lost. now let s look at how the defense won. two major areas to focus on. first, tone is king. that s what my mom told me throughout growing up. throughout the trial and especially during closing, we heard a dramatic difference between defense attorney mark o mara and prosecutor bernie de la rionda. we re not the only ones who noticed it. even o mara pointed it out in his closing. does it really help you decide this case when somebody who is not george zimmerman s voice screams at you or yells at you and curses at you? no, i would contend. interesting point. john guy s close a little different. second, there were also the props. so we know the value of a good show. the defense had life-size cut-outs of zimmerman and martin and a concrete block they called a weapon because they say martin slammed zimmerman s head against it. the prosecution had a powerpoint slide show circa 1990. no bells, no whistles.
time. reporter: in the end, judge debra nelson ruled against that option, but will allow jurors to consider manslaughter as a possible alternative to second-degree murder. so we saw prosecutors the other day go point by point with a slide show, powerpoint slide show also using those videos of george zimmerman making statements. we expect that defense attorney mark o mara may turn to that video re-enactment, the computer re-enactment of the crime scene that was evidence that he wanted to get into the trial. remember, judge debra nelson said it couldn t be evidence for the jury to take back into the jury room but instead could be used as a demonstrative tool. that s what we expect him to do today as he makes those closing remarks. george the advantage for the defense will be the jury never had to hear that animated recreation questioned by the prosecution. we ll see which way it plays out and what the defense will tee up