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 Friday are on top.
———————————————
O'Mara addresses the media
5:58 p.m.
O’Mara says if the state went into Zimmerman’s arrest, it would be gloves off and they would put more of Martin’s issues out there.
He says the state has pushed the door open with the suggestion of some reports.
He’ll be working this weekend, he says, ending the media briefing.
5:56 p.m.
O’Mara says a JOA, or judgment of acquittal is a different animal, but he respects the judge’s ruling.
He thinks the jury will look at both mothers and think they have to think that.
He says they have to be treated as the grieving parents that they are.
O’Mara says three of four depositions still need to be done.
A reporter asks about Dr. Bao. O’Mara says he is probably a very literal person. He says there will be other experts dealing with those issues.
He says he probably wants to make sure his presentation is good in using the notes.
O’Mara says the state seems to be done and they will see if they need George to take the stand.
A reporter says some were surprised he questioned Fulton. He says its part of what he does, but you learn to try to be sensitive to what they’re going through.
“It’s a sad situation,” he says, adding that he certainly had to question her about it.
A reporter asks if he was surprised by anything the state put out. He says he was probably surprised more by what they didn’t put on, pointing out there were other family members that could have been called and other law enforcement officers heavily involved in the case.
The weekend will be spent getting ready, he says.
He says in other cases dealing with a decedent, he doesn’t think its pandering to offer condolences.
I’m not going to not be human, O’Mara says.
He says they want to keep the case on the 6 or 7 minutes of what happened the night of the shooting.
O’Mara says Zimmerman will sigh a sigh of relief when the acquittal happens.
Other issues out there, O’Mara says, in how people got to where they are.
He says that makes certain other evidence relevant in regarding Martin’s background.
If you’re going to bring out what George brings to the table, then it may put on the table what Trayvon Martin brought to the scenario that night, like fighting, O’Mara says.
He says the state bringing up Zimmerman’s past backfired.
5:44 p.m.
O'Mara makes a statement for the media after court.
5:20 p.m.
Court is in recess until Monday at 9 a.m. The attorneys enter sidebar.
Witness: Jorge Meza - Zimmerman's uncle
5:17 p.m.
O’Mara objects to a question
Judge Nelson says the court will instruct the jury as to what to disregard.
De la Rionda asks if Meza is here on behalf of Zimmerman, not because he is a deputy sheriff.
Meza confirms.
De la Rionda asks if Meza knew about the case.
He says he kept out of the case because it would be unethical and didn’t know the specifics.
Meza says the TV screen had Zimmerman’s name on it.
He says he never heard Zimmerman cry for help the way he did that day.
De la Rionda finishes.
O’Mara redirects.
Meza says his ethics of professionalism are stated by his experience in the army and would never compromise it for his son, daughter or nephew.
De la Rionda objects to leading.
O’Mara asks why he chose not to find out more about the case.
Meza says as a law enforcement officer he is sworn to tell the truth and wanted to be able to look at the jurors and tell the truth.
De la Rionda re-cross examines.
He asks if Meza anticipated needing to testify.
Meza says as a law enforcement officer he wanted to tell the truth.
Judge Nelson asks for the next witness. O’Mara asks to approach.
5:11 p.m.
He has known Zimmerman since he was born. He says he is Gladys’ brother.
O’Mara asks if he has ever heard the 911 call with the screaming in the background.
Meza says it was in March 2012 as he was sitting on his computer at home, with the TV behind him.
He says his wife was watching the news and he heard the scream and he felt it, identifying his nephew as screaming for his life.
He says he told his wife, “That is George.”
“It hit me,” he says, adding that he felt it in his heart that it was George.
He says he didn’t know the news was addressing his nephew’s case.
He says there’s a way you can recognized family members when they laugh or cry and it was George screaming for help.
O'Mara finishes.
De la Rionda cross-examines.
5:05 p.m.
The defense calls Jorge Meza. He is a deputy sheriff with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. He is Zimmerman's uncle.
Witness: Gladys Zimmerman - Zimmerman's mother
5:02 p.m.
He asks if she has ever heard him yell for help.
She says no.
O’Mara redirects.
He asks if she has ever heard him screaming for his life.
She says she has heard him and the anguish, and the way he is screaming is fear and terror.
She is excused but subject to recall.
5:01 p.m.
“My son, George,” she says identifying him as the voice screaming for help.
De la Rionda cross examines.
5:00 p.m.
O’Mara begins questioning her. She lives in Central Florida. She tells the jury Zimmerman is her son. She has two other children, Robert and Grace.
O’Mara asks if she has heard the 911 call with screams in the background.
She has heard it.
She says she has heard him in different voices and has knowledge to tell if it is his.
O’Mara plays the recording.
4:56 p.m.
The defense calls Gladys Zimmerman, the mother of George Zimmerman.
4:55 p.m.
The jury is reseated. Judge Nelson assures them they’ve been working.
The state introduces into evidence a weather report and a timeline of the pertinent phone calls.
Judge Nelson asks if the jury would like to continue.
The want continue.
Argument for acquittal
4:52 p.m.
“Are you kidding?” O’Mara says about the state saying Martin might’ve been pulling back while Zimmerman had hold of his shirt and fired the gun.
He says the state is grasping at straws.
“We know who had the injuries, we know who didn’t,” O’Mara says.
Judge Nelson thanks them for their arguments.
She is allowing the charge to go to a jury.
She will ask the jury if they would like to start to hear the defense’s first witness.
4:49 p.m.
O’Mara says he never got the chance to tell Martin he was with neighborhood watch because he was punched first.
“Show me how you have proven that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” O’Mara says.
He says the state wants the judge to believe Zimmerman made a sinister decision when he changed the location to meet with police, and it was precisely at the moment Zimmerman decided he was going “hunting.”
O’Mara says there’s no evidence to support that.
He says common sense should not be ignored in a judgment of acquittal.
“Yes he shot him, there’s no question about that,” O’Mara says, but adds there is no direct evidence of ill-will.
He says there’s no evidence that at the time he shot he was the initial aggressor.
The real focus is at the time of the shot if his fear was of great bodily injury.
“All he knew was that Trayvon Martin wasn’t stopping the attack after 40 seconds of screaming,” O’Mara says.
4:42 p.m.
“Trayvon Martin sucker punched my client,” O’Mara says.
He says his client waited an additional 40 seconds before taking action to stop the attack.
O’Mara says the Leisure case had three different stories to 911. He says the facts of the Zimmerman case are much different.
O’Mara points out the non-emergency call. He says they want the judge to take the beginnings of ill-will.
He says Serino and Singleton testified that they were changes they expected, about the inconsistencies from Zimmerman.
It’s merely what happens when someone has been through two traumatic events.
O’Mara says the totality of the circumstances must be considered.
He says the state should give him credit one way or the other, but the reality is he went through a traumatic time and is dealing with it just like the Martins.
O’Mara says the testimony of Mora and Surdyka said nothing about pursuit.
4:31 p.m.
Mantei says with everything going one that defendant is lucky as a marksman to shoot straight through the heart.
He says Jon Good even says he never heard or saw blows land.
Mantei asks if Zimmerman’s action was reasonable. He says his attitude and history of what he felt and thought and the actual extent of the injuries
come into question, plus the exaggeration.
He says the final inconsistency is the related account to his best friend.
Mantei says the defendant swore he was attempting to scoot off the sidewalk with Martin’s knees on him, but at the same time Martin notice the firearm and went for it, but the defendant got it and fired.
He says that is an impossibility.
The question he says is really which one was defending themselves.
Mantei cites another case. He says one must first consider if the state has satisfied the standard for the Zimmerman's state of mind. He says he believes they have. The act of using justifiable force is certainly in question.
He says the lesser charge of manslaughter remains.
O'Mara responds that he wants to make sure of his representation of the facts of the Jenkins case.
4:24 p.m.
Mantei says he believes it is fair inference that the defendant started this and Martin had just as much right to defend himself.
He says, citing a case, even when there are no other witnesses to the event, a jury is not required to accept the defendant’s testimony as true.
Mantei points out Zimmerman was armed and he outweighed Martin. He mentioned the expletive phrase and his actions that contradicted instruction from police.
“There was running, there was a chase, there was a struggle,” Mantei says.
He says none of that justifies a judgment of acquittal.
He says Zimmerman had MMA training.
He says the defendant went on a nationally televised program and lied about the nickname for the self-defense law in the state of Florida.
Mantei says the only person that shows Martin was the aggressor is the guy that went on Hannity and lied.
He says the physical evidence is inconsistent with his claims.
4:16 p.m.
He says the one time that someone got caught had to do with the stucco guy following and identifying and Zimmerman knew that.
Mantei says the inconsistencies are not minor matters.
Mantei says he doesn’t know of a neighbor that testified that they knew him, and mentions the lack of knowing the three streets in his neighborhood.
“One of them is dead and one of them is a liar,” Mantei says.
Mantei says the state argues the case is not purely circumstantial. HE says the state is not required to completely disprove the defendant’s hypothesis, but to present evidence that conflicts.
The existence of contradictory evidence doesn’t warrant a judgment of acquittal but should be up to the jury, Mantei says.
He says the state has met its burden regarding the defendant’s state of mind through direct and circumstantial evidence.
He thinks the eye-witness testimony and inconsistencies create a substantial question for the jury.
He cites two cases for the use of deadly force.
4:08 p.m.
Mantei cites a case saying, pointing a loaded gun at a person is evidence of ill-will toward the target.
He says shooting someone in the heart is evidence of ill-will.
Mantei says the pointing of the gun at his heart and pulling the trigger is meant to kill.
He says the Walker case O’Mara cited is not a self-defense case.
The problem is Zimmerman thought he knew Martin as an [expletive], Mantei says, referencing the phrases heard in the non-emergency call.
He says the direct evidence is the defendant’s confession of the state of mind.
He references Zimmerman claiming Martin was on drugs and it was God’s will.
Mantei refers to a homework assignment where Zimmerman writes he wants to “hunt fugitives.”
Mantei mentions the testimony of several people that indicate there was some kind of pursuit that took place.
He mentions Jeantel’s testimony that he heard Martin say “get off.”
He says the circumstantial evidence includes when he mentions he’s with neighborhood watch, but doesn’t say it to Martin.
Mantei says Zimmerman wrote in his statement the dispatcher told him not to follow and understood that.
He says there’s two minutes of blank time in phone records when he says the defendant was unaccounted for.
Mantei says the changing of the meeting location with the police is indicative that he changed his mind.
3:59 p.m.
O’Mara cites another case involving a fight in which a person used his gun to hit another person, but it went off and killed the person.
He says the intent was not there and the action suggested a lack of ill-will, spite and hatred.
He says it is a complicated case for a judgment of acquittal.
He says the state has to disprove a reasonable hypothesis of self-defense.
O’Mara says the state has failed in convincing a second-degree murder charge has any basis.
O’Mara says the picture of his nose cannot be looked out without saying he was punched in the nose.
He says Good’s testimony that it was his client yelling for help supports his statements.
He says Martin had his chance when Good said he was calling 911 and continued to bash Zimmerman.
Judge Nelson lets the state respond.
Richard Mantei says O’Mara has the argument backwards.
3:53 p.m.
He says there’s no evidence to support he acted in ill-will, spite or hatred. He adds getting past the expletives, his interest in the community and the arrest of Emmanuel Burgess.
He mentions Judge Nelson was the sentencing judge in the Burgess case.
The other overriding necessity, O’Mara says, is the people know each other because ill-will, spite and hatred cannot be instantaneous.
He cites other cases he says were high-speed chase cases.
He cites another case where the defendant had a gun and the facts support he went and got it to arm himself after having an argument with two victims. He says the people attacked him and he shot and killed both of them.
O’Mara says that case showed an impulsive over reaction doesn’t show ill-will, spite or hatred.
3:45 p.m.
O’Mara cites the Jenkins case because the facts are close. A man confronts another man making noise outside. The noise making man punches
Jenkins, and then Jenkins stabbed the other man with a knife, killing him. He used self-defense.
O’Mara says Jon Good’s testimony would support that Martin was the aggressor in that he mounted Zimmerman and refused the suggestion of Good to stop and continued the attack.
He says the case should be dismisses presently at judgment of acquittal.
He says if the court doesn’t agree that the case has been proven and decides that does exclude possibility of his client’s innocence, he thinks the evidence supports that he should win.
O’Mara moves on to the issue of ill-will and spite.
3:39 p.m.
He says this is a textbook case, but wouldn’t make it because it is obvious that the inference of non-guilt is much stronger than any suggested inference of guilt.
The court should consider and decide that Zimmerman, through his statements and witnesses, presented a case of prima facie defense, O’Mara says.
He says the state hasn’t given direct evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told not to by dispatch.
O’Mara mentions Bahadoor’s testimony that someone moved from left to right.
He says aside from that there is nothing to support Zimmerman re-engaged Martin.
O’Mara mentions Jenna Lauer’s testimony supporting what Zimmerman has said. He says Surdyka’s testimony and the Manalos’ testimony also supports it.
He says Mora even supports Zimmerman’s statement to Singleton and Serino that he moved Martin’s hands and Dr. Bao’s testimony supports that the body could’ve have moved.
3:31 p.m.
O’Mara says there is no other reasonable hypothesis from the undisputed evidence other than his client was attacked by Trayvon Martin.
He says there’s no evidence to contra-indicated what his client says about being at the T-intersection and being hit in the face.
He says the violent act is sufficient for immediate response with deadly forces.
He says he didn’t but there is 40 seconds of screaming and receiving of additional injuries.
That injury and the ongoing nature of the injury supports the right of his client to reasonably believe he was in fear for his life, O’Mara says.
He says there is no state’s evidence that excludes that as a hypothesis of innocence.
The judgment of acquittal should be based on the citation of the Walker case, he says.
3:27 p.m.
O’Mara says there are a number of issues needing the court’s attention.
He says there is a standard of acquittal regarding his client. He asks the court to determine if there is direct evidence showing ill-will or spite.
He says the circumstantial evidence still must negate any possibility of evidence by his client.
O’Mara cites a case involving circumstantial evidence.
He says the context of the non-emergency call doesn’t show ill-will or spite and there is no direct evidence that supports it.
O’Mara says he’s not sure what the state’s case is, but if they were trying to say he was a frustrated neighborhood watch “cop-wannabe” they have no direct evidence to show that.
He says they’ve show his client was frustrated by people that have gotten away.
He says circumstantial evidence has to negate any possibility of innocence.
He says all of the evidence must be looked at and there is an enormous amount of evidence his client acted in self-defense.
O’Mara mentions the testimony of Jahvaris and Sybrina Fulton, but that it must be taken into context of other evidence that existed that night.
3:18 p.m.
The exhibit is allowed into evidence with an additional wording. The next exhibit is objected to by the defense. It is about the weather information from a different location.
Guy responds that it is the closest weather station to the scene. He says its offered to show hour-by-hour analysis of the wind and rain conditions. He says it is within a few miles.
Judge Nelson asks for a distance.
She says she doesn't see prejudice with a weather report showing time-for-time the conditions, but her concern is how far away it is.
O'Mara says it is five or six miles.
Guy says it is the best information available.
The objection is overruled.
The state says they are going to rest.
3:11 p.m.
The state and defense address an issue regarding a timeline exhibit.
Witness: Dr. Shiping Bao - Medical examiner
2:57 p.m.
De la Rionda finishes questioning. Dr. Bao is excused but subject to recall. Judge Nelson gives a 10 minute recess.
2:56 p.m.
The autopsy report was six pages, Dr. Bao confirms.
He says it is done the same day because you cannot rely on memory.
He says he created notes to help him testify today.
De la Rionda says Dr. Bao provided some definitions and info for the deposition to both the state and defense.
De la Rionda shows photographs from the autopsy.
Dr. Bao says he looked at the hands and understands why they didn’t photograph the hands.
He says it is difficult to photograph without having his own in there because the hands would have needed to be held out.
De la Rionda asks about the fingernail scrapings.
Dr. Bao says he was trained to do it.
De la Rionda asks about blood recovered for DNA purposes.
Dr. Bao confirms.
De la Rionda asks about Martin dying from the gunshot.
“The bottom line,” he says, is that Martin was going to die.
Dr. Bao confirms.
He says he didn’t go to the scene of the event, but reviewed photos and saw the body was covered by an orange cover.
He says he believes the brain was the minimum function.
2:47 p.m.
West finishes questioning. De la Rionda redirects.
2:46 p.m.
West asks him about research done.
Dr. Bao says he does that routinely.
West asks if it is his opinion that the damage to the shirts was a result of contact with the muzzle of the gun.
Dr. Bao says yes.
He says contact to the skin would be very different.
He says there was some distance between the skin and the muzzle.
“I don’t believe it is contact,” Dr. Bao says.
Dr. Bao says he cannot determine distance beyond between .4 inches and four feet, the intermediate range.
He says his job is to make decision of range as the medical examiner.
2:35 p.m.
Dr. Bao says a man shot three weeks ago shot by his father. He says he did not do autopsy on the case, but had interest because it was very similar.
He says the 40 year old man was shot in the heart and the bullet went through the right ventricle and it’s rare that they know exactly the time that he was alive.
He says the father called 911 and heard the noises the man made and he was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.
He says he was interested in the case because he was preparing for this case.
Dr. Bao says the one to 10 minutes is for a margin of error.
West asks about Dr. Bao saying Martin would not be able to move after the injury to his heart.
Dr. Bao says yes.
He says he thinks he could move a bit and make painful noise based on the other case.
“I think he was able to move a little bit,” Dr. Bao says.
West asks if he could pull his hands in.
“Only one person knows,” Dr. Bao says.
West asks Judge Nelson to tell the witness to answer the question. Dr. Bao begins speaking.
Judge Nelson tells Dr. Bao he needs to wait for a question to be asked.
“Your opinion is that Trayvon Martin may have been able to move some after sustaining the shot you just don’t know how much or for how long?”
West asks
Dr. Bao confirms.
2:27 p.m
West asks about the BMI of 22 based on Martins length and weight.
Dr. Bao confirms that is in the normal range for someone his height and weight.
West asks about the length of time Martin might have lived.
“One to 10 minutes,” Dr. Bao says.
He says it is based on his experience.
West asks if he has done research submitted for peer reviewed publication.
Dr. Bao says not in the last 6 months, and he is not published in the area of gunshot wounds.
West asks if his source of information is based on review of other people’s work.
Dr. Bao says it is based on his autopsy and other autopsies.
He says he has a clear picture of a man three weeks ago shot. West interrupts and asks the judge to let him ask another question.
West asks about his first opinion expressed at his deposition in November when he said one to three minutes.
Dr. Bao says it was his opinion until three weeks ago because he has new personal experience.
2:19 p.m.
West asks if any photographs show the palms of Martin’s hands.
Dr. Bao says there was one of the abrasions on the left fingers, but doesn’t believe there is one of the palms.
West asks if it is part of protocol to photograph the entire surface of the body.
Dr. Bao says protocol is to take three photos of the whole body and take more as needed.
West asks if it was a conscious decision to not photograph the palm.
Dr. Bao says generally speaking he looks at the palms in every case and would only take a picture if it is significant.
He says he didn’t see injury or disease so he did not document it.
West asks about the lack of photos of Martin’s fingernails.
Dr. Bao says efficiency is important and they take five to 10 photos as needed for cases.
West asks if without the photographs anyone else can look to see if Dr. Bao missed something.
West asks about the abrasion on the left 4th finger and that they could have happened up to two hours before Martin meet Zimmerman.
Dr. Bao confirms.
West asks if it is really hard to determine when someone received an abrasion.
Dr. Bao says yes.
He says it is not consistent with a blow.
He says it could have happened after he was shot on the way to the ground.
Dr. Bao says it could have happened before the met, during the struggle or after he was shot.
West asks if it could have happened when he fell on wet, soggy soil.
Dr. Bao says he doesn’t think so.
He says blood is still in the tissue.
2:09 p.m.
West resumes questioning.
He asks about the blood draw for toxicology being drawn from a peripheral source.
Dr. Bao says generally speaking it should be. He says he never draws blood.
De la Rionda objects. Judge Nelson asks counsel to abide by the pre-trial determination.
West asks about who drew the blood.
He shows Dr. Bao a photo of Martin’s pants.
He shows it to the jury.
2:06 p.m.
West asks about the protocol including fingernail clippings.
Dr. Bao says it is the technician’s job and he has confidence in them, but he cannot keep his eye on them.
West shows him an evidence accountability sheet.
He points out the checkbox marked for finger scrapings and the empty box for fingernail clippings.
Dr. Bao says the chief medical examiner makes those decisions.
He says it is not his job to worry about it.
West asks if Dr. Bao did a blood draw for routine toxicology.
Dr. Bao says his notes the blood is from Martin’s chest.
De la Rionda objects. Judge Nelson says the previous ruling still stands.
West asks if toxicology blood is better drawn from another place.
Dr. Bao says femur blood is best. He says Martin had no other source for blood other than his chest.
De la Rionda objects and the attorneys approach for a sidebar.
2:00 p.m.
West asks Dr. Bao to let them know when he refers to his notes.
West asks about the removal of the clothing and the packaging being marked with the person’s initials indicating chain of custody.
West asks what point the fingernail scrapings are done.
Dr. Bao says the technician usually does it.
West asks if it is practice to use one stick for all five fingers.
Dr. Bao says yes, but he didn’t write the protocol.
West asks if he agrees if one stick is used, there’s no way to tell which finger had biological material.
Dr. Bao says yes.
West asks if protocol says all five fingers should be scraped.
Dr. Bao says he never read the protocol.
He says if he finds something significant, he will write it down and anything not written down isn’t significant.
West asks if he knows what Martins fingernails looked like.
He doesn’t remember.
1:53 p.m.
West resumes questioning.
1:50 p.m.
Dr. Bao says he cannot say yes or no about the effect of marijuana.
He says there could be no effect or some effect and can’t tell how much.
Judge Nelson says based on that the previous ruling remains.
West says he would like Dr. Bao’s notes marked for the record.
The jury is brought back in.
1:48 p.m.
West asks about the THC found in Martin’s tests. He says his notes say something different about his opinion.
Last fall he says the level of marijuana would have not had an effect on Martin.
Dr. Bao says he did research and talked to another expert, a friend in Washington State – Dr. Brooks, a biologist.
West asks if he consulted studies about the impairment of marijuana levels.
Dr. Bao says yes.
Judge Nelson asks West to stay on topic for a Richardson hearing.
He asks when he changed his mind.
Dr. Bao says it could have been in the last 60 days when he pulled the file to prepare for his testimony.
West asks if he mentioned it to De la Rionda.
Dr. Bao says he mentioned the marijuana toxicology report is part of the autopsy report. He says De la Rionda told him they may not talk about it in court.
Dr. Bao says he did not tell De la Rionda about the change.
West asks if he spoke with any other member of the state attorney’s office where the notion of marijuana came up.
Dr. Bao says no.
West finishes questioning. She asks if there are any other witnesses.
West resumes questioning.
He asks, clarifying when his opinion changed about how long Martin would have been alive after the gunshot and if marijuana would have had an
affect on him.
Judge Nelson asks him to stick to the Richardson hearing. She asks if the state has any witnesses.
De la Rionda shows the court his note showing he thought the answer would be one to three minutes.
Judge Nelson rules there was no Richardson violation.
She says the previous toxicology ruling stands.
West resumes questioning.
1:39 p.m.
Dr. Bao says he changed his opinion about three weeks ago.
West asks if it was based on additional research.
Dr. Bao says it is based on a similar case done three weeks ago.
He says he must explain opinion to him.
Dr. Bao explains that someone that never changes their opinion never learns.
West asks if Dr. Bao met or spoke with the state attorney’s office.
Dr. Bao says yesterday and the only other talk was to the secretary about the time to testify.
He says he met with De la Rionda at his office yesterday.
West asks if Dr. Bao talked about his testimony for today.
Dr. Bao says yes, for about 40 minutes.
He says he can’t remember if he told him about changing his opinion.
West asks if he thinks it was an important matter.
He says yes.
He says he cannot answer a question he is not sure about. He says the purpose of the meeting was to determine what photos would be shown.
Dr. Bao says he doesn’t remember saying his opinion changed because that is not what the meeting was about.
1:32 p.m.
West says he is conducting a limited inquiry. He asks about a handout used during a previous deposition in which he said Martin was alive for one to three minutes.
1:03 p.m.
The attorneys enter sidebar.
1:02 p.m.
West says there are a couple of issued with Dr. Bao's notes he'd like to address. Dr. Boa is back on the witness stand.
Recess for lunch
11:56 a.m.
Judge Nelson asks a clerk to make a copy of Dr. Bao's notes. She says the attorneys are asked not to share them with anyone else and then they will be destroyed.
Witness: Dr. Shiping Bao
11:54 a.m.
West says he would like a copy of Dr. Bao's notes and asks for time to do it. Judge Nelson breaks for lunch until 1 p.m.
11:51 a.m.
West asks who took the autopsy photos.
Dr. Bao says it was one of the technicians.
He says he doesn’t remember what he was doing at the time the clothing was removed, but he was there.
West asks what happens to the clothing once removed from the body.
He says he would pack them in a paper bag to give to the police department.
West asks if that is what happened.
“Should be,” Dr. Bao says, adding that he can’t remember.
West asks if wet clothing should be packaged in paper bag.
Dr. Bao says they let them dry.
He says he does not remember what happened beyond his notes for the case.
West asks if it would be a violation of protocol to put a wet shirt in a plastic bag.
Dr. Bao says the only plastic bag was the body bag.
He says if anyone does that they would be gone the next day and fired because it is very basic.
West asks where the shoes are.
Dr. Bao says he doesn’t know where they are now.
He says he spents hundreds of hours reviewing photos and notes. He says he doesn’t believe anyone can remember what happened from two years ago.
West asks to see what Dr. Bao is reading from.
Dr. Bao says before the testimony he spent hours typing answers to potential questions. He says he prefers no one see them.
Judge Nelson says both attorneys are entitled to see them.
West asks to see all the notes he prepared for his testimony today.
De la Rionda asks to see them, also.
West suggests a copy be made.
Dr. Bao says they are his notes.
Judge Nelson says counsel can sit down to look at them and return them to Dr. Bao.
11:42 a.m.
“All I know is his body was at scene for some period of time,” Dr. Bao says.
West asks if he has any idea of what was supposed to have happened.
Dr. Bao says he only knows he was shot and dead.
West asks if he did the autopsy without information from what happened the day before.
Dr. Bao says he only has the notes he has and has no recollection of the day of the shooting.
He says he tries
Judge Nelson says only one person can speak at a time. She asks for West to allow Dr. Bao to answer and Dr. Bao to wait.
West and Dr. Bao speak at the same time.
West asks for the question to be read back because it was a yes or no.
Dr. Bao says he needs to explain to the jury why he can’t remember the autopsy.
Judge Nelson asks him to stop speaking so West can ask the next question.
West asks if his testimony today relies on the autopsy report.
Dr. Bao confirms and says the photos, too.
West asks what point the body is seen.
Dr. Bao answers.
West asks to interrupt. De la Rionda objects.
Judge Nelson asks for only one person to speak.
West says he would like to ask a more specific question.
West asks at what point he sees the body. He points out where the report says the body is viewed unclothed.
Dr. Bao says he was there the whole time. The body was received in plastic bag, which they opened and removed his clothes.
11:35 a.m.
West asks to walk through the steps taken performing the autopsy.
He asks about the technicians assisting with the autopsy.
Dr. Bao says one helped to write and the other helped to put evidence together.
West asks about the preliminary inspection and if plastic bags were around Martin’s hands.
Dr. Bao confirms there were none, just the body bag.
He says plastic bags cannot be used, but standard practice is to use paper bag.
West asks about Martin’s body remaining at the scene for three hours.
Dr. Bao says he doesn’t know.
West asks if he has the notes from the investigator.
Dr. Bao says yes and looks for them.
He says the notes are not his or his opinion, so he can only read them.
He says she wrote she got there at 9:44 p.m.
Dr. Bao tells West he is under oath and cannot give wrong information.
West asks him to assume the event occurred at 7:15 p.m. and the jury can sort out the time.
West asks based upon her notes, she arrived about 2.5 hours after the event and left at about 10:10 p.m.
Dr. Bao says he doesn’t see that. West approaches and points out the note for Dr. Bao.
11:25 a.m.
The jury returns.
11:13 a.m.
Dr. Bao says the stick goes under every finger.
De la Rionda asks about the blood card taken for DNA.
Dr. Bao confirms.
De la Rionda asks about an identification photograph.
Judge Nelson reads an instruction to the jury about the identification of Trayvon Benjamin Martin.
De la Rionda asks if the gunshot wound was right at the heart. Dr. Bao says he had to open the body to see that.
De la Rionda finishes questioning.
West asks for a recess.
Judge Nelson grants a 10 minute recess.
11:09 a.m.
De la Rionda hands Dr. Bao the bullet fragments recovered. Dr. Bao identifies them and De la Rionda shows them to the jury.
Dr. Bao says there was no blood on Martin’s hands. The only injuries were the abrasions already asked about.
De la Rionda shows a photo of the hand.
Dr. Bao says it is a superficial injury from blunt force trauma and could have happened before meeting Zimmerman.
He says it could have been two hours before, right after the shooting, or as he fell to the ground.
Dr. Bao says the abrasion is one quarter by one eighth. He describes the three types of blunt force trauma.
This abrasion is the least severe of the three, he says.
The pinky had a small abrasion, too small to be measured, he says.
He says the blood is still inside and confirms it could be classified as a scratch to the skin.
De la Rionda asks about the fingernail scrapings.
11:02 a.m.
Dr. Bao says the wound is not a contact shot to the skin.
He says it is an intermediate range shooting, which means stippling is seen.
Dr. Bao says his opinion is based off facts seen from the gunshot wound.
Intermediate range is .4 inches to four feet away, De la Rionda explains.
Dr. Bao explains an intermediary target is more difficult to determine range of shooting.
De la Rionda asks about the clothing.
Dr. Bao says clothing will block soot and material from the gunshot. He says intermediate range is not measured and no one can use eyes to determine it.
He says he believe there was loose contact. A hard contact would have shown an imprint in the clothes.
Dr. Bao says there are no facts and he has no opinion on how Martin’s body was when he was shot. He can say the gun was in front of him.
De la Rionda asks if Martin was conscious for a few minutes.
Dr. Bao says his opinion is based on facts. He believes Martin was alive for one to 10 minutes after he was shot.
10:53 a.m.
Dr. Bao says a photo shows the defect on the left of the chest.
In a closer photo, Dr. Bao describes features that he says are consistent with an entrance wound.
A photo shows “superficial abrasions” on the left 4th finger and 5th finger, Dr. Bao says.
No other injuries were found, he says.
A photo shows the lead core and fragments recovered.
Dr. Bao says the bullet went straight from the front to the back with perforation of space between 5th and 6th ribs, it went through the ventrical of the heart and the posterior wall of the heart.
Dr. Bao says Martin was alive for one to 10 minutes after he was shot.
De la Rionda asks about the shot being fatal.
Dr. Bao says there was no chance he could survive with two holes in the heart.
“It’s a straight shot right into the heart,” De la Rionda asks.
“Yes,” Dr. Bao answers.
10:45 a.m.
De la Rionda shows two more photos of the body bag and another of the seal.
De la Rionda shows an X-ray taken to try to locate the bullet fragments. Dr. Bao points out where they are located.
De la Rionda asks about a photo of the clothing Martin was wearing.
More photos from the autopsy exam are shown.
Dr. Bao says the back of the hooded sweatshirt appears to be wet.
He points out the back of the grey sweatshirt, adding that there is no exit wound.
Dr. Bao says they normally take three photos of the body. He says other than the defect of the gunshot wound, Martin was healthy and disease-free.
More photos of Martin from the autopsy exam are shown.
De la Rionda asks about the hands.
Dr. Bao says other than some small abrasion on left 5th and 4th finger there were no other injuries. There was also no blood, he says.
10:36 a.m.
Martin was measured as 71 inches, 5 feet and 11 inches, and 158 pounds.
Dr. Bao says an investigator goes out to the scene of the incident.
He says two assistants work with him.
De la Rionda shows a picture to the jury.
West asks for the physical photos to follow along.
Dr. Bao says it is a photo of the bag that carried Martin.
10:29 a.m.
He explains what an autopsy is and the definitions of manner of death.
He says Martin’s death was a homicide because he was killed by another person.
Dr. Bao says he has done more than 3,000 autopsies, with about 150-200 being homicides.
He has testified before as an expert.
Dr. Bao did the examination of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 27, 2012 at the medical examiner’s office Volusia County.
The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest and manner of death was homicide, Dr. Bao says.
He says Martin was not identified when he arrived at the office and his age wasn’t known.
They first looked for bullet fragments, he says, adding that the body was sealed in a plastic bag.
He describes Martin’s height and weight and says he was wearing a shirt with a hole and another below it with blood.
He describes the gunshot wound seen after removing the clothing.
He says the bullet went through fiber tissue around the heart and through a ventricle of the heart.
The lead core of the bullet and two fragments were recovered, he says.
He says Martin was still alive when the bullet went through his heart. He says Martin was still suffering and in pain.
West objects to speculation.
Judge Nelson asks the attorneys to approach.
10:18 a.m.
Dr. Shiping Bao shares his education and work history.
Witness: Sybrina Fulton - Martin's mother
10:16 a.m.
The jury is reseated. De la Rionda shows her a button Martin was wearing. Fulton identifies it. There is no cross-examination.
The state calls Dr. Bao.
10:10 a.m.
The jury exits the courtroom. The sidebar continues.
Witness: Jahvaris Fulton - Martin's brother
10:03 a.m.
O’Mara asks if Jahvaris remembers hearing the recording after the initial two times in the mayor’s office.
Jahvaris says he didn’t want to listen to the recording again.
He says he has listened to it since.
He says it is emotional and he didn’t want to listen again. He says in total it was about 10 times.
O’Mara asks if Tracy Martin was living with him.
Jahvaris says Martin left the home when he was 9 or 10 years old, and Trayvon was about 5.
O’Mara asks if he and Trayvon hung out together.
Jahvaris says they didn’t have the same set of friends.
He says he didn’t really interact with him on Facebook or Twitter, but occasionally did with his own friends.
O’Mara asks if Jahvaris spent a lot of time with Tracy Martin.
He says he usually spent the weekends or whenever they wanted.
Guy begins redirect.
He asks about the first time hearing the 911 call.
Jahvaris says it was emotionally difficult and he was still in denial about his brother’s death.
He says he believes it is Trayvon Martin’s brother on the tape.
He says he was about 9 years old when Tracy and Sybrina divorced. He would visit Tracy with Trayvon on the weekends.
He went to FAMU in Tallahassee and would stay with Tracy occasionally and sometimes Trayvon would stay with him at FAMU.
Jahvaris is excused.
The state recalls Sybrina Fulton.
The attorneys approach for a sidebar.
9:54 a.m.
O'Mara resumes questioning with the jury present.
9:23 a.m.
Judge Nelson says his answer was the same. O’Mara says his concern is the questions before the break.
The court reporter reads more of the transcript.
Judge Nelson says whether he remembers the question is a collateral matter and his answer was the same.
O’Mara says he renews the request because the interview shows his inflection and hesitation.
Judge Nelson asks what it is for on a legal basis because it cannot be played for impeachment purposes because his answer was the same.
He submits the clip as an exhibit.
Judge Nelson give a recess as the locksmith arrives to work on the evidence locker door.
9:18 a.m.
Judge Nelson says she thinks the witness said he wasn’t sure, so it should be played without the presence of the jury.
O’Mara plays the interview without the screen.
Jahvaris says in the interview he didn’t listen to the recording that well and he’s not positive it is Trayvon.
O’Mara renews his request to play the interview before the jury.
The state argues that Jahvaris already answered the questioned.
Judge Nelson asks the court reporter to read back the record.
9:14 a.m.
He says he and Martin was living together with his mother, brother and uncle.
He says he was aware Martin was with Tracy Martin. He learned of Trayvon’s death the following Monday from his mother.
He has heard the recording of the screaming and the gunshot. He estimates he’s heard it 10 to 15 times.
He says he recognizes Trayvon’s voice in the yelling and screaming.
He says he has heard Trayvon yell, not like that though.
Guy finishes questioning.
O’Mara cross examines.
O’Mara asks about an interview with a report in March 2012 in which he’s says he not positive it’s his brother, but thinks it is.
O’Mara asks about the first time he heard the recording in the room with everyone else.
Jahvaris says he didn’t want to believe that it was really Trayvon as he was feeling shock and sadness.
Jahvaris says he’s not sure of the dates of the interview and hearing the recording.
He says he probably didn’t listen to the tape between that time. He says he’s not sure of the time being asked about.
O’Mara asks him about an interview with a Miami reporter.
Jahvaris says he doesn’t remember the question.
O’Mara asks if he can play the recording. The state objects to improper impeachment.
The jury is excused.
9:05 a.m.
Jahvaris Fulton, 22, takes the stand. He attends FIU. His major is information technology. He is Martin's older brother. Martin is not his biological father, he says.
Witness: Sybrina Fulton - Martin's mother
9:05 a.m.
She says she didn’t really know what the tape was about. She says she was the first to react.
O’Mara asks about the other people listening to the recording.
She says they didn’t tell her anything.
O’Mara asks if anyone spoke to her, telling her she would be listening to screams.
She says no one did, they hadn’t heard the tape at the time.
O’Mara asks if anyone prepared her.
She says no.
She says she listened to it once.
O’Mara finishes questioning.
De la Rionda redirects.
He asks if she hoped her son would be alive.
“I hope he was still alive,” she says.
“Did you enjoy listening to the recording,” De la Rionda asks.
“Absolutely not,” she says.
O’Mara re-cross examines.
He asks if she hoped Martin did nothing that lead to his own death.
She says she hoped that this would’ve never happened and he would still be here.
“I don’t believe he was,” she says in answer to O’Mara’s question that Martin was responsible for his own death.
Fulton is excused.
The state calls Jahvaris Fulton.
9:00 a.m.
Fulton says she recognizes the screaming as Martin.
De la Rionda has no further questions.
O’Mara cross examines.
He begins by apologizing for her loss. Judge Nelson says he needs to ask a question.
He asks her about the first time she listened to the recording.
She says it was at the mayor’s office in Sanford.
She says law enforcement were there, but not in the room.
O’Mara asks if she was there when Chief Lee had a conversation with the mayor and city manager.
She says no. She says she thinks it was the mayor that played the recording for her.
In the room was Tracy Martin, her other son, attorneys Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson, Mayor Triplette, City Manager Bonaparte and a few others.
O’Mara asks if anyone listened to it individually.
She says Tracy Martin did not tell her he had listened to the tape before and did not have a conversation about it with him.
“Absolutely,” she says in answer to it being one of the worst experiences.
O’Mara asks if it was Zimmerman saying those screams, she would have to accept that it was her son that caused his death.
“I heard my son screaming,” she says.
8:54 a.m.
Fulton has two other children. She lives in Miami. Martin’s birthday was Feb. 5. She says she is on leave from her employer.
She has worked for the county for 24 years.
She tells the court her education background.
She says Martin was right-handed. He had tattooes of praying hands on his right should with his grandmother’s and great grandmother’s names and
Sybrina’s name on his left wrist.
She says she has heard him crying before.
De la Rionda plays the recording of the 911 call with the screams heard in the background.
8:41 a.m.
The state calls Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, to take the stand. The attorneys go into sidebar.
8:40 a.m.
The jury is seated. Judge Nelson checks to make sure they did not discuss the case, see reports about it or research it.
8:37 a.m.
Judge Debra Nelson arrives in court and addresses matters the prosecution or defense asks about. She asks Zimmerman about a stipulation the state requests regarding the identity of the victim, Trayvon Martin. He agrees to it.
Guy submits a report from Weather Underground detailing the weather conditions from the night of the shooting. The defense objects. Judge Nelson says it will be taken up later.
Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.
8:18 a.m.
Court is expected to resume at 8:30 a.m.