zimmerman being a liar. so that s circumstantial evidence. you don t have to have direct evidence. if he s lying, the question s why are you lying about this and that? particularly around the issues around the fight, how it got started, things that were said. these are important considerations. i think the fact you didn t prove it directly in a way that i would like to have seen it prosecuted and certainly when i was a prosecutor r circumstantial evidence is very, very important. the problem is it could have two different interpretations. one points to innocent. you have to accept that. if one is more reasonable than the other, you have to accept that. it s a two-headed sword the prosecution has to deal with. the jurors have to fight through that. and that is so true. lisa, let me bring you in. i don t want to put you and john on the spot, but you re experts. people want to know. you ve listened to the testimony intently. your analysis has been incredible. lisa, what do you believe
assessment than my assessment of the evidence and how this case could have turned out. i think the evidence was there for a conviction. mark o mara was very strong in closing argument about reasonable doubt. he is correct on the law. the prosecution should not be asking questions in closing argument, leaving so much linger, leaving it to the jury to sort through and figure out what the prosecution theory of the case is. now, i could be wrong. these jurors could put it all together and come back with a conviction. if i had to guess, i would guess a defense verdict. and john? my feeling is there s evidence there, at most, for manslaughter. if i had to bet on it, i d say it s not as likely. i would think that the prosecution could have done a better job in illustrating that. i was really surprised they never even talked about manslaughter. they never talked about the reasonableness of it and why it was important. at best it s manslaughter. it wouldn t surprise me if it was a defense v
them is guilt. if 8:00 a maybe, a possibly, a could have, if it s just 51%, that is reasonable doubt. and what is unusual about this case is that the prosecution yesterday raised so many questions, dozens and dozens of questions in their closing argument instead of speaking in more declarative sentences steak with sernlt their view of the case. you know, mark o mara said somehow these men moved 25 to 30 feet. even he can t really explain that. nobody has explained it where the at kais start altercation s where it ended. we would like to hear hear a that with you the bottom line if there is confusion and doubt and we just don t know, this is going to be a defense verdict. that is the law. how does he have to explain and try to convince the jury. by the way, when you re going in there about reasonable doubt, you should only be considering the one charge. you shouldn t even consider the
case. to really put it away. i m going to stand up and say, you know why he asked you all these questions? because this is a case about reasonable doubt, and if you go back into the jury room with all of those questions, you have to return a defense verdict. how effective do you think the prosecution was on the issue that you ve been racing about access to the weapon action and again consistencies that you ve pointed out about george zimmerman s testimony? i was glad they raised it, that george zimmerman said that the gun was holstered inside his pants behind him. and at last that videotape was showed to the jury. there were so many missed opportunities in this trial, for example, when they re working with the dummy. if i m the prosecutor, i m going to drive this home. i m going to say directly to the jury, it was impossible to trayvon martin to see the gun and to reach for the gun, and
which is true, in a civil case jury send out the note can we award more than the plaintiff is asking for. the defense lawyers scrambled in hallway in panic and settled case. they asked jurors wanted to know about. we had a defense verdict. somebody was curious. you can t read too much into the notes. that is faith s point. that is what we re trout in trying cases. never read too much into juror s notes. how do you address this at end of the day in closing arguments? you look at jurors, there are certain issues you don t have to decide here. when you go back into the jury deliberation room, the question of who did it that is not something you should be debating. the issue was it self-defense. you have to tell them that and narrow the issues for them. jenna: has it seems the prosecution has made a clear enough case that she is cold-blooded murderer, doug or does it seem like they re not getting it home in this trial? i know i have defense hat on, reality she gave three