerman guilty of causing a wrongful death ...."
and your points are well done but HERE is the real reason Z will always be relegated to the pariah dump is RACISM & HATE
inculcated by those who own all media and guide the lowIQ emotionally reflexive MOB to keep its monstrous head in all our faces so we dont SEE the hidden hand behind it all.
The ones who can get the mind set of the mob to act via their guidance create rev olutions and massacres
Just some little incidents from a few thousand years of history should have taught us but we werent paying attention
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course they understand. The protests are organized by community organizers. Holder prosecutes whistle blowers and persecutes real journalists to protect their racket. Rabble rousing is the flip side of the same coin. The purpose is to intimidate us.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are correct see my reply above
What I began to suspect whenthe SYG laws were picked up by several States was that it was to be a TRAP to pass NEW LAWS when this one took all the heat behind some 'incident' It didnt happen soon enough for the controllers of all humans so they seized
on this non incident to blow up and never bothered to cehck to see if the designated mark in this con game was really WHITE

Now fighting with egg on face to use every lie and distortion to keep the agenda moving along to remove all SYG laws and TIGHTEN SELF DEFENSE LAWS so no one can use a gun

When do they go after knives and baseball bats ?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or, that Martin knocked Zimmerman down with one punch, then started to walk away, and THEN Zimmerman drew his gun and shot. That would not be self-defence, as there would be no need to shoot to stop an attack that had already stopped. But that didn't happen - Martin was continuing the attack, and there's no way to tell if he'd have stopped at anything short of Zimmerman's death.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
If some comes at you with a knife or a machete, are you obligated to let them slice you open first before you shoot? Of course not. If someone comes at you swinging a baseball bat do you have to take one in the head before you fire? Clearly that would be insane. If someone is straddling you on the ground, pounding your head into the sidewalk, why would you NOT assume they were trying to kill you?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
In New York, you have the right to use deadly physical force if you believe you are about to be robbed, or physically attacked.

I served on a manslaughter trial jury in 1987, and still know that law.
(a trial with many parallels to this one, including a split jury at first, but the prosecution witnesses supported the defendant claim that he was being robbed, but it took three days before the jury finally realized there was reasonable doubt and the defendant was acquitted)

BUT, NOW in NYC? Now they will arrest BOTH people, and the one who has physical evidence on their body of assault will go free.
Which means you have to let the assailant attack you, make sure they draw blood, and then you will still be arrested if you then try to defend yourself.

Brave New World
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
We just moved to Florida from L.A, CA mid March. I'm now hearing from libs I know on FB and in real life, they refuse to come to FL. Looks like family won't be coming and that guest room can now be used for other purposes. Never thought I'd feel the wrath of the north living here in the south. I kind of like it in a creepy kind of way.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'd add part 5 to Silver Age's excellent questions.

On at least two occasions now, I've heard two female black attorneys, one on CNN and one on FOX News, say that Zimmerman's injuries were not "severe enough" to justify self-defense with a loaded weapon.

Well, now exactly what injury does constitute "severe enough" for self-defense with a loaded weapon?

Should Zimmerman have first been rendered unconscious? Or perhaps Zimmerman let his skull be fractured? I'd like to ask the two females about domestic abuse and what justifies self-defense with a weapon. Say does an open hand across the face mean no self-defense with a loaded weapon, but an close hand does?

There are so many mental midgets coming to the lame defense of a thug that it boggles my mind.

And the end result of George Zimmerman's beating, smashed nose and bleeding occipital in at least two places, looked worse to me than Rodney King's result at the hands of police.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Tex, I bet if either of those black attorneys had suffered similar injuries they wouldn't be making that statement.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm on my high-school's debate team and I've noticed that the state in this case used a lot of tactics that my opponents (and on occasion my parter and I) would use when a debate was going bad. For example:

1. Use no facts of your own, simply ignore your opponents facts and hope the judge/jury doesn't notice.

2. Use grand theatrics and high flying emotion language to distract the judge/jury from the fact that your theory has holes big enough for a semi to drive through.

3. Change the point of the debate to whatever suits your side and hope your opponent doesn't notice. In the case the state tried to argue that Zimmerman was a racist and mean spirited thug who harassed and shot a poor innocent black boy. The defense however saw through through this and countered by reminding the jury that even if what the state said was true, none of that was against the law; what was instead important was that Martin was beating Zimmerman to death when Zimmerman shot him and that that constituted self defense.

4. Call the other team a bunch of liars; although, now that i think about it, no one has ever tried that tactic on debate before.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I debated in high school, also (a "long, long time ago", in the immortal words of Don McLean), and I once tried tactic #4.

It didn't work.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
On a side note, if you watch enough Obama speeches you'l notice that he uses many of the same tactics.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
It would be nice if the NAACP and Rev. Al explained why it doesn't matter that the trial evidence strongly suggests that Martin initiated the physical confrontation and was acting as the aggressor when Zimmerman shot him.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
If I ever commit a felony in the state of Florida, I sincerely hope that de la Rionda and Guy are the prosecutors against me.

I think that I'll stick to Straight and Narrow though, since if there IS any justice, those two clowns, along with Angela Corey and Debra Nelson, ended their careers with this shameful spectacle.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am going to be charitable and assume that the Prosecutor was not an idiot. I think he knew the case was completely unwinable, with any reasonable jury, so he was not speaking to them. He was speaking to the mob outside. He wanted to be on the record as having given them, and the Sharpton/Jacksons, a voice in the courtroom.

For the record, I think that's more reprehensible than condescending to the actual jury.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
" He was speaking to the mob outside. He wanted to be on the record as having given them, and the Sharpton/Jacksons, a voice in the courtroom. "

IMV this is why that excuse for a judge also played corner support for the prosecutors as she has always been told that one day the non WHITES will rule and she wants to be on their good side.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
"He was speaking to the mob outside. He wanted to be on the record as having given them, and the Sharpton/Jacksons, a voice in the courtroom."

That means that he was inciting to riot.

If that isn't a felony, then surely it is against the ethics of the American and Florida Bar Associations.

We'll see...lawyers should not be allowed to use the courts to whip up lynch mobs without severe penalties for doing so.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Duke lacrosse II, time to go after the law licenses of those that prosecuted this case.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All