George Zimmerman trial: Watch prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda deliver closing arguments (videos, transcript)

On July 11, 2013, George Zimmerman returned to the Seminole County courthouse where prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda delivered a slamming closing argument to conclude the George Zimmerman trial. The defense will give their closing arguments on Friday, July 12, 2013. The prosecution will
Bernie de la Rionda delivers closing arguments
have the final word, and I expect that is when we will hear the emotional, passionate plea for justice for Trayvon Martin.

Here is a working transcript for Bernie De la Rionda's closing arguments.

DEBRA NELSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE: The attorneys will not present their final arguments. Please remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence or your instruction on the law. However, do listen closely to their arguments. They are intended to aid you in understanding the case. Each side will have equal time. But the state is entitled to divide this time between an opening argument and a rebuttal argument after the defense has spoken. And just so we know, Mr. De La Rionda will let us know when would be a good breaking time for a recess during his argument. We will take a brief recess in the middle.

You will let us know when.


NELSON: You may proceed.

DE LA RIONDA: May it please the court, Counsel.

Good afternoon.


DE LA RIONDA: A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own. He is dead because another man made assumptions. That man assumed certain things. He is dead not just because the man made those assumptions, because he acted upon those assumptions. And unfortunately, unfortunately, because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks on this earth.

The defendant in this case, George Zimmerman, acted upon those assumptions. And because of that, a young man, a 17-year-old man, barely 17-year-old man, I think three weeks past his birthday, is dead.

Unfortunately this is one of the last photos that will ever be taken of Trayvon Martin. That is true because of the actions of one individual, the man before you, the defendant, George Zimmerman, a man, who after shooting Trayvon Martin, claims to not have realized that he was dead. And what did he do? Do you recall what the testimony was about what he did after? Did he render or attempt to render the same aid that the heroic officers from the Sanford Police Department did, who didn't wear the mask they normally would wear, but gave mouth to mouth, performed CPR, in an attempt to bring life back into that young boy? Did he do that?

Recall also what happened when Mr. Manalo came out. And recall also what happened when the officer came out, and that they handcuffed him. And recall what he told Mr. Manalo, "Please call my wife." And then apparently Mr. Manalo was taking too long or something and he said, "Just tell her I killed him," just kind of matter of fact. Those acts, those actions speak volumes of what occurred that evening, Sunday evening. And they speak volumes of this defendant's actions, Sunday, February 27th -- sorry, February 26th, 2012, at 7:09 p.m., at the retreat at Twin Lakes town homes.

Now, are you obviously aware that the shooting actually happened minutes later? I think because of the recording that was made we were actually able to precisely determine when that fatal shot occurred. It occurred at 7:16 and 55 seconds. I would submit that the events leading up to this murder actually occurred not just earlier that Sunday evening, but months before.

Why do I say that? Even though Trayvon Martin wasn't there months before, why do I say that the events leading up to this occurred months before? You recall the testimony, of several people, but most importantly, the evidence you heard from this defendant's mouth when he was being interviewed by Investigator Singleton, when she first said something to the effect of, well, tell me what happened out there, I wasn't out there, I haven't gone to the scene, and what did he first say?



OK. I am going to keep quiet and you tell me the story. You tell me what happened that night. OK?


SINGLETON: Whatever led up to this, anything you want to tell me about what happened and why it ended up what it ended up to, this boy got shot. OK?

ZIMMERMAN: The neighborhood has had a lot of crimes. My wife saw our neighbors get broken into, and she got scared.

SINGLETON: Are you talking about the residence or the vehicles?

ZIMMERMAN: The residence, while it was occupied. So I decided to start a neighborhood watch program in my neighborhood.

SINGLETON: What is the name of the neighborhood?

ZIMMERMAN: Retreat at Twin Lakes.


DE LA RIONDA: Now, those actions weren't anything sinister or terrible or evil or of ill will. Those were actions that occurred throughout the United States in many cities, unfortunately, where crimes occur in a neighborhood and people get together and form neighborhood watches or other associations to deal with it. There is nothing sinister or wrong with that.

In this particular case, it led to the death of an innocent 17-year- old boy. He profiled him as a criminal. He assumed certain things. That Trayvon Martin was up to no good. That is what led to his death.

Trayvon Martin, he was staying -- he was there legally. He hadn't broken in or sneaked in or trespassed. He was there legally. He went to the 7-Eleven store earlier that evening. He bought what? What did he buy? What was his crime? He bought Skittles and some kind of watermelon or iced tea or whatever it's called. That was his crime. He had $40.15 in his pockets. He was wearing a photo button. And he was speaking to a girl in Miami. He was minding his own business. But apparently, this defendant decided that he was up to no good. That the victim was up to no good. What had Trayvon Martin planned for that evening? Watch a basketball game with his younger -- I guess you'd call him stepbrother or friend -- the son of his father's fiancee. That's where he was headed back home. You know, this wasn't at 2:00 in the morning. Or partying somewhere -- not that that would in any way minimize it -- but he wasn't -- he was just doing a normal, everyday thing. He went to the store, got something, got some Skittles and some tea or drink, and was just walking back. It was raining. He was wearing a hoodie. Last I heard that's not against the law. But in this man's eyes, he was up to no good. He presumed something that was not true.

Now, what's ironic about this neighborhood watch -- and you heard from officers, again, that's a respected thing that we encourage citizens to do. But in this particular case, he didn't even bother to find out if he thought he was up to no good. He called the police, the nonemergency number. But then he followed him. He tracked him. Because, in his mind, in the defendant's mind, this was a criminal. And he was tired of criminals committing crimes out there. Again, that's not a bad thing. It's good that citizens get involved. But he went over the line. He assumed things that weren't true. And instead of waiting for the police, instead of waiting for the police to come and do their job, he did not. Because he, the defendant, wanted to make sure that Trayvon Martin didn't get out of the neighborhood.

You might recall the prior testimony about the prior incidents. What happened? They would commit some kind of crime, apparently. And they would all flee. By the time -- I think there was one guy that was caught. But the rest of them would flee. And this defendant was sick and tired of it. So that night, he decided he wanted -- he was going to be what he wanted to be, a police officer.

Now, police officers are trained. Recall one of the questions that was asked of Investigator Serino by the defense. "Sir, if you were driving by and somebody was in the front yard and looking through a window, wouldn't you stop your car and kind of investigate that"? His first -- my recollection is that his comment was, his answer was, "I would think maybe he lives there." But, see, in this defendant's mind, because of the prior crime out there, he automatically assumed that Trayvon Martin was a criminal. And that's why we're here. That is why we're here. Because the defense is going to argue to you that this was self-defense. And they're going to say, what actually happened at the time of the shooting? And I'm going to talk about that, obviously. But you can't just take that in a vacuum. It's not like this defendant was just walking home and some guy came out of nowhere and just started beating him up. I mean, when you think of it, when you really, honestly think about it, who was more scared? The guy, the kid that was minding his own business and going home that was being followed by another guy in a truck, in an SUV, that kept following him -- recall what he told Rachel Jeantel? "This guy, he's following me." She said something to the effect of, well, maybe he's like a sex pervert or something. That's when he referred to "He's a cracker," whatever word he used. And he used the "N" word, too. When you think of it, that is the person that was scared, I would submit.

Now, Trayvon Martin, unfortunately, can't come into this courtroom and tell you how he was feeling. And that's true because of the actions of one man -- the defendant.

Let's talk about the defendant that night. No dispute that he lived there at Retreat at Twin Lakes. No dispute that he was part -- maybe he was the neighborhood watch. But, again, that's perfectly good. That's a good thing. But he was upset that burglars got away. That's also a good thing. That's good that people get involved. And apparently, according to his statement, he was driving to Target. Now, he's driving to Target. It's raining. And what does he do? He calls the police with something suspicious. Then he tracks this guy down. He tracks Trayvon Martin. He doesn't just call the police and, OK, stay in your car. He keeps following him. Then he goes even further. He gets out of the car. So he sees the victim. He's suspicious of the victim. He calls 911 non-emergency. Now, all those actions, no crime has been committed there. There's no crime right there. But it's important to realize this is what led to Trayvon Martin being dead.

The defendant, 28 years old, 5'7", 204 pounds, and armed. Now, let me stop right here. He had the right to bear arms. We live in this great country. The Second Amendment allows people to carry a firearm. And he had a permit. He had a right to have a concealed permit, to have a concealed firearm. Again, he is not violating any law.

The victim in this case, 17 years old, 5'11", 158 pounds. He was unarmed. Well, I guess if you would consider Skittles or the tea a weapon. I'm not trying to make light of it. Defense is saying, oh, it's that concrete, you know, like -- and we'll talk about the concrete. But what started this? Assumptions. Incorrect assumptions on the part of one individual.

Again, that's the last photograph we have of Trayvon Martin. This innocent 17-year-old kid was profiled as a criminal. To quote the defendant, and pardon my language, he was one of those "(EXPLETIVE DELETED) that get away."

(INAUDIBLE). So the defense will argue that shows that he didn't have any ill will or hatred. No, I would submit to you that he uttered it under his breath. That, itself, indicates ill will and hatred. Because he was speaking to the 911 or non-emergency person, but what he was doing is he was verbalizing what he was thinking. And that's why that's important. Because in his mind, he already assumed certain things. That Trayvon (AUDIO PROBLEM).

You recall the prior calls? We brought in five -- I think defense put on another one, six -- within the last five, six months where crimes had been committed in the neighborhood. He was sick and tired of it.

But the law doesn't say, OK, you know, take the law into your own hands. Oh, I'm sorry, I got the wrong guy. Oh, I'm so sorry, I thought he was a criminal. Mr. Martin, Tracy Martin, Sybrina Fulton, I am so sorry. I made a mistake. I didn't realize that Trayvon Martin was up to -- was minding his own business. I am terribly sorry.

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: You know, the law doesn't say that. The law talks about accountability and responsibility for one's actions. And that's what we're asking for in this case. Hold the defendant responsible for his actions. Hold him accountable for what he did. Because if the defendant hadn't assumed that, and Trayvon Martin would have watched the basketball game, George Zimmerman, I'm assuming, would have gone to Target and did whatever he does on Sunday evenings and we wouldn't be here.

The law doesn't allow people to take the law into their own hands. It doesn't allow, quite frankly, even the police to take the law into their own hands. If the police had gotten called out there, they would have done -- they would have, OK, are you -- what are you doing here? Can I ask you what you're doing? Do you mind telling me? And under the law, they're allowed to ask somebody that's walking the streets. The person can ignore them or not. That's not a crime. Most people say, listen, I live right -- I'm right here. I'm going home. You know, you want to come?

But this defendant didn't give Trayvon Martin a chance. Recall the testimony of this defendant in terms of the interviews and I'm going to play certain parts for you. But recall how he says that at one point that Trayvon Martin is circling his car. And my point in saying that is, number one, you've got to determine whether that's true. But let's presume that part is true. And he says he's got something in his hands. Why does this defendant get out of the car if he thinks that Trayvon Martin is a threat to him? Why? Why? Because he's got a gun. He's got the equalizer. He's going to take care of it. He's a wannabe cop. He's going to take care of it. He's got a gun. And, my God, it's his community and he's not going to put up with it. And if the police are taking too long to respond, he's going to handle it.

Now, did he go over there and say, I'm going to kill this kid? No. This isn't first degree murder. It's not premeditated. But his actions resulted in the death of a 17-year-old boy. Did they not? I mean, do you have an innocent man before you? Is it really self-defense when you follow somebody? First of all, when you profile somebody incorrectly. When you automatically label him a criminal because he's acting, in your mind and in his mind, excuse me, as suspicious because he's wearing a hoodie, because it's raining and he's walking the streets or not walking fast enough. I thought in this great country, no matter how stupid we might think somebody's acting because it's raining and he's walking or doing whatever, that that's not against the law. He did have his hoodie on. It was raining off and on.

What's ironic in this case and what I want to spend some time talking with you about is the defendant's statements because you might think, well, hold on, you're the state, what are you putting on his self- serving statements when he's denying committing a crime, when he's saying it's self-defense? We wanted to tell you all the evidence. We wanted to put in all the witnesses that saw something of value out there because we wanted you to get the truth. We wanted you to get the complete story. But in doing so, I want to analyze the -- dissect with you the defendant's statements. Why was it necessary for the defendant to exaggerate everything that happened? Why was it that it took him a while, even at the very end, he kept denying something. What? Obviously he kept denying that he intentionally killed him. That it was, you know, he said self-defense.

But what was important even before that? What did he keep denying? That he followed him. Because the defendant knew that if he admitted he followed him, then that showed that ill will, hatred. That put him in that category (INAUDIBLE).

That's why he kept talking about, oh, I didn't know the name of the street. I was looking for an address. You remember that video, and I'm going to show it to you again, the part where he's walking and he goes to the detectives, like the investigators, like they're some fools or something. Look, this is the back of the houses here. There's no addresses. Well, right in front of him is an address. And, by the way, there's only three streets. How difficult can it be? And he's the neighborhood watch guy. He's been living there four years and he takes his dog down to that dog walk but he doesn't know the names of the street? He doesn't know the main street that you go in? Because, see, when he admits something like that, then it proves one thing, that he was following him. That he had profiled him and he was following him. And that shows he's guilt. Because it shows that his actions led, unfortunately, to the death of Trayvon Martin.

So you can't just say, OK, what happened at the actual interaction between them? And, again, we're going to talk about that because, unfortunately, and I stress unfortunately, there's only one person - well, there's two people. One person's not with us anymore. But there's only two really people who knew what really happened out there. And he, the defendant, made sure that other person couldn't come to this courtroom and tell you what happened. He, the defendant, silenced Trayvon Martin. But I would submit to you even in silence his body provides evidence as to this defendant's guilt. And why do I say that? Because from DNA, from lack of blood, other stuff, his body speaks to you and even in death that -- and it proves to you that this defendant is lying about what happened.

Do you recall one of the things we talked about at some point with one of the witnesses? I think it was Dr. Di Maio, you know, the very impressive, distinguished doctor about this photograph of the defendant the defense keeps berating? Recall what I did? I said, what do you expect? Blood. And I'm going to show you the photographs. Not just at the medical examiner's (INAUDIBLE) they're saying, oh, that Dr. Bao, he's incompetent, he didn't know what he was doing. No, I'm going to show you the photographs at the scene which show what? No blood on his hands. And they're going to say, oh, it was raining that night. Wow, and I guess the blood on the defendant's head just stuck there, right? But on the victim they just kind of vanished? Can't have it both -- can't have it like that.

See, because what's important is the defendant, in an attempt to convince the police that he was really shooting this man, this boy, in self-defense, he had to exaggerate what happened. That's why he had to at some point say, oh, he was threatening me. It was almost like the levels of fear escalated. And we'll talk about that, how he was then -- originally he hit him and then he got him on the ground and then there was a struggle and then he got the upper hand. And then, let's see, it got worse. And then he threatened to kill him. And then he put his hand over his mouth, suffocating him and then he pinched his nose. And then he went for the gun. See how he's exaggerating everything? Oh, you don't believe this stuff? Well, hold on, it was even more dangerous. Because you know why? This defendant, as you heard, has studied the law in terms of what's required for self-defense and he's got all those bullet points in terms of what's required.

So if you take one word out of here that I would submit to you shows this defendant's guilt, it's assumptions on the part of the defendant. The defendant assumed that the victim didn't belong at the retreat at Twin Lakes, didn't he? That the victim was committing or about to commit a burglary. He assumed and he profiled the victim as a criminal. He assumed that the victim was one of those that always got away. He assumed also that he was an f'ing punk. And that the victim was going to get away before the police arrived.

Now, what didn't the defendant do? Let's assume he was assuming that and, again, assuming something is not against the law by itself. Unless you're wrong.

Let's assume at that time he legitimately thought that Trayvon Martin might be committing a crime. OK, he called the police. Non-emergency number. That's a good thing. But what did he do? He didn't - you know when this victim is coming up to him and, like, -- he claimed circling his car, like, what are you doing, man? What are you following me for? He didn't say, hold on, I'm sorry, I'm with the neighborhood watch. Are you - you know, can I assist you in some way? You look lost or you look like you don't know what's going on. Can I help you? Can I give you a ride?

Or let's say he was scared of him. but he could have said, do you live around here? Can I call the police? Can I call a friend? He didn't do that. He didn't take any action because he already, in his mind, had assumed that he was a criminal and he wasn't going to give him any benefit of the doubt.

Did he roll down the window and identify himself as a neighborhood watch to say, listen, I've called the police. I'm not a bad guy. I'm not a pervert. I'm not following you for anything, whatever your name is. Like, you mind waiting. The police are on the way. They're going to be here in about 30 seconds or a minute. Sometimes they take a little bit longer. But would you mind waiting here? I'm a little suspicious of what you're doing. Would you mind waiting? He didn't do that. Did he wait for the police? No. Did he wait inside his car? No. He let the victim know he was there (ph) (INAUDIBLE).

So let's talk about weighing the evidence in terms of what the instructions the court will give you an opportunity to see and know. Were the answers that the witnesses gave straightforward? Did anybody have an interest in the outcome? And did the evidence agree with other evidence? Are there prior inconsistent statements? And, again, use your God-given common sense.

What do we have here? Really what does it boil down to? You heard a little bit and we put evidence of the fact the defendant at one point wanted to be a police officer. And I've been in law enforcement 30 years, prosecutor. There's nothing wrong. That's a good thing. We ought to encourage people to be police officers. It's an honorable profession. He applied in Virginia. Didn't get in. And then he's doing other stuff. He's taking criminal justice credits. That's good. But, again, that doesn't say that the law allows a person to take matters into their own hand. If not, why are we here? I mean, let's -- why do we have courtrooms? Why do we have jurors? Let's just let people handle it outside. Oh, they're wrong? Well, you know, sorry.

So I want to talk about the witnesses. And before I do that, I want to take a moment to thank you for your time of service. I think we started over four weeks ago. And in this process that we're all so fortunate to be able to -- to live in, you know, live the Constitution in terms of asking people to come from their everyday lives and give up a lot from work and from family to serve as jurors. So I think I speak on behalf of everybody, defense, the court and everybody, we thank you for your time and your patience. This case is very important to the state of Florida. It's important to the victim's family. It's important to the defendant. And it's also important, obviously, to you.

You probably realized that as you all are watching the juror -- I'm sorry the witnesses and watching the trial, periodically the attorneys will watch you and the court will. And you guys were very attentive. Some took more notes than others. But without a doubt nobody was falling asleep. And, you know, it's a long process. You've been here a long time. And we're towards the end.

But I want to take a few moments and talk about what I would submit is how you arrive at a verdict. Ask (ph) in this great country for people to serve as jurors without really any legal experience. In a lot of countries, they don't have -- they have lawyers or judges that are already automatically plugged in as such and that's what they do. They have professional people that sit as jurors. We ask people to come from their everyday lives and sit as jurors. That's what I would submit makes this country great.

So how is it that if you're asked to come and you really don't have any legal experience, how do you arrive at a verdict that speaks to truth? How do you arrive at a verdict that is just? I would submit to you to do (ph) three things. Number one, you rely obviously on the witnesses, the testimony, the evidence that you have, the physical evidence that you saw, and you'll be able to digest more if you want to of the recordings, all that other stuff. Number two, you rely on the law that Judge Nelson will read to you and you'll actually be provided a copy of it. And number three, and perhaps most importantly, you rely on your God-given common sense. You know, that common sense that we just kind of use automatically without even having to think about it to make decisions at home and at work, the law encourages you to do that in evaluating the evidence, determining what's valid, what's not and what makes sense.

And when you do those three things, when you rely on the witnesses' testimony, the physical evidence and other stuff, when you rely on the law and then when you rely and apply your common sense to (INAUDIBLE), I would submit to you come back with a verdict that speaks the truth. A verdict that is just. And that verdict would be that this defendant's guilty of murder in the second degree.

I mean, do you believe that there is an innocent man sitting over there right now? Do you believe that he just assumed something but he kind of overreacted a little bit but, you know, it really wasn't his fault that Trayvon Martin is dead? Do you believe that this was just kind of a struggle or an argument or a discussion or a fight that just kind of got out of hand? Perhaps, but who started this? Who followed who? Who was minding their own business? And again, of the two, who was the one that was armed? And who knew that they were armed?

I hope you can see that from there. We - and I've got it right here, too. It's a timeline. And it's going to kind of tell you a little bit about what happened there. It's a timeline showing the phone call, and you'll be able to take it back there, it's in evidence. But it's a timeline showing the phone call between Rachel Jeantel and Trayvon Martin. There's two parts to it. And it's color coded. Hopefully we made it fancy so you all can decipher it. You know, I'm old and I'm getting used to now the computer systems, but hopefully it makes sense.

And what you also have is you also have George Zimmerman's calls. You have the exact time in terms of the length of the call. Then you also have it broke up originally with, as you recall, Ms. Jeantel talked that she lost contact and she got it back up. And then you have Ms. Lauer's (ph) call. And that's why I was able to tell you unequivocally as to when the gunshot occurred, because we were able to time when Ms. Lauer made the call and you hear the gunshot, unfortunately, in that call.

And then you have other calls too. Mr. Dyka (ph) you heard speak. And then you have when Officer Smith arrived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes. And you have Mr. Good's (ph) call. So I would submit to you that's relevant in terms of establishing the timeline, as best we can, as to what occurred.

Now, are people off, you know, by a few minutes? Possibly. But the phone records don't lie. Because my recollection was that we spent, I think, half a day one day and possibly half a day the next day hearing from one witness. Her name was Rachel Jeantel.

Now, this young lady, I will submit to you, is not a very sophisticated person. She's not the most educated. But she's a human being and she spoke as best she could. You know, she happens to be, what, Haitian or of Haitian descent. And, you know, made a big deal about, oh, you can't read cursive. Yes, she can't. Unfortunately. She's, what, 18, 19? But did what she tell you as best she could, and maybe her English wasn't the best, maybe her speech, her language was a little colorful. I think she referred to me as that bald headed dude and referred to other phrases to describe other people. But did she speak the truth? Because when you think of it, she was the person that was speaking to the victim. And really the conversation that she had with the victim, nobody would know whether she's telling the truth or not other than her. I mean, we have the phone records that established it. That there's no dispute that they were talking. But what I'm saying is, she didn't have to -- she could have embellished. She could have lied about what the victim said and when she referred to the guy that was following, that creepy guy, when she said to him, he's probably a pervert or a sexual something. Why is this guy following you? And Trayvon Martin said he's (INAUDIBLE) language.

But she didn't come in here and lie to you about that. I mean, she could have and nobody would have known the difference. It wasn't like her conversation was being recorded. But, see, her use of colorful language doesn't mean that her testimony is less credible. Just because she's not a highly educated individual. Again, we have records that establish that that conversation took place. So there's no dispute about that. And those records are up there.

But let's talk about, she spent hours on that witness stand. Why? I guess an attempt to discredit her in some way. You decide whether she was telling the truth. Do you disregard what she said because her family's from Haiti, because she isn't sophisticated and because she can't read cursive, unfortunately? I mean is that what you should - what you should do? I don't think the instructions are going to tell you that, but you could decide, well, she's not very educated. I don't think she's - and I'm not saying that you will but, I mean, why did we take so long in asking her questions? Because we're trying to get to the truth. Both sides.

But I think the other witnesses, I guess, were many more sophisticated. It didn't take six hours or whatever. Anyway, you decide. But did what she say comport or match up with the evidence that the other people were talking? I would submit it -- it did. I mean, think back, and it happened a while ago, but think about what she said. What she said Trayvon Martin said. And isn't it consistent with the evidence? I mean, is there any dispute that this defendant profiled, that's my word, you can use whatever word you want to use, but isn't it true that this defendant assumed that Trayvon Martin was a criminal? I mean he even tells the police that. Why -- isn't that consistent with what Rachel Jeantel tells you? Didn't even the defendant, in his statements to the police, say, yeah, the kid, or however he referred to him, the guy, whatever, he's running away. Didn't she say that?

I had a dream that today a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality but of the content of her testimony. On the content of her testimony. Just because she's got a colorful personality, just because she referred to me as the bald headed dude or whatever, that doesn't mean her story, her statements, aren't accurate. Was the evidence consistent with what she said? Wasn't she on the telephone with the victim? Isn't it true the defendant was following the victim? Didn't the victim attempt to get away? Didn't this defendant confront the victim? I don't think the defense will admit that. The defendant and the police didn't admit that. But what did he say? Oh, I was just looking for an address. Oh, I was just looking for the street. Oh, you were minding your own business and all of a sudden this victim that you were following just decided to, all of a sudden, attack you out of nowhere.

In fact, she went a little further, I would submit. She warned the victim that maybe he was a sexual pervert. And again, colorful words were used by her to describe the defendant in terms of what the victim had described the defendant as. I would submit to you that that's an example that she's telling the truth.

Now, she did lie about funeral and about her age originally to the police, to me, to the mother. Why? OK. She's guilty of that. She didn't want to go have to see the body. She didn't want to deal with it. And she lied to the mother of Trayvon Martin. So you could disregard her testimony because of that. She lied about her age because she didn't want to come forward. Maybe she realized that she might have to testify and people would find out that she can't read cursive, unfortunately.

We have the defendant's nonemergency call. No dispute about that. That's recorded. I believe there might be a dispute as to whether the operator told him not to follow or not. You decide. What was in that recording?


To say that under his breath. Doesn't that kind of show, demonstrate, what the defendant was feeling at the time? I mean, that wasn't information that he was providing to the operator, like, OK, he is (INAUDIBLE). Why is he uttering that word? Other than that's how he feels?

Now, defense may get up here and tell you, oh, he was just angry. Well, you decide. I would submit to you on behalf of the state of Florida, that's more than a little angry. That's frustration. That's kind of ill will, hatred, that you've made up your mind he's a criminal and you're tired of these criminals committing crimes. And, my God, he's not going to get away.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, sir, what's your name?


DE LA RIONDA: Why was it necessary to, again, utter the words "f'ing punk"? If he hadn't already in his mind determined that he was a criminal? That Trayvon Martin was a criminal and he was not going to get away.

Recall the testimony in terms of the entrance? And, again, we talked about the fact that there's only three streets. This is one. This is the one that circles all the way around and then there's another one. But, of course, he claims to not know the street that he comes in every day, in and out, One Tree Lane, right here. He claims to not know that street. And, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to show you, in that interview -- with one of the interviews with the detective in the car, leading up to it, he makes reference to the street name. And then, like, a minute later he's talking about, I don't know the name of the street. He didn't advertently let out that he was aware of that street because he let out that that was a lie that he told the police so that it would justify why he is following, why he is profiling, why he is tracking a young man.

And, again, that's the close-up of where this happened right here. You're obviously very well familiar with it. And we've got some more exhibits for that. We have Ms. Lauer's call, the 911 call. And, really, Ms. Lauer, what does she say? She didn't see anything. She stayed inside. I think at some point in that phone call she's telling her husband to be -- I think they're married now, Jeremy Weinberg (ph), Jeremy, get - you know, get away from the window and do something. Don't go out there. But the bottom line is, she recorded it. But what does she say before the actual recording, before she called the police, she heard something going on out there. Because, see, this wasn't like the defendant claims that out of the blue the victim just kind of attacked him and knocked him to the ground and he just started beating him. No, this started, I would submit, further down, but it didn't start right at the "T" where the defendant claims it occurred.

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: Ms. Surdyka. You heard from her, too. And you've got the vantage point in terms of there of where her place was. My recollection was she's got a cat, I think his name was Leo, who's got a ledge there. She was looking out. She was reading. She got up. She looked. She had a good vantage point. She did observe something. And what does she tell you?

That in her opinion based on what she saw, she thought the bigger man was on top. And she told you that the voice she heard, she thought was of a child versus an older person. Now, is she an expert? Had she ever heard these voices before? No. She's just telling you what she believes.

Just like you've had a bunch of other people come in and say, that is George Zimmerman's voice and that is Trayvon Martin's voice. You decide, but she told you as best she could what she observed. And what's consistent in terms of what she observed and what happened. Because, see, the issue is at that time, when there was contact between the defendant and the victim, did it occur as the defendant claims?

First of all, you really have to believe he really wasn't following him and he was just kind of minding his own business. He was going out for a walk. His walk got interrupted because some guy attacked him. You've got to believe that. You've got to believe he wasn't following anybody. He wasn't up to doing anything. He was just kind of minding his own business.

As he was walking back, the victim for some reason just decided to go attack him. So you've got to have that assumption. It's got to be accurate and then you've got to assume that then the victim just hit him and knocked him to the ground and just started beating him and -- and poor defendant, poor George Zimmerman, he just kind of took it, boom, boom, just getting whacked over and over.

He never did anything. Compare the sizes. And then, at the last moment, he was able to take out that gun, his concealed gun, and was able to just shoot him. You had the testimony of John Good, who did call 911. The time frame is important in terms of when his call was made.

I think in opening statements the defense told you that -- represented to you that he is the eyewitness, he is the crucial eyewitness. He's the only eyewitness. I'll beg to differ. Again, what's important is what you think. Let's talk a little bit about John Good. What did John Good tell you? He saw what he believed was the victim on top of the defendant.

Now, he did not see the shooting. He saw prior to the shooting. I will submit to you when you kind of put all the witnesses together, that there wasn't just, like, the defendant knocking the victim down to the ground, staying on top of him, beating the hell out of him. I would submit to you there was contact between them, that there was a fight. There was a struggle.

Ironically, of the two, one of the individuals is the one that's had, what, 18 months MMA fighting? Oh, but, of course, he's just a pudgy, overweight man. Is, I think, what Mr. Pollack said. He really didn't progress beyond the first level. He's the one that's had MMA training of some type. But, anyway, they interacted. They rolled around and they fought. But, again, you can't just take that in a vacuum. Why did this occur? What led up to this?

And at the time of the shooting, was it necessary to shoot him? Well, the defense is going to parade the photographs of the injuries. I don't think I need to show you the one photo that counts, do I? The M.E. photo? Who suffered the most serious injury of all? You heard from Mr. -- what does she tell you?

I apologize. Mr. Good. He said he saw a struggle out there. He saw the victim, who he believes was the victim, based on clothing description. He didn't know him on top of the defendant and he saw the victim doing something to the defendant. He originally said it was MMA style. But when asked specifically, did you actually see blows, he said no. I saw movement there.

He may have been hitting him, but I don't know. What's also very important about what Mr. Good told you? He told you he could not see the defendant's hands. So did the defendant have the gun out at that point? Was he trying to get it out? And was Trayvon Martin at that point, which is about, what, 25, 30 seconds or so before the shooting, was he trying to protect himself from that gun? Is that what the struggle was about?

That at some point this defendant had the gun? The defendant claims at the very end, right before, unfortunately, he had to shoot the victim, that the victim grabbed the gun. Unfortunately for him, the truth comes out. And it refutes what the defendant says. Rule the testimony in terms of the DNA. There wasn't any on the gun.

Recall what he told his best friend, Mr. Osterman. What the defendant told Mr. Osterman not, like, a month later, that same evening meaning the morning after when he picked him up at the police station and drove him to his house. That he -- the victim had grabbed the gun. Not the holster, grabbed the gun. Excuse me.

In fact, Mr. Osterman told you he wrote a book about it with his wife. Miss Bahador told you she heard something out there. Ms. Bahador or Ms. Surdyka heard something like, no. I think that kind of matches up with what Rachel Jeantel told you about like get off me or something to that effect. Again, you took great notes. You paid attention when the witnesses were out there. I'm not going to cover every minor point. It's consistent with what Rachel Jeantel told you. My recollection was she described she lives right here at 2841. She described movement this way. Was the victim headed home as Ms. Jeantel told you? I need to show you the victim. You know what's ironic? Is recall even the defendant from the defendant's own mouth, they always got away from this exit over here, this other exit.

The victim you might recall was staying over here. Was he head there had and the defendant kind of cut him off? But it's consistent with what Ms. Bahador told you in terms of from her back, left to right. And what did she see? She saw them struggling. That is the defendant and the victim struggling up right.

Defendant claims that Trayvon Martin is the strongest guy in the world because he grabbed him, picked him up, then transported him, what, 20 yards? You saw the pictures. I'll talk about the diagram. He claims he pushed him, you know, or pulled him all the way over here. Recall where all the items are in connection to where the victim ended up?

The Manalos, Mr. and Mrs. Manalo talked to you about what they observed. What they really didn't observe. My recollection is Ms. Manalo said the bigger person was on top. They made a big issue the defense in cross examining her, hold on. You did see photographs on TV. Photographs of Trayvon Martin showed him playing football, in a football uniform. Yes, that's true.

But I still think the person on top was the bigger person. Now, she didn't see the shooting. My point is that there was a fight there. There was a struggle. At some points, it appears, based on the evidence, that the defendant was on top and at some points the victim was on top, wrestling, struggling, whatever you want to call it. But why did it occur? Why did it occur?

If you believe he's an innocent man, then you believe that the victim just decided to come up and just smack him. Smack the defendant. The defendant fell to the ground. The victim just started beating him up for -- we don't know but for some reason. And that the defendant really wasn't following him. The defendant really was just kind of walking back to his car. The defendant was truthful when he was telling the police that he was kind of trying to find out what the address was or he was trying to find out what that street name was. I apologize.

Mr. Manalo told you he went outside. Within seconds, I think it was like 20, 30 seconds of what he stepped outside, he observed the defendant -- and he said he thought the defendant was beaten up. He said the defendant was doing something acting then he said he asked him about the phone and talking about calling his wife. That's when he made that remark, just tell her I killed him or shot him.

You might be thinking, hold on. If there was a fight, if there was a struggle, how does that factor? Well -- and who started it? Who was following who? Who was chasing who? Who had the right, if they were being chased? Does the defendant have the right to self-defense? I'm sorry, does the victim? When he's being chased by this person? You'll hear the facts in this case.

And you'll hear in terms of whether the defendant was chasing him or not. You know, it was dark out there. There's no dispute about that. It was raining. No dispute about that. That's what these photographs show. It shows the distance from one sidewalk or dog walk to where the body was. You've got the diagrams and photographs.

One thing I will submit these photographs show is the absence of blood on that sidewalk. The other big thing is, if the defendant was really having his head bashed in as the -- he claims to the police, and he has some injuries to the back of his head, and we'll talk about that. But I think, they were what, centimeters or less? Why isn't his jacket all torn up or at least scratched up if he was being picked up over and over?

Why is his jacket all right, the back of his jacket? You think about that or is he exaggerating what happened, flashlight with the key ring. That's the one that was still on. State Exhibit 10 showing another angle in terms of the evidence out there. In terms of there apparently was some slope. We'll talk about the significance of that. Based on what defendant told police.

And, again, this is State's Exhibit 15. So the body was covered up. That's the other flashlight that the defendant had. I think he's told the police that it stopped working or something. If you want to, check again his statements to the police. Was he carrying it in one hand? Why was he carrying it in one hand? OK. I guess he took it out there to see, track down Trayvon Martin.

Then it just stopped working so he didn't put it in his pocket, I guess he just carried it in his hand. That's the victim's phone. There's no dispute that he was talking on the phone. And this is -- I'll show you this photograph not to show you just that, but I'll show you that because I want you to focus on this. He was speaking on the phone and he had ear plugs, whatever you call them.

State's Exhibit 22 is a close-up of where the gunshot was and also this photograph button. One thing I'd suggest to you that might be important to note on that is it was a big deal made about the jacket or the hoodie or the sweatshirt. How it had to be consistent with the can and how to do that. Well, that button might have something to do with the way that sweatshirt was kind of hanging.

It's a little big on him. But also that might affect the angle of how much is sticking out, the sweatshirt. You decide. State's Exhibit 23, why is that important? Do you see any blood on his hands, on the victim's hands? State's Exhibit 24, do you see any blood on his hands? I mean, is there any dispute that the defendant's mouth, nose -- I'm sorry, he had some blood on it. How come there isn't any blood on the victim's hands?

Because the argument was made or suggested to you in terms of the cross-examination of the medical examiner and all that, he had to wash his hands. You all didn't know what you were doing there. Right there at the scene, where was the blood? The other interesting thing is that I will submit to you just based on the evidence, I don't know what you call this. I don't know if it's a draw string or what. Why is one of them a lot longer than the other one?

Was the defendant maybe pulling on that as the victim was trying to back out? It's ironic that you see how one is pulled all the way down and which side is it on? State Exhibit 29 shows some of the other exhibits out there. State's Exhibit 33, I've put this in here because I thought and we talked about it, I believe we came up with the testimony that there's a street address right there. That's where the defendant claimed he didn't know, "a," the street name or he couldn't find an address even though he's lived out there four years.

He takes his dog out there or dogs out there to walk, but he doesn't know that there are street addresses. Because his isn't just, like, some fancy or regular neighborhood that all the houses are different. These are kind of cookie cutter. They're all the same. But he didn't know the addresses were out there. That's why he had to walk that long distance, to find the address or find the street for the police.

State Exhibit 36, some daytime photographs kind of showing the area in terms of what happened out there. State's Exhibit 76, there's been a big issue about that photograph. Shows how the defendant was bleeding. I believe Mr. Manalo took that photograph. Why was the blood still on there and why would the blood not be on the victim's hands?

It's interesting, too, the direction of the blood. We'll talk a little bit about that in terms of what happened. State's Exhibit 77, this was, again, Mr. Manalo before the police got out there. Where are the victim's hands, but under his body? What did the defendant claim to you? He used police jargon in terms of suspect and, well, the police, of course, they always spread out the arms, hands to make sure there's no weapon there.

He's trying to tell the police that what happens is he was scared, and he at one point said, oh, I thought he had something in his hand so I was checking for that weapon. That's what I was doing. It's inconsistent with the physical evidence out there. Defense may argue, hold on, didn't Dr. Di Maio said you could take out a person's heart, you could live for 15 seconds, and the person could walk or do all this other stuff?

Take out the heart and the defendant moving him and spreads out his hands so he's taking even more blood pumping out. The victim happens to kind of lift himself up and put the hands underneath? I don't know. You decide. Why did he have to say that? Because it's part of him wanting to be a cop, that's what police officers do. He wanted to shoot somebody. They usually handcuff them even if the person is dead. They handcuff them just for security purposes.

The other interesting thing is, you recall the flashlight the defendant had in terms of the relationship with the body was. Again, the photograph I showed you, state's Exhibit 79 I was showing. And State's exhibit 80, those were the two photographs that were shown out there. Do you recall what we heard about that from an expert regarding DNA? Swab of the pistol grip matches the defendant.

And Trayvon Martin's excluded. That is inconsistent with what the defendant claimed to Mr. Osterman. Told the police he was going for the gun. He told Mr. Osterman that he had the gun or grabbed the -- I think he described what part of the gun he grabbed. Then there were other test results. No determination made on the other side, on the holster. You had it shall I would, I would submit, relevant fingernail scrapings of the victim in this case. What were the findings? No DNA foreign to Trayvon Martin.

No DNA results at all pup so the victim in his struggle that defendant claims he had with him when he was trying to kill him basically or shut him up so that he couldn't speak, where did all the blood go? Where did all the defendant's blood go? While we're on that subject the defendant claims he was the only one yelling out there. All the cries for help were only him. Decide whether it was him or Trayvon Martin or both of them, had to be one of them or both.

But if he's yelling and if he's down and if he's got all this blood and he's swallowing the blood, how is he able to do all that? And why is there a consistent in terms of yells of help, help, help? Why is it muffled down? How is he going to talk or is he lying about that? I will submit to it's another lie. You saw that the hoodie jacket was checked. I'm giving you quickly the DNA results.

You've got an exhibit there that's got them all in there. Just to demonstrate to you how thorough the investigation was in terms of the Florida Department of law Enforcement doing their thorough analysis of the case in terms of the evidence -- your honor, may we take a --

JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: If you're ready -- if you're ready to take a break?

RIONDA: I'm ready.

NELSON: We'll take a 15-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, please put your note pads face down on the chair and follow Deputy Jarvis back into the jury room.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: The jury now being excused during this break in the closing argument by counsel for the state of Florida, the lead prosecutor in the case, Bernie De La Rionda. Let's listen to what's happening in court now was the jury heads out of the courtroom.

JUDGE NELSON: Please be seated. Court will be in recess for 15 minutes.

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: Defense made a big deal, oh, he was washed up. Well, you've got this bloody photograph here, and you've got that.

I guess -- and according to Dr. Di Maio, I guess one of the EMS people out there just kind of put it back in place. Put the nose back in place.

You heard from Ms. Fulgate. She didn't see anything. It might be fractured, I don't know. What she recommended is go get X-rays. That's how we verify it.

Defendant refused or declined to do that. That's his privilege.

They're going to argue to you, oh, he had a broken nose. First of all, who was following who? Who started the fight or struggle?

I circled this because in reviewing the evidence, I thought this might be interesting to you, and what I've circled up there are his shoes.

The defense claims defendant told the police that he was on his back the whole time and the victim was just whaling on him. Well, you can look at the actual photograph. There's actually some grass on top.

It appears wet as if he at some point was on top of the victim, some minor point, kind of corroborates some of the evidence, the witnesses' testimony, the back jacket of the defendant.

Wow, where's all the scratch marks, something to reflect all this tension with this concrete that occurred out there? How come it's missing?

Back of his head, you recall in testimony there was two. How small were they? Do you recall the testimony of the witness, Ms. Fulgate? I think I had her tell me how big it was. I think she was -- it was hard to keep -- anyway. She remembered.

Why are his hands not injured? If this 17-year-old young man is whaling on him, how come he's not defending himself?

Again, these are just little parts of the interview that he gave. You obviously heard this. I just want you to take a second to read that.

But he talks about these guys. He talks about not knowing the places. Again, he's trying to make up one lie after another after another. Yes, he was circling my car. As soon as I saw him coming, I rolled up the window because I was so scared of him, because he was a criminal.

I didn't know the name of the street that I was on. Then he talks about, you know, they remind him, we didn't need you to do that. Had already gone through the dog walk. Told them where my car was, make and model.

Jumped out of the bushes, hey, man, do you have a problem? Jumped out of the bush.

He grabbed my head and hit it into the sidewalk. When he started doing that I slid into the grass still yelling for help. Help, he's killing me!

Of course, this criminal put his hands over my mouth and said, you're going to die tonight. That's what, of course, led me to the gun. He's got that legal training, that he's aware of in terms of what he's got to say.

He, the victim, said, you got me, after being shot, and he was still talking. I said, stay down, don't move. I got on top of him. He said, ow, ow.

And then talking about that, he's telling the people that came out, I don't need you to call the police, I need you to help me with this guy.

But he holsters his gun, too, at the same time. It's always dark. You know, they always come out around nighttime.

And he talks about still not having seen the victim. He's struck in the nose. I screamed help probably 50 times. Anything else important? No. You didn't try to make contact with him? No.

Then, you know, you can see the map. You can track down when you looked at the timeline in terms of does it match when he's claiming where he's at when he's talking I would submit to you it doesn't, but again, you rely on what the evidence shows.

Came out of the bushes. I don't recall if he came from the front or behind. He punched me in the face and I fell backwards. When I backed -- when I walked back towards him I saw him coming at me.

He catches himself in mid-sentence. That is the truth. When I walked back toward him, meaning I was going towards where he was. Then, oh, no, he was coming at me.

In that written statement again to the police, my purpose in showing you this is he now refers to the suspect, not, pardon my language, "effing" punk ...


DE LA RIONDA: ... suspect, over and over, trying to impress the police, like he knows the stuff.

Hey, you know, I want to be a police officer one day, suspect this, suspect that, suspect that. Fired one shot into his torso. You know, he's got all the language down.

Said to Detective -- or Investigator Serino followed him outside, had a flashlight but it was dead. You've got a problem? No. You've got a problem now. And all of a sudden, he beat him, started beating him, smothered my mouth and nose.

Felt him slide his hand down. You're going to die tonight, M.F. You got me. I spread his hands away from the body, still talking but I don't remember what he said.

Let's talk about ...


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, DEFENDANT: There's been a history of break-ins in that building, and I had called previously about this house.


ZIMMERMAN: When the police arrived at this house, when I called the first time, the windows were open and the door was unlocked. The police came and secured it.

So I said, you know what? It's better to just call and I kept trying. I passed him. And he was -- he kept staring at me and staring around looking around to see who else was -- I don't know why he was looking.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he walk off from there or did he stop there last night?

ZIMMERMAN: He stopped. He, like, looked around. And that's why I ...

DE LA RIONDA: This is what he claims this criminal is doing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where was he standing at?

ZIMMERMAN: Right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the sidewalk or in the grass.

ZIMMERMAN: In the grassy area.


DE LA RIONDA: Boy, that's a crime at RTL on Sunday night, February 26th, standing out there in the grass.


ZIMMERMAN: I went to the clubhouse.


ZIMMERMAN: When I got through, I parked at the clubhouse.


ZIMMERMAN: And they asked me, you know, where I was. I told them the clubhouse. I think I gave them the address of the clubhouse.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where'd you park at?

ZIMMERMAN: Right up here next to that green truck. I don't think that truck was there. But I just pulled up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You just pulled up here?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is where you got out?

ZIMMERMAN: No. This is where I just stopped to call. To call.

Then he walked past me and he kept looking at my car, still looking around at the houses and stuff.

Then the dispatcher said, where did he go? What direction did he go? I said, I don't know.

I lost -- because he cut down in here and made a right. I guess it's Twin Trees Lane.


DE LA RIONDA: Did you catch that? Did you catch him in one lie right there? He originally told the police over and over before and even after this interview, he didn't know the name of the street.

Then when they just kind of let him talk, he gives the name right there. It's common sense. There's only three streets. He's lived there four years.

Again, why did he have to lie about that? Because he does not want to admit that he was following this innocent young boy, a 17-year-old.


ZIMMERMAN: He made a right there. And they said what direction did he go. I said, I don't know, I can't see him.

They said can you get to somewhere where you can see him? I said, yes, I can. So I backed out.


ZIMMERMAN: And I parked right about where that sign is in the yard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In front of the Ford truck?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes. And I saw him walking back that way, and then cut through the back of the houses.

He looked back and he noticed me and he cut back through the houses. I was still on the phone with nonemergency.

And then he came back. And he started walking up towards the grass and then came down and circled my car.

And I told the operator that he was circling my car. I didn't hear if he said anything.


ZIMMERMAN: But he had his hand in his waistband. And I think I told the operator that. And they said, where are you? And I could not remember the name of the street. Because I don't live on this street.


ZIMMERMAN: Retreat View Circle goes in a circle.


ZIMMERMAN: I said, I don't know. He goes, give me an address. I said I don't know an address. I think I gave them my address.


DE LA RIONDA: Two minutes earlier, a minute earlier he'd given him the street name. Now he's telling this investigator that's the reason why he had to go and follow -- I'm sorry, not follow.

He had to go find the address because he wants to justify as to why he would go down that route.

Just by coincidence it keeps kind of tracking where this criminal is going.


ZIMMERMAN: ... out and look for a street sign.


ZIMMERMAN: So I got out of my car and I started walking.


ZIMMERMAN: I was still on the phone with the nonemergency. I started walking.


ZIMMERMAN: Because I didn't see a street sign here, but I knew if I went straight through, then that's Retreat View Circle and I could give him an address because I couldn't get the address of the house here in front of me.

There's no address because these are the back of the houses.


DE LA RIONDA: Did you catch him there? Did you see that? There's a -- there's an address right there to the right.

But, of course, he directs the attention to the investigators, see, this is the back of the houses. There's no address there, like they're just fools.


ZIMMERMAN: And I didn't see him at all. I was walking. I looked around. I didn't see anybody. I told non-emergency, I said, you know what? He's gone. He's not even here.


ZIMMERMAN: So I still thought I could use their address. So I walked all the way through. I actually walked all the way to the street.

And I was going to give them this address, and they said, well, if he's not there, do you still want a police officer? And I said yes.

And they said, you still want a police officer? And I said yes.

And they said, are you following him? Oh, I'm sorry. Back there they said are you following him? And I said, yes, because I was in the area.


DE LA RIONDA: He's only following because he happens to be in the area.


ZIMMERMAN: We don't need you to do that. And I said OK.

So that's when I walked straight through here to get the address so that I could give the police officer.

And then they said -- I said, he's not here. They said, do you still want me to come. I said, yes.


ZIMMERMAN: I pass here. I look -- I didn't see anything again. I was walking back to my truck. And then when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind me, to the side of me.

He said, yo, you got a problem? I turned around. I said, no, I don't have a problem, man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where was he at?

ZIMMERMAN: He was about there. But he was walking towards me.


ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. Like I said, I was already past that. So I didn't see exactly where he came from. He was about where you are.


ZIMMERMAN: I said, I don't have a problem. I went to go grab my cell phone. I had left it in a different pocket. I looked down in my pant pocket.

He said, you got a problem now. Then he was here and he punched me in the face.


ZIMMERMAN: Up around here.


ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember exactly. I think I stumbled. And I fell down. He pushed me down. Somehow he got on top of me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On the grass or on the sidewalk?

ZIMMERMAN: It was more over here. I think I was trying to push him away from me.

And then he got on top of me somewhere around here. And that's when I started screaming for help. I started screaming, help, help, as loud as I could.


DE LA RIONDA: Notice what's right here, one of those sprinkler boxes. Could that have caused some of the injury?


ZIMMERMAN: And that's when I started screaming for help. I started screaming, help, help, as loud as I could.

And then my jacket moved up, and I had my firearm on my right-side hip.


DE LA RIONDA: Did you see where he's pointing to? Did you see where he's grabbing? Where he's got his firearm?


ZIMMERMAN: My jacket moved up. And he saw it. I feel like he saw it. He looked at it.


ZIMMERMAN: He grabbed it. I just grabbed my firearm.


DE LA RIONDA: One of his other versions is that he actually grabbed the victim's arm and removed the arm so he would have a better shot.

Again, he's able to do all this. I guess the victim has two or three hands or arms. See if that all makes sense, what he's describing.


ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember how I got on top of him. I'm sorry. (Inaudible), but I got on his back, and I moved his arms toward me.

His hands were repeatedly hitting me in the face, in the head. I thought he had something in his hands.

So I just -- I moved his hands apart.


DE LA RIONDA: You saw the photograph taken by Mr. Manalo, again, lying about that because he's trying to justify to the police that he was searching because, of course, the victim had to have something in his hand, meaning some kind of weapon that would have caused him to resort to the shooting him.


ZIMMERMAN: He, like, sat up.


ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. He was on top of me like this, and I shot him. And I didn't think I hit him because he sat up. And he said, oh, you got me. You got me. You got me. You got it. Something like that.

So I thought he was just saying, I know you have a gun now. I heard it. I'm giving up.

So I don't know if I pushed him off me or he fell off me. Either way ...


DE LA RIONDA: First. he says he assumed he hadn't shot him. But then he had to push him off of him. Does that make sense?

I guess when he said you've got me, he just kind of fell into him? When he hasn't been shot?

Again, this is just in written form, some of the stuff you've already heard just to kind of remind you of some important stuff.

You've also got, and I'm not going to play it for you, but you've got a clubhouse video. It's very short. There's clips of it. By coincidence. it appears there's a vehicle going and you might even see a person. I don't think you see a full figure. That's just impressions or shadows, but you definitely see a car.

Around the area where? Where the mailboxes are, by coincidence, what Rachel Jeantel told you all in terms of where the victim was describing he was, under that shaded part when it was raining. He was in the mailbox where he described the defendant looking at him.

He kept yelling, that is he claims the victim kept yelling. Of course, nobody else heard this, but he told the police it happened.

Did Mr. Good say anything about when he came out that he heard the victim say or the person on top say ...


DE LA RIONDA: ... when you watch the video.

Defendant's interview on the 29th.



ZIMMERMAN: When that neighbor came up and I saw him, he used (inaudible) did you position yourself strategically like that?


He seemed nervous.

ZIMMERMAN: I thought the four of you kind of got in between ...


ZIMMERMAN: But you kept your arm away from him (inaudible).


DE LA RIONDA: Just a minor, minor point. What was the relevance of that? And why did I think it was important for you to hear it again?

Because, in terms of wanting to be a police officer, he wants to know what she was doing to safeguard the firearm when somebody's around. Again, he's trying to talk the police jargon.

He's trying to be impressive, impress these police officers, like, yeah, I'm one of you all. You know, I can understand police officers and all that stuff. I've got criminal justice stuff.

You know, you know how it is. You just kind of come into contact with people and, you know, sometimes somebody attacked you and all that, trying to befriend them. But he's talking that police jargon. He's curious as how to do that. The other thing that's important, and you've seen it by the photographs and by the video that you're seeing, you saw how he was because I think Mr. Pollack said, OK, he's this overweight person.

OK, he's a little overweight. Technically, he's 204, I believe, 5'7", but he's fit there when you see him walking around because you might contrast that in terms of, you know, if you see him now in terms of he's big, he was pretty fit then.

So compare how he appeared then and, most importantly, compare how Trayvon Martin appeared in the M.E. photographs.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... go ahead and actually ask this person what he was doing out there?



DE LA RIONDA: A very basic question, you didn't bother to ask, if this guy was suspicious, what he's doing circling the car. You didn't even ask him what he's doing?

No, sir. He's a criminal! You don't have to ask criminals what -- you know what they're doing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you had two opportunities to identify yourself as somebody who was actually (inaudible) in his mind's eye, which I can't get into because he's passed, that he perceived you as a threat, OK?

He perceives you as a threat. He has every right to go and defend him, especially when you reach into your pocket to grab your cell phone, OK?


DE LA RIONDA: Very insightful question by Investigator Serino. Like you reach in your pocket, have like a gun?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ever see him on neighborhood watch?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did it not occur to you?

ZIMMERMAN: No, I didn't have a problem. I started backing away from him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But you kind of did have a problem, that's why you were following him.

ZIMMERMAN: I was scared.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were scared to tell him that you were Neighborhood Watch? You were afraid to tell him that is.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm not trying to put you on the spot.


DE LA RIONDA: Now, when they're pressing him on that issue. Oh, he's backing away and consistent with what somebody said earlier.

He's scared of them. He's scared of this person he's following all over. Of course he doesn't have his gun out, nor does he feel the need to, but he's scared of him.

Can't have it both ways.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No safety feature, the gun was inside your pants?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was mounted on you? It was on your upper chest?

ZIMMERMAN: When he was mounted on me, but he had pressure on my nose to my mouth suffocating.

And when he ...


ZIMMERMAN: ... I guess fear. I didn't want to confront him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You were afraid then?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you say he ran?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then you got out of your car and went after him.

ZIMMERMAN: I didn't run after him, no. I walked to find a street sign and he had already run -- cut out between the houses.

So I knew that if I walked straight through that little sidewalk, I knew that was my street. But ...

(END AUDIO CLIP) DE LA RIONDA: Again, he does not want to admit at all that he is following him or chasing him or profiling him.




DE LA RIONDA: They ask him, what do you mean?



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't know why?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know why (inaudible). I don't know.


DE LA RIONDA: This is where he tells Investigator Serino it doesn't sound like my voice in terms of the yells.

Again, we covered this already but I just wanted you to be able to read it, too. Talking about the video camera, all I knew all along it was there.

And they ask how did you not know the street name? Oh, I have a bad memory. Always has an excuse or they catch him in a lie or he explains it away or tries to.

Then when they confront him, OK, well, he didn't really circle the entire car. And he tries to explain why this individual, Trayvon Martin, is suspicious to him.

He's determined to go get that address. It's not to follow the guy. It's not to follow the victim. It's to just get the address.

Again, is it he just wants to catch the bad guy, the "effing" punk that gets away? Is that why he's saying that?

Then we move on to July 20th, 2013. Mr. Hannity, easy questions, can't even get that right because he tells one lie after another. Listen.


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: Then we get to the issue where you said to the -- on the 911, that he's running. You said that to the dispatch.

Is there any chance in retrospect, as you look back on that night and what happened, try to maybe get into the mindset -- because we also have learned Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time, that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?


HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, maybe I said running but he was more ,,,,

HANNITY: You said he's running.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes. It was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.

HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.

HANNITY: He wasn't actually running?



DE LA RIONDA: Hannity just asked him a very simple question. Well, perhaps Trayvon Martin was scared of you since you're following him and he's running away from you.

And so he realizes at that time -- the defendant realizes, oh, that doesn't look good because that means I'm chasing him. That means Trayvon Martin is the one that's scared. That doesn't look good for me.

So what does he say? Oh, he's skipping away, la, la, la. That's what he's claiming.


HANNITY: The unbuckling of the seat belt, hear you opening the car door.

This dispatch asks you at that point, and this became a very key moment that everyone in the media focused on, and the dispatcher asked you, "Are you following him?"

And you said, "Yes." Explain that.

ZIMMERMAN: I meant that I was going in the same direction as him to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going.

I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him.


DE LA RIONDA: I'm not following my daughter when she's out in the street and I'm scared something's going to happen. I'm just kind of going in the same direction that she's in.

ZIMMERMAN: I thought he would take -- he had -- after he couldn't hit my head on the concrete anymore, he started to try to suffocate me.

And I continued to take -- push his hands off of my mouth and my nose, particularly because it was excruciating having a broken nose and him putting his weight on it.

That's the point in time he started telling me to shut up, shut up, shut up.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "HANNITY": Why did he tell you to shut up?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't know.


BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: Where's all that blood on Trayvon Martin's hands? So is he screaming or not? Because why would, allegedly, Trayvon Martin tell him to shut up, if he's not screaming?


HANNITY: When did he first see your gun?

ZIMMERMAN: After we were on the ground, I shimmied with him on top of me, and it made my jacket rise up. He, being on top of me, saw it on my right side.


DE LA RIONDA: He's got to explain how this dark gun that is concealed, which is concealed in his backside there, how all of a sudden it just became exposed.


HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: And how did you do that?

ZIMMERMAN: I guess you could say shimmy. He was straddled on me with his full weight. (END VIDEO CLIP)

DE LA RIONDA: At that point he's able to just kind of shimmy. Before, he's incapable of fighting back, as he claims the victim's bashing his head over and over. But at this point, he gets, I guess, some strength and kind of shimmies. And then what does he say?


ZIMMERMAN: I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second- guess it or judge it...

HANNITY: Is there anything you might do differently in retrospect now that the time has passed a little bit?



DE LA RIONDA: I don't know if I need to comment about that. It speaks for itself.

And, again, you just heard it, so I will just put it up there, just other parts of the same interview.

Mr. Osterman, his best friend, wrote a book about this experience, about the defendant, says the victim had a slender build. The victim saw the defendant using the phone, followed him in his car first, then he got out and then didn't know the name of the street and tried to established initial contact, within arm's reach, et cetera.

Straddle means knees on the armpit and punching. I guess I might as well do what everybody else (OFF-MIKE)

But do you see what he's saying now? He's saying that -- armpits. How does he get the gun out? Armpits. How does he get the gun out? The truth does not lie.

Earlier, he showed you, he showed the police where that gun was. So how does he manage to get out and great perfect shot to the heart of a 17-year-old man, teenager? He doesn't say he grabbed the holster. He grabbed the gun between the rear side and the hammer. Now, these are two individuals -- that is, Mr. Osterman, who is a trained federal agent and who is trained to defend in terms of firearms -- so they know what they're talking about.

In fact, he suggested the perfect gun to get. He describes in detail what part of the gun the victim touched. No DNA. Only the defendant's DNA. I guess that got washed away, too? Or is it another lie that he tells? Pivoted at 90 degrees, et cetera.

Why did he not try to get up again? At some point, he goes, I wasn't sure whether he was dead, but then he holsters the gun. All right, let's talk about ill will in terms of one of the elements in terms of murder. And I'm going to through this real quickly, at least (INAUDIBLE) (INAUDIBLE) police officers, dreams of hunting fugitives. Those were some of the documents that were submitted that I don't know yet if you have had an opportunity to read or review.

Learns all about self-defense law, exactly what you have to say. Talking about here in terms of the fact that the stucco man has actually been involved in catching somebody, so he wants to get credit for it to. He doesn't want to be left out. After all, he's the neighborhood coordinator.

Of course, he wants to make Trayvon Martin a criminal, and he couldn't find the address. Recall how he's trying to mislead the police? Oh, see, there's no address in the back of these. Why? He's not doing anything wrong in following an individual. Why does he have to lie about it?

Common sense. How many arms did Trayvon Martin need for punching, moving to the sidewalk, grabbing the head, smothering the mouth and nose, grabbing for the gun all at the same time? How many arms did he need? How much supposed activity can be packed into 70 seconds? That's what we're talking about.

The shooting, it began immediately after the Rachel-Trayvon phone call. It moves, what, 40-plus feet from where he claims it started? Man, somebody there's the Flash. Well, he claims Trayvon Martin hits 25-plus (INAUDIBLE) 25 slams.

How is he alive? How is the defendant alive? Or is he exaggerating that to justify in his mind what he had to do? The wrist-lock that he describes, how did he learn that technique? Perhaps it was at the mixed martial arts that he kind of went three days a week or two days a week, three hours, but he really didn't get much training.

Think about the time frame here. Does the evidence agree in terms of the physical evidence and the testimony? I will submit it does, in terms of the guilt of this defendant.

Do you recall Mr. O'Brien, the HOA president there at RTL, what he talked about in terms of the procedures they're supposed to follow in terms of neighborhood watch, et cetera? Do you recall Ms. (INAUDIBLE) about you don't follow people? Follow the police.

Second-degree murder. State's got to prove three elements. The victim unfortunately is dead, the death was caused by the criminal act of this defendant, and that there was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin brought on by the act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

And that includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. "I am not going to let this F'ing punk or these A's get away." He's a criminal. An act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or series of acts that a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily harm. I am following this guy, I'm armed, and I'm going to make sure he doesn't get away before the police get here. It's done from ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent.

The defense is going to claim, oh, he didn't have any -- he was just a little upset. Why is having to utter those things? Why is having to lie about the whole thing? If he wasn't doing anything wrong in following this victim, why does he have to lie about him? Why won't he admit that he went to follow him?

Why does he have to come up with this I don't know the street, I didn't know the address? Doesn't that kind of show his mental state?

It's (INAUDIBLE) that the act itself indicates indifference to human life. And in order to convict for second-degree murder, it is not necessary to prove the defendant had an intent. It's not first-degree murder. We're not saying that he intended to go and kill him.

What he does for a moment there may speak volumes of his choices. Isn't that the truth? Isn't that the truth?

The victim really didn't get to choose anything or anyone. The state has -- the instruction that the court will read to you will tell you in part that the state has charged this defendant with second-degree murder. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense which has been proven. And there's a lesser included.

And Hurricane Katrina wasn't just a thundershower. In other words, your duty is, if you find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the highest crime, then, if not, then you go to a lesser crime. Manslaughter, he committed an intentional act, which resulted in the death (INAUDIBLE) excusable or justifiable.

You will get those instructions through about no accident or misfortune, et cetera. And the court is going to read the whole instruction to you. I just was -- in terms of how you decide -- and we talked briefly about that -- to the evidence entered (INAUDIBLE) alone, the case must be decided only on the evidence and the instructions.

What the lawyers say is not evidence, and you are not even to consider it as such. You may not decide because of your bias or sympathy or anger at anyone or feel sorry for anyone. Why do we have such rules?

What if? That's not a lack of evidence. Could always be more. That's not reasonable. You will not hear, because a lawyer or a Hollywood screenwriter can imagine something more that could be done, you must find the evidence lacking.

You know, we don't have a big animation of how it happened. Did anybody see it out there? The defendant told the police, this is what happened. There were no eyewitnesses to the actual shooting.

Doubt? And, again, what's not reasonable? Self-defense, this is what the defendant applied to Virginia, hunt down fugitives -- and we will see the letters, e-mails, et cetera. Isn't that true? And the key point is that injuries really are not required, if a person is legitimately in fear for their life. But why exaggerate them, unless he's lying about the whole thing?

Again, no DNA. Fingerprints also were not on the gun. Blood wasn't there. Credibility? But should you believe the defendant, think about this. What a coincidence. Does that make sense?

Think of the jacket as he's claiming he's going -- he's going down an angle. Which way would it go? Would the gun be exposed or just the opposite?

Think about this.

Doesn't that speak the truth? What a coincidence, the shot, all of a sudden the yelling stops.

You see where some of those injuries are? Did he pick up the sidewalk, did he turn them upside down? Or is it just by scrubbing (ph) and rolling and fighting out there? They both were.

I'm wrapping this up believe it or not. I thank you for your time and your patience. I ask you to come back with a verdict that speaks the truth, a verdict that is just.

You heard from many people in this case and I've summarized some of them. There's a lot more actually that you heard. We know you paid close attention throughout all these proceedings. Some of the people you heard from were the parents of both the victim and the defendant.

Unfortunately, the only photographs left of Trayvon martin are those M.E. photographs. I mean, they've still got other photographs, you saw some from football and his younger days, but they can't take any more photos. And that's true because of the actions of one person, the man before you, the defendant, George Zimmerman, the man who is guilty of second degree murder.

Thank you.


Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recess for the evening. Before I let you go and while you're getting your note pads to be ready to place face down, I'm going to give you my instructions.

You're not to discuss the case amongst yourselves or with anybody else. You're not to read or listen to any e-mails, text messages or social networking pages about the case. You're not to create or read any of those. You're not to get on the Internet to do any independent research about the case, people, places or events, or you're not to read or listen to any newspaper, radio or television reports.

Do I have your assurances that you will abide buy these instructions?

We will be in recess until 9:00 a.m. Please put your note pads face down.