George Zimmerman Trial - Defense Closing Arguments - Part 1 - July 12, 2013

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Please be seated. Good morning. Welcome back. While you're getting your notes in order, I'm going to ask you my questions. If your answer is yes to any of the questions, please raise your hand. During the overnight recess, did any of you have any discussions amongst yourselves or with anybody else? No hands are being raised. Did any of you read or listen to any radio, television, newspaper reports about the case? No hands are being raised. Did any of you use any type of an electronic device? To get on the internet to do independent research about this case, people, places, things, or terminology? No hands are being raised. And finally, did any of you read or create any emails, text messages, tweets, social networking pages, or blogs about the case? Thank you very much. No hands are being raised. Mr. O'Mara, whenever you're ready. Yes, you may. [00:01:00] Speaker 2: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning. First of all, obviously, as Mr. Deleone just said, I want to thank you on behalf of Judge Nelson, Mr. Zimmerman, co-counsel Don West, the entire defense team, the interns who have just given the life of this case for the last year or so, the prosecution team. And without sounding, you know, over the top about it, sort of the citizens of Seminole County, because you've taken on a responsibility that few people have the opportunity to or the obligation to. And even more so than most, because you may not know this, but most trials last a day or two. They don't last several weeks. And it is very few trials, very few where there is enough of a concern that we have to sequester the jury. So you guys have given us not just your attention during the day, but sort of your life 24 hours a day, even more so in effect than we have. And I appreciate that on behalf of everyone we just spoke about. The whole system only works when it works with you. But strange in a way it sort of happens that we have a system that's been ongoing for a couple hundred years. And we intentionally bring in people who know as little as possible about the system and tell them to make the most important decisions within it. And that's what we've asked you to do. And we and I have some fears I want to talk to you about in that regard, because when we talked in jury selection and talked about sort of what this process is and how you have to come to us. I used words like unique, strange, even as far as the system that you're now involved in. We're used to it. We do it every day, sort of like doctors with blood. You know, you just get used to it as just part of what you do. We deal with things like autopsy photographs and jury instructions and evidence and witnesses who may or may not remember things or may or may not tell the truth of witnesses who come with biases. And we come into my office and I look at that and I know exactly how to focus my inquiry because I'm a lawyer. I couldn't do it if I was in a hospital, but I can do it in a law office. And yet we ask you to come in and to take on all of our rules and all of our regulations and to apply them as though you've done it all your life. And my fear is that that's a very difficult task that we're asking you to do. Because the reason why it's difficult is you're completely unused to it. You don't know how to apply a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. You just don't. You don't know how to wait until you go back in that room to have any thought or any impression about how this case has gone so far. It's impossible. We're not really asking you to do that, but we sort of are. Because what we've said to you is come from your homes, come from your jobs, sit with us for a month. Get rid of, I guess, almost everything as to how you decide things in your life except bring your common sense. We've talked about that a lot. Leave that outside. Take on somewhat artificial, and by artificial I certainly don't mean inappropriate or improper and don't want to diminish it at all. But this sort of unusual standard that we're asking you to take on. And my fear is that you will default to what you're used to. You will default to the idea that you make decisions in a split second like all of us do. That you can't help but have a first impression. If I were to walk in today, let's say, just as an example, walked in like this. Walked in the courtroom as a lawyer. You would just have an impression. What in God's name is he doing with his sunglasses on, and who does he think he is? What's with the pinky ring? I put that on because obviously this case has gotten some publicity. I became known as some pinky ring-wearing attorney. It's actually my dad's high school ring. It's never been on my pinky. But that's all it takes is an impression. And we look at people, and we keep that with us. So you might have an impression of George Zimmerman. Stand for a second. You might have an impression of him because he's sitting at the defense table. And that maybe, as we talked about, he's not just a citizen accused, but maybe he is a defendant. Maybe he has something he has to defend. Maybe, in fact, that because the senator in his office has decided to charge him, he has to have done something wrong. Maybe that's an impression that you have. But unfortunately, we're not going to ask you not to have impressions. That's absurd. My fear, as I was telling you about it, is that if that allows you to sort of diminish or minimize your task that you've taken on here, that it works against my client, because even when we talk about things like common sense, we want you to use your common sense. But be careful with your common sense. I know it's a dangerous thing to say. Be careful with your common sense because common sense is the way we run our everyday lives, the way we make those snap decisions that we have to make every day in order to work, in order to live, in order to deal with our children and our parents. I mentioned as an example, driving today, you guys didn't drive today, but we did. You know, you presume people are going to drive in the lane and not just cut you off. It's these assumptions that we make. The problem with it... [00:07:02] Speaker 1: Excuse me, I am so sorry. There's Twitter. [00:07:06] Speaker 2: Oh, how nice. Well, that's okay. I appreciate you noticing. Thank you. [00:07:12] Speaker 1: And I'm sorry to interrupt. [00:07:14] Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm going to think that, well, we'll wait now, because it may have to be restarted, but I'm just going to chat with it, so I'll get back to it. My concern is that it may, in fact, work against my client, because if you start using those same processes that we're used to every day, they just look at things and make a decision and move on, that subtly and unintentionally, you're going to minimize or diminish the standard that has to be applied in this case. And I'm afraid of that for this reason. If you do that, not only is it going to go against my client, and I don't want that, but any verdict you come up with is going to be sort of a compromised verdict, a verdict that's not based upon the standards that you agreed to, and I'm not blaming you for not doing it, that you agreed to, and that is the only way that this system really works. We talked about the difference in civil cases, in criminal cases, in jury selection. We talked about the fact that if this was a civil case, you would go back in the jury room and say, well, you know, the state wants money, and you just got to decide, well, more than half, you know, 51%, whatever it might be. And then that's the standard. And we talked that I think that's probably the standard we use in everyday lives, everything but those most important decisions. Even when the decision is made to move out of state, to come down to Florida, to move your life here, and we talked about maybe that's a decision which is sort of similar to a beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know about that. I think that you make a decision like that, you weigh the consequences, you weigh the possibilities, but you never are certain. You never look at a situation like that and say, I've addressed and resolved all variables, and all variables are resolved in favor of this. What you basically do is you look at it, it's an opportunity or an alternative or a necessity. You figure it out, you weigh what you can weigh, you accept what you have to accept, and then you make the decision. I would argue to you, I would submit to you that that's not what you can do here today. I think that what you have to do is be absolutely vigilant, diligent in looking at this case and deciding it with a standard far into you, but one that you have to take on. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to go back there and wrestle over whether or not Officer Raimondo, did he have medals on the right side of his chest when he was testifying or the left side of his chest? That stuff doesn't matter. But what does matter are those significant issues of whether or not the state has proven their case. And on those essential elements and those essential facts, you have to look at that because my fear, Mr. Ziverman's fear, is failing to do that. You will do some of what the state has asked you to do. They asked you to do it in Bo Dyer, when they talked about assumptions, Bo Dyer's jury selection. They asked you to do it in opening, when they yelled those words that you know weren't yelled. They asked you to do it throughout the entirety of their case. So far, they've been asked you to do it in closing. You are not a premise. The judge is going to tell you with lies. You've heard beyond a reasonable doubt instructions before. I'm going to spend some time on it again. To the extent that my argument or insight or presentation differs from what the court tells you, listen to what the court tells you. If I go too far afield, one of the, either the judge or the state, will remind me. But within that context, it's a very, very difficult standard. It is one where you have to look at it and be very vigilant to make sure that when you're looking at this case, you're not making the assumptions that help you decide the case. Assumptions presume a lack of evidence. Because if you have to presume something, you don't know it. And if you don't know it, it hasn't been proven. And if it hasn't been proven, as the instruction tells you, it's just not there. And you can't consider it. You can't fill in the gaps. You can't connect the dots for the state attorney's office in this case. You're not allowed to. So I'll give you a couple of examples. They're not utterly significant, but I'll give you a couple of examples. What do you know about George Zimmerman? Well, use your memory, but you know he went to college. You know he was in the neighborhood watch, and he lived there for a couple of years. I think you know he's married because we mentioned his wife's name, I believe. You know that his mom and dad are still around because they testified. And you don't know a lot more about him than that. I mean, there are a few more things. You'll remember them, and I'm not going to have a complete review of all of the evidence. But you don't know a lot about him. To the extent that there are questions or issues that you don't know about George Zimmerman, we're done with the evidence. You're not getting any more information from the state attorney's office to prove their case against George Zimmerman. Don't assume it. Don't presume it. Don't connect dots. Don't fill in the blanks with anything. I'm not saying that you'll be sinister at doing that. Just saying that no matter what it is, you can't do it. When we say to you, this case is to be decided on the evidence presented in court, it sounds sort of grandiose almost. Well, of course we're going to preserve the evidence in the case. There is nothing else. Well, the problem with it is that if you're not careful, as we do in our everyday lives, you will connect the dots when you're not supposed to. You will fill in the gaps when you're not supposed to. You will make those assumptions, some of which the state actually actually do in the closing. You will do that because you know what? It's natural. It is very natural, but not in a criminal courtroom. It is not only unnatural, it is inappropriate. What do you know about Trayvon Martin? Not much either. But you're not supposed to. What happened that day is what happened that day. But what I don't think you should do is fill in any gaps at all. Connect any dots for him either. For any fact. But honestly, for any witness. If the decision was made by the state not to present additional evidence to you, do not presume. Do not assume. And do not give anybody the benefit of any doubt except for George Zimmerman. Because, one, you said you would. And two, that's the only way whatever bird you come up with is going to be just. And it's going to be fair. So, one filter. Be careful. Address my fear, if you would, by just being careful. Just making sure that when you're back there talking and somebody says, Well, you know, he's sort of this. Or, I don't really think that. That one other of you just says, I hear you. Sort of thinking it too. Can't do it. Let's just take that thought, that very natural extrapolation, and put it to the side. And you might say to yourself, since it's the state who carries the burden alone, you know, something, that's what the state didn't give us. That's what they didn't show to us. So, let's look at the jury instructions and see if it matters. Does it matter where Officer Raimondo is wearing his medals? No. But if it is a significant issue, if it's something that you need to consider and decide, in the case of whether or not George Zimmerman committed second-degree murder, then sit back and say, I have to look at the instructions. And the instructions say, that reasonable doubt can come from a lack of evidence, as well as it can come from a conflict in the evidence. The reason why we tell you, and you're instructed by the court, that George Zimmerman need not prove anything, is precisely that reason. Again, a strange system, those anyone with children, know that you want to get them separated, and you want to get the story from both sides, then that's the only way you figure it out. And then, you know who stole the cookies, who gave the cookie to the other one, to cover up the crime, or whatever it might be, you get an idea because you get them both. So, why does he have that benefit? Why does he come before you and say, you know what, decided not to testify? and then you get to sit back and go, wait a minute, my assumption is, I want to hear from him. Now, this case obviously is different than others because you've heard from him time and time and time again. You've heard from him telling you what happened that night. But, you know what, even if we didn't put on a statement, you still would have to go back there and say, I'm not considering that. Why? Why do we take away that common sense presumption of finding out all the information that we can about a case? Of course, we've already talked about it. You want to take away somebody's liberty? They've got to prove the case. The burden is on the state. And it goes back a long, long way. I've got a quote to talk to you about. A couple of them actually. John Adams, 1770, when we sort of started this experiment a couple hundred years ago. God, I guess it's 250 now. It is more important that innocents be protected than that the guilty be punished. Now, if I stop there, it sort of sounds like I'm asking to let my guilty client go. I'm not. He's not guilty of anything, but protecting his own life. But the quote continues, for guilt and crimes that are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizens say, whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial. For innocence itself is no protection. And if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizens, then it would be the end of security whatsoever. I have a quote from my office that talks about that in a different way from the 1700s in Neenau, where my family came from in Ireland. I was there to visit, but never was there. But it also talked about this is not a death penalty case. Obviously, that was a death penalty case where they were talking about a guy going to the gallows. And the question was condemning somebody and not being absolutely certain as to your decision and sending him to the gallows not because he was guilty but because maybe he was innocent and maybe he just didn't know. So that's why we have a system that puts so much of a burden properly on the state attorney's office in this case to make sure that we don't cut any corners and we don't make any assumptions. And this is a compliment to you because Thomas Jefferson talked about you guys about 200 years ago as well when he said, I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution. That's you guys. He didn't, I think he was talking about jurors in general but it applies to you as well because we talked about living the constitution well, planned, or not you guys are it. You are living the constitution and we'll go over a little bit of it but I talked to you about it already. This is a solemn matter. Don't take this lightly whether it's through jokes or kidding around or you see us smiling at each other or whatever. This is a serious, serious matter for Mr. Zimmerman and it's an utterly serious matter for you and I don't say that to scold you into acting a certain way but just to make sure that we don't do what the state has asked you to do on a couple of occasions now and you know what? You guys figure it out. It's an assumption. What about this? It's interesting in a case like this because I call this case the bizarro case in my practice because it sometimes seems like it's turned on upside down to me and not saying that you should agree with that but just a perspective that I've had in this case. how many could have beens have you heard from the state in this case? How many what ifs have you heard from the state in this case? Well they don't, I don't think anyway, they don't get to ask you that. I don't think they get to say to you what do you think? No, no, no. No, no, no. What have I proven to you? What have I convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt occurred in this case so much so that you don't have any reasonable doubt as to those issues that I presented to you? They are supposed to use words like certainty and definite and without question beyond a reasonable doubt. No other explanation. These are the words and phrases of good prosecutors. I used to be one. I know. I've used them. What aren't good words of good prosecutors are maybe, what if, I hope so, you figure it out, could have been. Because those are the assumptions that please do not make. Do not cheapen your role in this case by doing anything less than holding them to the burden that they said in the beginning of the case they would gladly accept and prove to you. You know, the upside down nature of it is that's what defense attorneys do. If you really think about it, if you want to know some of the underbelly of criminal defense work, we're the ones who live in could have beens and what ifs. well, you know what, here's some reasonable doubt. What if, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Or, you know, it could have been, could have been that it happened this way, and that could have been that reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we'll talk about that in a sec. Actually, not a sec, it's going to be sometime this hour, I hope. that could have been, that's where defense attorneys learn to practice and words that they learn to bring to a jury. I'm not going to do any of that with you today. I want you to know exactly what happened that night. I don't want you to presume anything. I would like you to presume whatever you can to my client's benefit because, after all, that's what good defense attorneys do. But in this type of a case, we're going to do something that will probably upset or enrage defense attorneys anywhere who are listening to this case. Because at the risk of confusing you, I'm going to take a side trip for just a few minutes. And that side trip is going to be I'm going to take on the obligation to prove to you that my client is innocent. Something I absolutely do not have to do. It is the opposite. And let's talk about what I mean about that. Because, as you know, the state carries the burden. And I'm going to say that probably another dozen times before we're done. and we love our charts. So I have a chart. I've got a couple of charts for you. First, I have this chart which tells you what reasonable doubt is. At least my argument as to what reasonable doubt is. I think there's an objection for I shall it is just the nice of the tool. Do you have a block of view of the jury? [00:24:28] Speaker 1: That's fine. Go ahead. Do you want to think of the other? [00:24:38] Speaker 2: Yeah, I will. If this doesn't fix itself in such a second, that might work. Thank you. I have this one. Thanks very much. I wish I could. I'm going to use that for something else, I think. Thank you. Graphic understanding of what reasonable doubt is. And if it's wrong, Mr. Guy's going to go up and talk to you when I'm done. Let him point out where it's wrong. And then you can make that decision. But this is what we've talked about. What might happen? And how convinced you might be. Easy. Just not guilty. Proven. Highly unlikely, less than likely. I think you get the point. I can read through it and ask you to nod your heads in agreement for each one. But the reality is until you get to the idea, the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then you just don't get it. And what happens if you don't get here? What stays in place? It's not a civics exam. But that presumption of innocence that we talked about never dissipates. Ever. The presumption of innocence never dissipates. Until the state proves a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Which really makes sense. It took us from the king's days where he decided if you were guilty or not to your days where you get to. So this is what happens in a criminal case. The state has to take you from somewhere down here before there's any evidence. And he's sort of presumed to be not guilty. All the way up the list in your mind. So that you have no doubt to which you can attach a reason or no reasonable doubt to the essential elements of the crime and that George Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder. Now, I said to you that I was going to tick off all of my brethren and sisteren, you call it that. because what I was going to say to you, I was going to spend a few minutes doing something else. I was going to show you or prove to you and I've got not just my little conversation with you but we'll start talking about evidence in a minute of this. I'm sorry. Again, this is what really matters for today and that is this self-defense. And it's interesting because I actually have another poster I'll show you in a little bit. Trying to figure out how to make self-defense make sense to you because it's sort of like disproving a negative. The state carries a burden without question of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not properly act in self-defense. And if I misspeak, let Mr. Guy fix it. George Zimmerman is not guilty if you have just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. This is where I'm going just so you know. We're going to spend about 10 minutes with me bringing you all the way up to here. Proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. But I don't need to. The state needs to convince you all the way down here. Self-defense likely. It's a reasonable doubt as a self-defense. Is self-defense suspected? Well, do you have a reasonable doubt as a self-defense? Not guilty. It may not be self-defense. You're not quite sure. Not guilty. It may not be self-defense, but it might be. You've got a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. Not guilty. You know, it's less than likely is it self-defense. This was a 50-50. I wouldn't vote self-defense. This was a civil trial. Highly unlikely that it's self-defense. But I have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. Not guilty. The state has proven to me, to you, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense properly. I have no doubt, a reasonable doubt, that the state has convinced me he didn't act in self-defense the way he should have. Then he's guilty. And only then is he guilty. So, let's talk about my burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt of his innocence. At the risk of confusing you, I'm going to request that you not allow me to confuse you as to the standards. But I want to show you what the evidence has shown concerning my clients. Absolute, beyond question, beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence. Where shall we start? Let's start before the beginning. Let's start with what the state wants you to focus on. That he was a cop wannabe. And he did want to be a cop. He also wanted to be a prosecutor and he wanted to be a lawyer and he wanted to continue his education and he wanted to help out his community and he wanted to help out people like Miss Brodellon by giving her a lock and he wanted to be involved. You even heard that he mentored some kids from Officer Sereno. Yeah, he wanted to be involved and yes, he wanted to be a cop. He even applied for it. I think what you also heard, I would argue to you, is you heard from the other officers who actually wanted to be cops and then became cops, that it's a fairly noble profession. It is a profession that its moniker is protect and serve. I think it's apparent that George is willing to serve. I think it is. All the evidence that you do have supports that and actually it doesn't support any of the contention that he wasn't. It also supports the contention that he's willing to protect. I think that's readily apparent from all of the evidence. Keep in mind, the state had the opportunity, well, I think that back, they had the obligation to show you any piece of evidence that they thought was appropriate that they could to show you that his actions were inappropriate and what did they decide to bring to you? Two professors. A couple more, we'll talk about this. Two professors who say, oh yeah, I taught him. I taught him. I don't know if you read that book but I definitely, it was in the class, it was an online class and we spoke about it and he told me he wanted to be a prosecutor and I think he said, I mean, after this, he was just, he seemed to be easygoing or I liked him or something like that, whatever that, the guy who was first on Skype and then on cell phone. Then the other professor they brought in to say to you, oh yeah, I taught him this and we talked about self-defense and yeah, we talked about it and he knew about it so yeah, that's what they want you to focus on because this cop wannabe knew what self-defense is so they have that. What else did they decide to bring you about his background? That he didn't make it as a cop, one time. I think you know that he works as a fraud guy at a mortgage company and what else did they show you to buttress their position that George Zimmerman is before you acting with ill will, spite, hatred and just didn't, just hated, hated Trayvon Martin that night. What are their evidence? I might, I'm not being sarcastic, I might be forgetting some, as far as his background, the five phone calls to non-emergency. You heard them, you have them in, you know something, you also have the sixth one because I put that in because for whatever reason the state didn't present to you call number six. It doesn't support their case, I guess, because it's just him calling, being concerned about the fact a bunch of kids that a bunch of kids are playing outside and cars are swinging by them. I don't really complain and just want to make sure there's some four year olds out there and some six year olds out there. Listen to that because you haven't heard it, I didn't play it to you, but it's in evidence. I think it just sort of rounds out a little bit, instead of having five or six, you have six of six and now you sort of know what the state didn't show you. They don't have to show you good stuff about George Zimmerman but they did say they were going to seek justice. Let's not forget that. They told you in the beginning of this case that they were going to seek justice. So you have the spy phone calls and now a sixth one. I also put into evidence but didn't shove in front of you yet but it's here, there's this whole pile of reports, police reports of what other things happened in the past year at Retreat View area. They're there, I could have brought in Ms. Rumpf like the state did or other people but we just agreed they would go into evidence and you have those and they will show you a lot of alarm calls, a lot of burglaries, the home invasion that Ms. Bertillon suffered through and they will show you I think if you look at this that in that community there's there was a rash of people burglarizing homes and you know what else it's going to show you? It's going to show you that a lot of the people who were arrested for it, the only people who were found and arrested were young black males. We'll talk about race in a little bit too but they're going to show you and the reason why I mention that now is we talked about assumptions and what you sort of bring into your world when you come into our world because certainly you heard on the non- emergency call how George acted when he saw Trayvon Martin. We'll get to that in due time. So what else do they have about George Zimmerman and his past that they bring to you? I think that's about it. So I would suggest that that's on their way towards absolute innocence. Why? Listen to the calls. Anger, frustration, hatred, ill will, spite. Get out here and get these guys. I hate these young black males. Whatever the absurdity is that they want you to get from that, listen to the calls. Do not allow them to give their words to your ears rather than George's. Listen to what he said. Listen to the cadence of his voice. Listen to what he said. Read those reports. Look at those people who lived through, not many of them were home like Ms. Bertillon, but what they came home to and then wonder whether or not a frustration in Mrs. Zimmerman's voice is inappropriate or appropriate. [00:36:57] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:36:57] Speaker 2: So that's his past. So what have they shown you as to how he acted now and how I convince you of his absolute innocence? Let's go to the 26th. On his way to target. Undisputed. Does it, I think someone said, Mark Osterman, he does it every Sunday, just his regiment, makes his five sandwiches in their little plastic containers. That's what he does. So, by the way, as to absolute innocence, tell me the witnesses who said to you that George Zimmerman patrolled that neighborhood. We're going to go over the witnesses. I have a whole PowerPoint presentation and I promised it won't take as long as it took me to make it, to present it to you, but there is not a witness in there, not one state's case, not one who will say to you, George Zimmerman, yeah, the guy running around the neighborhood, looking around, talking about bringing your garbage cans or some absurdity like that, not one witness to suggest that the guy who they want you to believe is that neighborhood watch, cop wannabe, crazy, not one. they may want you to assume that, it would seem, and you would have to assume it because you certainly can't find it. So you'll have to assume that this neighborhood watch guy was just some crazy guy walking in the neighborhood looking for people to harass, except that's an assumption without any basis in fact whatsoever, not one. Another note from Mr. Guy, if I'm wrong about that, let him tell you. Let's show the point where Mrs. Jones said, well, I was a little bit scared about him, didn't like the fact that he kept circling in my house, not one. What do they really have? They have Miss Bertillon. He called Miss Bertillon and said, oh, came over. I heard what happened, really sorry, just started this neighborhood watch. Wendy Dooball told us that there's real problems with these sliding glass doors. Here's a lock. And you know what? My wife's home. She works, she's a nursing student or something. She's around. She's home if you need to stop by. Innocence. Pure, unadulterate, unadulterated innocence. I would suggest that that shows to you. Certainly as far as second-degree murder or anything like it. So, in my quest to prove that he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, he is on his way to target and he sees somebody that was suspicious. So, does he jump out of his car? Unadulter his weapon? Track him down? Shoot him in cold blood? No. He does what he was told to do. He calls non-emergency. Not a big deal. Not an emergency. But he did tell you, of course, in the statements at least, and you know, because it's in those reports, that at that very same house, maybe coincidentally, Trayvon Martin was burglarized a few weeks before with a window open and a door unlocked in the back. Is it inappropriate for that to become a concern to somebody who's concerned about his neighbors? I left my house last week. There was a white truck down the street. I looked at it. I usually took a left out of my driveway. I took a right just because. I want to see who it was. there was a pool sign on the side of it, and I kept going. Okay. Well, in this case, he does what? He calls non-emergency, and he says, knowing full well, given the benefit of some of the history the state wants you to use to convict him, that he knows it was being recorded. They say it in the beginning, and he's done it before, so he says on the call what he says, I'm not going to play it for you again. You've heard it more times than most [00:41:34] Speaker 3: people. Of people who in the past have [00:41:48] Speaker 2: gotten away. So he called, and he spoke to the dispatch, and he went through it. So, looking at the question of whether or not my client is completely innocent, provably innocent, what did he do? Stayed on the phone, cursed, well, yeah, definitely cursed, and he cursed towards those people, maybe including Trayvon Martin, by the way, at least him, maybe, because he did match the description, unfortunately, and that's just maybe happenstance. We'll talk more about that, too. So, calls it in, and stays on the phone, like you're supposed to, does what you're supposed to, describe him. I think he's black, after being asked, black, white, Hispanic. So, where is the, how do we move from looking at a suspicious guy that I'm not sure, it's raining out, he's obviously not coming in the main entrances, maybe that's an issue, and test, when you look at those reports, you'll see that there are ingress and egress points, at least there used to be, where some people do come in to do bad things. And he talks to the non-emergency, and he basically stays on the phone all the way through. So, where's the guilt? No, that's not my burden. Where's the non-guilt? Well, never screams. Mr. Guy screamed, Mr. Delarionda screamed, George Zimmerman didn't scream on that call. Of course, then to cover up his non-scream, at one point, Mr. Delarionda suggests to you that, ah, no cell phone, that what he did was under his breath. What he wants you to assume within that context is he said it under his breath, because he wanted to say it, but he didn't want non-emergency call to hear it. And then he wants you to assume that what that means is guilt. Seriously? Seriously? Here's a way to do that. Effin' punks. It's just the fact that he was willing to say it on a recorded call to law enforcement is evidence of non-guilt. It is evidence that he wasn't saying it in a way laced with ill will, spite, hatred, or anything else like that. So, call continues. And now we have the call. Now we have our first very large graphic. This is what happens when you get carried away with graphics. They get 10 feet long. What this is is a graphic representation of the significance of the phone call that started at 709-34 that night. You will have this back with you so you can sort of go through it. It doesn't include every word that was said back and forth because it would have been 20 feet long. But it does have, I would argue to you or submit to you. It has all of these significant words. So, let's sort of go through it. You have the tape. I could play it for you, but you've heard it many, many times. It starts. Dispatcher. Say, the PD, can I help you? And George says, some suspicious guy, whatever. Then he says, note down here that Trayvon Martin is on the phone with Rachel Gentile. That's sort of significant when we get down here. But we'll talk about it as we come down the line. Now he's just staring at me. 7 to 10, 21. So we're looking at it about a little bit less than a minute later. And he's just doing it. Yes, he's near the clubhouse right now. Yeah, he's coming towards me. There was some confusion, I think. Maybe it's been cleared off that George had been pulled into the clubhouse, backed down and went down the street, twin trees, and then parked. But this is when he was sitting at the clubhouse, it would seem. It seems to be uncontroverted. And this is on here because the suggestion is that this cop wannabe was just so frustrated, so angry, so full of ill will and hatred that finally he cracked. Finally he broke. And I want to, I'm going to ask when you go back to figure out where he broke. But maybe this is the spot. Maybe it was just after the dispatch said, okay, just let me know if he does anything else, okay? Now they want you to really focus, we're going to, in a moment, we'll get there. They want you to really focus on the idea that Sean Nofkey said, we don't need you to do that and that was a command of law enforcement and somehow he violated. We'll get to that. But they don't want you to focus on the fact that this same law enforcement officer says, let me know if he does anything else. So, here's a thought. Let me know if I do anything else. Have I done anything else? Please get an officer over here is his response. Evidencing the ill will and hatred necessary that you just want to go kill somebody because you hate them. Please, please, get an officer over here. Twice. Let me know if he does anything else. Twice. Okay, well, it makes sense. That's, I think, probably what they're supposed to ask. And then, the person hearing that says, okay, or does something to, [00:48:49] Speaker 3: let him know if he [00:48:49] Speaker 2: I have a tape of Mr. De La Ronda and John Guy saying it their way and I was going to play it for you. But it's so irrelevant. It's not evidence, obviously. And what really counts is the way Mr. Zimmerman said it. So listen to the tape. And, you know, see if in that you walk away, just at this point, right here, you walk away with ill will, spite, hatred, and just this animus towards [00:49:30] Speaker 3: Trayvon Martin. Which way is he running? [00:49:47] Speaker 2: So, I'm not going to do it again, but if I were to ask you which way I was walking and I walked out the door and came back, what information would you have? And I walked out the door. Why? Because you probably watched me do it because I just asked you which way am I walking? So, ill will, spite, and hatred or innocence? I would suggest that at this point, this is a conversation. Don't forget, when they're doing this conversation, they had no idea we were going to be here today. They had no idea that we would have a 10-foot graphic of every sentence that they talked about. They were just talking. What's he doing? Let me know. where is he now? Which way is he running? And he gets out of his car. Now, at this point, I think the state, maybe this is another break point. Maybe this is a break point where George said, oh, it's the network movie, I have it, I just can't take it anymore, something like that. Maybe that's when it happened. Well, let's see. No, maybe not. Gets out of the car, says, down towards the other end of the entrance of the neighborhood, listen to that, see if there's this crescendo of hatred in his voice. Which entrance? The back entrance. And he says, we just got so used to using this in front of regular people, and just, you know what he said, I'm not going to use the words anymore, not as oversensitivity to you or to pander to you, but we use the words enough in this courthouse so far. And then he says, are you following him? What does George say in his anger and hatred and plan to track down and kill this unknown person? Unknown is important because ill will and hatred and spite, it's difficult, don't you think, to really gain that for somebody who you don't even know? How do you actually get to the level necessary for secondary murder when you don't know the person? But anyway, ill will, spite, and hatred. Has it shown right here? We don't need you to do that. Is that when he says, screw you? I'm sick and tired, I'm not going to take it anymore? No. What does he say? Okay. And then, and we're going to talk about wind noise. Matter of fact, I've put into evidence for you to look at. One the state put in, I put in. The weather reports for that day because, strange as it seems, a year and a half later, we want to make sure that you know that it was raining out, even though a bunch of people talked about it. But we also want you to know that the wind was up that night. You'll see that at the time of this event the wind was about 6.8 to 7.2 miles an hour. I put it in the 27th because you also hear wind during the recreation video. In the phone, you sort of hear the wind because the question is, was George Zimmerman tracking? Was he running after him? We know he was following him because he said it. The question is, was he tracking him? And the wind noise, the running noise, make up, I will ask you, as the state did, you guys get to decide that. But what I really want you to focus on is where this ill will, spite, and hatred comes in. So does he come in here? And then he says, what's your name? George. And he says he ran. Did he say he ran and I'm running? Is there any evidence that you have in this case that supports the contention that George Zimmerman ran anywhere or that he ran after Trayvon Martin after he said okay? I have another challenge for the state. Let him tell you about it. Let him show you in the record of this case that they had evidence that he ran after Trayvon Martin, walked after him after he said okay. Because if it's there, I missed it. Presumption, assumption, connecting the dots, sure. But you agree not to do that. And don't let them let you do that. And then tells him where the address is, apartment number, it's a home. Now at this point, I think right around here is when he says, well, you still want to have an officer? Oh, yeah. Yes, I think he says. Okay. Where do you want me to meet him? Clubhouse they talked about. I think truck they talked about. And then I guess in the state's presentation to you, they have said and maybe will say again that at that point, that's the ill, will, spite, and hatred. I guess. Because at that point he says, ah, no, no, no, no, no. No, I'm going to go track him down and shoot him or something. So just have him call me. let's not forget, 16 months ago, regular phone call for Sean Nofkey, sort of a regular phone call for George Zimmerman, and I'll tell you where I am. Big deal made about the recreation video and the numbers right behind him and the numbers not on the back of the room. By the way, one other point on that. Which witness, and this is going to sound as though I'm being a little bit sneaky, so let me premise it with that. Which witness told you that Ms. Lauer's lights were on that night? So the numbers that they want you to believe that Mrs. Zimmerman walked by and said, I just want to go after him. Just so we're clear, the witness that showed you that Ms. Lauer was here and the state asked the question of her just so we're clear because we really want to prove that he was doing this intentionally and trying to say something that we can catch him on later, please tell the jury that your lights were on that night. They never asked him that. He just didn't because they were wanting to presume and assume and connect the dots and do whatever. Now, is that sort of sneaky? No, sorry. This is their burden. They have to take away reasonable doubt. They have to look at this case and say to you, ladies and gentlemen of this jury, hi, we're the state. We have proved this case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt because we have connected every dot that forms a line that leads to nothing but conviction and they just didn't. So, now what happens along my path towards beyond a reasonable doubt? Innocence. What evidence do we have? I would contend to you that though there was a minute in this tape or after this tape, he hangs up 7-13-44. We know Ms. Lauer's call starts at 7-16-11. There's some time in there. We know that Ms. Lauer heard it about 15 to 20 seconds before she decided to make the call. She testified that it took about 25, maybe, I think she said 25 seconds to get the phone, dial it, try Jeremy's phone first. That didn't work. Try hers. Connect. 30 seconds. Back it up another 30 seconds as to what George Zimmerman was doing. Now, we know that he said at a time that he didn't know that he had to protect his story, that he said that he's still gone all the way to the tree view circle. Sort of makes sense, I would submit. And then he was coming back with that little baby flashlight because the other one, the impact weapon that was pointed out by the state that was not used as an impact weapon. This little flashlight on his keychain that he had. So he had this and it was on. You'll see the pictures of, you know now, I think, the pictures of the darkness that night. one is stunning in that you sort of see here is the field of flash and beyond it it's almost like this black wall. It was that dark. So yeah, he had a flashlight with him and he had it on. And if that's evidence of tracking Mr. Zimmerman, let the state prove that to you. So we know, we don't know, evidence seems to support that George is heading back towards his car and they don't have one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. And if they had it, I presume that they would have presented it. So where is it? What evidence do we have that it happened at the T intersection? Well, we have the flashlight. Probably not a bad idea to start there. Because somehow that flashlight got dropped right there. But not just George Zimmerman's story about that is there. We have General Lauer who said I heard the noise and it was out that way sort of towards the T intersection. Did she look? No. Did she hear? Yes. Is she close? Probably. And we have Ms. Manalo opposite side saying it was off to the right consistent with the T intersection. We have Ms. Sudeiker who though we had some questions about what she saw and how she saw it, nonetheless she said it started sort of outside of her window. So we know that the altercation certainly seems to have started exactly where George Zimmerman said it started. and that somehow it got dragged down to the area where Trayvon Martin was actually shot. I'm going to show you what Mr. Delrayanda mentioned. It's an animation. It's not evidence. It doesn't go back there with you. It's just an overview of some of the evidence and how it may look in the context of it. So if it works we're going to spend a moment to just look at that only runs about a minute, minute and a half. It does have a 911 call on it because it's used to sort of set the scene a little bit as far as timing. And I'm going to come back and sort of explain some of why what is in there is in there. Only if it works though. What's the chance this gets messed up if we disconnect one item and put on another. You don't know or it shouldn't? Great. [01:02:06] Speaker ?: We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. We'll have a quick time. [01:02:36] Speaker 2: Okay, a couple of assumptions and a couple of problems with this before we looked at it. You'll see where they started. I have Mr. Martin sort of approaching coming down the sidewalk. There's questions or conflicts about that. Was it bushes? Was it sidewalk? Was it behind me? And of course you can see it. It's lit. If it was real weather and lighting conditions, we would be looking at a black screen. So some artificiality that I've had to include in the animation to show you is just things like that. But what I want to look at is how the event may have happened at the T intersection and how things sort of progress from there and how that comports with some of the evidence. things. Of course. [01:03:59] Speaker ?: Of course. [01:03:59] Speaker 2: or not. Or not. Thank you. There's the shot to the nose. We contend. Number one right there is where the flashlight is found. George's small flashlight is key. I didn't have any movement except to get them to the spot of the eventual shooting because we don't really know what happened. Although George Zimmerman did say that he tried to push him off and tried to push him away. I think in the video there were movements like this that you saw. Whatever. Somehow they got those 25 or 30 feet to the area where we know things happened because this perspective right here, you see that column on the left-hand side. This is John Good's patio where he was actually standing and he came out. The items match, just so you know, the items match precisely the areas where all the evidence was found and the numbers match the graphs that are already in evidence before you. So you'll see eight, one, two, three, all of those match up because they came from the same data. What I've done on this is I've now begun the 911 call because it's pretty close to time synced to John Good's event because you remember he testified. He was looking at what he saw, eight to ten seconds, he went inside, decided to make the phone call to 911. We used that as about 20 seconds or so, an assumption, I agree, because Jenna Lauer had testified. They took her about 20, 25 seconds to make the decision and dial 911. So we sort of had to figure out exactly the timeline as best we can. Maybe both? [01:06:39] Speaker 4: Maybe both? I'm not sure. There's just someone screaming outside. Hey, what's the address that they're here? Address is taken out. [01:06:48] Speaker 2: Now this is when, according to Mr. Good's testimony, he came out and saw what he saw. What we've done is take away the animation and just used three different figures or positions because this is what he said he saw. He said when he came out, he saw them sort of straddled one on top of the other. And then he saw them move towards the sort of parallel. We were having confusion with horizontal, vertical, parallel, and perpendicular trial. But I think the indication was they were parallel and maybe on the concrete. So that's going to come up next. The second position where he said this is the mounted position or where the ground impound was occurring. This is where he said it happened closer up to the cement. Again, consistent with what Mr. Zimmerman was saying when he was talking to the officers. Or you decide if it's consistent or not. [01:07:48] Speaker 4: It sounds like a male. And you don't know why? I don't know why I think they're yelling help, but I don't know. Just send someone quick. If you look. [01:08:00] Speaker 2: The third position is when John Good, as he was leaving, said that they sort of come down away a little bit. Mr. Zimmerman said that he was sort of trying to shimmy or to get off specifically being on the concrete. And this is also put in there. And again, there are some assumptions in this animation. Because the next position that you're going to see is the position just after the shot. This is the position where we contend the shot happened. The angle of those two people, obviously, one sort of over the other. You remember Dr. DeMaio's testimony and other people's testimony. Even Mr. Root, I think, testified. That because of the way the clothing is, that if leaning over, it was consistent with the gunshot. That being contact, not pressed to the chest, but contact with the clothing, and then about two to four inches away from the chest. [01:09:10] Speaker 4: That's fine now. So you think you're dealing with help? Yes. Alright, what is your... [01:09:22] Speaker 2: Now you see we have George Zimmerman on top with the red. His testimony was, shot him, that Trayvon Martin fell sort of off into the left. You'll look at the scene photographs where you see Trayvon Martin's feet are sort of in, someone called it a bicycling position. They just, I would argue, consistent with having been shot and fell off to the left, his side, and then fell onto his stomach. George Zimmerman then got on top, as he testified to her at least, to move out the hands. [01:09:56] Speaker 4: There's gunshots. You just heard gunshots? Yes. How many? There's one. There's two. [01:10:04] Speaker 2: Now, this right here, by the way, what you're seeing is what it's called a 50 millimeter perspective. The human eye sees things at about 49.5. Well, I can't tell you that, because I don't know if that's an evidence. Anyway, it's at a 50 millimeter perspective, similar to what people see when they look. So, this is what John Goode had, and which is what this has right here, because this is Selma Moore's perspective. This is the column that she sort of said she looked out and around, and the timing is appropriate, because we had it about six, seven, eight seconds from the time of the shot, which is when you remember when Miss Moore did her sort of walk around in the courtroom. In the courtroom, she said, and if you timed it, it was about eight seconds thereabouts. And she took, hear the shot, react to the shot, walk around, come around, go outside, shimmy through the door, look out. And that's what she saw. So, she would have seen, at least according to Joy Zimmerman's story, she would have seen George on top, spreading out the hands. And she said she saw the foot move. She said that at that point, Joy Zimmerman sort of got up, looked around. So, you remember her testimony, and we'll talk about that in a minute as well. So, this is what she saw, or at least her perspective. And then, this is now the rest of the 911 call. I don't know. [01:11:39] Speaker ?: I don't know. [01:11:39] Speaker 2: You've heard it. It's not particularly significant to the event. Karen, get in here now. [01:11:42] Speaker 4: Because. [01:11:43] Speaker 2: Karen, get in here now. [01:11:44] Speaker ?: Because. [01:11:45] Speaker 4: Karen, get. [01:11:46] Speaker 2: Nobody said that they saw anything of relevance beyond that from this one. Thank you, Your Honor. [01:11:55] Speaker ?: Let's hook this back together. See if it works. Animation, of course, is just that. It's somewhat made up. [01:11:59] Speaker 2: It wasn't that night. It wasn't a video tape, although George certainly hoped that there was. George Zimmerman, sorry. Hope that there was. But it does give an idea, a perspective, that at least is consistent with the evidence that was presented before you in the case. Because it does show the probability, if not the exact certainty, that this event started at the T intersection or thereabouts. And it started with a shot to the face. Trayvon Martin against George Zimmerman. And then it traveled down those 30 feet or so, however they ended up there. We know that when they ended up there, that the only one who was injured at all, except for the gunshot, was George Zimmerman. And that the only other injury that Trayvon Martin had on him was what seemed to be a fight injury from a couple of scrapes of the knuckle. So, again in my quest, my dangerous quest to prove my client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Now we get really into what happened. Because you can argue in the state will all you want, that George wanted to be a cop. And George's calls to law enforcement in the past just had some seething anger build up. But, don't assume it. Prove it, believe it. Don't prove it, it just doesn't exist. And don't connect those dots if they're not connected to you beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. So now let's look at what really happened that night. And let's see, the graph is done. So what were these people doing just before? Spend a moment on that, to talk to you about my client's absolute innocence. There's about a minute and a half, something like that, after George's call, that he was doing something. Whether or not he was wandering up to retreat view circle to get an address. Whether or not he had that flashlight on looking around a little bit. Whether, as he said to the law enforcement officer, I do want to try and figure out where he is. I do want to at least keep a visual on him. Whatever. That was about a minute and a half. It's really interesting as well, about the phone calls, is what Trayvon Martin was doing. Because we haven't spent a lot of time on that yet, but the evidence is sort of compelling as to what he might have been doing. We know that he was on the phone with Rachel Gentel. And we know that that ended, we have the times, it's all in, at a precise time and it kicked back in. And that she said he was running. Which actually coincides pretty straight forward with when George said he was running. Some consistency there. So, Trayvon Martin was running. And he was running at about somewhere nearby 7-11-47. Keep that number in mind for a minute. 7-11-47. Because the altercation, according to Ms. Lauer's phone call. If you sort of look at when her phone call started. Back it up and when she heard what she heard. She called at 7-16-11. Give her 30 seconds or so to have started. Right? Somewhere around there. We're going to take a break for a couple of minutes. Because I didn't realize I've already been talking for an hour and 20 minutes. So, we're going to take a break. But before we take a break, here's what I'm going to do. We're going to sit tight. And we're not going to talk. And I'll tell you when we'll talk again. Okay? So, try not to do much. Starting now. Starting now. [01:16:53] Speaker ?: So, we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. Then we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. We're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:19:53] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:20:24] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. [01:20:25] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. [01:20:26] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:20:28] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:20:32] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:20:34] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:20:39] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:04] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:12] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. [01:21:13] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:25] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. [01:21:26] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:44] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. [01:21:45] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:53] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:21:55] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. [01:22:08] Speaker ?: And we're going to take a break. [01:22:09] Speaker 2: And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And we're going to take a break. And what he must have been thinking for four minutes. Let me time for a break. If I'm right now. [01:22:49] Speaker 1: If you may. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please put your notepads face down on the chair. Follow Deputy Jarvis down into the jury room. We will take a 15-minute recess. [01:23:07] Speaker ?: Please be seated. [01:23:28] Speaker 1: Court will be in recess for 15 minutes. Thank you. [01:23:32] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:23:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:23:33] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.