George Zimmerman Trial - Day 1 - Part 1 (Opening Statements)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Good morning, please be seated. [00:00:21] Speaker 2: Good morning, we're on the record, case number 12, CF1083, State v. George Zimmerman. Parties are here and present. Does the, when I'm reading the jury instructions this morning, does the defense want me to include in that the right to remain silent? Okay. Was there anything else that we needed to take up before we bring the jury in? [00:00:50] Speaker 3: Governor, this time we're going to invoke the rule. [00:00:52] Speaker 2: Okay. The rule of sequestration is being invoked. That means, are there any witnesses who are going to be testifying here in the courtroom? Okay. If you all want to go out and instruct your witnesses, you may do so at this time. [00:01:05] Speaker 4: Or to the extent that the rule would ask the defendant's family be excluded from that rule. They are somewhat maybe witnesses, either called by the State of Defense, that would include father and mother. As you know, we have not, do not suggest that the victim's family be removed from the courtroom as they are witnesses, actually more substantive witnesses. But I would think that, in fairness to both families, that we would allow that. [00:01:29] Speaker 3: Mr. D. On the rule of 90.616, the only witnesses that this rule can apply to are the parents. I would cite 90.616, the parents of the victim. And specifically, in a criminal case, under 90.616, subparagraph D, in a criminal case, the victim of the crime, the victim's next of kin, the parent or guardian of a minor child, or the lawful representative of such persons, unless a motion by the court determines such person's presence to be prejudicial, she'll be allowed to remain in the courtroom. And so we would respectfully request that the victim's parents be allowed to remain in the courtroom. We would object to anybody else being in the courtroom that's going to potentially be a witness. [00:02:09] Speaker 4: Mr. Spence. I'm familiar with the rule, Your Honor, however, this court does have the discretion to allow other members of the defendant's family as well. And though the state is listening as the witnesses and may well intend to call them, they shouldn't, by that maneuver, be allowed to exclude the defendant's family from the courtroom. [00:02:29] Speaker 2: Well, they may come in after the state has finished with their case. Is there a reason why you feel that they need to be here in disregard of the rule of sequestration? Yes. [00:02:47] Speaker 4: They are supporting their son in a second-degree murder charge and have the right to be here both for their own purposes. [00:02:53] Speaker 2: Okay, show me a case that says that. [00:02:55] Speaker 4: Please. Not prepared right now because this wasn't addressed. It's a free trial, Your Honor. So I would like some time to do that. Maybe while opening statements are ongoing, we'll get that for you. To the extent that that's going to occur, do you want them out at this point? Yes. Then Mr. Crump will also leave the courtroom? Is he enlisted as a witness? Yes, he is, Your Honor. [00:03:11] Speaker 2: Yes, he will. [00:03:12] Speaker 4: And any other witnesses you can identify? [00:03:14] Speaker 2: Are there any other witnesses? [00:03:15] Speaker 4: If that's the state's position, then the defendant's family should not be here. [00:03:19] Speaker 3: Our position is we would just like the rule to be followed, and we've cited the rule. [00:03:24] Speaker 2: Okay, and the rule says the victim's family. Everybody else must leave the courtroom until further notice of the court. [00:03:34] Speaker 4: I would point out, Your Honor, that as the court is well aware, Mr. Crump has been the subject of many motions. [00:03:54] Speaker 3: Throughout the proceedings, he has been available. In fact, last week, he was available in defense, made a decision not to depose him at this time for tactical reasons or whatever, which they have the right to do. But if it was such an urgent matter, they made a decision not to depose him. [00:04:09] Speaker 4: Not so good for relevance in that argument to the 616 exclusion of a witness that the state seems to be, again, still moving to enforce. I would, again, suggest a relaxation of it, but if the state does not want to go there and wants to follow the letter of it, I think that we should. And I would note that 616 is in the alternative, either the victim's family or legal representativity does not say end. The intent of that is to allow for Mr. Martin's family to have representation, and they do. Mr. Crump, however, is going to be a very significant potential witness in this case. And if it's not going to be relaxed, it shouldn't be relaxed. [00:05:10] Speaker 2: The rule specifically states, in a criminal case, a victim of a crime, the victim's next of kin, the parent or guardian of a minor child, or a lawful representative of such person, unless upon motion the court determines such person's presence to be prejudicial. So the state is asking for the rule to be invoked, or you were asked for the rule to be invoked? The state asked for the rule to be invoked, and they're asking that Trayvon Martin's family or parents be allowed to remain, which is provided for, and they're asking for Mr. Crump to remain under what portion? [00:05:55] Speaker 3: Under that same statute, Your Honor. [00:05:57] Speaker 2: A representative? [00:05:58] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor, he is the legal representative of Mr. Martin, the deceased. [00:06:02] Speaker 2: And at this time, I don't have anything in this rule or any case law that says, of course, Mr. Zimmerman's family that's not on a witness list may sit throughout the trial. The issue is on the witness list. [00:06:17] Speaker 4: The 616 was never intended to suggest that the legal representative could be a substantive witness. The intent was to be certain that the victim's family under this statute is represented. They are well represented by mother and father. It was never an intention. I would think it would be an absurd intent, and I'm about to file an oral motion to clear this up, that a substantive witness in the case would be able to slide in under the suggestion of a legal representation. So let me say it this way. I hereby move orally that it is prejudicial to allow a substantive - Tell me the prejudice. I'm about to, if I might. The prejudice is that Mr. Crump has continually committed or had press conferences where he has evidenced a strong representation, not only legally, but factually. It was 25 minutes ago that Mr. Crump had a press conference where he said there are only two facts that matter in this case to the public. I won't recite them to the court in case you didn't see it, but he very, very focused suggesting his position factually, not just as a legal representative for this case. So as a factual witness, one, let's not forget, whom the 5th district court said is so substantive and has so few protections that we can take his deposition, is going to be a factual witness. [00:07:42] Speaker 2: I don't recall them using the words that he's so substantive. I recall them saying, and I'm characterizing, that the deposition is extremely limited and should not take very long to accomplish. [00:07:57] Speaker 4: Nonetheless, I don't want to argue with the point of what the 50th district said to you. I understand your position. However, we have the right to depose him. That would, in my opinion, suggest that he is, in fact, a substantive witness if he was a good student. [00:08:09] Speaker 2: And when did the 50CA opinion come out that told you you had the right to depose him? A month ago. A month ago. And you haven't deposed him yet. [00:08:17] Speaker 4: And I think the court is well aware why. Well. If need be, I will tell you what I've done for the past 30 days getting ready for this case to try today. But the reality is the fact that we've decided to wait until this week to take his deposition does not suggest that he's less than substantive, does not suggest that he's a legal representative that should slide under 9616 when the family is otherwise fully represented. [00:08:40] Speaker 2: The court made note last week when you had brought up about the depose that Mr. Crump had sat in this courtroom the entire time of jury selection and that he was here and available and you could have used the court reporter and this courtroom to accomplish that deposition any evening or at any time. So it was not his availability, but I don't want to get into that right now. I'm going to ask Mr. Crump and the defendant's family that are under subpoena to please leave the courtroom. We will get the case law over lunch and the court will review the case law and make a final decision. I'd like to get on with closing arguments and that's why I'm asking that to be done at this time. I don't know if there's any member of Mr. Zimmerman's family that's here that's under subpoena. Okay, if they are. Please inform your witnesses that the rule of sequestration has been invoked. Anything else we need to take up before we bring the jury in to start with instructions? Yes, sir. [00:09:58] Speaker 5: It simply relates to apparently there is a exhibit prepared by a witness who was provided for deposition on Saturday. That exhibit is, as far as I know, still yet unviewed. But if there's going to be no mention of it in opening statement, obviously the state is fine with deferring consideration of the motion for you. If there's going to be a mention of this and it's specifically witness shoemaker and a recreation, then I think we would prefer to have that addressed now. [00:10:33] Speaker 2: Well, I just walked on the bench and it's sitting up there. I have not looked at it, it has not been provided to me before now. Mr. O'Meara, were you intending to mention this in opening statement? [00:10:47] Speaker 4: The animation itself, Your Honor, not specifically, but I will tell you that there is a demonstrative evidence aside from that, which the state has been provided, not the animation, but literally what we call a poster, which is a scene, you might call it a snapshot from the animation. [00:11:06] Speaker 2: Is there any objection to that demonstrative? [00:11:09] Speaker 4: I would like to see it first. We'll tell them which one it is. [00:11:13] Speaker 2: Could you please do so now because we're getting ready to go into opening statements. Thank you. [00:11:43] Speaker ?: Okay. There's no objection to that? Okay. [00:11:47] Speaker 2: That's great. Anything else? Who's going to be doing the opening for the state? Mr. I will. Mr. Guy and for the defense? Mr. West. Okay, thank you. Mr. We do have another matter, though. [00:11:57] Speaker 1: We touched on it last Friday. It has to do with the raised gestate statements. There was some question of precisely what they were. I had raised the issue back in late May when we had the hearing on the state's sort of generic motion to exclude hearsay of the defendant, and I -- has the court received the motion? [00:12:33] Speaker 2: Mr. I received something that's on my desk, but I was working on the Frye hearing order, so at the time that I received it, I was right in the middle of doing that, so I have not read it. [00:12:48] Speaker 1: Mr. Well, Your Honor, I have a copy that the court may have now, of course. This is very important evidence, and that the court, I think -- [00:12:59] Speaker 2: Mr. Can I ask -- sorry to interrupt, but can I ask you, are you going to be mentioning any of that in opening? Mr. Yes. Mr. Well, then, we need to -- we need to have a hearing on this. Let me have the motion. [00:13:10] Speaker 1: Mr. Thank you, Judge. Mr. This is an unsigned copy? [00:13:16] Speaker 2: Mr. That's fine. Thank you, Susan. [00:13:20] Speaker 3: Mr. What if it was a copy in the motion? Mr. Another copy? Mr. No, it was given. [00:13:28] Speaker 2: The state was not given a motion, the copy of the motion? [00:13:31] Speaker 4: Mr. When was it provided documents that opened on Friday, but I'll give you the copy? [00:13:35] Speaker 3: Mr. We have not received any motion. [00:13:37] Speaker ?: Mr. Okay. [00:13:41] Speaker 3: I know you spoke about it Friday, you're right, but this is on the face, sir. Mr. Sure, that's fine. [00:13:58] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:16:58] Speaker 2: Okay. Has the state read the motion? [00:17:01] Speaker 3: Great, I do not. [00:17:01] Speaker 2: Okay. Is the state familiar with 90.8031? Yes, Your Honor. Okay. And the defenses also? Because there are a couple of statements here and two of which I find would fall within that, a third of which may not. I don't know how much time. I don't know how much time expired between the event and the police officer arriving. And I would have to know what that timeframe was. Is there any response by the state as to those three statements? [00:17:34] Speaker 3: Well, to answer the court's question first, it was within minutes of the shooting in terms of when the officer responded and also when he made statements to at least one of the statements alleged to witness number 13, whose name will become known. I will point out that witness number 13, in his deposition when he was asked regarding the statements. He stated that the defendant was calm. So I don't know that it rises to the level of excited utterance. He did make those statements. [00:17:59] Speaker 2: Well, it says a spontaneous statement describing or an explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness. If more than a slight lapse of time has occurred between the event and the statement, the spontaneity is lacking. The statements to witness 13, I think, would fall within that. I don't know as to the law enforcement officer. So I will reserve as to that one, but the other two. I can help with the timing. [00:18:39] Speaker 1: It was very, very fast. As the motion indicates, Officer Smith was already en route because Mr. Zimmerman had told the dispatcher to please send an officer. So he was always there. I think it's less than a minute. And he witnessed 13 and Mr. Zimmerman were standing there when Officer Smith walked right up to them. So in fact, Officer Smith said at his deposition that Mr. Zimmerman spontaneously said I was yelling for help and no one would help. So it's very close in time. It's not a question really of the actual number of seconds in any event. It's really the circumstances and the trustworthiness comes from the circumstances themselves, not a precise measure of the time, keeping in mind that Mr. Zimmerman was bleeding from the face and from the back of his head. He was out of his head. He was out of breath and had been staggering. And witness 13 described him as someone who had just gotten his butt beat. Within seconds of that encounter, Officer Smith came up and Mr. Zimmerman was handcuffed for the officer's safety and said, Okay. I have the Stiles case, which quotes extensively from the Alexander case. Both of those cases were cited by the state in its original motion in limine, but they are squarely on point with my issue here. [00:20:15] Speaker 2: Okay. What I'm reading here is that while there is no requirement under the spontaneus statement exception that the statement being made while the declarant is in an excited state, in order for a section 90.8032 exception to be present, the declarant must be excited. Under section 90.8031, spontaneity and contemporaneity are key rather than an excited state of mind. So I will let them in. Thank you. [00:20:45] Speaker 3: Any other matters? Yes. For the final housekeeping matter, I just wanted to introduce to the court, Sarah Waldorf. She's a trial paralegal and will be assisting us throughout the case. Thank you very much. [00:20:56] Speaker 2: She has recently not been in court. And welcome. Anything else we have to do? We're ready for the jury. Let's go ahead and bring them in. Oh, I know. If Council would please approach for one brief moment. [00:21:58] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:23:21] Speaker 2: Welcome back, and I'll be with you in just one moment. [00:23:28] Speaker ?: Thank you. I'll be with you in just one moment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:26:41] Speaker 2: Okay. I'll be with you in just one moment. As the rules of sequestration have been invoked, that means to any potential witnesses that they're not to listen to any portion of the trial, whether they be at home or here at the courthouse. That they're not to discuss their testimony that they will be giving during this trial to anybody other than the attorneys if they request a meeting for them. They're not to allow anybody to tell them what is going on during the course of the trial. And I hope -- good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and I hope that you're all well settled in, and I welcome you back to court. Before we get started today, I'm going to ask you certain questions, and if your answer is yes to any of my questions, please raise your hand. During the recess overnight, did any of you have read or listened to any radio, television, or newspaper reports about the case? No hands are being raised. No hands are being raised. Did any of you use any type of an electronic device to get on the internet to do any independent research about the case, people, places, things, or events? No hands are being raised. No hands are being raised. Did any of you have any conversations with each other or with anybody else about this case? No hands. No hands are being raised. And finally, did any of you read or create any emails, text messages, Twitters, tweets, blogs, or social networking pages about the case? No. Okay. You were previously sworn, you were selected and sworn as a jury to try the case of the State of Florida versus George Zimmerman. This is a criminal case, and George Zimmerman is charged with murder in the second degree. The definition of the elements of the crime charged will be explained to you later. It is your solemn responsibility to determine if the State of Florida has proved its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt against George Zimmerman. Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence and the law that I will give you. The information, which is a charging document that I read to you on Thursday, is not evidence and you are not to consider it as proof of guilt. It is the judge's responsibility to decide which laws apply to this case and to explain those laws to you. It is your responsibility to decide what the facts of the case may be and to apply the law to the facts as you find them. Thus, the province of the jury and the province of the court are well defined and they do not overlap. This is one of the fundamental principles of our system of justice. Before proceeding further, it would be helpful if you understood how a trial is conducted. At the beginning of the trial, the attorneys will have an opportunity, if they wish, to make an opening statement. The opening statement gives the attorneys an opportunity to tell you what evidence they believe will be presented during the trial. What the lawyers say is not evidence, and you are not to consider it as such. Following the opening statements, witnesses will be called to testify under oath. They will be examined and cross-examined by the attorneys. Documents and other exhibits also may be produced as evidence. After the evidence has been presented, the attorneys will have an opportunity to make their final argument. Following the arguments by the attorneys, the court will instruct you on the law that is applicable to this case. After the instructions are given, you will then retire to consider your verdict. You should not form any fixed or definite opinion on the merits of the case until you have heard all of the evidence, the argument of the lawyers, and the instruction on the law that I will give you. Until that time, you should not discuss the case among yourselves. During the course of the trial when we take recesses, you will be separated from the courtroom and go about the sequestration rules. During these recesses, you will not discuss the case with anyone nor permit anyone to say anything to you or in your presence about the case. If anyone attempts to say anything to you or in your presence about the case, tell them that you are on the jury and trying the case and ask them to stop. If they persist, leave them at once and immediately report it to one of the court deputies. The case must be tried by you only on the evidence presented during the trial in your presence, in the presence of the defendant, the attorneys, and the judge. Jurors must not conduct any investigation on their own. This includes reading newspapers, watching television, or using a computer, cell phone, the internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all to get information related to this case or the people and places involved in the case. This applies whether you are in the court house, during your sequestration, or anywhere else. You must not visit any of the places mentioned in the trial or use the internet to look at maps or pictures to see any place discussed during the trial. Jurors must not have any discussions of any sort with friends or family members about the case or the people and places involved, so do not let even the closest family members make comments to you or ask you questions about the trial. In this age of electronic communication, I want to stress this again that just as you may not talk about this case face to face, you must not talk about this case by using an electronic device. You must not use phones, computers, or other electronic devices to communicate. Do not send or accept any messages related to this case or your jury service. Do not discuss this case or ask for advice by any means at all, including posting information on an internet website, chat room, or blog. In every criminal proceeding, a defendant has the absolute right to remain silent. At no time is it the duty of a defendant to prove his innocence. From the exercise of a defendant's right to remain silent, a jury is not permitted to draw any inference of guilt, and the fact that a defendant did not take the witness stand must not influence your verdict in any manner whatsoever. The attorneys are trained in the rules of evidence and trial procedure, and it is their duty to make all objections that they deem proper. When an objection is made, you should not speculate on the reason why it is made. Likewise, when an objection is sustained or upheld by me, you must not speculate on what might have occurred had the objection not been sustained, nor what a witness might have said had he or she been permitted to answer. If you would like to take notes during the trial, you may do so. On the other hand, of course, you are not required to take notes if you don't want to. That will be left up to you individually. You have been provided with a notepad and a pen for your use if you wish to take notes. Any notes you take will be for your personal use. However, you should not take them with you from the courtroom. During recesses, the deputy will take possession of your notes and will return them to you when we reconvene. After you have completed with your deliberations, the deputy will deliver your notes to me. They will be destroyed. No one will ever read your notes. If you take notes, don't get so involved in the note-taking process that you become distracted from the proceedings. Your notes should only be used as aids to your memory. Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your memory of the evidence and you should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror's memory of the evidence. At this time, we'll begin with our opening statements. Mr. Guy, you may proceed. [00:34:23] Speaker 6: May it please the court. Counsel. Good morning. [00:34:32] Speaker ?: Good morning. [00:34:33] Speaker 6: Fucking pumps. These assholes, they always get away. Those were the words in that grown man's mouth as he followed in the dark a 17-year-old boy who he didn't know. And excuse my language, but those were his words, not mine. Fucking punks. These assholes, they always get away. Those were the words in that man's chest. When he got out of his car, armed with a fully loaded semi-automatic pistol and two flashlights to follow on foot, Trayvon Benjamin Martin, who was walking home from a 7-Eleven, armed with 23 ounces of Arizona brand fruit juice and a small bag of Skittles candies. Those were the words in that defendant's head just moments before he pressed that pistol into Trayvon Martin's chest and pulled the trigger. And then, as the smoke and the smell of that fatal gunshot rose into a rainy Sunday Sanford night, Trayvon Martin, 21 days removed from his 16th year, was face down in wet grass laboring through his final breaths on this earth. And that defendant, at that same time, was upright walking around preparing, preparing to tell law enforcement why it was he had just profiled, followed and murdered an unarmed teenager. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth about the murder of Trayvon Martin is going to come directly from his mouth. From those hate-filled words that he used to describe a perfect stranger and from the lies that he told to the police to try to justify his actions. If you'll indulge me for the next few minutes, I would like to share with you in a little greater detail the end of Trayvon Martin's young life and the overwhelming evidence of his defendant's guilt. The murder of Trayvon Martin was the product of two worlds colliding. In one world, a 17-year-old boy from Miami, Florida, a visitor to this town, who had gone to the store to get something to drink for himself and some candy for a 12-year-old friend. But in the other world, a 28-year-old grown man, somebody who wanted to be a police officer, somebody who had called the police numerous times about crime in his neighborhood, someone who had become the neighborhood watch captain, and someone who believed, most importantly, that it was his right to rid his neighborhood of anyone that he believed didn't belong. The date was February 26 of last year. Trayvon Martin was in town with his father, Tracy Martin, and they were visiting Tracy Martin's girlfriend, Brandi Green, and her 12-year-old son, Chad Joseph. They lived together in a townhome in a gated complex known as the Retreat of Twin Lakes. And on that day, Trayvon Martin spent the day with 12-year-old Chad Joseph doing what kids do. They watched TV. They played video games. They just hung out. But in the afternoon hours, in the early evening, Trayvon Martin decided to go to the store to get something to drink. And he asked Chad Joseph, "Do you want anything?" Skittles was the reply. And so Trayvon Martin set out on foot by himself and walked just less than a mile to a nearby 7-Eleven. You'll see his purchase of those two items. A 23-ounce can of Arizona brand fruit juice and Skittles on a 7-Eleven surveillance video. And at 6:24 p.m. he walked out the door. And he started walking home in the rain. And although he was by himself, he wasn't entirely alone because he spent that walk home on the phone with a young friend from Miami, Rachel Jantel. And as teenagers are wont to do, he talked to that girl the entire way home. But at that same time, when he got into the neighborhood of the retreat of Twin Lakes, there was this defendant riding around in his car, not with candy, not with fruit juice, but with a Kel-Tec 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol in a ready-to-fire position, meaning there was one live round in the chamber. And that firearm was tucked inside his waistband. And although that defendant was alone, he too was not by himself because he picked up the phone and he called the Sanford Police Department. Because when he saw Trayvon Martin, he didn't see a young man walking home. As he told the dispatcher, Sean Nofkey, he saw someone that was real suspicious. Somebody that looked like they were up to no good. Again, his words. And you'll hear that tape. It was recorded forever. And you'll hear how he describes Trayvon Martin and how he follows him. And how he says, not in response to a question, these assholes, they always get away. And he tells Sean Nofkey, there's been a bunch of recent burglaries in my neighborhood. And you'll hear the door chime in his car when he gets out with his gun and not one but two flashlights to follow Trayvon Martin. And then, almost under his breath, that defendant will reveal to you his feelings about Trayvon Martin when he refers to him as a fucking punk, this 17-year-old boy walking home. And then, right at the end of that phone call, this defendant makes the decision that brings all of us here today. Sean Nofkey asked the defendant, "Shall I have the officer who's on his way meet you at the mailboxes?" Because the defendant and he had discussed a kiosk of mailboxes that are in that neighborhood. And at first, the defendant says yes, and then he changes his mind. Tell the officer to just call me and I'll tell him where I am. [00:42:43] Speaker 7: Because George Zimmerman was not going back to the mailboxes. And he wasn't going back to his car. He was going after Trayvon Martin. [00:42:55] Speaker 6: Less than four minutes after that defendant hung up with Sean Nofkey, Rachel Gentel, that girl in Miami, heard Trayvon Martin say, "What are you following me for?" And then Trayvon Martin's phone went dead. And Trayvon Martin went dead. The first two officers to Trayvon Martin's body found him exactly like that defendant left him. Face down, face down, his hands clutching his chest. He was dressed in white tennis shoes, long khaki pants, a dark gray hooded sweatshirt. He had a plastic dark gray watch on his left wrist. The little earbuds that he was using to talk to Rachel Gentel on the phone were right next to his head. And his phone was right next to his body. And Sergeant Raimondo will explain to you the steps that he took to save Trayvon Martin's life. And he'll admit to you he didn't exactly follow SOPs with the police department. Because they hold that if you are to try to give mouth to mouth to somebody, that you go to your car first and you get a breathing mask to separate your mouth from their mouth. Well, Sergeant Raimondo realized there was no time for that. So he put his lips on Trayvon Martin's lips and tried to breathe life into him. And Officer Ayala put his palms on Trayvon Martin's chest and tried to push life into him. But it was too late. Trayvon Martin had already passed. Rescue responded soon after. And they took over the CPR efforts and they hooked up a cardiac monitor to Trayvon Martin. It was a flat line. He had already died. And so Sergeant Raimondo then went to his car and he got a yellow medical blanket and he put it over Trayvon Martin's body. And they took the drink can that he had in the center pocket of his sweatshirt and they put that on top of the blanket. You also hear from the first officer that had contact with his defendant. He was walking around, able to walk, talk, balance, answer questions, understand questions. He had a bloody swollen nose and he had two lacerations on the back of his head. And you'll hear from the rescue personnel that treated the defendant at the scene. They wiped the blood from his nose and they wiped the blood from the back of his head. And then the defendant was asked, "Do you want to go to the hospital?" "No," was the defendant's response. And so they took him downtown. And you'll see exactly how he appeared. Because when he got downtown to the police station, they took over 30 photographs of him, head to toe, front and back. You'll see exactly how he looked that night. Exactly. And you'll see videos of him walking through the police station, getting out of the car. And then he goes to that interview room where all of his statements would be recorded for you. That night, the next day, even a walk through the next day where they literally got a video camera and let him explain in his own words what had happened. And he did. And you will learn that that's when he began to spin that tangled web of lies. For example, he told the police that it was just after he hung up with Sean Nofke, the non-emergency dispatcher, that Trayvon Martin approached him, confronted him, said a couple of words to him, and then punched him and knocked him to the ground. Just moments after that. Ladies and gentlemen, that did not happen. You will have phone records. Phone records from his call and phone records from Trayvon Martin's call. The defendant hung up the phone with Sean Nofke at 7:13 PM and 43 seconds. But Trayvon Martin, who was on the phone with that girl from Miami, his call didn't end until 7:15 and 44 seconds. Two minutes later, two minutes that that defendant was not going back to his car. He wasn't walking towards the mailboxes. He was walking after Trayvon Martin. For example, the defendant told the police that at one point while he was sitting in his car following Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin ran behind some townhomes and then came back out, circled his car, and then ran back again. Listen to the non-emergency call that happened in real time and you'll see that that didn't happen. It's physically impossible the way he described it. For example, he told the police that the reason he got out of the car was because Sean Nofke told him, "We need an address." That didn't happen. Listen to his non-emergency call. Sean Nofke never said that. For example, he said that Trayvon Martin had him down on the ground, was straddled over top of him, and took his hands and covered his mouth and his nose. His nose that was bleeding already from having been struck by the first punch. Well, they looked at Trayvon Martin's hands. There was no blood on him. George Zimmerman. They took wooden sticks and they scraped his fingernails. Trayvon Martin's. No blood of George Zimmerman. No DNA of George Zimmerman. They examined the cuffs of his sweatshirts. He had two on. Two long sleeve sweatshirts. They examined the cuffs and the sleeves. No blood of George Zimmerman. No DNA of that defendant. The only blood of George Zimmerman was on the waistband of one of Trayvon Martin's shirts. But the defendant's, excuse me, Trayvon Martin's blood was on the defendant's clothes. For example, the defendant claims that while Trayvon Martin was on top of him, Trayvon Martin said to him, you're going to die tonight. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to hear from people who were out there. Nobody, nobody heard that. For example, he said that after he shot Trayvon Martin, he got on top of Trayvon Martin. On his back. And he took his arms and he spread them out. That didn't happen. You're going to see the pictures of Trayvon Martin. By a civilian who went out there that night before the police got there and snapped off a photo on his phone. Trayvon Martin's hands are underneath his chest. Listen carefully to his statements. And you won't just have his statements and those phone records. You'll have physical evidence, irrefutable physical evidence. Like the DNA evidence of Anthony Gorgone with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. He was the one who examined the sweatshirts and didn't find any of the defendant's blood on Trayvon Martin's cuffs or sleeves. And he was the one who examined those little wooden sticks and didn't find any of the defendant's blood or DNA on those either. He also examined swabs taken from the defendant's gun and that holster that he had inside his waistband because the defendant claimed that Trayvon Martin saw his gun and went for his gun. So they tested it. Well, guess what? Trayvon Martin's DNA is not on that gun. Trayvon Martin's DNA is not on that holster. And you'll hear from a firearms expert also with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Amy Seward, who will tell and show you all about that firearm. Kel-Tec 9mm pistol. Holds seven rounds in the magazine that loads from the bottom. But she'll tell you at the time it was fired there were eight rounds in the gun because there was a live round already in the chamber. So it wasn't necessary for the defendant to rack it, to load around. It was ready to go. And you'll learn that although this firearm doesn't have an external safety mechanism, it has what they call an extra-long trigger travel distance, which is just what it sounds like. A person has to depress the trigger a longer distance to ensure that there are no accidental discharges. And Amy Seward did distance testing to determine the distance between the muzzle of the gun, that is the end of the barrel, and Trayvon Martin's clothing when he was shot. The distance was zero. It was a contact shot. He pressed that gun into Trayvon Martin's chest. And you will see with your own eyes the burn marks on each of his sweatshirts where that hot lead passed through. You'll also have the evidence from the scene. And the first thing you'll learn about that scene is how remarkably dark it was. Trayvon Martin was murdered in the back of two sets of townhomes. There's no street lighting back there. There's no pole lights. There were one or two porch lights on, but you'll see how very dim they are and how remarkably dark it was and that it was raining. And they will give you - Diana Smith, the crime scene technician, will give you all of the physical evidence there. Trayvon Martin's cell phone, the headphones, the defendant's big black flashlight that was right by Trayvon Martin's body, his little flashlight on a key chain that was some 30 feet away. Trayvon Martin took away a bag that Sergeant Raimondo used because when they started doing CPR, Sergeant Raimondo heard air seeping from Trayvon Martin's chest. And he called for someone to bring him some kind of plastic and they brought him a white Walmart bag and they held it on his chest to keep the air in while they were doing CPR. You'll have the drink can, the Skittles from the pocket of a sweatshirt. The shell casing that was right near his body was also collected. And you won't just have the physical evidence of the scene. You'll have the testimony of people who were there. And the other thing that they will share with you is that no one, no one, heard or saw this from beginning to end. All of them who were witnesses got slices, if you will, of what happened, some at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end, just like you would expect with real life on a rainy Sunday night. But you'll learn that those witnesses too contradict the defendant's story about what happened because he described a very short verbal exchange between the two of them. But the witnesses will tell you they heard a longer verbal exchange that went on for some time. And the defendant said he was knocked down by the first punch and Trayvon Martin got on top of him. But I expect you'll hear from a witness who says she saw them upright struggling. And you'll learn that Trayvon Martin's body, again, is some 30 feet away from where the defendant claims he was first knocked down. And nobody, nobody heard Trayvon Martin say anything about the defendant that he was going to die tonight. You will hear from a witness who came outside of his residence during the middle of it. And he will tell you that he thought at first it was some people, kids playing. But then when he got outside, he realized it was something more serious. And he told him to stop. And he saw one person who was Trayvon Martin on top of this defendant. He was looking at Trayvon Martin's back. And I'll tell you that he saw his hands on the defendant's body. But he didn't see arms flailing. He didn't hear flesh meeting flesh. He didn't see or hear the defendant's head being slammed into concrete like the defendant claimed. He didn't hear or see any of that. And then he too saw his small part and went inside. And went inside. Ladies and gentlemen, you're also going to hear from a physician's assistant named Lindsay Fulgate. Who examined this defendant the very next morning at 11:15 a.m. When he walked into her office. For this reason, he told her, he needed a note for work. So he could go back to work. He didn't complain of so much as a headache. No dizziness. No vomiting. No nausea. He said he needed a note for work. But she examined him. And she examined his nose and thought that it possibly could be broken. But then she looked at it with her instruments. And everything was perfectly in line. He didn't have so much as a deviated septum. And she looked at the injuries on the back of his head. She measured them. The longest one was two centimeters. That's about three-quarters of an inch. Neither of the two lacerations needed a single suture. Also in this case, in addition to the witnesses, you will have a bone-chilling 911 call. Where in the background, you will hear the gunshot that killed Trayvon Martin. And you will hear screaming in the background. "Listen carefully, please, to that call. And listen carefully when the screaming stops. [01:01:05] Speaker 7: It's right when the gunshot goes off." [01:01:10] Speaker 6: Trayvon Martin was silenced immediately when the bullet that the defendant fired passed through his heart. And when that gunshot rings out on that 911 call, the screaming stops immediately. Listen carefully to that. Ladies and gentlemen, also in this case, you will learn about the person riding around in the car that night with the gun. That this defendant wanted to be a police officer. Had applied to go on a police ride along. Was a criminal justice major. Took classes in the law of self-defense. And crimes in the state of Florida. studied him. You will learn that he became a neighborhood watch coordinator. Because he reached out, the defendant, to the Sanford Police Department. And a woman named Wendy Dorval. And asked her to come to his community. And she did. And she gave a presentation about the do's and don'ts of neighborhood watch. And it's just like it sounds. See and report. Observe and call. He was told do not be the vigilante police. Don't follow. Don't confront. Just call and observe. And you'll see the actual materials that he was provided. And you'll learn that he was appointed the neighborhood watch coordinator. Because of all the crimes in his neighborhood. Which is why when he first saw Trayvon Martin. He didn't see a kid from Miami walking home from the 7-Eleven. [01:03:26] Speaker 7: He profiled him. As someone who was about to commit a crime in his neighborhood. And then he acted on it. [01:03:34] Speaker 6: And that's why we're here. And you'll learn about him physically. He wasn't nearly as large as he is now. He was just over 200 pounds. He stands five foot seven and a half. But at that time. Back in February of 2012. He had been taking classes from a gym. For a year and a half. Not any gym. Not Bailey's. But a gym where they teach you to fight. Kick boxing. Mixed martial arts. Self defense. For a year and a half. That's what he was doing. Before February 26th of last year. And finally ladies and gentlemen. You'll hear from the medical examiner. Dr. Shipping Bao. Dr. Shipping Bao. You'll learn that Trayvon Martin arrived for his appointment with Dr. Bao. Dressed in the same clothes that he was wearing when he walked out of the 7-Eleven. And a sky blue heavy plastic body bag. That had a little lock on it. Fastening together the two zippers. And the first thing you'll learn when you see Trayvon Martin's body stretched out on the medical examiner's table. Is how thin he was. Is how thin he was. He was 5 foot 11. 158 pounds. 158 pounds. How remarkably thin he was. And they examined Trayvon Martin's body. In his hands. He didn't have bruised knuckles. He didn't have swollen hands. The only injury to his hand. That was capable of being photographed. Was a small abrasion on his left ring finger. Trayvon Martin was right handed. That was the only injuries to his hands. And Dr. Bao will take you through the fatal gunshot. And just like the shirts. You'll see burn marks. On Trayvon Martin's chest. Just to the left of center. You'll see the little stipples they call them. Stippling. Little pin pricks. In his skin. Where the bullet entered. And Dr. Bao will take you through the path. Of that bullet. It wasn't to the left. It wasn't to the right. It wasn't up. It wasn't down. Straight through his body. Right through his heart. Right where the defendant put it. And ladies and gentlemen. That is just some of the evidence in this case. And at the end of this trial. Judge Nelson will read to you the law. The law that applies to all of us. And a law that applies to each of us. And we are confident. That at the end of this trial. You will know. In your head. In your heart. In your stomach. That George Zimmerman. [01:06:59] Speaker 7: Did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to. He shot him for the worst of all reasons. Because he wanted to. [01:07:07] Speaker 1: wanted to. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. West, you may proceed. Thank you, Jeff. We're going to need a few minutes. We have some demonstrative pieces that we'd like to bring into the courtroom and need to set up the audio-visual equipment. How long is it that you think you need? Oh, about 15 minutes, 20 minutes. Okay, we'll take a 15-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, please put your notepad's face [01:07:37] Speaker 2: down and follow Deputy Jarvis.