STATE OF FLORIDA V. ZIMMERMAN 7/12/2013 “Closing day”

Details: Category: Justice; Published: Friday, 12 July 2013 21:46

Gavel10 Posted on July 12, 2013

"Not about ‘Standing your ground’, but it is about staying in your car” – John Guy, Prosecutor, State of Florida in his Surrebuttal.

STATE OF FLORIDA V. ZIMMERMAN 7/12/2013

Prosecutors and defense attorneys wrapped up their closing arguments Friday in Sanford, Florida and George Zimmerman’s fate is now in the hands of the six female jurors who were chosen to decide whether he committed a crime when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin on a rainy night in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012.

Now, Circuit Judge Debra Nelson must give the jury its instructions it must follow once the jury begins deliberations.

Although George Zimmerman’s defense counsel Mark O’Mara re-characterized the constitutional trial burdens of the State of Florida and the Zimmerman defense in closing statements on Friday by saying that he would prove to the jury that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer is “innocent” of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Prosecutor John Guy may have captured the moment with his surrebuttal by characterizing the matter before the six women jury as the case being “not about ‘Standing your ground’, but it is about staying in your car.”

For more than three hours, jurors listened to the closing arguments from George Zimmerman’s defense attorney Mark O’Mara this morning, as he made his arguments to try to convince the jury that the shooting death of unarmed, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was an act of self-defense.

However, Prosecutor John Guy, in his rebuttal, argued that Martin “deserves” justice. “Trayvon Martin lost the fight” said Prosecutor John Guy. “Trayvon Martin may not have had the blood of George Zimmerman on his hands,” Guy said. “But George Zimmerman will forever have Trayvon Martin’s blood on his hands. Forever” said Guy

Zimmerman Defense attorney Mark O’Mara also set forth elements of self-defense in closing to the jury.

O’Mara argued in closing, that if Zimmerman reasonably perceived he was in danger of meeting great bodily harm or deadly force, the use of self-defense is justified.

“If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, he’s not guilty,” O’Mara said. O’Mara argued that although the death of Martin “is a tragedy, truly,” O’Mara told the jury that the jury “can’t allow sympathy to play into it” as to their deliberations and told the jury the following: “Welcome to a criminal courtroom. You have to be better than your presumptions.”

“A verdict must be based on the law. Period” O’Mara told the jury in his closing.

Earlier in his closing, O’Mara played a computer-animated re-enactment created for the Zimmerman defense that Judge Debra Nelson previously ruled that could not be used as evidence. That computer-animated re-enactment depicts Martin throwing the first punch at Zimmerman.

O’Mara argued that there was not “one shred of evidence” to support the state’s claim that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman when he was shot through the heart and criticized the State of Florida for saying the teen was unarmed – at one point bringing before the jury a slab of sidewalk to illustrate it could be used as a deadly weapon.

A verdict is possible today, and the court is in recess. Judge Debra Nelson will read the jury instructions to the panel this afternoon after recess. Those jury instructions will include instructions for 2nd Degree murder (Florida Statute 782.04(2)) and the lesser included charge of manslaughter (Florida Statute 782.07). If convicted, George Zimmerman can face up to life for 2nd Degree murder and up to 30 years for manslaughter.

ANALYSIS

Although the Zimmerman defense team by way of Mark O’Mara methodically set forth a defense for the jury to consider effectively raising doubt, the moment that may have the most influence on this jury of six women was the “John Guy Moment” the surrebuttal by characterizing the matter as the case being “not about ‘Standing your ground’, but it is about staying in your car.” As I have written previously, I thought that the State of Florida needed to be “masters of characterization” and indeed this may have been the moment. At the end of the day, the jury must ask themselves, was it reasonable for George Zimmerman to exit the car assuming that he witnessed “suspicious activity” which may have caused him harm in light of the fact that he did have the Seminole County non-emergency operator on the cell phone while Zimmerman was detailing and reporting the “suspicious activity”?
- See more at: http://www.constitutionally-speaking.com/2013/07/12/state-of-florida-v-zimmerman-7122013-closing-day/#sthash.B2ltFbFE.dpuf