Jurors in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder trial deliberated for a second day on Saturday, after quietly making their way into a back-room around 2:30 p.m., on Friday, following the reading of jury instructions by Circuit Judge Debra Nelson.
Just prior to doing so, prosecutor John Guy reminded jurors that the case is not complicated, nor is it one of self-defense.
“This isn’t a complicated case, this isn’t a self-defense case,” he said. “It is a case about self-denial. It is a commonsense case.”
Guy, appealing to jurors’ hearts, also reminded that it was Trayvon Martin who was in fear of Zimmerman and not the other way around.
“Was that child not in fear when he was running from that defendant?” asked an emotional Guy. “Isn’t that every child’s worst fear?” That was Trayvon Martin’s last emotion, he added.
Methodically going through the various inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story, Guy told jurors that it is the ‘wannabe cop’ who had ill will and hate in his heart when he approached and fatally shot the teen on February 26, 2012. He again repeated the words Zimmerman used on the 911 non-emergency call to describe Blacks — “F***ing punks” and “These a**holes, they always get away.”
“That defendant didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to, he shot him because he wanted to,” he said.
Perhaps employing reverse psychology, Guy told jurors that the case is not about race, but it is about right and wrong. “It’s that simple,” he said.
“To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe the truth,” Guy said in his final appeal to jurors.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara in a workman like presentation asked jurors to reject the prosecution’s case which essentially is that Zimmerman was “a crazy guy walking the neighborhood looking for people to harass,”on the night he murdered the 17-year-old teen.
O’Mara, using several charts, photographs, life-size cut outs of Martin and Zimmerman and event a concrete block, told jurors there was no ill will, spite or hatred on Zimmerman’s part when he fatally shot the teen. Instead, O’Mara said, his client was defending himself against the teen who was bashing his head on the concrete when the two tussled.
O’Mara urged jurors “not to make assumptions” and not to try to “fill in blanks” or “connect dots,” in arriving at their verdict.
“This case must be decided on the evidence,” he said. “The state has to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt. The state didn’t prove that George Zimmerman didn’t act in self-defense.”
“My client is guilty of nothing,” O’Mara added.
