Truth-Finding in Criminal Trials

Why, hello there ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to my (very outdated) blog. For those of you who don't know me/where I am at this point in my life, my name is Lyndsey Clos and I am a current freshman at High Point University in North Carolina, double-majoring in Criminal Justice and English. Because I haven't posted in what seems like a thousand years, I'll write a bit of a background story first.

I have always loved blogging. I used to create fashion blogs way back in the day (when I thought I was cool), and those eventually turned into my love for writing, thus my desire to pursue a degree in English. I currently have two blogs - this one entitled "Managing Mankind", and another entitled "Healthy, Happy, Holistic" which I used to talk about all things health and fitness because that has been a big part of my life for the last four years. This blog was created in a class I took in high school about the Holocaust and human behavior, and I decided to keep it running for times like this...when I have something to say, but I'm not exactly sure where to put it.

So why am I here today? Now that I am in college (the last post I wrote was pre-college), I have learned a few things about society and how the world works. Yes, mom and dad, I am learning! Surprise, surprise for a first year college student. Anyways...

The topic at hand today is truth finding in American criminal trials. As a criminal justice major, I am currently taking three courses which I love in this area. One of them, called "We, the Jury", is a seminar class where we study different high-profile criminal trials in history. Our first trial was the Zimmerman case - Florida v. Zimmerman. Although I had heard of this case in the past few years, I had no idea about the controversy that surrounded it. Our case study involved in-class discussions, analysis of the people involved, and the book Suspicion Nation by Lisa Bloom.

And let me tell you all - I have never been more intrigued by a class in my entire life. I honestly do not even care if anyone is reading this; I would just like to look back on this in a few years (when I'm a lawyer...prayers) and reminisce on my student thoughts.

For those of you who don't know about this case, here are the basics:

George Zimmerman is a white middle-aged man who lives in Florida in a small neighborhood of townhouse. He is the neighborhood watch-man and has always been vigilant when it came to suspicious people. He took self-defense and criminal justice classes and has been called a "wanna-be policeman". In February of 2012, he was on his way to Target leaving his neighborhood when he saw a "suspicious" man walking. He called a non-emergency number to report the man. Now, I wish I could tell you this was the extent of it and that everything was fine and the man was not suspicious, but I can't. The other person involved in this case was a barely 17-year-old boy named Trayvon Martin. Trayvon was hanging out with his younger friend on that evening in February watching a big basketball game. Trayvon decided to venture out to get some snacks for the two. He headed to he 7/aa convenient store about a mile away around 7PM that evening. As he was walking back with his Arizona watermelon drink and a bag of Skittles, he was talking on the phone with his friend Rachel Jeantel. When George Zimmerman crossed Trayvon's path in the same neighborhood, something very awful happened. Trayvon Martin, an UNARMED, AFRICAN AMERICAN boy was shot and killed. I could go on and on about the details, but basically, Zimmerman left his vehicle to chase Trayvon on foot and confront him - which is exactly what he did. He confronted Trayvon, Trayvon fought back (who wouldn't if they were being chased for no reason?!), and Zimmerman took out his concealed weapon and shot Trayvon out of what he claims to be "self-defense". Please, someone, explain to me where it is acceptable to PICK A FIGHT, then claim SELF DEFENSE when the person fights back.

This irritates me. It irritates me beyond belief. And in this case, justice for Trayvon Martin was NOT found. The policemen and investigator's of this case automatically believed Zimmerman's story. The prosecutor's of this case had no desire to try this case. It was the public protests and responses that pushed this case into court. And because of that, this case was built upon lies.

For my class, our final assignment was to create a closing argument from either the defense side or the prosecution and show our perspective on the case from our findings acting as the attorney. I chose to be the prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda. Because there was a word limit, I was unable to fit in every argument I had. However, I did the best I could. Note: I am not a lawyer. I have no law experience, really. I just found this case so interesting and I couldn't help but share, even if it's only with my future self.

So, here we go. Here is my closing argument. Enjoy.

Closing Argument by the Prosecution in the Case of Florida v. George Zimmerman

Introduction:

Good morning and thank you for your cooperation and attention during the duration of this trial. I know it can be hard to come from your everyday lives and give up a lot to serve as jurors, so we all thank you for your patience. This case is very important to the state of Florida and to the victim’s family. Again, my name is Bernie de la Rionda and I have a few things to remind you of before you make your final decisions about what happened on the night of Sunday, February 26^th, 2012 around 7:00 PM near the Retreat at the Twin Lakes Townhomes.

Theme: Ladies and gentleman, there is a difference between over-reaction and self-defense. There is a difference between retaliation and self-defense. And lastly, there is a difference between what establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt and what sums up to just mere excuses by the defendant.

Theory: Ladies of the jury, George Zimmerman killed an innocent teenage boy the night of February 26th, 2012. Not only did Mr. Zimmerman make assumptions about the victim in this case, but he also provoked the physical altercation that occurred between the two due to his aggressive behavior towards Trayvon Martin. The law does not allow the defendant in this case to pick a fight and then create a need to defend himself.

We ask that you judge the defendant based on his actions on February 26^th, 2012 rather than his side of the story of the events that occurred. Trayvon Benjamin Martin, a barely seventeen-year-old boy who was simply walking to watch a basketball game on TV with his younger friend Chad Joseph, carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles and an Arizona watermelon fruit juice from the local 7/11, has been stripped of a voice in this case. He cannot tell us his feelings in this case. He has no say in the proceedings of this court, nor is he able to walk this Earth today. He has been killed due to the defendant’s claims of approaching this boy because he seemed “suspicious”. Suspicion, however, does not constitute the death of a teenage boy with an entire life ahead of him. The man that sits before you is, of course, going to exaggerate his story. We, as human beings, are going to act in our best interest – even if that means lying to cover up what really happened. He doesn’t want to sit in jail for his unjustifiable behavior, just as any reasonable person would desire not to do so.

The big question at hand here is whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable based on the circumstances, and I am here to prove to you that they were not. The law says I must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on February 26^th, 2012, the defendant engaged in a struggle with Trayvon Martin because the defendant profiled the victim, and that in doing so, Trayvon Martin’s life was quickly ended. Perhaps George Zimmerman isn’t bad man, but his actions were unreasonable in light of the threat Mr. Zimmerman perceived from Trayvon Martin, thus he must be held accountable for his actions.

Elements:  Now follow me as I show you one last time why Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of silencing Trayvon Martin in murder of the second degree.  

1)         Trayvon Martin was on the property of the Twin Lakes Townhomes legally.

He was not trespassing, he was not committing a crime, he was simply walking back to the place he was staying. Yet, George Zimmerman, who formed a neighborhood watch committee for his neighborhood, profiled this boy as a criminal. A criminal – a boy who was walking with his cell phone, $40.15 in cash, a bag of Skittles, and an Arizona watermelon fruit juice cocktail. He was wearing a sweatshirt and jeans. He was speaking to his friend, Rachel Jeantel, on the phone. He was walking at a perfectly reasonable time of day: 7:00 PM. He was minding his own business. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not crime. Trayvon Martin’s trip to the nearest 7/11 and back does not constitute a crime under any means. However, Mr. Zimmerman assumed he was up to no good. He presumed something completely untrue. And he went after him because he thought he was protecting his territory. But, the defendant went over the line. He assumed things that weren’t true. And because of that, Trayvon Martin is dead. That is why we are here.

2)         The defendant in this case showed ill-will and hatred before the killing of Trayvon Martin.

George Zimmerman made the call to the non-emergency phone line when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking around his neighborhood. Mr. Zimmerman is part of his neighborhood watch. He has always been interested in criminal justice and he has even taken classes in this area of study. However, he is not a trainer police officer. He is not allowed to take the law into his own hands. He may want to be a police officer, but he is not. On this call, as you have heard, Mr. Zimmerman can be heard saying, “f***ing punks. These ***holes always get away.” Automatically, he was assuming Trayvon Martin was a criminal that was walking the streets of the defendant’s neighborhood. As he was on the phone with the police dispatcher, he was told to stay in his vehicle and that police were on his way. But did Mr. Zimmerman do so? No. He exited his vehicle and followed Trayvon Martin on foot. He did not stay in his car and simply roll down his window saying something like, “Hey, would you mind just waiting here for a minute? I haven’t seen you around before and I just want to make sure everything is okay, so I have police on the way just to clear things up.” As he was on foot following Trayvon Martin after exiting his vehicle, he was asked if he was following the boy by the police dispatcher, and that if he was, he should stay put because the police were “minutes away”. He claimed, while on the phone, that he was scared of the boy and that he was threatened. Any person in this case would stay put and let the police do their job. But, unfortunately, the defendant did not do so. George Zimmerman, according to Miss Rachel Jeantel, who we heard from earlier, did not even bother approach Trayvon in a respectable manner. According to Ms. Jeantel, the first words out of Mr. Zimmerman’s mouth were “What are you doing around here?” and then Ms. Jeantel heard a thud as the call was disconnected. Think of who was following who in this situation. Think of which person had the gun on him. May I remind you all that following someone because you think he or she is suspicious should not result in a killing of the “so-called” perpetrator – especially if your assumptions are wrong. The law does not let the defendant take matter into his own hands; the law does, however, say that the defendant is responsible for his actions and that he is accountable for what he did.

3)         The events that happened during the physical altercation on that night in 2012 did not happen as the defendant claims they did based on multiple evidential pieces that we have seen from our witnesses.

George Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Trayvon Martin first. Although we may not know the exact circumstance of this because there were no witnesses present, we do know that Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon at the time, heard a thud and what she claims to be a “wet, grassy sound” when Trayvon was in the middle of explaining the situation to her. If you believe that Trayvon was the first to attack, you are saying that the defendant is an innocent man. In his interview after the incident, Mr. Zimmerman claims that he believes he was attacked first because Trayvon Martin was angry that Mr. Zimmerman called the police. But, ladies and gentlemen, only criminals who were deliberately doing something wrong would be upset that police were on their way, minutes from the scene. We have clarified to you that this seventeen-year-old boy was indeed not a criminal. He was simply walking, armed with some candy and an iced drink, talking to his friend on the phone.

Our next piece on this timeline is the altercation that occurred between the two. The defendant has stated, since the minute he was questioned by police, that Trayvon Martin was bashing his head into the concrete, telling him to “shut up”. Ladies of the jury, take a look at state exhibit number eight. In this photograph, taken immediately after the incident occurred, there is no trace of blood stains on the sidewalk where Mr. Zimmerman claims his head was being hit. Go ahead, take a look. If a head, any human head, was being “bashed” into concrete, there would be blood on the ground. Now, yes, we have seen that Mr. Zimmerman did have two cuts on the back of his head; however, they do not match up with his story. What makes this lie even more interesting is that Mr. Zimmerman did in fact not even go to the emergency room that evening; he waited until the following day to simply visit a family doctor. Folks, if you have your head smashed against a concrete sidewalk to the degree that the defendant claims, you would have serious injuries that would require immediate attention. Furthermore, as Ms. Fulgate testified, the cuts on Mr. Zimmerman’s head were a mere half a centimeter in length. HALF. A. CENTIMETER. We have no doubt that there was a struggle that took place on the night of February 26^th. But, look who ended up with the ultimate injuries – the teenage boy who was wrongfully profiled, chased, and killed for no reason other than perhaps “looking” like a criminal to the defendant.

The final piece of this that I will prove to you is the last lie that the defendant has come up with to justify his actions that evening. Mr. Zimmerman’s main reason for ending this young boy’s life was because Trayvon Martin reached for the holstered gun, and the defendant believed his life was in danger at that moment. But let’s go back to the defendant’s actual story during his interview with the police. We have already clarified that there was indeed a fight between the two. We have also already clarified who was armed and who was not. But, let me remind you of how the armed person had his gun holstered in this case. Mr. Zimmerman demonstrates in the video of his interview that he had his gun in the holster for the duration of the struggle. We also know that on that night in 2012, the defendant was wearing both a shirt and a jacket with jeans, in which his holster was placed on the back of his right hip, UNDER his jacket, in his waistband. Legally, Mr. Zimmerman is allowed to carry a concealed weapon, which he was indeed doing that night. We can even see in the video that he points to the back of his right hip when showing the police where he had his gun and where he took it out of when he shot and killed the teenager. So, on his night, around 7:00PM when it was dark outside and the weather was quite gloomy and rainy, I ask you all to think about the defendant’s claim that Trayvon Martin was reaching for Mr. Zimmerman’s gun. If the defendant claims he was on his back on the ground, with the gun concealed under both his jacket AND his body, how was Trayvon Martin able to both SEE and REACH for the gun? This, again, is another lie. Unless the victim had x-ray vision and was able to see through bodies, it is impossible that Trayvon Martin knew the gun was present. As the defendant somehow reached for his gun BEHIND his back while on the ground and shot the boy, he was able to re-holster his gun, supposedly push the boy off of him, and move his arms as police do when having to use deadly force. Again, we see this defendant acting as he is law enforcement, when he has in fact had zero experience with police training. We are forced to think back to the defendant’s constant lies and spinning stories in an effort to save himself.

4)         The struggle between Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin does not enable self-defense as an excuse for Trayvon’s death.

Let me start out by explaining what self-defense is in a case such as this. Self-defense has three main parts to it. First, the situation must be reasonable. The person “acting” out of self-defense has had to have acted in a reasonable, fair, and sensible way. Second, there must be the presence of imminence. In this case, you must ask yourselves if the defendant was presented with imminent danger that presented potential death. Based on the facts, as we have seen Trayvon Martin was both unarmed and harming no one at the time, Mr. Zimmerman was not in imminent danger. Think about it: if Mr. Zimmerman had the gun, and he knew he had the gun, he knew he had the upper-hand when he realized the victim was unarmed. Trayvon was only able to fight back using his own strength – he had no weapons. Now, we move onto the last element of self-defense: death or major bodily harm. As Mr. Zimmerman claims, his head was being pounded on the cement, thus he could believe his life was in danger. However, as we have proven to you, Mr. Zimmerman was in fact not being slammed on the cement, thus he was not in as much harm as he said he was. Pulling out his gun and shooting the victim in the chest was in no means necessary in this situation. Self-defense cannot be an excuse for the defendant’s actions.

Notes on the defense (as if this were the brief second half of the prosecution’s closing):

We would ask you to reject the defense theories of the case because their excuses do not amount to reasonable doubt. Ladies and gentlemen, you must realize that the defendant, Mr. Zimmerman, has a motivation to lie. His motivation to lie comes out of his desire to walk out of this court as a free man. The defense has shown you their biased side of witnesses and evidence. They have provided you with numerous excuses because they will do and say everything in their power to cover up the truth behind the defendant’s motivations. They want to persuade you that Mr. Zimmerman, is a respectable man that doesn’t deserve to be put behind bars. But, ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind that the law must overpower excuses. This man killed the innocent teenager who was so excited to get back to his father’s girlfriend’s house to watch the big game. Trayvon Martin never got to watch that basketball game with his friend Chad Joseph. He will never get to live through the decades of his life that he had left. His life was stripped from him on February 26^th, 2012, just weeks after his sixteenth birthday.  

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we ask that you use your common sense, the physical evidence, and the witnesses testimony to come up with a verdict in this case. Keep in mind that the defendant is the only one who knows what really happened, thus he is claiming self-defense because that is the most he can do to save himself from incarceration for this wrongful murder. Remember that the law does not allow one to pick a fight and then claim self-defense because the person being attacked fought back. We would ask that you find the defendant guilty as charged with murder in the second degree, and remember the young boy who was killed because he was simply walking when Mr. Zimmerman happened to cross his path. Thank you.

IF you are still with me - I'm impressed. I thank you for reading this all! I just hope to show others that not all criminal trials find the truth. The only person who knows the truth in this case is George Zimmerman. 

Thank you all, and good night. 

Until next time, 

Lyndsey