Angela Corey is holding a press conference. She has adopted a patient, reasonable tone, speaking slowly and with a smile.

Unbelievable: "We believe we brought out the truth about Trayvon Martin." Translation: We respect the jury's verdict but we still think our version, not the jury's version, was correct.

If the jury agreed the state brought out the truth about Trayvon Martin and his actions the night of the shooting, it would have returned a different verdict. [More...]

There's a verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

Not Guilty!!!!

GPS monitor ordered removed, bond discharged.

Congratulations to Mark O'Mara, Don West, Jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn and all of the defense team. They prevailed over a prosecutor who bowed to public pressure and private interests in overcharging this case as second degree murder.

I've been avoiding stories about the protests, I really don't care about them. But with the TV on just now, they flashed on the protesters and they were really loud. Are they right outside the courthouse? Can the jury hear them?

I would make a motion to stop the deliberations and either move the jury deliberations or have the protestors move to where the jurors can't see and here them. It's rank intimidation.

Also, of course the crowds are more anti-Zimmerman. Guilt-mongerers are not known for their intelligence or emotional stability.

Where is law enforcement? How are they letting this go on while the jury is inside deliberating? I would think an appeals court could throw out a verdict for this alone. [More...]

The media has been moved to the first floor of the courthouse. The jury is finished with dinner. Why would the court have the media wait around if they didn't ask a follow-up question to their first question about manslaughter? Did they resolve it without needing more guidance?

Why would the jury still be working at 9:00 pm with the court, lawyers and media in the courtroom if a verdict weren't about to be announced? The judge previously said she'd only give the media 15 minutes notice of a verdict. So I think a verdict may be imminent. What would that be and what would that mean? [More...]

Update: The jury has ordered in dinner. The parties and judge agreed the judge will respond to the jury's question as follows:

The court cannot engage in general discussion but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. if you have a specific question please submit it.

What this means: The jury had a question on manslaughter and wanted to ask the judge about it. The jury didn't specify what question they had. The parties submitted case law about the extent to which a judge can meet with a jury to answer questions about the law. They agreed upon a response which tells them they to submit a more specific question and the judge will try to answer it.

See original post below: If the jury is following the court's instructions, their consideration of manslaughter means they have rejected Murder 2 but it does not mean they have considered or rejected self-defense. They may or may not have gotten to self-defense yet. [More...]

Update: Sat. 5:55 pm ET: Jurors have a question. Court will reconvene to hear it.

Our thread on closing arguments is full, so here is a place to continue the discussion of the trial, the legal aspects of the case and the media coverage while we wait for a verdict.

From earlier posts:

• Here are the final jury instructions (source: court's website)
• Here is the verdict form jurors will fill out (source: court's website)
• Here are some expanded profiles of the six jurors taken from our forums where readers live-blogged the voir dire.
• For jury updates, here is the Twitter Feed of Michelle Kennedy, Public Information Officer for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.

If you are just discovering TalkLeft, please read our commenting rules for this case before chiming in.

The jury in the George Zimmerman trial has recessed for the day. They will deliberate tomorrow beginning at 9:00 a.m.

News10 in Miami has profiles of the six jurors, with links to segments of their voir dire. If you'd rather read than watch video, check our forums where commenters live-blogged the voir dire. (Thanks especially to No Matter Never Mind, and CBoldt). If you just want the highlights, see below: [More...]

I haven't seen John Guy's rebuttal closing yet in the George Zimmerman trial, but from the reactions online, it seems he didn't play tricks with the evidence as I predicted, he just pulled out the race, gender and emotion cards. Maybe he couldn't find any evidentiary rabbits.

In any event, the jury has been instructed and is now deliberating. Since it hasn't been mentioned in a while, I just want to point out that if this jury acquits George Zimmerman, the credit begins with jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn.

Regardless of what the verdict is, I think all criminal defense lawyers can take great pride in Mark O'Mara and Don West. They represent the tireless, dedicated, fearless advocates we all aspire to be. O'Mara and West have displayed the utmost integrity throughout this difficult case. They also worked for 16 months without yet receiving a dime (all the money raised so far has gone to case expenses, experts, and Zimmerman's living expenses and security.)

As I wind down 16 months of intensive coverage of this case, I'd like to thank the readers who have contributed to the discussion here and at our forums. As news articles are gradually pulled offline and the media deletes its document archives, the forums in particular will serve as a historical account of the evidence and court proceedings, and the political and partisan pressures and media hype that elevated this case into feeding frenzy.

I'd also like to thank Jim Talent of National Review and Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler for featuring my recent post with thoughts on the legacy of this case, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, who recognized that the injustice in this case went far beyond the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman, for his frequent citing of our coverage, as well as law professor Ann Althouse.

Mark O'Mara has begun his closing argument for George Zimmerman.

He begins with a chart showing the burden of proof in a self-defense case. I happen to have a similar chart, called The Meaning of a Not Guilty Verdict. Here's what's included: [More...]

These are the final jury instructions that will be given in the George Zimmerman trial, posted on the court's website. The court site with most of the pleadings and minutes of the trial is here.

[Heads up: The rest of this post is a technical/legal one which will bore anyone not interested in minute details of statutory construction and word games. [More...]

I ended my last post on today's closing argument by the state and Mark Mara's anticipated closing tomorrow, with this thought:

Since I'm convinced there's no match between what O'Mara will do tomorrow and what de la Rionda did today, I'm focused on the state's next move.

The prosecution gets the last word because they have the burden of proof. De la Rionda's closing was so weak, I'm wondering if it wasn't planned to be that way, to keep the defense from guessing what John Guy will unleash in his closing. It's Guy's rebuttal, not O'Mara, that I'm focused on now.

[More...]

Mark O'Mara will give his closing argument tomorrow morning, using a vivid computer animation showing step by step the defense theory of how the encounter occurred. There were hours of testimony about the accuracy of the animation, and the Judge ruled it would not come into evidence but O'Mara could use it as a demonstrative exhibit during his closing.

In his closing today, State's Attorney Bernardo de la Rionda used Powerpoint slides that seemed straight out of a 1990's continuing legal education seminar. They were impersonal and had too much text. The jurors couldn't possibly read it all and listen to him talk at the same time. I said in my earlier post that his theme of "assumptions" was a poor one, because coupled with his tossing rhetorical questions at the jury asking "isn't it possible" that such and such happened without answers, he merely created the very reasonable doubt he is obligated to overcome for a a conviction. Surely it wasn't lost on the jurors that when he told them (more than once) to "use your G-d given common sense" he was really telling them he didn't have the goods and wanted them to ignore the contrary evidence and rely on "assumptions" instead of proof. [More...]