Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
What -- to George Simmons lawyers had to say about the media coverage from my little math and -- US join us good evening so meant.
-- didn't -- your name that is.
I I think it's only fair because we've certainly had that day I was all the lawyers and judge nobody doesn't trust so I had -- you the chance to have mad at them -- -- would you -- that tell me what you think about the media coverage.
Well -- we -- that in the beginning it was just outrageous because what they did -- buy into the media by the his perspective given rise featured on Martin attorneys for their families.
And just ran with -- unfortunately they just didn't look at any of the background and ran straight forward and it really set this case.
To be bi racial frenzy that -- Down.
Well from the very beginning George had to prove his innocence.
An incredible uphill challenge against almost unspeakable lines.
But we did.
What is C.
Impact on the actual trial of the media coverage predicted noise aspect of it it was there anything that the media coverage good bad and ugly way green -- -- today actually have an impact on what you think is the actual fairness inside the court with a drop.
I think that inside the courtroom we didn't -- a lot of media bias or media exposure that these certainly the jurors were kept away from it.
This thousands of analysts are gonna say what they think about it but I'm actually more okay.
Once my jury is protected so -- wasn't too worried about that all the media that led up to it causes to have a lot of inquiries of the jury regarding pretrial publicity.
And I still think that the -- affected by the media blitz.
-- hopefully they've -- all -- I suppose done if there hadn't been the -- impact that the media or the prairie era and the Anderson mediate your jury would not have been sequestered in general defense lawyers.
Don't want their jurors sequestered and it it -- judge in the process but less so for the product for the defense degree.
Oh sure once we got a jury however we turn them over if you will to the -- county sheriff's office who did a remarkable job protecting them and that was.
Down what about this NBC lawsuit they did a pretty bad -- hack job on some -- in a it says.
What -- what -- NBC version was is this at your client said this guy looks like he's up to no good he looks black.
And what the actual not a one call was is this guy looks like he's up to no good -- on drugs or something it's rain and he's just walking around looking about.
The dispatcher says okay and this guy is he white black or Hispanic Zimmerman an answer he looks black ball that's their middle part of the -- cut out out -- -- -- do -- that you bad if you've filed suit.
Well I'm going to ask mark to answer your question.
She 'cause he's directly.
Involved in that litigation -- I'm Helen Callahan attorney in Pennsylvania Jim Beasley -- sort of taking a lead on it.
That you cross and what they did was outrageous they -- -- information.
Cut out the middle part and I think they did sort of sort of cut corners I think they presume that -- in room was a racist murder so if he was.
No harm no foul.
They were wrong and they sort of were part of the process of all of this turning against Georgia and thank god.
He was still able he had a fair trial in light of -- out.
I you know I don't know any of the people involved in the senate NBC did I think that little fire some people as -- -- by a wild guess some list of both the new.
Is says price some young person who was not particularly supervised by other people or someone inexperience and -- -- I mean I can't even you know even we're -- competitors I really can't imagine that they were trying to -- stick it to you or your client that.
Yeah -- but that's just my guests.
Sure I guess I guess I guess being given the benefit of that doubt insisted it was so egregious is that taking up at 45 seconds had some impact on the case he can sit back ago.
To get on a -- a national program it wasn't on the local program that started national.
They just have to have better safeguards in place and I think they did they just rushed through it not Karen because they -- again if he's a racist.
Do you know where I -- senator.
But my advice to NBC is made quick settlement and everybody move on.
Let me -- let me move on something estimate has been a lot of talk about the judge in this case judge Deborah Nelson taking heat for -- testy exchanges.
But the lawyers mostly you -- take a look.
Can't have you made good decisions are as to whether or not you want to testify owners can have an objective.
Okay and we will do have you made a decision as to whether or not who -- to testify and can I I object to that question defense is Obama.
You think that you would then know whether or not you wanna test to find out when mr.
Zimmerman that I.
Asking your clients what their clients' questions please mr.
I objected according -- mister Zimmerman has to his decision about whether or not to testify here.
And it is over rules.
And so I don't mind.
Yeah there -- war.
Thank you do yeah.
It's 10 o'clock at night we started this morning.
Full days every game.
-- -- -- -- Down -- actually MI and first and at your job of the -- of course not to meet Shamir to make friends with the judge but to represent your client but.
Laugh and I and I -- -- thought it would judges but what the world was going on the between the two did seem like since -- be part of the entire trial.
I don't know that it's fair to say it was in the entire trial -- situation all.
And fortunately I suppose there were lots of those situations.
The first one in the clip was when judge Nelson.
Wanted to ask George Zimmerman whether he was going to testify and what that decision was.
And frankly we weren't done yet we still had a couple of witnesses to go in separate and apart from whether she should ever ask that question.
I didn't think she should -- -- then -- I guess what.
-- -- I choose Adeline asking that question for the defense case resort -- Seattle line -- -- on that.
And the other clip that you showed was late at night after we had worked a full day before the jury.
We had several hours of prospers.
On critically important evidence frankly.
It had to do with the text messages and trim on Martin's phone that addressed his prior experience with fighting I thought that was critically important evidence.
I'm not gonna just say OK without putting up a bit of a fight.
And of course the job in ISS and on the data says represented by the -- with.
-- out of there is this issue of sanctions -- many accusation.
That the prosecution withheld information -- and information believe me exculpatory that would help your client the Trout I don't now over you want.
Number one is did they we're told it was it what we call Brady violation and you still gonna pursue -- -- sanctions.
Upon the frustration that -- evidenced throughout the trial was the first person we have pretrial and that was that it was enormously difficult to get discovery from the state attorney's office.
Thirty years of practice I've never filed a motion for sanctions in this case have filed six against this same state attorney's office because yes they were hiding the ball.
They had information.
That was contrary I want -- we now know they knew about it in January because they whistle blower -- IT guy -- and testified to it.
And when we try to get information from mr.
gallery already told a judge -- very specifically that he never had it and that's conflicting with the existing evidence so it was very frustrating.
It took me six months.
To get a picture of my clients met face injuries.
In the JPEG fought since it first they gave me a black and white -- they gave me a pastel -- So yes there were not playing the way they -- have played and it was enormously frustrating -- such a difficult case to begin with.
Doesn't make it different than those text messages that -- that -- with -- from you later got by whistle blower that the judge said that they weren't admissible and -- and in the trial set to make it meant no harm no foul or not.
-- it turns out we're Needham buddies you know what if there would have been a conviction.
That we would have had an issue or PO where the court had decided.
George is it remains.
Criminal lit course two years before.
Was significant and relevant enough to tell the jury -- -- on Martin's experience for fighting.
-- knowing about how to ground and pound knowing that when he was on the economy could do nothing in knowing that he if somebody knows you can win a fight.
That big decisions that that was not relevant was confounding to me and frustrated.
You know dad I wonder you know how many prosecutors mean every night does that fight in every day and then the -- does that fight about whether prosecutors are withholding information -- all the stuff that defendants not your client but just across the continent that's so I mean that's such an important piece of -- if you're with.
Exculpatory information is had withheld from a defendant it is the most you know it's one most egregious mistakes -- -- -- -- when -- across the board.
It's not subject to the discovery rules in Florida or any other specific state.
It's guaranteed by the constitution exculpatory evidence must be provided by.
The prosecutor to the defense without demand frankly it's their obligation to once they see it to.
Even we even -- -- have a conversation with the judge and the lawyers and prosecutors afterwards like you know hard fought fight and you know now you know thanks for being out talking or whatever and and -- -- -- -- handshaking or not.
I didn't shake their hand.
And -- in this case you know -- a good game we'll see you next time no not not in this case it would be like shaking it.
-- shaking the hand after a baseball game of the picture.
We spent nine innings throwing -- your head.
It was not -- an honorable prosecution.
And I think the comments that we've heard in the last day or so clearly established.
Marking a great.
Well they came on record after a jury decide that my client was not guilty and said that he's a murderer.
But he was a coward for not getting on the stand.
That is egregious conduct in my -- how dare -- denigrates.
The jury verdict and by doing that denigrate they're very process that they are sworn to uphold.
And then to sit back and say that constitutional right not to testify evidence cowardly behavior.
All my there were a couple of cal is in the courtroom -- those people decided to move forward with the prosecution based more on politics and -- -- facts.
But look the calendar was not my client.
I don't let me play you it was said last night here on the record Martin's family lord gentlemen ran is going on the record now I took to task for what she said but I wonder what you think.
-- Greater duty beyond being an attorney and that's to be a social engineer and when -- lot doesn't get it right I believe that we have the right to peacefully and morally conscientiously -- Jack's.
-- -- -- decision of the jury that doesn't mean that we believe that it's going to be overturned or that it will -- that we don't respect the decision that those six people made.
But there millions of people out there who don't agree with that decision so it's not just the -- know what the problem is I don't -- you know that's just thirty that's -- people all over the -- -- Now that's deeply disturbing to me -- says on the tape is that -- have big believer in jury -- we knew when I lost the case but she says that the job is to be a social engineer.
-- -- -- thought about that.
Chalk it up for Jay -- -- -- get an engineering degree and that's probably the best finish it can do because we have we are bound to an ethical consideration.
We are in effect this soldiers of the constitution.
When we look at a case like this and we have to instill in the people who we want to believe and our system.
That they should trust the system respected and listened to it if we have people social engineering away.
A not guilty verdict given by a jury after a fair trial what is -- which is doing is infecting -- system.
Within virus that's gonna come back to -- all and she needs to rethink.
Her social engineering.
At least -- degrade.
You know what happens it on the sidelines -- -- -- -- on the sidelines lot easier than being an arena like both of you have but I'm back -- -- I was surprised the night of the verdict.
That you didn't express more empathy for the -- by Martin fan and I felt like you're still serve -- in the win the battle.
Mode and you're talking about -- horrible things happen declined to declined who goes to a trial you know it is a horrible thing but.
-- -- where would -- my -- or did you mean to do you feel like he showed sufficient empathy do you have empathy for the -- family.
Definitely have empathy for the affirmative did they went through a tragedy ever lost a loved one.
And I evidence that the first week I was involved in the case when misfortune first said that she wasn't sure why.
This isn't and never apologized and I reached out to the family through your lawyers it's I wanna have a private.
Confidential communication where my client wants to apologized.
We're happy to had done what he did that was rebuff which is the only reason why ended -- doing it then on record in the bond hearing.
And we sort of how to go forward that's that we have always been very respectful to the Martin -- -- I wish that their lawyers have been more respect -- microns constitutional right to a fair trial and not try this case.
-- properly on false facts in the media for you -- now.
Well I was sent down I agree with mark when he said that data surprised when the when the statements -- by the prosecution.
Post verdict about probably not testify because that is a -- sacred constitutional right I don't know what you think she said that.
What I think the prosecutor said that you know -- yeah like they're desperate grasping at straws looking for any thing to avoid accepting.
This jury who was extremely conscientious and deliberative they looked at all of the evidence the we have a couple of hundred pieces.
Before they deliberated for sixteen hours and came up not just with their verdict -- the unquestionably.
Right to verdict in this case.
Their comments are destruction and they should be viewed as.
Maybe -- that went sour grapes if nothing else at amendments are groups together end of the spectrum not outrageous.
Gentlemen thank you both.
-- surmised that general period.
Filter by section