AFP-19AR 16mm; VTM-19AR Beta SP; NET-30 DigiBeta (at 01:09:59:00); Beta SP
MEET THE MISSUS
AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11052021 1100
COURTROOM FTG OF THE TRIAL IN THE AHMAUD ARBERY CASE / TRAVIS MCMICHAEL, GREGORY MCMICHAEL AND WILLIAM RODDIE BRYAN ARE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF AHMAUD ARBERY / SWITCHED FEED Arbery Prosecution Part 2 Prosecution [11:02:00] Mr Abbott has been attacked, Mr Abbott has been chased, Mr Abbott has been yelled at, Mr Abbott life has been threatened. All of this. And what does he say? His emergency is this is the emergency. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm out here in satellite shores and there's a black male running down the street. That's Samer. Ladies and gentlemen, here's some still shots that you can see. There's Travis McMichael pointing the gun and Mr. Arbery. See how far away he is. There's a better view as Mr. Arbery tries to go this way, go that way. Travis McMichael is blocking the street. Trucks in one line. Prosecution [11:02:46] He's in the other way. What's that called Boston prisoners? Strawberry then runs this way to get around the track. Comes over to the side. Comes around, and ladies and gentlemen, this is really important. What you're seeing here are two really, really important things right here. It's Travis McMichaels head Travis McMichael said. You see the shadow underneath. This is really important. The reason the shadow is important is because it shows Travis McMichael shadow. It shows this long thing. Prosecution [11:03:27] The Remington 12 gauge shotgun. And it shows Mr. Arbery right here. This truck blocks exactly what took place, but you can see this is where Travis McMichael is. There's the shotgun, and this is where Mr. Arbery is right there. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, Travis McMichael did not say on the driver's side of the pickup truck. He didn't stay right here. There's dad was in a higher position. That door is open. What did Travis McMichael do with that shotgun? He stepped around that open door and moved toward Mr. Harbord. He's got a shotgun and he's moving toward him to intercept him. It's right here in front of the car, right? And Mr. Arbery comes around. Prosecution [11:04:22] And he shoots him, shoots him like that for a shotgun blast in the front of that car. But from there to there. Now, the Glynn County Police wanted to make sure that they could try to enhance this somehow. So they went ahead. And they set it off. Prosecution [11:04:58] It's a little odd to look at, but it's got some enhancements you can fully see exactly what's happening. Shocking goes up. Mr. Benz's 9-1-1 call was at 108, as Craig and Michael stated that the whole thing started when I saw this guy running down the street. No immediate knowledge of any crime having been committed by Mr. Arbery. And here's the truly, truly tragic part of this whole entire thing. Officer Minshew, who was dispatched due to Mr. Evans's 9-1-1 call, was assures and heard the shots. Prosecution [11:06:15] He started about five miles an hour down to two drive looking for the suspicious person. And he heard the shots. The statements of the defendants. One thing I want to be really, really clear with you about and it's important, is that everything they talk about is what they thought Mr. Arbery was doing that day that they. Travis McMichael, this is what Travis McMichael said. Prosecution [11:06:49] He runs to the right side of my truck. I stand on the left side of my truck. I'm waving goodbye, right? As as a passenger side passenger side. Yes, sir. Brian, towards the passenger side. That's what Michael is telling the cops. I was just waiting for the guy to go by. He either came back to the left side. Or came to the right, and I'm backing up, I'm telling her to quit. Stop coming at me. Stop coming at me. Prosecution [11:07:23] I see where it's going quick. I got the shotgun in my hand. He comes up. Is it pointed at him at that point or? Yeah, it's pointed out he admits he never stopped playing the shotgun at the start. But here's a problem, look at the statement he either came back to the left side or came to the right, and I'm backing up. I'm telling him to quit, to stop coming at me, stop coming at me. Because if I was the one who went to the front of the. Prosecution [11:07:52] Strawberry comes around the corner. Shotgun immediately happens. And what is Travis McMichael saying this is at the very beginning of his statement. So this is is he's been read his Miranda rights, he's sitting down with the officers he's talking to and this is the very first thing time he starts describing it, he comes up to that driveway, squares up with me. I put, you know, I shoot. Prosecution [11:08:19] Squares up with me, a dozen more neuron, ladies and gentlemen, Prosecution [11:08:24] during the rest of his statement, Travis McMichael goes on to say that Mr. Arbery attacked him, OK? He goes on to say that I was acting in self-defense. He goes on to describe his thought process while they were struggling over the shotgun that Mr. Arbery was going to get the shotgun away from him and that if Mr. Arbery did, he'd get shot. OK, so remember, this is two hours later. Prosecution [11:08:49] At the police station. It's really important to Prosecution [11:08:58] note these gentlemen. Yes. Medical examiner is going to come in here, and he's going to talk about his opinion as to the order of shots. The very first shot is to the torso and travels through five foot acknowledges that, yeah, I shot Sean right in the chest is thing you didn't hit him in here. Now is holding a gun low when he shot him. It went right here and when it went right here into him. It actually came out here. So I want you to think about this. OK. Front to back, no horizontal deviation. Straight through, but it hit him here and came out this way. His torso Prosecution [11:09:49] is turned. Here's the other thing the medical examiner's going to tell you. Prosecution [11:09:53] He's also shot the rest at the same time. Prosecution [11:10:01] It's shocking when that. Prosecution [11:10:04] His wrist, it's a mess, but it's not a fatal injury. There's arterial spurt coming out of it, just heartbeats. But he is shot here. And that Alexander is going to tell you that this motion is consistent. Now he's also going to tell you it's consistent with him trying to grab it all that kind of stuff, too. But he comes around to find Travis McMichael has moved in on him and he shot in the wrist and shot in the torso. All the pellets are right here in his back. When you watch the video, you'll note that he's wearing a white T-shirt and it starts to expand across his chest as he keeps fighting with Travis over the shotgun. He's been shot. Please gentlemen. This was lethal. This killed him. He just didn't fall down and die right then and there. [11:11:04] He went ahead and struggle, as you see in the video with Travis McMichael, over that shotgun. There was a second shot. Do you remember seeing the spray, the stuff the medical examiner doesn't think that had anything, and then when they come back in view, they're struggling over the shotgun. The next blast is right here. Prosecution [11:11:27] Major major artery here is arm falls like this useless? And he stumbles away because blood has accumulated from this shot into his stomach cavity. You see a bunch of ribs got broken and all this blood is flowing into his stomach cavity at this point in time. But it hasn't stopped his heart and there's arterial spurt coming out. That's how the medical examiner knows that it was this. Prosecution [11:12:03] At the end of the interview, Detective No Healy with Travis McMichael. He asked him this Do you remember if he grabbed the shotgun at all because Travis is all over the place? I want to say he did, but I honestly can't remember. Ladies and gentlemen, there's absolutely no evidence that Travis McMichael, where I shot him because he grabbed my shotgun. That's not what Travis McMichael says at all. This isn't about grabbing the shotgun. I want to say you did, but I honestly can't remember. I mean, we were me and him. We were face to face the entire time. Also of note, Mr Aubry had nothing on him, no backpack, no bag, no cell phone. Prosecution [11:12:52] No I.D., no wallet, no keys, no gun, no weapon. Mr. Arbery couldn't have even called for help if he wanted to because he had no cell phone. There's absolutely no evidence in this case that anyone was making an arrest. Not one single defendant said Mr. Aubry had a weapon. Not one single defendant said Mr. Arbery made any verbal threats or gestures. Mr Abbott said nothing during the five minutes he ran from the defendant. Prosecution [11:13:36] No one, not one single defendant said I saw him commit the crime of blah blah blah today. Mr O'Brien was on his front porch, Travis McMichael was sitting inside his living room. Greg McMichael was in his driveway. What's your emergency? There's a black man running down the street. No one said I was making a citizen's arrest today. Prosecution [11:13:59] Not one single person use those words. No one said I was trying to arrest him for the crime of fill in the blank. No one said that not one single defendant ever said I was trying to arrest him or mentioned what primitives they actually thought he committed. No one said I told him that he was under arrest. I mean, come on. How do you arrest somebody? You're under arrest. Put your hands, blah blah blah, right? It's now you arrest somebody. Prosecution [11:14:33] You tell me you're under arrest. No one ever said, Well, I told the guy I was under arrest for the crime of whatever crime, and no one ever said that. But here is what I did say. And this is really important because once again, Greg Pipe was talking about February 23rd, 2020. Is he picking up anything going through anything? You know, not that I recall. I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there. Prosecution [11:14:58] Or if he did, it was it was early on in the process. No immediate knowledge of any crime in the past or on that day. I don't think the guy's actually stolen anything out of it or if he did it early on in the process, meaning I don't have any information about it. I don't know anything about that. No one said we have evidence that he stole items off of Larry English, his boat back in November of 2019, so we're trying to arrest him for burglary or theft or anything like that. No one ever talks about Larry English's boat during any of these interviews. Really important. Did this guy break into a house today? Do you commit a burglary today? What did he do today that you have immediate knowledge of? That's just it. I don't know, says Gregory Michael. Prosecution [11:15:53] And look at what he does, he says, well, you know, that's how I will put your name out there. I said, Listen, you might want to go knock on some doors because, you know, I'm sure he did something. And if you police officers, we just go and investigate that. I'm sure you could figure out what crime it was that he committed today. I'm sure you could just disagree. I mean, you should investigate now that we've killed him, figure out what kind it was that he was committed. Prosecution [11:16:17] I said, listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there because this guy just done something because he was fleeing from. I don't know. He might have gone in somebody's house. He might have gone in somebody's house. No immediate knowledge of anything or any crime that Mr. Arbery committed that day. But you don't hear is I thought he committed a burglary, but you don't hear he's criminally attempting to burglarized this person's house, and I personally saw it by any of these defendants. Prosecution [11:16:51] That's not what you hear from them. The only time Greg McMichael actually uses the word arrest, and he does use the word, he uses it one time. But anyway, in my mind, there's a good possibility this guy's arm. That was my thought process and my intention was to stop this guy so he could be arrested or be identified, at the very least. I just pick this apart for a minute. But in my mind, there's a good possibility this guy's armed. That was my thought process. The evidence is this Greg Michael needs to be able to explain to the police why he has a gun and why his son has a shotgun. So this is it. I thought he was if I was on. Prosecution [11:17:33] So, I mean, I really want to think about this. The evidence is, is that Greg McMichael assumed the worst. This unknown stranger, this black man who's running down the street has gone on. I want you to think about this. I want you to think about Greg McMichael. I object to getting into argument now in an hour and 15 minutes beyond the hour of time. When to broken things. Starting to get into some argument here. Yes, sure, I will take it down. But. The evidence is that Prosecution [11:18:09] Greg McMichael assumed the worst when he said, in my mind, there's a good possibility this guy is armed. This unknown person, he assumes, has a gun on him, and yet his driveway decision is to purposefully chase after and confront the man. They now claims he thought was armed. Prosecution [11:18:33] His driveway decision. Go ahead and pick apart the statement a little more. And my intention was to stop this guy so that one, he could be arrested. Notice how he didn't say for what he didn't say so he could be arrested for the crime of this, the crime of that or anything. I don't think the guy was actually the guy who has actually stolen anything out of airport. He did. It was early on in the process. Did this guy break into a house today? That's just it. I don't know. But the alternative for what my intention was to stop this guy so they could be arrested. We don't know what was. Well, he should be identified, at the very least. Prosecution [11:19:23] The evidence is that Mr. Arbery is dead because we want to know who he was. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're into the homestretch. So what happens with the County Police Department that evening as they go ahead and they interview everybody? Pricing tech consultancy takes photos, plus the evidence packs the shotgun body cam video captures initial statements. Travis McMichael is transported down to the police station. Prosecution [11:19:59] He's covered in blood. Greg McMichael leaves the scene with the white pickup truck and drives it back to his house so he can change clothes. Mr Bryant actually has already left the scene by the time the crime scene tech gets there. You won't see his truck in any of the crime scene photos. He was allowed to leave and go home, which he does, and he begins to work on his porch again. And then they realize, Well, maybe we shouldn't have done that and asked him to come back to the scene. And then they ask him to please bring his truck to the police station so that they can fingerprint it now. And he did. Prosecution [11:20:44] All three defendants cooperated. Mr Brian brought struck back and showed Detective Lowrey here's where he touched it, here's the fingerprint place and they fingerprinted it, and it's Mr Arbery's palm print on the car. They went ahead and collected the shotgun, took photos of Travis McMichael. Interviewed everybody, and then all three defendants went home. The next day, they went and collected video from some people like Mr Olsen. Diego had handed over his video on the day of the shooting, and they reviewed all the video. They reviewed the statements. Prosecution [11:21:32] They even kind of went back out and tried to canvass the neighborhood a little bit. And then the investigation stalled. Now listen, gentlemen, the investigation stalling has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're guilty or not guilty. You're going to come back with guilty or not guilty based on their actions on February 23rd, 2020. Suffice it to say, the investigation stalled and nothing happened. Until the GBI get involved. Special Agent Richard Dial of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was assigned this case on the evening of May 5th of 2020. At that point in time, he reviewed the Glen County Police Department file and all the videos. The guy then went over to interview Larry English. Prosecution [11:22:20] They did a thorough canvass of the neighborhood, but there's still assures. To everybody. He obtained other evidence to either confirm or debunk tips that were pouring in, speculation that was pouring in, rumor that they wanted to go ahead and investigate. So they do all of those things, especially about the made the arrest of Patsy, Gregg and Michael on May 8th of 2020 for felony murder. Mr Ryan. Who was completely cooperative? Mr O'Brien was really cooperative. He came in to talk to Special Agent Seacrest. Special Agent Seacrest interviewed him on May 11th and interviewed him again on May 30. And Mr. Bryan even got in the car with agency press and went through a drive through, still a chance to show where he was during this whole entire incident. The problem is, is by the time we get to May 13, Mr Bryan's telling Agent Seacrest, Oh, I don't drive in Prosecution [11:23:16] with the car. Prosecution [11:23:22] Arrested Defendant Brian on May 21st, 2020. Ladies and gentlemen, the defendants assumed the worst about Mr. Ahmaud Arbery and made their driveway decisions. They didn't simply follow Mr. Arbery in their truck. There's absolutely no evidence that there was something that kept their white pickup truck from going five six seven miles per hour. Prosecution [11:23:55] They just simply followed. Gregory Blackwell and Travis McMichael sought to confront Mr. Arbery and took their guns with them to. All three of the defendants cut them off with their trucks are tied to a burka. They then used their pickup trucks as lethal weapons because when you force somebody off the road, a pedestrian with a pickup truck, you're on your truck at a call aggravated assault. All three trapped him like a rat between their two pickup trucks on phones. Mr Bryant coming up from behind Mr Arbery, running towards Travis McMichael, who's out of the car with the shotgun. Prosecution [11:24:40] Yeah, right before I got on the phone finally with 9-1-1 at that point. Yes. But Travis McMichael steps out with the shotgun and pointed at Mr. Outbreak when 20 yards and yards away. It worsened the entire situation by threatening to kill him. Stop, or I'll blow your fucking head off. That's what Greg McMichael said to her. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. This argument? This is close closing. Let's keep it focused on what the state would expect the evidence to show at trial. Prosecution [11:25:12] Yes, it. The evidence that the state expects to show at trials that Greg McMichael yelled at Amod Arbery. Stop. Rob Lowe fucking head off. The evidence the state expects to show trials, this is an attack on Mr. Arbery for five minutes and the only thing Mr. Arbery did. Was to run away. Prosecution [11:25:44] They assume that he must have committed some crime that day. Stop, we want to talk to you is not an arrest. Mob runs away. They cut them off. Try to hit them with the pickup trucks and the shotgun comes out. Why? Because he wouldn't stop, so they could identify. So that the police could later investigate, but it was that he must have done that day. These gentlemen. These three defendants committed four felonies against Mr. Arbery. It all started when Gregory Fightful saw him running down the street. They committed these four felonies in violation of his personal liberty before he finally tried to run around their truck, as you saw in the evidence, and get away from these strangers complete strangers who had already told him that they would kill him. And then they killed him. Prosecution [11:26:57] At the end of the presentation of the state's evidence, ladies and gentlemen, the state is going to come back and the state is going to ask you. To find them guilty on every single charge in this indictment. Thank you very much.
1890s Melodrama
b&w - melodrama - burglar stumbles while escaping - father pulls gun on him and shoots him - father hugs family - police arrive - blackmail - debt - silent film early cinema
FLEEING BURGLARS FLIP CAR
A HIGH SPEED CHASE ENDS WHEN THE BAD GUYS ROLLOVER THEIR VEHICLE SENDING ALL THREE SUSPECTS TO THE HOSPITAL. POLICE RESPONDING TO A HOME BURGLARY CALL FIND THE CROOKS GETTING AWAY AND THE CHASE WAS ON. THE SUSPECTS EVENTUALLY LOST CONTROL OF THEIR CAR AND WIPEOUT. SCARY PART ABOUT THIS CHASE WAS THAT MUCH OF IT WAS THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE NORMALLY MANY CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PLAYING. THE SUSPECTS WERE AGES 21, 23 AND 18. THEY WILL ALL BE CHARGED WITH BURGLARY.
FLORIDA CARJACK MURDERS RAPE FOLLOW
THE FAINT KNOCKING CAME AT 4:15 A.M., AND LAWRENCE THOMAS WAS AFRAID TO OPEN THE DOOR TO HIS HOME, FEARING A RUSE BY BURGLARS. THOMAS HEARD THE WEAK, SHAKY VOICE OF A WOMAN PLEADING FOR HELP. ``I'VE BEEN SHOT ... AND I NEED HELP,'' THE WOMAN SAID. WHAT THOMAS AND POLICE DISCOVERED WAS THAT THE WOMAN HAD BEEN ABDUCTED WITH HER TWO CHILDREN FROM A CENTRAL FLORIDA SHOPPING CENTER AND DRIVEN TO A WOODED AREA, ACCORDING TO POLICE. THE CHILDREN WERE SHOT TO DEATH AND THE MOTHER RAPED, SHOT AND LEFT FOR DEAD. THE 35-YEAR-OLD MOTHER HAD TWO BULLET WOUNDS IN THE HEAD AND WAS REPORTED IN SERIOUS BUT STABLE CONDITION MONDAY. THE BODIES OF HER 7-YEAR-OLD AND 3-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTERS WERE FOUND JUST AFTER DAYBREAK SUNDAY AT THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE SHOT TO DEATH. TWO TEEN-AGERS WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED LATE SUNDAY WITH SLAYING THE SISTERS AND SHOOTING THEIR MOTHER AFTER KIDNAPPING THE FAMILY SATURDAY NIGHT. A THIRD TEEN-AGER WAS CHARGED WITH BEING AN ACCESSORY. RICHARD HENYARD, 18, CHARGED WITH TWO COUNTS EACH OF MURDER AND KIDNAPPING, WAS ORDERED HELD WITHOUT BOND MONDAY. A 14-YEAR-OLD WAS BEING HELD IN A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER ON SIMILAR CHARGES. HIS NAME WAS NOT RELEASED. THE THIRD YOUTH, 16, WAS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED BUT WAS TOLD OF THE SLAYINGS BY THE OTHERS AND DID NOT INFORM AUTHORITIES, POLICE SAID. HE WAS CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT. HIS NAME ALSO WASN'T REVEALED BY AUTHORITIES. THE WOMAN, WHOSE HUSBAND DIED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, STUMBLED AROUND FOR HOURS, BLEEDING FROM THE BULLET WOUNDS TO THE HEAD, AND WALKED NEARLY A MILE LOOKING FOR HELP, POLICE SAID. AFTER KNOCKING ON THOMAS' DOOR, SHE SLUMPED DOWN AGAINST THE WALL OF THE HOUSE WHILE THOMAS CALLED POLICE. THOMAS, 47, OPENED THE DOOR JUST ABOUT THE TIME POLICE ARRIVED. WEARING ONLY A DRESS TO SHIELD HER FROM 46-DEGREE MORNING CHILL, SHE WAS SHIVERING AND HOLDING ONE ARM TO HER CHEST, THOMAS SAID. EUSTIS POLICE SPOKESMAN CARMINE AURIGEMMA SAID THE ARRESTS STEMMED FROM COMMUNITY HELP AND FROM DESCRIPTIONS GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO DETECTIVES.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P1
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED / ALSO INCLUDES EVIDENCE FROM PREVIOUS DAY'S HEARING **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (Zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... Zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOT OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with Zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge Zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for Zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear Zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that Zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victims hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendants statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 Zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how Zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning Zimmerman on following martin? yes. Zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does Zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time Zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to Zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly Zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 Zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that Zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did Zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, Zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing Zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to Zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed Zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where Zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if Zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over Zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 Zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and Zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP. west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mike Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mike Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know Zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when Zimmerman was telling you what was happening, Zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of Zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching Zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote Zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does Zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft. away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for Zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that Zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George Zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between Zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with Zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P3
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (Zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... Zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOT OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with Zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge Zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for Zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear Zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that Zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victims hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendants statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 Zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how Zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning Zimmerman on following martin? yes. Zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does Zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time Zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to Zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly Zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 Zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that Zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did Zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, Zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing Zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to Zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed Zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where Zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if Zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over Zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 Zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and Zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP. west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mike Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mike Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know Zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when Zimmerman was telling you what was happening, Zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of Zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching Zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote Zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does Zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft. away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for Zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that Zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George Zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between Zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with Zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.
CONVENIENCE STORE STABBING ON TAPE 2005
POLICE SAY DONALD BANKS IS THE KNIFE WIELDING SUSPECT IN THIS SURVEILLANCE VIDEO. THE FOOAGE SHOWS THE ATTACKED FOLLOWING WILLIAM JOHNSON INTO A CONVENIENCE STORE WHERE JOHNSON BOUGHT A PACK OF CIGARETTES. THE ATTACKER THEN FOLLOWS JOHNSON OUT OF THE STORE, GRABS SOMETHING OUT OF THE BACK OF HIS POCKET THEN STABS JOHNSON IN THE BACK, GRABS HIS WALLET AND RUNS. JOHNSON, BLEEDING, CAN BE SEEN STUMBLING TO THE SIDEWALK AND TRYING TO GO BACK INTO THE STORE FOR HELP. JOHNSON REMAINS IN SERIOUS CONDITION AND DRIFTS IN AND OUT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SINCE THE ATTACK. OFFICIALS AT THE ARLINGTON ROAD CONVENIENCE STORE TELL POLICE THAT BANKS WAS A REGULAR CUSTOMER. IN FACT, MORE SURVEILLANCE SHOWS BANKS IN THE STORE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALD BEFORE THE ATTACK.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P2
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (Zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... Zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOT OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with Zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge Zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for Zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear Zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that Zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victims hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendants statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 Zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how Zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning Zimmerman on following martin? yes. Zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does Zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time Zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to Zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly Zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 Zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that Zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did Zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, Zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing Zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to Zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed Zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where Zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if Zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over Zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 Zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and Zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP. west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mike Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mike Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know Zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when Zimmerman was telling you what was happening, Zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of Zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching Zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote Zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does Zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft. away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for Zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that Zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George Zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between Zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with Zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P4
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOTS OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with Tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? Jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victim's hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendant's statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim Jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning zimmerman on following martin? yes. zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP? west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION (west walks up with paper) 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mark Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mark Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when zimmerman was telling you what was happening, zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non-emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... Tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (Tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ 13:32:21 PLEASE BE SEATED. BACK IN SESSION. 13:32:29 READY FOR JURY? yes. yes. GO AHEAD AND BRING THEM IN 13:33:10 rionda: next witness we'll be playing the Hannity interview, read the redaction instructions 13:34:15 PLEASE BE SEATED. WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. 13:35:05 rionda: formally play the Hannity interview on July 18th... preliminary instructions 13:35:21 CERTAIN PORTIONS WITH HANNITY HAVE BEEN EXCISED OR REDACTED.... PARTS ARE NOT RELEVANT. NOT TO CONCERN WITH WHY IT OCCURRED. 13:35:43 rionda: states exhibit 180... 13:36:06 (Hannity interview.......take us back to that night, going to the store start beginning... 13:36:31 going to target to do weekly grocery shopping... always go grocery shopping and do cooking for week. headed out. last time I had been home. never been back since that day? no sir. 13:37:03 on 911 call, a number of break ins... why involved with that? in august 2011, home invasion a young lady was home with her baby, broke in sliding door.... my wife was home by herself and saw the people that did it run through our back yard.... wife wasn't certain, enough to scare her and shake her up... promised her I would do what I could to keep her safe 13:37:56 gun was legal in state of Florida... why need to carry it? I carried it at all times except when I went to work 13:38:20 legally stand your ground.... prior to this night, had you heard of stand your ground? no sir. in the 911 call everyone heard, you said that all of sudden you found someone who was suspicious, may be on drugs? suspicious because it was raining, in between houses, cutting in between walking leisurely for the weather... didn't look like he was a resident who got caught in rain, not a fitness fanatic that would train in ran. 13:39:30 overhangs though? walking closer to the house? overhangs are just in front of front doors 13:39:44 started saying he came toward you, reaching for something in waistband, think it was a gun? to intimidate me. with a gun? a weapon 13:40:07 something wrong, checking me I don't know what his deal was.... you felt threatened at that moment? no, not particularly. what did you mean then? the way he was coming back and I was on the phone and was certain I could see him saying something to me... demeanor was confrontational 13:40:46 then we get to issue.. he's running, any chance on that night.... get into mind set martin was speaking with girlfriend and maybe he was afraid of you? no. why running then? I might've said running, you said running? yes. but it was more like skipping... going away quickly.. not running out of fear 13:41:32 he wasn't running... no sir.... 13:41:49 opening the door, are you following him? and you said yes, explain? I was going in same direction as him to keep eye on him... didn't mean I was pursuing him 13:42:13 out of breath-- not running? no sir. made statement, it was the wind as you were getting out and moving? yes 13:42:34 what did you do from that moment forward.... minute gap... I walked across the sidewalk onto my street retreat view circle where I thought I would meet a police officer. did not continue to follow him? no. sounded distracted on the tape... looking for him? wanted to make sure, they asked for my address, wanted to make sure they couldn't hear my address... nobody that was going to surprise me and give them an accurate location... could we meet you here and you said have them call me, why? hadn't given a correct address, gave club house vicinity... walking through to my street and give them street number and name 13:44:05 how long after that did you see martin... stopped, didn't continue pursuing him? less than 30 seconds. where were you and how far away from your car? a hundred ft. or more... never went how far from your car? approximately 100 ft. never went further? no 13:44:44 trayvon was there, turn around and there? yes. what happened next? asked me what my problem was... I was wearing rain jacket, put cell phone in my rain jacket, went to grab my phone to call 911 and when I reached into pants pocket it wasn't there and I was shocked and he punched me and broke my nose 13:45:31 said do you have a problem, what's your problem and you said to him I don't have a problem and you reach for your phone and just got hit? already in arm's length from me... punch in nose that broke your nose? yes. immediately to the ground? I don't know if immediate or if he pushed me. 13:46:15 a little dazed, wanted to get him to stop you from hitting head on cement... after first hit what happened next... bashing head into concrete sidewalk.... as soon as he broke my nose I started yelling for help, started slamming head into concrete 13:46:53 said it was like your head was going to explode... continued to punch me in head. how many times? several, more than a dozen 13:47:09 hitting you hard.... what moment did you, could you fear for your life... what moment when you thought I may die.... feared for your life, exact moment? in hindsight when he was slamming my head and I thought I'd lose consciousness... how far from grass to concrete... protect your head from cement? yes. meets up to concrete. get there? yes. I shimmied... he was straddling me with full weight... sit up and he would slam my head 13:48:27 talking to you during fight...? yes. saying? cursing, telling me to shut up.. telling me he's going to kill me. when did he see your gun? on ground, shimmied, made jacket rise up, saw it on my right side. after that? he had... couldn't hit my head on concrete any more, tried to suffocate me... continued to push his hands off hand and mouth... weight on my broken nose was excruciating. telling me to shut up.. why telling you that? I don't know 13:49:47 dispute about who's voice? absolutely my voice. police said they were heard 14 screams, screaming that loud? yes. put his hand over your mouth, to silence you from screaming? yes sir. I believe he from what investigators told me, knew that I was talking to police... I was yelling so I believe police were there and couldn't find me and they would come when they heard me yelling 13:50:40 when you reached for your weapon? yes. tell us? at that point I realized that it wasn't my gun, not his gun.. it was the gun.... say anything about the gun? he said you're going to die tonight mother fucker... took one hand off my mouth, felt it going down to my holster... didn't have any more time 13:51:24 consciously thinking I have to grab my gun, or just do it? conscious thought you were going to die? loved to give you an answer... happened so quickly 13:51:47 eye witness that in fact did tell police he saw martin on top of you and saw beating... no witness to shooting itself? besides myself 13:52:07 think back, one report that said you didn't know after you fired... thought you missed? I didn't think I hit him 13:52:23 immediately after the shooting, one guy came out had flashlight asked to call your wife, remember? yes. he did talk about it, his suggestion was you were very matter of fact about it, remember what you said... when did you know trayvon died? probably about an hour after police station 13:53:04 laying there, moment you realized he was shot? like I said, he sat up and said you got it, you got me... I assumed you meant you got the gun, I didn't get it... I got under him 13:53:32 regret getting out of car? no. regret having a gun? no. feel you wouldn't be here if you didn't have that gun? no. it was all god's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it..... 13:54:00 anything to do differently? no. 13:54:06 the bad guys always get away, said in 911 tape... feeling there were a lot of people who do get away from crimes, predisposed...? not in general, our neighborhood there's geographic advantages for burglaries 13:54:39 why would he confront you.... I got beat up on air that this was a misunderstanding or mistake, anyway? wrestled with that for long time.... biggest issue has been the media conjecture and I can't assume or make believe 13:55:20 cell phone guy asked about your demeanor, said you looked like you had been butt whooped... were in fight and asking call my phone just tell me wife but acting like it was nothing.... is that how you were feeling? knew I discharged my fire arm, scared, nervous... I thought police were going to call and see me with firearm and shoot me... I was terrified 13:56:08 look over at him at any time and realize he was in bad shape? no. how long between time you shot him and police getting there? felt like forever. I'd say 15-30 seconds 13:56:33 already on their way and were there in 15 seconds... national media in this case, why? surreal. I don't like that they've rushed to judgment the way they have... any time they have a story that's remotely positive, they interpret it negatively 13:57:17 black male suspects.... why you called, those instances about? I never volunteered that information, always at their request... didn't volunteer race until they asked me... Hispanic kids and white kids.. that you made calls about? yes sir 13:57:53 one specific in case, following him and the dispatch call... you stopped..... look at the grounds of this event, apartments and over hangs and street.... how do you get to the other street if you're not following him? walking from car toward my street, he went right down in between houses, I walked straight across. following him in that sense? no. after the call? during. why walking to your street and not your car? where I parked my car was back of town houses, no way to know street address... knew the other street was retreat view circle and I could give a number) 13:59:29 (George crooked smile after interview playing) 14:00:29 CALL NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.... 14:00:59 (sworn in) 14:01:18 guy: name? Dr. Valerie Rao 14:01:34 district 4? counties. chief in district? yes. medical examiner? 32 years. licensed physician and surgery since 1981 14:01:56 education? degree in medicine in 1971... went to London, pathology at two hospitals... came to US and did residency.... spent a year in Tucson before I was medical examiner for a year.... went to Miami, chief position in district 5 for 3 years. U. of Missouri, came to Jacksonville... been here for 7 years 14:03:19 duties? required to investigate sudden, unexpected unnatural death.. sign the death certificate... pathology? disease in the body.. forensic pathology? unnatural death cases 14:03:49 qualified as expert in courts? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:04:03 living people? yes. in Miami, work there several thousand living patients 14:04:21 what types of injuries? physically assaulted, injuries in blunt force trauma, some were stabbed, strangled but not dead 14:04:47 blunt force distinguish from sharp force. a bat would be blunt, a stick... sharp force would be knife or glass bottle 14:05:39 severity... bruise.... bleed under skin, skin intact. scrape, where skin is compromised... rug burn is abrasion. laceration where skin is torn but underlying tissue is torn... depending on severity, varying degrees of bleeding 14:06:24 bruises also contusions? yes. scrapes are same as abrasions. and then lacerations 14:06:41 ever been qualified as rape?? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:06:58 in Miami examine other categories of living victims? yes.... someone alleging police brutality... near jackson hospital...go across the street and see the patient... and child cases, take photos and do investigation... 14:07:58 expert as pathology and forensic pathology? 14:08:11 asked to examine evidence in this case? yes. provided what? a whole series of things I asked for whatever available... have as much as possible before I form an opinion 14:08:40 reenactment of the incident, recorded on 2-27... 36 photos of zimmerman, Altamonte family clinic... on the 27th of February and 9th of march.... Sanford PD lobby and others. a dvd labeled medical examiner report and photos... body diagrams, autopsy photos 26 were taken... toxicology report, a report that states 2 individuals were in yard... one fired hand gun.... other items were medical examiner autopsy report 14:10:07 two photos of defendant at scene? yes. 14:10:14 reenactment, an interview with a walk through? yes. 14:10:26 after reviewing items, severity... classify injuries? not life threatening, very insignificant, no sutures to be applied.. insignificant injuries 14:10:51 observe lacerations? yes. how many? 2. were those depicted in photos you saw? yes 14:11:05 bleeding so I was not able to look at them after clean.... covered by Band-Aids 14:11:18 provided reports from Altamonte clinic? yes 14:11:34 states 79... photos? yes. photo from scene? yes 14:11:49 states 57, provided? yes. 14:12:04 explain where lacerations are located that you referred to in the report? one small injury there and one there, where blood is streaming from 14:12:25 in report, also provided with measurements? yes., are they life threatening? no. there was so minor, individual who examined and treated zimmerman told him sutures were not required, Band-Aid on each 14:12:55 contusion on back of head? yes. show where? right there 14:13:05 is that life threatening? no. why not? asked for everything and looked at case file and when he walked from the police car to the police department to be booked he was not incapacitated in any way, walking in pace with police officers 14:13:41 consistent with having made contact with concrete? yes. looked at other areas.... little areas which came into contact with rough surface.... looking at reenactment, consistent with that rough surface 14:14:16 consistent with one strike against concrete? one time hit is consistent with that area... protruding around the surface, one impact could result in lacerations seen 14:14:48 consistent with slammed repeatedly? what I think based on dictionary definition of slammed.... O'Mara: Object! Define word from dictionary is Hearsay! PLEASE APPROACH. 14:16:37 guy: using your definition of slamming, consistent with being repeatedly slammed into surface? no. why not? so minor... slam implies great force... resulted injuries are not great force. what type do you expect to see? repeatedly slammed against concrete with great force, expect lacerations and injury that would bleed profusely... I don't see that in this picture 14:17:36 states 47, also provided that one? yes. what injuries did you observe in this photo? there's a small abrasion on bridge of nose, small little punctate near nose 14:18:06 any injuries life threatening? no. why not? no loss of consciousness, no hospital... went to a clinic 14:18:22 contusions or abrasions in this photo? yes. show us? right there and there 14:18:35 how do you classify those? very small 14:18:44 could all injuries you observe come from single blow? yes. why? distribution of injury... if I was to punch myself right above here, get injury of nose and contusions on forehead... one blow would be able to inflict these injuries 14:19:21 consistent with the defendant being beaten a dozen times? beaten repeatedly with no trauma to face, but get trauma than only once 14:19:47 contusions on sides? yes. photo you were provided? yes. circle? one has to disregard dry blood... looking at contusion here... very fine punctate abrasions... you'd need a close up 14:20:33 life threatening? no 14:20:37 severity of contusions? small injuries 14:20:48 could all injuries in states 75, come from single blow? yes... one impact against concrete, yes 14:21:01 states 73, also a photo provided? yes. what injuries? see very faint punctate small abrasions. life threatening? no 14:21:30 classify them? very insignificant 14:21:38 come from single blow? single impact yes 14:21:43 why? surface area on side, bang on concrete, get all injuries from one impact 14:21:59 view video clips of defendant getting out of police, appearance in that video demonstrate? he was not incapacitated, walked on our power... conversing with police during reenactment CROSS 14:22:39 ms Cory appointed you? correct. she's your boss? not really. she appointed you to position? she sent my name to governor, appointment then so be it 14:23:03 read letter to you.... Object! 14:23:19 signed letter where she appoints you? I can't say yes or no, have to explain to you... interim position? yes. another position? yes. with 5th district? yes. not reappointed by governor? I did not seek reappointment 14:23:53 problems that existed in administration in your office? correct 14:24:04 same district where she prosecutes? yes. how much is your work with them? we are separate... defense could call us and I would be here for you too 14:24:30 how much of work is on behalf of state? only the homicides. that's all you do isn't it? no. homicides are small sections of our cases 14:25:03 how much of work you do involve crime matters with Duvall county state attorney office? total of 1,165 cases... out of that we are 110 homicides.. that is the proportion 14:25:32 work with these prosecutors? correct. 14:25:42 so they called you to look at this? correct. anything to look at martin? autopsy reports. not to tell us about martin, only zimmerman? correct 14:26:01 consistent he may have only received as little as 3.... slamming 3 slamming into cement? I didn't use word slamming, got that from reenactment.... impact 14:26:31 at least 3 impacts between that head and cement? yes, concrete 14:26:40 walk you through some of that.... 14:26:45 used suggestion if you hit yourself in nose, could be all one blow? correct. not suggesting it was one blow? no, but consistent with 14:27:11 scenario: gets hit in nose like this, but does not up there... and here's the second shot.. how many? 2. consistent with that picture? it could be... 14:27:37 said earlier those injuries could be consistent with 1 shot and now 2 shots...? if depicted the way you depicted than yes. but you don't know how he was hit? correct. 14:28:03 consistent with 1 and 2.... consistent with 2 as well? it could be.. could be consistent with another couple hits that didn't leave visible injuries? yes. not saying he only hit one time? I'm just telling you what injuries are............ 14:28:45 cuts on ring finger and pinky? not cuts... they are abrasions 14:29:14 only injuries besides gunshot wound are the ones on his knuckles? correct. any other on martin? no. know for a fact, martins head or body was not in contact with cement? well I didn't see any injuries... can have contact without producing injuries that are visible 14:29:55 a dozen even? what? other impacts 14:30:03 potential of two..... possibility that with swat or hit, this abrasion on his nose could've been a third? anything is possible 14:30:23 here as expert, give us your opinion... possible on your knowledge? the next issue would be each punctate marks could have been caused by a finger nail scratch.... and when looking at evidence and opinion rendered thereby.... continue this... let's move on 14:31:05 saw Zimmerman's right side, protrusion to nose? what does that mean 14:31:29 see..... that spot there? that's the abrasion. right below? I see swelling... swelling to... bone over there, but we know it's not...... what is that swelling on right side? that's trauma injury 14:32:14 body reacts by rushing lymph fluid to site of trauma? yes. recedes quickly? depends on case 14:32:34 swelling has receded? yes. does recede after a few hours? depends on scenario, not severe here... rapidly declined 14:32:52 where bleeding from? inside his nose... where would that go if laying on his back? it depends if you are alive... back in throat you would cough it out. or swallow it? I don't know. 14:33:27 nose injury, potential of injury up here could be second shot? it's possible. 14:33:40 say we had a video and it showed a smash here and an overhand shot... consistent with injury up there? it's possible. is it consistent? it could be 14:34:14 on back here, testified all this was created or consistent with one strike? all this.... I see 2 lacerations and a small bruise... 14:34:37 its being camouflaged by the blood, once cleaned one was 0.5 cm and the other was 2.0 cm... very small... not a whole series of injuries back there 14:35:13 this is consistent with one strike against cement? concrete, yes 14:35:23 not suggesting that there was only one strike? no 14:35:30 could we use the word crown... the point that hits the cement 14:35:54 rather than the crown.... I'm going to say this is where the impact of cement was... could hit just there? if impact is on the side.. don't know what part of head contacted cement? two injuries from impact 14:36:32 could be separate? except it's in close proximity 14:36:41 hit a knuckle right there or two knuckles.... physics of how it happens? not good in physics... not talking about knuckles, one surface area.... don't know physics of this injury 14:37:08 he was hit where see this line here? the area... no the line I'm making with laser.... only this side came in contact with cement? possible.... only that injury could occur? that's possible.... and now the other side... only this side in contact? possible too 14:37:54 not suggesting it's any more likely 1 or 2? preponderous of evidence would suggest 1 impact is more plausible the way the head is shaped to have 2 separate impacts... but if eye witnessed, then yes 14:38:28 put hand on side of skull? Objection not in evidence! SUSTAINED 14:38:38 evidence of fist hitting one side and opposite side be forced downward? it could 14:38:52 that would cause on one side? it could 14:38:58 this bruising here, see it? that's the shape of head I think 14:39:05 medical conclusion that crowing is natural? yes. 14:39:14 why it's not contruded on this side? shapes of heads are different... not symmetrical, no discoloration there.... 14:39:36 right here do you see any bruising? I don't see bruising, see punctate marks.... photograph you are looking at... hair is short, if there we'd be able to see it really well... I have to strain and look to see what you are suggesting so I can't answer that question 14:40:18 jury will have better photos to view and study 14:40:25 is it your testimony that this coloring here, darkening is natural occurrence and...? I don't see bruise there, I have good photos too... very fine punctate abrasions 14:40:58 abrasions here? photo is poor I have to look at my own photographs 14:41:09 take a moment.... coordinate on photos you did look at 14:41:36 (O'Mara rolled his eyes....... after seeing one of the witness' photos.) 14:41:46 see very fine little abrasions there... looking at a copy of states exhibit 73.... do this more formal... get the actual 8 x 10s out of evidence.... 14:43:33 try and identify your photos to those in the exhibit... picture packet? no. a disc, and printed some of them, printed a few of them.... 14:44:32 states exhibit 69.... ask you to identify.... testimony that there is no bruising above left ear? I just see the punctate abrasions, no bruising... marks on head are moles... seeing that there and there.... this are of lightening and darkening is not swelling? no. just shape of head, funny angle.. distortion in that photo can't tell you that's bruising 14:45:52 states 57.... back view, 2 inches above left ear, suggesting that's not swelling or bruising, but a contour of head? suggesting that's swelling than the bruise should be so marked I shouldn't have trouble identify as bruise. yes or no, bruising or not? I can't see the bruise there 14:46:35 states exhibit 70.... picture of the right side of Zimmerman's scalp? correct. attention to the laceration, bruising, cut.... in the middle? bruise on right side plus punctate abrasions 14:47:14 bruise on right side, how? impact against concrete can give you that... 14:47:25 back of his skull? small bruise, pink discolored 14:47:38 how did that occur? impact. different impact? it's possible 14:47:48 its consistent, yes. how much distance? not just distance, look at curvature of the head... not only looking at distance, but also looking at contour of the head 14:48:15 somewhat sphere like? oval 14:48:24 two points on sphere of oval... why is it not continuous bruise or scar all across? not scarring... why not one long injury? forced applied to one area because of contour may not equal the same area's force.... we're not computers you do something and expect this result... different configuration.... I can't say that 14:49:30 could've been two separate injuries? it's possible yes 14:49:39 states 69... Zimmerman's skull? scalp.... pay attention to top, tell us what you believe that protrusion to be? actually looked at a photo of left side and top of head... getting a view on the right side... same bruise 14:50:18 see swelling? yes. swelling and we... suggesting that in exhibit 69.. swelling that's to the right side of midline to scalp? correct... bruise, but if you say swelling but not bruising there... swelling so severe, we would have significant bruise and we don't see that.... can't separate one from the other... its together 14:51:08 look at 70.. tell the jury which bruise that swelling is connected to? I think it's that on. behind the ear... I think, it's a distorted photo... see the right side very well, extremely unscientific 14:51:53 testimony today that the swelling on the 69 on the right side of mid line is the bruising that's the same bruising with what you identified now as the bruising behind ear line on states 70? it could be. difficult to give opinion on photo that's so distorted 14:52:30 completely separate bruise 14:52:39 punctate abrasions and the bruise that we have to overlap 14:52:48 at the very top of the crown almost out of the picture... the swelling we see in 69? I find it difficult that the photo is cut before giving opinion.... why are we looking at distortion and half photographs when we have the full photo 14:53:35 that doesn't show swelling, does it? same photo graphs how can it be different 14:53:50 as you are here today, what picture you have of the right side of scalp that shows or doesn't show the swelling that was apparent in states exhibit 69? I have the same photos as you except mine are copies.... this is the photo you are describing? trying to find one in evidence, moment if I may? YES 14:54:49 ask you to compare the picture you were just showing with states exhibit 70...have that one? I'm looking.. no I don't 14:55:37 the least number of contacts between scalp and cement were 3, correct? correct. and as many as how many? scenario that you proposed so you would know how many 14:56:02 come up with maximum number from these photos? 3. that's the minimum, correct? correct. tell us how many as a maximum? I don't know. why not? you were presenting scenario of various possibilities... you have to tell me and I will tell you yes or no 14:56:41 two bruises were 2 different ones? yes. include that... also talked about the lacerations could be two different hits? correct. the nose and the forehead being two separate ones? correct. how many other bruises could occur... left side.... consistent with one strike on cement could have caused on left side? yes. how many more than that? I don't know... you have to give me scenario. ok 6 times, consistent? no. why not? so minor and patterned to some extent, beyond realm 14:57:55 4 hits on the left? if someone is eye witness and sees 4... that's the best estimate, 14:58:06 4 on the left side, consider you agree that would be consistent with medical evidence? if witnessed, can't just say 4 in slamming 14:58:28 is there any medical evidence that would exclude possibility that skull was hit on the left side 4 times? not my opinion, but it could be... it's possible. nothing to exclude that as possibility? it's possible 14:58:55 two separate bruising, and punctate bruising/abrasions, exclude right side was hit 4 times? it's possible 14:59:14 see two bruises and could be separate? possible. punctate could be another? possible. and swelling with bruise or separate? underlying bruise you have the swelling... so impossible to get bruise and swelling and say that's two different... separate from bruise but they are one injury 14:59:53 bruising that we see matches up in the juries mind with swelling? it does. in your opinion? well you can see it... jury will make that determination? correct 15:00:20 how many maximum times could back of head be hit? consistent with 1... you suggested by turning head in different ways it could be 2... 3 or 4? with no injury, yes 15:00:46 below the lacerations, swelling? the contusion. separate? it's possible.... just the crown hit the cement one time and head snapped back and caused one laceration? yes, but so close to each other... proximity that makes it possible 15:01:22 head tilted one way and snap backed? possible. and another one? possible... back bruising could've occurred? unusual... flat surface... head would have to be contorted to give those different impacts 15:02:00 change it that it's here, not the cement.... bruise on bottom wasn't flat it was against that side.. cause bruising? the side of what... side of cement, at the edge of it... there's an edge? it's possible like you are suggesting 15:02:35 here's the cement, introduce some injuries here? Objection! HYPOTHETICAL OVERRULED 15:02:55 head being hit against cement could be lacerations above, never impacted when bottom contusions occurred? it's possible 15:03:25 guy focused you on life threatening injuries? correct 15:03:33 suggest to you that this has anything to do with life threatening injuries? I'm sorry I didn't get.... 15:03:47 suggest to you that was an element in this case? no. understand the extent of injuries is not significant? I'm sorry I didn't get that 15:04:08 understand that the extent of injuries have nothing to do with case itself? Object! REPHRASE 15:04:29 were you prepared for examination to identify whether or not there were life threatening injuries? no. 15:04:42 none of this injuries were life threatening? no. what about the next injury? the next injury he would've sustained....Object! Speculation! SUSTAINED. moment? YES 15:05:36 thank you nothing further REDIRECT 15:05:41 who appointed you chief for district 4? the governor... testifying today because Corey wrote letter some years ago? no. slanting here today because of that? absolutely not 15:06:05 shown photos by defense, shown before today? yes. 36 photos? yes. photos of hands/ yes 15:06:24 expect someone undergoing attack to fight back? Objection! SUSTAINED ON BOTH GROUNDS 15:06:42 hit head on edge of concrete, watch the reenactment, any suggestion of edge of concrete? no 15:07:01 that's all I have..MAY DR. RAU BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS... mantei: next witness is not available, approach? YES 15:08:07 15 MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME. FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM AT THIS TIME... 15:08:43 PLEASE BE SEATED... COURT IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES ============================================================== 15:23:57 PLEASE BE SEATED... 15:24:05 O'Mara: matter to address before jury brought in... objection in question of proffer the state is going to present with school records from a 1 or 2 before this event.. proffered and outweighed .... portion of school book he may have read. 15:24:57 RESPONSE? 15:25:02 mantei: 4 records... degree in criminal justice, 149 hours toward that degree... on schedule to graduate, had not yet... record 2 is one of the courses he took specifically taught by professor and the homework assignments, criminal law including self-defense and stand your ground law, record 3 is application to be a police officer for prince William county in Virginia... and 4th is record of Sanford police to ride along with police.... they all go to support a number of things... this defendant had such an interest in law enforcement, frame of mind... wants to catch people.. mentions that in homework assignment... chosen measure, already mentioned... is relevant to his education and understanding to adequately discuss when he's confronted with police what they are trying to do and what he should say to address the issue.... as far as knowledge of law is relevant to statements... told Hannity he never heard the of the law... application to be a police officer and ride along are relevant... ongoing pattern of behavior... act and become a police officer... that's what he was actually trying to do. RESPONSE? 15:28:11 O'Mara: use a transcript that he didn't complete degree, went to community college seeking legal studies is not relevant to them... event occurred 7 or 8 minutes of that day... not getting into martins past because were protecting that part.... get before this jury to not focus on evidence, but on theory he acted in a way to say something to cops.... evidence supports that... let him show what the evidence is... fish hunt.... went to college and ride along suggests negative thing. bad he wanted to go to college, no relevance.... DONT UNDERSTAND FISHING EXHIBIT FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE...theory is not supported yet by hard facts in anger and anomosity 15:30:10 WHAT THEYRE TRYING TO INTRODUCE IS FOR ZIMMERMAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND TECHNIQUES, INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES, DID SAY ON INTERVIEW FROM STATES EXHIBIT 180, THE INTERVIEW WITH HANNITY WHEN ASKED ABOUT STAND YOUR GROUND LAW AND HE SAID NO... THATS ONE OF THE THINGS, THE STATS SAYING ITS NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION.. TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD KNOWLEDGE THROUGH COURSE REVIEW AS TO TECHNIQUES OF INTERVIEWING, I DONT KNOW WHAT COURSE INFORMATION SAYS WHAT ITS TAUGHT 15:31:17 O'Mara: fishing expedition, where does it end.. anyone who's gone through 6th grade civic lesson... COURSES HE TOOK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR TOWARD CRIMINOLOGY DEGREE, NOT LIKE HE TOOK HUMANITY CLASSES... BEING SPECIFIC, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE EXHIBITS 15:32:03 TAKE YOUR TIME TO TOOK AT THOSE EXHIBITS. mantei: not in the book, that's why he's here live 15:32:19 O'Mara: going back and forth I HAVEN'T SEEN PROPOSED EXHIBITS, NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.. HAND THEM TO ME, ILL REVIEW THEM... 209 is the coursework, awarded defendant an A. THESE RECORDS ARE COLLEGE RECORD AND ALL OTHER GRADES IN CLASSES, THATS NOT RELEVANT. ATTACHED ARE GRADE CHANGE IN ACADEMIC. awarded grade. 15:33:35 DIPLOMA, CERTIFICATE APPLICATION... proposed graduation date of late 2012... 15:34:23 IS THAT THE ONLY CLASS, CRIMINAL LITIGATION... CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION I SEE... professor about we had a discussion about this morning, I have an update on that situation as well. 15:35:08 I DONT KNOW ALL THESE RECORDS ARE RELEVANT.. SHOW OTHER COURSE OF STUDY, BUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND LITIGATION WILL BE... REDACT THESE RECORDS 15:35:30 course book material and homework from the class... O'Mara wanted entire book entered, I have that available as well. LIVE WITNESS FOR THESE EVIDENCE? yes professor Carter is here.... 15:37:08 I GUESS THERES TWO PARTS... HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS AND A FINAL PROJECT PAPER. O'Mara: continue to be heard on objection. THIS EXHIBIT 210? YES. can't create evidence for introducing it... showed Hannity and now trying to impeach him... can't create evidence, can't ask question the way they did... could've redacted, but now bringing it back in with this evidence... unfair and inappropriate... WOULDN'T THAT BE DECLARING A WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS 15:38:35 can't open their own door... you suggested last week, can't open a door a little bit yourself to push through it.. that's what they're doing.... attempt as foot hole through professor and acknowledge if George was or wasn't in class that day... can't create their own impeachment. ILL GIVE YOU TIME TO GIVE YOU CASE LAW ON THAT, BECAUSE I DONT AGREE WITH THAT. 15:39:38 mantei: not the sole purpose of admitting that... it was admitted by both parties... READ THAT IT WAS REDACTED, A WHOLE OTHER ISSUES 15:40:15 THATS THEIR CASE, THEORY OF THE CASE... ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... JUST LIKE DEFENSE CAN CROSS EXAM ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... needs to have connection, not just took a class years prior without direct evidence... YOUR CROSS EXAM OF WITNESSES REGARDING INCIDENTS GAVE INDICATION THE JURY COULD INFER YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION ON SELF DEFENSE... I THINK THATS BEFORE THE JURY BASED UPON THAT... IF ITS THE THEORY OF THAT STATES CASE THAT ZIMMERMAN HAD INFORMATION, I THINK THEYRE ENTITLED TO BRING THAT FORWARD... I CAN RECESS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK FOR CASE LAW... 15:41:43 O'Mara: request state proffer to connect up.... need to present evidence from witness that he was present during that class.... if they can't connect dots at all... can't allow jury to guess about what I means... shouldn't they show that he was in class... 15:42:31 mantei: moved to original objection to 4 points after that.... proffer of presence is beyond the point.... had access to the book, access to the presentations... the relevance of all of this is that the defendant did have this information... wishes to claim he wasn't there or in cross if he could guarantee... goes to weight of evidence.... idea its more prejudicial.. this is good thing and then argue its prejudicial that its outweighed 15:43:47 O'Mara: let me... NO LET ME GIVE YOU TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK OVER CASE LAW... OTHER EXHIBITS ARE.... 15:44:11 mantei: police officer application? DATE? July 8 2009. AND THE RIDE ALONG? 3-15-2010. I WILL CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE. RECESS FOR HALF AN HOUR 15:44:45 COURT IN RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES ============================================ 16:16:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CASE LAW OR NEED MORE TIME??? O'Mara: both, but maybe address specific objections... IF THAT IS THE CASE AND SPEND THE TIME DOING THIS.. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AVAILABLE NOT ON THIS ISSUE... TAKE THIS UP AT 8:30 IN THE MORNING, DO WHAT WE CAN AFTER THIS UNRELATED WITNESS TESTIFIES.... mantei: two witnesses are flown in out of state, make that arrangement 16:17:57 FIRST TIME COURT IS HEARING ARGUMENT, PARTIES HAD THESE EXHIBITS ON EACH SIDE FOR I DONT KNOW HOW LONG... DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT ARGUMENT, IF NOT PREPARED TO CONTINUE I WILL GIVE THEM TIME TO DO SO.... NEXT WITNESS 16:18:33 ANYTHING ELSE TO TAKE UP BEFORE JURY COMES IN? mantei: inform other witnesses we will need them tomorrow and they'll be staying another night 16:19:11 JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN THE WITNESS IS OUTSIDE. 16:19:21 rionda: only witness we have available, it'll be short we believe... but it is getting close to 5, so we should be good. 16:20:14 O'Mara: do have depositions set for this evening at well... starting at 5:30 16:20:34 WITNESS IS HERE, GO AHEAD AND BRING JURY IN 16:21:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 16:22:08 (sworn in) 16:22:30 guy: name? Christine Benson. how employed? latent print analyst. how long? 8 years. how long in latent print? under 3 years 16:22:53 duties? examine evidence for latent prints and perform comparisons of prints to known standards 16:23:10 summarize training for such? bachelor of science in business management, completed latent print training, and additional training 16:23:39 ever been tendered as expert in areas of latent print identification? yes. how many? 7 16:23:58 explain then what is latent print? unintentional recording of finger print or palm print... residue from body can be transferred from ridge detail on surface 16:24:28 latent print of value? sufficient amount of information to identify or eliminate person 16:24:43 suitable for comparison? yes 16:24:48 how of no value? lack clarity or ridge detail. may be distorted 16:25:02 touch a surface, guarantee of latent print of value? no. why not? have to have enough residue to transfer onto surface... item needs to be conducive of receiving latent print... rough surfaces are less likely to receive... latent prints destroyed? yes. how? excessive handling of surface can wipe away prints 16:25:51 environmental conditions like rain can damage as well 16:26:01 latent print card? white card sued to preserve latent prints 16:26:10 how used in work? receive cards to examine for prints 16:26:19 known inked print? intentional recording. 16:26:31 how to compare to latent print of value? look for similarities and differences, thorough examination is completed, determine it was identified or not with that print 16:27:04 examine print card in this case? yes 16:27:13 states 183, recognize that? yes I do 16:27:25 card you examined in this case? yes. hold it up to jury.... explain the card to them? latent lift card, an area of interest was developed... placed a clear piece of tape on the latent and placed it on opposite side you see here 16:27:58 examine card for latent prints of value? yes. how? I used hand held magnifier for presence. find any? no. any further involvement in case? no CROSS 16:28:25 O'Mara: afternoon 16:28:30 do you know from looking at that document, where print was lifted from? lift location filled out, shows where it came from 16:28:45 where? slide of firearm located within 16:28:59 taken from firearm? that's what's indicated 16:29:06 only one print to review? yes 16:29:11 mentioned that environmental effects can have negative affect? yes 16:29:22 rain itself can? it can 16:29:27 what is left, oils from skin? can be, yes 16:29:35 any other debris, but allows for determination, oil can be left? yes. water can wash that away? yes 16:29:51 fingerprints may have existed on item from a latent lift and be no latents? correct. even if handled by 1 2 or 3 people? correct 16:30:13 any other with zimmerman case? no 16:30:20 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED.... COUNCIL APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE (sidebar) 16:36:14 LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, MATTERS TO TAKE CARE OF OUTSIDE OF YOUR PRESENCE... EXCUSE YOU FOR EVENING. DO NOT LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE. NO DISCUSSIONS. NO ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT CASE. ASSURANCES? yes. THANK YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING. NOTEPADS FACE DOWN ON CHAIR 16:37:30 PLEASE BE SEATED... COUNCIL WISH TO CONTINUE AT BENCH? (sidebar) 16:42:10 (martin family) 16:44:42 COURT IS IN RECESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ATTORNEYS UNTIL 8:30 TOMORROW MORNING..JURORS AT 9 AM. 16:44:54 COURT IN RECESS ============================= The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P5
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOTS OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with Tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? Jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victim's hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendant's statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim Jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning zimmerman on following martin? yes. zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP? west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION (west walks up with paper) 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mark Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mark Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when zimmerman was telling you what was happening, zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non-emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... Tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (Tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ 13:32:21 PLEASE BE SEATED. BACK IN SESSION. 13:32:29 READY FOR JURY? yes. yes. GO AHEAD AND BRING THEM IN 13:33:10 rionda: next witness we'll be playing the Hannity interview, read the redaction instructions 13:34:15 PLEASE BE SEATED. WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. 13:35:05 rionda: formally play the Hannity interview on July 18th... preliminary instructions 13:35:21 CERTAIN PORTIONS WITH HANNITY HAVE BEEN EXCISED OR REDACTED.... PARTS ARE NOT RELEVANT. NOT TO CONCERN WITH WHY IT OCCURRED. 13:35:43 rionda: states exhibit 180... 13:36:06 (Hannity interview.......take us back to that night, going to the store start beginning... 13:36:31 going to target to do weekly grocery shopping... always go grocery shopping and do cooking for week. headed out. last time I had been home. never been back since that day? no sir. 13:37:03 on 911 call, a number of break ins... why involved with that? in august 2011, home invasion a young lady was home with her baby, broke in sliding door.... my wife was home by herself and saw the people that did it run through our back yard.... wife wasn't certain, enough to scare her and shake her up... promised her I would do what I could to keep her safe 13:37:56 gun was legal in state of Florida... why need to carry it? I carried it at all times except when I went to work 13:38:20 legally stand your ground.... prior to this night, had you heard of stand your ground? no sir. in the 911 call everyone heard, you said that all of sudden you found someone who was suspicious, may be on drugs? suspicious because it was raining, in between houses, cutting in between walking leisurely for the weather... didn't look like he was a resident who got caught in rain, not a fitness fanatic that would train in ran. 13:39:30 overhangs though? walking closer to the house? overhangs are just in front of front doors 13:39:44 started saying he came toward you, reaching for something in waistband, think it was a gun? to intimidate me. with a gun? a weapon 13:40:07 something wrong, checking me I don't know what his deal was.... you felt threatened at that moment? no, not particularly. what did you mean then? the way he was coming back and I was on the phone and was certain I could see him saying something to me... demeanor was confrontational 13:40:46 then we get to issue.. he's running, any chance on that night.... get into mind set martin was speaking with girlfriend and maybe he was afraid of you? no. why running then? I might've said running, you said running? yes. but it was more like skipping... going away quickly.. not running out of fear 13:41:32 he wasn't running... no sir.... 13:41:49 opening the door, are you following him? and you said yes, explain? I was going in same direction as him to keep eye on him... didn't mean I was pursuing him 13:42:13 out of breath-- not running? no sir. made statement, it was the wind as you were getting out and moving? yes 13:42:34 what did you do from that moment forward.... minute gap... I walked across the sidewalk onto my street retreat view circle where I thought I would meet a police officer. did not continue to follow him? no. sounded distracted on the tape... looking for him? wanted to make sure, they asked for my address, wanted to make sure they couldn't hear my address... nobody that was going to surprise me and give them an accurate location... could we meet you here and you said have them call me, why? hadn't given a correct address, gave club house vicinity... walking through to my street and give them street number and name 13:44:05 how long after that did you see martin... stopped, didn't continue pursuing him? less than 30 seconds. where were you and how far away from your car? a hundred ft. or more... never went how far from your car? approximately 100 ft. never went further? no 13:44:44 trayvon was there, turn around and there? yes. what happened next? asked me what my problem was... I was wearing rain jacket, put cell phone in my rain jacket, went to grab my phone to call 911 and when I reached into pants pocket it wasn't there and I was shocked and he punched me and broke my nose 13:45:31 said do you have a problem, what's your problem and you said to him I don't have a problem and you reach for your phone and just got hit? already in arm's length from me... punch in nose that broke your nose? yes. immediately to the ground? I don't know if immediate or if he pushed me. 13:46:15 a little dazed, wanted to get him to stop you from hitting head on cement... after first hit what happened next... bashing head into concrete sidewalk.... as soon as he broke my nose I started yelling for help, started slamming head into concrete 13:46:53 said it was like your head was going to explode... continued to punch me in head. how many times? several, more than a dozen 13:47:09 hitting you hard.... what moment did you, could you fear for your life... what moment when you thought I may die.... feared for your life, exact moment? in hindsight when he was slamming my head and I thought I'd lose consciousness... how far from grass to concrete... protect your head from cement? yes. meets up to concrete. get there? yes. I shimmied... he was straddling me with full weight... sit up and he would slam my head 13:48:27 talking to you during fight...? yes. saying? cursing, telling me to shut up.. telling me he's going to kill me. when did he see your gun? on ground, shimmied, made jacket rise up, saw it on my right side. after that? he had... couldn't hit my head on concrete any more, tried to suffocate me... continued to push his hands off hand and mouth... weight on my broken nose was excruciating. telling me to shut up.. why telling you that? I don't know 13:49:47 dispute about who's voice? absolutely my voice. police said they were heard 14 screams, screaming that loud? yes. put his hand over your mouth, to silence you from screaming? yes sir. I believe he from what investigators told me, knew that I was talking to police... I was yelling so I believe police were there and couldn't find me and they would come when they heard me yelling 13:50:40 when you reached for your weapon? yes. tell us? at that point I realized that it wasn't my gun, not his gun.. it was the gun.... say anything about the gun? he said you're going to die tonight mother fucker... took one hand off my mouth, felt it going down to my holster... didn't have any more time 13:51:24 consciously thinking I have to grab my gun, or just do it? conscious thought you were going to die? loved to give you an answer... happened so quickly 13:51:47 eye witness that in fact did tell police he saw martin on top of you and saw beating... no witness to shooting itself? besides myself 13:52:07 think back, one report that said you didn't know after you fired... thought you missed? I didn't think I hit him 13:52:23 immediately after the shooting, one guy came out had flashlight asked to call your wife, remember? yes. he did talk about it, his suggestion was you were very matter of fact about it, remember what you said... when did you know trayvon died? probably about an hour after police station 13:53:04 laying there, moment you realized he was shot? like I said, he sat up and said you got it, you got me... I assumed you meant you got the gun, I didn't get it... I got under him 13:53:32 regret getting out of car? no. regret having a gun? no. feel you wouldn't be here if you didn't have that gun? no. it was all god's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it..... 13:54:00 anything to do differently? no. 13:54:06 the bad guys always get away, said in 911 tape... feeling there were a lot of people who do get away from crimes, predisposed...? not in general, our neighborhood there's geographic advantages for burglaries 13:54:39 why would he confront you.... I got beat up on air that this was a misunderstanding or mistake, anyway? wrestled with that for long time.... biggest issue has been the media conjecture and I can't assume or make believe 13:55:20 cell phone guy asked about your demeanor, said you looked like you had been butt whooped... were in fight and asking call my phone just tell me wife but acting like it was nothing.... is that how you were feeling? knew I discharged my fire arm, scared, nervous... I thought police were going to call and see me with firearm and shoot me... I was terrified 13:56:08 look over at him at any time and realize he was in bad shape? no. how long between time you shot him and police getting there? felt like forever. I'd say 15-30 seconds 13:56:33 already on their way and were there in 15 seconds... national media in this case, why? surreal. I don't like that they've rushed to judgment the way they have... any time they have a story that's remotely positive, they interpret it negatively 13:57:17 black male suspects.... why you called, those instances about? I never volunteered that information, always at their request... didn't volunteer race until they asked me... Hispanic kids and white kids.. that you made calls about? yes sir 13:57:53 one specific in case, following him and the dispatch call... you stopped..... look at the grounds of this event, apartments and over hangs and street.... how do you get to the other street if you're not following him? walking from car toward my street, he went right down in between houses, I walked straight across. following him in that sense? no. after the call? during. why walking to your street and not your car? where I parked my car was back of town houses, no way to know street address... knew the other street was retreat view circle and I could give a number) 13:59:29 (George crooked smile after interview playing) 14:00:29 CALL NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.... 14:00:59 (sworn in) 14:01:18 guy: name? Dr. Valerie Rao 14:01:34 district 4? counties. chief in district? yes. medical examiner? 32 years. licensed physician and surgery since 1981 14:01:56 education? degree in medicine in 1971... went to London, pathology at two hospitals... came to US and did residency.... spent a year in Tucson before I was medical examiner for a year.... went to Miami, chief position in district 5 for 3 years. U. of Missouri, came to Jacksonville... been here for 7 years 14:03:19 duties? required to investigate sudden, unexpected unnatural death.. sign the death certificate... pathology? disease in the body.. forensic pathology? unnatural death cases 14:03:49 qualified as expert in courts? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:04:03 living people? yes. in Miami, work there several thousand living patients 14:04:21 what types of injuries? physically assaulted, injuries in blunt force trauma, some were stabbed, strangled but not dead 14:04:47 blunt force distinguish from sharp force. a bat would be blunt, a stick... sharp force would be knife or glass bottle 14:05:39 severity... bruise.... bleed under skin, skin intact. scrape, where skin is compromised... rug burn is abrasion. laceration where skin is torn but underlying tissue is torn... depending on severity, varying degrees of bleeding 14:06:24 bruises also contusions? yes. scrapes are same as abrasions. and then lacerations 14:06:41 ever been qualified as rape?? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:06:58 in Miami examine other categories of living victims? yes.... someone alleging police brutality... near jackson hospital...go across the street and see the patient... and child cases, take photos and do investigation... 14:07:58 expert as pathology and forensic pathology? 14:08:11 asked to examine evidence in this case? yes. provided what? a whole series of things I asked for whatever available... have as much as possible before I form an opinion 14:08:40 reenactment of the incident, recorded on 2-27... 36 photos of zimmerman, Altamonte family clinic... on the 27th of February and 9th of march.... Sanford PD lobby and others. a dvd labeled medical examiner report and photos... body diagrams, autopsy photos 26 were taken... toxicology report, a report that states 2 individuals were in yard... one fired hand gun.... other items were medical examiner autopsy report 14:10:07 two photos of defendant at scene? yes. 14:10:14 reenactment, an interview with a walk through? yes. 14:10:26 after reviewing items, severity... classify injuries? not life threatening, very insignificant, no sutures to be applied.. insignificant injuries 14:10:51 observe lacerations? yes. how many? 2. were those depicted in photos you saw? yes 14:11:05 bleeding so I was not able to look at them after clean.... covered by Band-Aids 14:11:18 provided reports from Altamonte clinic? yes 14:11:34 states 79... photos? yes. photo from scene? yes 14:11:49 states 57, provided? yes. 14:12:04 explain where lacerations are located that you referred to in the report? one small injury there and one there, where blood is streaming from 14:12:25 in report, also provided with measurements? yes., are they life threatening? no. there was so minor, individual who examined and treated zimmerman told him sutures were not required, Band-Aid on each 14:12:55 contusion on back of head? yes. show where? right there 14:13:05 is that life threatening? no. why not? asked for everything and looked at case file and when he walked from the police car to the police department to be booked he was not incapacitated in any way, walking in pace with police officers 14:13:41 consistent with having made contact with concrete? yes. looked at other areas.... little areas which came into contact with rough surface.... looking at reenactment, consistent with that rough surface 14:14:16 consistent with one strike against concrete? one time hit is consistent with that area... protruding around the surface, one impact could result in lacerations seen 14:14:48 consistent with slammed repeatedly? what I think based on dictionary definition of slammed.... O'Mara: Object! Define word from dictionary is Hearsay! PLEASE APPROACH. 14:16:37 guy: using your definition of slamming, consistent with being repeatedly slammed into surface? no. why not? so minor... slam implies great force... resulted injuries are not great force. what type do you expect to see? repeatedly slammed against concrete with great force, expect lacerations and injury that would bleed profusely... I don't see that in this picture 14:17:36 states 47, also provided that one? yes. what injuries did you observe in this photo? there's a small abrasion on bridge of nose, small little punctate near nose 14:18:06 any injuries life threatening? no. why not? no loss of consciousness, no hospital... went to a clinic 14:18:22 contusions or abrasions in this photo? yes. show us? right there and there 14:18:35 how do you classify those? very small 14:18:44 could all injuries you observe come from single blow? yes. why? distribution of injury... if I was to punch myself right above here, get injury of nose and contusions on forehead... one blow would be able to inflict these injuries 14:19:21 consistent with the defendant being beaten a dozen times? beaten repeatedly with no trauma to face, but get trauma than only once 14:19:47 contusions on sides? yes. photo you were provided? yes. circle? one has to disregard dry blood... looking at contusion here... very fine punctate abrasions... you'd need a close up 14:20:33 life threatening? no 14:20:37 severity of contusions? small injuries 14:20:48 could all injuries in states 75, come from single blow? yes... one impact against concrete, yes 14:21:01 states 73, also a photo provided? yes. what injuries? see very faint punctate small abrasions. life threatening? no 14:21:30 classify them? very insignificant 14:21:38 come from single blow? single impact yes 14:21:43 why? surface area on side, bang on concrete, get all injuries from one impact 14:21:59 view video clips of defendant getting out of police, appearance in that video demonstrate? he was not incapacitated, walked on our power... conversing with police during reenactment CROSS 14:22:39 ms Cory appointed you? correct. she's your boss? not really. she appointed you to position? she sent my name to governor, appointment then so be it 14:23:03 read letter to you.... Object! 14:23:19 signed letter where she appoints you? I can't say yes or no, have to explain to you... interim position? yes. another position? yes. with 5th district? yes. not reappointed by governor? I did not seek reappointment 14:23:53 problems that existed in administration in your office? correct 14:24:04 same district where she prosecutes? yes. how much is your work with them? we are separate... defense could call us and I would be here for you too 14:24:30 how much of work is on behalf of state? only the homicides. that's all you do isn't it? no. homicides are small sections of our cases 14:25:03 how much of work you do involve crime matters with Duvall county state attorney office? total of 1,165 cases... out of that we are 110 homicides.. that is the proportion 14:25:32 work with these prosecutors? correct. 14:25:42 so they called you to look at this? correct. anything to look at martin? autopsy reports. not to tell us about martin, only zimmerman? correct 14:26:01 consistent he may have only received as little as 3.... slamming 3 slamming into cement? I didn't use word slamming, got that from reenactment.... impact 14:26:31 at least 3 impacts between that head and cement? yes, concrete 14:26:40 walk you through some of that.... 14:26:45 used suggestion if you hit yourself in nose, could be all one blow? correct. not suggesting it was one blow? no, but consistent with 14:27:11 scenario: gets hit in nose like this, but does not up there... and here's the second shot.. how many? 2. consistent with that picture? it could be... 14:27:37 said earlier those injuries could be consistent with 1 shot and now 2 shots...? if depicted the way you depicted than yes. but you don't know how he was hit? correct. 14:28:03 consistent with 1 and 2.... consistent with 2 as well? it could be.. could be consistent with another couple hits that didn't leave visible injuries? yes. not saying he only hit one time? I'm just telling you what injuries are............ 14:28:45 cuts on ring finger and pinky? not cuts... they are abrasions 14:29:14 only injuries besides gunshot wound are the ones on his knuckles? correct. any other on martin? no. know for a fact, martins head or body was not in contact with cement? well I didn't see any injuries... can have contact without producing injuries that are visible 14:29:55 a dozen even? what? other impacts 14:30:03 potential of two..... possibility that with swat or hit, this abrasion on his nose could've been a third? anything is possible 14:30:23 here as expert, give us your opinion... possible on your knowledge? the next issue would be each punctate marks could have been caused by a finger nail scratch.... and when looking at evidence and opinion rendered thereby.... continue this... let's move on 14:31:05 saw Zimmerman's right side, protrusion to nose? what does that mean 14:31:29 see..... that spot there? that's the abrasion. right below? I see swelling... swelling to... bone over there, but we know it's not...... what is that swelling on right side? that's trauma injury 14:32:14 body reacts by rushing lymph fluid to site of trauma? yes. recedes quickly? depends on case 14:32:34 swelling has receded? yes. does recede after a few hours? depends on scenario, not severe here... rapidly declined 14:32:52 where bleeding from? inside his nose... where would that go if laying on his back? it depends if you are alive... back in throat you would cough it out. or swallow it? I don't know. 14:33:27 nose injury, potential of injury up here could be second shot? it's possible. 14:33:40 say we had a video and it showed a smash here and an overhand shot... consistent with injury up there? it's possible. is it consistent? it could be 14:34:14 on back here, testified all this was created or consistent with one strike? all this.... I see 2 lacerations and a small bruise... 14:34:37 its being camouflaged by the blood, once cleaned one was 0.5 cm and the other was 2.0 cm... very small... not a whole series of injuries back there 14:35:13 this is consistent with one strike against cement? concrete, yes 14:35:23 not suggesting that there was only one strike? no 14:35:30 could we use the word crown... the point that hits the cement 14:35:54 rather than the crown.... I'm going to say this is where the impact of cement was... could hit just there? if impact is on the side.. don't know what part of head contacted cement? two injuries from impact 14:36:32 could be separate? except it's in close proximity 14:36:41 hit a knuckle right there or two knuckles.... physics of how it happens? not good in physics... not talking about knuckles, one surface area.... don't know physics of this injury 14:37:08 he was hit where see this line here? the area... no the line I'm making with laser.... only this side came in contact with cement? possible.... only that injury could occur? that's possible.... and now the other side... only this side in contact? possible too 14:37:54 not suggesting it's any more likely 1 or 2? preponderous of evidence would suggest 1 impact is more plausible the way the head is shaped to have 2 separate impacts... but if eye witnessed, then yes 14:38:28 put hand on side of skull? Objection not in evidence! SUSTAINED 14:38:38 evidence of fist hitting one side and opposite side be forced downward? it could 14:38:52 that would cause on one side? it could 14:38:58 this bruising here, see it? that's the shape of head I think 14:39:05 medical conclusion that crowing is natural? yes. 14:39:14 why it's not contruded on this side? shapes of heads are different... not symmetrical, no discoloration there.... 14:39:36 right here do you see any bruising? I don't see bruising, see punctate marks.... photograph you are looking at... hair is short, if there we'd be able to see it really well... I have to strain and look to see what you are suggesting so I can't answer that question 14:40:18 jury will have better photos to view and study 14:40:25 is it your testimony that this coloring here, darkening is natural occurrence and...? I don't see bruise there, I have good photos too... very fine punctate abrasions 14:40:58 abrasions here? photo is poor I have to look at my own photographs 14:41:09 take a moment.... coordinate on photos you did look at 14:41:36 (O'Mara rolled his eyes....... after seeing one of the witness' photos.) 14:41:46 see very fine little abrasions there... looking at a copy of states exhibit 73.... do this more formal... get the actual 8 x 10s out of evidence.... 14:43:33 try and identify your photos to those in the exhibit... picture packet? no. a disc, and printed some of them, printed a few of them.... 14:44:32 states exhibit 69.... ask you to identify.... testimony that there is no bruising above left ear? I just see the punctate abrasions, no bruising... marks on head are moles... seeing that there and there.... this are of lightening and darkening is not swelling? no. just shape of head, funny angle.. distortion in that photo can't tell you that's bruising 14:45:52 states 57.... back view, 2 inches above left ear, suggesting that's not swelling or bruising, but a contour of head? suggesting that's swelling than the bruise should be so marked I shouldn't have trouble identify as bruise. yes or no, bruising or not? I can't see the bruise there 14:46:35 states exhibit 70.... picture of the right side of Zimmerman's scalp? correct. attention to the laceration, bruising, cut.... in the middle? bruise on right side plus punctate abrasions 14:47:14 bruise on right side, how? impact against concrete can give you that... 14:47:25 back of his skull? small bruise, pink discolored 14:47:38 how did that occur? impact. different impact? it's possible 14:47:48 its consistent, yes. how much distance? not just distance, look at curvature of the head... not only looking at distance, but also looking at contour of the head 14:48:15 somewhat sphere like? oval 14:48:24 two points on sphere of oval... why is it not continuous bruise or scar all across? not scarring... why not one long injury? forced applied to one area because of contour may not equal the same area's force.... we're not computers you do something and expect this result... different configuration.... I can't say that 14:49:30 could've been two separate injuries? it's possible yes 14:49:39 states 69... Zimmerman's skull? scalp.... pay attention to top, tell us what you believe that protrusion to be? actually looked at a photo of left side and top of head... getting a view on the right side... same bruise 14:50:18 see swelling? yes. swelling and we... suggesting that in exhibit 69.. swelling that's to the right side of midline to scalp? correct... bruise, but if you say swelling but not bruising there... swelling so severe, we would have significant bruise and we don't see that.... can't separate one from the other... its together 14:51:08 look at 70.. tell the jury which bruise that swelling is connected to? I think it's that on. behind the ear... I think, it's a distorted photo... see the right side very well, extremely unscientific 14:51:53 testimony today that the swelling on the 69 on the right side of mid line is the bruising that's the same bruising with what you identified now as the bruising behind ear line on states 70? it could be. difficult to give opinion on photo that's so distorted 14:52:30 completely separate bruise 14:52:39 punctate abrasions and the bruise that we have to overlap 14:52:48 at the very top of the crown almost out of the picture... the swelling we see in 69? I find it difficult that the photo is cut before giving opinion.... why are we looking at distortion and half photographs when we have the full photo 14:53:35 that doesn't show swelling, does it? same photo graphs how can it be different 14:53:50 as you are here today, what picture you have of the right side of scalp that shows or doesn't show the swelling that was apparent in states exhibit 69? I have the same photos as you except mine are copies.... this is the photo you are describing? trying to find one in evidence, moment if I may? YES 14:54:49 ask you to compare the picture you were just showing with states exhibit 70...have that one? I'm looking.. no I don't 14:55:37 the least number of contacts between scalp and cement were 3, correct? correct. and as many as how many? scenario that you proposed so you would know how many 14:56:02 come up with maximum number from these photos? 3. that's the minimum, correct? correct. tell us how many as a maximum? I don't know. why not? you were presenting scenario of various possibilities... you have to tell me and I will tell you yes or no 14:56:41 two bruises were 2 different ones? yes. include that... also talked about the lacerations could be two different hits? correct. the nose and the forehead being two separate ones? correct. how many other bruises could occur... left side.... consistent with one strike on cement could have caused on left side? yes. how many more than that? I don't know... you have to give me scenario. ok 6 times, consistent? no. why not? so minor and patterned to some extent, beyond realm 14:57:55 4 hits on the left? if someone is eye witness and sees 4... that's the best estimate, 14:58:06 4 on the left side, consider you agree that would be consistent with medical evidence? if witnessed, can't just say 4 in slamming 14:58:28 is there any medical evidence that would exclude possibility that skull was hit on the left side 4 times? not my opinion, but it could be... it's possible. nothing to exclude that as possibility? it's possible 14:58:55 two separate bruising, and punctate bruising/abrasions, exclude right side was hit 4 times? it's possible 14:59:14 see two bruises and could be separate? possible. punctate could be another? possible. and swelling with bruise or separate? underlying bruise you have the swelling... so impossible to get bruise and swelling and say that's two different... separate from bruise but they are one injury 14:59:53 bruising that we see matches up in the juries mind with swelling? it does. in your opinion? well you can see it... jury will make that determination? correct 15:00:20 how many maximum times could back of head be hit? consistent with 1... you suggested by turning head in different ways it could be 2... 3 or 4? with no injury, yes 15:00:46 below the lacerations, swelling? the contusion. separate? it's possible.... just the crown hit the cement one time and head snapped back and caused one laceration? yes, but so close to each other... proximity that makes it possible 15:01:22 head tilted one way and snap backed? possible. and another one? possible... back bruising could've occurred? unusual... flat surface... head would have to be contorted to give those different impacts 15:02:00 change it that it's here, not the cement.... bruise on bottom wasn't flat it was against that side.. cause bruising? the side of what... side of cement, at the edge of it... there's an edge? it's possible like you are suggesting 15:02:35 here's the cement, introduce some injuries here? Objection! HYPOTHETICAL OVERRULED 15:02:55 head being hit against cement could be lacerations above, never impacted when bottom contusions occurred? it's possible 15:03:25 guy focused you on life threatening injuries? correct 15:03:33 suggest to you that this has anything to do with life threatening injuries? I'm sorry I didn't get.... 15:03:47 suggest to you that was an element in this case? no. understand the extent of injuries is not significant? I'm sorry I didn't get that 15:04:08 understand that the extent of injuries have nothing to do with case itself? Object! REPHRASE 15:04:29 were you prepared for examination to identify whether or not there were life threatening injuries? no. 15:04:42 none of this injuries were life threatening? no. what about the next injury? the next injury he would've sustained....Object! Speculation! SUSTAINED. moment? YES 15:05:36 thank you nothing further REDIRECT 15:05:41 who appointed you chief for district 4? the governor... testifying today because Corey wrote letter some years ago? no. slanting here today because of that? absolutely not 15:06:05 shown photos by defense, shown before today? yes. 36 photos? yes. photos of hands/ yes 15:06:24 expect someone undergoing attack to fight back? Objection! SUSTAINED ON BOTH GROUNDS 15:06:42 hit head on edge of concrete, watch the reenactment, any suggestion of edge of concrete? no 15:07:01 that's all I have..MAY DR. RAU BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS... mantei: next witness is not available, approach? YES 15:08:07 15 MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME. FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM AT THIS TIME... 15:08:43 PLEASE BE SEATED... COURT IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES ============================================================== 15:23:57 PLEASE BE SEATED... 15:24:05 O'Mara: matter to address before jury brought in... objection in question of proffer the state is going to present with school records from a 1 or 2 before this event.. proffered and outweighed .... portion of school book he may have read. 15:24:57 RESPONSE? 15:25:02 mantei: 4 records... degree in criminal justice, 149 hours toward that degree... on schedule to graduate, had not yet... record 2 is one of the courses he took specifically taught by professor and the homework assignments, criminal law including self-defense and stand your ground law, record 3 is application to be a police officer for prince William county in Virginia... and 4th is record of Sanford police to ride along with police.... they all go to support a number of things... this defendant had such an interest in law enforcement, frame of mind... wants to catch people.. mentions that in homework assignment... chosen measure, already mentioned... is relevant to his education and understanding to adequately discuss when he's confronted with police what they are trying to do and what he should say to address the issue.... as far as knowledge of law is relevant to statements... told Hannity he never heard the of the law... application to be a police officer and ride along are relevant... ongoing pattern of behavior... act and become a police officer... that's what he was actually trying to do. RESPONSE? 15:28:11 O'Mara: use a transcript that he didn't complete degree, went to community college seeking legal studies is not relevant to them... event occurred 7 or 8 minutes of that day... not getting into martins past because were protecting that part.... get before this jury to not focus on evidence, but on theory he acted in a way to say something to cops.... evidence supports that... let him show what the evidence is... fish hunt.... went to college and ride along suggests negative thing. bad he wanted to go to college, no relevance.... DONT UNDERSTAND FISHING EXHIBIT FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE...theory is not supported yet by hard facts in anger and anomosity 15:30:10 WHAT THEYRE TRYING TO INTRODUCE IS FOR ZIMMERMAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND TECHNIQUES, INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES, DID SAY ON INTERVIEW FROM STATES EXHIBIT 180, THE INTERVIEW WITH HANNITY WHEN ASKED ABOUT STAND YOUR GROUND LAW AND HE SAID NO... THATS ONE OF THE THINGS, THE STATS SAYING ITS NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION.. TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD KNOWLEDGE THROUGH COURSE REVIEW AS TO TECHNIQUES OF INTERVIEWING, I DONT KNOW WHAT COURSE INFORMATION SAYS WHAT ITS TAUGHT 15:31:17 O'Mara: fishing expedition, where does it end.. anyone who's gone through 6th grade civic lesson... COURSES HE TOOK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR TOWARD CRIMINOLOGY DEGREE, NOT LIKE HE TOOK HUMANITY CLASSES... BEING SPECIFIC, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE EXHIBITS 15:32:03 TAKE YOUR TIME TO TOOK AT THOSE EXHIBITS. mantei: not in the book, that's why he's here live 15:32:19 O'Mara: going back and forth I HAVEN'T SEEN PROPOSED EXHIBITS, NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.. HAND THEM TO ME, ILL REVIEW THEM... 209 is the coursework, awarded defendant an A. THESE RECORDS ARE COLLEGE RECORD AND ALL OTHER GRADES IN CLASSES, THATS NOT RELEVANT. ATTACHED ARE GRADE CHANGE IN ACADEMIC. awarded grade. 15:33:35 DIPLOMA, CERTIFICATE APPLICATION... proposed graduation date of late 2012... 15:34:23 IS THAT THE ONLY CLASS, CRIMINAL LITIGATION... CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION I SEE... professor about we had a discussion about this morning, I have an update on that situation as well. 15:35:08 I DONT KNOW ALL THESE RECORDS ARE RELEVANT.. SHOW OTHER COURSE OF STUDY, BUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND LITIGATION WILL BE... REDACT THESE RECORDS 15:35:30 course book material and homework from the class... O'Mara wanted entire book entered, I have that available as well. LIVE WITNESS FOR THESE EVIDENCE? yes professor Carter is here.... 15:37:08 I GUESS THERES TWO PARTS... HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS AND A FINAL PROJECT PAPER. O'Mara: continue to be heard on objection. THIS EXHIBIT 210? YES. can't create evidence for introducing it... showed Hannity and now trying to impeach him... can't create evidence, can't ask question the way they did... could've redacted, but now bringing it back in with this evidence... unfair and inappropriate... WOULDN'T THAT BE DECLARING A WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS 15:38:35 can't open their own door... you suggested last week, can't open a door a little bit yourself to push through it.. that's what they're doing.... attempt as foot hole through professor and acknowledge if George was or wasn't in class that day... can't create their own impeachment. ILL GIVE YOU TIME TO GIVE YOU CASE LAW ON THAT, BECAUSE I DONT AGREE WITH THAT. 15:39:38 mantei: not the sole purpose of admitting that... it was admitted by both parties... READ THAT IT WAS REDACTED, A WHOLE OTHER ISSUES 15:40:15 THATS THEIR CASE, THEORY OF THE CASE... ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... JUST LIKE DEFENSE CAN CROSS EXAM ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... needs to have connection, not just took a class years prior without direct evidence... YOUR CROSS EXAM OF WITNESSES REGARDING INCIDENTS GAVE INDICATION THE JURY COULD INFER YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION ON SELF DEFENSE... I THINK THATS BEFORE THE JURY BASED UPON THAT... IF ITS THE THEORY OF THAT STATES CASE THAT ZIMMERMAN HAD INFORMATION, I THINK THEYRE ENTITLED TO BRING THAT FORWARD... I CAN RECESS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK FOR CASE LAW... 15:41:43 O'Mara: request state proffer to connect up.... need to present evidence from witness that he was present during that class.... if they can't connect dots at all... can't allow jury to guess about what I means... shouldn't they show that he was in class... 15:42:31 mantei: moved to original objection to 4 points after that.... proffer of presence is beyond the point.... had access to the book, access to the presentations... the relevance of all of this is that the defendant did have this information... wishes to claim he wasn't there or in cross if he could guarantee... goes to weight of evidence.... idea its more prejudicial.. this is good thing and then argue its prejudicial that its outweighed 15:43:47 O'Mara: let me... NO LET ME GIVE YOU TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK OVER CASE LAW... OTHER EXHIBITS ARE.... 15:44:11 mantei: police officer application? DATE? July 8 2009. AND THE RIDE ALONG? 3-15-2010. I WILL CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE. RECESS FOR HALF AN HOUR 15:44:45 COURT IN RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES ============================================ 16:16:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CASE LAW OR NEED MORE TIME??? O'Mara: both, but maybe address specific objections... IF THAT IS THE CASE AND SPEND THE TIME DOING THIS.. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AVAILABLE NOT ON THIS ISSUE... TAKE THIS UP AT 8:30 IN THE MORNING, DO WHAT WE CAN AFTER THIS UNRELATED WITNESS TESTIFIES.... mantei: two witnesses are flown in out of state, make that arrangement 16:17:57 FIRST TIME COURT IS HEARING ARGUMENT, PARTIES HAD THESE EXHIBITS ON EACH SIDE FOR I DONT KNOW HOW LONG... DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT ARGUMENT, IF NOT PREPARED TO CONTINUE I WILL GIVE THEM TIME TO DO SO.... NEXT WITNESS 16:18:33 ANYTHING ELSE TO TAKE UP BEFORE JURY COMES IN? mantei: inform other witnesses we will need them tomorrow and they'll be staying another night 16:19:11 JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN THE WITNESS IS OUTSIDE. 16:19:21 rionda: only witness we have available, it'll be short we believe... but it is getting close to 5, so we should be good. 16:20:14 O'Mara: do have depositions set for this evening at well... starting at 5:30 16:20:34 WITNESS IS HERE, GO AHEAD AND BRING JURY IN 16:21:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 16:22:08 (sworn in) 16:22:30 guy: name? Christine Benson. how employed? latent print analyst. how long? 8 years. how long in latent print? under 3 years 16:22:53 duties? examine evidence for latent prints and perform comparisons of prints to known standards 16:23:10 summarize training for such? bachelor of science in business management, completed latent print training, and additional training 16:23:39 ever been tendered as expert in areas of latent print identification? yes. how many? 7 16:23:58 explain then what is latent print? unintentional recording of finger print or palm print... residue from body can be transferred from ridge detail on surface 16:24:28 latent print of value? sufficient amount of information to identify or eliminate person 16:24:43 suitable for comparison? yes 16:24:48 how of no value? lack clarity or ridge detail. may be distorted 16:25:02 touch a surface, guarantee of latent print of value? no. why not? have to have enough residue to transfer onto surface... item needs to be conducive of receiving latent print... rough surfaces are less likely to receive... latent prints destroyed? yes. how? excessive handling of surface can wipe away prints 16:25:51 environmental conditions like rain can damage as well 16:26:01 latent print card? white card sued to preserve latent prints 16:26:10 how used in work? receive cards to examine for prints 16:26:19 known inked print? intentional recording. 16:26:31 how to compare to latent print of value? look for similarities and differences, thorough examination is completed, determine it was identified or not with that print 16:27:04 examine print card in this case? yes 16:27:13 states 183, recognize that? yes I do 16:27:25 card you examined in this case? yes. hold it up to jury.... explain the card to them? latent lift card, an area of interest was developed... placed a clear piece of tape on the latent and placed it on opposite side you see here 16:27:58 examine card for latent prints of value? yes. how? I used hand held magnifier for presence. find any? no. any further involvement in case? no CROSS 16:28:25 O'Mara: afternoon 16:28:30 do you know from looking at that document, where print was lifted from? lift location filled out, shows where it came from 16:28:45 where? slide of firearm located within 16:28:59 taken from firearm? that's what's indicated 16:29:06 only one print to review? yes 16:29:11 mentioned that environmental effects can have negative affect? yes 16:29:22 rain itself can? it can 16:29:27 what is left, oils from skin? can be, yes 16:29:35 any other debris, but allows for determination, oil can be left? yes. water can wash that away? yes 16:29:51 fingerprints may have existed on item from a latent lift and be no latents? correct. even if handled by 1 2 or 3 people? correct 16:30:13 any other with zimmerman case? no 16:30:20 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED.... COUNCIL APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE (sidebar) 16:36:14 LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, MATTERS TO TAKE CARE OF OUTSIDE OF YOUR PRESENCE... EXCUSE YOU FOR EVENING. DO NOT LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE. NO DISCUSSIONS. NO ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT CASE. ASSURANCES? yes. THANK YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING. NOTEPADS FACE DOWN ON CHAIR 16:37:30 PLEASE BE SEATED... COUNCIL WISH TO CONTINUE AT BENCH? (sidebar) 16:42:10 (martin family) 16:44:42 COURT IS IN RECESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ATTORNEYS UNTIL 8:30 TOMORROW MORNING..JURORS AT 9 AM. 16:44:54 COURT IN RECESS ============================= The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL POOL 070213 P6
INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:55:25 (zimmerman walking in---- gray suit, gray shirt, checkered tie) 8:59:30 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING. BACK ON RECORD. READY FOR JURY. rionda: one matter first... did file a motion improper opinion evidence, wanted to provide court with additional case law... jackson v. state and tumblin vs. state. give the court to... I highlighted to pertinent part. O'Mara: set some time to review this not during my cross. FILE WAS DONE AWHILE AGO, LET ME JUST TAKE A MOMENT 9:02:06 rionda: pages 10 and 11 of that opinion 9:03:19 I HAVE READ BOTH CASES. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS? rionda: latter part of testimony, O'Mara asked him to comment on truth of what defendant said or didn't say.... opinions on what the defendant said. ask court to strike that. WHICH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS YOU'RE OBJECTING TO. TAKE A MOMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. O'Mara: cue up the audio, is that alright? THATS FINE. 9:07:49 rionda: the last questions was... take pathological liar off, do you think he was telling the truth? yes. 9:08:34 O'Mara: time to respond properly rather than doing it now since I haven't read those. this is chief police investigator who took on challenge interview to find if he was telling the truth or not. premise is to determine truth, took that on and he can tell the result. ILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO READ TUMBLIN VS. STATE HEAD NOTES 9, 10, AND 11... CREDIBILITY ON ANOTHER WITNESS IS INVASION ON THE JURY... HARMFUL FOR POLICE WITNESS TO GIVE HIS OPINION BECAUSE OF GREAT WEIGHT FROM A POLICE OFFICER. ANOTHER CASE, HOLDING THE POLICE WITNESS WAS CREDIBLE WAS ERROR REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL 9:10:24 O'Mara: in that context it was a credibility of another witness..... affecting client's right to fair trial, different under this case. question of fair trial being affected. GO AHEAD AND READ IT 9:11:18 mantei: another matter to address with the court. 9:11:34 IN JACKSON CASE..... HEADNOTES 3 AND 4 A WITNESSES OPINION ON THE ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE. OPINION AS TO CREDIBILITY, GUILT OF ACCUSED. READ FURTHER DOWN PAUSCH IS REFERENCED, HOLDING HIS STORY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. O'Mara: not the facts here. OPPOSITE, TRUTH AND VERACITY OF CLIENT'S STATEMENT. O'Mara: just a need a moment to... GO RIGHT AHEAD. 9:15:02 O'Mara: I understand court's concern. I want opportunity, all of these cases is testimony against the defendant... different where chief investigator needed to determine where the case was going.... what he said was as I was going through interview I challenged him and his response suggested. BUT YOU ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION... 9:16:02 I understand courts concern, but police to make those decisions to believe him or not... has to do that in this investigation. AND IF HE SAID NO.... it would be out there. could've been said 9:16:51 rionda: court noted, he's a liar and I believe he's guilty because this that and the other... improper. laws should apply to state and defense. SUGGESTED REDACTION? court report read it back and explain to jury its improper and to retract it. 9:17:46 ANYTHING ELSE? rionda: no your honor. ANOTHER MATTER TO TAKE UP? mantei: another witness, perpetuate testimony because he would be unavailable... set deposition for Tuesday night, everybody showed up except the defense... communicated and it was a matter of people forgetting it about it. witness not available to reschedule.... I proceeded to videotape interview... sporadic interview perhaps for video conference testimony, new Mexico dessert... reachable by cell phone occasionally. yesterday I reached him that method, west informed me they would not agree to the testimony and wanted witness to do so by video link or such. not available to do that for sure today, in transit. may be able to locate a place tomorrow morning... can't guarantee that, just likely. bring to courts attention and hear defense's suggestion... get out of way now than this afternoon when we want to call 9:20:30 west: not sure what to propose.... play the video and not afford the defense for cross exam, that's unacceptable... offer witness testimony via Skype with direct and cross... opportunity to speak with him before taking the stand... motion to perpetuate was a last minute motion when state realized he wasn't going to be available. not aware of significance of his testimony until trial started why he was being offered with connection to Zimmerman's course work. the issue last Tuesday was a scheduling complication, don't dispute that deposition was set after court... no reminders or conversation during day, at end of day when they set up the interview and contacted me by phone at that point we had left court house... zimmerman was escorted off property... motion to perpetuate testimony requires accused presence or specific waiver, unable to accomplish that.... lots of work to do at night and weekends... target when he is available... schedule testimony by Skype. no objection to that. no objection the court place him under oath, no objection when he testifies it's out of order. 9:23:31 mantei: waiver, argument Monday, ruling... witness was leaving before we could start trial... set when it was... states position, for whatever reason they didn't show up, constitutes waiver for not having presence.... isn't really a reason to bar direct testimony. play the direct and the exhibit I will introduce, if they want to cross they might be able to get a hold of him. not attempting them opportunity to cross 9:24:50 LOTS OF THINGS COULD PLAY OUT. FIND OUT HIS AVAILABILITY TOMORROW... TABLE ARGUMENT UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON... LETS GET OFFICER SERINO PLEASE. 9:25:47 BRING THEM IN... 9:27:03 PLEASE BE SEATED. 9:27:48 GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. DURING OVER NIGHT, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. DID YOU READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU. HAVE COURT REPORTER READ A QUESTION AND ANSWER AND GIVE INSTRUCTION ON THAT 9:28:45 (Court reporter----- take pathological liar off table, think he was telling the truth? yes... IMPROPER COMMENT, DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER) Mark O'Mara CROSS QUESTIONING Chris Serino 9:29:48 one technique law enforcement officers are trained to use is command voice? yes. take control of situation, stern voice... yelling let everyone know you are in charge? yes. not yelling like angry? no. technique to gain control of situation? yes 9:30:22 challenge interview, not angry with zimmerman? no angers not a part of it. technique or tactic to undermine his confidence in own story to see if he breaks? yes sir. purpose of it? yes. 9:30:48 challenge him in example you said to him you sound frustrated on phone conversation, what was your purpose? on which phone conversation 9:31:08 I presume, talking about the non-emergency call? ok 9:31:16 undermine his confidence in himself to get movement in his story? not necessarily... could've been. 9:31:33 defer to the way you present yourself in the challenge interview? yes 9:31:44 agree that your purpose was to challenge zimmerman? could've yes. change his story to give opening? extract truth if he's hiding it 9:32:07 extract truth through this technique? no. consistent throughout? yes. consistent with prior knowledge? to my knowledge yes 9:32:29 some changes? yes. minor inconsistencies? yeah, there were some variations of account. 9:32:44 nothing significant? nothing that he was lying to you? Objection! SUSTAINED. any inconsistencies? none that I can challenge him with, so no 9:33:09 play a portion of tape you heard yesterday.... playing for zimmerman the 911 call with screams in background? ok 9:33:42 states exhibit 182... 9:33:49 (police interview playing 911 call) 9:34:01 hear zimmerman? I'd have to hear again 9:34:38 rionda: played at same level so jury can establish context. 9:34:49 (hear that voice in background? that's you) 9:35:10 in the transcript, pointed out on occasions that there was a suggestion where he said it doesn't even sound like me.... your opinion... did you interpret that that zimmerman was denying it was him? Object! SUSTAINED 9:35:46 did that change direction of you interrogation of him the statement he said? no it did not. cause concern? no it did not. 9:36:17 O'Mara: moment? make sure I get right portion of tape... might need to play it a moment more. 9:36:38 (interview continues with 911 call playing---- do you hear yourself?) heard it that night? yes. heard him say it doesn't even sound like me? yes. didn't change direction of investigation? no it did not. 9:38:05 didn't have computer inside interrogation room.... perceived Zimmerman's injuries to be minor? yes 9:38:22 after midnight that night? yes. showed you the picture of injuries before he was cleaned up? yes. any injuries at all for you to look into investigation? no. 9:38:43 not an element? as far as having injuries, no. 9:39:05 saw him on the 27th after midnight, saw him for recreation video? yes. came back to talk to you voluntarily on the 29th? correct. talk after that? yes we had conversations. over the phone? yes. in person? not that I can recall 9:39:46 spoke on phone, forward investigation of crime and defenses to it? ultimate goal to forward 9:40:02 in all communications he was cooperative? yes. answered your questions? yes. presented himself to do what you wanted him to do? yes 9:40:18 have done even more than just take the interviews of my client as part of investigation? yes, from other aspects of the investigation 9:40:35 met with Tracey? yes. at your office? yes at their residence also. why at your office? Object! Beyond Scope and Hearsay!. NOT COVERED IN DIRECT, NOT HEARSAY.... SUSTAINED IT WASN'T COVERED 9:41:09 O'Mara: leeway to ask him what else he has done in his duties....DO IT IN YOUR CASE. if I call him as my witness. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. ok then I will do that. REDIRECT 9:42:12 rionda: good morning..... opinion to guilt or innocence is improper? yes. Objection to non-question! SUSTAINED 9:42:34 O'Mara asked you about anger and disdain? yes. remember that? to somewhat, yes 9:42:52 interview with defendant and evidence of spite, anger, ill will... recall? somewhat, yes 9:43:08 play something for you.... 9:43:29 (non-emergency call.... these assholes they always get away) 9:43:40 use to reference someone you're going to invite for dinner? no. friendly comment? no its not (non-emergency call---- these fucking punks) something you would refer to something good? no sir it's not 9:44:48 saying those two... assholes always get away, said that because he wanted to interact or invite for dinner? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED (twice) 9:45:20 indicate ill will or spite? no it does not.... fucking punks? that is ill will and spite.... operator tell him not to do that? yes 9:47:00 O'Mara: would you mind taking that off the screen? 9:47:09 rionda: did defendant ever say he was excited? 9:47:19 in your interview and review of singleton's interview... defendant indicate he was happy about burglary? no he did not. 9:47:42 excited it was getting burglarized? no he did not. 9:47:50 say this? (playing interview with singleton--- wife saw break ins and she was scared.) 9:48:57 investigator singleton asked what led up and that's how he replied? yes 9:49:11 (playing singleton interview continues-----) recall hearing that, they always get away to singleton? yes. say to non-emergency also, said these assholes always get away? yes. uttered within minutes of the shooting? yes they were 9:51:16 made reference to.... these fucking punks? correct 9:51:24 O'Mara asked you about profiling, accurate he was profiling martin as criminal, assumed he was a criminal? Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 9:51:48 profiling defendant? yes. 9:51:54 believe that another person is criminal, profiling? Objection! speculation OVERRULED 9:52:16 someone following you? Objection! CAN TESTIFY AS LONG AS HE KNOWS FROM HIS EXPERIENCE 9:52:32 if I believed someone committing crime....? Objection Leading SUSTAINED... understand question? yes could be construed as such 9:52:58 Trayvon Benjamin Martin was committing crime that evening? no sir. evidence he was armed? no sir. 9:54:02 O'Mara asked you about inconsistencies? yes sir. play certain parts where you questioned him about accuracy, ask about these? 9:54:40 (interview with serino, these assholes what's behind that-------) recall you playing recording and asking about that? yes sir 9:55:06 made reference to these assholes that commit crimes? yes sir 9:55:18 (interview with serino----) questioning him about inconsistency, following... you said that's following him? yes sir 9:55:55 (interview with serino---- concern about having a flashlight where you just came from) recall you and singleton questioning about that? yes. inconsistency? with his acts or words... to clarify 9:57:09 O'Mara asked you about videotaping... questioned defendant about videotaping and victim's camera about that.... bluffing him? yes. knew that not to be true? at that point, yes. he commented and said I hope he did videotape it? yes. 9:57:51 other stores with video tapes out there? yes. defendant was head of watch? yes. lived in neighborhood? yes. would be aware of video tapes in that area? assume so, yes 9:58:13 interaction between defendant and victim, aware of whether he would take out video and film it... he would know that? Objection SUSTAINED 9:58:34 evidence of hold on, let me take out camera and show you're shooting me? no, none 9:58:46 evidence of say anything like record that you're following me? Objection! OVERRULED 9:58:59 evidence of let me take photo or video before you shoot me? no sir. defendant would've known that? I would assume so. 9:59:22 basically he knew you were bluffing? Objection! SUSTAINED 9:59:36 (interview with serino---- sounds like you're looking for him) 10:00:01 questioning him about evidence? yes sir. 10:00:35 (interview with serino---- nobody came out to help you, can't pin point where you were smothered, nobody saw smothering part, doesn't sound like hesitation in screaming, sounds continuous) challenging him about being smothered or not? yes 10:02:08 recall watching on direct and cross, the reenactment that occurred on 27th? yes. 10:02:27 present for that? yes. 10:02:30 recall defendant walking, walking route he claimed he went and recall him saying he went to look for address and there were no addresses to the left because those were the back? yes 10:02:56 recall (playing the reenactment video---- got out of my car and started walking [to look for street sign]) recall that? yes sir I do 10:04:00 recall (playing the reenactment video---) right there is lauer's house? yes sir 10:04:20 photograph of front of lauer's house, numerical address there? yes there is 10:04:45 1211 is her address? yes. 10:04:58 defendant in reenactment video, claiming no address on backs of houses... address starting right at him? Objection! Leading 10:05:21 no address on back, what is there to the right... house with address? yes there is 10:05:51 states exhibit 1....aerial photo of retreat at twin lakes? yes. challenging defendant, pointed out only 3 streets in neighborhood? yes 10:06:22 this is twin tree lane, main entrance you come in and out of... defendant did not know this street and didn't see address here? yes correct 10:07:12 recall on cross examination, defense council asking about inconsistencies? correct 10:07:25 gave you and singleton stating after he shot martin, he put his hands up and said something? yes. fell on ground face first? yes. defendant stating he put arms out ? yes 10:08:20 recall that first person who came out? Jonathan manalo. took photo? yes. victim's hands underneath body? yes sir 10:08:56 was that inconsistent with defendant's statement? that positioning as seen there, yes 10:09:16 in the interview you conducted or singleton, didn't say I put hands out and then in again? no he did not 10:09:31 in cross exam, asked something about exaggeration, recall? yes. 10:09:42 you uttered or O'Mara said exaggeration what that was about? pertaining to defendants statements. exaggerating parts of it? among other things 10:10:08 what did you mean he was exaggerating interviews? how I felt 10:10:17 you were asked specifically about exaggeration? yes sir. the matter he was hit? yes 10:10:54 regarding interview with defendant on Feb. 29th... ongoing? yes it was. 10:11:05 at that point, gotten any results from FDLE about clothing? no 10:11:16 medical examiners reports or final findings? no. DNA? no. ballistics on firearm, trajectory? no 10:11:39 had you spoken to a girl or lady that was speaking with victim at time or right before murder? no 10:11:55 analyzed phone records between martin and female? no 10:12:08 had you seen 7/11 video? no sir I had not 10:12:17 also did reports in this case, some of those reports... write down inconsistencies based on statements? concerns of mine about his statements, correct 10:12:49 mention at some point, size of individuals, correct? yes. victim was skinny kid? yes. classify defendant as skinny kid? no sir 10:13:25 fair to say bottom line, after Feb. 29th... investigation was turned over? after what date. that interview turned over to another agency? yes sir 10:13:47 O'Mara asked you about phone calls you had with defendant? yes sir. intent to eventually interview defendant again and challenge him? yes. moment? YES. nothing further RECROSS 10:14:19 areas rionda talked about.... use term assholes and inviting them over for dinner, said probably not... but used the word asshole probably thousands of times in your life? I have used it. used as slang term, agree? yes 10:15:04 said those words to you as ASSHOLES? yes in that tone.... hear my client say it? yes. not with screaming voice rionda used it? no. just assholes? yes 10:15:33 the way my client said assholes, any cause for concern? no. no ill will or hatred or spite toward victim? not toward individual, more generalization 10:16:05 you investigated and found a person was arrested 2 weeks before this event for burglaries in the neighborhood? yes. 5 years in prison? yes 10:16:35 knew not only had he been arrested, but a lot of burglaries in that neighborhood? yes. concern that he was concern about that, someone who was protecting community would be concern about burglaries? him being concerned is one thing, personal feelings toward actions night of is different. ok we'll get back to that in a moment 10:17:19 calling them these assholes always gets away, concern for him using that? no. use it yourself? yes. derogatory or slang? more derogatory. what are you assholes having for dinner? no.... 10:17:59 just like shit, oh shit he's running, concern? no. no hatred or ill will? that was said with sense of urgency as if something was happening bad 10:18:26 fucking punks... john guy's opening, hear it? no sir. oh 10:18:40 zimmerman said the words fucking punks..... screeching loud voice recounted to you? no sir. why rionda yelled it at you? to stress point and emphasize. but heard on tape? yes. how said on tape? more matter of fact... fucking punks 10:19:19 show frustration? yes. based upon fact that other people in neighborhood get away on occasion? yes. 10:19:34 in that sense, no evidence martin was doing anything wrong? no sir. don't know that though? no. whatever he was planning wasn't complete? I wouldn't know. no evidence at all 10:20:04 tool found where martin may have been hiding? about 5 or 6 days after the scene 10:20:17 what was it? piece of awning, window.... hardware, looked like a slim Jim. what's that? used to jimmy lock cars.... a few days after this event? yes. in bushes beside residence? bushes behind manalo's residence 10:21:04 focus on how zimmerman stated fucking punks or the way guy did or riondas? can't speak for guys, but riondas was different 10:21:24 asked you that you were questioning zimmerman on following martin? yes. zimmerman said? he said yes, right.... 10:21:43 in the interview his word was yes? in one of the interviews 10:21:53 anything wrong with following someone like that? legally speaking, no 10:22:13 matter of fact, it was.. heard non-emergency call, twice that they asked tell me if he does anything else? yes I believe that was said 10:22:34 indicate that he wants him to keep eye on him? yes sir 10:22:50 following him is not legally improper? not illegal. even approaching someone is not illegal? open for interpretation 10:23:06 what crime would occur if I walked up to you in street if I said hi? none. how about.... how about.... how about..... crime? no sir 10:23:48 when the operator said twice tell me if he does anything else, are you following him what does zimmerman say? he says yes 10:24:05 anything at all to suggest at that time zimmerman continued following him? at which point.... 10:24:17 when the operator said we don't need you to do that and Zimmerman said ok? yes there was 10:24:29 what evidence? his end location.... where the incident ended 10:24:46 states exhibit 139.... event started where? event started off that map 10:25:03 what's your understanding as to zimmerman in this area, what path he took? coming this way, walks all the way over here, doesn't see him... physical altercation started right there approximately. 10:25:45 with that as context then.... know where exactly zimmerman was when operator said we don't need you to do that? he was at his vehicle based on his statement, wherever he parked it 10:26:18 at his vehicle when he said we don't need you to do that? that's my understanding. 10:26:32 before he was walking? Objection! SUSTAINED 10:26:40 heard tape, hear him getting out of car? the sound of door being open and interpreted that 10:26:53 walking in some direction because he said in response to following him, yes? Objection to walking! REPHRASE 10:27:08 know he was following because he told operator he was? yes. know from conversation he indicated he cut between buildings? yes sir 10:27:27 clear with what we testified to, parked car in this area? back around here somewhere 10:27:42 id have to hear it again, but shortly after leaving his car he was asked are you following and he said yes 10:27:59 zimmerman indicated martin went between buildings? yes. he could've seen him at any point... 10:28:27 whether evidence to support contention that zimmerman followed martin after being told not to? I would answer I have information that yes, based on where we located trayvon and the fact the altercation happened after his conversation... there was some following 10:29:05 anything to contradict his statement that he walked the rest of the way and then back to car when altercation occurred? nothing tangible, no 10:29:24 intangible? totality that I'm looking at... follow, walking behind looking for address... trying to do something in same direction trayvon was going.... follow, report indicates its.. open for interpretation 10:29:57 nothing to suggest martin went straight toward retreat view, he went between buildings? according to statements by client 10:30:13 attacked from martin coming from that area? correct. anything to contradict that? no sir 10:30:50 from your conversation with wendy dorival, if a crime is occurring you are to call 911, correct/ I don't recall talking to her about it, but yes that's what you do 10:31:13 just a concern, dial non-emergency? yes. actual crime, dial 911? yes. which did zimmerman dial? non-emergency. not concern with crime occurring just someone being where they shouldn't be? yes 10:31:44 in your experience, think it was inappropriate to call non-emergency when he saw martin between homes in rain in dark? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:32:09 in your opinion, was that appropriate occurrence for him to contact non-emergency, not walking away? Objection to assume those are facts. ANSWER. it would be reasonable 10:32:42 unmarked car passed that and saw martin standing there in rain at night, not moving... maybe even looking into window would you have stopped to talk to him? not based on presence. why not? he might live there. would you stop and ask him? not based on what you described 10:33:24 if brought to the attention by a citizen we are obligated to... 10:33:46 found out if martin was armed, correct? yes. presume Zimmerman is accurate, martin was hitting head against concrete? yes. consider that to have armed himself with concrete? yes. armed himself with something that would cause great bodily harm? yes sir 10:34:33 in the challenge interview, zimmerman stated there were people victimizing neighborhood? yes. thought or feeling was well founded? 10:35:09 how many burglaries occurred in past 4 or 5 months? I don't have number. rash of burglaries? depend on how many 10:35:29 looked in Emanuel and other burglaries? refresh my memory to consider it a rash of burglaries or crime spree... in his mind, yes 10:35:54 what occurs when people are not at home? correct... when they are at home? yes. happened here as well? yes 10:36:15 hide in bedroom closet while two guys took items downstairs, only weeks before? yes sir 10:36:39 maybe months before? it had occurred 10:36:52 videotaping, was that when you were bluffing zimmerman about the phone that was videotaping, it was in a believable way? yes. know how to get across to you? yes. smug to you that he made decision he knew there was no video? no. 10:37:43 seemed interested about a video tape? yes. even that HOA may have put up another camera? yes 10:37:59 not only I hope martin was taping it, that somehow it was on video... what were his words, thank god I hope it was? something like that 10:38:21 or that another videotape was there or the neighbors? yes. also indicate that maybe one person who came out that maybe he had videotaped it? don't know about that, very elated in the prospect of a video tape 10:38:54 hoping that would document what happened that night? yes sir 10:39:21 another challenge you did (O'Mara knocks over speakers) 10:39:54 another challenge you did to zimmerman was concerning this question about the hands over the face? yes. 10:40:09 he said he placed hand over face and thought he was suffocating me, words like that? yes. not a great deal of muffling? no sir 10:40:29 had there been, would've been coordinated with what he told you, but in this case it didn't? correct. screams are from one person? yeah 10:40:50 just screams, stop, screams, stop? yes 10:40:58 believed zimmerman exaggerated about getting hit? yes. how it's perceived when you're the one getting hit? yes 10:41:20 getting smothered when someone has hand on broken nose? possible, yes 10:41:28 may have had hand there, but not enough to interfere? correct 10:41:38 challenge him on that, try to come up with answer and he told you I don't know? correct. change his story after that.... actually I turned over and I was screaming other way, do that? no. just said I think he had his hands on my head, trying to stop me from breathing and it hurt? yes sir 10:42:13 just so were clear in that regard, agree there may have been muffled screams that they didn't show on tape? possible, yes 10:42:34 last challenge, the suffocation challenge... anything you thought was problematic? no 10:43:00 video where zimmerman seems to not notice lauer's number.... walking you through it doing what you wanted? yes 10:43:18 looked over and didn't see anything here? correct. in the right spot and looked over the other way, could've seen lauer's number? yes. seen them if he just got past that, any number on side of building? no 10:43:57 states 139.... lauer's... front door here, number on this side.? facing street. if zimmerman got to this point, looking around, not have line of sight? Object! Mischaracterizing from the video. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE 10:44:40 couldn't see number passed this? correct. trying to do as best he could in the reenactment? by appearances, yes 10:45:02 as you were, as he was doing this... situation where you let him run with it or some questions? some questions asked for clarification 10:45:20 when he said walking to the right of lauers and car is somewhere over where it was.... knew that he said I got out of car about here and walking down that road or doing something... walking, running, jogging.... ambulating down that path way? yes. looked over and couldn't see any numbers? yes 10:46:07 did anyone think to ask him about the number on lauer's house? not mentioned, no. do that afterward? no 10:46:23 did that seem that was some type of active deception to you? I didn't interpret as such, no 10:46:40 couldn't remember name of street? correct. only three there? correct. even questioned him about that? yes. active dissection on his part? the fact that he didn't remember 3 streets could possibly. 10:47:09 addressed it in confrontation interview? yes. ok with his response? that's all I could do was be ok with it 10:47:27 questioned about a number of things... concerning the investigation... medical examiner's report. review that? yes. 10:47:55 findings were consistent with Zimmerman's story? yes. about how he shot him where he shot him and the distance between the muzzle and clothing and also a gap of few inches between clothing and his chest? yes. evidencing that although muzzle was up against the shirt, the shirt was not against the chest? yes. 10:48:35 support contention that martin was hanging over zimmerman when shot was fired? it did, yes 10:48:47 had he been standing up, shirt up against chest... probably? probably... lean forward it would be off? yes 10:49:03 does not support contention, allegation that Zimmerman pressed gun against his chest before he fired it? no. 10:49:20 completely contradicts that? from what I understand, yes. no pressing against the gun, was there? not based on evidence, no 10:49:54 saw 7/11 video since? I don't think I've seen the video itself.... 10:50:08 but have you seen it? I've seen stills 10:50:15 showed martin in it? yes. the way he appeared that night? yes sir 10:50:23 in autopsy photo, hit him with something emotional to ground him..........? yes 10:50:44 picture of martin shows someone at his height and wearing outfit he was wearing... did not look to be the skinny kid... much larger looking individual? would agree with you 10:51:08 my height or so? yes 10:51:13 wearing hoody and had his shoes on? yes 10:51:29 zimmerman not a skinny kid? correct. look at height differential, quite one? yes. therefore reach differential? yes. what is that? measure arm to arm sideways 10:52:01 moment? YES RE-RE-DIRECT 10:52:26 rionda: agree that after somebody dies, they don't get taller? excuse me.... no sir 10:52:38 not disputing medical examiner to say they measured on table and he was only 5'11. not disputing that? no sir. 10:52:56 ever heard of that? no sir 10:53:05 way O'Mara asked you.... saying that in Seminole county it's against the law for someone to wear a hoody at night? Objection! Mischaracterization. REPHRASE 10:53:32 against law to wear hoody at night? no 10:53:37 in your investigation, he had a phone that night.... defendant had a cell phone? yes 10:53:54 didn't find evidence that when claiming he saw suspicious activity, he videotaped it? Objection! OVERRULED, NOT OPENING IT UP 10:54:23 evidence that he videotaped the suspicious activity, did he do that? no sir 10:54:36 item found... part of awning he had there? yes. no evidence it was used as a tool? no evidence like that 10:55:03 agree that expert is better qualified to findings vs. you saying what he said? yes. defer to medical examiner? absolutely 10:55:25 O'Mara asked you questions about burglaries committed out there? yes sir. defendant made calls? yes. a black male... whether others were? from researching then yes 10:55:59 O'Mara asked you questions about asshole... that is a derogatory term in describing someone? in my opinion, yes 10:56:18 O'Mara asked you about words the defendant uttered before he followed victims, under breath... these fucking punks? yes sir 10:56:47 read any comics....? no 10:56:55 caption with bubble? yes sir 10:57:05 at time he got out of car, defendant said the words these fucking punks? yes. and then followed martin? yes sir 10:57:37 O'Mara asked you questions about suffocating? yes. 10:57:49 defendant claims that the victim was suffocating him, correct? yes. any evidence of blood on victims hands? no. and evidence the defendant was bleeding, especially under mustache? yes 10:58:32 (suffocating and hitting) hands like that or fighting you? I'd be fighting you 10:58:49 find any blood on defendants hands? no sir 10:59:01 also asked about witnesses..... 10:59:09 states exhibit 140, recall this... asked you... he showed you 139 10:59:34 139... assuming defendants story is correct, saying something was going on behind these houses? yes 11:00:01 asked about the hoody at the 7/11... what law states that an individual can't go into 711 with a hoody? no sir 11:00:30 moment? YES 11:00:40 did not have phone records with martin and jeantel to determine if accurate with defendants phone finished or not? no sir 11:01:00 February 20th interview? I was assuming that 11:01:10 BEEN HERE ALMOST TWO HOURS... NOW SEEKING TO RE-RE-CROSS.... ONLY 5 MINUTES, STATE WILL HAVE ANOTHER 5 ON RE-RE-RE-DIRECT RE-RE-CROSS 11:01:41 blood on Zimmerman's hands, already cleaned up by EMT and washed up? yes. wouldn't find blood at that time? no sir 11:01:57 why didn't martin have blood on his hands, does blood fall to gravity? yes. 11:02:15 only when he stands up it will come down nostrils? yes. when he's no longer mounted by martin? typically yes 11:02:35 would not be available to be on martins hands... holding him down, momentary and zimmerman is trying to get back up? yes. attempt to suffocate was momentary as well? yes. impression from a sleeve or arm? yes RE-RE-RE-DIRECT 11:03:16 right now, it could be raining outside? yes. pure speculation on your part? Yes. 11:03:33 EXCUSED, BUT SUBJECT TO RECALL... 15 MINUTE RECESS... NOTEPADS FACE DOWN, FOLLOW DEPUTY BACK INTO JURY ROOM 11:04:16 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP? west: motion I'm filing, nothing to address this minute, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NOTICES FOR HEARING, BUT ILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR MOTION (west walks up with paper) 11:05:03 WELL BE IN RECESS ============================== 11:21:59 COURT IN SESSION... BRING JURY IN AND NEXT WITNESS... 11:23:09 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. Mark Osterman 11:23:43 (sworn in) 11:24:00 rionda: name? Mark Osterman. work for federal agency? federal air marshal. do you know zimmerman? very well. sitting here? yes. 11:24:31 how long have you known him? at least 5 years 11:24:37 knew him back in February 2012? yes. very good friend? best friend I've ever had 11:24:48 February 26, call and responding to retreat at twin lakes? I did. meet his wife there? yes 11:25:08 early morning, come into contact with defendant? yes. transport with his wife? I did. statements regarding what happened? yes. state that Sunday he was going shopping? Object! Leading! SUSTAINED 11:25:43 set the stage...... 11:25:52 when zimmerman was telling you what was happening, zimmerman in car and you were driving? yes. Shellie in car with you and him? yes, statement about shooting? yes. what he said? 11:26:16 on Sunday night, left his home as he did every Sunday night to get lunches from super target... drives out of neighborhood, dark that night, on way there... observed someone in black hoody and looking like someone he had not seen before, knew most people in neighborhood... looking into windows. 11:27:00 describe him? he did... tall about 6 ft. slender build 11:27:12 stated the person was doing something? he said looking into... between two sets of townhomes, side windows 11:27:30 describe individual by race? at that time he knew he was a black male 11:27:41 what else? then he... when he realized he didn't recognize the, and someone who usually looks like neighborhood is suspicious... juveniles walk through neighborhoods in the rain because less people walking around... be a little more suspicious, do it when its dark and rainy... trigger. 11:28:29 he said he observed who was martin, walking between buildings... came down and observed him thought it was suspicious and was going to call non-emergency line 11:28:49 starts toward him and came up light and was using phone? correct. George using phone or trayvon.... I was never told trayvon was using his phone 11:29:14 wanted to make sure he called non-emergency line. did he say he approached this car? walked close 11:29:29 walked down to the street, George remained in vehicle... trayvon walked down to sidewalk area... George pulled into front of club house, waited for Sanford police to arrive. 11:29:58 did he say that martin that he walked up to passenger window? yeah walked around vehicle in close proximity and they looked at each other 11:30:30 say he lost sight of martin? yes, briefly 11:30:38 in terms of zimmerman saying he was talking to dispatcher, tell you in terms of whether he was following him and said yes but didn't see martin? he described to me as two phases, first saw him and pulled into clubhouse and then reestablished contact, backed up car and tried to remain visual contact.... 11:31:36 recall him saying dispatcher saying to defendant we don't need you to follow and he said ok? point where he got out of car first, didn't know the street he was on.... got out of car to try to establish visual contact and to find the exact address 11:32:19 told you he started walking and put phone somewhere? in his pocket after told he didn't need to follow. something happened? walking back toward car, trayvon had confronted him and had verbal... 11:32:52 what defendant said he said? he cursed... do you have a problem and a curse word 11:33:06 wrote a book about this? I did 11:33:10 quoted what he said? yes. do you have a problem....? yes. no curse word in the book? I believe I did... do you have a problem and then said mf 11:33:55 to refresh your memory..... he told me do you have a problem.... taken out of book because it was graphic. oh you took it out? no the publisher probably 11:34:26 believe the words were what? mf 11:34:32 do you have a problem mother fucker? correct 11:34:42 Zimmerman said no I don't have a problem and martin replied? you do now 11:34:52 defendant claimed he was coming at him at that time? in arms or two reach... George lost visual 11:35:10 looking down to phone to reestablish contact... and that's when he was hit 11:35:32 at that point is when trayvon hits him? struck him in the nose 11:35:43 looked down and martin hit him? as he looked back up, lost visual contact to get phone out of pocket and as he looked up punch came 11:36:05 what defendant claim after the hit? stumbled backward and found himself on his back, grass on sidewalk 11:36:21 what victim was doing at that point? moved forward and got on top of him. how? his knees were up near chest or arm pits, beginning to punch him 11:36:43 defendant claiming the victim straddled him? yes. and began punching zimmerman? correct.... on his back, martin straddled him and began punching him in the face 11:37:20 straddling... knees up to rib cage or arm pits? somewhere around there, correct 11:37:33 then he said what? George began screaming for help at that point 11:37:45 grabbing head and doing something? once he started screaming, George said trayvon grabbed his head and started smashing head into concrete 11:38:03 quoted him saying he was 8 inches from the grass? about... upper half was while the rest was on grass 11:38:26 try to move enough to get onto grass? squirming.... jacket remained still as he squirmed and his body moved toward grass a little more 11:38:50 anyone seeing this? said at least two and screamed for help toward those people... directed at someone 11:39:05 one of the individuals was a man and yelled at him and man went back in? stated he was going to call 911 and not get involved. 11:39:23 others who saw it? perhaps, at least 1 other... may have been the person with flash light later on 11:39:37 pg. 28, quote zimmerman at the bottom? yeah several. two other saw us out there and did nothing? I believe so, at least one other 11:40:05 martin still on top of him and took hands, put over nose? one hand to cover nose and the other to cover mouth to cover screaming 11:40:24 takes hand and puts over nose to pinch close and? like this... one hand over nose and another over mouth? something to that effect 11:40:51 what does zimmerman say happens then? because his jacket rode up a bit... perhaps with inside in leg, felt or saw a holster and firearm 11:41:10 before defendant said that, did he say he desperately got his hand off to? yes to scream and breath 11:41:35 one hand pinching nose and another over mouth? correct. claims he took his hands and removed at least one? off of his own mouth 11:41:58 defendants claiming he never hit or just knocked him off? not described to me 11:42:11 defendant told you he had brief control of wrist... felt sidearm with wrist at his leg? other hand let go and he said that he went for the gun. martin went for the gun? grabbed for the gun 11:42:48 took hand covering nose saying something/ he did. what words? you're going to die m.f 11:43:02 you're going to die now mother fucker? correct 11:43:10 defendant quoted saying, I broke grip of gun between rear and hammer? could've.... well you quoted him saying that? my understanding that he grabbed the gun, only place available to grab 11:43:52 said defendant got gun and raised it toward martin's chest and pulled trigger? unfortunately, yes 11:44:08 after he shot martin, martin sat up and said you go it ok you go it, something like that? correct. martin pivoted 90 degrees and fell face forward in the grass and scooted from under him? correct. didn't know he shot him? didn't know he struck him, correct 11:44:44 thought he might try to get up, after putting gun in holster, jumped on top and pinned him down? correct. then someone came? first man was not a police officer, second was 11:45:29 recall also when he's describing the first contact that he said we need you get to a place where you can see him? right... well that's... he said he had to get somewhere where he could observe any subject in neighborhood to tell police officers... if dispatcher said that.... I don't know.... that was their instruction to get where you could observe and try to make contact 11:46:34 officers on scene in 45 seconds? very very shortly after. dispatchers telling he's almost there, within 45 seconds? correct 11:46:52 tells you that he told dispatcher to meet at clubhouse? correct. put phone in pocket when guy is 15 ft away walking toward him? correct 11:47:15 describing him as 15 ft. away and walking toward him? correct 11:47:25 do you have a problem and he said other words but didn't put in book? correct 11:47:41 when he managed to get hand off his mouth, had control of the wrist? to some degree, to prevent him from putting it back over his mouth, yes 11:48:03 told you he managed to break grip on gun between rear side and hammer? just reaching down there and grabbing something 11:48:23 didn't refer to holster in book? correct. just gun? well that's what holds the gun. no difference, intent is the same 11:48:46 shot at martin but didn't know if he struck him? correct. thought shot went wide? he did say that 11:49:05 moment? YES. nothing further CROSS 11:49:25 O'Mara: how long in law enforcement? since 1992. 11:49:31 career for you? it is. enjoy it? very much. get any college training before police academy? not before police academy. US Army after high school. then Daytona beach community college police academy... law enforcement ever since? correct 11:50:14 you who assisted him when he decided he needed a firearm? correct. why he wanted one? asked whether he should or shouldn't to start with. I recommended that he should, anyone who's not a felon should have one 11:50:52 encouraged him to do that? if he wished to, go to train for conceal weapons permit. he did? he did. got permit? he and his wife. 11:51:12 what weapon to purchase? correct. seek your council? he did Object, beyond scope! SUSTAINED 11:51:29 focus on ... how long did you know George? about 4 years that time. best friend? best one I've ever had 11:51:44 affect your testimony today? not as far as the truth is 11:51:52 speak truth good or bad for zimmerman? correct 11:52:04 contacted night of this event? yes. offered help to Shellie? near hysterical 11:52:23 she immediately called me and we both arrived at twin lakes within seconds of each other. how upset was she? almost hysterical.. neighbor had to hang up and couldn't get updates.... I put my arm around her to keep her from blacking out I guess 11:53:00 she got phone call that said George was involved in shooting? George in shooting, handcuffs, and bloody 11:53:20 arrive at area and meet with Shellie, see George? walked up to crime scene tapped off, massive area, inside crime scene tape was Sanford PD car... saw someone as George, lean head down and lay his head down on the seat so no one could see him. 11:54:04 contact with him? none, couldn't get in or close 11:54:11 went to Sanford PD? yes. drove Shellie and waited in lobby till he was released. how many hours? 2 or 3 am, could've been longer. his state of mind when you saw him? stunned... reassured Shellie, she went into sobbing breakdown.. assure her he was ok... stunned look on his face 11:55:01 stunned? wide-eyed, a little bit detached from not realizing he had gone through traumatic event 11:55:19 talk about... as a good friend.... how he was that night compared to him most other days? that's what I was using to base my observation on... more wide eyed stare... saw Shellie focused more on her... he's alright and she immediately started to observe after her shock of seeing George... looking at injuries, went into nurse mode 11:56:16 how is George presenting himself to you? detached. hard to described. different than normal? yes. detached, what do you mean? when you feel like... hard to describe, position where he was not able to process... his mind wasn't... he wasn't answering questions. I started asking him questions about sitting down and he just said he wanted to go home... very basic.... detached, just wide-eyed and not processing what's going on. 11:57:26 non-emotional about what's going on? coming off elevator... tending to Shellie and her sobbing... focused with that, when that went down to nurse... that's when he kind of blank state 11:57:52 at some point you got in car? my vehicle 11:57:59 conversations he had with you, setting to this conversation? we get in my vehicle, both got into back seats... Shellie is trying to put assessment on injuries... swelling on left side, about the size of your fist... not a goose egg.... hair being closely cropped, see it really well..... she started tending to that stating we needed ice on that swelling... on the drive home, he explained... start to finish took the whole time... first time we knew any details of anything 11:59:23 as a friend recounting to friend or acting in law enforcement mode? hard to get out of law enforcement mode... like to analyze to make sure it makes sense 11:59:55 first told you on way to super target, usual? every single Sunday like clockwork 12:00:07 first said to you about noticing martin? observed trayvon walking between two sets of tonwhomes, looking into window... about that time that trayvon and George made eye contact, aware of the presence 12:00:45 angry or anything like that with who this person was? George said he wanted to make sure he got with non-emergency and get dispatcher. did that? immediately 12:01:08 conversation was recorded? yes. George knows those are recorded? yes 12:01:23 he's explaining to you, martin is walking up and near his vehicle? correct. 12:01:35 taking notes or listening/ I'm driving 12:01:44 at some point, apparent to you that zimmerman stopped car by clubhouse? yes. martin looked into window? very close, made eye contact, very aware of presence 12:02:12 angry or anything about martin or person who was there? no not at all. still on phone? remained on, correct 12:02:33 moved forward to George zimmerman did what he thought he should to keep martin in sight? correct 12:02:51 hear from Sanford PD to give instruction to neighborhood watch people, try to keep subject in sight... easier for law enforcement to make contact if you're on phone during whole process 12:03:18 non-emergency dispatcher said let me know what he's doing? he told me what he was doing, didn't tell me the dispatcher told him certain things 12:03:39 recounting actions? yes. not necessarily I did this because of this reason and superimposing conversation with non-emergency? not at that time 12:04:02 how long was conversation between zimmerman and you? Sanford PD to Rinehart road and lake Mary Blvd... 15-20 minutes 12:04:23 other discussions? she didn't interject at all 12:04:31 keep eye on martin? right that was his intent. say to you he couldn't see him? one of the reasons he got out of vehicle 12:04:57 went in between the town homes by walking path and lost contact, got out of vehicle.. may have been what's your exact location... dispatcher likes to tell exact street address 12:05:33 never told you that George ever went down the dog path, correct? he did... left vehicle and went down the path. know this area? I do 12:05:56 path that goes straight through and another? a t.... said martin went down the t? that's what he believes, the street was lit better than dog path, if he went to retreat view circle he would've seen him or shadows... path he took on the phone? went straight through to get house number, not take right on the T.... want to make sure you get exact house number, I believe that was his intent 12:07:06 on way back when altercation began? correct. said what they said.... 12:07:16 fast forward...you weren't taking notes? driving. talked again about facts? one other time... he relayed the incident. when was that? the next morning 12:07:41 in the car, when he said things like do you have a problem, you do now... best as you can recall from night before? correct 12:07:58 talking about actual mounting... at one point straddling and knees up as high as arm pits? could've been... tell the jury without presuming or suggesting, for right now recount what George remembered of the event and what he told you? during struggle, position of knees were changing with George squirming.... or other way around, squiring once they get closer... it began here with the ribs 12:09:06 consistent it was martin who was on top? oh absolutely. consistent it was he who was screaming for help? without a question. hand over mouth event? yes. 12:09:33 (martin family... Tracey shaking head) 12:09:40 how long it lasted? 15-30 seconds 12:09:47 did that however as he related, significant as it was occurring? critical 12:10:00 somebody had hand on nose that suffered previous injury? correct. real focus of his? the focus, he was losing oxygen... desperate to clear an air way 12:10:25 agree that's natural reaction to traumatic events? I would think so... focus on particular parts of it? almost exclusively 12:10:44 car accidents, the speed of car coming at you and not other cars? correct. 12:10:55 when you go to scene, anything you investigate, people often have tunnel vision views? sometimes very specific. that they're lying to you? not at all.. typical to focus on one event to exclusion of others. 12:11:27 recount events at all? Objection! Beyond Scope SUSTAINED 12:11:55 concerning around the gun, similar concern to recount those concerns? no 12:12:05 what he did say about grabbing his gun? said trayvon reached for the gun, whether on holster or metal part, didn't see a different, intent was clear... freed one of his hands and got the gun.... knocked trayvons hand away and drew it 12:12:45 recall if he said martin touched the gun or was reaching for it? I thought he said grabbed the gun, but grabbed for and grabbed are the same intent 12:13:24 told you martin said something to him, unusual that someone shot could still say something? very common... unless shot in wind pipe... talk for 6-8 seconds 12:13:49 held his hands out? gotten off of George, laid on grass, George jumped on top to pin hands down 12:13:59 (Tracey shaking his head) 12:14:30 didn't seem need to explain that to you? correct 12:14:42 heard story the next day, any differences? no. who was that with? my wife and his wife. any different context? George looked different, not as in shock the next morning 12:15:12 how many months before recounting in book form? at least 4 months 12:15:24 any conversation with zimmerman to corroborate what he told you? not able to contact each other after he was arrested 12:15:44 haven't shown him a draft of book? no cooperation with that. your memory 4 months later when you looked back? correct. no notes that night or in between? no. not until 4 months later you went to memory about what happened? just memory 12:16:35 if you had any facts wrong that were conclusively proven wrong, defer to evidence? absolutely. support that 100% 12:17:02 told you differently than it appears in non-emergency call, defer to that? I may have heard wrong or documented wrong 12:17:19 different that he told law enforcement... defer to that interview? I would 12:17:41 moment? YES 12:17:59 at some point during investigation, opportunity to listen to 911 call? Objection beyond scope. SUSTAINED REDIRECT 12:18:20 rionda: testified what the defendant told you? correct. haven't made anything up to help one side? none whatsoever 12:18:34 said he put his hands out? correct. grabbed his gun? correct, grabbed for his gun.... grabbed holster or gun, I didn't see difference 12:19:02 grabbed the gun in the holster... 12:19:07 said he actually got it, not just grabbed for it? that's what I heard 12:19:19 thought I shot wide but he got up so I put gun in holster? correct 12:19:30 put phone back and he was 15 ft. away? correct RE-CROSS 12:19:50 O'Mara: reholstered as he got up or while he was holding martins hands down? may have had it in his hand as he jumped on trayvon and perhaps holstered when he saw flashlight... don't remember specifically when he holstered his fire arm RE-RE-DIRECT 12:20:24 rionda: no doubt he reholstered? he reholstered, don't know when it was 12:20:36 look at your book, page 29.... quote him there? yes. accurate? yes.... he holstered, pinned hands down... I remember him saying something like that 12:21:12 MAY HE BE EXCUSED? SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED 12:21:23 TAKE A RECESS FOR LUNCH... NOT TO DISCUSS CASE. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO GO ON INTERNET BY USING ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCES? yes 12:22:01 PUT NOTEPADS FACE DOWN AND FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM 12:22:34 COME BACK AT 1:30. ANYTHING TO TAKE UP BEFORE LUNCH? 12:22:44 RECESS UNTIL 1:30 ============================ 13:32:21 PLEASE BE SEATED. BACK IN SESSION. 13:32:29 READY FOR JURY? yes. yes. GO AHEAD AND BRING THEM IN 13:33:10 rionda: next witness we'll be playing the Hannity interview, read the redaction instructions 13:34:15 PLEASE BE SEATED. WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. 13:35:05 rionda: formally play the Hannity interview on July 18th... preliminary instructions 13:35:21 CERTAIN PORTIONS WITH HANNITY HAVE BEEN EXCISED OR REDACTED.... PARTS ARE NOT RELEVANT. NOT TO CONCERN WITH WHY IT OCCURRED. 13:35:43 rionda: states exhibit 180... 13:36:06 (Hannity interview.......take us back to that night, going to the store start beginning... 13:36:31 going to target to do weekly grocery shopping... always go grocery shopping and do cooking for week. headed out. last time I had been home. never been back since that day? no sir. 13:37:03 on 911 call, a number of break ins... why involved with that? in august 2011, home invasion a young lady was home with her baby, broke in sliding door.... my wife was home by herself and saw the people that did it run through our back yard.... wife wasn't certain, enough to scare her and shake her up... promised her I would do what I could to keep her safe 13:37:56 gun was legal in state of Florida... why need to carry it? I carried it at all times except when I went to work 13:38:20 legally stand your ground.... prior to this night, had you heard of stand your ground? no sir. in the 911 call everyone heard, you said that all of sudden you found someone who was suspicious, may be on drugs? suspicious because it was raining, in between houses, cutting in between walking leisurely for the weather... didn't look like he was a resident who got caught in rain, not a fitness fanatic that would train in ran. 13:39:30 overhangs though? walking closer to the house? overhangs are just in front of front doors 13:39:44 started saying he came toward you, reaching for something in waistband, think it was a gun? to intimidate me. with a gun? a weapon 13:40:07 something wrong, checking me I don't know what his deal was.... you felt threatened at that moment? no, not particularly. what did you mean then? the way he was coming back and I was on the phone and was certain I could see him saying something to me... demeanor was confrontational 13:40:46 then we get to issue.. he's running, any chance on that night.... get into mind set martin was speaking with girlfriend and maybe he was afraid of you? no. why running then? I might've said running, you said running? yes. but it was more like skipping... going away quickly.. not running out of fear 13:41:32 he wasn't running... no sir.... 13:41:49 opening the door, are you following him? and you said yes, explain? I was going in same direction as him to keep eye on him... didn't mean I was pursuing him 13:42:13 out of breath-- not running? no sir. made statement, it was the wind as you were getting out and moving? yes 13:42:34 what did you do from that moment forward.... minute gap... I walked across the sidewalk onto my street retreat view circle where I thought I would meet a police officer. did not continue to follow him? no. sounded distracted on the tape... looking for him? wanted to make sure, they asked for my address, wanted to make sure they couldn't hear my address... nobody that was going to surprise me and give them an accurate location... could we meet you here and you said have them call me, why? hadn't given a correct address, gave club house vicinity... walking through to my street and give them street number and name 13:44:05 how long after that did you see martin... stopped, didn't continue pursuing him? less than 30 seconds. where were you and how far away from your car? a hundred ft. or more... never went how far from your car? approximately 100 ft. never went further? no 13:44:44 trayvon was there, turn around and there? yes. what happened next? asked me what my problem was... I was wearing rain jacket, put cell phone in my rain jacket, went to grab my phone to call 911 and when I reached into pants pocket it wasn't there and I was shocked and he punched me and broke my nose 13:45:31 said do you have a problem, what's your problem and you said to him I don't have a problem and you reach for your phone and just got hit? already in arm's length from me... punch in nose that broke your nose? yes. immediately to the ground? I don't know if immediate or if he pushed me. 13:46:15 a little dazed, wanted to get him to stop you from hitting head on cement... after first hit what happened next... bashing head into concrete sidewalk.... as soon as he broke my nose I started yelling for help, started slamming head into concrete 13:46:53 said it was like your head was going to explode... continued to punch me in head. how many times? several, more than a dozen 13:47:09 hitting you hard.... what moment did you, could you fear for your life... what moment when you thought I may die.... feared for your life, exact moment? in hindsight when he was slamming my head and I thought I'd lose consciousness... how far from grass to concrete... protect your head from cement? yes. meets up to concrete. get there? yes. I shimmied... he was straddling me with full weight... sit up and he would slam my head 13:48:27 talking to you during fight...? yes. saying? cursing, telling me to shut up.. telling me he's going to kill me. when did he see your gun? on ground, shimmied, made jacket rise up, saw it on my right side. after that? he had... couldn't hit my head on concrete any more, tried to suffocate me... continued to push his hands off hand and mouth... weight on my broken nose was excruciating. telling me to shut up.. why telling you that? I don't know 13:49:47 dispute about who's voice? absolutely my voice. police said they were heard 14 screams, screaming that loud? yes. put his hand over your mouth, to silence you from screaming? yes sir. I believe he from what investigators told me, knew that I was talking to police... I was yelling so I believe police were there and couldn't find me and they would come when they heard me yelling 13:50:40 when you reached for your weapon? yes. tell us? at that point I realized that it wasn't my gun, not his gun.. it was the gun.... say anything about the gun? he said you're going to die tonight mother fucker... took one hand off my mouth, felt it going down to my holster... didn't have any more time 13:51:24 consciously thinking I have to grab my gun, or just do it? conscious thought you were going to die? loved to give you an answer... happened so quickly 13:51:47 eye witness that in fact did tell police he saw martin on top of you and saw beating... no witness to shooting itself? besides myself 13:52:07 think back, one report that said you didn't know after you fired... thought you missed? I didn't think I hit him 13:52:23 immediately after the shooting, one guy came out had flashlight asked to call your wife, remember? yes. he did talk about it, his suggestion was you were very matter of fact about it, remember what you said... when did you know trayvon died? probably about an hour after police station 13:53:04 laying there, moment you realized he was shot? like I said, he sat up and said you got it, you got me... I assumed you meant you got the gun, I didn't get it... I got under him 13:53:32 regret getting out of car? no. regret having a gun? no. feel you wouldn't be here if you didn't have that gun? no. it was all god's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it..... 13:54:00 anything to do differently? no. 13:54:06 the bad guys always get away, said in 911 tape... feeling there were a lot of people who do get away from crimes, predisposed...? not in general, our neighborhood there's geographic advantages for burglaries 13:54:39 why would he confront you.... I got beat up on air that this was a misunderstanding or mistake, anyway? wrestled with that for long time.... biggest issue has been the media conjecture and I can't assume or make believe 13:55:20 cell phone guy asked about your demeanor, said you looked like you had been butt whooped... were in fight and asking call my phone just tell me wife but acting like it was nothing.... is that how you were feeling? knew I discharged my fire arm, scared, nervous... I thought police were going to call and see me with firearm and shoot me... I was terrified 13:56:08 look over at him at any time and realize he was in bad shape? no. how long between time you shot him and police getting there? felt like forever. I'd say 15-30 seconds 13:56:33 already on their way and were there in 15 seconds... national media in this case, why? surreal. I don't like that they've rushed to judgment the way they have... any time they have a story that's remotely positive, they interpret it negatively 13:57:17 black male suspects.... why you called, those instances about? I never volunteered that information, always at their request... didn't volunteer race until they asked me... Hispanic kids and white kids.. that you made calls about? yes sir 13:57:53 one specific in case, following him and the dispatch call... you stopped..... look at the grounds of this event, apartments and over hangs and street.... how do you get to the other street if you're not following him? walking from car toward my street, he went right down in between houses, I walked straight across. following him in that sense? no. after the call? during. why walking to your street and not your car? where I parked my car was back of town houses, no way to know street address... knew the other street was retreat view circle and I could give a number) 13:59:29 (George crooked smile after interview playing) 14:00:29 CALL NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.... 14:00:59 (sworn in) 14:01:18 guy: name? Dr. Valerie Rao 14:01:34 district 4? counties. chief in district? yes. medical examiner? 32 years. licensed physician and surgery since 1981 14:01:56 education? degree in medicine in 1971... went to London, pathology at two hospitals... came to US and did residency.... spent a year in Tucson before I was medical examiner for a year.... went to Miami, chief position in district 5 for 3 years. U. of Missouri, came to Jacksonville... been here for 7 years 14:03:19 duties? required to investigate sudden, unexpected unnatural death.. sign the death certificate... pathology? disease in the body.. forensic pathology? unnatural death cases 14:03:49 qualified as expert in courts? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:04:03 living people? yes. in Miami, work there several thousand living patients 14:04:21 what types of injuries? physically assaulted, injuries in blunt force trauma, some were stabbed, strangled but not dead 14:04:47 blunt force distinguish from sharp force. a bat would be blunt, a stick... sharp force would be knife or glass bottle 14:05:39 severity... bruise.... bleed under skin, skin intact. scrape, where skin is compromised... rug burn is abrasion. laceration where skin is torn but underlying tissue is torn... depending on severity, varying degrees of bleeding 14:06:24 bruises also contusions? yes. scrapes are same as abrasions. and then lacerations 14:06:41 ever been qualified as rape?? yes. how many times? hundreds of times 14:06:58 in Miami examine other categories of living victims? yes.... someone alleging police brutality... near jackson hospital...go across the street and see the patient... and child cases, take photos and do investigation... 14:07:58 expert as pathology and forensic pathology? 14:08:11 asked to examine evidence in this case? yes. provided what? a whole series of things I asked for whatever available... have as much as possible before I form an opinion 14:08:40 reenactment of the incident, recorded on 2-27... 36 photos of zimmerman, Altamonte family clinic... on the 27th of February and 9th of march.... Sanford PD lobby and others. a dvd labeled medical examiner report and photos... body diagrams, autopsy photos 26 were taken... toxicology report, a report that states 2 individuals were in yard... one fired hand gun.... other items were medical examiner autopsy report 14:10:07 two photos of defendant at scene? yes. 14:10:14 reenactment, an interview with a walk through? yes. 14:10:26 after reviewing items, severity... classify injuries? not life threatening, very insignificant, no sutures to be applied.. insignificant injuries 14:10:51 observe lacerations? yes. how many? 2. were those depicted in photos you saw? yes 14:11:05 bleeding so I was not able to look at them after clean.... covered by Band-Aids 14:11:18 provided reports from Altamonte clinic? yes 14:11:34 states 79... photos? yes. photo from scene? yes 14:11:49 states 57, provided? yes. 14:12:04 explain where lacerations are located that you referred to in the report? one small injury there and one there, where blood is streaming from 14:12:25 in report, also provided with measurements? yes., are they life threatening? no. there was so minor, individual who examined and treated zimmerman told him sutures were not required, Band-Aid on each 14:12:55 contusion on back of head? yes. show where? right there 14:13:05 is that life threatening? no. why not? asked for everything and looked at case file and when he walked from the police car to the police department to be booked he was not incapacitated in any way, walking in pace with police officers 14:13:41 consistent with having made contact with concrete? yes. looked at other areas.... little areas which came into contact with rough surface.... looking at reenactment, consistent with that rough surface 14:14:16 consistent with one strike against concrete? one time hit is consistent with that area... protruding around the surface, one impact could result in lacerations seen 14:14:48 consistent with slammed repeatedly? what I think based on dictionary definition of slammed.... O'Mara: Object! Define word from dictionary is Hearsay! PLEASE APPROACH. 14:16:37 guy: using your definition of slamming, consistent with being repeatedly slammed into surface? no. why not? so minor... slam implies great force... resulted injuries are not great force. what type do you expect to see? repeatedly slammed against concrete with great force, expect lacerations and injury that would bleed profusely... I don't see that in this picture 14:17:36 states 47, also provided that one? yes. what injuries did you observe in this photo? there's a small abrasion on bridge of nose, small little punctate near nose 14:18:06 any injuries life threatening? no. why not? no loss of consciousness, no hospital... went to a clinic 14:18:22 contusions or abrasions in this photo? yes. show us? right there and there 14:18:35 how do you classify those? very small 14:18:44 could all injuries you observe come from single blow? yes. why? distribution of injury... if I was to punch myself right above here, get injury of nose and contusions on forehead... one blow would be able to inflict these injuries 14:19:21 consistent with the defendant being beaten a dozen times? beaten repeatedly with no trauma to face, but get trauma than only once 14:19:47 contusions on sides? yes. photo you were provided? yes. circle? one has to disregard dry blood... looking at contusion here... very fine punctate abrasions... you'd need a close up 14:20:33 life threatening? no 14:20:37 severity of contusions? small injuries 14:20:48 could all injuries in states 75, come from single blow? yes... one impact against concrete, yes 14:21:01 states 73, also a photo provided? yes. what injuries? see very faint punctate small abrasions. life threatening? no 14:21:30 classify them? very insignificant 14:21:38 come from single blow? single impact yes 14:21:43 why? surface area on side, bang on concrete, get all injuries from one impact 14:21:59 view video clips of defendant getting out of police, appearance in that video demonstrate? he was not incapacitated, walked on our power... conversing with police during reenactment CROSS 14:22:39 ms Cory appointed you? correct. she's your boss? not really. she appointed you to position? she sent my name to governor, appointment then so be it 14:23:03 read letter to you.... Object! 14:23:19 signed letter where she appoints you? I can't say yes or no, have to explain to you... interim position? yes. another position? yes. with 5th district? yes. not reappointed by governor? I did not seek reappointment 14:23:53 problems that existed in administration in your office? correct 14:24:04 same district where she prosecutes? yes. how much is your work with them? we are separate... defense could call us and I would be here for you too 14:24:30 how much of work is on behalf of state? only the homicides. that's all you do isn't it? no. homicides are small sections of our cases 14:25:03 how much of work you do involve crime matters with Duvall county state attorney office? total of 1,165 cases... out of that we are 110 homicides.. that is the proportion 14:25:32 work with these prosecutors? correct. 14:25:42 so they called you to look at this? correct. anything to look at martin? autopsy reports. not to tell us about martin, only zimmerman? correct 14:26:01 consistent he may have only received as little as 3.... slamming 3 slamming into cement? I didn't use word slamming, got that from reenactment.... impact 14:26:31 at least 3 impacts between that head and cement? yes, concrete 14:26:40 walk you through some of that.... 14:26:45 used suggestion if you hit yourself in nose, could be all one blow? correct. not suggesting it was one blow? no, but consistent with 14:27:11 scenario: gets hit in nose like this, but does not up there... and here's the second shot.. how many? 2. consistent with that picture? it could be... 14:27:37 said earlier those injuries could be consistent with 1 shot and now 2 shots...? if depicted the way you depicted than yes. but you don't know how he was hit? correct. 14:28:03 consistent with 1 and 2.... consistent with 2 as well? it could be.. could be consistent with another couple hits that didn't leave visible injuries? yes. not saying he only hit one time? I'm just telling you what injuries are............ 14:28:45 cuts on ring finger and pinky? not cuts... they are abrasions 14:29:14 only injuries besides gunshot wound are the ones on his knuckles? correct. any other on martin? no. know for a fact, martins head or body was not in contact with cement? well I didn't see any injuries... can have contact without producing injuries that are visible 14:29:55 a dozen even? what? other impacts 14:30:03 potential of two..... possibility that with swat or hit, this abrasion on his nose could've been a third? anything is possible 14:30:23 here as expert, give us your opinion... possible on your knowledge? the next issue would be each punctate marks could have been caused by a finger nail scratch.... and when looking at evidence and opinion rendered thereby.... continue this... let's move on 14:31:05 saw Zimmerman's right side, protrusion to nose? what does that mean 14:31:29 see..... that spot there? that's the abrasion. right below? I see swelling... swelling to... bone over there, but we know it's not...... what is that swelling on right side? that's trauma injury 14:32:14 body reacts by rushing lymph fluid to site of trauma? yes. recedes quickly? depends on case 14:32:34 swelling has receded? yes. does recede after a few hours? depends on scenario, not severe here... rapidly declined 14:32:52 where bleeding from? inside his nose... where would that go if laying on his back? it depends if you are alive... back in throat you would cough it out. or swallow it? I don't know. 14:33:27 nose injury, potential of injury up here could be second shot? it's possible. 14:33:40 say we had a video and it showed a smash here and an overhand shot... consistent with injury up there? it's possible. is it consistent? it could be 14:34:14 on back here, testified all this was created or consistent with one strike? all this.... I see 2 lacerations and a small bruise... 14:34:37 its being camouflaged by the blood, once cleaned one was 0.5 cm and the other was 2.0 cm... very small... not a whole series of injuries back there 14:35:13 this is consistent with one strike against cement? concrete, yes 14:35:23 not suggesting that there was only one strike? no 14:35:30 could we use the word crown... the point that hits the cement 14:35:54 rather than the crown.... I'm going to say this is where the impact of cement was... could hit just there? if impact is on the side.. don't know what part of head contacted cement? two injuries from impact 14:36:32 could be separate? except it's in close proximity 14:36:41 hit a knuckle right there or two knuckles.... physics of how it happens? not good in physics... not talking about knuckles, one surface area.... don't know physics of this injury 14:37:08 he was hit where see this line here? the area... no the line I'm making with laser.... only this side came in contact with cement? possible.... only that injury could occur? that's possible.... and now the other side... only this side in contact? possible too 14:37:54 not suggesting it's any more likely 1 or 2? preponderous of evidence would suggest 1 impact is more plausible the way the head is shaped to have 2 separate impacts... but if eye witnessed, then yes 14:38:28 put hand on side of skull? Objection not in evidence! SUSTAINED 14:38:38 evidence of fist hitting one side and opposite side be forced downward? it could 14:38:52 that would cause on one side? it could 14:38:58 this bruising here, see it? that's the shape of head I think 14:39:05 medical conclusion that crowing is natural? yes. 14:39:14 why it's not contruded on this side? shapes of heads are different... not symmetrical, no discoloration there.... 14:39:36 right here do you see any bruising? I don't see bruising, see punctate marks.... photograph you are looking at... hair is short, if there we'd be able to see it really well... I have to strain and look to see what you are suggesting so I can't answer that question 14:40:18 jury will have better photos to view and study 14:40:25 is it your testimony that this coloring here, darkening is natural occurrence and...? I don't see bruise there, I have good photos too... very fine punctate abrasions 14:40:58 abrasions here? photo is poor I have to look at my own photographs 14:41:09 take a moment.... coordinate on photos you did look at 14:41:36 (O'Mara rolled his eyes....... after seeing one of the witness' photos.) 14:41:46 see very fine little abrasions there... looking at a copy of states exhibit 73.... do this more formal... get the actual 8 x 10s out of evidence.... 14:43:33 try and identify your photos to those in the exhibit... picture packet? no. a disc, and printed some of them, printed a few of them.... 14:44:32 states exhibit 69.... ask you to identify.... testimony that there is no bruising above left ear? I just see the punctate abrasions, no bruising... marks on head are moles... seeing that there and there.... this are of lightening and darkening is not swelling? no. just shape of head, funny angle.. distortion in that photo can't tell you that's bruising 14:45:52 states 57.... back view, 2 inches above left ear, suggesting that's not swelling or bruising, but a contour of head? suggesting that's swelling than the bruise should be so marked I shouldn't have trouble identify as bruise. yes or no, bruising or not? I can't see the bruise there 14:46:35 states exhibit 70.... picture of the right side of Zimmerman's scalp? correct. attention to the laceration, bruising, cut.... in the middle? bruise on right side plus punctate abrasions 14:47:14 bruise on right side, how? impact against concrete can give you that... 14:47:25 back of his skull? small bruise, pink discolored 14:47:38 how did that occur? impact. different impact? it's possible 14:47:48 its consistent, yes. how much distance? not just distance, look at curvature of the head... not only looking at distance, but also looking at contour of the head 14:48:15 somewhat sphere like? oval 14:48:24 two points on sphere of oval... why is it not continuous bruise or scar all across? not scarring... why not one long injury? forced applied to one area because of contour may not equal the same area's force.... we're not computers you do something and expect this result... different configuration.... I can't say that 14:49:30 could've been two separate injuries? it's possible yes 14:49:39 states 69... Zimmerman's skull? scalp.... pay attention to top, tell us what you believe that protrusion to be? actually looked at a photo of left side and top of head... getting a view on the right side... same bruise 14:50:18 see swelling? yes. swelling and we... suggesting that in exhibit 69.. swelling that's to the right side of midline to scalp? correct... bruise, but if you say swelling but not bruising there... swelling so severe, we would have significant bruise and we don't see that.... can't separate one from the other... its together 14:51:08 look at 70.. tell the jury which bruise that swelling is connected to? I think it's that on. behind the ear... I think, it's a distorted photo... see the right side very well, extremely unscientific 14:51:53 testimony today that the swelling on the 69 on the right side of mid line is the bruising that's the same bruising with what you identified now as the bruising behind ear line on states 70? it could be. difficult to give opinion on photo that's so distorted 14:52:30 completely separate bruise 14:52:39 punctate abrasions and the bruise that we have to overlap 14:52:48 at the very top of the crown almost out of the picture... the swelling we see in 69? I find it difficult that the photo is cut before giving opinion.... why are we looking at distortion and half photographs when we have the full photo 14:53:35 that doesn't show swelling, does it? same photo graphs how can it be different 14:53:50 as you are here today, what picture you have of the right side of scalp that shows or doesn't show the swelling that was apparent in states exhibit 69? I have the same photos as you except mine are copies.... this is the photo you are describing? trying to find one in evidence, moment if I may? YES 14:54:49 ask you to compare the picture you were just showing with states exhibit 70...have that one? I'm looking.. no I don't 14:55:37 the least number of contacts between scalp and cement were 3, correct? correct. and as many as how many? scenario that you proposed so you would know how many 14:56:02 come up with maximum number from these photos? 3. that's the minimum, correct? correct. tell us how many as a maximum? I don't know. why not? you were presenting scenario of various possibilities... you have to tell me and I will tell you yes or no 14:56:41 two bruises were 2 different ones? yes. include that... also talked about the lacerations could be two different hits? correct. the nose and the forehead being two separate ones? correct. how many other bruises could occur... left side.... consistent with one strike on cement could have caused on left side? yes. how many more than that? I don't know... you have to give me scenario. ok 6 times, consistent? no. why not? so minor and patterned to some extent, beyond realm 14:57:55 4 hits on the left? if someone is eye witness and sees 4... that's the best estimate, 14:58:06 4 on the left side, consider you agree that would be consistent with medical evidence? if witnessed, can't just say 4 in slamming 14:58:28 is there any medical evidence that would exclude possibility that skull was hit on the left side 4 times? not my opinion, but it could be... it's possible. nothing to exclude that as possibility? it's possible 14:58:55 two separate bruising, and punctate bruising/abrasions, exclude right side was hit 4 times? it's possible 14:59:14 see two bruises and could be separate? possible. punctate could be another? possible. and swelling with bruise or separate? underlying bruise you have the swelling... so impossible to get bruise and swelling and say that's two different... separate from bruise but they are one injury 14:59:53 bruising that we see matches up in the juries mind with swelling? it does. in your opinion? well you can see it... jury will make that determination? correct 15:00:20 how many maximum times could back of head be hit? consistent with 1... you suggested by turning head in different ways it could be 2... 3 or 4? with no injury, yes 15:00:46 below the lacerations, swelling? the contusion. separate? it's possible.... just the crown hit the cement one time and head snapped back and caused one laceration? yes, but so close to each other... proximity that makes it possible 15:01:22 head tilted one way and snap backed? possible. and another one? possible... back bruising could've occurred? unusual... flat surface... head would have to be contorted to give those different impacts 15:02:00 change it that it's here, not the cement.... bruise on bottom wasn't flat it was against that side.. cause bruising? the side of what... side of cement, at the edge of it... there's an edge? it's possible like you are suggesting 15:02:35 here's the cement, introduce some injuries here? Objection! HYPOTHETICAL OVERRULED 15:02:55 head being hit against cement could be lacerations above, never impacted when bottom contusions occurred? it's possible 15:03:25 guy focused you on life threatening injuries? correct 15:03:33 suggest to you that this has anything to do with life threatening injuries? I'm sorry I didn't get.... 15:03:47 suggest to you that was an element in this case? no. understand the extent of injuries is not significant? I'm sorry I didn't get that 15:04:08 understand that the extent of injuries have nothing to do with case itself? Object! REPHRASE 15:04:29 were you prepared for examination to identify whether or not there were life threatening injuries? no. 15:04:42 none of this injuries were life threatening? no. what about the next injury? the next injury he would've sustained....Object! Speculation! SUSTAINED. moment? YES 15:05:36 thank you nothing further REDIRECT 15:05:41 who appointed you chief for district 4? the governor... testifying today because Corey wrote letter some years ago? no. slanting here today because of that? absolutely not 15:06:05 shown photos by defense, shown before today? yes. 36 photos? yes. photos of hands/ yes 15:06:24 expect someone undergoing attack to fight back? Objection! SUSTAINED ON BOTH GROUNDS 15:06:42 hit head on edge of concrete, watch the reenactment, any suggestion of edge of concrete? no 15:07:01 that's all I have..MAY DR. RAU BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS... mantei: next witness is not available, approach? YES 15:08:07 15 MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME. FOLLOW JARVIS INTO JURY ROOM AT THIS TIME... 15:08:43 PLEASE BE SEATED... COURT IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES ============================================================== 15:23:57 PLEASE BE SEATED... 15:24:05 O'Mara: matter to address before jury brought in... objection in question of proffer the state is going to present with school records from a 1 or 2 before this event.. proffered and outweighed .... portion of school book he may have read. 15:24:57 RESPONSE? 15:25:02 mantei: 4 records... degree in criminal justice, 149 hours toward that degree... on schedule to graduate, had not yet... record 2 is one of the courses he took specifically taught by professor and the homework assignments, criminal law including self-defense and stand your ground law, record 3 is application to be a police officer for prince William county in Virginia... and 4th is record of Sanford police to ride along with police.... they all go to support a number of things... this defendant had such an interest in law enforcement, frame of mind... wants to catch people.. mentions that in homework assignment... chosen measure, already mentioned... is relevant to his education and understanding to adequately discuss when he's confronted with police what they are trying to do and what he should say to address the issue.... as far as knowledge of law is relevant to statements... told Hannity he never heard the of the law... application to be a police officer and ride along are relevant... ongoing pattern of behavior... act and become a police officer... that's what he was actually trying to do. RESPONSE? 15:28:11 O'Mara: use a transcript that he didn't complete degree, went to community college seeking legal studies is not relevant to them... event occurred 7 or 8 minutes of that day... not getting into martins past because were protecting that part.... get before this jury to not focus on evidence, but on theory he acted in a way to say something to cops.... evidence supports that... let him show what the evidence is... fish hunt.... went to college and ride along suggests negative thing. bad he wanted to go to college, no relevance.... DONT UNDERSTAND FISHING EXHIBIT FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE...theory is not supported yet by hard facts in anger and anomosity 15:30:10 WHAT THEYRE TRYING TO INTRODUCE IS FOR ZIMMERMAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND TECHNIQUES, INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES, DID SAY ON INTERVIEW FROM STATES EXHIBIT 180, THE INTERVIEW WITH HANNITY WHEN ASKED ABOUT STAND YOUR GROUND LAW AND HE SAID NO... THATS ONE OF THE THINGS, THE STATS SAYING ITS NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION.. TO SHOW DEFENDANT HAD KNOWLEDGE THROUGH COURSE REVIEW AS TO TECHNIQUES OF INTERVIEWING, I DONT KNOW WHAT COURSE INFORMATION SAYS WHAT ITS TAUGHT 15:31:17 O'Mara: fishing expedition, where does it end.. anyone who's gone through 6th grade civic lesson... COURSES HE TOOK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR TOWARD CRIMINOLOGY DEGREE, NOT LIKE HE TOOK HUMANITY CLASSES... BEING SPECIFIC, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE EXHIBITS 15:32:03 TAKE YOUR TIME TO TOOK AT THOSE EXHIBITS. mantei: not in the book, that's why he's here live 15:32:19 O'Mara: going back and forth I HAVEN'T SEEN PROPOSED EXHIBITS, NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.. HAND THEM TO ME, ILL REVIEW THEM... 209 is the coursework, awarded defendant an A. THESE RECORDS ARE COLLEGE RECORD AND ALL OTHER GRADES IN CLASSES, THATS NOT RELEVANT. ATTACHED ARE GRADE CHANGE IN ACADEMIC. awarded grade. 15:33:35 DIPLOMA, CERTIFICATE APPLICATION... proposed graduation date of late 2012... 15:34:23 IS THAT THE ONLY CLASS, CRIMINAL LITIGATION... CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION I SEE... professor about we had a discussion about this morning, I have an update on that situation as well. 15:35:08 I DONT KNOW ALL THESE RECORDS ARE RELEVANT.. SHOW OTHER COURSE OF STUDY, BUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND LITIGATION WILL BE... REDACT THESE RECORDS 15:35:30 course book material and homework from the class... O'Mara wanted entire book entered, I have that available as well. LIVE WITNESS FOR THESE EVIDENCE? yes professor Carter is here.... 15:37:08 I GUESS THERES TWO PARTS... HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS AND A FINAL PROJECT PAPER. O'Mara: continue to be heard on objection. THIS EXHIBIT 210? YES. can't create evidence for introducing it... showed Hannity and now trying to impeach him... can't create evidence, can't ask question the way they did... could've redacted, but now bringing it back in with this evidence... unfair and inappropriate... WOULDN'T THAT BE DECLARING A WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS 15:38:35 can't open their own door... you suggested last week, can't open a door a little bit yourself to push through it.. that's what they're doing.... attempt as foot hole through professor and acknowledge if George was or wasn't in class that day... can't create their own impeachment. ILL GIVE YOU TIME TO GIVE YOU CASE LAW ON THAT, BECAUSE I DONT AGREE WITH THAT. 15:39:38 mantei: not the sole purpose of admitting that... it was admitted by both parties... READ THAT IT WAS REDACTED, A WHOLE OTHER ISSUES 15:40:15 THATS THEIR CASE, THEORY OF THE CASE... ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... JUST LIKE DEFENSE CAN CROSS EXAM ON THE THEORY OF THE CASE... needs to have connection, not just took a class years prior without direct evidence... YOUR CROSS EXAM OF WITNESSES REGARDING INCIDENTS GAVE INDICATION THE JURY COULD INFER YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION ON SELF DEFENSE... I THINK THATS BEFORE THE JURY BASED UPON THAT... IF ITS THE THEORY OF THAT STATES CASE THAT ZIMMERMAN HAD INFORMATION, I THINK THEYRE ENTITLED TO BRING THAT FORWARD... I CAN RECESS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK FOR CASE LAW... 15:41:43 O'Mara: request state proffer to connect up.... need to present evidence from witness that he was present during that class.... if they can't connect dots at all... can't allow jury to guess about what I means... shouldn't they show that he was in class... 15:42:31 mantei: moved to original objection to 4 points after that.... proffer of presence is beyond the point.... had access to the book, access to the presentations... the relevance of all of this is that the defendant did have this information... wishes to claim he wasn't there or in cross if he could guarantee... goes to weight of evidence.... idea its more prejudicial.. this is good thing and then argue its prejudicial that its outweighed 15:43:47 O'Mara: let me... NO LET ME GIVE YOU TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK OVER CASE LAW... OTHER EXHIBITS ARE.... 15:44:11 mantei: police officer application? DATE? July 8 2009. AND THE RIDE ALONG? 3-15-2010. I WILL CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE. RECESS FOR HALF AN HOUR 15:44:45 COURT IN RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES ============================================ 16:16:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CASE LAW OR NEED MORE TIME??? O'Mara: both, but maybe address specific objections... IF THAT IS THE CASE AND SPEND THE TIME DOING THIS.. ANY OTHER WITNESSES AVAILABLE NOT ON THIS ISSUE... TAKE THIS UP AT 8:30 IN THE MORNING, DO WHAT WE CAN AFTER THIS UNRELATED WITNESS TESTIFIES.... mantei: two witnesses are flown in out of state, make that arrangement 16:17:57 FIRST TIME COURT IS HEARING ARGUMENT, PARTIES HAD THESE EXHIBITS ON EACH SIDE FOR I DONT KNOW HOW LONG... DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT ARGUMENT, IF NOT PREPARED TO CONTINUE I WILL GIVE THEM TIME TO DO SO.... NEXT WITNESS 16:18:33 ANYTHING ELSE TO TAKE UP BEFORE JURY COMES IN? mantei: inform other witnesses we will need them tomorrow and they'll be staying another night 16:19:11 JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN THE WITNESS IS OUTSIDE. 16:19:21 rionda: only witness we have available, it'll be short we believe... but it is getting close to 5, so we should be good. 16:20:14 O'Mara: do have depositions set for this evening at well... starting at 5:30 16:20:34 WITNESS IS HERE, GO AHEAD AND BRING JURY IN 16:21:49 PLEASE BE SEATED... CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 16:22:08 (sworn in) 16:22:30 guy: name? Christine Benson. how employed? latent print analyst. how long? 8 years. how long in latent print? under 3 years 16:22:53 duties? examine evidence for latent prints and perform comparisons of prints to known standards 16:23:10 summarize training for such? bachelor of science in business management, completed latent print training, and additional training 16:23:39 ever been tendered as expert in areas of latent print identification? yes. how many? 7 16:23:58 explain then what is latent print? unintentional recording of finger print or palm print... residue from body can be transferred from ridge detail on surface 16:24:28 latent print of value? sufficient amount of information to identify or eliminate person 16:24:43 suitable for comparison? yes 16:24:48 how of no value? lack clarity or ridge detail. may be distorted 16:25:02 touch a surface, guarantee of latent print of value? no. why not? have to have enough residue to transfer onto surface... item needs to be conducive of receiving latent print... rough surfaces are less likely to receive... latent prints destroyed? yes. how? excessive handling of surface can wipe away prints 16:25:51 environmental conditions like rain can damage as well 16:26:01 latent print card? white card sued to preserve latent prints 16:26:10 how used in work? receive cards to examine for prints 16:26:19 known inked print? intentional recording. 16:26:31 how to compare to latent print of value? look for similarities and differences, thorough examination is completed, determine it was identified or not with that print 16:27:04 examine print card in this case? yes 16:27:13 states 183, recognize that? yes I do 16:27:25 card you examined in this case? yes. hold it up to jury.... explain the card to them? latent lift card, an area of interest was developed... placed a clear piece of tape on the latent and placed it on opposite side you see here 16:27:58 examine card for latent prints of value? yes. how? I used hand held magnifier for presence. find any? no. any further involvement in case? no CROSS 16:28:25 O'Mara: afternoon 16:28:30 do you know from looking at that document, where print was lifted from? lift location filled out, shows where it came from 16:28:45 where? slide of firearm located within 16:28:59 taken from firearm? that's what's indicated 16:29:06 only one print to review? yes 16:29:11 mentioned that environmental effects can have negative affect? yes 16:29:22 rain itself can? it can 16:29:27 what is left, oils from skin? can be, yes 16:29:35 any other debris, but allows for determination, oil can be left? yes. water can wash that away? yes 16:29:51 fingerprints may have existed on item from a latent lift and be no latents? correct. even if handled by 1 2 or 3 people? correct 16:30:13 any other with zimmerman case? no 16:30:20 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED.... COUNCIL APPROACH FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE (sidebar) 16:36:14 LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, MATTERS TO TAKE CARE OF OUTSIDE OF YOUR PRESENCE... EXCUSE YOU FOR EVENING. DO NOT LISTEN TO REPORTS ABOUT CASE. NO DISCUSSIONS. NO ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT CASE. ASSURANCES? yes. THANK YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING. NOTEPADS FACE DOWN ON CHAIR 16:37:30 PLEASE BE SEATED... COUNCIL WISH TO CONTINUE AT BENCH? (sidebar) 16:42:10 (martin family) 16:44:42 COURT IS IN RECESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ATTORNEYS UNTIL 8:30 TOMORROW MORNING..JURORS AT 9 AM. 16:44:54 COURT IN RECESS ============================= The lead police detective who investigated the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in central Florida last year will return to the witness stand today for a second day to testify about his investigation. the testimony of Sanford Police detective, Chris Serino, continued a trend we have seen of prosecution witnesses being very helpful to the defense. Serino said Zimmerman appeared to be relieved when told him the shooting had been videotaped. It wasn't. Another detective testified that Zimmerman appeared surprised and lowered his head when she told him the 17 year-old Martin was dead. Zimmerman is charged with murder, but maintains he was acting in self-defense.