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 Tuesday are on top.
Court is in recess until 9 a.m.
The attorney approach Judge Nelson for a sidebar.
Witness: Selene Bahadoor
De la Rionda gives her some exhibits.
He asks about when she came forward as when it was a meeting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
“Correct,” she says in response to a question about wanting to remain a silent witness.
De la Rionda refers to the transcript with Investigator Serino, referring to page two.
De la Rionda refers to the transcript with FDLE Investigator Batchelor.
He asks if anyone asked her to describe the direction of the running she heard.
De la Rionda refers to the deposition transcript, which he says is 31 pages. He refers to page 5.
He asks if West or O’Mara ever asked about the direction of the running.
He asks the same question about another statement in the deposition.
He points out her response on page 10 that it looked like the figures were in a standing position.
De la Rionda asks the court for a moment.
He asks about page 17 and a question from West about the diagram, clarifying that it is backwards and if she remembers it. She says yes.
De la Rionda says he has no further questions.
O’Mara follows up.
He asks about her not wanting to be on national TV and says she has actually been on TV.
She says she did a video but it was never broadcast. She says she was spoken with for 30 minutes before she would say anything.
She says they were combing the entire neighborhood for what happened.
“I was only doing it so they could bring attention to what had happened,” she said.
O’Mara asks why she signed a petition on change.org asking for prosecution of Zimmerman.
“I did “like.” So saying like means I signed the petition?” she asks.
O’Mara shows her a laptop and asks her to read a portion of it, which says something about the petition.
O’Mara asks her how that evidence never came out before.
Bahadoor is excused.
Judge Nelson excuses the jury for the evening and instructs them not to read anything about the case or research it.
O’Mara shows her the diagram again.
“I see a notation of arms identified on that document,” O’Mara says.
O’Mara asks about the 911 call made with the screams in the background.
She says they are similar to what she heard.
O’Mara asks about her testifying about the word flailing and asks her to describe what she meant.
She says she saw arms moving up and down and motions in example.
O’Mara takes a moment to discuss with West.
He says he is finished.
De la Rionda redirects.
“I could tell it was people,” she says, describing it as “a house down and over.”
O’Mara points out the diagram where she would’ve looked out the window. He points out where John Good lives.
He asks if the people could have been at a location on the diagram.
He asks if the people were standing.
“When I saw the individuals, I was at the sliding glass door,” Bahadoor says.
She says after Good said he was calling the police she went to turn the stove off.
“I looked out the sliding glass door, grabbed the dog and went upstairs,” she says about when she heard the gunshot.
She remembers seeing a body.
She says the first time she gave a statement was when the community had a town hall about the event.
“I didn’t think what I saw was significant or what I heard was significant,” she says.
O’Mara asks if she “liked” on Facebook the Justice for Trayvon Martin page.
“Probably, yes,” she says.
O’Mara asks if she has sympathy for the Martin Family.
She says she has sympathy for both.
O’Mara asks why she only “liked” the Martin page.
“The opportunity didn’t present itself,” she says.
O’Mara shows her a sketch she says she did for the officers.
O’Mara submits it as an exhibit.
De la Rionda objects and both attorneys approach the bench.
Bahadoor says on page 9 she said it was dark. She adds she thinks that was in reference to the arms.
“It does not exist in this statement either, any suggestion there was movement left to right,” O’Mara says.
O’Mara hands her a deposition transcript and asks her to find any mention of left to right.
He asks her if this is the first time she has said.
She says the first person she told about it was her sister when it first occurred.
O’Mara asks if anyone in law enforcement was told.
“Correct,” she said.
She says she must’ve mentioned it, but it’s not in the transcript because that’s what she remembered.
O’Mara asks about the noise and if anyone was with her.
O’Mara asks about the sister.
“I don’t know what she saw,” Bahadoor answers.
O’Mara asks if her sister told her she didn’t see anything but said she was going to say she did.
De la Rionda objects for hearsay.
O’Mara asks about the noise.
She describes it the same way.
She says she couldn’t see anything when she looked out the window because it was dark.
O’Mara hands her a transcript.
“I believe two or three times,” she says about how many times she has looked at it.
She says her sister was with her.
Bahadoor says the last time she talked to anyone was in the deposition.
“So that’s Thursday, just before your deposition, and what about the time before that?” O’Mara asks.
She says it was when the state was investigating.
O’Mara asks her to point out where she tells Serino she heard movement going from left to right.
“It did not mention left to right,” she says.
O’Mara asks if she told investigators if she could see anyone.
She says she couldn’t really see anyone and all she saw was arms flailing.
O’Mara asks if the movement exists anywhere in her testimony.
“It says they were running in the back,” she says.
He gives her a transcript of the testimony with John Batchelor taken three weeks later.
Bahadoor reads it over.
O’Mara asks if she remembers taking the deposition and if she remembers viewing it.
He asks if she remembers anything at all about movement from left to right.
“I don’t remember,” she says.
He asks again if when the first time was that she told anybody about movement from left to right in her backyard.
“I don’t know if it was just today,” she says.
O’Mara asks if this could be the first time.
“It could be, I don’t know,” she says.
O’Mara has another transcript. De la Rionda asks to approach the bench.
She says she doesn’t remember if she described the direction.
O’Mara asks if she said “running in the back.”
“Your words, I’m just repeating them,” O’Mara says after she answers.
O’Mara asks who the first person is that she said “left to right.”
She says she has no idea.
O’Mara says she also spoke to John Batchelor with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
O’Mara says they will go over her transcript with Officer Serino.
“Do you remember in any of your 12 page statement with John Batchelor ever mentioning anything about movement going from left to right?” O’Mara asks.
She says she can’t remember.
O’Mara has another transcript. Judge Nelson asks them to approach.
O’Mara asks who the last person she spoke to was about her testimony.
She says she met with Osteen for 45 minutes on Thursday.
O’Mara asks if she described the noise direction the same way.
She says they didn’t discuss that, but during the initial investigation she did.
She says this Thursday they talked about the upcoming trial, making sure she remembered what she said.
She says she read her statements and Osteen gave them to her to read.
O’Mara asks what about what statements she read.
She says she read a transcript from a tape.
O’Mara asks if she told the police department she heard noise moving from “left to right.”
She says she can’t remember.
O’Mara asks if the state attorney’s office prepared the transcript.
She says there was several.
De la Rionda objects to her being given a transcript because it might not be the same one she viewed.
Judge Nelson asks council to approach.
De la Rionda shows her a night time crime scene photo. She says she cannot see her house.
He continues showing crime scene photos. She is able to identify her home in one.
De la Rionda shows a day time photo of the scene and Bahadoor is able to identify her home and where she heard the initial noise.
He shows her a diagram of the crime scene and points out where she would have heard the noise.
De la Rionda says he’d like to ask about 2011 and if she had seen Zimmerman before.
He asks if she knew him as a crime watch individual. She says yes.
She says he was handing out fliers and introduced himself as a neighborhood watch person.
O’Mara asks for a moment to get ready for cross-examination.
Bahadoor says she was home with her sister, niece and niece’s friend.
Bahadoor says she was in the kitchen around 7:10 p.m., downstairs in the rear of the home.
She says there is a window in the kitchen.
Bahadoor says it was raining and dark.
“At some point did you hear a noise outside?” De la Rionda asks. “Yes,” she says.
She says the noise sounded like “no” or and “ooooo” sound.
She says she though she heard running from left to right.
“I looked out the window, but I couldn’t see anything,” she says, adding that she had an obstructed view.
She says she moved from the kitchen to the sliding glass doors.
“I saw what looked as figures and arms flaying,” she describes seeing out the glass door.
She says they were in a standing position.
De la Rionda asks if she could identify the individuals involved, but she says it was too dark.
She estimates it took her about 15 seconds to move from the kitchen to the glass door.
She says she looked on for 15 to 20 seconds and went back to the stove to turn it off.
“When I saw them, they looked like they were on the pathway,” Bahadoor says.
She says she went back to the glass door and someone was lying in the grass.
She says two other people were also looking out. One was across from her home, and the other was right next to the home across from her’s. She says that person was out on the porch.
She says the other person asked if he should call the cops.
“I just remember them standing,” Bahadoor says.
She says it probably took her less than 15 seconds to turn the stove off.
When she looked outside the second time she says she saw a body in the grass. She says it was facedown.
“When I went to take the stove off, that’s when the shot occurred,” Bahadoor says.
She says when she saw the body, she went upstairs with the dog and told her sister she thought someone had been shot.
She says when she went back downstairs she saw flashlights outside.
De la Rionda shows Bahadoor aerial photographs of the complex.
Witness: Diana Smith
Guy asks why she doesn’t go through the victim’s pockets. She says she needs consent from the medical examiner’s office.
Guy shows a photo of Martin’s body with the photo button on his sweatshirt.
Smith says when she collected items from the medical examiner’s office, it included Martin’s clothes.
Guy shows the court a large exhibit with Martin’s hooded sweatshirt suspended in a large see-through frame. Smith identifies it.
Guy shows the court the shirt Martin was wearing, also in a large see-through frame. Smith identifies it.
Smith takes her seat back in the witness stand.
Guy asks her about the time she took photographs of Zimmerman.
Guy asks who assisted her in looking for blood.
She says officers on scene helped, using flashlights.
The defense objects due to hearsay.
Smith says she was not notified of other blood at the scene.
Guy hands her the plastic bags.
She says the discoloration is from being checked for latent prints.
Guy finishes questioning.
Smith is excused.
West asks about the photographs taken of Zimmerman.
He points out the lumps and abrasions in each one and asks if Smith saw them as she took the photos.
She answers “yes” to each question.
West finishes questioning.
She says she never opened a bag that contained Martin’s clothing.
West asks the court if the pants are identified as an exhibit.
West shows Smith the pants belonging to Martin. They are flattened out in a large, see-through, evidence frame.
West says he’d like to talk about the forensic swabbing.
West asks if just the swab is sent to a lab for processing. “Yes it is,” Smith answers.
He asks if the item being tested is also sent to a lab. It isn’t, Smith says.
West asks if there is a way to tell where the swabbing took place on the item. Smith says no.
Smith says the purpose of the swab for the skittles and flashlight was for Touch DNA.
West asks about the swabs for the firearm.
He asks about the procedure for using a swab.
West asks Smith to describe further the Touch DNA. It is skin cells left behind.
West asks if skin cells could be wiped off.
Smith says it’s possible.
West asks about the firearm being provided to Smith.
He moves on to photographs taken of Zimmerman at the police department.
She says they would have been taken some time after 11:15 p.m.
West says he understands she is married to the first responding officer for the scene.
She says that is correct.
West asks about the measuring of the scene and if he can ask about distances between objects.
He asks how far it was from marker one to marker six.
She says she cannot say that. She says the FDLE personnel that did the Total Station would be able to.
West asks if she took measurements and recorded them in a report.
She says yes.
West says one of the exhibits “seemed like it was drawings.” He hands her exhibit 168 and asks if it was her drawing.
She says yes.
West says it is no help at all, while referring to the Total Station data.
West finds some evidence and returns to the podium.
“You had a hands-on of view of the actual evidence,” West asks. “That is correct,” she answers. She says she witnessed that the keychain flashlight was on.
She says she had no reason to believe any of the evidence was tampered with or handled before she got there.
“So law enforcement took charge of the scene right away,” West asks. “That is correct,” she answers.
Smith says she can’t remember if she photographed Martin’s body before or while the medical examiner’s investigator was there.
West asks about the search for blood.
She says she doesn’t believe anyone pointed out any specific areas to look.
She says she and several officers on the scene did an exhaustive search for blood.
She says West is correct that no chemicals were used to test for blood.
West resumes cross-examination.
The jury is brought back into the courtroom.
She says she found just one latent print.
Guy hands her an exhibit, which she identifies as the latent print card pulled from the firearm.
She says she drew a diagram and circled the area where the print was taken from.
Guy asks her to show the jury.
She says she does not analyze prints, but a latent analyst does.
She says she doesn’t process the swabs.
Smith says she also processed the Skittles bag and flashlight.
She also processed the larger flashlight for prints.
Smith says she processed the two plastic bags and keys connected to the flashlight. She says they were fumed, a method that uses super glue and a chamber with gas from it.
Guy hands Smith the DNA swabs from the Skittle packaging and larger flashlight.
Smith says she collected items from the medical examiner’s office.
Guy hands her the victim’s watch, sealed in evidence plastic.
He hands her sticks used to scrape Martin’s fingernails.
She says personnel at the medical examiner’s office would have done that.
She identifies the “projectile.”
Guy asks Smith if she recognizes a diagram turned over to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Guy finishes questioning.
Judge Nelson gives the court a 15 minute break.
Smith says she collected the defendant’s clothes and packaged them for evidence.
Guy shows her the jacket, which is flattened out in an evidence frame.
Guy shows her the shirt, also contained in a large see-through frame.
Guy shows the blue jeans to the court.
Smith takes her seat in the witness stand.
Smith says she processed the firearm at the Sanford Police Department.
She identifies it and says it was secured, or unloaded, when she got it.
Smith is asked to identify the gun. A red band gun lock is looped through the top of the gun.
Guy asks her to hold it up for the jury to see. Guy points out the gun lock, and Smith says it was added later.
Smith holds up the holster for the jury to see.
Smith says she was wearing gloves while handling the firearm to preserve evidence.
She says she processed it for touch DNA and latent prints. She says touch DNA is something you may not be able to see. She used a sterile swab with distilled water.
She says she processed the grip, trigger and back part of the slide.
The swabs, three, were submitted to evidence, she says.
The holster was processed also with only one swab.
Guy hands her four swabs secured in evidence plastic.
Smith says the gun was visually examined for latent prints first, and then processed for DNA. She says the areas swabbed for DNA are less likely to have latent prints after.
She describes how the processing is done.
Smith says Martin’s body was removed from the scene and after that she found the shell casing by using a metal detector.
She says she searched the sidewalk and between the buildings for blood evidence using a flashlight.
Guy asks her to point out on a diagram where she searched.
She says she did not locate any blood at the scene or where the body was.
Smith says she was at the scene for about 2 hours and 45 minutes.
She arrived at the police department around 11:15 p.m.
She says she photographed Zimmerman. She identifies him in the courtroom as he stands.
Smith says the photos were taken “as he was.”
Guy shows photos taken of Zimmerman at the police station.
Guy shows another diagram, which Smith says is a zoomed out diagram of the previous exhibit showing the relationship of the buildings.
Guy hands Smith the evidence bag with a can in it.
Smith describes it as the Arizona tea can that was on top of the yellow medical blanket at the crime scene.
Smith identifies the flashlight marked as object number 5.
Smith identifies the cell phone that was marked as object number 7.
She also shows the jury two plastic bags, flattened out between sheets of evidence plastic.
She identifies the first aid kid.
She identifies $40.15 she says was collected from the victim’s pockets.
Guy hands her another exhibit, which see says contains a red lighter, photo button, bag of skittles and headphones.
She shows the jury each item.
She identifies keys and a flashlight as object marker number one. She says the flashlight was on.
She identifies object marker number eight as the cartridge case.
Smith sits back down at the witness stand.
Guy shows closer photos of the victim’s body.
Guy shows a photo of a photo pin on Martin’s sweatshirt.
Smith says the purpose for a yellow arrow in the grass in a photo taken after Martin’s body was removed is to show relationship between object number 6, the victim’s body, and the cartridge.
Another photo shows a measurement of the cartridge, Smith says.
More photos were taken of the front of residences near the crime scene.
Guy shows photos taken the next day during daylight hours.
Smith points out on the same diagram where the daylight photos were taken.
Smith says she starts with photography so she can capture the scene as it is presented to her.
She starts by taking pictures of the scene with no markers, and then gets closer with evidence markers.
She says she measured the scene and those measurements were provided to FDLE for a computer rendition.
West asks to see exhibits Guy is asking Smith about.
Guy asks if the witness can step down so he can publish, or show the jury the diagrams.
Guy asks Smith to point out the markers on the crime scene diagram.
She points out item number one as the keys and flashlight.
Items 2 and 3 are plastic bags.
Item 4 is a first aid kit.
Item 5 is a flashlight.
Item 6 is the victim’s body.
Item 7 is a cellphone
Item 8 is a cartridge case.
Guy shows a photo of the crime scene. He asks her to show on the diagram where the photo was taken from.
Guy shows more photos for Smith to show where they were taken from.
Guy returns to questioning.
Smith says sometimes her shift overlaps with that of her husband, who is also an officer.
She says the victim’s body was still located at the scene when she arrived and it was covered with a yellow medical blanket.
She describes a walk-through of the scene is when the officers walk her through and point out evidence she should be aware of before processing the scene.
West addresses Guy, and then asks to approach the bench.
Witness: Sgt. Anthony Raimondo
Raimondo says he comes from a family of law enforcement officers and “I think we all want to make a difference in our community.”
He says he enjoys doing what he does.
O’Mara asks if Raimondo has experienced a lack of respect.
The prosecution objects based on relevance.
O’Mara shows an aerial photo of the complex and asks Raimondo to identify a building.
Raimondo says it is Colonial Town Park. Another complex is identified as another house area.
Raimondo is asked about the 7-Eleven area and which way a car would go to back to Retreat at Twin Lakes.
He’s asked the same thing about walking.
O’Mara shows another aerial photo of the complex and a photo of the crime scene at night.
O’Mara shows the same photos as Guy of Martin’s body.
[Editor's note: We have chosen not to post images of Trayvon Martin's body on our air or online. Please read our Crime Guidelines for more information.]
O’Mara asks about the position of the feet. Raimondo asks him to be more specific.
He says he did not make note of the position of the feet exactly.
Raimondo says he was not qualified to call Martin deceased, but definitely in need of services.
O’Mara shows a photo of the gunshot wound, and another photo of the crime scene.
Raimondo says he would estimate Martin’s body was exposed to the rain for about 15 minutes.
O’Mara takes a moment.
O’Mara has no further questions.
Guy redirects about the 15 minute period and the intensity of the rainfall.
Raimondo says it was just drizzling.
Raimondo says an Asian male gave him a plastic grocery bag. He says he tried to seal the exit wound first.
He says he looked for the exit wound to seal it first and that’s when he felt the cold can.
Guy asks about the can.
Raimondo says he did not find an exit wound and continued CPR.
Raimondo says rescue pronounced Martin dead and he put an emergency blanket over the body.
He said it was out of respect for the deceased, to protect observers from trauma and preserve any physical evidence.
Guy shows a photo of Martin’s body to the courtroom. He shows a closer photo of Martin and a photo of the gunshot wound.
He shows another picture of the crime scene that shows the blanket covering Martin’s body.
Guy shows a photo of the grocery bag.
He asks if crime scene technicians and other units were called. Raimondo says when they were arrived they took over and that was the end of his involvement.
O’Mara begins cross examining.
Returning from lunch
The jury is brought back in and Juddge Nelson asks if they saw any reports about the case or discussed it.
The attorneys return to a sidebar with Judge Nelson.
Witness: Don O'Brien
O’Mara asks if a neighborhood watch is a positive thing for the neighborhood.
O’Brien says he doesn’t’ think they needed it.
O’Mara asks about Sanford police patrolling the neighborhood.
O’Brien says people can be ticketed now for parking illegally.
O’Mara asks about the stucco workers.
O’Brien says the day they talked to the guy was different from the day the workers saw the man walking down the street.
O'Mara asks O'Brien to describe the man.
O’Brien says the stucco workers followed the man at a distance and called the police.
O’Mara takes a moment to meet with West and Zimmerman.
Mantei mentions the question about the stucco people following the person. Mantei asks if a neighborhood watch person should have followed.
O'Mara objects. Judge Nelson says he can answer.
"Since day one, the neighborhood watch, it was said at that meeting and said at every meeting we had after that, do not get close to anybody, to stay at a safe distance and call 911,” O’Brien says.
O’Mara re-cross examines.
He asks about the following at a safe distance.
Mantei re-redirects with a question about following.
Judge Nelson breaks the jury for lunch until 1 p.m.
She asks the attorneys to approach the bench.
O’Brien says he met Zimmerman at the neighborhood watch meeting.
Judge Nelson says the witness cannot testify as to what someone told him.
“What did you find out from the defendant at that meeting,” Mantei asks.
O’Brien says Zimmerman had already gone through a course with the Sanford Police Department.
He says everyone was introduced, they put out a sign-up sheet for block captains and people would watch to call police.
“Everybody was supposed to watch out for their neighbors…stay away, call police,” O’Brien says.
O’Brien says some people signed the sheet to be a block captain, but weren’t block captains to his knowledge.
“It was his program,” O’Brien says.
O’Mara objects for hearsay.
Judge Nelson says he can testify to what the defendant told him.
O’Brien says anyone can do a neighborhood watch and it has nothing to do with the HOA.
O’Brien says Zimmerman would put out an email blast about incidents.
Mantei asks about the parking committee.
O’Mara objects on grounds of relevance, Mantei says he will show.
O’Brien says Zimmerman volunteered to help. The committee would enforce parking laws because there was no agreement with Sanford police to patrol.
“It involved a car parked in yellow, at a stop sign, or in front of a fire hydrant. We gave them 3 warnings before we had the car towed,” O’Brien says.
O’Brien says a person was caught on a weekday afternoon, when a gentleman in the middle of the street talked to them, and the person broke into a home while stucco workers watched him.
He says he texted Zimmerman about the arrest.
O’Brien says he sent an email that said the stucco guys were responsible for finding the guy as he walked down the street and followed him at a safe distance and called the police.
O’Brien says he gave praise to those people.
Mantei asks for the time frame. O’Brien says he would have to guess.
He says it was a couple months before the shooting related to the case.
Mantei finishes. O’Mara begins cross-examination.
Witness: Wendy Dorival
West asks if Dorival remembers getting a copy of the email sent to Chief Lee.
She says yes.
Guy begins redirect.
He asks if the defendant was told to call the police if he sees someone walking in the rain.
She says no.
Dorival describes Citizens on Patrol as a police program coordinated with background checks.
She says she recommended him for his demeanor, the way he interacted with her and his high interest in the community.
She says she gained that from the meeting, phone calls and emails.
Guy asks if Zimmerman ever contacted her on behalf of someone else.
She says he contacted her about a burglary and a possible suspect being identified.
She says the coordinator is responsible for recruiting block captains.
She says she talked to him about the sign up list from the presentation, but he never contacted her about the block captains.
Dorival is excused.
West continues questioning Dorival.
West argues the email should be allowed.
Guy says the email is like "electronic overhearing" and is hearsay.
The objection is sustained, Judge Nelson says and asks for the jury to be brought in.
Court takes a 10 minute recess.
Witness: Wendy Dorival
Judge Nelson lets they jury leave for a morning break. The witness also leaves the courtroom.
West asks if she talks in detail about the kinds of things that might be suspicious.
She says they talk about cars driving in circles, people walking in areas not typically walked on.
“Someone that seems maybe looking at cars, looking at windows?’’ West asks
Dorival says looking through windows or at cars or trying not to be noticed,
West asks about someone walking in the rain and they don’t seem to have a purpose.
She says someone could call non-emergency dispatch because they are not posing a threat.
The presentation was given Sept. 22, 2011, Dorival says.
West asks to approach the witness with an exhibit.
She says it is an email from Zimmerman to Chief Lee at the time, complimenting her on her professionalism with him.
She is not sure of the month of the meeting after West asks if it was in August, but says the email was sent before the presentation.
Prosecution offers a hearsay objection.
The attorneys approach Judge Nelson for a sidebar.
Dorival says Zimmerman emailed her about a “certain burglary that had occurred.”
She says Zimmerman mentioned being a criminal justice major and she wanted to recruit him for a “Citizen on Patrol” position, but he said no. She says participants get training for the position.
Dorival says she is a civilian staff, and has worked in a police department since 1998, minus two years she worked for the state.
West asks about the officers that went with her to the meeting.
She says one did patrol the area and the other was a sergeant in charge that day.
She says the only statute they go over is the burglary statute.
West asks about the “vigilante police” slide.
She says they are supposed to be the “eyes and ears” and it’s on the same slide.
She says she usually doesn’t try to get into debates about gun laws.
She says she tells people unsure if they are seeing something suspicious to call anyway and police can check it out.
West takes a moment to talk with O’Mara.
West says he wants to talk more about her role with neighborhood watch.
She says she has done several different presentations.
West asks her to walk through her presentation.
She says there are 25 slides and she usually tells organizers to give her an hour for the presentation so the participants can get to know each other.
“A lot of neighbors don’t talk to each other these days,“ she says.
She says she believes her first contact with Zimmerman was by phone. She says he was polite and courteous and respectful.
She says she provided Zimmerman with 200 to 300 fliers.
She says at that meeting the number one concern was burglaries. She says she noticed several burglaries before she arrived there via crime-mapping software.
She says there were some issues with the HOA about fencing, possibly a gate not working and lighting.
She says she can offer suggestions about security and lighting. Dorival says Mr. O’Brien said those issues would be taken care of.
She says a handful of people had another issue with the patio doors and a hinge that would pop open. She says she recommended a locking device available at a home store.
She says the presentation covers a broad range of crime prevention.
She says leaving the garage door open is a common mistake.
West asks if someone mentioned a home invasion burglary.
The prosecution objects.
West asks about the specific advice she might have given.
She says a resident was upset because someone entered and burglarized her home while she was inside with a small child.
“It was very terrifying for her,” Dorival says.
She says the best thing about neighborhood watch is communicating with neighbors. She says she encourages sharing of all information.
Guy shows an individual PowerPoint slide with the wording: “Not the vigilante police.”
He shows a page of the handout from the coordinator’s handbook. He asks her to explain bullet point number 10.
Dorival says it talks about the responsibility for the program.
She says she never said to the defendant or anyone at the meeting that is was “OK to follow anyone acting suspicious.”
She says Zimmerman mentioned his major was criminal justice.
She says the distinction between calling 911 or non-emergency is if there is an immediate need for police to be there. “Overall I tell them, if you don’t know, just call 911,” she says.
She says it is standard procedure to have an officer at a watch meeting and two were present at the Retreat at Twin Lakes meeting.
She says she was emailed about a previous burglary in the neighborhood.
Guy finishes questioning. Defense attorney Don West rises to begin cross-examination.
Prosecutor John Guy asks Dorival what she did for the police department back in Feb. 2012.
She says she was coordinating the neighborhood watch program.
She says she would go to communities to present what neighborhood watch is and how it works.
She says the coordinator serves as a liaison with the police department, a block captain serves to get people on the block involved, and participants are the “eyes and ears for law enforcement.”
The presentation covers crime prevention, duties, engagement. She says the first thing she does is have every resident introduce themselves.
She provides handouts that cover the history of neighborhood watch, preventing burglaries and more.
She says if a person is acting suspicious the person should call 911 or non-emergency dispatch.
“Not to confront, to let us do the job, let police do the job,” Dorival says about what she tells participants to do about confronting a suspicious person.
She is asked to identify George Zimmerman. He stands for her to see.
She says her first contact with him was sometime in August 2011.
The presentation meeting was scheduled on Sept. 22, 2011 at the complex clubhouse.
She says Zimmerman was present and she spoke with him.
She says the homeowner’s association president was also present, along with about 25 residents.
She says Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch coordinator. She says he told her he had been asked by the HOA to be a coordinator.
Zimmerman was given a coordinator handbook.
Guy shows her a neighborhood watch coordinator handbook. Dorival says it looks to be complete.
Guy also shows her the PowerPoint presentation she provides for neighborhood watch to make sure it is complete.
Witness: Ramona Rumph
Mantei asks Rumph about the 911 calls made on Feb. 26, 2013.
He asks about a call made by Mrs. Lauer.
Rumph explains the difference between connection times and created time. She says connection is when they pick up the phone.
Rumph says this call was a duplicate.
Mantei asks about the Surdyka call.
O’Mara asks to approach for a sidebar.
The jury is seated. Judge Nelson asks if any of the saw reports about the case. Mantei resumes questioning the witness.
The state calls Ramona Rumph back to the stand.
Court takes a 10 minute recess.
The calls, according to Mantei, were made:
- August 3, 2011
- August 6, 2011
- Sept. 23, 2011
- October 1, 2011
- February 2, 2012.
Mantei says he was ready to argue relevance.
He says “state of mind” is relevant because it is an element of second-degree murder.
He says the evidence shows to a pattern of behavior leading up to February 26, 2012.
Mantei says the court hit on it when Noffke testified.
What is relevant about it is you can see he has call before about suspicious people, Mantei says.
He says it shows what he knows to be appropriate behavior and how he acted on the night of the shooting.
Mantei quotes the phrase that “they always get away.”
He says the evidence has been available for months and the witness has been listed.
“This isn’t some secret,” Mantei says.
Mantei says the only time the requirement of similarity is necessary is for identity purposes.
He quotes the Holmes opinion as evidence that shows the defendants reaction to his experiences.
“Shows a continuing scene of chronological events,” Mantei says, adding that it shows his state of mind for Feb. 26, 2012.
Mantei says the actions of the night of the shooting are different from his other actions. He says something happened that changed his mind.
Judge Nelson says both sides gave her 20 cases and she’d like to listen to Noffke’s testimony again.
She asks for a copy of the recordings.
She asks the state if another witness can be called. He says Rumph can continue with her testimony on other matters.
The court listens to the recordings.
O’Mara cites a case that addresses “bad acts.”
He says nothing in this evidence suggests how his client acted at the time of the offense, which would make it allowable.
He calls it a “stealth argument” trying to make the jury believe he was bad because of his past acts.
O’Mara says the state needed to present the evidence ahead of time.
He says it is prior act evidence and should not be admissible.
O’Mara says the evidence is not “bad acts” evidence, but is previous acts. He says similar fact evidence should have been submitted 10 days before and there should have been a hearing.
He says to get to “state of mind,” listening to the recordings would show they are not ill-will, but they show Zimmerman was “acting fine.”
O’Mara asks that the calls not be allowed at this point until the state shows the connectivity.
He says the state is asking the jury to make a “quantum leap” from being a good citizen to an angry person.
O’Mara says he will look at cases involving “similar fact evidence.”
He says the calls have to be very similar. He argues that the calls actually address Zimmerman’s character.
Judge Nelson asks if comments in opening statements create an issue to consider.
O’Mara says no because it is not evidence.
Judge Nelson asks about cross-examination of Mr. Noffke. She asks if it created an issue in cross-examination in how Zimmerman was asking and the interpretation of the instructions Noffke gave.
O’Mara says the past calls can open Zimmerman’s history for rebuttal. He asks if the state is improperly making Zimmerman’s character an issue.
Judge Nelson asks again about Noffke’s cross-examination.
O’Mara says the state still has to follow proper evidence code to get the calls in.
Judge Nelson says she remembers a question to Mr. Noffke about how something he said may have been interpreted by Zimmerman.
O’Mara says he is arguing the point of the procedure to submit the evidence. He mentions to cases.
Judge Nelson says both arguments are “apples and oranges.” She says she has to decide what portion of the evidence code applies.
O’Mara says all of the cases say the procedure requires 10 days’ notice and the prior act has to show the state’s case.
Defense attorney Mark O'Mara says he objected on the grounds of relevance. Prosecutor Richard Mantei tells the court the exhibit has already been published before the jury.
Mantei says the case will hear more evidence about Zimemrman’s neighborhood watch training and activities in the community. He says course work, education, and his communicated goals will be presented.
Mantei says the relevance is discussed in sections of the evidence code, which he cites.
He starts with “elements of the crime.” He provided a case example.
He says there was confusion yesterday regarding distinction of state of mind. He cites the Wimberly case.
Mantei says motive and state of mind are jury questions and the jury has a right to hear evidence in it.
He focuses on the mention of “suspicious person” in the non-emergency call already admitted into evidence.
Mantei says a recognized exception is to show motive.
He says the calls show the building level of frustration the defendant had.
The call is relevant because it shows Zimmerman understands the language used by dispatchers, Mantei says.
He cites another case as he says the evidence is relevant to establish context.
He concludes that the evidence is relevant because it relates to a number of items, it has already been published.
O'Mara begins his argument.
Defense attorney Mark O'Mara says he objected on the grounds of relevance. Prosecutor Richard Mantei tells the court the exhibit has already been published before the jury.
The attorneys spend a few minutes in sidebar with Judge Debra Nelson.
Court is expected to resume at 8:30 a.m. with a hearing over non-emergency calls made by George Zimmerman before the deadly shooting.