Relatives of Zimmerman, Martin clash over 911 call in Fla. shooting
SANFORD, Fla. — The mothers of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman listened on Friday to the same 911 recording of someone screaming for help, and each said she was convinced the voice was that of her son.
The starkly conflicting testimony over the potentially crucial piece of evidence was given midway through Zimmerman's murder trial in the 2012 shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old.
“I heard my son screaming,” Sybrina Fulton, the teenager's mother, said firmly after she was played a recording in which distant, high-pitched wails could be heard in the background as a Zimmerman neighbor asked a dispatcher to send police. Moments later on the call, there was a gunshot and the crying stopped.
Gladys Zimmerman, though, testified she recognized the voice all too well: “My son.” Asked how she could be certain, she said: “Because it's my son.”
It was an action-packed day in court, during which the prosecution rested its case and the judge rejected a defense request to acquit Zimmerman on the second-degree murder charge.
The question of whose voice is on the recording could be crucial to the jury in deciding who was the aggressor in the confrontation between the neighborhood watch volunteer and the teenager.
The identity of the person sharply divided the two families: Martin's half brother, 22-year-old Jahvaris Fulton, testified that the cries came from the teen. And Zimmerman's uncle, Jose Meza, said he knew it was Zimmerman's voice from “the moment I heard it. ... I thought, that is George.”
The prosecution rested after calling 38 witnesses over two weeks.
Defense attorney Mark O'Mara promptly asked the judge to acquit Zimmerman, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
O'Mara said an “enormous” amount of evidence showed that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and he argued that Zimmerman had reasonable grounds to believe he was in danger, and acted without the “ill will, hatred and spite” necessary to prove second-degree murder.
Prosecutor Richard Mantei countered: “There are two people involved here. One of them is dead, and one of them is a liar.”
Mantei told the judge that Zimmerman had changed his story, that his account of how he shot Martin was “a physical impossibility,” and that he exaggerated his wounds.
After listening to an hour and a half of arguments from both sides, Judge Debra Nelson refused to throw out the murder charge.
Earlier in the day, Sybrina Fulton introduced herself to the jury by describing herself as having two sons, one of whom “is in heaven.” She sat expressionless on the witness stand while prosecutors played the 911 recording.
“Who do you recognize that to be?” prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked her.
“Trayvon Benjamin Martin,” she replied.
During cross-examination, O'Mara suggested — haltingly, in apparent recognition of the sensitivity of the questioning — that Fulton may have been influenced by others who listened to the 911 call, including relatives and her former husband.
O'Mara asked Fulton whether she hoped Martin didn't do anything that led to his death.
“I would hope for this to never have happened and he would still be here,” she said.
O'Mara asked Jahvaris Fulton why he told a reporter last year that he wasn't sure if the voice belonged to Martin. He replied that he was “shocked” when he heard it.
“I didn't want to believe it was him,” he said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Some in Congress turn down retirement pension, but many cash in
- Former nuke commander linked to fake poker chips
- Ohio dairy farmers cashing in on gas well boom
- Immigrants warned of increase in scams