Problems with DNA because of packaging, some was probably lost, who knows.  George Zimmerman's (GZ) blood on Trayvon Martin (TM) was not expected.  None of TM's blood expected on GZ.  TM went up and over and down.  Then what about TM's mom?   Some ask how can I question mom of teen?  We had to show how moms see things, their son is screaming, it's how you get through it.  Brother didn't know then but maybe now he's certain.  People hear what the need to hear, it's OK.     Wet clothes and hands not in paper bags. That's a problem.   GZ's mom said it was her son screaming.  OK too.  But his uncle heard in the screams in the background on TV and he absolutely knew.  He's an honorable man.   GZ's friends hear no anger in his voice.  He's cussing but not angry.  Who of us ever hears someone scream for their life?  A combat medic who hangs with his men, he knows who they are.  Then he hears them and heads out and sometimes knows he knows who it is, Imagine.  And he believes it was GZ screaming for his life.   TM's dad denied it TM's voice but now he's in.   So, who said what?   Check credibility, accept or reject the testimony but doubt always goes to GZ.  This MMA claim is bunk.   GZ went form .5 to a one after a year.  Not good advertising for the gym.  Chief of police Lee said to the mayor, separate family members for the 911 playing.  It's cop 101.  One at a time but the way they played the 911 call infected the testimony.  Benefit goes to GZ.  Witness said since Arizona can was in pouch of hoodie, fabric did what it did. A loose shirt falls forward.  The gun was in contact with fabric, not chest.  The shot was fired 4" from chest.  That supports the contention that GZ was on the bottom and TM was on top.   State says TM might have been backing away, could have been backing away.  That's reasonable doubt.  Could not show that here in court.  There's nothing to suggest anything except TM is on top and GZ is on bottom being beaten.  For 45 seconds TM didn't back off even when John Goode told him to, but suddenly, at the time of shot he retreated?    Really?  Gimme one piece of evidence to support that.  One shred to support that absurdity. State will tell you something later.   And Dennis Root.  The prosecutors tried to impeach him, a lifetime cop, seeking perfection in everything.  He teaches everything. He said GZ had no options about when and how to use force. He was asked if GZ have options?  NO   What counters that?  Show me a shred of evidence.  When this qualified expert says no options, you can discount it, but if you believe him accept it.  Remember the victim of the burglary?  She's the face of the problem in the neighborhood.  That's the face of GZ's frustration.  That's why he went over to her house and gave her a lock and said call my wife a nurse, anytime. We will help.   And GZ's dad at the State's office. They put him under oath.  Is that your son, "Yes." Certainly."

Consider the forensics.   Focus on the lack of blood.  State's exhibit showing TM's body.  See the wound?  See the trickle of blood?   In the next exhibit, blood is gone and no one admits to wiping it off.  Big moment?   No but they want you to connect some dots but no blood as conclusive evidence is not conclusive.  O'Mara brings out cardboard cut outs to show relative sizes.  This demonstrates relative abilities.  GZ is fatter now but height differential gives indication of different abilities.  Autopsy photos always have an impact on a jury.  When I was a prosecutor, we used them all the time.  There's no muscle tone and he lost half his blood so on slab he looks emaciated but look, here he is 3 months before.  This is the person GZ encountered.  This is who broke his nose and battered him.  Could have hit a sprinkler box.  Really?   Those injuries?    Out of darkness came TM, be it out of bushes or from behind, TM came out toward GZ and we know what happened.  Supported by evidence.  Look at the context.  How he gave voluntary statements over and over.  And cops say if they get the same story twice, exactly the same it's a lie, but with his nose smashed and he answers questions, you always deal with inconsistencies. Hit 25 times? Probably not but it felt like it.  Is that the exaggeration?  The lie?  C'mon. If he intends to deceive why give six statements.  They want to say he learned cop stuff in school? How about Miranda?  Is this a mastermind?  Did he have it all sussed?  TM had mud on his knees, GZ’s back was wet and there was grass on the back of his jacket.

Reasonable doubt starts with the presumption of innocence, which stays in first position until it is taken away by evidence.  Then convict.  Not forced doubt.  Reasonable is not speculation.  If after all the evidence you have no abiding belief then doubt is reasonable.  Here, check the not guilty box.  There's no box for innocent but if there were, I would want you to check it.  No reasonable doubt, then guilty.  With witnesses check for their opportunity, perception, access to memory.  Here one witness frantic.  Check if they’re honest, and what's their interest in the outcome.  GZ gave statements.  He has an interest in his liberty.   But it agrees with other testimony. Look at the totality of the circumstances.
Deliberation on evidence:  Make no assumptions that the State wants.  Look at the exhibits.  Bring common sense but not presumptions, only certainties.  Don't feel sorry for anyone.  We told you in voir dire the Verdict will be head by TMs family.  This is tragedy.  Leave emotions out.  You have to be better than in life.  No prejudice or bias.  Self defense instruction says use of force in self defense allowed if GZ reasonably believed he was in danger of GBH. In reasonable fear of GBH he doesn't have to think he will die.  Justified if you judge circumstances at the moment of the shot.  May not be actual danger of death or destruction. But here he was beaten.  His perception of danger was pretty clear.   Reasonable fear just requires that the danger must have been so real that a reasonably prudent person would believe he was in danger, which can only be avoided by action.  Justifiable use of deadly force.  Compare the two men. If you have a reasonable doubt that he was justified to use force then not he's guilty.   It must be clear that he had no right to be guilty.  Following is not illegal.  Nothing GZ did was unlawful.

Finally the States case is not proven:  They have burden. Where's their expert to counter justifiable use of force?  Where's the info?   Defense called the gunshot expert, to ask was gun pushed into TM's chest?  Emotions vs. evidences.  Did we need the prosecutor to yell and snarl and curse instead of how GZ said it?  No evidence GZ attacked TM or ever landed a blow. He had a gun and he had a right, we are told TM unarmed, State's attorney slapped his thighs and hit the floor. That is not the sound of cement.  Cement is a weapon and denial of that is disgusting.  Even presuming Rachel Jeantel was accurate in any variation, she heard TM say "What you doing?"   And she heard GZ say, "What are you doing around here?” Many responses were possible but punch in the nose is up there on the spectrum of escalation.  If TM had survived, he would have been charged with aggravated battery, two counts.  The State has to convince you that GZ is guilty of anything.  GZ is innocent.  State will get up and say he's liar but the standard you have to consider is reasonable doubt that my client acted in self defense. Self defense is a bar to littering, battery, assault, manslaughter and second degree murder.  If reasonable doubt, self defense is over. Drama doesn't matter.  If GZ acted in self defense, we're done.  When you go back there talk about that first.  Jury has been good.    Find self defense.  Let GZ get back to life.