0 easy, not guilty. i think you can get the point. i could ask you to read through it and nod your heads in agreement for each one. but the reality is until you get to the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't get it. 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 their 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 sort of presumed to be not guilty. all the way up the list in your mind so that you have no doubt or no reasonable doubt to the essential elements of the crime and that george zimmerman is guilty a of secoof second degre. now, i said to you that i was going to tick off all of my because what i was going to say to you. i was going to say 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. but 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 will 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 your 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 that mr. guy fix it. george zimmerman is not guilty, if you have, just a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. every -- this is where i'm going, just so you know. we'll spend ten 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? reasonable doubt as self-defense. the self-defense suspected. well, we have a reasonable doubt as to self-defense, not guilty. may not be self-defense. you're not quite sure. not guilty. unlikely self-defense, but it might be. you have a doubt to whether or not it's self-defense. not guilty. 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 client, absolute, beyond question, beyond a reasonable doubt innocence. where shall we start? well, let's start, let's start before the beginning. let's start with what the state wants you to focus on. that he was a cop wanna be. and he did want to be a cop, he also wanted to be a prosecutor and 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 by giving her a lock and he wanted to be involved. you even heard that he mentored some kids from officer serino. yes, he wanted to be involved. yes, he wanted to be a cop. he did apply for it. i think what you also heard, i would argue to you, you heard from the other officers who wanted to be cops and became cops that it is a fairly noble profession. it is a profession that its moniker is protect and serve. it's apparent george is going 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 the evidence. keep in mind the state had the opportunity. no, i take 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. two professors who say, yeah, i taught him. i taught him. i don't know if he read that book. but i definitely, it was in the class, or it was an online class and we spoke about it. and he told me that he wanted to be a prosecutor. and i think he said, he may not say this, he just seemed to be easy going or i liked him or something like that. the guy who was first on skype and then on cell phone. and then the other professor they brought in to say to you, oh, yeah, i taught him this. we talked about self-defense. yeah, we talked about it. and he knew about it. so, yeah, that's what they want you to focus on because this cop wanna be knew what self-defense is. so, they have that. what else did they decide to bring you about his background? he did make it as a cop one time. he works as a fraud guy at a mortgage company. and what else did they show you that george zimmerman is before you act aing with ill will, hated and just hated, hated trayvon martin that night. what other evidence? i am not being sarcastic. i might be forgetting something as far as his background. the five phone calls to nonemergency. you heard them. you have them in. 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. doesn't support their case, i guess, because just him calling and being concerned about the fact that kids are playing outside. not really complaining, just making some 4 year olds and 4 6 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 of six you have six and six and you know what the state didn't show you. they don't have to show you good stuff about george zimmerman. 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 five phone calls and now a sixth one. i also put into evidence, but didn't shove in front of you yet, it's here. this whole pile of reports, police reports of what other things happen in the past year at retreat view area. they're there. i could have brought in other people, but we would just agree they would go into evidence. you have those and they'll show you. a lot of wrong calls and burglaries and the home invasion that she suffered through and they will show you, i think if you look at this, that in that community there was a rash of people burglarizing homes. you know what else it's going to show you? it's going to show you 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. the reason why i mention that now is because 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 nonemergency 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 the way towards absolute innocence. why? listen to the calls. ang anger, frustration, hated, ill will, spite. get out here and get these guys. whatever absurdity it 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 a those pethose people through, not many of them were home, but what they came home to and then wonder whether or not frustration in mr. zimmerman's voice is inappropriate or appropriate. that's his past. how i convince you of his absolute innocence. let's go to the 26th. undisputed. someone said he does it every sunday. just his regimen. makes his five sandwiches in little plastic containers. that's what he does. 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 promise it won't take as long as it took me to make it. but there isn't a witness in there, not one, state's case. not one who will say to you george zimmerman, yeah, the guy who wandered around the neighborhood looking around, talking about bringing in your garbage can or absurdity like that. not one witness to suggest that the guy they want you to believe the neighborhood watch wanna be. they may want you to assume that, it would seem. 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 the neighborhood. looking for people to harass. except, that's an assumption without any basis and 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 mr. jones said, well, i was scared about him. didn't like the fact that he kept circling my house. he said we just started this neighborhood watch. real problems with these sliding glass doors. here's a lock. 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, unadulterated innocence. i would suggest 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, track him down, shoot him in cold blood? no. he does what he was called to do. he calls nonemergency. no big deal, not an emergency. he did tell you in the statements and you know because it's in those reports that at that very same house. burglarized a few weeks before with a window open and door unlocked through the back. is it inappropriate for that to become a concern to somebody who is concerned about his neighbors? i left my house last week and there was a white truck down the street. i looked at it. i walked out of my driveway and took a right just because i wanted 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 nonemergency and he says, knowing full well given the history that the state gave you, they know it is being recorded. he says on the call what he says, i'm not going to play it for you again. you heard it more times than most people. actually, he said -- but probably in his mind in that group of people who in the past have 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? he stayed on the phone. cursed. yeah, definitely cursed and he cursed towards those people. maybe including trayvon martin, by the way. at least to him, maybe. because he did match the description, unfortunately. and that's just maybe happenstance. we'll talk more about that, too. so, he calls it in and stays on the phone. like he's supposed to. that's what you're supposed to, describe him. think he's black, after being asked. black, white, hispanic. so, how do we move from i'm 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. when you look at those reports, you'll see that there are points where some people come in to do bad things. and he talked to the nonemergency. and he basically stays on the phone all the way through. so, where's the guilt? no, that's not my burden. where is the nonguilt? well, never screams. mr. guy screamed, de la rionda screamed. george zimmerman didn't scream on that call. then, to cover up his nonscream at one point mr. de la rionda suggested to you, no cell phone. under his breath. what he wants you to assume within that context, he said it under his breath because he wanted to say it, but he didn't want nonemergency call to hear it. and then he wants you to assume that what that means is guilt. serious seriously. here's the way you do that. but it's just the fact that he was willing to say it on a recorded call to law enforcement. is evidence of nonguilt. it is oefevidence that he wasn' saying it in a way laced with ill will, spite, hatred or anything else like that. so, call continues. now we have the call. we have our first very large graphic. this is what happens when i get carried away with graphics. they get ten feet long. what this is is the graphic representation of the significance o the phone call that started at 7:09:34 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'll argue to you or submit to you it has all the significant words. so, let's sort of go through it. you have the tape, i could play it for you. but you heard it many, many times. it starts, dispatcher. may 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. 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 up, that george zimmerman pulled into the clubhouse, backed out and went down the street and then parked. but this is just when he was sitting at the clubhouse. seems to be uncontroverted. and this is on here because the suggestion is that this cop wanna be 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 want to ask, will you go back to figure out where he broke. but maybe this is a 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. in a moment we'll get there. they want you to really focus on the idea that sean noffke said we don't need you to do that. but they don't want you to focus on the fact that the same law enforcement officer says, let me know if he does anything else? so, here's a thought. let me know if they do anything else. have i done anything else? please get an officer over here is his response. ill will and hatred necessary 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. it makes sense. that's probably what they're supposed to ask. and then the person hearing that says, okay. or does something to let them know if he does anything else. i have a tape of mr. de la rionda and john guy saying it their way. i was going to play it for you. but it's so irrelevant, it's not evidence, obviously. what really a counts is the way mr. zimmerman said it. listen to the tape. see if in that you walk away. this point right here, you walk away with ill will, spite, hatred and towards trayvon martin. he's running. okay. and the next second, which way is he running? so, not going to do it, again. but if i would ask you which way i was walking and i walked out the door and came back, what information would you have? that 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 ten-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? he gets out of his car. now, at this point, i think the state, maybe this is a another break point. this is a break point where george said, what's the movie? i have it, i just can't take any more. 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 is this crescendo of hatred in his voice. which entrance? the back entrance. then he says, we just got so used to using this in front of regular people. you know what he said, i'm not going to use the words any more. oversensitivity to you or panic 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 is difficult, don't you think, to really gain that for somebody you don't really know. how do you actually get to a level necessary for second degree murder when you don't know the person? ill will, spite and hatred. has it shown right here? we don't need you to do that. is that when he says -- no. what 'cause does he say? okay. we'll talk. matter of fact, i put into evidence for you, 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 you know it's 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 the wind was 6.8 to 7.2 miles per hour. you also hear wind during the re-creation 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, 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. does it come in here? and then he says, what's your name? george. he says he ran. did he say he ran and i'm running? is there any evidence to suggest, let me ask you a second. is there any piece of 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 them show you in the record of this case that they have 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 agreed not to do that. 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, still want to have an officer? yes, i think he says. okay. where do you want me to meet him? clubhouse they talked about. at the 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, no, no, no. no, i'm going to go track him down and shoot him or something. so, just have him call me. don't forget, 16 months ago, regular phone call, sean noffke. regular phone call for george zimmerman. and i'll tell you where i am. big deal made about the re-creation video and the numbers right behind him. by the way, one of the points on that, which witness, and this is going to sound as though i'm being a little sneaky. which witness told you that ms. lauer's lights were on that night? so, the numbers that they want you to believe that mr. zimmerman walked by, 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. they just didn't. because they want you to presume and assume and connect the dots and do whatever. now, is that sort of sneaky? 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 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? contend to you that though there was a minute in this tape or after this tape. he hangs up, 7:13:44. ms. lauer's call starts at 7:16:11. we know ms. lauer heard 15 to 20 seconds before she decides to make the call. testified it took 25 seconds to get the phone, dial it, try jeremy's phone first, didn't work. tried 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 he had gone to the circle. makes sense, i would submit. and coming back with that little baby flashlight because the other one was not used as an impact weapon. this flashlight on his key chain that he had. 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 if you sort of see here's the field of flash and then beyond it is almost like this black wall. it was that dark. yeah, he had his 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 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's, george zimmerman's story is there. we have jenna lauer who said i heard the noise, it was out that way, sort of towards the t-intersection. did she look? no. did she hear? yes. mize manalo saying it was off to the right. she said it started sort of outside her window. so, we know that the altercation and certainly seems to have started and that somehow it got dragged down to the area where trayvon martin was actually shot. i am going to show you what mr. de la rionda mentioned. this is an animation. this is not evidence. does not go back there with you. it is 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 it. it only runs about a minute, minute and a half. it does have a 911 call on it because it is used to sort of set the scene a little bit as far as timing. and then 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 is the chance of that. if we disconnect one item and put on another. you don't know or it shouldn't? great.