The following is a LIVE, ongoing rundown of the day's testimony in the George Zimmerman trial for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The most recent updates from the courtroom Wednesday are on top.

———————————————

5:36 p.m.

Court is in recess until Friday morning.

5:24 p.m.

The attorneys go back into sidebar with Judge Nelson.

5:23 p.m.

The jury is dismissed until 8:30 a.m. Friday.

Witness: Anthony Gorgone, FDLE DNA analyst

5:20 p.m.

De la Rionda asks about the DNA on the right cuff of Zimmerman’s jacket having to come in contact with Martin.

“It had to come into contact with some kind of bodily fluid or skin cells from Trayvon Martin,” Gorgone says.

De la Rionda asks about his saying “he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” He uses a rat being under the table as an example, saying he wouldn’t know it was there unless he went and looked.

De la Rionda asks about Martin’s hooded sweatshirt and if it was examined, not finding Zimmerman’s DNA.

Gorgone says Zimmerman’s DNA was not included in the sweatshirt.

De la Rionda asks about stains A, B, and C.

Gorgone says B wasn’t tested and A and C matched nothing.

De la Rionda finishes questioning.

West re-cross examines.

He asks about the right cuff area of Zimmerman’s jacket.

Gorgone confirms he doesn’t know how it came to be there.

De la Rionda objects to question.

Gorgone says all he knows is it tested positive and a mixed sample included Martin.

Gorgone is excused.

De la Rionda asks to approach the bench.

5:11 p.m.

De la Rionda asks about stain U on Zimmerman’s jacket.

He asks to assume he is wearing the jacket and demonstrates where Martins DNA could potentially be.

West objects about the questioning being hypothetical.

The attorneys approach for a sidebar.

5:09 p.m.

West asks about Zimmerman’s jacket. He presents the jacket for Gorgone to go over.

Gorgone points out stain N on the front right shoulder. He says the major contributor was Zimmerman, the minor match Martin.

He says more DNA from one over the other, explaining the major and minor terms.

Gorgone points out stain U on the bottom of the right cuff. He says it was also a mixture and Martin was a contributor, but Zimmerman could not be determined.

Stain V was a mixture. Martin could not be excluded or included.

Gorgone points out the stains on the back.

West finishes questioning.

De la Rionda redirects.

5:00 p.m.

Gorgone says the gray sweatshirt was slightly damp.

West asks whose DNA was found on it.

Gorgone says stain A, on the lower right hand side of the shirt, has DNA profile matching Zimmerman.

He says there was the possibility of an additional contributor, but the potential was not high enough for him to make a comparison on.

Stain B matches Martin. It is also located on the bottom, but more in the center.

West points out there is no reddish stain. Gorgone says he cut it all out.

Stain B was single source.

Stain D was positive blood a mixture of two individuals and both Martin and Zimmerman were included.

Staining is still visible on the sweatshirt.

He says stain D was a very light spread out stain, so he took four cuttings to test.

West asks if it is possible for what was cut to have been from one person. Gorgone says he could’ve have taken and tested the cutting separately,

but it looked like one large stain prompting him to test the way he did.

Stain E, under the left armpit, matched Martin, Gorgone says.

West asks about the sleeves. Gorgone says a piece of filter paper rubbed on the sleeve tested negative for blood.

He did the same thing with a swab.

Gorgone says the left sleeve had foreign DNA, but he wasn’t able to determine if Zimmerman was a contributor.

The right sleeve didn’t have anything foreign to Martin.

West asks about the back of the sweatshirt.

4:51 p.m.

West asks him where the stain was that was identified as stain A. Gorgone says it was a single source partial profile matching Martin.

West asks where stain D is. Stains B and C are on the back.

Gorgone says Stain B tested negative for blood. Stain C did not have DNA results.

West goes over the sleeve cuffs testing.

“It didn’t smell good, no,” Gorgone says.

West presents the gray sweatshirt for Gorgone to go over.

4:45 p.m.

Gorgone says he left the evidence out to try as long as he could, but it needed to be transformed to the firearms analyst.

He says the transfer from Guzman to himself to Siewert took place in a matter of hours.

Guzman’s work is called sweeping, Gorgone says, which he describes as brushing the item and packaging it into a paper fold for examination.

Gorgone says he uses a piece of filter paper on the clothing and tests the filter paper.

He says he cuts a small portion of the stained areas and puts them in a tube for testing.

Gorgone explains the extraction process.

West asks about the hooded sweatshirt. He asks him to point out the stains and tell the court his findings.

4:38 p.m.

West asks about wet evidence believed to contain biological material.

Gorgone says anything wet should be dried down because if it is packaged it could mold.

West asks if Gorgone was present when the sweatshirt was delivered to FDLE.

He says he only saw it when it was brought to him. It had already been opened and examined by the trace evidence section of the lab, Gorgone says.

He describes the outer container as a brown paper bag and inside that was a red plastic bag usually used for bio-hazardous material which was tied with a knot.

Gorgone says he detected an odor on the dark gray hooded sweatshirt. The light gray one did not have the same odor, meaning it was not as wet.

He says both items were still wet when he opened the package. The light gray one was damp and the dark gray one was more damp, wet, and had a “pungent” odor.

West asks if the clothing should have been air dried or at least packaged in paper.

Gorgone says ideally yes, they should be air dried before packaged and agencies are encourage to not use plastic bags.

The biological evidence is at a risk of damaged, Gorgone confirms.

4:30 p.m.

West asks if “fingernail left” or “fingernail right” means anything.

Gorgone says it’s just how whoever did it decided to type out the label.

West points out each location of the gun has a separate swab.

West asks about the hooded sweatshirt.

West asks if there was processing done on Martin’s pants. Gorgone says no.

West asks about the packaging of the sweatshirt.

He asks if Gorgone is familiar with NIST. Gorgone says NIST is a government organization that issues standards they are required to run annually or more on their instruments.

NIST is not part of the accreditation process, Gorgone says. They are accredited by an organization made of forensic lab directors that inspect the facility and interview personnel making sure they meet FBI standards. It takes place every 5 years and the last one was in 2010.

4:24 p.m.

West asks about the swabs for the candy Skittles and the flashlight.

Gorgone confirms he never saw the bag or flashlight.

West asks about the sticks used for fingernail scrapings.

Gorgone says if he sees red/brown staining he tests for blood and saw it on the stick for the right hand.

It tested positive for blood and the DNA profile matched Martin.

Gorgone says he didn’t test for blood on the left hand because there was not staining. He did test if for DNA.

He says he’s more interested in foreign samples that might’ve scraped off in the fingernails of that individual.

Gorgone says he has no way of knowing when the blood came in contact with the hand.

No DNA on the left hand did not surprise him, Gorone says, adding that it is a very small area being collected from.

The absence of evidence isn’t significant, he confirms.

West asks if he ever say Martin’s fingernails.

Gorgone says no.

West asks why there is only one stick for each hand.

Gorgone says the one stick is used to scrape all five fingernails on one hand.

He says he’s never done that process.

4:15 p.m.

West questions him about the use of swabs from the firearm.

West asks him if he reports about why DNA is where it is. Gorgone says he analyzes the swabs.

He says moisture, heat and humidity environmental factors can degrade DNA which affects his ability to amplify the sample for testing.

A gun is a hard surface so touch DNA or skin cells will be on it, not soaked into it like can happen with a shirt, Gorgone explains.

The hard surface of a gun or pen is not good for retaining touch DNA, he says.

West asks about the results for the slide of the gun sample.

Gorgone says he could not match it to an individual.

“I wasn’t able to exclude them,” Gorgone says about the DNA sample on the slide of the gun.

West asks about the holster.

Gorgone says the major DNA profile match Zimmerman.

West asks about Gorgone not being able to exclude or include Martin from the holster.

“Their information is not represented enough,” Gorgone says about how he excludes someone.

West asks if the ability to conduct reliable analysis depends on the collection and packaging of the sample.

Gorgone says if an item is collected and not stored properly it could degrade DNA on the sample.

4:06 p.m.

 The jury is reseated and Don West begins cross examination.

3:40 p.m.

De la Rionda shows the actual shirt worn. Gorgone points out the stains marked for testing.

Stain A – positive, single source profile matching Zimmerman

Stain B – same as above

Stain C – same as above

Stain D – same as above

Stain E – same as above

Stain F – same as above

Stain G – negative for blood

Stain H – negative for blood

Stain I – positive, single source profile matching Zimmerman

Stain J – same as above

Stain K – same as above

Stain L – same as above

Stain M – same as above

Stain N – same as above

Stain O – same as above

Stain P – same as above

De la Rionda finishes questioning.

Judge Nelson gives a 15 minute recess before cross examination by the defense.

3:34 p.m.

Stain V – positive, DNA results were too limited to match, but possible to exclude though could not exclude Martin or Zimerman

Stains W,X, and Y – negative

Stain Z – positive, results too limited.

Stain AA – negative

Stain BB – positive, mixture DNA, not resolved to major or minor profiles. Zimmerman included as contributor. Not able to exclude or include Martin.

The stain BB was on the back on the left should near the middle, almost below the neck, Gorgone says.

Stain CC – negative

Stain DD – negative

Stain EE – negative

De la Rionda asks about the shirt Zimmerman was wearing. Gorgone says he did the same kind of analysis on this shirt also.

He found 16 stains.

3:29 p.m.

De la Rionda shows the Zimmerman’s jacket to the jury.

Gorgone explains the same process he did for the other clothing.

He says each individual stain he is going to test is cut out and put into its own tube.

He says he takes a bigger cutting if the stain is very light to get more sample.

Stain A - positive result for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain B – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Gorgone says foreign DNA would be indicated as a mixture.

He says there’s no way to tell if DNA came from blood, skin cells or another bodily fluid.

Stain C – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain D – negative for blood

Stain E – positive for blood, mixture DNA; major profile matched Zimmerman. The minor contributor was undetermined and couldn’t exclude or include Martin.

Stain E was located on the back right should of the jacket.

Stain F – negative for blood

Stain G – positive for blood, limited DNA results that were not interpretable

Stain H – negative for blood

Stain I – positive for blood, mixture DNA and resolved partial profile for major contributor matching Zimmerman. Minor contributor could not be determined, but he could exclude Martin.

Stain J – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman.

Stain K – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain L – positive for blood, same

Stain M – Same as above

Stain N – positive for blood, mixture DNA major contributor was Zimmerman, minor contributor was partial profile of Martin.

Stain N is on the front right upper part of the jacket.

Stain O – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman.

Stain P – same as above.

Stain Q – negative for blood.

Stain R – negative for blood

Stain S – negative for blood

Stain T – negative

Stain U – positive for blood, mixture DNA found, could not resolve major and minor contributors. He determined Martin was included as possible contributor.

The stain was on the velcro of the bottom right hand cuff, Gorgone says.

3:15 p.m.

Gorgone says he did not test around the hole from the gunshot. He says it was requested because it would be tested by another area of the lab.

De la Rionda sets the gray under sweatshirt next to the witness stand.

Gorgone points to the marked stains on it. There were no stains tested on the back.

He says stain A tested positive for presence of blood and a complete DNA profile that matched George Zimmerman.

He says stain B test positive for presence of blood and a complete DNA profile matched Trayvon Martin.

Stain C tested negative for possible presence of blood.

Stain D tested positive for blood and obtained a mixture of DNA, but he wasn’t able to determine with profile was a major or minor contributor. He says both Zimmerman and Martin were included as potential contributors.

Stain E tested positive for blood and a single source profile was obtained of Martin.

Stain D was the large one on the middle of the front surface. Stain E was on the right hand side of the gray sweatshirt.

The right cuff lower sleeve was tested for blood and was negative and showed nothing foreign for Martin.

The left cuff also tested negative for blood and the DNA profile obtained was a mixture. He says the sample was too limited and he wasn’t able to exclude Zimmerman.

De la Rionda asks about Zimmerman’s orange rain jacket.

Gorgone says he did the same visual examination and circled possible blood stains.

He says he say 17 stains he wanted to test. He says an alternate light source was used to examine the jacket and found 14 more stains to test.

3:02 p.m.

Gorgone tested swabs from the bag of Skittles and a flashlight.

DNA on the Skittles tested positive DNA from Martin.

The swab from the flashlight gave a negative DNA result.

De la Rionda asks Gorgone about testing the hoodie sweater Martin was wearing.

Gorgone says circled areas are stains tested for blood. He says the item was intact when he examined it. He did take three small cuttings to test for

DNA from three separate stains.

Gorgone says he documented what and when he did things.

De la Rionda shows the stain marked on the back of the sweatshirt. De la Rionda asks for the findings from stain A.

He says it tested positive for blood and was a partial DNA profile matching Martin’s. It was located in the front lower part of the sweater.

Stain B was on the left sleeve. It tested negative for the presence of blood.

Stain C was on the back and gave a positive result for the presence of blood but did not give a profile.

Gorgone says he also swabbed for foreign DNA on the cuffs of the sleeves. He tested it for blood first and was negative on the right side. He says

there was no DNA foreign to Martin on the right side. The left side was negative for blood and also tested negative for DNA foreign to Martin.

De la Rionda asks how much of the sleeve he as checking for DNA.

He says from the elbow area down to the cuff.

De la Rionda asks about examining the sweatshirt Martin wore under the hoodie.

Gorgone says he analyzed it.

2:50 p.m.

De la Rionda asks about the swab from the pistol grip.

Gorgone says he tested for blood and got a positive result. He says the sample was a mixture of DNA. He was able to determine the major profile as

Zimmerman. The last column is statistics from probability of DNA profile based on population database.

He says he wasn’t able to determine a profile for the other minor contributors, but was able to exclude Martin.

The swab collected from the trigger was not tested for blood. He says he did not get a mixture of DNA, but wasn’t able to determine a profile.

The swab collected from the pistol slide tested negative for blood. The DNA results were not a mixture. He was not able to include or exclude

Zimmerman or Martin.

The fourth swab from the holster tested negative for blood. He got a mixture of DNA. He was able to get a major DNA profile that matched Zimmerman.

He says he couldn’t determine a DNA profile for minor contributors and wasn’t able to include or exclude Martin.

De la Rionda asks about the fingernail scrapings taken from Martin.

Gorgone says he swabs the sticks used to test for DNA.

He says for the right hand, there was a positive test for the presence of blood. He says there was no DNA foreign to Martin.

He says the left hand stick was not tested for blood and he didn’t get any DNA results from it.

2:36 p.m.

Gorgone says he first does a chemical test for blood.

He cuts a portion of the cotton from the swab and tests it.

West looks over an exhibit De la Rionda plans to show the court.

2:33 p.m.

Gorgone says they were the known samples used for comparison in the case.

De la Rionda asks him to explain columns of the data.

The first column is the 13 locations he tested on the DNA molecule. An additional location shows the gender of the sample provider.

The next column shows Zimmerman’s data. The two numbers he says represent size fragments of DNA at the location. There are two numbers because one came from each parent.

The next column shows Martin’s data.

De la Rionda asks how a mixture would show.

Gorgone says a mixture in a question sample would show more than two numbers at the location indicating multiple individuals contributing to the sample.

De la Rionda asks about four swabs taken from George Zimmerman’s gun.

2:26 p.m.

Gorgone says he performs a random match probability test when he has multiple locations.

The different results aren’t evenly distributed in the population, he says.

He uses two different databases for this case: the FBI’s and Butler database, created by Dr. John Butler.

Gorgone explains the product rule as seeing the probability of the frequency for one event and an independent event happening together.

March 26, May 9, and July 26 of 2012 are dates of reports by Gorgone.

De la Rionda says he received swabs from Zimmerman and Martin.

De la Rionda shows him the evidence swabs.

2:18 p.m.

Gorgone says he sometimes gets a partial DNA profile, which can still be used to make some kind of comparison.

He says he has a question sample and a known sample, which is collected directly from an individual.

De la Rionda asks if markers not matching can eliminate a person.

Gorgone says it depends, a person can be eliminated as a match by markers, but sometimes there are mixtures of DNA which is a different comparison.

He says an indication of two or three people means he has to try to separate out the mixture into separate profiles.

When one person contributes more and stands out, he calls them a major profile.

When he can’t make individual profiles he can still compare.

Gorgone explains how he finds the presence of blood.

2:12 p.m.

Gorgone says he does proficiency testing from an outside company every six months.

He says an item submitted for testing goes to the evidence intake section, which is given an exhibit number and barcode, and then it is brought to him.

He says he marks the package with his initials, the case number and the date.

Gorgone says he used STR DNA testing, which is Short Tandem Repeat testing. He says they are repetitive non-coding regions of DNA.

The first step, he says, is analyzing the evidence for fluids. He takes a swab and exposes it to heat.

The next step is called quantification which tells him how much DNA he got.

That is followed by amplification, he says describing it as making copies.

The last step is called electrophoresis which where he creates the DNA profile, he says.

He says he can get a pen and be asked to determine who was handling it; other times he gets a swab already used on the item in question.

De la Rionda asks what the minimum is for DNA needed to get a result.

Gorgone says 1 nanogram is preferred, but can sometimes have less. He says there really is no minimum for him to do the next step because he can still get some information for comparison.

2:04 p.m.

He has testified 28 times prior to today dealing with statistics. He is submitted as an expert in DNA.

He says DNA is the genetic blueprint that makes everyone unique.

A copy of DNA is in every cell of the body, he explains, which can be used to develop a DNA profile for identification purposes and comparison.

He says several fields use DNA comparison and it is accepted in the field.

The lab is accredited, Gorgone says, adding that there is a quality assurance program with documentation and a standard of procedures.

Gorgone says before testing for DNA he tests a positive and negative control to make sure the chemicals are working.

De la Rionda asks what kind of clothing he wears to prevent cross contamination.

He says he wears a lab coat, gloves, mask and sometimes a hair net.

1:58 p.m.

The state calls Anthony Gorgone, who works in the biology department of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

1:56 p.m.

Judge Nelson checks with the jury to make sure they didn’t discuss the case or research it.

1:54 p.m.

“End of discussion,” Judge Nelson says after telling West she will not give a day off Friday.

West says he is simply asking for time now and order Crump to be available Thursday.

Judge Nelson says he can continue to discuss the issue with her after the state has rested.

De la Rionda says there have been some delays today and may go long today.

Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

1:52 p.m.

West asks for recess on Friday for an opportunity to take Crump’s deposition and an FDLE agent’s deposition.

Judge Nelson asks for the availability of Mr. Benton.

De la Rionda says he can check with him.

Judge Nelson says the state plans on resting today and the defense will begin Friday. She is obliging the day off for the Fourth of July.

She says Crump has been available. She points out it has been almost a month since the Frye hearing. She says the keeping the jury sequestered is very hard to do.

“Your Honor, we’ve been somewhat tied up for the last month,” West says.

Judge Nelson says she understands there were depositions taken last night and some scheduled tonight. She says it was her intention to have the defense start after the state rests.

West mentions they were still litigating the evidence when the trial began.

She says no one has requested an early recess.

1:47 p.m.

Court resumes with West addressing a scheduling issues before Judge Nelson without the jury present.  He asks that Martin family attorney be available tomorrow.

12:13 p.m.

The jury is excused for lunch with extra time.

Court will resume at 1:45 p.m.

Witness: Amy Siewert - Firearms analyst

12:12 p.m.

Siewert demonstrates pulling the trigger of the gun.

Guy finishes questioning.

O’Mara re-cross examines.

He asks about other guns and single action feature.

O’Mara asks about what the trigger pull would be for this gun for a second shot. It would still be the same, she says.

O’Mara finishes.

Siewert is excused.

12:08 p.m.

O’Mara asks her about safety. She says it is a personal preference.

O’Mara asks if she found anything unsafe about the gun being carried loaded. She says no.

Siewert says she has toured the manufacturing facility.

“The gun functioned, yes,” she says.

O’Mara asks her about “racking” the gun, which puts a bullet in the chamber ready to fire.

He asks her about the extra bullet in the chamber and if it is usual.

She says she sees a wide variety, but it is not unusual.

O’Mara points out that law enforcement and military personnel do the same thing.

O’Mara asks about the shirts and the use of the word contact.

Siewert says there was no evidence the gun was pushed against, but was consistent with contact.

She says contact is defined as touching the garment.

O’Mara asks if the fabric was around the muzzle of the gun, there would’ve been different marks.

She says she would not have seen the same physical effects.

O’Mara asks her if she examines flesh wounds from the bullet. She says he only examines clothing.

Guy redirects.

Guy asks if the firearm used for self-defense could also be used for murder.

O’Mara objects.

She says 4.5 pounds is within the normal range of trigger pull.

Guy asks her about a live round in the chamber and how to get it out.

She says the person was would have to pull the trigger.

She explains what an external safety is.

11:58 a.m.

O’Mara asks about the issues being examined.

Guy objects to the conclusion of what is at issue.

O’Mara is asked to rephrase the questions.

O’Mara asks if she knows of issues in the case. She says they are never told what issues there are.

O’Mara asks her to hold out the gun. He asks if she know what different types of firearms are used for. He asks her about the double action feature.

She explains what double action means.

O’Mara asks if it is a safety feature. She says yes.

O’Mara asks if some weapons are used for self-defense. She says yes.

He asks if a firearm for self-defense should be ready to use. She says potentially.

She says something like that would be more of a personal preference.

O’Mara asks about external safety and the extra step to turn it off.

Siewert explains that with the double action and hammer, the gun cannot be fired unless the trigger is pulled.

O’Mara asks about the trigger travel distance.

She explains that it is much longer than a single action firearm.

O’Mara asks if that would mean the gun wouldn’t fire unless the trigger is pulled.

He asks if that is for safety. She says potentially, yes.

She says the gun is safe in terms it will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

11:49 a.m.

Guy shows the jury and Siewert the long-sleeved shirt Martin wore under the hooded sweatshirt.

She removed an area from it as well.

Guy asks if she captured her test fire analysis with photography.

She says yes.

Guy shows the court a picture of the hooded sweatshirt.

She points out the markings on it. She says she measured the distance from the shoulder seam and sidearm seam.

Guy shows a close-up photo of the hole. She says there are a few gun powder particles and blackening around the hole, plus burning and singing of the fabric.

Guy shows a close-up of inside the sweatshirt.

She explains how she conducts a distance test. She test fired into portions of both garments she received, she says.

Guy shows a photo of the distance test.

Guy asks what she determined the distance from the muzzle of the gun to the material. She says she determined it was a contact shot.

Guy asks about testing of the under sweatshirt.

She says there was tearing of the fabric and gun powder particles, and light sooting and burning of the fabric ends.

Guy shows the distance test photo. She says she conducted the test simultaneous as the other one and layered them with the hoodie on top.

She says it was consistent with a contact shot.

She says it is consistent with the muzzle making contact with the outer sweatshirt.

Guy finishes questioning.

O'Mara begins cross examination.

11:41 a.m.

She defines the term trigger pull.

She measured it on the firearm using weights. She says it was between 4.5 and 4.25.

Guy shows her the fired cartridge casing.

She says she can determine the gun that fired the casing by comparing them to a test fired one.

She says the cartridge case was fired in the pistol.

Siewert also received bullet fragments.

She says the fired bullet jacket portion was fired from the pistol. The fragments were inconclusive and the lead core was not suitable.

She says the fragments were very damaged.

She received clothing in this case.

She says when a gun is fired a cloud can leave a pattern on an object.

Guy shows the jury the sweater Martin was wearing.

Siewert says she did distance testing on it by looking at the area around the hole. She looked for gun powder particles, sooting and the ends of the fibers.

She says she removed a portion of the back of the sweatshirt for testing purposes. She points out the area.

11:33 a.m.

Guy asks her about her training, education and work history. She has been an expert 17 times before.

She examined the firearm for this case. Guy shows it to her.

She tells the jury the type of gun. She defines the semi-automatic and 9 mm terms.

She says she did a general firearm exam. She test fired the gun and says it was found to be functional.

Guy removes the safety lock. A deputy clears the gun.

She shows the jury how the gun would be loaded and readied to fire.

Guy asks if there is a way to load it so you wouldn’t have to pull the slide back.

She explains how that can be done if the magazine is full.

She says she received seven cartridges, or bullets, total.

It would be consistent with a loaded magazine and one in the chamber, she says.

She says the firearm cannot be cocked unless the trigger is pulled.

Siewert explains trigger travel distance and says this gun has a longer distance than most handguns.

“You have to pull back significantly in order release the firing mechanism,” she says.

She shows the jury the holster.

11:24 a.m.

Amy Siewert, a crime labratory analyst assigned to the firearms section with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, takes the stand.

Witness: Scott Pleasants - Professor

11:22 a.m.

O’Mara asks if there was discussion about how to be a witness.

He asks about the introductory sheet. Pleasants says Zimmerman told him his career goal was to become an attorney and eventually a prosecutor.

O'Mara finishes questioing.

Judge Nelson excuses him as a witness.

The state calls their next witness.

O'Mara asks to approach for a sidebar.

11:19 a.m.

O’Mara asks about the course being online. He says he had something students could voluntarily attend.

O’Mara asks if the book was needed to take tests.

Pleasants says he can’t guarantee that the book was discussed in class or that it was read through.

O’Mara asks if he can testify that Zimmerman read the book.

Pleasants says he cannot.

O’Mara asks about the strategies for a witness.

Pleasants says Zimmerman participated in all of the different discussion and it was documented by the system that allowed him to go back and look.

Pleasants says he has printouts of the discussions.

He gives him a moment to review them.

11:14 a.m.

O’Mara sets the phone by a microphone.

Mantei finishes questioning.

O’Mara begins cross examination.

11:12 a.m.

The state calls Professor Scott Pleasants.

Pleasants says Zimmerman was in his class, which covers aspects of investigations and the duties of the investigator.

Mantei submits the exhibit as evidence.

Mantei asks about the type of course.

He says the students are online and he facilitates it.

They have weekly discussions in the class based on different topics.

It appears that someone keeps calling his skype. More people are calling his account.

Judge Nelson asks that he be called on a landline.

11:07 a.m.

    The state calls Professor Scott Pleasants. He is testifying via video conference. He teaches Criminal Investigation at Seminole State College.

11:05 a.m.

The jury is brought into the courtroom.

11:01 a.m.

Richard Mantei sets up a video conference with the next witness.

10:38 a.m.

The next witness will appear by Skype, Judge Nelson says. She says court will be in recess until 11 a.m.

Witness: Jim Krzenski

10:37 a.m.

Mantei asks him about Zimmerman’s ride-along application.

He says the reason Zimmerman wrote on his ride-along application is to “solidify his chances of” becoming a law enforcement officer.

O’Mara cross examines.

He asks if Zimmerman had a record of response about the officers after the ride along.

Krzenski says he only found the record shown there.

O'Mara says he has no further questions.

Krzenski is excused.

10:34 a.m.

Jim Krzenski takes the stand. He works for the Sanford Police Department.

Witness: Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter - College professor

10:33 a.m.

Mantei asks about the concept of imperfect self-defense.

Carter says he is talking about with the concept is the use of excessive force.

Mantei asks what the ultimate use of force would be.

Carter says a gunshot would be an example.

Mantei finishes questioning.

The state calls their next witness.

10:30 a.m.

West finishes questioning. Mantei redirects.

He asks about the claim of self-defense and if provoking the action was in their class discussion.

West objects and asks to be heard at the bench for a sidebar.

10:29 a.m.

Mantei objects to the questioning.

Judge Nelson reminds the witness that his discussion is limited to what he taught in the course.

West asks how Carter would explain the Florida self-defense concept.

Carter says it is fluid and changing of a certain fact can weigh differently whether someone acted reasonably.

He says he showed YouTube videos and stopped them frame-by-frame going over whether the person was acting reasonably.

West asks about the issue of injuries and the fear of the injury.

Carter says it is imminent fear and the fact alone that there isn’t one doesn’t mean the person didn’t have fear. He says injuries show or support a reasonable fear.

Carter says they also talked about imperfect self-defense, describing it as a person being attacked and taking it a step forward and becoming the aggressor.

West asks about the concept and if he approached Carter.

Carter says he would be taking it a step forward if he used a video camera to hit him back.

West asks about a similar situation if he was screaming for help.

Mantei objects.

West asks a similar question

Mantei objects again. Judge Nelson asks him to rephrase the question.

West asks about the tables being turned and the person being attacked using more force back.

Carter explains it back, saying yes, that would be an example of imperfect self-defense.

Mantei objects. Judge Nelson overrules.

10:20 a.m.

West resumes questioning about the Stand Your Ground law.

Carter says the class work was not contained in the book.

West asks about the Castle Doctrine and its meaning of meeting force with force. “Correct,” Carter says.

West asks about the later change in law allowing the concept to be allowed outside the home.

Carter says there was a presumption of fear for life inside the home and it extended outside the home, but there wasn’t the same presumption.

He adds that if you’re in your home there’s a reasonable fear for death

Mantei objects.

Judge Nelson tells the jury they will be given instructions about the law. She tells West his question needs to be about what Carter taught in class.

Carter explains what he taught in class about the Stand Your Ground law saying the actions would be judged as to if they were those of a reasonable person.

Carter says the totality of the circumstances is important.

10:09 a.m.

Carter says the discussions focused on Florida would have been in the class.

West asks about statutes. He mentions the Florida statute of self-defense.

West asks if Carter is familiar with the self-defense law in Florida. Carter says yes.

Carter says Stand Your Ground is a nickname.

West asks about the Castle Doctrine becoming Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

He asks about the Castle Doctrine and the duty to retreat. Carter confirms.

West asks about the Stand Your Ground law moving that concept to outside the home. Carter confirms.

West asks about it being outside and an accessing an attack before resorting to force.

Mantei objects and the attorneys approach for a sidebar.

10:04 a.m.

West points out Zimmerman at the defense table. “How you doing George?” Carter asks.

Carter says he only taught one class and was also working as a public defender in Orange County night circuit. He then left for JAG Corps training.

Carter says the public defender job was his first as a lawyer.

He says the “cool” thing about teaching is it reinforced everything he needed for his job.

“It’s been said there is law in the books and law in action,” Carter says.

Carter says all facts have significance, but certain things through case law have been given more weight.

West asks about his current work.

Carter says he is prosecuting. He says the JAG Corps is set up to put him in a certain position and they move you throughout your career.

West asks about the class. Carter says the book was suggested and used by the previous professor.

He says he thinks the book referenced some states, but doesn’t remember Florida.

Carter says he tried to supplement the book with other materials and discussion with a Florida distinction because he felt it was important.

9:56 a.m.

Mantei shows him a homework assignment Carter says was one given to all the students.

Carter says he remembers Zimmerman as one of the better students in the class.

He says he wanted to teach the students a more practical way so they could apply it to their own life.

Carter says they covered the Stand Your Ground law.

Mantei asks how long they spent covering self-defense.

Carter says it is one that he constantly iterated and something the students wanted to know about and were engaged in class discussion.

Mantei finishes questioning.

West cross examines.

9:53 a.m.

Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter, a member of the U.S. Army, who taught criminal litigation.

Witness: Lt. Scott Kerns - Prince William County Police

9:49 a.m.

West asks about his role in the police department.

Kerns says he was the administrator for six years and was in that position at the time Zimmerman applied.

Kerns says he can’t remember the application or the reference used.

A lot of people want to be police officers, Kerns agrees.

West asks about the exhibit and the letter not having letterhead or a signature.

Kerns says it is not the actual copy, it is the document used to create the original on letterhead.

West asks about the extract page and the information indicated on it.

West asks about the listing of “Spanish.” Kerns says it would indicate Zimmerman says he speaks Spanish. Kerns says it would be tested in the process.

West points out the credit history indicator.

Kerns says the credit history is the reason why he would not be accepted.

West asks if his credit was better, he could reapply. “It’s possible, sir,” Kerns says.

Kerns says he knows of people that have reapplied and been accepted.

West finishes questioning.

Kerns is excused.

9:42 a.m.

Kerns says they keep records for three years in accordance with the state’s records act. He says Zimmerman’s application was destroyed.

Mantei shows him a document.

Kerns says after the records are destroyed they create a cursory amount of information from the record and they send a letter to the individual about their status.

The letter was dated July 2009.

Kerns says there is nothing sinister or unusual with not getting the job.

Mantei finishes questioning.

Don West cross examines.

9:39 a.m.

The state calls Lt. Scott Kerns, with the Prince William County Police Department.

Witness: Sonja Boles-Melvin - College registrar

9:38 a.m.

Mantei shows her the degree application. She says it looks like he applied for his degree in October 2011. The document shows he thought he would graduate Spring 2012.

Mantei finishes questioning. There is no cross examination.

The state calls their next witness.

9:35 a.m.

Boles-Melvin is the registrar for Seminole State College, responsible for the school’s records.

9:33 a.m.

Judge Nelson checks with the jury to make sure no one discussed the case, read or saw reports about it and researched it. The state calls their next witness, Sonja Boles-Melvin.

9:31 a.m.

All of the exhibits will be admitted as they are agreed to be redacted. Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

9:20 a.m.

Mantei says he videotaped one of the professor’s testimony and gave it to the defense.

He mentions the defense’s motion to exclude the term “wannabe-cop.”

Mantei says Professor Jackson has been listed as a witness.

He shows a picture of a shoehorn on the screen and says the defense is trying to shoehorn their argument with different ones.

Judge Nelson overrules the objections.

O’Mara says there was in issue for the redaction of the credit.

Mantei says the lieutenant will testify about the reason which was Zimmerman’s credit.

Judge Nelson suggests they take out the word credit.

Mantei suggests the last page being stricken.

Judge Nelson says that would make it not an issue.

Court is in recess for 10 minutes.

9:15 a.m.

O’Mara says they should have presented the evidence 10 days before trial and the state is saying they aren’t bad acts to slide them by, but they will be presented to the jury as such.

The can argue that they aren’t’ 404, but they are, O’Mara says.

He mentions the bad acts presented on some of the cases cited.

He says the state is going to argue that Zimmerman was a “seething cop-wannabe.”

O’Mara says the state must show facts from the night of the shooting to show relevance.

If they’re going to bring in prior good acts, which they can’t do unless they show a connection, O’Mara says about the state, they must proffer the evidence.

He says the problem is there is no connection.

He renews his request to proffer the evidence before the professors and additional time to address it.

Mantei responds.

9:10 a.m.

Judge Nelson says the mention of credit history would need to be redacted.

Mantei says he has no objection to that.

Mantei say a lieutenant with the Prince William police would testify about the application.

He says that they must show he was in the course is overstepping because it was Zimmerman that signed up for it and paid for it.

He points out Zimmerman got an “A” in one class and a “B” in another.

O’Mara is given a chance to argue.

He asks for a couple of hours to look over the cases given to him.

Judge Nelson says she gave him all night.

O’Mara asks to be allowed to finish his request.

Judge Nelson says she spent the night looking at it and has a jury waiting.

O’Mara asks for a continuance of a couple of hours to review the case law.

Judge Nelson says “in all due respect, we started this issued yesterday afternoon…” She mentions the half hour given yesterday and overnight recess.

She says she is not continuing the matter.

9:05 a.m.

Mantei says familiarity with certain tactics is not evidence of bad character, but just relevant evidence. He says the idea of being familiar with police procedures is not uncommon.

Mantei says it is relevant to any fact of the case like motive and state of mind, showing concern or hostility.

He says there was ample implication in cross examination of Noffke that Zimmerman only followed because of how he interpreted the words.

He says the coursework intertwines with the defendant’s other ambitions shown by the police application and ride-along with police.

He says the danger of prejudicial evidence must outweigh the probative value. He says they are clearly probative of his state of mind.

Mantei says the idea is that he would know what might be asked of him if he was ever in this situation. He says the applications for the police force and ride-along show a person that has decided he wants to do that and it shows his state of mind when he encountered the individual and called him a suspicious guy.

Judge Nelson asks about personal information and references to good or bad credit.

8:57 a.m.

Mantei says he starts with a basic relevance objection. He says there is more than one theory of the case. He says the state isn’t bound to consider one theory.

He says they sort of saw this argument before when they went over Zimmerman’s prior non-emergency calls.

He has had a desire to be an actual police officer and the defense has crossed witnesses about when they became a police officer and their motivations for it. He says they’ve made that relevant by their own questioning.

He says the relevance of the application for the degree is that it was submitted in fall 2011 and he was taking more classes in the spring of 2012. His extracurricular life mirrored that, Mantei says. He says Zimmerman wrote in his statement he used police jargon. He points out the phrase “I un-holstered my firearm.”

Mantei says the cross-examination of Serino showing police tactics. Anytime they talk about the defendant and the tactics being used on him, he says Zimmerman knew them.

Mantei cites a case that says relevance is defined as a tendency to establish a fact in controversy. He says in this case the records can impeach a statement made in a video tape.

Mantei says relevance can pertain to any element in the defense and the state has to establish there was no self-defense. Mantei mentions they can show “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

He says the records can show the context of the defendant’s behavior.

The state is asserting these are bad acts, just that they are relevant to understand his actions that night, Mantei says.

8:44 a.m.

The first he addresses is the ride-along release form with the Sanford Police Department from March 15, 2010.

He says there is no relevance as it was two years before. He says this information would open up information about Martin.

Judge Nelson says she would like to keep focused.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei says his argument is prepared to address all the documents.

O’Mara moves to the next exhibit of the application for the police officer position.

O’Mara says Zimmerman had credit issues preventing him from being submitted. He objects that it is improper foundation and authentication.

O’Mara moves to the redacted statements; the diploma application and grade change for a class.

He says the distance in time and his client signing up for the course makes it inadmissible and the state should proffer it to show their proof.

Another document points to homework Zimmerman did of scenarios, which O’Mara says they have nothing to do with the case.

A final project from Zimmerman talking about the fourth amendment is not relevant unless it can be tied together, O’Mara says.

An excerpt from the Criminal Law and Procedure book addresses self-defense. O’Mara says it isn’t relevant without connectivity and they must show Zimmerman was present in the course.

He says his clients past should not be before the jury.

O'Mara says another excerpt from another book for another class that addresses criminal profiling. He says the state must show his client had the book, read it and discussed it with the professor. His objection is relevance.

His objects include relevance, authentication, and distance and time.

Judge Nelson says the handwritten homework assignments and application were Zimmerman's documents. She asks they stay on point after O'Mara references valentines Zimmerman might've written in first grade.

Mantei offers his argument.

8:36 a.m.

O’Mara points out the interview with Sean Hannity and the Stand Your Ground question and the course work from years earlier. O’Mara says it is far removed from admissible evidence. If it is allowed, the prior knowledge, O’Mara says Martins prior history of fighting should be.

Judge Nelson says that would be a different argument. She tells O’Mara to stay with the argument to the exhibits the state wants to admit.

O’Mara asks to go through each exhibit for different objections.

8:33 a.m.

Judge Nelson hears argument from defense attorney Mark O'Mara. He says that if the state's theory is that Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop it must conform with the law and they have to show how it meets the criteria for ill-will, spite and hatred. He says they need to connect the dots in legal and factual ways their theory of the case.

Before court resumes

8:10 a.m.

The prosecution and defense are expected to argue the relevance of Zimmerman's school records before Judge Debra Nelson without the presence of the jury.