Considering how little Dela Rionda(sp?) had to work with in the way of evidence, his closing argument was well-delivered and interesting to watch and listen to.
That said, what it wasn't, was an argument that tied the evidence together in a way that proved anything that's in dispute. Self defense was not covered beyond a passing mention or two, and it is the state's burden to prove that the shooting wasn't done in a "reasonable belief" standard of self defense.
The question of who threw the first punch was left up in the air. I don't remember him even trying to assert that Zimmerman started the physical altercation. Leaving that question unanswered, even wholly unaddressed, leaves nothing but reasonable doubt dangling out there for the jury to latch onto.
The question of who was screaming for help is likewise left with nothing more than a passing allusion to "....isn't it interesting that the screaming stopped at the moment the gunshot was heard?" I understand there's no way to prove conclusively who was screaming, but the evidence in the trial record of John Good's eye and ear witness testimony from only 17 feet away from what he saw and heard is no lightweight bit of evidence. It weighs heavily in favor of Zimmerman and, again, leaves the fruit of reasonable doubt dangling ripe and juicy right in front of the juror's eyes.
Who was on top and who was on the bottom is also (somewhat) in dispute, and not even a suggestion of Martin being on the bottom, much less an attempt to connect dots that would equal proof, was offered the jurors to hang their hats on.
The entire basis for the ill will and depraved mind elements of 2nd Degree Murder are the utterances of "these ********** always get away" and referring to Martin as a "F'n punk." That's it. Unless the women of the jury were all raised in a monastery, it's the kind of language they've heard from their fathers, brothers, boyfriends and husbands all their lives when those people have been frustrated with people and issues that don't act or go the way they'd like. It doesn't mean they have hatred or a depraved mind with a disregard for human life for the targets of those kinds of expressions. It means they're frustrated with a situation, just like Zimmerman was frustrated with the cops getting there too late in all the previous reports he'd called in. There is nothing in anything he said or can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have done that reaches the threshold of ill will and a depraved mind having disregard for human life in this case, therefore, 2nd Degree should be the first thing being thrown out the window in the jury room, and then when they realize that the state has not come anywhere near disproving that Zimmerman acted in self defense, the whole case should follow close behind. Not guilty!
Without hearing a word from the defense yet, if I were a juror, I would already be pissed at the state (and the judge) for allowing this travesty to proceed and waste so much of my time. But that's me, an older male, gun-owner, somewhat opinionated (HA!), and somewhat obsessive court-watcher who has a vested interest in learning all I can about the law surrounding carrying and/or having to use concealed weapons. None of us knows what "kind" of folks the jurors are, but everywhere they turn in their deliberations, they will run into an impenetrable wall of reasonable doubt. I can't fathom that six Americans of any gender, any background, any lifestyle could ignore that wall and vote guilty in this case.
Blues
