Prosecutors will inevitably appeal to emotion and, within bounds, this is good. But, the emotion should be for justice, not for sympathy. The defense, in the case, and usually, appeals for reason, as they are looking for reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution made a very emotional second part of its closing argument. The prosecution derogatorily referred to George Zimmerman as “Mr. Stay-puff,” which violates the decorum of the court. The prosecution mischaracterized the evidence when they claimed that Trayvon’s friend was on the phone with him at the time of the shot, when the phone records and a 911 call that they introduced into evidence show this to have been impossible. Should there be a guilty verdict, these will be included in the list of reasons why the verdict should be vacated.
I have the impression that the judge and the prosecution sensed that the case was headed to an acquittal, in which case all their indiscretions will immediately and forever fall away.
But, what is there to make of it being 11 am EST and there is no verdict. I think we can suspect that there is a holdout. Certainly, a holdout on the basis of reasonable doubt could not be persuaded by looking yet again at evidence, since the prosecution’s case is based on filling in the blank using by “thinking with your heart.” So, I suspect the holdout is for guilty and that the verdict will either be acquittal, if the evidence is persuasive with this holdout, or a hung jury.
“The prosecution mischaracterized the evidence when they claimed that Trayvon’s friend was on the phone with him at the time of the shot, when the phone records and a 911 call that they introduced into evidence show this to have been impossible. Should there be a guilty verdict, these will be included in the list of reasons why the verdict should be vacated.”
The prosecution also lied about what Zimmerman said to tell his wife. Prosecutor’s version: Tell my wife “I just killed someone.” Witness version: Tell my wife “I just shot someone.”
I wondered if this might be why the jury wanted the detailed list, to re-hear for themselves.