The following is a LIVE, ongoing rundown of the day's testimony in the George Zimmerman trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
The most recent updates from the courtroom Thursday are on top.
———————————————
Prosecution's closing arguments
4:21 p.m.
De la Rionda says the parents of the defendant and victim were heard from.
He says the only photos left of Martin are the ME photos and the parents can take anymore photos and it’s because of the actions of Zimmerman.
He points at Zimmerman and calls him guilty of second-degree murder.
Zimmerman shakes his head.
Judge Nelson tells the jury they will recess for the day. She instructs the jury to avoid reports about the case.
The jury is dismissed until 8:30 a.m.
Judge Nelson addresses the attorneys.
West says Zimmerman’s name is misspelled on the verdict form.
Court is in recess until 8:30 a.m.
4:17 p.m.
De la Rionda says if Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything wrong why does he have to lie about it and doesn’t it show his mental state.
He asks the jury to read a slide called the “Defendant’s choices”
He says the victim didn’t get to choose anything.
De la Rionda goes over the reason for the rules.
He says the evidence isn’t lacking. He asks what is not reasonable. He says self-defense.
He shows more slides to the jury.
He says the key point is that injuries are not required if a person is in fear for their life, but why exaggerate them?
He points out there was no DNA or blood.
He asks the jury to think of the jacket.
He shows a slide asking which person would yell for help, someone with a gun or can of tea.
“Doesn’t that speak the truth?”
He points out the yelling stopped after the gunshot.
He says the injuries on Zimmerman’s head came from scraping and rolling and fighting.
4:08 p.m.
De la Rionda asks where the blood is on Martin’s hands.
He says Zimmerman had to explain how a dark concealed gun suddenly became exposed.
De la Rionda says the portion where Zimmerman says he wouldn’t do anything differently speaks for itself.
He says Zimmerman’s best friend, Osterman, wrote a book about the event.
De la Rionda says he will do what everyone else has done.
He demonstrates with a mannequin and asks how the gun was gotten out with Martin’s knees on his armpits.
“The truth does not lie.”
He asks how he managed to get a perfect shot to the heart of a 17-year-old man.
“Let’s talk about ill-will,” he says.
He says the stucco man caught someone and he wanted to, too.
He shows a photo of the front of the houses.
A slide is titled “How many arms did Trayvon Martin need?”
He says the event moved 40–plus feet from where it started.
De la Rionda asks how Zimmerman was able to do the wrist-lock he describes.
3:59 p.m.
De la Rionda says Zimmerman kept trying to impress the police officers and befriend them while talking in police jargon.
He says Zimmerman looks fit when seen walking around and asks the jury to compare Martin was in the ME photos.
He pauses the video occasionally to make other points.
De la Rionda says when pressed on the issue Zimmerman said he was backing away and scared.
He says Zimmerman didn’t want to admit to following, chasing or profiling Martin.
Zimmerman always has an excuse or explains away a lie, De la Rionda says.
“Is it he just wants to catch the bad guy?”
He moves on to the interview with Sean Hannity and plays the video.
He pauses it to speak.
He says Hannity only asked if Martin was scared. He says Zimmerman claimed Martin was skipping away and demonstrates for the court while saying “la-la-la.”
He plays more of the interview.
3:50 p.m.
While pausing points of the video De la Rionda speaks.
He points out a sprinkler box and asks if that could’ve caused some of the injury.
De la Rionda points out where Zimmerman demonstrated where his firearm was.
He says another version Zimmerman said was the he grabbed the victims arm and move it for a better shot.
De la Rionda says Zimmerman tried to justify to police he was searching the victim for something in his hand that would be a weapon.
He plays more of the video.
He says there is a video from the clubhouse that definitely shows a car in the area of the mailboxes where Rachel Jeantel said the victim was.
De la Rionda asks if Good said he heard the victim say anything.
He plays the interview taken at the Sanford Police Department.
3:44 p.m.
De la Rionda sarcastically says standing in the grass at RTL [Retreat at Twin Lakes] is a crime.
He plays more of the interview and says Zimmerman named a street and lied about not knowing the street names to cover-up for killing a young boy.
He plays more of the walk-through.
De la Rionda points out again the street names.
He plays more of the video.
De la Rionda says Zimmerman tried to redirect the attention of the officers in the walk-through to the back of the house despite an address on the front.
He continues playing the interview.
3:37 p.m.
De la Rionda repeats Zimmerman caught himself in mid-sentence.
He says Zimmerman had police jargon down to try and impress them. He points out the use of the word suspect.
He shows more quotes from the statements.
He plays the walk-through interview.
3:33 p.m.
De la Rionda asks why Zimmerman holstered his gun if he wasn’t sure he shot the victim. He says it was more police jargon to convince the police he wasn’t intending to shoot Martin.
De la Rionda plays more of the interview.
He points out the statement “they always come around nighttime.”
He says somehow Zimmerman became suspicious of a 17-year-old kid wearing a hoodie.
De la Rionda plays more of the interview.
He says Zimmerman kept his assumption that Martin was a criminal and would be upset that he called the police.
He says Zimmerman acknowledged he walked back toward Martin, but caught himself saying it and changed to Martin walking toward him.
De la Rionda says Zimmerman had to explain why the kid got the upperhand. He asks if Zimmerman was going for his phone or the gun.
He shows the Google map with markings Zimmerman made of what happened where.
De la Rionda shows the photos of Zimmerman taken at the police station.
He circled Zimmerman’s shoes in one of the photos. He says there is grass on top of his shoes that might indicate he was on top of the victim.
He asks where the scrapes or scratch marks might be on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket.
De la Rionda asks why Zimmerman’s hands weren’t injured.
He shows a PowerPoint slide with quotes from Zimmerman’s statement.
3:24 p.m.
De la Rionda says the defendant knew there would be no videotaping of the incident.
He plays more of the interview.
He says Zimmerman said he didn’t know the street name and said Martin circled his car. He says Zimmerman was either truthful about Martin circling the car or lied about it as another explanation that he had to confront Martin.
De la Rionda plays more of the recording.
He points out that Zimmerman said it was where he walks his dog, but doesn’t know the name of the street. He points out Zimmerman said Martin came out of the bushes.
He says Zimmerman catches himself saying it.
He says Zimmerman was wandering even though someone circled his car.
He has to convince the police he was just walking and the victim came out of nowhere.
O’Mara objects to improper presentation of the case law.
Judge Nelson tells the jury she will instruct them of the law.
“He’s trying to convince the police he hadn’t done anything wrong,” De la Rionda continues.
He says Zimmerman was escalating the description of the violence and he says Martin must’ve had 10 arms.
He plays more of the interview.
De la Rionda says Zimmerman’s statement that Martin held his hand over his face and also went for the gun doesn’t make sense.
De la Rionda has the court deputy check the gun.
He shows it to the jury.
He demonstrates where Zimmerman says he had the gun and asks how the victim saw it in the darkness.
"Is it just another lie that he tells," he asks.
He plays more of the interview.
3:15 p.m.
De la Rionda points out the abrasions. He says testimony said he was right-handed.
He says one person was shot to death and the other lies.
He says the defendant brought a gun to a struggle and made sure the victim wouldn’t get away.
He says Martin was being followed by Zimmerman and had the right to defend himself.
He says the defendant gave various interviews.
He plays a portion of the interview with Investigator Singleton.
3:12 p.m.
De la Rionda resumes his closing argument. He shows a photo of the left hand of Martin.
2:53 p.m.
De la Rionda points out one of the hoodie’s drawstrings are longer than the other and asks why that is.
He shows the front of one of the homes and points out the street address.
De la Rionda shows the photo Manalo took of the back of Zimmerman’s head and the photo of Martin’s body.
He points out the position of Martin’s hands.
He asks the jury to decide if Martin was able to put his hands back underneath him after Zimmerman says he put them out.
De la Rionda points out the position of the flashlight next to Martin’s body.
He says Martin’s DNA was excluded from the gun results.
He points out the DNA results for Martin’s finger scrapings.
He asks where all the defendant’s blood went.
He says the jury has to decide who was yelling for help. He asks how Zimmerman was able to swallow all the blood and yell for help. He asks why it wasn’t muffled from the victim trying to smother him.
He says Zimmerman was lying.
De la Rionda says he is ready for a break. Judge Nelson grants a 15 minute recess.
2:45 p.m.
De la Rionda mentions the Manalos testimony.
He says Mr. Manalo said the bigger person was on top.
The point is there was a struggle, he says, and sometimes the victim was on top and the defendant was on top.
“But why did it occur?”
He says Manalo went outside and thought the defendant was beaten up.
He asks how a struggle factors in and who started it.
He shows photographs of the scene and says it was dark out and raining.
He says the photos show the absence of blood on the sidewalk. He says if the defendant was having his bashed in as he claimed, why isn’t he jacket torn or scratched?
De la Rionda shows more of the photos.
He asks the jury to check again with the police statement which hand was carrying the flashlight.
He shows more photos of the scene. He points out Martin’s phone. He shows a close-up photo of the gunshot wound.
He says the button might also have affected the angle the sweatshirt was in.
He points out there was no blood on Martin’s hands.
2:37 p.m.
De la Rionda says Lauer didn’t see anything, but heard something going on outside.
He says the incident started further down and not at the “T” intersection where the defendant claims.
He describes Surdyka’s testimony saying the bigger man on top and the voice in the 911 call being that of a child.
He describes what he says are the defendant’s claims.
He says Jon Good saw the victim on top of the defendant.
De la Rionda says there was a fight and struggle. He says the defendant had 18 months of MMA fighting.
He tells the jury they can’t just take that in a vacuum. He says the defense will parade the photographs of the injuries. He asks if he needs to show them the ME photo.
He moves on to Selene Bahadoor’s testimony.
He says at the very end before shooting the victim, the victim grabbed the gun. De la Rionda says there was no DNA on the gun.
He says Bahahoor matched up with Jeantel’s testimony.
He asks if the defendant cut Martin off as he was heading home, which was near the back entrance to the complex.
2:28 p.m.
He alters a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote about having a dream, saying a witness would be judged not by the color of her skin, but by the content of her testimony.
He says her colorful words are an example she was telling the truth.
He mentions that she lied about not going to the funeral.
He moves on to the non-emergency call. He says it is up to them to decide if the defendant was told not to follow.
He plays the portion of the recording where he says the expletive phrase.
It shows what the defendant was feeling at the time, he says.
He says it is frustration and ill-will and hatred and shows the defendant made up his mind that Martin wouldn’t get away.
He plays more of the call.
He asks why it was necessary to utter the words “[expletive] punk.”
He shows an aerial photo of the housing complex. He says Zimmerman claimed to not know the name of the street and later said in the walk-through the name of it.
2:23 p.m.
De la Rionda thanks the jurors for their service.
He says they were very attentive and thanks them.
He says he want to talk about how they arrive at a verdict.
He says they should do three things: rely on the testimony and physical evidence, rely on the law Judge Nelson will read to them, and rely on their “God-given common sense.”
He says they should come back with a verdict that speaks the truth and is just and it that he is guilty of murder in the second degree.
He asks if they believe it was just a struggle that got out of hand. “Perhaps, but who started this?” he asks.
“Who was the one who was armed?”
He shows a timeline on the screen and in an enlarged printout he is holding.
He explains the information on the timeline. He says the phone records don’t lie.
He says they spent a half a day one day and the next day hearing from one witness – Rachel Jeantel.
He calls her a human being and describes her as uneducated and unsophisticated.
He describes her language as colorful.
“Did she speak the truth?”
He says she was the person speaking to the victim.
De la Rionda says she could have embellished and lied about the language Martin said, but didn’t.
“Her use of colorful language doesn’t mean her testimony is less credible,” he says.
He shows the times for the phone calls
He says she spent hours on the witness stand in an attempt to discredit her.
De la Rionda says that because she can’t read cursive and is Haitian doesn’t mean she’s not credible.
“Isn’t is true this defendant assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal?”
2:13 p.m.
De la Rionda says DNA, lack of blood and other stuff is part of Martin’s body speaking to the jury and proving the defendant is lying.
He shows the jury the photo of Zimmerman’s bloody nose. He puts his hand over it and asks what would be expected.
He says the defense will show it was raining, but says the blood stayed on the defendant and they can’t have it both ways.
He says Zimmerman exaggerated everything.
He says the defendant studied the law and knows what is required for self-defense.
He tells the jury to take one word out of there – assumptions.
He says the defendant assumed and profiled the victim was a criminal, one that always got away.
He says Zimmerman didn’t offer help to Martin because he already assumed he was a criminal.
He says Zimmerman didn’t identify he was with neighborhood watch.
He says Zimmerman didn’t wait for the police or stay inside his car.
De la Rionda says the defendant wanted to be a police officer. He calls it a good thing and an honorable profession, but the law doesn’t allow people to take the law in their own hands.
2:06 p.m.
De la Rionda says the law doesn’t allow people to take the law into their own hands.
He says the defendant didn’t give Martin a chance to say he was going home.
He asks the jury to recall the TV interview where he said Martin circled his car.
He asks why Zimmerman got out of the car if he thinks Martin is a threat.
He says it is because he has a gun, “the equalizer.”
“His actions resulted in the death of a 17-year-old,” De la Rionda says.
He asks if it is really self-defense when you follow someone.
He says what’s ironic in the case is the defendant’s statements. He says the state wanted to put out all the evidence and give the jury the truth and complete story.
He asks why it was the defendant exaggerated what happened.
He says he kept denying that he followed Martin. He says the defendant knew that if he admitted he followed it showed ill-will.
He says that’s why he said he didn’t remember the name of the street. He asks how it is he didn’t know the name of the three streets there.
He says it proves he profiled and followed Martin and shows his guilt.
He repeats that it was his actions that lead to the death of Martin.
2:00 p.m.
De la Rionda says when you think about it you ask “who was more scared?”
He says Martin can’t go into the courtroom and say how he was feeling and that is because of the actions of the defendant.
He says there is no dispute he lived at Retreat at Twin Lakes, was in the neighborhood watch, upset that burglars got away, and was on his way to Target.
He says Zimmerman saw the victim and called the non-emergency line.
He says there was no crime committed in those actions.
He describes the age, weight and height of Zimmerman. He says Zimmerman was armed and had the right to do it.
He describes the age, weight and height of Martin. He says he was unarmed, but might consider the Skittles or tea. He says the defense might say he was armed with concrete.
He says repeats the expletive phrase Zimmerman is heard saying. He says it was said under his breath and that indicates ill-will. He says that indicates what he was thinking and it’s important.
He mentions the prior non-emergency calls submitted as evidence.
1:55 p.m.
“Those actions weren’t anything sinister,” De la Rionda says about the formation of a neighborhood watch.
He says in this particular case it led to the death of an innocent 17-year-old boy.
He says the defendant made the wrong assumption that Martin was up to no good.
De la Rionda says Martin was there legally, went the 7-Eleven store and bought Skittles and a drink.
He says Martin has $40.15 in his pockets.
He shows the photo button to the jury and says he was speaking to a girl in Miami, minding his own business.
He says the defendant decided he was up to no good.
De la Rionda says Martin planned to watch a basketball game with the son of his father’s fiancée.
“He was just doing a normal everyday thing,” De la Rionda says.
“He was wearing a hoodie, last I heard that’s not against the law,” he says.
He says Zimmerman presumed something that was not true.
He says in this case he followed him and made up that Martin was a criminal and went over the line.
De la Rionda says he wanted to make sure Martin didn’t get out of the neighborhood.
“He was going to be what he wanted to be; a police officer,” he says.
He reminds the jury that Serino said he would think Martin lived there if he saw him while driving by in his patrol car.
1:48 p.m.
He says he is dead because another man made assumptions. He says because his assumptions were wrong Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks on this Earth.
De la Rionda points out Zimmerman at his seat.
He asks if Zimmerman tried to offer aid that the Sanford police officers did.
He says Zimmerman’s acts speak volumes of what occurred that night.
He says because of a recording, there were able to precisely determine when the gunshot was.
He says the events leading up to it occurred months before.
He asks them to remember the testimony of several people and the evidence heard from Zimmerman when he was being interviewed by Singleton.
A portion of the recorded interview is played.
1:42 p.m.
Judge Nelson instructs them for the closing arguments. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda begins closing arguments. "A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own," he says.
1:39 p.m.
The jury is seated in the courtroom. Judge Nelson checks with them to make sure they haven't seen reports about the case or researched it.
Arguments for jury instructions
1:37 p.m.
Attorneys are in sidebar with Judge Nelson.
1:12 p.m.
Mantei says the only question is for the justifiable defense portion and getting it as to how West wanted it.
West suggests striking a phrase.
Judge Nelson and the state agree.
West says there are a couple of occasions where words should be singular.
Judge Nelson says she is looking for substantive changes.
She asks to see the revised verdict form.
Judge Nelson addresses Zimmerman.
He confirms he has gone over the jury instructions and finds them agreeable.
Court is in recess until 1:35 p.m.
1:05 p.m.
Mantei resumes arguments for the state.
He cites a case he says shows the intentional act of the shooting.
West begins arguing for the defense.
Judge Nelson says she doesn’t think the evidence supports a charge for third degree felony defense.
She asks to finalize the verdict form.
Mantei asks which part of shooting a child isn't intentional.
Judge Nelson says she doesn’t think the evidence supports it and if she is unsure then she won’t instruct the jury for it.
She asks about the rest of the jury instructions.
11:55 a.m.
West argues there should be another line the saying the jury finds the defendant not guilty.
Judge Nelson shares the way it has always been done in this court.
West says he wants not guilty on the first page.
Judge Nelson says she understands the argument, but she is not doing it.
Wests asks about the order of the charges.
Judge Nelson says the defense sought to enter the portion of a tape played for Jeantel. She asks the court report to check. She confirms it was played outside the presence of the jury and it will not be admitted into evidence.
She says they will be in recess until 1 p.m. and De la Rionda will be given moments to plug it into his arguments.
She says the state will finalize the instructions.
They will be back at 1 p.m. to argue the third degree murder instruction.
West says he will do his best, but it is only an hour.
Court is in recess.
11:46 a.m.
West says the instruction is wrong for the jury to have.
He says the state has been trying to shift from someone going through what Zimmerman was with his head being hit.
“This is treading on very thin ice for this court,” West says, saying it isn’t the law.
Mantei argues there is no definition anywhere and that’s the reason the courts have given it.
He says the court said the standard instructions provide no definition and they approved giving the jury guidance.
Judge Nelson says instructions should be woven into the evidence.
She says Mantei’s argument should say it was consistent or not consistent.
Mantei says they are talking about the defendant’s reasonableness of fear.
She says she finds the definition akin to the defense request she just struck.
Mantei says the aggravated battery sections should also be included.
She says the court will not give the special instruction.
Mantei says the only other one was the provocation instruction.
Judge Nelson moves on to the verdict form.
11:38 a.m.
Judge Nelson moves on to other parts of the instruction.
West asks if the focus of the compensation instruction is focusing on if someone was bribed.
Judge Nelson says there were some witnesses that were asked if they were sounding like they were giving infomercials. She says the instruction would be confusing.
She says there is a special instruction for expert witnesses and says she can see the danger of the instruction.
She goes back to the felony murder third degree instruction.
She says she has an initial the child abuse portion. She says it requires an intentional act.
Mantei says the shooting is an intentional act. He says the question is if it was justifiable.
She says she will give West time to prepare his argument.
She asks for objections to the manslaughter argument as written.
Mantei says there is also the issue for the bodily harm jury instruction.
He says if the court is not going to give the aggravated battery, but the instruction from the defense discusses the fear of bodily harm.
He says defining great bodily harm would give the jury a frame of reference.
West objects.
He says the Supreme Court said it didn’t need to be defined and the state is seeking to shift the focus.
11:25 a.m.
West says it would be an improper argument for the state to make in closing.
Judge Nelson denies the motion.
She moves on to more of the jury instructions.
She moves on to the circumstantial evidence instruction from the defense.
The state has an objection.
Mantei says the instruction was eliminated 30 years ago, finding the instruction was confusing and incorrect.
West says he remembers when the instruction was standard. He says when a case is appropriate for it, it is clear the law allows it.
He says in voire dire, De la Rionda made a big deal about circumstantial evidence and direct evidence with the potential jurors.
He says the circumstances must be conclusive.
He says there is no other instruction as specific and appropriate to help the jury analyze the case. He says it gives them desperately needed guidance.
Mantei says every case with a bit of circumstantial evidence would get the instruction.
He says the case is not totally circumstantial and there is direct evidence the defendant shot and killed the victim.
“It is confusing and incorrect,” Mantei says.
Judge Nelson is not going to give the circumstantial evidence instruction.
11:10 a.m.
Judge Nelson says both of them did not take out a comma. She says cases have been reversed because of that comma and it should be taken out.
“The including deadly force, that comma comes out,” she says.
Judge Nelson reads more of the instruction about following someone on foot or in a car not being against the law.
She asks for argument from West.
He says he’s asking for an instruction as part of the theory of defense. He says the way the case was presented in the media and he heard people talking just last night about Zimmerman following someone and being guilty of something.
He says if they think following is illegal, the jury will be misled.
He says the state suggesting Zimmerman was following Martin would be a factual distortion for the jury.
Mantei says the state objects and says it’s the first time he has heard unnamed media cited for the court.
He says the instruction is a demand for judicial notice given to the jury.
West asks the state to give the statute that following is not illegal.
Judge Nelson says he is asking the state to prove a negative.
She says she is not giving the instruction.
She says West continually disagrees with her on rulings. She says she has provided instructions for court behavior. She says he is free to appeal. He is also free to argue the fact in closing arguments.
11:03 a.m.
West says the state has not offered a compelling argument.
Mantei says that are facts that should be before the jury. “There is evidence the defendant is the provoker,” Mantei says.
He says he understands West doesn’t think they are credible or right, but that is up to the jury.
Judge Nelson says she understands both arguments.
West says following someone is not against the law, especially if you want to tell the police where someone is.
He says force is force, not a gun being carried in a concealed way.
“The court is not going to give it,” Judge Nelson says about the section of jury instruction.
10:57 a.m.
West says he included a section alluding to Zimmerman provoking the use of force against him. HE says he put it in there for discussion.
He says the state should argue that Zimmerman provoked the use of force against. He says the instruction is misleading.
Mantei responds. He says combining the known facts and inferences from them is provocation.
He says the facts testify to both inferences being equally valid and it should be presented to the jury.
Mantei says the argument was sort of at the judgment of acquittal.
West says what Mantei said isn’t close to the law. He says Bahadoor told a story in court of a vague movement of left to right.
“It makes no sense compared with the other evidence in the case,” West says.
He says Surdyka could not have seen what she claims to have seen because it was physically impossible and is proven by the medical testimony.
“We know that just couldn’t have happened and she’s wrong,” West says.
He says she didn’t see the confrontation initially, only heard some voices and made “gross inaccurate” assumptions.
He says Zimmerman was still in his car when Martin was known to have been running away from him.
He says Martin had two or three minutes to get home and chose not to.
He says it’s clear from Jeantel Martin initiated the confrontation. He says there was no pursuit.
He says walking up to somebody and following somebody is not enough to prove Zimmerman provoked the violence.
10:46 a.m.
Mantei says the next instruction is the justifiable use of force instruction.
West asks if they are skipping over the proposed third degree felony charge.
Mantei says the instruction omits the word “only.”
West says he’s drafted an instruction that addresses the legal issue for the jury.
Mantei says the instruction is required because it is the definition of justifiable force in the statute.
He says it is a homicide case and it is mandatory.
Judge Nelson says the defense is not alleging any felony was being committed against Zimmerman.
She asks for defense response.
West says it is part of another trick. Judge Nelson asks that he not use the word trick.
West says the state wants to court to come up with a definition of aggravated battery and can’t get it until they say Martin was committing one.
“It’s always been the only issue in the case,” West says, reading from the justifiable force definition.
Judge Nelson asks for case law showing the interpretation.
Judge Nelson says the instructions are lengthy.
Mantei says he is reading the statute for justifiable force.
10:34 a.m.
“Just when I thought this case couldn’t get any more bizarre,” West says about the state seeking third degree felony murder based on child abuse.
West accuses Mantei of searching for case law for possibly a year, plotting to throw it on the defense.
West moves to strike it.
He says the state has been lying in wait, collecting child abuse case law, to deal with it at the moments of closing arguments.
He calls it disingenuous and outrageous.
He asks if the court could recess for several hours. He says it is hard for him to imagine the court could take it seriously.
Judge Nelson says the court hasn’t been provided a lot of thing for a hearing until late.
She asks for the argument.
West says it was just emailed to him buried in the instructions.
He says it’s not possible Mantei researched the case law last night.
He says Corey is sitting there approving of it.
Judge Nelson tells West that is not proper argument.
Judge Nelson says the supreme court procedure instructions indicate category one and category two lesser charges. She says they are part of the instruction that have been known.
She says the possibility of a category two is known since the beginning of trial.
West suggests vehicular homicide.
Judge Nelson says the evidence doesn’t support that. She says the facts argued by the state make it possible.
West says he has one other lawyer with him. He says it was a trick by the state.
Judge Nelson says they will come back to this argument.
10:24 a.m.
West says he is still trying to sort the manslaughter by act instruction.
Mantei says the next requested less is the third degree felony murder.
He says child abuse must be defined in the instruction.
He cites case law for the argument.
He provides case law that says the ignorance of the age of the victim by the defendant is not a defense.
10:07 a.m.
Mantei says the state belives it would be an error not to give and they are requesting it.
West responds that it is a decision Zimmerman has made and his position is the state charged him with second degree murder and should be able to prove it.
West says if they wanted to charge him with manslaughter they could do that.
Judge Nelson says based on the case law the court will give the instruction on manslaughter.
10:04 a.m.
Judge Nelson asks about the lesser charges. Mantei says the defense will be seeking zero lesser charges.
Judge Nelson checks with Zimmerman that he understands that. She says the supreme court provides for the lesser offences and the state is seeking that.
Zimmerman confirms he is aware his attorneys are seeking zero lesser charges.
He confirms he agrees with the defense seeking only second-degree murder or nothing.
Judge Nelson returns to addressing Mantei about the state changes on charges.
West asks if they can do the argument now for including the lesser charges.
Judge Nelson says they will do it when they get to that point.
They go over more of the wording.
Mantei begins his argument for including the lesser charges.
10:00 a.m.
Mantei says there are notes on each side’s proposals. He says the first issue is West said everywhere the word defendant appears it be replaced with Zimmerman.
He says it would be special focus or treatment.
Judge Nelson says she’s noticed sometimes the name is in all caps. She doesn’t think it’s objectionable to have his name in place of defendant. She only asks it be in caps or upper-lower case.
West proposes upper-lower case.
They agree to make the change.
The first page will be as the state has proposed.
9:55 a.m.
Judge Nelson returns to the bench.
9:08 a.m.
West says in the larger set of instructions he put proper names in where it mentioned the defendant. West says Zimmerman has not been brought up to speed on what is being proposed.
Judge Nelson suggests giving Zimmerman a copy of both proposals. She asks if 30 minutes would be enough time to review them with Zimmerman and talk with the state.
Court is in recess for 30 minutes.
9:05 a.m.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara will not be attending the charge conference. Don West is present with George Zimmerman.
8:25 a.m.
The prosecution and defense are expected back in court at 9 a.m. to go over the jury instructions. The state will begin closing arguments at 1 p.m.