Andrew Branca:
Today, the State presented their closing argument to the jury in the matter of Florida v. Zimmerman. After 14 months of investigation and discovery, weeks of pre-trial hearings, weeks more of trial testimony, and the expenditure of taxpayer money on the order of a million dollars, this was it–this is where the State would close the deal and deliver their compelling narrative of guilt to the jury.
What the jury got was not a compelling narrative of guilt, however, but a rambling monologue of isolated bits of circumstantial evidence, much of which was consistent with–and even supportive of–the defense’s “self-defense” theory of the case.
When I took my first serious look at this case, some six or so months ago, and worked though the existing discovery file, I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing. But discovery wasn’t complete, perhaps there was critical evidence not yet out.
When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the State’s got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.
When I heard the State’s opening statements, and heard them describe the “facts” they said they would prove–knowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representations–I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing.
When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guilt–much less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the State’s got nothing.
And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuse–properly denied by Judge Nelson–I thought to myself, that’s the act of a State prosecution team that’s got nothing.
This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the head–the State has nothing.
This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that I’ve heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.
Maybe later I’ll tell you what I really think about it.
Regardless, we pride ourselves on being fact-based and giving all of you access to the raw information to come to your own conclusions–so let’s get to it.
A Slow Start
Bernie de la Rionda (henceforth “BDLR”) began his opening with a rather remarkably weak opening, stating that “a teenager is dead through no fault of his own, because another man made assumptions.” This does not strike one as particularly consistent with the evidence–the State’s own witnesses have Martin confronting Zimmerman, not the reverse, and surely no reasonable jury is going to believe that Zimmerman caused his own injuries. To say that Martin bears no fault seems simply incredible. Further, to my knowledge no one has ever died yet because a casual observer made some assumptions about him.
Odd Missteps: Vague and Aimless
Then BDLR made the first of many apparent “slips” in his closing, by referring to Martin as “a 17-year-old man.” Given the 12-year-old photos of Martin that had been strewn throughout society, and particularly the murder-3-based-on-felony-child-abuse the State sought only hours before, surely he could not have meant to refer to Martin as a “man”? Sure enough, one could almost see BDLR consciously remind himself to use “boy” rather than “man”, and sometimes first using the latter only to immediately correct and repeat the same sentence using the former. He might as well have held up a sign saying, “I am trying to mislead you into sympathy for the victim.”
As vague as that opening was, things only got vaguer. Next BDLR argued that Zimmerman’s “matter-of-fact” attitude after the shooting was indicative of . . . well, he didn’t say exactly, here merely said that “those actions speak volumes.” Volumes of what? Especially as the State’s own witnesses under cross had agreed that Zimmerman appeared to be in shock, not a state of casual indifference at having taken another person’s life.
kangaroo court (noun) (1) : a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted. (2) : a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures. (3): judgment or punishment given outside of legal procedure. (4) slang for a court of law in which the violations of procedure, precedents, and due process are so gross that fundamental justice is denied. It usually means that the judge is incompetent or obviously biased.
The main purpose of a kangaroo court is not justice, but to find the defendant guilty. The political manifestations around this trial, from false claims of racism, to special attention given by the President, Justice Department, the to be expected appearance of the usual, camera-loving race-baiters, and creative editing on the part of the MSM, have turned this into yet another a media trial circus.
I will start by admitting that George Zimmerman has made plenty of mistakes, but there are many matters about this case that are very disturbing. This whole Zimmerman case seems to be marching step by step into the realm of pseudo-justice that has been called “Kangaroo Courts”. From the beginning, after the police investigators released Zimmerman because they believed that this was clearly a case of self-defense. Protests, sponsored in part by Holder’s Justice Department, intimidated local city managers to removed the Chief of Police from office and the department’s investigator from the case. and a Special Investigator” was assigned to take over the investigation. Political pressure resulted in the Police being forced to arrest Zimmerman. Three separate Judges have been assigned the case: The first, Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler recused herself because of a “conflict of interest”. The second, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. Wednesday was removed from the case by the 5th Circuit Court who agreed with expressed concerns that Lester displayed bias against the defendant. Debra S. Nelson, was the final judge assigned to George Zimmerman’s case, who has a reputation for working hard, being ambitious and imposing long prison terms.
Both Lester and Nelson were said to be “randomly selected” however Nelson is the same jurist assigned to handle Zimmerman’s wife’s perjury case, which would seem to stretch the probability of coincidence. There have been plenty of other eyebrow raisers during this case. including what appears to be the artificial creation of, and manipulation of prosecution witnesses regarding the “911 tapes”, and more:
(Quotation marks mine – Ditto)
On multiple time George Zimmerman’s “address” were released via the media to the public. His Social Security and phone numbers were also put out for everyone to see, which is a very serious matter when you have numerous individuals stating their desire to kill Zimmerman. The MSM comments on these outrageous disregard for Zimmerman’s privacy and safety with an “Oopsie! Oh well, our bad” attitude. Should anything happen to Zimmerman or his family, these news agencies will deserve the lawsuits that will be no doubt be rightfully filed on them.
I’ve had a very hard time trying to remain fair and impartial on this case (yet many more haven’t even tried). It is very unfortunate that both Zimmerman and Martin made bad decisions, which resulted in a physical altercation and the death of Trayvon (admittedly,) by a single gunshot from George’s gun. Yet, other, much more egregious murders and assaults have been completely ignored, in order to flame the fires of racial diversions, thanks to media vultures. I honestly have doubts that judicial fairness will prevail in such a corrupt environment of sensationalized and politicized “justice.”
Prosecutions case: platitudes.
Guy in closing rebuttal: Trevon Martin’s blood will remain on Zimmerman’s hands.
This comment is worthless in a court of law where prosecutors are devoid of reason. The statement is speculation without evidence and meaningless without law. But it does show that prosucutors have no evidence to counter the fact that Zimmerman was being viciously attacked by Martin and that after having his head pounded repeatedly against the concrete sidewalk, Zimmerman, fearful for his life, shot Martin in self-defense.
I suggest that the prosecution is lying and making many worthless and unsubstantiatred claims. For example, they state in court that Zimmerman was on top of Martin despite manifest evidence that it was Martin who was on top as evidenced by a witness. Prosecution lies. And furthermore, prosecution states in court that it was Martin who was yelling for help despite manifest evidence that it was Zimmerman who was crying out for help. It makes no sense to suggest it was Martin who was yelling for help when he was the person on top of Zimmerman and beating him in the face and slamming his head on concrete.
Without evidence, the prosecution has made unjustified claims tantamont to telling absolute lies.
I trust the jury will quickly decide as decided previously that there is no case; Zimmerman acted in self-defense an stood his ground against Martin, a lawful act in the state of Florida.
@AdrianS:
The purpose of a Prosecutor is to discover the truth, not to win at all costs by misrepresenting facts, making false statements and trying to get a jurist to make their decision based on emotional responses instead of the facts. If a during an examination of the facts of a case the Prosecution discovers that the Defendant is not guilty of the charges, an ethical Prosecutor may halt the proceedings and drop the charges. A court case is not a chess game between opponents, it is a serious matter of seeking justice.