Who's Running This Case?: The Zimmerman Trial

By Jacob Coate on July 14, 2013

Today, the trial of the year ended. The prosecution and defense presented closing arguments, and now it’s up to the jury to decide the fate of George Zimmerman. This trial has been unorthodox in so many ways, but today’s arguments solidified that peculiar nature of this case. Typically the prosecution, with a plethora of evidence and testimony against the defendant, takes an organized and methodical approach to closings. They’re relying upon the weight of the evidence and testimony uncovered in the course of the trial to convince the jury of guilt, especially given the high burden of proof necessary to convict. On the other hand, the defense, typically with far less evidence and a much lower burden to meet, can rely upon a pathos appeal. Presenting animated, passionate, and exciting arguments to elicit an emotional and sympathetic response from the jury. However, today was anything but typical.

The prosecution, presenting arguments first, presented an impassionate argument, but one that lacked much evidence. Taking up nearly four hours of the court’s time, the attorney presented very little actual testimony, almost no evidence, and repeatedly asked the jury to consider hypothetical situations when coming to their verdict. Yet he had to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the jury is only capable of being convinced of guilt in a hypothetical situation, then another hypothetical situation in which Zimmerman bore no guilt could easily be developed.

By asking the jury to imagine and think abstractly in hypotheticals, the state has opened itself up even further to a not-guilty verdict as the jury is reminded once again about how much is still unknown in this case. The defense, on the other hand, was highly professional and methodical, if perhaps a little mundane. He careful walked the jury through the steps of the case, through the testimony they had been provided, and through the events in question. The reason for this change in roles? The prosecution simply did not have enough evidence to bring a charge of murder in the first place much less convict. This was never clearer than when today the prosecuting attorney asked the jury to look into their hearts for a guilty verdict.

Although this case is indeed tragic, emotion is not enough to convict. This case will undoubtedly be talked about for years and studied by legal analysts for the strange proceedings and the stranger closing arguments. Yet ultimately the jury will decide who’s case was more effective and what scenario is more believable, and they will be deciding very soon.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format